If McKenzie thinks the Wallabies' loss was an 'aberration', he's in denial

Fear of losing. That's the key difference in motivation. While the Wallabies strive for confidence and end up being over-confident. The All Blacks fear of losing keeps them about as motivated as you can be for as long as you can be.

TEC - I agree, don't think we will see another kiwi as head coach, but I would not rule out having one as an assistant.

Yeah OJ - thanks for the link; bit of a crack up

Riccardo - thanks for that, a great laugh, no I virtually never listen to radio, so missed it.

well, he is probably only 12 or 13, somer................he only can remember back to 2011.

Thanks everyone for your (varied!) responses! Wish I were going too now--almost! ;-)

Finally stopped him.

Thanks for the article. I agree it was an aberration, in terms of how badly the team was prepared for that match. The loss and the manner of the loss is EM fault and responsibility. The current WBs are just like the Aussie cricket team. Effective when they: - put ball in the hands of the big men - Keep the other side as flat/or back footed as possible - use the full team complement and keep defensive pressure The exact opposite happened in Eden Park. The ABs denied WBs with any possession in the first 40'. By 30' it was game over. The ABs maintained possession and moved the WBs around the park too easily. It was obvious the ABs were going to try it, and the coaching team were not prepared for it. Very poor. Wallabies main issue is not turnovers. It is (a) lack of re-alignnment, (b) in particular kick/chase/restart. (c) The lack of a base game involving pick/go. (d) Finally, situational awareness of the full 100x69 field (this one takes time) (a) ALIGNMENT: classic example is the Carter / Retallick turnover: - After the Folau break (from kick receipt), he was isolated - no support in attack - Beale arrived,but the rest of WBs are still catching up. Meanwhile ABs are already LINED UP! - Beale passes to the side where there are around 6 ABs to 2 WBs. - Doesn't matter if Carter drops it, or he's tackled. It would have been a ABs ball and back up field on the WBs redzone - Why did Beale pass to the right? Maybe because blindside was well covered by the ABs as the WBs were still missing (b). KICK/CHASE: - In addition to the above example: How many times did ABs win their restarts? How many points did they score after? - WBs won their restart and scored a try a few phases later. - Wallabies, fight for the RESTART! - Its not just restart, the kick/non-chase was responsible for a majority of the points and possession conceded by the WBs. (c) PICK/GO: - WBs have a good scrum technique. This normally means their pick/go will be dangerous and more difficult to stop. - So when they are starved of possession and finally get the pill for phase play. What do they do instead? Give it to the backs to box, to drop or give to a pod of exposed forwards. - Lost possession, again. AAC dropped pill was a good example. Another is (d) below (d) TEAM SITUATIONAL AWARENESS: - Continuing also on point (c) - 60' Wallabies have the ball. - Instead of giving it to the pack, it goes to Beale midfield traffic into a hive of players including forwards. - During the ruck battle, there was a line of ABs forming on the blindside. - Lost ball after a ruck battle. ABs were aware of the turnover opportunity, lined up and delivered a seven pointer. WBs? spectators. After a year together I would have thought the lessons of last year were heeded. Apparently, not. These were all apparent in the Sydney game also. But in that case, WBs had possession and won the initiative, though not the contest - another story

Thanks for the article. I agree it was an aberration, in terms of how badly the team was prepared for that match. The loss and the manner of the loss is EM fault and responsibility. The current WBs are just like the Aussie cricket team. Effective when they: - put ball in the hands of the big men - Keep the other side as flat/or back footed as possible - use the full team complement and keep defensive pressure The exact opposite happened in Eden Park. The ABs denied WBs with any possession in the first 40'. By 30' it was game over. The ABs maintained possession and moved the WBs around the park too easily. It was obvious the ABs were going to try it, and the coaching team were not prepared for it. Very poor. Wallabies main issue is not turnovers. It is (a) lack of re-alignnment, (b) in particular kick/chase/restart. (c) Finally, the lack of a base game involving pick/go. (d) Situational awareness of the full 100x69 field (a) ALIGNMENT: classic example is the Carter / Retallick turnover: - After the Folau break (from kick receipt), he was isolated - no support in attack - Beale arrived,but the rest of WBs are still catching up. Meanwhile ABs are already LINED UP! - Beale passes to the side where there are around 6 ABs to 2 WBs. - Doesn't matter if Carter drops it, or he's tackled. It would have been a ABs ball and back up field on the other wise. - Why did Beale pass to the right? Maybe because blindside was well covered by the ABs. (b). KICK/CHASE: - In addition to the above example: ow many times did ABs win their restarts? How many points did they score after? - WBs won their restart and scored a try a few phases later. - Wallabies, fight for the RESTART! (c) PICK/GO: - WBs have a good scrum technique. This normally means their pick/go will be dangerous and more difficult to stop. - So when they are starved of possession and finally get the pill for phase play. What do they do instead? Give it to the backs to box, to drop or give to a pod of exposed forwards. - Lost possession, again. AAC dropped pill was a good example. Another is (d) below (d) TEAM SITUATIONAL AWARENESS: - Continuing also on point (c) - 60' Wallabies have the ball. - Instead of giving it to the pack, it goes to Beale midfield traffic into a hive of players including forwards. - During the ruck battle, there was a line of ABs forming on the blindside. - Lost ball after a ruck battle. ABs were aware of the turnover opportunity and lined up. WBs? spectators. After a year together I would have thought the lessons of last year were heeded. Apparently, not. These were all apparent in the Sydney game also. But in that case, WBs had possession and won the initiative, though not the contest - another story

I think you missed one important stat X.... Kurtley beale was the Super 14 player of the year in 2011.

Mate I am an out and out AB supporter. 1) The Wallabies had the All Blacks on toast for all but the first 25 mins but were not good enough or composed enough to take advantage. 2) The play you highlighted on was the only opportunity of scoring a try that the AB's created in 80 mins 3) The Wallabies created on that night more opportunities and did not capitalise due to desperate defence, in particular by Savea and Coles on kock through. The All Blacks, based on their performance should have lost and they were very lucky to draw. Under the conditions, they were outplayed. As for the sin bins, that was their penalty right or wrong for 'in the eyes of the ref for cynical play. It was a great opportunity missed by the Wallabies. The weather for sure had a major influence but one would have thought that the AB's would have been better equipped to handle the conditions. If Coles took Aaron's Smiths' pass (and it was a reasonable pass, it would have been very likely that he would have scored a try but if that happened and the result was that the AB's won the match, it would have definitely been against the run of how the game panned out. The following week I was in NZ, and the Wallabies had pumped themselves up. While I did not expect the blowout that is now consigned to history, rarely do you see the AB's playing bad games in a row.

It wasn't a freak occurrence, since 08 Aus has generally had one really poor performance against NZ every year, and of those poor performances there are margins or points totals that are comparable to this years. 08 - 39-10 09 - 33-6 10 - 49-28 11 - 30-14 12 - 22-0 13 - 47-29 If it's not normal for Aus to lose by 31, is it normal for them to lose by 29? How about 27? And is it only abnormal if they concede 51 but perfectly normal for them to concede 49?

It wasn't the only time NZ has gotten 50 against Aus.

But I liked Deans... I don't mind EM. I agree that the players aren't there... I also think that a handful have been overrated. I have been to lunches where EM has bagged deans for the exact same thing he has done in his brief tenure. He has come in picking the same players... A game plan not dissimilar- a few changes In the backs for variety and that justifies renewed hope? This is not an easy fix- the athletes in aust are there- it's just getting them to rugby

it would have been result changing , coz NZ hardly put together a decent attack in the conditions. also dont forget , NZ played for 22 minutes with 14 . an early try would have been a game changer IMO.

That was the highest score in 151 matches against by NZ against Aus. The 3rd highest losing margin in 151 matches. Aus first loss in 9 games. A loss to the team they drew against in the game before. The 3rd highest score against Aus ever. He said its out of the norm. Shall we make a big deal of it and bring up losses by other Australian teams and other coaches to try and prove that the highest score NZ has ever put on Aus and Australias first loss in 9 games is actually NORMAL? Ffs... Since 2008 they have played 23 times, never had 51 put on them or lost by 30 against NZ, the ave winning margin is 10, the ave points against is 28. Even if we only use games against NZ since 2008, its still an aberration because aberration simply means 'not normal' and my friends it isnt normal for Aus to lose by 30 or have over 50 put on them, is it? It was a freak occurance against NZ let alone all nations. Ewen saying it was an aberration was correct and unless you want him to be a glass-half-full man and mope about singing NZs praises and Australias doom then lets just let it slide. He was simply saying that getting smashed isnt the Wallabies thing, did we really expect him to say otherwise, did he say Australia doesnt need to be better or something?

Deans was one of the longest serving Australian coaches...

The turnovers have killed the WBs for years... The basic skills have not been up to scratch for the WBs... You have it, or you don't- a third of this WBs team don't have it... But who is better???

Chan Wee that was in the 6th minute, right in front of where I was sitting. Costly sure, result changing, I doubt it.

I will try this one more time. Thats not what you said, thats what I said. Yes Ewen wants to limit the mistakes and limit the amount of time mistakes dont end up as a set piece.Thats perfectly reasonable. You said this "The second comment about preventing turnovers is also interesting. No side can play out a Test match without making mistakes and creating turnovers for the opposition. So the notion that success would ensue if only the Wallabies could play a perfect game and not drop the ball or get turned over at a breakdown is fundamentally flawed." UNREASONABLE AND NOT WHAT HE SAID OR MEANT. Yes it is flawed but nobody is saying that. What Ewen said was correct and normal, what you said he meant is nothing more than an atempt to provide yourself amunition to shoot at the man by deliberately twisting what he said into an unreasonable comment imo. Yes the ABs are famous for capitalising on turnovers, yes it would be better to force a scrum if you turn the ball over or slow the ball down. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Hes absolutely correct. This is very similar to when Deans made comments and people would not hear what he said but what they wanted to, just to put the man down. An example is when he said that the game that was tight and close but no tries were scored was a good game and good games dont always have to be try-fests when propted by a journo. People then went on to try and say he meant that tries wernt important- full stop. You also question McKenzies wisdom in wanting a set piece instead of a turnover without. Is the term "advantage" misused? NZ thrives off turnover ball and are famous for being exceptional at punishing teams that turn the ball over. This can be negated to a certain extent if you force a scrum. Thats not silly, thats common sense. NZ are exceptional at it. Yes Aus faultered when Simmons was off at scrum time but they were hurt by turn overs more. To do well against NZ it is obvious that you want to limit turnovers and limit turnovers where advantage is played. How is that a bad thing to say? Aberration pretty much means 'not normal' right? How often have Aus been beaten by over 30 by NZ? How often have NZ scored over 50 against Aus? That was the only time NZ has ever scored over 50 against Aus. That was the 3rd highest winning margin against Aus ever. Theyve played 151 times. Just the norm? So the other 148 games were the odd ones out? You may think what he said was denial but I dont think so. He just said that they turned the ball over too much without stopping play, which is suicide against NZ, and that Australias performance in NZs highest score ever against Aus wasnt and isnt going to be the norm or something that is going to happen often. Big deal?