There is a healthy debate in Australian rugby about playing with style versus playing for results, but is it really important how the Wallabies win?
Rugby is a professional sport, and professional sport has one currency – winning. Secondary to that, but almost exclusively linked to winning, is profitablity.
In addition to that, you have the complication that national teams are not seen by their fans as professional sporting franchises, but an embodiment of the national character.
They have histories that, in Australia’s case, actually pre-date formal nationhood.
Spiro Zavos has repeatedly and eloquently articulated his views in detail regarding national rugby teams playing in a style that mirrors the broader national stereotypes.
Myths, history, heroes and legends are interwoven with teams like the Wallabies, Springboks and All Blacks.
Moving into the here and now, the ARU finds itself in a position of financial weakness, with inefficient development pathways, a new CEO, and a national team rapidly slipping in the world rankings.
The new CEO has publicly stated the national team should play attractive rugby that resonates with how Australians believe their sportsmen should approach the game.
So there is significant external pressure on the Wallabies to play attacking rugby, both from the weight of myth and history, and the commercial situation of the governing body.
Into this situation steps a new coach. He inherits a team that is tight, plays for one another, and has maintained a number two world ranking for most of the preceding four years.
However, it is a team that he and everybody else knows cannot make the leap to number one and will most probably struggle to maintain its current position in its current configuration.
Change and regeneration are required in the playing group.
And change is required regarding how the Wallabies approach the game, as the number of tries scored has dried up significantly in the past two seasons.
But what should they change to?
Put yourself in Ewen McKenzie’s shoes.
You are chosen because of your ability to coach attacking rugby at Super level. Your first three games are against the top two teams in the world.
You pick a team that begins to reflect the success of the Brumbies and Reds over the past three years in Super Rugby, thereby introducing a raft of newcomers to Test rugby.
You have a weak scrum, a strong lineout, and a reliable goalkicker.
Your forwards lack a dominant line-busting ball runner, or a pure fetcher, and your backs feature two smallish centres.
However, you have very strong tactical kickers at 10 (Matt Toomua) and 15 (Jesse Mogg).
Your first two opponents are the best in the world at converting turnovers into opportunist tries, have deadly goal kickers, strong punt kickers, and scrums capable of winning kickable penalties.
Your fundamental choice is this: do we place our emphasis on where we play the game, or how we play the game?
If you emphasise how we play the game, it’s obvious the outside influences will mean we play a running/passing game.
We would do this without a dominant breakdown-focused backrow, meaning that breakdown turnovers may increase and will happen within our own half.
We would do this without large centres or dominant forward ball carriers, making it difficult to consistently go forward.
And we would do this with a new team with limited combinations, increasing the chances of knock ons, and therefore scrums, and therefore kickable penalties conceded in our own half against stronger scrums.
If we emphasise where we play the game, we will use the kicking prowess of Mogg and Toomua, backed up by a strong lineout, to play the game in the opposition half.
If we make mistakes and concede turnovers, the opposition will have to work their way out of their own half to capitalise.
If the opposition makes mistakes, we have a great goal kicker, and our line-breaks will be less dependent on support play to get us over the line because we have less distance to travel.
If you were to make a dispassionate decision based on the above factors, which way would you go as a coach?
History shows McKenzie chose to play the running game in game one and was smashed. It’s hardly a surprise.
Wisely, he moved the balance more to a kicking game in game two and had a two tries to one loss.
Game three, against the Springboks, saw a move back to the passing/running game, and another record loss.
Finally, in game four, a very strong emphasis on kicking for field position saw his Wallabies record their first win under his coaching.
I asked Roar Expert Scott Allen, whether he thought the game plan in game four was only due to the wild weather.
He said he largely felt it was, but I disagree. I have no doubt the game plan would have been to kick anything in our own half no matter the weather, because that has been a winning strategy in Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship this year.
And I think it will be the game plan against the Boks this weekend.
I would love to see the Wallabies run and pass their way to victory from all over the paddock. We simply do not have the players, individually or collectively, to win playing this game plan against the top Test sides at this point in time.
And, given the choice, I would prefer to win.
Besides, I don’t think a strong kicking game plan equals boring rugby.
All of the top four NRL finals sides have very strong kicking games, and the champion Queensland State of Origin team kicks NSW to death series after series, creating pressure from repeat attacking sets and scoring tries inside the attacking 40m zone.
The NRL still produces breathtaking tries week in and week out. So the very best league teams know that winning football is played deep in the opposition half.
The All Blacks and Springboks know this too, and I am sure Ewen has now come to concede it.
While Ewen has denied it, it was surely the major reason why Nic White is playing halfback now.
With two years until the World Cup, this side has to get some wins in the short term to give them confidence and international credibility.
They need clear roles and a simple game plan that suits the current playing group to get this done.
In the meantime, they can work on developing a more sophisticated playing style as their experience grows.
I am not confident of a win this weekend at all, but if we play the game in the Springboks’ half, we will give ourselves the chance of an upset.
If we try to keep the ball in hand in our half, we will concede kickable scrum penalties, and tries from ruck turnovers, losing the game comfortably.
Let’s ‘play it smart’ by ‘dumbing it down’ this weekend.
Old Bugger
Guest
BB There was nothing wrong with our forward play in 2003. I seem to recall we put 50+ pts on the Boks and Wallabies that year and went on to win the 3N and Bledisloe trophies....and we played those games at pace steering both opponents around the paddock. We didn't win the RWC cos we dicked around with selecting Umaga's replacement when he got injured - same as in '99. Our coaching wise men thought better and history shows it didn't work. We didn't learn the lessons and paid for it. I'd like to believe we are masters at the breakdown because of the game plan the AB's choose - play it at speed. Perhaps its also attributed to skill factor but I think that's too subjective. Every player has skill - its just some players, have refined their skill levels higher than others. I disagree that momentum is the key to attack. Again, I suggest that the speed of the game is the key to attack. Then, the momentum will happen - but you have to generate your own game plan to attain momentum. Nevertheless, its all entertaining stuff and better still, when tries are scored fron both set-piece and broken play.
SuperEel22
Roar Guru
Winning ugly has a catch 22 attached. A win is a win and provides confidence to the playing group. However winning ugly also means you paper over the cracks as people will say don't change what's not broke. It does put the coaching staff between a rock and a hard place. If they keep the same side then they risk the opposition stepping it up a notch and blowing them away. If they change a winning side they get criticised for messing with a winning side.
In Brief
Guest
Here's another cliche - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Wallabies won't win by playing percentage rugby - we're simply not very good at it. There is a mix required. Sure, clear the ball from the 22. But when the opportunity comes, take it. In other words, do play fast open rugby, but just don't put the team under too much pressure. Of course, lose the collisions and you have no chance regardless. Australia needs to hit the breakdown hard if they want any success.
Old Bugger, it isn't a typical answer from a Bok fan, it is the basics of rugby, has always been. Why do you think the AB's shored up their forward play after 2003? Why do you think they are masters at the breakdown? More than anyone they prove momentum is key to attack. Take another stab old chap, you are going to have to do better than that if you want to rile me up. ;)
Jurie Nel
Roar Rookie
Australia could have won the Lions series with better goal kicking – then a lot of problems disappear. Leali’ifano was ranked above Halfpenny based on the chances he got. Currently ranked 4th in TRC 2013.
Magic sponge
Guest
If they lose and show passion that is enough for me. I'd prefer a win of course
Goalkickers
Guest
Australia could have won the Lions series with better goal kicking - then a lot of problems disappear. Leali'ifano was ranked above Halfpenny based on the chances he got.
Two Eyed Cyclop
Roar Guru
Agreed
Liam Ovenden
Roar Pro
Correct. It's actually my point. They have more skill than anyone, and even they only run in the other half when they play top tier nations. And they still entertain.
Two Eyed Cyclop
Roar Guru
They also run a lot Liam, is choosing when to run and executing it well that is the differential. And being smart enough to (using a much derided Deans comment) play what is in front of them.
Two Eyed Cyclop
Roar Guru
You crack me up Sheek, but I wish you would stop being so gentle stating your point. :-) Give it to us straight. Apart from the above everything else fine? On a serious note I would still class winning first, entertainment second, but not forgotten. Of course the combination is great but at the end of the day I feel fans get disheartened quicker by loosing streaks, than boring rugby.
Liam Ovenden
Roar Pro
The All Blacks are kicking more than anybody.
Old Bugger
Guest
Now isn't that a typical Bok fan answer coming from someone who's team invented the kick-fest strategy - great entertainment that was but the winning style was lost once the opposition figured out how to counter. Yes but all those aspects you mention are in fact part of an entertaining rugby package if played at speed - and this facet incorporates making the opposition run so much chasing the pass ball that they tire. When the lungs can't support what the mind wants the body to do, then the entertainment becomes greater. Hark back mate to the last 2 BOK v AB test matches - as an AB supporter, I remember 8 tries scored against the Boks....that's approx a year that's gone by. We won't do that all the time, but at least we try and run your team around the paddock - then, wait for the exhaustion levels before going for the jugular.
Liam Ovenden
Roar Pro
You've said it better than I did Sam. And BB, the Boks are gelling nicely at the moment, but as you point out they have done some hard yards and had some frustrating times getting to that point. They're now mature enough to lay a platform in each game and be patient that it will yield opportunities to attack, which they are ready to exploit.
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Liam There's an old proverb "a poor man can't afford cheap things" relating to poor people buying cheap clothes and shoes then throwing them away after a short time and forced to spend more money to buy another one. The same principle applies to your article. Teams that aren't winning regularly can't afford to concern themselves about winning with style. In a perfect world a coach wants to achieve both results with style and Graham Henry is famous for his response to a question about whether the All Blacks pursuit of playing the total game at world cups often works against them in knockout games where defences are much tighter. Henry insisted he wouldn't steer his team down a more conservative path, "I think our rugby players are skilful, they're explosive, they enjoy playing an attacking style of rugby," he said. "I don't think they'd enjoy playing a big set piece kicking game. "I don't think we'd get the same results by doing that," he said. The last sentence is debatable as the All Blacks are such a good team that they probably would get the same results however Henry (and Hansen) are able to make those grandiose type statements because they have a clear advantage over everyone else - their teams win more times than they lose. All successful sporting teams share this elite position that opposition fans wish for themselves and their teams. Then strangely those same fans complain after an infrequent victory because their team didn't score enough tries, run the ball more, displayed amateur skills, a lack of passion or mongrel, are a poor comparison to teams from another era etc. Link provided a brief insight to the psyche of the Wallabies after three opening losses that they were working hard in training but needed a win to validate all their hard work. A win does more than that, it gives players confidence, belief in the coaches gameplan, trust in each other, acknowledgement they're on the right track and faith that by continuing as a group they'll ascend those heights everyone else believes is out of their reach. One they've scaled that peak, then and only then does style mean anything worthwhile.
Winning rugby has very little to do with entertainment. It is about getting the fundamentals right first and foremost. You don't gain momentum ball if you are being dominated in the collissions. You only gain momentum if you dominate the collissions. You can run from everywhere, but running rugby in itself is not entertainment, that is a fallacy. If you run from anywhere and as soon as you get thumped and driven back and then turned over, it is not entertainment. The problem with looking at running rugby as the only prerequisite for entertainment is like building a house without a foundation. Sure it may look cool, until the first rains come and the house starts to sag on one side. Look at what the Boks have done over the last year, they first set up the foundation, then after about 50 minutes that foundation starts to pay off and then running rugby becomes effective.
Chan Wee
Guest
yep Ewen if remember correct resigned from Reds while Deans was still in and for a perio went on record against Deans like when he said " cant understand why the best fly half in the country is not picked " and all that. My point is not about RD JW or EM ; they are employees of ARU just like OZ players. When big boz plays politics the ripples affect those below. in fact ll these are issues created by ARU JOC Beale Cooper - had they ben dealt with properly at the first instance OZ would not be touring SA without a proper backline.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
Maybe we all should wait until the Wallabies put a few wins together before we all talk about the "problems of winning" -so far this year the Wallabies are getting worse -but then the sins of the past and recent present are coming home to roost -listen ...you can hear the ever louder moos of the home coming cattle now
Red Kev
Guest
They also approached McKenzie. It was a two horse race and White lost, now he's sulking, if he were a child I'd spank him and send him to his room.
Chan Wee
Guest
well,sorry to say this but OZ (or ARU) chose nationalism instead of quality when appointing the coach Deans was the most successful super coach, but he overstayed. White has won a worldcup I believe compared to Ewen who won one super cup in a year not just crusaders but the whole of NZ did not feel like laying rugger. blame the ARU for working under the table. As White is reported to saying , ARU approached him in Feb '13 !!! That is not good where Deans and Link are concerned is it?