Ella, the 80s and rose-coloured glasses (part I)

He led us into a new era, where we could beat the best. We were easybeats with a few really good players but he created a style and a team that could win. I came down from the country in 1978 and actually played with Poidevin at UNSW before he went to the Greens. I lived behind Coogee Oval from 78 to 83 and often watched the Greens play. It was exhilirating, magical, skilful and fantastic - like little I have seen since. No, he wasn't the greatest tackler ever, but he could tackle. No he wasn't the fittest or the biggest or the fastest. But he read a game like no one else. He combined with his brothers and Lloyd Walker like magic. The ball would be thrown and one of them would be there, always. Or kicked on a string. And he was the best backing up support player ever. Yes I have rose coloured glasses, but he changed Aussie rugby like no one else. We were fortunate that the coaches picked up on it. Even that oaf Alan Jones, who led to his demise. Wally Lewis is right about Mark Ella, and he should know - he couldn't even get a run in that 77 schoolboys team with the Ellas, Hawker, O'Connor et al. Mark Ella is the greatest back that I have ever seen, followed by Campo, Larkham and Lomu. All that your stats prove is that there are 2 eras in Wallaby Rugby - before the Ellas and after the Ellas. We became a power because of Mark Ella (and some others). We have remained such because of other great players like Campo, Eales, Horan, Larkham, Gregan, and even Folau, and some astute coaches. But he and his brothers started it, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We would still be the easybeats we were in the 70s. Now, rightly or wrongly we believe that we can beat anyone.

Thanks Mike, Frenchy and MPM. That's exactly the points that I was trying to make. Unfortunately my post was late at night and I would have liked to get all this stuff through earlier in the night to give perspective to where Australian Rugby has come from and who should be given credit for that.

Michael, if you want to know why, watch the video. Everything you need to know about Mark Ella can be seen in the way he played the game. Not in the stats. Your pointless attempt at assassination is rendered completely superfluous by the evidence.

Michael, one hand was barely enough to count the rolling mauis in the Wallabies-Wales game.

"they were amateur and trained twice a week" What does that have to do with the point Ols made? "but we weren’t as smart as we like to think… look at the stats!" I'm looking at the stats, and they do not support your point. Quoting some numbers is one thing, realising their significance is another "as we like to think" Who is 'we'?

Those interesting stats clearly highlight a momentum shift in performance from the wallabies team versus previous decades or at least an accelerated growth in positive results for the team. Even if the 80's stats do not surpass the results from the 90's or the 00's, it is obvious that Ella generation was the trend setter for future wallabies successes. That change is fortune and results compared to previous decades is probably why we fondly remember that golden generation alongside the fact that the style of play generated at the time was more in line with the Australian psyche which it clearly captured. The game has dramatically changed since then so it is always hard to say who is the greatest. The wallabies of now can take from the 80's the sense of innovation in the game, the embodiment of the Australian spirit and the level of accountability to deliver results against the best teams in the world and on a consistent basis.

Watch the bloody clips with both eyes open.

I suggest you watch the Ireland v SA and England v NZ game. Three teams there that love a maul.

Ignorance on your part Mickie a lack of comprehension skills maybe. Your attempted description of my description of Ella is way off base but it helps your argument.

Well that went over your head alright! You've got a little bitty computer screen which tells you your perspective is superior to that gained watching reality unfold on Test, State and Club arenas over a period of years. The great grand beauty of these mad assertions about the irrelevance of a bit player with so little to offer, and about trumped up stories from forgetful old men, is that you will never know what you missed because you weren't there to see it Justin3.

Thanks for backing up my point. You are lauding his club rugby performance as I thought many people do. The issue with you you tube theory is that they actually again prove my point....

I don't know where to start and i don;t have time to go through everything. Some points in no particular order. 1. To raise our winning % from 28% in the 60's to 74% is f,,,ing amazing. The past rules. 2.In the 60's, 70's and to a lesser degree the 80's the Home Unions were awesome and for Australia to beat England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales in any game let alone beating the All Blacks was highly valued. 3. There were almost no minnow games prior to the 80's. Tonga beat us in 1973. Fiji were a handful (for the Wallabies) in this era. 4. After the destruction of our scrum against most opposition in the 60's and early 70's there was a huge concentration on the scrum led by guys like Bob Templeton and David Brockhoff to regain some parity. Mark Ella had a (finally) great forward pack to work behind in 1984. We had a pushover scrum try against the Welsh ffs who were considered scrum masters. 5. Leading on from point 4 we have had two great front rows in the last 30 years. Rodriguez, Lawton & McIntyre in the 80's and in the 90's McKenzie, Kearns and Daley who were the best front rows in the world for periods of time while they were together. From a situation of ridicule earlier on our scrum was always respected and sometimes the best in the world in the 80's and 90's. The past rules again because we have not seen that situation in the last twenty years. 6. Your stats for our winning % against the AB's I believe are wrong. From the 3rd Test in 1978 (THE turning point in Australian Rugby) through to World Cup semi 2003 we played 50 times for 22 wins, 27 losses and 1 draw so our winning % is 44% over that time therefore we can't be at 32% in the 80's and 44% in the 90's. That does not add up. 7. Probably not in the right order for these points but the Wallabies were highly respected for bringing "the running game" to Rugby. Behind weak packs in the 60's and 70's we realised that our best chance of being competitive was to use creatively the little ball we got and try to score tries. For those of a reasonable age you will know that the Wallabies were often called the "smartest" team in World Rugby through this ability to do as much possible with not so great forward play but having very smart play from the backs. Think of the names you hear referenced from our "golden" era. Mainly Eales in the forwards then Ella, Lynagh, Campese, Farr-Jones, Larkham, Gregan in the backs. See where this is heading. The greatest aspect Australia has given to World Rugby has been our backline play. That's enough for now but I hope that brings Australia's Rugby past into more perspective for everybody.

One thing which is not subject to semantics is the state of our forwards (open sides excepted) since 2003. They have varied somewhere between dreadful to very basic since then. The most damning stat is the calibre of props who have racked up record numbers of tests. Shameful.

Oh for Pete's sake - they stood no deeper back then than they do today; nor did they play flatter than they do today. Where did this assertion come from Bakkies? What about Melrose and Fairfax? Did Ballesty stand deep based on your research, or flat? I always thought Michael Lynagh stood a bit too wide, was very hesitant and couldn't tackle. Why did I think that? Because it was easy to type what I just made up a minute and a half ago.

Eh?

Aye :D

No, against the ABs in NZ, 1982