The easy position to take on the Wallabies’ performance of two halves in Florence would be that of the negative, and which based on the second half performance especially, is probably not undeserving.
Now I’m not going to paint you picture that just wasn’t there, before you get too concerned.
I’m not going to tell you everything was alright, because clearly it wasn’t. The mountain of comments left on Sunday and yesterday well and truly prove that.
But there’s one nagging little detail that is hard to overlook, and it’s possibly the big positive to take away from the Wallabies’ 2012 season.
They’re still winning games they’re probably not entitled to win.
Think about that in the context of recent seasons. With the possible exception of the pre-World Cup 2011 Wallabies, I’m not sure too many Australian sides in recent seasons would have come away from the situations they found themselves in against South Africa and Argentina at home, and Argentina, England, and Italy away with the wins they did.
And in an otherwise disappointing season, that’s something that we can be relatively happy about.
There’s no question that there’s still major issues with the attack, that the scrum without Benn Robinson is worryingly retreating again, and that the breakdown work with the possible exception of the odd Michael Hooper moment is still very hot and cold.
There’s still more than enough rubbish being passed and kicked that it really is difficult to argue with David Campese’s argument about skill levels most of the time.
The injury toll shows no signs of letting up, with the third scrumhalf of the season, Brett Sheehan, going off in the first half, and now ruled out of the game against Wales.
There’s still more than enough evidence being served up on a weekly basis that Robbie Deans will remain under fire for the remainder of his tenure.
And I still can’t get away from the pesky thought that it’s highly likely that some of Quade Cooper’s grumbles might hold water.
Yet somehow, the Wallabies are winning games, even if those wins have mostly been as attractive as that mangy stray dog that followed you home from school.
If the Waratahs have made ‘winning ugly’ a common phrase, the Wallabies this year have turned it into an art form.
Fourteen tries in fourteen games is testament to that. Of all the international teams to have played ten Tests or more in 2012, ESPNscrum.com’s StatsGuru has Australia and Scotland rooted at the bottom of the table in terms of tries scored. Yet in that same list, Australia sits only below New Zealand in terms of the number of matches won.
So they’re getting the wins, but there hasn’t been much to write home about along the way. And I know that we’ve been told that we shouldn’t equate tries scored to any measurement of entertainment. I even get that point, to a degree.
But it’s not just the lack of tries being scored, it’s the lack of anything resembling try-scoring opportunities that have the man on the couch (and the keyboard) venting frustration.
It was precisely the same story against Italy. Aided by some generous ill-discipline from the Azzurri, the Wallabies were out to a 22-6 lead inside half an hour, and looked set to run away with the game.
But two replacements before the halftime break had a major impact on the Australian game. Nick Phipps came on for Sheehan, who’d been pretty solid in his first Wallaby starting appearance, and James Slipper came on as a ‘head bin’ substitution for Robinson, only for Robinson not to return after his allowable testing period.
From thereon, the Wallabies’ ruck clearance and backline service went downhill, and the scrum lost its rigidity. Sitaleki Timani had a horror time with his ball handling, and I think only a lack of bench lock saved him from being hooked.
I must make mention of Italian flyhalf, Luciano Orquera, who in the second half especially, controlled the game beautifully on the back of the front foot ball he started receiving from his now well-mannered forwards.
It was the cruellest of ironies that the only blemish on Orquera’s game would be the 78th minute penalty goal miss from 40m out, which would have deservedly tied the game.
So despite being smashed in the scrum and at the breakdown, and despite having less than 40 percent possession and similarly barren territory numbers, (depending on whose stats you read) the Wallabies hung on for the win, and maintained their unbeaten record against Italy.
And this is what is hard not to be impressed about. If the Wallabies had the same winning record in 2012, but scored twice as many tries per game and played with something resembling an attacking game plan, we’d be rightly claiming that things were on the up, and that the Lions should definitely be nervous about touring next year.
A team playing pretty well and losing only five games from 14 – even if three of them were to the All Blacks – would be being spoken of as a team heading in the right direction.
Currently, I don’t know which way the Wallabies are heading, and I’m quite sure they’re not playing anywhere close to their best. Things still aren’t anywhere near rosy, and to say there’s room for improvement would a finalist in the understatement of 2012. But they are winning games.
And even in a sea of negativity, it’s hard not to admire that developing ability. When the Wallabies do start heading back up the curve, this ability will be a massive boost in close games. Not all teams have that.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
Thank you Funk for that. We are looking at 2 to 3 decimals here. But 15? Don't you think that it will lead to controversy?
Funk
Guest
Under the explanation tab on the IRB ranking page there are steps as to how they work out the ranking system and under step 5, see below, they bring in the decimal points. Step Five: Apply weighting factors If one side has won by more than 15 points, we multiply the Core Rating Change by 1.5. So if Wales won 30-10 the points exchange would be 0.64 x 1.5 = 0.96. If the match was part of the World Cup Finals, we would then double the Rating Change.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
Where does the decimals come from. Explain please. Thanks,
jeznez
Roar Guru
Mark, to borrow from your argument style - Nonsense, this match was nearly lost because the Wallaby starting pack got fatigued and were no longer able to match it with the Italian pack which effectively used its reserves. ps - are you saying nonsense to me? or to Robbie Deans? (given that he is the person quoted about the team being off the pace and with low energy in the second half)
jeznez
Roar Guru
Ra, if the thread goes long enough they stop putting a reply button under it. If you just scroll up to the last reply button above the comment you want to hit it will let you add to the bottom of the chain. I think I get your point now - I'm reading that you are saying if the quality of a six who could cover lock is stronger than any specialist lock reserve, that the superior 6 who can cover should be picked. I don't disagree with that - if the quality is vastly superior. In the case of Higgs, he was starting - which is where I think he should be. With Dennis who was the player selected on the the bench I think Samo would have been a superior tight/loose selection and I think we have the quality in Neville to actually select a specialist lock. Justin's point about Sharpe and Timani is spot on, given the strength of the Italian scrum I don't think we could afford to put anything less than a strong lock as the bench support - Dennis does not fit that bill.
mark
Guest
true but it ismore important to have more juniors to have greater competition for crucial academy/development groups. to make the all balck junior sides is a lot harder than the equivalent australian sides and that filters into the seniors.
soapit`
Guest
new zealand have less adult registered players than we do.
Justin2
Guest
We are winning tight games against inferior opposition, that is not something to cheer about....
Justin2
Guest
Higgers has never played lock! Well done my good man And I am suggesting we need a lock because the starting pair were the oldest bloke on the field and the unfittest. You honestly think Dave Dennis is a better option?
GWS
Guest
Italy game was won thru luck not management. It's not just fatigue. enthusiasm would have been useful in the second half from someone like gill
Parra
Guest
Jeez, another one step forward, two steps back and a couple to the side game! Once again the potential is there to see. Very good 1st half (by our standards) where we attacked well (with and without the ball). We were mostly positive with ball in hand and we defended hard with driving tackles and good counter rucking, turning the ball over often. There were times when we looked far superior, in control and should have taken the game away from Italy. But no, the wheels fell off again! Yes, you have to 'take a win' (a win's a win, winning ugly and all that stuff) but we're not making any progress. In the end Italy deserved at least a draw and it highlights an oft commented weakness: the gulf we have between our worst and our best - probably like no other country in world rugby.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Fair enough, Brett. Winning poorly is better than losing, but in this case I don't think it's Australia grinding out wins. They didn't exactly strangle the game against Italy in the 2nd half, nor against England. Anyway, this isn't just Australia bashing on my part. I think world rugby at the moment is generally in a poor state.
Ra
Guest
How come I couldn't reply to you earlier. There was no reply icon. It doesn't matter now. As I said, the All Blacks don't put a lock on the bench just because he's a lock. Justin is suggesting that The Wallabies should do just that. You don't have the quality to do that. Your best back up lock is Higginbotham. I think he's a wonderful player. He don't need to be dirty because he's already rugged. I would drag him into the second row to tighten up his game, put 10kg on him and I think he could be your Brad Thorn. Finigan is the name missing from my Ozzie XV. I loved and hated his powerful surges
Minz
Guest
...Except for the fact that the win/loss ratio puts Australia behind NZ, South Africa and France among teams that play regularly. Given that South Africa and France are teams that the Wallabies have definitely had the wood on over the last, say, 5 years, that doesn't bode well for being a team "on the up".
Geoff Brisbane
Guest
Ra I am and always have been an avid AB supporter and the AB mindset in recent times is confidence in their abilities and systems to prevail and not settle for a loss or draw their motivation is always to win and in that 3rd game where they came from behind and weathered all that the hope we don't lose Wallabies was throwing at them to still gain field position to provide an opportunity to win. That is what any team wanting to be the reigning world champs and no 1 ranked team need to have. Ask any rugby team in the world which team they love to play and aspire to beat there is only one and they wear BLACK. So Ra all that to say this, records aside they are still unbeaten and I was hoping the Wallabies would really challenge the AB's but I reckon it may well be the Boks and as outsiders the French.
mark
Guest
let's not forget our b string players lose test matches to samoa, scotland and to club sides on the past couple of european tours.
Justin2
Guest
Deans loves 15 v 22 (now 23). He is a genius for knowing tired players will beat fresh ones. He should get them all to do a full match warm up, we'd never lose apparently
Parisien
Guest
Its a shame France and NZ aren't playing this year - the two form teams, and WRC finalists! What a grudge match that could have turned into if played at Stade de France this november, one year after the WRC final.
Parisien
Guest
Interesting comment Harry - the wins are getting smaller and the losses are generally bigger. Tacked with Paul Cully's observation, that they are winning less against the top four, while also losing more often against lower ranked teams they normally beat like Scotland and Samoa, it makes the tight wins a worrying sign rather than a cause for optimism. I'd prefer to see an ugly tight win over New Zealand than over Italy!
Argyle
Roar Guru
France were also missing Sam Sproats - a Jean Pierre Rive look-a-like.