It is impossible to please some critics of the Wallabies, especially if they are British rugby writers.
The Wallabies defeated Ireland 32-15, in Dublin, and scored four tries to none. And experts who should know better made the analysis that Ireland lost, rather than acknowledging the fact that the Wallabies forced a handsome, total and convincing victory.
The Wallabies thumped a side that many experts and some of the Irish players (Rob Kearney, go to the naughty boy corner!) had talked up as the team that was going to thrash the Wallabies.
Here is Eddie Butler in The Observer:
“On the stillest of wind-free Dublin days Ireland fell flat. This was a performance without spirit, urgency or accuracy and Australia thumped them, scoring four tries and winning every point of contact, including the scrummage, which is a first for them – if not for a decade.”
Butler is a former captain of Wales. He is one of the British clique of journalists (I will refrain from naming the usual suspects) who are forever bagging southern hemisphere rugby.
When the Wallabies (or the All Blacks) win it is invariably because they are ‘cheaters’ or their northern hemisphere opponents were somehow totally off their game and handed the Test to their opponents.
So in the case of the Wallabies ‘thumping’ Ireland, the reason was because Ireland did not turn up to play.
“There was something wrong,” as Butler pointed out to his readers, “from the moment Quade Cooper put in a raking kick behind Ireland’s defence in the opening minutes.”
Let me put another point of view. The Wallaby scrum, even though it was penalised a number of times, was far too strong and organised for the Irish eight.
The Wallaby lineout was dominant, too. The forwards were strong off the ball and very strong (as Butler concedes) at the ruck and maul.
In other words, the Wallaby pack did was dominant packs do, they dominated Ireland. Notice the wordings. I didn’t say that Ireland were dominated. That implies (as Butler did) that it was basically Ireland’s weakness in the forwards that was the problem.
No, the Wallabies dominated Ireland.
Because of this domination, by being faster and stronger on the ball and more efficient in the set pieces, the Wallaby forwards reduced the Ireland pack (and backs, for that matter) to mediocrity that allowed the unexpected blow-out.
Now readers of The Roar will know that I am not a great admirer of Quade Cooper’s play. But, credit where credit is due. Cooper’s hands and feet, the vision with the ball, either with marvellous passes or telling kicks, played an important part in setting up several of the Wallabies tries.
I can see what Ewen McKenzie is thinking in his promotion of Cooper as the Wallabies play-maker. At his best, when he is not dropping back in the pocket like a gridiron quarterback, he has a bag of tricks that can undo the tightest of defensive systems.
Matt Toomua provides a lot of concrete on the inside channel when playing beside Cooper.
Cooper needs a tackler playing outside him to cover up for his own tendency not to be an enthusiastic defender. Although, before Roarers give me a hard time for being negative about him, I hasten to add that Cooper is trying to be tougher in the tackle than he was in the past.
The problem is, especially when playing hard-shouldered sides like England, South Africa or New Zealand, that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
But against Ireland, at least, I did not see any flinching or shirking. And, while he drifted occasionally into the pocket (and was rebuked by Rod Kafer for doing so), he played splendidly and was an important part of an important victory.
It was a victory, too, that was achieved despite conceding nine penalties to three to Ireland in the first half of play.
Two Wallabies were sin-binned, too, which meant that for nearly a quarter of the Test the Wallabies played with 14 men.
Michael Hooper was a bit unlucky with his sin-binning, but Tevita Kuridrani was just too strong for his own good. He did lift Peter O’Mahony above the level of the hips, and although the Irish flanker was not dumped, he did hit the ground with his head and shoulders.
Talking about Kuridrani, he has given the Wallabies a lot of power and presence in the wider areas of the field. He is improving every game, and I would think that he is a long-time Wallaby outside centre.
This brings us to Israel Folau, who had one of his best games for the Wallabies. He took the high kicks like someone trained in the AFL arts, leaping into the other contesting jumpers and then running on strongly after the catch.
Folau is getting himself into proper position more often than he has in the past where he can do a lot of damage with his break-out running.
It was a pity, therefore (and Kafer noted this too), when he opted towards the end of the Test to kick rather than run at an opposition that was just hanging on under the Wallabies assault.
One of the lessons these Wallabies are yet to learn is how to punish oppositions to the maximum when they are on top. They lack the killer instinct.
Hopefully, this will come as they slowly but surely (in my opinion anyway) claw their way back to the top tier of rugby powers, with the All Blacks, the Springboks and (possibly) England, a side on the improve.
I used the qualifier ‘possibly’ about England because they lack any rhyme or fluency in the backline.
As individuals the England backs are fine. But they lack the ensemble nous that the Wallabies are beginning to show and which the All Blacks undoubtedly have.
For England to beat top-tier countries, without much contribution from the backs, the side has to be dominant in the forwards.
If this doesn’t happen, and the All Blacks victory over them at Twickenham was an example of this, then England are going to struggle to win.
Overall, back play is in decline in the northern hemisphere.
Ireland, even though they had the run of penalties in the Test, could not score a single try. Right at the end, Ireland crossed.
An obvious knock-on that was acknowledged by the TMO meant that several Wallabies stopped playing as Ireland continued their attack.
The Wallabies scored four tries and were denied another try when Nick Cummins, who is becoming an essential part of the Wallabies’ backline, performed a miracle of strength and contortion and planted the ball down over the Ireland try line even though most of his body was over the touch line but not touching the ground.
The TMO ruled that he lost the ball as he planted it. In my opinion Englishman Geoff Warren got it wrong. I ran the play a number of times. Cummins had part of his hand on the ball throughout the plant.
You have to be careful, too, about slow-motion replays. When a player is planting the ball down one-handed there is almost always a fraction of separation between the ball and the hand.
This is the equivalent of not ruling a ball thrown forward if the hands delivering the pass are pointed in a backwards direction.
In the case of the Cummins no-try, though, it seemed to me that there was actually contact with the ball throughout the plant.
The Wallabies have now won back-to-back victories for the first time this season. They are in the situation which they have to exploit by winning three in a row when they play Scotland next week.
And then, hopefully, four in a row when they finish off their tour with a victory over Wales who looked like a balanced and dynamic side when they pummelled the Pumas at Millennium Stadium.
There is no qualifier or proviso to all of this. Murrayfield and Millennium Stadium have surfaces that are a disgrace to their unions.
The Wallabies have been at their best on this tour when they have played on excellent surfaces for ensemble rugby at Turin and Dublin.
The terrible state of Murrayfield and Millennium Stadium will provide a test for the growing discipline and power of the Wallabies tight five.
If they can carry on from the good work at Dublin, then there will be two more weeks when Aussie eyes are smiling.
Damngoodoval
Guest
Strictly speaking (and referring to the title) there aren't many actually Australian eyes in the quantas yellows squad. More imports than the England cricket team (although admittedly less than the ozzie Olympic team). Where do you stand on that spiro? No need to answer. I expect you're too busy writing yet another 'I'm a little victim' article and attempting to cling on to the coat tails of the good Roar writers (basically the rest of 'em)
Ben.S
Roar Guru
'Its still 4th choice of a team combined of the best players from 4 different countries – 4 countries that are claim to be strong at the set piece so given the Wallabies’ reputation, any of the looseheads on tour should have easily handled their Wallaby opponent…' That's arguably one of the most illogical and bizarre things I've ever read on this site, and that is a big statement in itself.
Steve Winter
Guest
Guess the story of the day is the suspensions and reckon Michael Cheila will be pretty happy that EM did what he probably would have to do at the Waratahs. I mean, that was half the Tah team on the turps. Is this the culture problem which has led to under performance year after year?
Cattledog
Guest
I'm still fairly certain, DD, that without a TMO, Cummins would have been ruled into touch as have many others prior to the marvel of the electronic media.
Red Kev
Guest
As I understand it there is an official clarification request submitted to the IRB regarding the "kick" scenario, but no response has yet been issued.
soapit
Guest
well cummins was no try due to the grounding definition above not being met so thats clearly a knock on. would like to see a rule written somewhere regarding this. bloody rugby, why cant they just write these things in the actual rules and remove the need for anecdotes.
Red Kev
Guest
There was an example of the knock then hit backwards in the Currie Cup, of the knock then kick in the NZ June tests, and an example of the try/grounding knock on the weekend just gone by Cummins.
Dublin Dave
Guest
Sorry Cattledog, you need to look at some of the tries that WERE given back in the old black and white days. Have a look at this one, for a start. By Ken Goodall for Ireland v Scotland in 1970. I remember watching it at the time and wondering how we got away it. (Yes. I'm old) It wasn't even close! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK5ft3jFZg8
Dublin Dave
Guest
"I truly think that (Ireland) just didn’t rate enough of(Australia's) players, or maybe didn’t do thier homework." I think that's very true, Scotty. And I also don't see how saying one team played badly is necessarily such an insult to the other. You don't show the other team due respect: you get clobbered. It's one of the eternal attractions of sport, for me. Ireland were truly awful. In every respect: tactically, defensively, mentally. They deserved to get cuffed and they did. What must they have been thinking at the planning meetings? "Hey. Australia have this supreme athlete who used to play Aussie Rules at full back. Let's kick high balls at him all day long. He won't have a clue how to catch them! That's a good idea!!" "Running on the shoulder of players who make a line break to support them when the tackle comes in? Who does that sort of thing?" In terms of attitude they were muck as well. Ronan O'Gara, summarising from the touchline, pointed out how Australia "won the battle of body language" They were up for it, that bit more aggressive, more determined. He particularly highlighted the lack of a "one-in, all-in" response to Kuridrani's red-card assault on O'Mahony as a sure sign of a lack of team spirit. If it had been a Munster pack, he implied, all eight would have swarmed around O'Mahony's assailant like a lynch mob. And really Spiro. Saying that Kuridrani was "just too strong for his own good" is a bit like absolving Mike Tyson's aurophagic assault on Evander Holyfield by saying he simply didn't realise the sharpness of his own teeth. Get real! Australia were by far the better team on the day. More determined, better organised at the set pieces and better at the harder-than-it-looks practice of always having a supporting runner to pass to. Which is and has been one of their traditional strengths. I'm backing Ireland to beat New Zealand on Sunday.
Upfromdown
Guest
yeah but he was picked wasn't he? So therefore the best person for the job at the time. Otherwise the Lions won with Australia playing a guy who has only played 10 about 15-20 times in his super rugby & international rugby career.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
I said quite clearly how so.
Harryonthecoast
Guest
Well I missed Kafe and the rest of his Cheer Squad as I am in K.L. And got local commentators for both WBs and ABs games. What a pleasure. Sure they were a bit biased but nowhere near as bad as those Clowns on Fox!!
Derm
Roar Guru
Eh - none of the above, Uncle…..
Derm
Roar Guru
I know, sheek. Silly of me, wasn't it?
RobC
Guest
Need to watch the replays, but there seems to be a problem with WB 9 and forwards when attacking a set line: timing seems off, flat attack, slow support and clearout, passes not hitting the slot. Defence help up against Irish, but I wonder how they will fare against faster attack. In particular how well WBs would number up, then recover / establish their line after a linebreak. PhatomFreddy: yes restart bad, and preceded most points by Irish.
Ian Noble
Guest
Spiro As always an interesting read with your normal comment about some aspect of journalism in the NH to stimulate reaction from fellow Roarers. Of course there is no bias in your reports! If you look at the Ireland game, Ireland were poor and there are issues with some members of squad who one might consider to be over the top. They have a major problem of addressing were the next generation of top players will come from bearing in mind, O’Connell and O’Driscoll will not be around for the next RWC in 2015. England, on the other hand, has set their stall out to build a squad to compete at the RWC 2015. If you compare the experience of the SH teams that England have played in this recent series there is a considerable difference in the experience in the squads. Quite rightly there has been comment about the lack of firepower and invention in the back line. However, how can you expect two centres that have a total of 6 caps between them and have only played together in 2 Tests to outperform M’Nonu, who has 85 caps and played with his back line over a number of tests. You might say why pick them in the first place, my argument that if the strategy is to build, you need to blood these players at test level to see if they can compete. I think most commentators would agree, for example, that Twelvetrees (nickname 36) has a better game against the AB’s than against the Wallabies and could be useful squad member in the build up to 2015. England have got to build competition for places and Lancaster strategy is clear with 2015 in mind, but also looking further with a new raft of players coming through who in my view are potentially more powerful and skilled to meet the challenges post 2015. I am looking forward to England touring NZ next year with a 3 match test series. It will be an interesting benchmark to assess England’s strength a year out from RWC2015.
Birdy
Guest
You're absolutely right. The nerve of these NH teams; expecting the ABs to abide by the laws of the game and punishing them with penalties (given by the ABs favourite referee who effectively gave them the WC in 2011) when they break the rules. Don't they know they're playing against the "the greatest and most dominant team in the history of world sports"? Who do these pommies think they are?
Birdy
Guest
For my own sanity I'm going to work on the assumption that this comment about the relative impartiality of NH and SH press/TV announcers is a wind-up.
niwdeyaj
Guest
Its still 4th choice of a team combined of the best players from 4 different countries - 4 countries that are claim to be strong at the set piece so given the Wallabies' reputation, any of the looseheads on tour should have easily handled their Wallaby opponent...
Birdy
Guest
I disagree on the point that NH press is as 'bad' as Spiro. I can think of no press anywhere in the world that comes close to the jaw-dropping hypocrisy and drivel that Spiro comes out with after every game. Apparently, no English team has ever played a good game; and that includes the WC winning 2003 side. While he very hypocritically will say now that this was a 'great' side, all he did when writing about them at the time was call them boring, overrated and a blight on the game. I've got a line I save in my computer folder that I simply cut and paste after every game that England plays Ausitralia "Spiro has written a laughingly one-eyed, anti-English rant that disgraces the name of 'journalist'.' It's stood me in good stead for over a decade.