Australia's report card from the Pumas Test

When you blog a game of rugby it is hard to make assessments during the match as you barely have time to think.

Between a slow internet connection, the comment block being at the bottom of the page and jumping around while you are trying to set up for the next comment, it’s hard to spend much time assessing what you are blogging on.

Depending on the pace of the game and whether the referee allows the match to flow this can be an added challenge trying to keep up with play. Often the biggest challenge can be simply to get the spelling right on players from countries you don’t often deal with.

I decided that it would be appropriate for me to write my own version of how I assessed the Wallaby performance against the Pumas on the weekend, and add my two cents’ worth.

I am not a big fan of referee Glen Jackson, I find him pedantic at times, and often too quick on the whistle. He has a tendency to make snap decisions and on second look there are a number of his decisions that can be questioned.

But my only real criticism of him in this match however, was the manner in which he officiated the scrums.

The public, the opponents, the supporters and every dog knows that the Australians have a wily scrum. I just believe they have a very astute manner in which they negate powerful opposition scrums, this past weekend was no different.

Just about every scrum had to be reset, the reasoning behind this in my opinion was the height at which Australia engaged the Argentine pack. Argentina does set themselves up quite low in general, but their methodology is to get underneath their opponents and then with their second shove the Bajada manages to work as a collective in driving their opponents up. If this was a deliberate tactic from Australia to go as low as possible themselves the it was smart thinking.

But this is where my criticism of Jackson comes in to play. In the first 60 minutes of the match, how he managed to guess correctly is beyond my comprehension. Having said that, he didn’t have to guess at every scrum, but when the scrums wheeled on Australian ball the Argentines got penalised but I counted four Argentine scrums that were wheeled with no resultant penalty.

All we can ask for is consistency, and in my view there was none. Late in the second half, Jackson made a comment “we are all going down”. Yeah mate, it had been happening all match.

The breakdown should be a concern to Australia, it took 46 minutes and 35 seconds before I saw Ben McCalman, Michael Hooper and Scott Fardy hitting the same ruck. Back rows are supposed to hunt in packs, the Australian back row certainly does not.

In general you could argue more back line players hit the breakdowns than there were forwards hitting the rucks in the first half.

Granted the Pumas stood off the rucks in defence, but securing ruck ball quickly and cleanly is an absolute must, often the ball could be disrupted by Argentina purely by getting one player in there.

The other issue with the Australian ruck play is the manner in which the players go off their feet and do not attempt to reload or secure the ball. This led to a number of turnovers and also a try, as the few players that tried to secure the ball all went to ground and Argentina made an easy steal to send Manuel Montero over for a try.

It is my humble opinion that Matt Hodgson be selected in place of Fardy without any delay. Yes, it may be true that Hodgson is lighter than Fardy, but the combination of Fardy, McCalman and Hooper plays too loose.

The general perception I got was Australia had too many forwards hanging back to receive ball, rather than getting busy in the contact zone. Matt Toomua himself had a busy time in the breakdown, and even forced a penalty on the ground.

On attack the Wallabies didn’t vary their play, there were a number of times where either Folau or Tevita Kuridrani took the inside ball and were met with staunch defence every time. There were no chips or grubber kicks to flummox the defence.

The defence was only breached when Israel Folau took a speculative chip kick into space. A soft try followed when Montero was asleep and didn’t secure the ball in the open, giving Hooper the easiest of runs after picking up the ball and going through.

The space that was available was out wide, and not exploited enough by Australia. It does have to be said though that a good number of balls going wide were either lost in contact, passed into touch, or led to knock ons.

The other issue I picked up was that when deep inside the Puma 22, the Wallabies were extremely flat, and the subsequent passes came so flat that the defensive line managed to interfere.

If Australia stood a bit deeper, gave more space to their receivers or even had one attacker coming from deep to change the angle, they could have used their attacking opportunities better.

The Australian lineout went well, and with Sam Carter, Rob Simmons and McCalman as the main lineout options, I cannot recall an Australian lineout lost until James Hanson came on and offered a skew throw in on his first attempt.

As far as individual players are concerned it is apt to start with Foley, for me the current star of the Australian team. I favoured him to be a Wallaby in 2012 when he led the offload and line break statistics in Super Rugby during that season, but was shot down in flames.

It is good to see him reach his potential, he made two beautiful clean breaks that set Australia up with two golden opportunities to score. He set up Nick Phipps with his run down the middle that led to Peter Betham’s try. He’s the incumbent Number 10 for Australia in my view.

Israel Folau is still a great player, but he was shut down very well by the Pumas, and uncharacteristically he lost to ball in contact in the air. He does need a bit of space to be at his best, and that didn’t happen in this match.

James Slipper is a very good player, his general play and work rate is high and he managed to get the Wallabies on the front foot a number of times with his drives.

Michael Hooper is a talent, but he is a player that likes the open spaces, his pace and power allows him to create front foot ball and gaps for Australia in opposition defences, but he is not a grafter at the breakdown. It doesn’t mean he is never hitting the rucks, but his main activity is in the open, hence the necessity to have someone like Hodgson who will do the ground work, at least until David Pocock returns.

There are still some decision-making errors by Australia, with the final try of Argentina coming from a scrum under pressure five metres from the Australian line. Phipps passed to Rob Horne, who tried to run from his goal-line but lost the ball, and the Pumas pounced, scoring a try through a deft little kick by Nicholas Sanchez.

One facet of the Argentinian attack that was much better than Australia’s was Sanchez’s willingness to vary his attack. A few grubbers and chips created opportunities for them, something Australia never used.

Overall it was a competent enough performance from Australia, but they do have areas to work on. If they can continue to negate opposition scrums with their tactics, good on them, but they need to work harder at the breakdown.

Going to the World Cup next year and playing in those conditions against Wales and England, who both contest the ruck areas ad infinitum, will require hard work at the breakdown. These teams will not hang back and allow the Wallabies easy ruck ball.

Their lineout worked well against Argentina, but not having Tomas Lavanini did curtail the Puma’s endeavours and England will set a sterner challenge, much like Victor Matfield and company did.

Although Australia does play more with ball in hand than most, and in general are more positive with building phases for long periods of time, their tries did not come from phase play, but rather opportunities that came along in general play.

Patience, variation and a bit more depth is required from their attack.