Last year was jam-packed on the rugby front to the point that even I, a confessed rugby addict, found it difficult to muster up the effort to sit through the European tour.
You know life is tough when it pains me to spend more time on the couch and don’t get me wrong, I like nothing better than having the down and out Wallabies upset the Poms on their home turf and pip the Welsh at the finish line one more time to cap off the year.
It appears I have the memory of a gold fish, as I no doubt spent more of 2011 staring at the box watching blokes ruck and maul around a field, given it was a World Cup year. However, I digress.
Much discussion and argument has been publicised about the player management for the upcoming Lions tour and the subsequent Wallabies fixtures to take place later in the year.
Michael Cheika blew a gasket last week, following the Wallabies logistics camp whereby he was promised no physical activity was to be undertaken.
Apparently playing touch against a bunch of backpackers doesn’t constitute physical activity. In my experience, whenever backpackers are involved in touching one another, it results in an inordinate amount of physical exertion.
The result of playing catch and kiss with some English backpackers was a rolled ankle to the much improved Kane Douglas, cutting his pre-season by two weeks.
Cheika wasn’t finding the humour or value in the exercise and tactfully commented the repercussions were “hard to swallow”. It again highlights the importance of player management and how to best plan for the year ahead for Australian Rugby.
It’s become apparent in Australian cricket that rotation policies in teams seem to be to the detriment of the on-going rhythm and cohesion of the team. Drawing comparisons between two very different sports can be hazardous, but you would imagine the same possible outcome is quite likely if rugby were to employ the same tactics.
There is an argument to be made that this allows for up-and-comers to break it in the big time, get their names known to the general public and gain invaluable experience. This tends to be the main justification of having such a strategy, together with allowing players to rest up and overcome those on-going niggles.
I agree there is certain merit in rotating players but at what expense? As Australian Ruby recently appointed a new chairman from a business background, I thought it would be apt to look at this from a business point of view.
In essence, it’s a fairly basic cost/benefit analysis and the fundamentals of the mission ahead come down to the primary objectives the ARU and rugby community wish to achieve.
James Horwill mentioned at the beginning of last year the number one goal of the Wallabies was to become the top ranked nation. While I’m a big supporter of Horwill, I found this goal to be a bit too vague.
It wasn’t really hitting the nail on the head as to how the Wallabies plan on achieving this (other than the obvious, perhaps winning every game). I find myself oblivious to the key priority for the year ahead.
There are four main events for the 15-a-side game; the Super Rugby title, the Lions tour, Bledisloe and Rugby Championship.
The vast majority are going to say nailing the Lions 3-zip would see them content, while not overwhelmed with joy. I think it has to be realised that focusing on this one achievement is going to have detrimental consequences that are being overlooked.
Namely, are the Australian rugby community going to be content winning the Lions series but again failing to bring home the Bledisloe Cup and/or the Rugby championship title?
How will be look back on the 2013 should we lose the Lions series but somehow manage to achieve what has seemingly become impossible – beating the All Blacks twice at home and preventing Zac Guilford from trying to fill the cup to the brim, scull and find himself being yet another news item.
The above points focus on the achievements and tournaments surrounding the Wallabies, but maybe overlook Australian rugby as a whole.
One can even extend the question to what many would consider the unfathomable: What if an Australian team managed two teams in the Super Rugby finals and managed to somehow win the trophy back?
Cheika and Ewen McKenzie have had a bit to say about the Super Rugby versus Wallabies trade off, and are firmly against the idea to quarantine any Wallabies for the three weeks leading into the mid-season fixtures.
It’s a valid point that by doing this, the Super Rugby sides aren’t going to be putting the best team on the park and get the results they are capable of achieving.
The relationship between Super Rugby and international rugby isn’t so much symbiotic as it is parasitic. That is to say, success in international rugby doesn’t necessarily lead toward success at Super Rugby but rather it is being touted as unfavourable.
It’s rational to say success at Super Rugby does make it more likely to achieve greater success on the international stage.
For those who are more numerically inclined, since the beginning of the tri-nations, the country that has won the Super competition has gone on to win the international tournament 12 of the 17 times. While that passes the sniff test for most of us, looking at that statistically shows there is a fairly distinct correlation between the two.
So I pose the question, at what point do we write off any chance of a Super team succeeding in the year to come to give ourselves the best chance in the international fixtures? Where does the equilibrium lie between making sure we as Australians are no longer seen as the weakest link of Super Rugby, while also ensuring we can stick it to the British and Kiwis before the year is out?
After a year of nail-biting and constant bickering, any one of the trophies for next year will leave me satisfied but I realise I’m generally not the greediest of supporters. I am a Reds supporter, and went through a long decade of disappointment before I could jump around and ‘accidently’ spill a large lick of my beer on the surrounding Waratahs supporters in 2011.
I think everyone has reached the common understanding that some sort of strategy needs to be put in place, particularly after we ran out of seats in the injury ward this past season. I noticed the point made in a comment earlier this week that the strategy should have been in place long before now, but better late than never.
Perhaps there is a plan but scouring rugby article after rugby article, I’m at a loss to guess what that is (unless the plan is to leave everyone in the dark, whereby they would be doing a stellar job).
Generally the best laid plans have the ultimate goal in mind other than ‘win everything and take over the world’. It seems that performing at the rate the All Blacks manage is most likely out of reach this year, so if we had to sacrifice one or possible two of the four main events, which are they going to be?
The Insider’s article from Tuesday Provinces must realise Wallabies come first highlights the public’s general underlying consensus.
With the direct relationship between a successful Super Rugby campaign and a triumphant international season, maybe sacrificing provincial rugby isn’t going to achieve that ultimate goal.
I have come up with one solution: if we were to kidnap Brad Thorn, clone him on Australian soil, ensure all offspring (including the girls) play rugby, in future the rotation of players wouldn’t be required.
This strategy might struggle to really impact on next season. So I guess back to the drawing board.
Terry Kidd
Guest
One further point about the standard of rugby .... I have been watching a lot of French T14 and the style of rugby I have seen has been little different to what was played in S15 in 2012 and on the recent NH tour. Defences world wide have definitely tightened up.
Terry Kidd
Guest
For starters I think 2 weeks preparation before the first BL test is sufficient and I would allow the Reds, Tahs (whomever) to play whatever team they wanted in the warmup games. Bottom line is that if the player wants to play and is fit, then he plays. Second point is that if the Wallabies win 2 Bledisloe tests then it is very likely that the RC will also be won. So that takes care of two birds with one stone. With regards to the S15, we all seem to be forgetting that the ABs and the Boks also have their own domestic test series and injuries or so-called burnout will also affect the SA and NZ S15 teams. Bottom line is that all franchises are affected and it should even out. My priority is simple, its the way the games/BL tests/RC tests?S15 finals are scheduled, so its win all four in order of BL series, Bledisloe and RC, S15. Then count who is left standing for the November NH tour.
Suzy Poison
Guest
A Saffa perspective... A very interesting rugby year awaits. Be interesting to see how Wallabies go against Lions. The Lions will no doubt be bringing a forward based game, something that always seem to trouble the Wallabies. However sometimes perception is not the reality. As a Springbok fan, we have often found out that, that the Wallaby forwards are not as bad as everyone thinks they are. With Horwill and Pocock back, the Wallabies will be a different team. Conversely last year, especially proved (injuries aside) that the Wallaby backs have lost ground when it comes to scoring tries. More often than not, the Wallabies won, games thru bloody mindedness and sheer grit and sometimes the kicking tee. Perhaps defences have tightened up, overall. But that never stopped the All Blacks, and even the Boks scored a lot more tries under a very conservative kicking game employed by Heneke Meyer. (Head to head the Boks scored 7 tries to Wallabies 3.) I just re-watched some youtubes of 2009 Lions tour, I can't wait for the season to start. I reckon some unheard of Aussie player will step out of shadows like Heirich Brussouw did for the Boks in South Africa in 2009?
Suzy Poison
Guest
Pot Hale. I will have to agree to disagree with you, that SA fielded weak teams against the Lions in 2009. Sure most of the Boks were rested but it's worthwhile going back and watching some very close games, which were thrilling. The Lions beat the Cheetahs 26-24, and Western Province 26-23, with a kick at the death. Both these games were in the balance going into the last minutes. Heinrich Brussouw was selected off the back of the Cheetahs game, as he gave the Lions trouble at the breakdown. The LIons game gave him the opportunity in 2009, and he went straight into the Bok team. Maybe some young Aussie player will set up? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSmWOMXp690
soapit`
Guest
stil yet to come across any of the fictional 'deans haters'. the closest i've been able to find are people who think he's doing a crap job of coaching the wallabies besides, this article is about 2013 rugby not 2012. as far as i can tell deans will be coach for 2013 so decision made and he'll get a relatively clean slate to start the year with. then again you could just be trying to revisit old arguments to give yourself something to post about so maybe we should just ignore it.
mania
Guest
yeah parra that semi was just plain awesome
Shop
Guest
I just want to see 80 mins of rugby that is enjoyable to watch, not just 10 mins per game like the last Wales test. As for winning, 1 out of 4 would be a good start.
mania
Guest
Alski - agree whole heartedly. the excuse for losing to scotland was lack of prep. deans just cant win with some aus fans
BL from Canberra
Guest
The 2013 Wallaby priority is to win the next test match and then the next etc - this can only be achieved with exceptional squad and management preparation by those in charge for the upcoming Tests Match campaigns including the ever so important medical staff to assist in injury management and rehabilitation A competing priority is to identify players then to identify the new HP Manager at the ARU so as to assist sensibly coach Deans with the Wallaby team selections We should be mindful of the 6 P's - meaning -piss poor preparation usually means a legacy of piss poor performance
Hoy
Roar Guru
Take the actual results out, and see how we are playing. We are playing poorly. That is the measure of how a coach is going surely?
Hoy
Roar Guru
No, but the Wallabies games certainly haven't been good have they? I mean actual results aside, you just don't have the Wallabies developing or improving at all do you? I wouldn't mind seeing some improvement in their game, but it just isn't there.
Ajax
Guest
Mate, that is a point I have made to people... sure we havent gone great against the AB's, but neither has anyone else. Our record against SA is great under Deans, I dare say no other coach in history has recorded that many wins against them (maybe Graham Henry?) Wins a Twickenham dont happen every day either... so for me last year was reasonably good, its not like Dingo's Wallabies are the FIRST team in Green and Gold to have trouble with the All Blacks ;-)
Crash Ball
Guest
Can I ask HT - why is it RD should not be coaching the Wallabies?
Hightackle
Guest
Its completely possible. I think Deans should have gone last year but Im not going to pretend all of Australias problems or lack of try scoring is becuz of Robbie Deans. Infact that absolutely stupid. Aparently the 3rd most try scoring team in the WC was too conservative. Apparently losing all of the players Australia did in 2012 didnt matter. Pat McCabe sux I hear. Berrick Barnes rubbish kicking was Robbies plan despite Barnes doing it for the Tahs, Robbie saying it wasnt and then dropping him from the 10 spot. Australia kicks too much despite the stats disputing that. 2012 was a disaster despite Australia winning more than 9 of the top 10. Its a joke.
Parra
Guest
ahh, statistics... 12 out of 17 doesn't pass my smell test. We keep falling into the same statistical traps: - eg. a Wallaby coach (any one you care to think of) with a winning % of 60 or 65 or 58 only has meaning when he's coached 100 games, not 20. - So and so many wins from so and so many RWCs - meaningless as there have only been 7 WCs Statistics only have meaning when the sample set is LARGE. 12 out of 17 says nothing except that the dominant nation is probably going to win both titles for that year - well that's hardly a revelation! I don't think it's a chicken and egg question either. Super and Test success are obviously related but don't necessarily flow from one to another in only one direction. The other thing 12 out of 17 says is: Crusaders / All Blacks domination - well that's also hardly a revelation! I'm not saying you are absolutely wrong but your reasoning is not sound. My view about the resting/rotation question is that we should give them a rest, at least a short one. There's so much rugby played now, they need it. I think 2 weeks is about right. Let's face it, we need all the time we can get in camp to sort out our basic stuff which has let us down over the last few years. We need a lot more team runs (A Team v. B Team etc.) playing real game scenarios with ALL the players again and again and again until our basic stuff starts flowing a bit better. The Super teams have to cover the missing players as if they were injuries. People have to step up. And, by the way, stuff Gatland and the Lions, we should prepare the best way to suit us not them. High Tackle No we are not doing well! Don't get me started on the list of clangers, the losses to minows and club sides. That's all been done to death. By our standards, we're doing terribly. - We have one Tri Nations title to our name for the last (?) 10 years! - Ditto Bledisloe Cup. This '3rd in the RWC' is also a sham. We were seriously shown up. This is what I've written about it in the past. "We had an extremely bad RWC11. You can talk it up (came third) and you can talk it down but some things really highlighted the failure to me. 1. We let in 3 tries to Russia and they dominated for a large part of the game. Yes, we obviously played with our lesser players but any of the top 50 rugby players in Aus should distinguish themselves against Russia (no offence, they're a rising side and it seems pretty tough but it would be like Germany playing Iraq in soccer). Unacceptable and embarrassing.. 2. We were embarrassed by Ireland - really taught a lesson in holding the player up and in high balls. Unacceptable. 3. We were absolutely wiped by NZ in the semi, absolutely wiped."
Derm
Roar Guru
Both sides/players would get an opportunity to play some tough rugby and get hardened for the test series, What's the point in putting out powder puff sides against a Lions side? The score lines last time in Aus Lionstour weren't flattering - to either side. SA did the same in 2009. It'll bea real shame if the ARU pursues the same policy this year.
Crash Ball
Guest
HT, it is possible to hold the opinion that RD is not the man to coach the Australian national team, without then necessarily being a "Deans Hater". Deans may well have been defending players when commenting that tries (or lack thereof) aren't the only synonym for "spectacle" - but he was also defending himself. You could interpret the reporter's implication being that the style of play RD designed and/or the players he selected to execute that style, were wrong. One can acknowledge Robbie's record, respect his obvious talent and believe in his intent - but also hold the view that he is not the right fit for the Wallaby team, or the fans that they represent.
Hightackle
Guest
Im no expert on how long is ideal for the Wallabies leading up to the series but I would have thought 2 weeks is enough. I dont think any Wallabies should play in meaningless club vs Lions games. They will be treated as trial games by the Lions and I see little to gain from Wallabies playing.
Hightackle
Guest
Johnno, you lose all cred when you start on about Asian cups, 6 super sides in Australian rugby etc. It is not going to happen anytime soon. Australia still are not ready for 5 super sides and have to bring in Welsh, English, NZ and SA players to make them relatively good sides. You have a wild imagination but it is not real, it is fantasy.
Hightackle
Guest
You mean like in 2011? When a reporter implied that his team wasnt scoring enough he defended his players by saying that it wasnt that important. The Deans hate club jumped on that as if it was what Deans was coaching. When he said that the kicking wasnt the gameplan, this was ignored but when he defended his players lack of try scoring, this was held onto tighter than a tight thing. "Deans hates try scoring" they cried. Genia, Mitchell, JOC, Cooper, Horwill and Pocock like scoring 5 pointers. Its just a shame they were not playing....wait, do you think that Australias best players being absent could cause Australia not to function as if they were playing? Hmmm I think I might be onto something.