The last round of the Rugby Championship is done and dusted, New Zealand has once again taken the trophy home and South Africa, Australia and Argentina will again wonder what they have to do in order the wrest away the trophy from an ever impressive New Zealand team.
For each of these three teams there are different challenges, Argentina has come on in leaps and bounds this year – they started with two very impressive performances against South Africa and should have won in Salta.
Their scrum was completely dominant against a South African pack that finished the tournament last year with 100% completion on their own feed – the same could be argued against Australia, it was only New Zealand who found ways to largely negate their scrumming prowess.
Their player of the tournament for me, Nicholas Sanchez, in the early rounds was impressive – his control in tactical kicking was astute and his ability to break the line a number of times against South Africa was a sight to behold.
Prior to the final match against Australia I was going to suggest that they may be running out of steam, but as proven, that was not the case.
So Argentina will continue to look for improvement, South Africa on the other hand, is akin to the tale of two cities. Watching them could be the best of times, but equally the worst of times.
It is when I think about Australia that I ponder whether there isn’t more to their performances than just the obvious.
Sure there is no David Pocock, nor Steven Moore – who for all money has been the best Wallaby forward for the past few seasons.
Will Genia and Quade Cooper in form and uninjured could have made a difference and the forced retirement of Pat McCabe due to injury was a big loss. A few Wallaby supporters even suggested that a certain few overseas players would have bolstered the Wallaby squad and improved their depth.
Rugby is a game of inches, you have to fight for every inch of possession, territory and space you want, and if you don’t you can be damn sure your opponent will.
But it is also about the top two inches.
The ability to read the match situation, the ability to execute, to work as a collective and to be committed to the goal.
For some of the players, that commitment can not be questioned – Michael Hooper has shown his commitment for 80 minutes in every match, the same can be said about James Slipper.
In the absence of Steven Moore, Slipper has taken on the grunt work, his work rate in defence, around the breakdowns and with his trademark drives into the line. He has in my view, been the best Wallaby forward on the paddock.
The problem is though, rugby is a team game, you therefore need the commitment of all fifteen on the field of play.
With regular monotony I have read on the Roar that the Wallaby pack lacks grunt, if that is the case then how did the Wallaby pack manage that performance at Newlands?
Without doubt the Newlands match was by far the most comprehensive performance by them, it was a collective effort by the pack that manned up to a formidable Springbok pack.
If the Australian pack is capable of performing like that, then why did they not perform in that manner throughout the championship?
Logic tells me if you had the physicality in any match, it doesn’t disappear for the next.
Is it really a case of the Wallabies lacking firepower upfront, or perhaps something else?
Scott Fardy was very inconsistent during the Rugby Championship, his initial performances were way below the standard he set in 2013, then at Newlands his performance was a stark contrast to the rest of his performances. Why?
When you compare the individual and pack performances of the Wallabies from one match to the next then a worrying trend of highly inconsistent performances have marred their campaign.
It is also true that technique and ability to read the ruck situation could be the culprit – in the first half of the tournament Matt Toomua was hitting more rucks than many of the forwards, which either suggests that the forwards aren’t reading the situation well enough, or they are unsure what their roles are as tackle assist, first arrival etc.
It is the dawdle of the forwards, either standing out wide waiting for the ball or simply just standing off the contact areas that leads me to believe that commitment is the real issue here.
We often hear the phrase “earning the right to go wide” and it can be argued that the lack of consistent performances by the Wallaby pack influenced the effectiveness of their backs and thus their results.
Whatever the reasons for the inconsistent performances or lack of commitment shown, be it internal politics, player unhappiness or poor coaching, Ewen McKenzie is the one responsible for ensuring all players are well coached and prepared for the job at hand, he is also responsible for team harmony.
Above all a coach is not only a selector and tactician, but also a man-manager and if team dynamics fail, he should be the first one held accountable.
macca
Guest
It's very straight forward. Get Cheika in who will get forwards doing what forwards should do...aggression. 1. Slipper 2. Moore 3. Palmer 4. Douglas 5. Skelton 6. Mowen 7. Pocock 8. Palu 16. P-N 17. Smith 18. Sio 19. Jones 20. Hooper
Halleys Comet
Guest
The All Blacks talk about their mental skills coach Gilbert Enoika (spelling?), with much respect, the ABs seem to benefit lots, maybe something for the WBs to consider?
Halleys Comet
Guest
It will be interesting to see how the younger Skelton develops within the Chiefs coaching culture, probably a good move for his development as an overall rugby player.
Magic Sponge
Guest
Skeltons non inclusion in the wallabies was a massive failure by Link and an opportunity lost to get real grunt into this Aussie pack. Consider what he did for the tahs and his first wallaby test against the French.
Great post Pandanus, I think the ball in hand approach from the Wallabies is undermining their focus on the set piece and breakdowns, if the focus can be shifted that a solid setpiece and commitment to the breakdown is a requirement rather than just an incidental of rugby union the Wallabies will immediately show better results.
Pandanus
Guest
BB, "The Wallabies certainly need to increase their efforts in the breakdowns especially." This is such a telling statement. WB's forwards/coaching has been to play the percentages at the breakdown for a long time now. It used to work but not for quite a number of years now. The last tie the WB's beat the AB's they did so with a level of commitment and intensity at the breakdown that I have not seen since, though I have kept hoping that it would re-emerge for every test they have played since. I also think that they pack too loosely. I'm not sure what the set piece coaches are doing here but we seem to collapse into each other at the point of contact at each scrum. It is not a massive amount of movement but it is enough to unsettle the scrum and requires an adjustment. The occasional overhead shot shows it well. Also I don't know how we are going to develop a world class tight head when our flankers don't keep the shove on for the full length of the scrum. Against teams such as Argentina that scrummage for the sake of it, our poor bloody tight head (who ever it is) is never going to be competitive unless the push from behind is coming equally from both the lock and flanker. I could go on, but it would pain me as an old lock to have to list all of the little things that our forwards are no longer coached in or have been coached not to do over a number of years now.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
BB, you can't be "up" every week. It's not a physical preparation thing, though the fatigue of a big match does come into it. I think KK is right in saying that we rose for 3/4 games rather than dropped for 3. Game 1 vs the ABs we were on a high after the SR, and believed that we could and should win it. Excellent mental state, no physical issues, and nearly got the result. Game 2 vs the ABs we didn't have the mental approach right. We thought we'd set ourselves up to beat them in game 1. Game 3 vs the Boks we needed to win. We pushed our mental state into desperation territory (but whilst retaining confidence) and got the result. A mentally draining match due to the desperation and last minute result. Game 4 vs the Argies we needed to physically front up. The mental battle was to take the pain of the physical confrontation and to get the technical aspects right. We beat the best scrum in the tournament at their own game. Mentally fatiguing and physically fatiguing. Mentally due to the concentration levels being far above the usual and physically from the scrum battles. Game 5 vs the Boks we were playing "rope-a-dope" ala Ali vs Frazier, but got beaten up too much. Mentally fatiguing performance from the concentration to maintain the discipline through 70 minutes, but moreso from getting so close to the result and then being flogged at the end. Like getting a big present for christmas, only to find that it is a lump of coal. Game 6 saw us physically bashed, mentally fatigued and with a disastrous flight/fight on the way to the game. No team would be up for that game. The ABs (if they ever fell to this point) would have been flat, but their superior technical discipline would probably have got them through. Australia don't have that technical discipline and relied on geeing themselves up for big battles. They couldn't gee themselves up, and the result showed. No amount of physical conditioning could have prevented that performance. Superior mental conditioning might have made a difference. An example of that would be the 2011 World Cup final. The ABs "played their final" against the Wallabies and went into the final flat mentally. They had "won" already. When the French provided a bigger fight than expected, their experienced players proved the difference. They were able to provide emotional stability and clarity of thought, and combined with their technical skill, they were able to win the match. Australia is lacking the experienced players, lacking the mentally strong players and lacking the leaders to produce that kind of performance. We saw Nathan Sharpe provide some of that level of mental strength and leadership in recent years. We saw Ben Mowen provide it on the EOYT last year. Until we develop a core of experienced leaders to match Mccaw, Reid, Smith and the rest, we'll never make it to number 1 for consistency reasons alone.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
I think this is the problem. S15 saw Australia confident about the general state of things. The RC shows that S15 is not a gauge of test rugby and the toll it takes on the players both physically and mentally.
Pjm
Guest
Jones is only 197cm and a lightweight. If you want to be a lock at that height you need to be a crazy s.o.b like Thorn who was even shorter. Fardy is 1.98 and heavier, why would you have a blindside that's bigger than the lock? If Jones wants to go places he either needs to put on 9kg or go into the backrow. The age of the monster Lock is in.
Pjm
Guest
Faiinga can throw the ball in straight and that's about it. He has 0 impact in any tackles, runs, rucks, mauls. As soon as he hits the opposition he stops dead in his tracks and he does that dumb tackle where he dives at their ankles. I have a little laugh every time he cops their shin or knee in his head and he gets concussed.
Hi Rouaan, thanks, Yes I do believe you are correct when you suggest more focus should be levied towards forward play, the "get the ball wide" is only effective once the forwards have done their jobs. The Wallabies certainly need to increase their efforts in the breakdowns especially. It would probably be wise to increase the depth of the core group you are talking about.
Good points Kia, but should these players not be conditioned for this? We all play in the same SUper Rugby competition, so we largely have the same time and effort necessary for preparation.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Whilst I certainly don't disagree with your argument BB, you could also argue that Australia raised its level in tests 1, 3 and 5 rather than seeing a big drop in 2, 4 and 6. Let us not underestimate the toll that those largely positive performances had on the pack. The Newlands test was particularly draining. A phenomenal tackle count,which is unsustainable, meant Australia was always going to tire in the last vital quarter. McKenzie has to adjust his game plan because you simply cannot make so many tackles week in week out. As well as mental issues, I suggest the inconsistency comes from a physical incapacity to play that type of game on consecutive weeks.
Rouaan
Guest
Dear BB, this is a great read and I totally agree with your sentiments. What sums up the problem for me is your expression of the nature of rugby when you say; " Rugby is a game of inches, you have to fight for every inch of possession, territory and space you want, and if you don’t you can be damn sure your opponent will". I will just add to that..."...to fight ALL the time in ALL plays..." As a Wallaby supporter, I have long wondered how to attend to or even solve the problem. Without discarding any other suggestions, I think 'grunt' is just not part of the current WB players' make-up. There are just too many examples over the last 10 years that testify to this. There are countless examples, where WBs had a real shot to win test matches and superugby titles, where their forwards just fall away and get dominated, despite the backline talent. They are over technical and lack the basics. My solution: 1) Get Ewen some help on the EOYT (his current assistants are not good). 2) Convene a World Cup summit after the EOYT to CLARIFY forward play across the Superugby sides for 2015. 3) Set, communicate and monitor some developmental standards of play for the Superugby sides. 4) Be smart about the management of the niggles and fatigue of your core group. 5) Convene monthly training camps (2-3 days) for the top 35-40 players during the Superugby season. Moderate the obsession with the back line players. Adding Genia, Cooper, Speight, Cummins, Hunt etc to the backline mix will translate into a fairly competitive backline. That's not my worry. So when the first test comes along after Superugby...there is clarity, combinations, purpose and most importantly hunger to impress from the players....they should be humming by then. After doing all this work and things still don't go well during the World Cup, one can say with all honesty, we've tried to be as professional and prepared as possible, so it's hard luck. At the moment the WBs are not given every opportunity to strive to become the best.
George of Perth
Guest
It is quite simple - there are 8 players in a scrum. Aussies do not scrum as a 8 player combination but as 5 only. The back row do not push & the flankers do not support their props. The Wallaby scrum will always fail until the back row decides to be part of the scrum & maintains a strong push engagement profile.. The Argies, the Boks and all other major sides push as a 8 man unit but the Wallabies persist with a 5 man shove. What surprises me is the useless Wallaby coach in McKenzie, is an ex prop & he should know better as should his scrum coach Andrew Blades - it is not rocket science.
ChanWee
Guest
it is the problem - style. even mib have it ; for example since thorn left their scrum is not the same. they thought romano would be the answer for the power 2nd row but he seems to be at home more often than on the park, very accident prone. the issue with OZ seems to be their state fragmentation. again this is nothing new to Boks also coz there is always talk about bulls rugger or sharks rugger or whatever. NZ and england seem to be the least concerned with such issues. so they are able to work on the real issues of the game , getting the right guys and right style and right strategies. when there are too many things outside the game to consideer the priorities change and affect performance.
ChanWee
Guest
a lot of fat there. he will need to shed a lot of killos to be effective in NZ>. there have been a few very big guys , but who have not really made any notable mark in international rugger. the guy who ran over Johnny in France. and there was another who signed up with Toulon at a young age (Maka) but not heard of much. that kind of weight may be good for league or American football but mobility and athleticism is a must in rugger. u need to jump run step etc. and not just bash into an opponent. look at Billy Vunipola ; NZ easily neutured him coz he lacked variety in his game - just catch the ball and run ahead.
AG, you can ring in all the new cattle you want, but if team harmony isn't where it should be, it won't help much.
HI Ronaldo, I think the inquiry will bring up more issues than just the T shirt. There has to be other underlying reasons.
Buk
Guest
Just out of interest, the quote about the younger Skelton being signed for the Chiefs: "While Will Skelton, 22, is a massive second-rower at 2.03 metres tall and weighing 137 kilograms, his younger brother is even bigger at 2.05m and 145kg."