Rugby is a simple game. It’s a collision sport, and so to win the game you have to win the contest at the collision point.
You can do this in two ways. You can win the collision itself through physical might and aggression. Or you can avoid the collision through sleight of hand and agility.
Winning the collision demands physical size, but also demands an appetite for the tough stuff. An aggressive little team will sometimes beat a passive big team. But an aggressive little team will never beat an equally aggressive big team. The laws of physics see to that.
To avoid the collision you need speed, confidence and highly developed skills. Because you are aiming to catch the opposition out, you need to have bodies in motion, combined with pinpoint passing, catching and running.
Like a symphony, several complex instruments need to combine perfectly for it to work. One wrong note will bring it crashing down.
A good rugby side can execute one of these strategies well. An excellent side, like the world champion All Blacks, can execute both of them well, at will, depending on the situation.
The Wallabies didn’t do either very well, which is why they lost to France on Sunday.
They persist in trying to win games of rugby without winning the collision itself, and also without creating any significant deception to help avoid it. As any rugby player will tell you, when this happens, you are simply hoping that the opposition will make a mistake and let you score.
If they don’t make many mistakes, as with the excellent and committed French side on Sunday, then the result is out of your hands. Rugby never rewards the placid or the imperfect.
Not all the Wallabies are placid or imperfect, but there is enough placidity and imperfection to bring about their downfall on a regular basis.
The scrum is a good example. The Wallaby scrum was fragmented and dishevelled by a committed French pack. They were shoved off their ball in the first several minutes and the destruction continued on and off for the entire match. Referee Nigel Owens has been criticised for his interpretation of several of the shambolic scrums, but to blame Owens is to miss the point.
Had the Wallaby pack been more aggressive and more technically adept, Owens would not have been part of the equation. The placid and imperfect Wallaby pack invited him to take part in the match – a part he would otherwise have not had to play, or been allowed to play, had they done their job more perfectly and with greater vigour.
Criticism has also been levelled at Pat McCabe and Kurtley Beale. McCabe is written off as being one-dimensional, and Beale as lacking the necessary acumen to marshall his backline and set them away. Both criticisms are incorrect.
Take McCabe. “All he does is crash-ball,” goes the chorus. In fact, this is exactly what he is supposed to do.
The point of the crash ball is to not to get a line-break. Sometimes that happens, but when it does it is a bonus. More often it is intended to create a line-bend, a point from which the team can attack on the front foot.
This demands that the nominated two or three forwards flood the contact point and create quick ball. If they don’t do their job, then the ball dies, and there is no platform to attack from.
It looks like the carrier is lacking imagination and dying with the ball. Actually he has played his part perfectly, but been let down by his teammates who haven’t helped him win the collision.
If we take the above scenario one step further, we see Kurtley Beale suffers the same fate. When McCabe is left posted, then Beale has to deal with the consequence.
First he has to check his forward momentum to give himself some space, because his forwards haven’t created space for him. He then has to work with less time, because the defence is on the front foot and is rushing up to cut down his time and space.
If his halfback is indecisive, or creates no diversion, then the pressure mounts on Beale even more.
To say that Beale isn’t able to set his backs away is at best simplistic, and at worst, completely misguided. If he was wasting plenty of front foot ball, then it would be a valid criticism, but Beale can only avoid his collisions if others win their collisions in the lead-up.
By looking at the simple concept of winning or avoiding collisions, we can begin to see where the current Wallabies are exposed by the brutal nature of Test football.
Up front, the scrum lacks the ruthless dedication to perfection and aggression in the collision that characterises the good sides. Physicality and technical excellence are inversely proportional – you better be either overwhelmingly physical or the most perfect technicians alive.
Both is better. A bit of each is just not enough.
No Test team today will allow you to work your way into the scrum during a match. The first one needs to be an explosion of overwhelming aggression or complete technical perfection.
None of the forwards were great, but Dave Dennis is a perfect example of why the Wallabies struggle. Dennis’ ball carrying was imperfect and his collision work was soft.
Particularly though, those who blame Kurtley Beale for the Fofana try set up by Michalak, should look again at Beale’s chase, and the man slagging up on his inside, Dennis. Beale, to his credit, chased hard and pressured Michalak. That was obvious from the steps Michalak took to avoid him.
And where did Michalak go? To the inside, because that’s where the hole was, courtesy of Dave Dennis being too slow fill it. Game over, and not Beale’s fault. Had Dennis worked harder on the kick chase, the try may not have happened.
Nick Phipps too failed to create any deception which may have helped his side avoid or win the collision.
A halfback helps his flyhalf by mixing his options and testing the defence to keep them honest. Will Genia would have had a field day slipping in behind the rushing French defence, whereas the best Phipps could do was keep shovelling it out to Beale as the French tacklers loomed fast and hard.
Instinctively we know that Dennis and Phipps had bad games, but when we look at the simple ingredients of winning the collision, or creating opportunities to avoid it, we can immediately see they did neither.
It may be unfair to isolate Dennis and Phipps, when their fellows were often as bad. Aside from Michael Hooper and Nick Cummins, the majority of Wallabies shirked the winning of the collisions they faced, particularly in defence close to the ruck.
The main question is, how much of this ability to win or avoid collisions should Robbie Deans be responsible for?
Well, he certainly should be responsible for the skills necessary to avoid the collisions, and on the rare occasions these skills are shown, they don’t appear to be fine-tuned enough.
He should also be responsible for selecting those with the desire and the physicality to win the collisions up front, and few would doubt this is a difficult job, with the depth at hand.
He can’t teach the desire to win collisions, and if there aren’t sufficient self-motivated collision-winners to choose from, then things get tough.
Rugby is a simple game. To win the match, you have to win, or avoid, the contest at the collision.
France won the collision comprehensively against the Wallabies and it will be no easier for the Australians against England.
As the Wallabies are about learn all over again, rugby never rewards the placid or the imperfect.
Darth Vadar
Guest
hats off to you Logan for an excellent article and analysis!
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
A very enjoyable article. One thing which is obvious is that a better 6 than Dennis, a better 9 than Phipps, and not so much a better 12 than Mccabe but a more huge and powerful one, would help. Except those players are there for want of any alternatives.
jason8
Guest
Oh how i wish Heyneke Meyer would read this article... its spot on and it really is that simple ! The AB's combine both in attitude and in player selection, strong ball carriers who would rather avoid the conflict but able to bash it up with intent when necessary.
Grandma
Guest
Great work! Good to see you back on The Roar.......!
Kid
Guest
That is spot on Allanthus, a "mongrel coach" is exactly what we need. There does not seem to be the passion, the desire or simply the will to do whatever it takes for the Gold jersey. Look at the commitment of every AB in every action. This is where the French did so well, they were committed in all they did. I don't believe they were that good skill-wise, but they were much more enthusiastic then us in all areas of the game and the result shows that. Great read Loges.
Deez
Roar Rookie
Even though it's been said multiple times, I'll say it again-great article. I really like reading articles that articulate beyond the obvious into techniques and tactics that change the way I watch a game and this was one (similar to some of jeznez's articles on scrums). One thing that I have always thought and ties in directly with your analysis is the need in today's game to be able to offload in contact. As much as having forwards hit a ruck quickly to gain quick ball, an offload is even faster. And with the quality of defenses these days, you need some offloading in order to make gaps in the line when they are not appearing on their own. The French did it beautifully on the weekend, as did the Chiefs in he S15 (and Crusaders last season). This is the one of the key reasons I think hey ought to stick with Tapuai. He was great for the reds in this respect (when healthy) and had a few on the weekend for the Wallabies. Sure, Ju won't all come off, but throwing the offload puts doubt into the mind of a defending line as to whether to commit to a possible ruck and creates chances.
GWS
Guest
I've even hated the way we have been winning
GWS
Guest
Classic crusaders
ThomasCrown
Roar Rookie
Im a hardcore Leaguie that is relatively new to Rugby so can you tell me why when the Wlbys decide to go wide they just shovel the ball through the hands in hope of something happening despite the defense have numbers covered? From a Leaguies prospective the best way would be for the centres to collect numbers by threatening to take the line with running options around him to expose the holes created. I notice Genia is a genius at it and i dont know why the backs dont take his approach to attacking the line. Is there something i am missing tacticly in why they just pass it through the hands to get it to the wing as quick as possible without collecting numbers? I might sound naive but i would like to know the reason for this so it can stop driving me nuts and also so ive got an answer for my League mates who ask the same question, they all notice it. Ive asked this sereval times on roar with no answers.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen
Guest
SMI - On your 'stupid penalties' point. All too often I say to the Missus "shame these blokes aren't doing this for a living". I don't know, perhaps I am just asking too much. Coming in from the side, flopping in front of the Ref & slowing down the ball, etc, etc. The marginals I get but the blatantly dumb and not too subtle ones just drive me nuts. Was it Kepu that caught the ball in that offside position after it was knocked-on? To be fair, thanks to my dog I kind of understand it. It's a reaction thing that is just too tempting. I say "no.....leave the ball" to our mutt but the pressure gets to him and he's just got to go for that tennis ball. Perhaps it's part of their DNA. I'm pretty sure he's moved-on long after I'm still steaming ;)
formeropenside
Guest
My wife asked me on Sunday morning "so surely Deans has to go now?". I could not explain to her why not. You know, I don'y like losing, but I really hate losing the way we have been losing in 2012. If there is a game plan, I cant see it (well, there does seem to be a lot of kicking, but its not terribly good, so it cannot be planned). I cannot think of a single aspect of Wallaby play that has been better in 2012 than...well, anytime back to 2005, when Eddie Jones lost 7 in a row.
Krasnoff of Noosa
Guest
So here come the excuses. The French were ‘pumped up’; it was a ‘very good performance’; and the French ‘were too good for us’ (sounds very much like Deans’ excuse when the Wallabies were trounced by the All Blacks in the 2nd Bledisloe test, doesn’t it?). And the solution: ‘we just got to keep backing ourselves and not go into our shells.’ What about the one dimensional back line play? What about the backs ineptitude under the high ball (a constant weakness game after game). What about the front row capitulating after 30min—which is really why the backs couldn’t get on the front foot. So, is Robbie Deans’ solution to play only teams that are ‘not pumped up? Where is the motivation, pride and self esteem needed to be a champion team? I don’t see it under Deans’ watch.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Blinky: I think Kepu has proven he cannot learn anything he still gives away stupid penalties at the wrong end of the pitch. Didn't mention that though did he?
Mr Taylor
Roar Rookie
I see it all the time only when the men in blacks are playing.
ThomasCrown
Roar Rookie
I keep hearing all this talk of the defense evolving into a stronger unit, but it seems the evolution in attack isnt coming to fruition. As the defense in Rugby league evolved and got stronger and smarter so did the the attack which the NRL continues to prove. I barely ever see the Wallabies use the draw and pass to.cut defending numbers down which drives me nuts.
gekko
Roar Rookie
Thanks Andrew and congratulations to the French. It is a fantastic article. Your analysis is spot on. We never looked like winning. The score line was certainly blown out by the ref and the pitch.
Rob9
Guest
Spot on. We have to realise that we don’t have a Nonu/SBW/Roberts type midfield monster that can actually chink defences and put them on the back foot. Deans (or his predecessor) needs to get over this idea that McCabe is even a sound option for fulfilling this role for us. It’s not the end of the world that we don’t have a big unit 12 and we still have the ability to put together an effective game plan without one. Ideally we’ll slot JOC in there when he’s back and he’ll have his own useful way of getting us over the gain line which won’t involve steamrolling oppositions. He’ll look for the gaps or have the ability to get an AAC or Digby into one running off his hip. Despite his size, he’s still a slippery character and can manage to get an offload and a second ball player will take a bit of the heat off whoever is at 10 which seems to be the most pressurized position in the Wallaby team at the moment. I’d get Cooper back if he can show some SR form next year and build some confidence. Alternatively it could be Lealiifano’s time. Regardless, both would benefit from a second ball player on their outside shoulder. What’s key to unlocking this backline with so much potential is moving McCabe along. Barnes or Harris would have been ideal in JOC’s absence this year. Even a Cooper/Beale 10/12 could have been interesting. I just can’t fathom McCabe’s inclusion in this team at all. From all reports he’s a great student that’s like a sponge taking in everything that Deans has to say, but he just doesn’t have the ability to be what we need at 12. If we were to persist with a crash ball type 12 then we have even better options available in both Tapuai and Fa’ainga who both have more dimensions to their attack (at least possessing the ability to move the ball on when required). Ideally JOC, but really almost anyone but McCabe.
Bay35Pablo
Roar Guru
To steal a line from Spiro, rolled gold analysis there Loges. Spot on. Dare I say channelling Bob Dwyer - "Keep it simple and get that right!!!". You wonder if every coach and player in the Wallabies need to read that, but I would be very disappointed if they didn't already know it. Which begs the question what are they doing about it. The comments by Kepu reported today suggest they don't see the problems though, and that they feel they just need fine tuning in the pack. It should have been "We got our asses handed to us. No excuses, can blame the ref, need to step up. Bladesy, give a few slaps Tommy Raudonikis style!!". The stats nuts keep pointing to the figure that when you take the ABs games out Deans doesn't do so bad, but if we play like that for the rest of the tour Robbie may not have even that ....
sittingbison
Guest
Nice article and analysis Andrew. However I disagree in part, Beale was terrible which was not the result of the pack or anything else. His decision making was woeful, he did not organise a coherent attack, taking the wrong option over and again to a stationary forwards to a truck it up. How many multiple phase plays were there? How many 5 phase plays? With the backs touching the ball, not the forwards? Part of the problem is McCabe at 12, if he cannot pass the play dies. 12 should not be a bludgeon, he should be a stilletto. 13 can crash ball, 12 can bypass that to the wing to create problem solving for the defence. We are losing momentum too early. Same goes for Phipps, he was not making the rucks which on a 5 second shot clock makes for instant problems. Thus rushed thoughts and technique leads to wayward passing. He should have been subbed at 20 mins max, but Deans couldnt use Sheehan because six spots on the bench were a refuge for gasping lazy fat unfit Tahs forwards.
joeb
Guest
"Didn’t even bother to watch the game – how sad is that." Sad, very. Well, Fox do repeat these games mid week, maybe even today or tonight, but it's pretty embarrassing to watch. We're virtually clueless for 80 minutes. Wonder what Lordy and Campo will say about this one... can't wait.