First up, it is essential that full credit for the Brumbies’ remarkable victory over the Bulls at Loftus Versfeld Stadium in Pretoria goes to coach Jake White.
Of course, the players have to perform on the field. But the plotting, planning and inspiring of the victory and the methodical, measured way the Brumbies executed it indicates a supreme coaching effort. Jake White take a bow.
Readers of The Roar will know that I have been critical of the Brumbies stodgy, kicking game that White has imposed on his team.
Indeed, the ARU’s chief executive Bill Pulver made it clear that this way of playing rugby, while it might be successful, is not for the Wallabies or their supporters.
And the less than capacity house at Bruce Stadium last weekend for Qualifier B against the Cheetahs suggests that Jake White’s Brumbies have yet to win over Canberra to their cause.
But, after the defeat of the Bulls, and the manner in which the defeat was orchestrated, the argument can be made that the Brumbies have moved beyond the restrictions imposed on their game for most of this season. Quite simply, this was one of the greatest Super Rugby wins an Australian team has achieved.
The Brumbies had to travel from Canberra to Pretoria in a week and play the top-ranked South African side at its fortress. In five previous Super Rugby home finals, the Bulls had won all five. In 90 percent of their home matches against Australia and New Zealand teams, the Bulls have triumphed.
Pretoria is an altitude venue on The Highveld, which a former Wallaby from the 1963 victory of Australia over South Africa at Johannesburg has pointed out to me is far more tiring and enervating place to play in than playing at the lower altitude at Bloemfontein.
White and his coaching identified a Bulls weakness at the scrum. They also countered the Bulls’ kicking game from Morne Steyn by adopting a rush defence.
The backrow tackled the Bulls runners low which allowed the second man digger/fetcher going for the ball to be successful at crucial times in the match, particularly towards the end when George Smith, the man of the match, made a crucial turnover to allow a Brumbies attack to resume.
The great strength of the Bulls, aside from their usually rampaging forwards, is their driving maul. The Brumbies countered this tactic about as well as it has been done by any team in the past 10 years.
Not once did the Bulls get a legitimate rumble on, and several times the maul was stopped dead in its tracks and the Bulls were forced to turnover the ball.
In the outstanding first half, the Brumbies showed flair and initiative when they ran the ball. They did persist with their tactics of always kicking the ball away when inside their own half. The merit of this play was that it diminished the chances of Steyn kicking penalties, the main way the Bulls score in a big match.
The Brumbies also knew that the Bulls would not run the ball back to them, so the kicks were a way of establishing field position to launch attacks from if the Bulls kickers were put under pressure.
It will be interesting to see if this kicking game is used to any great extent against the Chiefs, a team that has the potential and the inclination to score long-range tries from counter-attacks
The first play of the match revealed the cleverness in Brumbies coaching staff, and the superb execution by the players of the tactics that had been worked out for them to play.
Nic White kicked a long, high and hanging kick-off that was caught near the sideline and well inside the Bulls 22. Clyde Rathbone gave a terrific chase and hammered the catcher before he could get set to pass or run. The Brumbies swarmed in and forced the Bulls to push the ball into touch.
The Brumbies won the lineout and went through seven crisp, effective phases before the Bulls conceded a penalty. Christian Lealiifano kicked the goal. 3-0 to the Brumbies and the Bulls crowd was silenced.
The 16-11 lead at half-time was well-deserved. The Brumbies had smashed the Bulls scrum and won valuable penalties by holding the ball in the back on their own feed, the tactic the British and Irish Lions used to demolish the Wallabies.
The Brumbies tight five need to be applauded for their scrumming work. It seems to me that the inclusion of the two Scotts, prop Scott Sio and second-rower Scott Fardy (a journeyman turned into a very good player by White and Laurie Fisher, the Brumbies forwards coach) into the Wallabies can’t be too far away.
In the second half, the travelling and altitude got to the Brumbies. The Bulls had all the play and all the ball. By the 67th minute, through a series of successful penalties by Steyn, the Bulls had established, finally, a lead 20-19.
Then came a series of decisions by the Bulls that were bizarre and ultimately led to their defeat.
At the 68th and 70th minute mark, the Bulls turned down two easy penalty shots. They kicked for the corners both times and both times the Brumbies turned over the ball in disrupting the attack.
The Bulls crowd shouted their approval of the tactics. I was reminded of Prime Minister Walpole’s comment when the House of Commons roared its approval of The War of Jenkin’s Ear: “They are ringing the bells. They will soon be wringing their hands.”
In the 71th minute, Steyn, bizarrely, attempted a drop goal that failed. Why would he do this after the Bulls had turned down easy penalties?
In the 72nd minute another easy penalty shot at goal was rejected by the Bulls!
Finally, in the 75th minute the Bulls had an easy penalty shot at goal – and Steyn booted the ball through the posts 23 – 19.
The South African commentators, notably Joel Stransky, initially applauded the Bulls decision to “keep the pressure on the Brumbies.”
Apparently, this was a tactic often used by Victor Matfield (now the Bulls lineout coach) in the days when he was supreme in the lineouts and the Bulls were an unstoppable mauling machine.
Well, the Bulls and other teams inclined to adopt the Matfield practice need to understand Spiro’s Rule: Kick the damn penalty, especially when you are leading!
It’s history now that the Brumbies seized the initiative and stormed into the Bulls half. They moved the ball from side to side until Matt Toomua (the best number 10 in Australian rugby) dashed through a gap and linked up with Tevita Kuridrani, the young and powerful Brumbies centre, who raced away, with an arm raised in triumph, to score a try.
Incidentally, the sooner Kuridrani is in the Wallabies backline, the better.
Now the Bulls had 25 seconds and a kick-off left to force a penalty and go into overtime or a try to win the match.
Here is where the genius of White’s coaching is exposed. It is inconceivable that the Brumbies would do a long kick-off with a poor chase if they desperately needed to get the ball back. But this is what the Bulls did. The Brumbies took the ball into a maul, held it until the siren sounded, released it and then booted it into touch.
A word about the refereeing from the all-South African team. Craig Joubert was superb. He ensured that as soon as the rolling maul stopped, he called it. This is unlike other referees who sometimes let teams have three or four stops and re-starts and then penalise the defending side.
Joubert also correctly penalised a Bulls reserve who late in the match jumped off his bench and fielded a kick into touch to prevent a Brumbies quick throw-in. This is the first time I’ve seen a referee do this, and Joubert should be congratulated to doing the right thing by the Brumbies and the spirit of the game.
The TMO, Shaun Veldsman, who has been known to give to curious decisions was asked about the pass from Toomua to Kuridrani in the movement leading up to the final try. Veldsman quickly and correctly ruled that the pass was fine with Toomua’s hands clearly facing backwards as he made the pass.
The Brumbies now have to travel from Pretoria to Hamilton to face the Chiefs in the 2013 Super Rugby final. No New Zealand team has ever lost a home finals match.
The dice look loaded against the Brumbies for next weekend’s match. But then, the dice were loaded against the Brumbies at Pretoria and look at the result, a glorious victory.
Chivas
Guest
Peter, as stated earlier, I am not as convinced as you and many on here are that JIC is an open and shut case. I actually don't think Australia has an obvious choice of first five. Quade is too flakey which is why the opinion is so divided. I'm living in WA currently and I haven't 'met a single person who follows rugby who has any time for Cooper. Most think he is one of the more selfish self centred players there is. On top of that he too can play a very one dimensional game as Mike points out. A game shouldn't be wrapped around an individuals playing style. Quade is also in the camp it should be all around him too quite clearly. Toomua is being touted as the saviour, completely undercooked... maybe he can be developed, but as J4 says has a bit to go. Foley, a work in progress. As an aside, I think it's funny how Quade played badly then won the game.... many reds fans put him on a pedestal when it suits, then cry foul when he is criticised. He is frustrating because Quade plays for Quade. I personally like a team game. The Quade show IMO won't win the important games. I don't see how it has been established by anyone that JOC is a complete failure at no. 10. Is he the complete product or the equivalent of other world class first fives. No, but nor is anyone else IMO. It's a sloppily constructed argument, which is what Mike points out. It isn't for Mike to prove anything as he never made the claim, but suddenly Mike is Robinson Crusoe and he needs to put forward a case. The argument to suggest JOC is not a first five because of his passing... which I have commented on before is a nonsense. He does pass both sides. Whether you like his style (prop and pass) or his hairstyle means nothing. Every pass of Quades is telegraphed, except his no look passes, because that's all he does; unless he's kicking and that too is telegraphed. He is not a first five because he crabs sideways when he runs. He does a bit and this has improved markedly iuntil he was running good lines and attacking/defending the channel competently. Something you fail to consider in your dogged attack. He is not a first five because he's not picked by EM. Well on that basis Horne isn't a second five or centre either. Nothing stacks up to back up the initial claim. The onus is not on Mike to disprove. And the adjoining arguments put forward are spurious to say the least and certainly opinion based not fact. The one point you could make about JOC is his lack of vision and how to adjust the direction and outcomes accordingly. This is where Quade has it over JOC in spades and Toomua. But to focus on execution is a bit lamentable. Also JOC is an excitement machine and has a good rugby brain. I personally would be interested to see his skills developed. No he is not a complete product, but nor is Quade who has played infinitely more games or Toomua who still does not take control of a game.
soapit
Guest
mike you are not being honest in this discussion. clearly the evidence that he now isnt being considered as a 10 is there (which indicates the opposite of success to most people). i never said oconnor had to win motm to be a success. and so on. yesterday i had time to help you demonstrate how you cant logically and honestly demonstrate oconnor didnt fail as wallaby 10, i dont have that time today so you'll have to find someone else to disagree with. shouldnt be hard as it seems pretty much nobody agrees with you (never a good sign).
digger
Guest
It has happened, it's just that they've lost to other New Zealand teams in the grand final, so no NZ team has lost a home grand final to a foreign team. Blues in 1998 and Highlanders in 1999 are the two examples I can remember of NZ teams losing home grand finals (both to the Crusaders of course)
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Honestly, have a day off... What has been said about the 2007 WC was that White's side had the easiest path to the final of any WC winner in history. That's fact. Prior to that tournament the All Blacks were far and away the best side in the world, and the Springboks only really showed something different when Eddie Jones came on board. White has tried and tested routines but I think it's pretty fair to say that he's also quite limited, and his time coaching the Springboks saw some brutally bad losses. He's done very well with the Brumbies, but there was an element of fortune to their win in SA. I also think it's fair to say that this isn't a vintage Bulls side either. I would say that's a more measured analysis than "White is a genius!" Likewise Warren Gatland isn't a genius because the Lions ruined the Wallabies.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Polite as always, Mike You add so, so much to this site.
Mike
Guest
"Since Cooper was injured for most of 2012 it is arbitrary and unfair to say you cannot count his 2011 form." Well it would be if I was assessing his overall achievements in rugby, or who is the greatest fly half or whatever; but that's not what I am doing. I doubt that injury is an explanation because his 2012 test form did not really differ from his RWC 2011 form. But, if injury was a factor then he will shortly be able to demonstrate that by turning in a much more impressive performance. "On the argentina game yes he had a poor 1st half but a great 2nd half that won the game for the wallabies." I wouldn't put it that highly, but I agree that he set up a good try in the second half (very similar to JOC's set up for AAC in the Lions test) which balanced his terrible blunders in the first half, but the one who really created opportunities in the second half was Phipps (and set up the other try). "The facts are Cooper HAS played better at 10 at test level than JoC ever has. That is a fact." Have I disputed that? But we can't play the 2011 TN Cooper in the Wallabies now, so what is the point even of discussing it? "On JoC you once again prove that he is an individual and not a plamaker ie a genuine 10." No, what I have "proved" is that QC lacks some important attributes to be a good flyhalf. "Yes he ran the ball far too often over the gain line." No he didn't. He did what was necessary. "I am not saying that he should pass well before the gain line, where have I said that?" You misunderstand me: I am saying that that is what Cooper does (not all the time I grant you, but too often). "What he should do is run directly at the gain line (not sideways as he does and taking away space and time )and whilst on the run draw a defender and pass..." It would be nice if Cooper did that more than just occasionally in tests. As it happens JOC did it about as often as Cooper does on average per test. Is that faint praise for JOC? Yeah, if you like.
Mike
Guest
Not at test level, unfortunately. Or at least not in the last couple of years. Let's hope he recovers his mojo very soon.
Mike
Guest
"deciding oconnor isnt one of them for the foreseeable future Oh please. McKenzie has made whatever decisions he has made for the first test. But if everything turns pear-shaped he will change as he sees fit without being bound by this team list. Unless of course you define "foreseeable future" as no more than about 3 tests ahead - then I would agree with you! "maybe dont jump on people when they say he was unsuccessful at 10 when the only evidence supports their viewpoint" You have not produced a single shred of evidence thus far, so let's avoid the counterfactuals. "(remember you still havent produced anything but opinion to the contrary)" Which is exactly what you have produced. "also re motm i’ve read our statements several times and i really cant see where you think i’m misrepresenting you." Then you need to take a basic course in the English language. Let me put it simply for you: The fact that a player has never won a man of the match award in a particular position does not tell us that he is not a success in the position. You can look at a vast array of players who have never won a man of the match award, and they can still have been very successful in their positions. So why bother with it as a criterion? You could just as easily say that someone who has played in a winning world cup team is successful - it may be true, but it has no relevance to the vast majority of players.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Mike - Since Cooper was injured for most of 2012 it is arbitrary and unfair to say you cannot count his 2011 form. maybe the AB's did work him out. However the Lions are NOT the AB's and there is no evidence or proof that they have worked out Coopers play. Only your supposition. The facts are Cooper HAS played better at 10 at test level than JoC ever has. That is a fact. Only because it does not suit your argument you arbitarily draw a sand in the line when he had come back from injury. On the argentina game yes he had a poor 1st half but a great 2nd half that won the game for the wallabies. On JoC you once again prove that he is an individual and not a plamaker ie a genuine 10. Yes he ran the ball far too often over the gain line. He played for himself, he did not look to set up a player or is unable to do. I am not saying that he should pass well before the gain line, where have I said that? What he should do is run directly at the gain line (not sideways as he does and taking away space and time )and whilst on the run draw a defender and pass (and not prop or turn to give away he is passing and hence not commit tacklers) to a player in a better position. He fails to do this time and again. He runs into contact far too often for a 10 or runs sideways. Cooper and Toomua ran at the defence and at the line throw flat passes to players in better positions as the norm.
Mike
Guest
Okay, I agree this is certainly a reply of substance, however much I may disagree with it: "There is no substance or evidence to base this on whatsoever." Of course there is, or I wouldn't have said it. And its pretty easy to disprove me actually, if you don't agree - just show which of the recent Wallaby flyhalf performances you see as being clearly better than JOC's performance against the Lions? Note that I don't include Quade's performance in 2011 TN in that - I concede that he was very good then. The problem is that that seems to have been his highpoint, and indeed the highpoint of all Wallaby flyhalves in the past two years. Not just the ABs but other teams for RWC were onto him, and his ability to adapt proved to be limited. So which would you choose as better than O'Connor's tests - Quade's games at RWC? I think it would be kind to say that he was missing in action in the game against Ireland, and in the quarter final against South Africa and the semi-final vs New Zealand. Or perhaps his tests in 2012: the 22-0 drubbing by the All Blacks? His test against South Africa was better, but that's not saying much. And in our victory over Argentina Deans confessed afterwards that he was thinking of hooking him, and so he should have. Or, perhaps you would like to go with Berrick Barnes' mid-year tests in 2012? I do think his series against Wales was not bad. Against that there is the test loss against Scotland, plus the fact that JOC also did well in his test against Wales in 2011 - Wales by itself is not as tough an opponent as the Lions. Or perhaps you would like to cite Kurtley Beale's tests at fly-half? He didn't do too badly either, but again I wouldn't see him as markedly superior to O'Connor. "What is fact is that Cooper has played many better games as a 10 at test level than JoC ever has. So it is not hard to imagine Cooper performing better." Well, actually it is right now, because all of Cooper's good tests were prior to RWC 2011. That's the problem - the ABs think they have worked him out, and they appear to be right. Of course, Quade will shortly have every chance to disprove them, but he hasn't done so yet. Until he does, the hard truth is that he hasn't performed well in tests since 2011 TN. And note that Richie McCaw has come straight out and said it this week, that the ABs are going to win this RC by shutting Cooper and Genia down. Perhaps Richie's wrong - but I know who I'd put my money on. "So by extrapolation [from S15] it is reasonable to think that they could of performed better at 10." I understand what you are saying. I don't think it is, because test really is another world, particularly where teams like the Lions and ABs are concerned. "A long pass would be 30 metres plus, I have never seen JoC deliver that with a reasonably flat trajectory" Even if that were true, you will rarely see any good 5/8 bother with a pass that long. It is not an essential for a flyhalf. The only reason it gets brought up here is because it is part of Quade Cooper's limited armoury. "The try against the Lions is a perfect example why he is NOT a good 10. He lloks to play for himself first, he runs first. As an afterthought he looks at setting someone else up. He never looked at putting someone in a try on that run." I disagree. He was fulfilling one of the primary functions of a flyhalf - taking the ball to the line and putting pressure on the defenders with his runners. It was set up the same as the AAC try in the previous test, except that this time the opening was there for him to go himself. He saw that the defenders were flat footed and expecting the pass so he took the right option and kept going. "JoC runs be it straight or sideways looking for a gap for himself to run at, only when he sees there is not one does he look to passing. This is not always so of course you can find isolated examples. I am saying 80% plus of the time. Whilst a genuine 10 looks to put others through 80% and run hims self 20%." Again I disagree. Several times against the Lions O'Connor took the ball over the gain line, and that was the correct thing to do (which is often the case when your forwards are being hammered). You don't just pass it out along the line as soon as you get it - that is what Quade often does, and all it accomplishes is to move the point of decision further out and lose width, but with enough time for the defenders to see it and adjust. Simply passing the ball at a distance from the advantage line does not create gaps, and unfortunately Quade seems to spend a lot of time doing that.
soapit
Guest
mike, he has named two other options other than cooper and not ocnonnor. not really just concerning himself with who "the" 10 is more like sorting out various 10 options and deciding oconnor isnt one of them for the foreseeable future (therefore yet again you are not using the actual evidence available). maybe dont jump on people when they say he was unsuccessful at 10 when the only evidence supports their viewpoint (remember you still havent produced anything but opinion to the contrary) also re motm i've read our statements several times and i really cant see where you think i'm misrepresenting you. let me ask you more simply, do you think motm awards can be an indicator of success in a position or not?
PeterK
Roar Guru
mike yes I have watched most of JoC's games. You are Robinson Crusoe in thinking JoC did well at 10 against the Lions. You use pure conjecture when you claim " about as well as any of the other candidates currently around would have done against the Lions" There is no substance or evidence to base this on whatsoever. What is fact is that Cooper has played many better games as a 10 at test level than JoC ever has. So it is not hard to imagine Cooper performing better. Additionally Toomua has outperformed JoC by far at super level at 10. Same with Foley. So by extrapolation it is reasonable to think that they could of performed better at 10. You have no substance to back that JoC is a good test 10. He has a weak pass to his right, it is not straight and hard, it is slow and loopy (except when he quite close). A long pass would be 30 metres plus, I have never seen JoC deliver that with a reasonably flat trajectory, A high Sydney Harbour pass does not count. The try against the Lions is a perfect example why he is NOT a good 10. He lloks to play for himself first, he runs first. As an afterthought he looks at setting someone else up. He never looked at putting someone in a try on that run. JoC runs be it straight or sideways looking for a gap for himself to run at, only when he sees there is not one does he look to passing. This is not always so of course you can find isolated examples. I am saying 80% plus of the time. Whilst a genuine 10 looks to put others through 80% and run hims self 20%.
Mike
Guest
"mike, he isnt being even being considered for selection in that position from within a squad of 40." I don't recall ever suggesting otherwise... "some people (including the new wallabies coach) just dont think he is currently a 10." I don't recall denying that either. Although, the Wallabies coach is really only concerned with who he thinks is *the* 10 at the current time. That is clearly Cooper. Whether that's the same in a few weeks, let's see. "btw do you really think someone winning motm doesnt mean they have any right to consider themselves a success in the position they played?" Nice try, being the inverse of what I actually wrote!
Kebab
Guest
Sour grapes from a reds supporter no doubt. Brumbies rock and have copped plenty from Oz fans when they have played unreal in 80% of their games. Again they will do their talking on the field and qc an Link will be nervous.
vman
Guest
Whatever way you look at it no nz team has ever been in the final by default unlike the brumbies who finished forth not third
PeterK
Roar Guru
stillmatic1 - I certainly was not one of those people, I am fully aware that all you can talk about is giving up 3 points at most (assuming he kicks it). What I have said before is that a top notch goal kicker MUST be chosen in the side even if a better player gets left out. A case in point is CL, he is a top kicker under pressure. He must be in the side. If that means Godwin cannot get a game then so be it (that is assuming Godwin gets better than CL). I also agreed the points should of been taken as I stated above.
SteveG
Guest
Spiro, re your comment that no NZ team has ever lost a Final in NZ. Didn't the Brumbies win a Title over there in the past? Against the Crusaders from hazy memory?
KiwiDave
Roar Guru
I think most of the Bulls intensity went earlier in the day when the Chiefs won. If the Crusaders won you would have seen a completely different Bulls side playing with a lot of ferocity. As it was half of them seemed like they couldnt be fvcked having to travel to Hamilton if they won and didnt really care if they won or lost. Now the Brumbies have to travel 30 hours back to NZ after a 30 hour trip last week. Their body clocks will be shot and there will be a bit of fatigue in them after 2 tough games and 60 hours of traveling. Meanwhile the Chiefs had 1 tough game and a very nice lead up. Could see a similar result as what happened with the Sharks last year when they just couldn't bring their A game through fatigue in the final.
GWS
Guest
Tahs gave away shitloads of tix to that game too
s.t.rine
Guest
What a load of xxxx. Did White tell Bulls not to kick 3 penalties & take a 10 point lead? Nonsense. Bulls destroyed themselves leaving Brumbies a last-gasp win. Be different in the final as Chiefs won't self-destruct S T