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

By Michael Essa / Roar Guru

With the 30th anniversary of the famous Grand Slam winning 1984 Australian side upon us, I thought it fitting to look at the Ella period and Wallaby rugby the 80s in general.

Last week I showed stats that proved the try scoring averages of the Ella period and the 80s in general were nothing special when compared to what has transpired since. Similarly, our win percentages were also pretty unspectacular.

I believe we should stop listening to anyone that suggests we should look at what we did 30 years ago as some kind of fix for today’s Wallaby side. There will be many nostalgically looking back with their rose-coloured glasses at the 80s due to the 30-year anniversary of the grand slam.

We need to respectfully ask them to keep their romanticised versions of the past in check.

By looking at the stats from last week’s article, some might say the answer to our problems is to look at what worked for us in the 1990s.

It is no coincidence that when we were scoring our highest average of tries in the 90s – 3.5 tries a game – we were winning 75 per cent of the time.

Scoring more tries is surely the answer to our problems both in terms of boosting our win percentages and also in terms of promoting the game in our unique football market. But how did we achieve this in the 1990s and is the way we did this relevant today?

I personally can’t help but think that our success in the 1990s didn’t come from anything other than establishing a big gap in terms of standards in professionalism between us and everybody else. This was not just in rugby. In almost all sports, the 90s were a decade that Australia rose to dominance.

I once read at the turn of the century Australia held no less than 16 World Cups across a variety of sports. Today I’d be surprised if we had one or two.

Unfortunately, everybody caught up. Rugby was no different.

After the 1987 Rugby World Cup, the Wallabies certainly adapted and began to conduct themselves in a much more professional manner, even though they were still amateur. This made us fitter and more skilful than everyone else in the early 90s and many believe this is the underlying reason we dominated the 1991 Rugby World Cup.

So all we need to do is look at what we did in 1991, right? No. Sorry, there’s not much to learn from 1991 in respect to today’s Wallabies. The tactics and practises we used to gain victory in 1991 were already obsolete by 1995.

Bob Dwyer went to the 1995 tournament with pretty much the same squad and same tactics he’d employed four years earlier to great success. Yet, he failed miserably. I think this proved that winning major trophies isn’t just about having a great squad of players and proven tactics. We failed because our game plan had stagnated and we had stopped setting new standards.

Sadly, even to this day you’ll here Bob crowing about how teams today need to improve their attack by having the 9 and 10 simply loop and loop some more. “If the 5/8 touches the ball twice you’ll make a break. If they touch it three times you’ll score”. Yes, anyone that played in the 80s was brought up believing that. I was one of them. It was indeed once true.

But things have changed. Dwyer still refuses to recognise that and it was this stubborn mentality that saw us fail miserably at the 1995 World Cup.

Dear Bob, today the halves can loop and loop all they want because the wider you go the more the defence will simply usher you into touch.

Thankfully, after 1995 lessons were learned. Bob Dwyer was no longer the coach, Greg Smith came and went and then came the forward thinking Rod Macqueen.

Under Macqueen our increase in tactical professionalism saw us win the 1999 World Cup. At this time we were the first nation to employ a rugby league defensive coach to great effect, and we were the first to really analyse masses of data to help develop game plans.

Some reliable sources, namely John Eales, have stated that in 1999 Rod Macqueen worked out that giving away possession in the opposition half favoured his side. Yes our tactics were to win by not having the ball.

Let me explain.

Macqueen looked at masses of data and realised that winning sides usually had less possession in the opposition’s half. This stemmed from the statistical fact that referees were more inclined to penalise the attacking side for not releasing at the breakdown than otherwise.

Therefore, the major tactics employed to win that tournament were to 1) deliberately give away possession in the opposition half, and 2) rely on kicking penalties from ruck infringements from the attacking side – while employing a rock solid defence.

For this to work, we needed a great defence coach and a very reliable kicker. Enter the defensive genius John Muggleton. Enter the great Matthew Burke.

Of course the impression today is that the 1999 victorious Wallabies were a marvellous attacking side. That is far from the truth. We did after all score only two tries in the final two matches of the Cup. At the same time, Burke kicked a mammoth 15 penalties.

If you look at our other two matches against top tier nations in that tournament we didn’t manage many tries at all.

Well well, perhaps we don’t have to worry about tries. Why don’t we just employ those 1999 tactics for 2015?

I mean would those tactics work today? No unfortunately. The laws and the refereeing have now been tweaked to allow the attacking teams greater success at recycling ball with more penalties against the defensive side. You cannot rely so heavily on penalties from the attacking side in their own half.

The 90s were indeed our most fruitful decade in rugby because we were the most professional. But by 2003 we no longer had that advantage – and that seems to be the way it is going to stay.

The only thing that we can take from the 90s is that if we can average just 0.5 more tries a match than what we have these past 12 months, we should be much more successful on and off the field.

That seems attainable, but how do we do that?

Whatever we do it, we certainly need to stop romanticising about yesteryear’s attacking feats. Those tactics are mostly obsolete and they weren’t as successful as some among us like to make out in the first place. Looking back for specific tactics from by-gone eras is simply not going to help.

We must strive to perfect new tactics and fans must encourage this by forgetting the past.

As for Ella and the 80s? I will leave you with one poignant fact.

The great Mark Ella kicked more drop goals (8) than he scored tries (6) for the Wallabies. Now that is food for thought.

The Crowd Says:

2014-11-14T05:04:21+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


No, I obviously disagree. Ella did many wonderful things in isolation 1980-83. 1984 confirmed what he could do given a stable forward platform.

2014-11-14T04:37:51+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Yes Michael, It's true Price & O'Connor's achievements in league are taken into account. It reminds us of what Australian rugby missed when they both defected.

2014-11-14T04:35:03+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Well Michael, I can see common ground re Barry Richards. Clearly the best opener I've seen in 45 years of cricket. He might have only played four official tests, but his deeds in English county cricket (1968-76), WSC (1977-79) & for South Australia in 1970/71 only confirm his genius. He also marginally outscored Graeme Pollock during their years together in South African domestic cricket, circa 1964-76. And Pollock is still regarded as the greatest ever South African test batsman. And Sunny Gavaskar, Virender Sehwag, Gordon Greenidge, Geoff Boycott & Mike Hayden, etc can rant & rave about it all they like!

AUTHOR

2014-11-14T04:31:21+00:00

Michael Essa

Roar Guru


no one is putting a figure of tests on anything... but a career is a career... Ella had 1 good year and the rest were ordinary.

AUTHOR

2014-11-14T04:30:16+00:00

Michael Essa

Roar Guru


that explains a lot about Mr Jones...

2014-11-14T04:25:53+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Mick, I recall vaguely Cutler pulling off a try saving tackle against the Lions in 1989. Can't remember who he tackled, but it startled me! Cuts was a product of his time, when jumping was unassisted & locks needed to be giraffes. While Cuts wouldn't be in the top four Wallaby locks I've seen, I would have him in my 3rd XV. I think his all-round game was pretty good for a long, lanky streak of misery!

2014-11-14T04:20:38+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Alan Jones is Queensland born & raised.....

2014-11-14T04:18:09+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


It's your presumption that is the problem.

2014-11-14T04:17:45+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Longevity is merely one of many qualities. Ella didn't enjoy the same advantages that Lynagh enjoyed often playing behind a dominant scrum. Ella did his very best in often much more difficult circumstances, often of crumbs of decent possession. Also, don't confuse quantity (no. of tests) with quality (what you actually do). As a smart boss of mine once observed, "Lots of activity doesn't necessarily equate to productivity.' But it's a largely pointless argument. The difference between Ella-Larkham-lLynagh-McLean is essentially one of playing style.

2014-11-14T04:14:29+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


FOS, For the life of me I don't understand why you picked Ofahengue, Farr-Jones or Campese!!! ;-)

2014-11-13T19:25:13+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


There were a LOT more knock ons, scrums, and less ball-in-play

2014-11-13T17:08:23+00:00

Utah

Guest


Connolly???

2014-11-13T13:00:23+00:00

nerval

Guest


That quote by Jack Gibson on Ray Price is, well, priceless...

2014-11-13T12:28:14+00:00

shaw

Guest


Didn't he play abs once and scored a try .can't compare eras though ella I'd take over Cooper

2014-11-13T12:13:15+00:00

shaw

Guest


Ella was a magician you clowns .who remembers the kick that hit the post v all blacks and he scored off it was like he knew it would hit the posts .think it was scg or that dump yard ground out west

2014-11-13T11:44:29+00:00

Brumby Jack

Guest


I agree it is far too easy to romatise about the good old days, they were good footballers in their time lets leave them there and enjoy the players of today..who are bigger, faster, stronger and more skillful. The defence today is so much stronger ..remember in the good old days League was way infront of Union in terms of professionalism and defence but not so today... Great article and about time that somebody challenged the myths legends of the past.. i played in the past era and understand the weaknesses compared to what i see running around today.

2014-11-13T09:50:23+00:00

Mick Gold Coast QLD

Roar Guru


I cannot disagree with any of that Sheek - every one of them fine footballers - and this certainly gives the lie to the flimsy premise and conclusion of the original piece here. Not one of the current or recent QANTAS Harmless Wallabies can stand in this company. Hipwell was all that you say he was - he could pass a good ball alright - and he was a fine man with it; Topo was as important as you contend; there's not a struck match between Poidevin and Price, who epitomised exceptionalism; Little was a beautifully balanced runner in the best Wallaby mid field pairing I've seen (then there were a couple of Herberts to fill in for family weddings and feeling poorly!); and when one compares the hardness and skill in those forwards one can see the yawning chasm that separates them from those that followed. In my crew there are two camps - that saying Campo should never tour again and the other (with whom I worship) maintaining he should be first man selected. That argument has continued for 30 odd years - raised voices, table thumping, forcefully, passionately. There is a sub group which argues, not quite so passionately, about Cutler. He jumped higher than anyone, won the ball, then loped along behind the other blokes until the next line out. This sub group is still searching for anyone who ever saw Steve Cutler do anything other than what I described.

2014-11-13T09:43:05+00:00

ian

Guest


What Ella period?

2014-11-13T09:09:23+00:00

Mick Gold Coast QLD

Roar Guru


Wait 'til you see who he recommends as coach!

2014-11-13T05:01:16+00:00

AJ

Guest


Anyone who reads Mark Ella's column in the Australian will be in no doubt as to how good he was. He reminds us weekly.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar