Losing to the same team twice in four matches in a tournament – including the final – should be enough to put the coach of Australia at grave risk of losing his job.
Regardless of the fact he coached them to World Cup victory last year and also putting aside the fact there were a lot of star players unavailable this time around.
It doesn’t look like Tim Sheens is at much risk of getting the boot in the wake of the Aussies losing the Four Nations final to New Zealand, but the subject should at least be up for serious discussion.
It is a very small field in major international rugby league and it has been a tradition for a long time now that Australia wins the vast majority of its matches.
Granted, the Kiwis have bobbed up to beat Australia in some big games over the years, but to go down twice to them in the one tournament shouldn’t be easily excused under any circumstances.
Particularly when in another game of the series Australia was barely able to beat England, which it has had comfortably covered for what seems like an eternity.
Yes, the Aussies were missing a lot of big names, but you’ve got to look beyond that to the way the team played in the final.
Australia really only opened up in the last 10 minutes, when they were desperate due to the combination of the game having gotten away from them and the clock having become their enemy.
Incredibly, they nearly rescued it during that time, instead of losing 22-18, which makes you ask what might have happened had they been a bit less conservative earlier on.
New Zealand were the team which played the more enterprising football and they were ultimately rewarded for that. Ben Hunt helped orchestrate the late comeback by the Aussies. Why wasn’t he sent on much earlier from the bench, with Australia needing a spark?
The size and power of the Kiwi forward pack was a concern for Australia in the final, as it was in their earlier clash. The Aussies were unable to call on several star props for the tournament and gambled on going in without many genuine front-rowers.
Some people will say they simply couldn’t match the Kiwis up front and had to be more conservative in a bid to try to find a way to win. But why didn’t they include a genuine, tough prop like Josh McGuire, who ended up playing for Samoa?
Selections, the style of play and the use of the bench are obviously all areas in which the coach has the biggest say.
Looking for something to compare to Australia’s situation in this tournament, I go back to the 1995 World Cup in England, when the Aussies didn’t call on Super League-aligned players but England and New Zealand were at full strength.
Australia lost the opening match of the tournament to England and would have lost their semi-final to New Zealand but for Matthew Ridge missing a conversion attempt right at the end of normal time, sending the game into extra time.
After surviving that scare, the Aussies beat the Poms in the final.
Australia went into that series with a bunch of tough props including Mark Carroll, Dean Pay and Paul Harragon, although Harragon’s tournament ended early through injury.
On Saturday night, Australia could have done with a number of those players who were unavailable, but they missed Johnathan Thurston at least as much as anyone and more than most.
Daly Cherry-Evans and Cooper Cronk in the halves doesn’t appear to be a smooth combination. Shaun Johnson obviously carved it up for the Kiwis, and he and Kieran Foran have a great understanding in the halves.
I’ve looked at that no-try right at the end of the game by Australia numerous times on replay and the pass does go forward, but it wasn’t by much.
I’ve seen play allowed to continue and plenty of tries awarded when it’s that close, but this time they pulled it up.
That’s just the way it goes. Australia waited too long to make a bid to become more threatening and based on what we saw when Hunt did come on, an earlier sighting of him would have helped their cause.
Sheens may well go on to have major success again with Australia, but that possibility doesn’t mean someone else shouldn’t be considered for the job now.
Bluebag
Guest
Without buying in too much to some of the "were Aus robbed?" brouhaha, I think Greg nails it when he points to the fact that Australia only started playing footy in the last 10 minutes. The Kiwis seemed to have greater energy in attack and desire to offload and support the ball carrier. In short they out Australia-ed the Kangaroos. Our blokes would be standing in the tackle but for 70 minutes the guys around them were just setting up for the next play rather than exploding onto the ball. Samoa did it very well throughout their first two games, which meant they weren't just playing five drives and kick and shocked their opponents.
2ztala
Guest
Mate, did you notice whoever it was in charge of the time clock added 3 minuets plus on to the 2nd half. Someone shifted the clock back from 74.45 minuets to 72.15 minuets and that's after the clock disappeared from the TV coverage for 30 seconds. So the game went for 83 minuets. It came at a time that Rabbits declared there was 9 minuets to go but on the clock was showing 6 minuets to go. Check it out.
kiwijack
Guest
The problem is that most of those "missing " Oz players are just about past their use by date, the next year or so will see a lot of the Roo's jumping ship due to retirement. Are the replacements up to it, DCE is certaintly not, overated big time. Hunt is a far better option. The backline for the Roo's was ok and will get better. But I find the Kiwi's a better prospect for the next few years they have a fairly young team and some very exiting players coming through and they have what the Roo's do not Johnson & Foran. The kiwi's also have access to the Samoa team for the next 4N's.
kiwijack
Guest
Your right AFL is a sport that australia will never lose at because your the only one's that play it. I always throught that AFL was played by frustrated soccer players.
cedric
Guest
yes Hiku, I was a bit shocked by some of Kearneys selections and Hiku was one of them, I thought the kiwis' fullback would have been either Hoffman or Perrett. And Perrett had an outstanding year with the 3rd best return figures for the year, maybe the two players who beat him were Billy and Inglis, it's not a bad figure to bandy about! Anyway won't go into other weird selections like Watene-Z... and Beale over Manu??????
Realist 1975
Guest
Sorry iPad dropped off. Essentially Australia has had a set spine combo in place particularly from 2006 as opposed to nz. Nzh spine has been made up of individuals playing for the warriors, manly, west tigers, parramatta, North Queensland and souths. Australia's spine predominately comes from storm and broncos and thus Queensland. Reason why qld lost this latest series was because their spine was affected and Jarrod Haynes blockbuster performance in the first soo. In the most recent Anzac tests the gams have become a lot closer between the nations.
Simoc
Guest
You've looked at the forward pass numerous times? There goes a loser. He passed it from well behind a line and the pass is taken well in front of the line. To anyone with a brain, one viewing shows it all. I 'm guessing you were a prop forward Greg.
Realist 1975
Guest
Have a quick glance at the spine of each team. How many times have they played together whether it be for the storm or Queensland. Slater, cro
The eye
Guest
Sorry Tigerd. misunderstanding here,I referred to the Aust,WC team as the superstars not this 4 N team..my point was the Aussies in this tournament had the best players but NZ had the best team and that's where Sheens didn't do his job... 5 weeks ago how many of the kiwi side would have made the Aussie team?
tigerdave
Guest
Agree with you. Inglis had an ordinary 4 nations for him, and I don't think he deserved the fullback spot. He will be back in the centres as soon as Slater is available. DCE, my goodness who are the selectors. There may be some contentious selections, and Inglis is one, but Foran and Smith are no brainers.
cedric
Guest
sorry shortfineleg, but if you read my 2nd paragraph that's what I said! Also whoever was responsible for the lack of props should fall on his sword. You can't just read the 1st bit of a piece and then call someone a clown ( hope it was a funny clown and not a dumb or maybe a scary one ).
cedric
Guest
yes tigerdave, Matalino is up there and McKendry was going well this year, but your right the Roos' backs missing are of very good quality. I did forget Hurrell was injured. But I gotta talk up the Kiwis'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Plus read the NRL site today they picked the team of the 4N. Inglis Nightingale Jennings Whare Hall Cherry-Evans Johnson Bromich Clark Graham Mannering Bird McGuire Foran Taupau Parker Taumololo Really, I thought Manu Vatevi was the most hard working and one on one nearly unstoppable. And Cherry-Evans over Foran, I don't think so. To not have Cam Smith in there just makes it all a big joke!
tigerdave
Guest
The eye, Superstars, we never heard of the Newcastle winger uuntil late in the season. We have maybe 3 superstarrs, Smith Cronk and Inglis. Cronk had no help, Smith had noone in the forwards to help him either and Inglis had a quiet series by his own standards. World cup time last year, a good portion of the team weren't even playing NRL. It would be a big call to say any other player in the Australian side was calles a superstar. Maybe they need to get rid of a few players that think they are superstars like DCE.
The Barry
Roar Guru
The Anzac test is played before origin. I still haven't heard a decent explanation why the kiwis get beaten so regularly and occasionally thumped in the Anzac test. They get as many NRL games as lead in, have played together as a side as recently. Their preparations are identical to Australia. In 2015 they'll go in to that game in better form and with a more settled line-up. Why do they go so badly in the Anzac test relative to their end if season performance?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Great summary Casper.
Russell Johnson
Guest
"Kiwis take the Sheen off the Kangaroos’ past dominance" Oh on they haven't they were just the better side! Regardless of a completely fantastic record Tim Sheen's job should be on the line is a contradiction. With stories like this one have you thought of becoming a yawnion writer ( propagandist) in London admittedly they seem to have an endless supply of people who don't bother with research or relevant facts ..... Come to think of it, although I disagree with you, it is well argued so you'd have to work on that aspect of your game if you want play with the Vichies' toys!
Muzz
Guest
Also Scott, How can you compare ratings between NRL (1st grade) and NSW cup? 2 very different standards!
Muzz
Guest
I agree Scott. Hiku was lost in D when he played in the centres but he is a capable fullback and a safer option to Gutherson.I haven't seen enough of Trbojevic to comment.
Muzz
Guest
Napalm would've ripped it up.We needed more young bulls like Klemmer in the engine room. Sheens is 27 odd wins from 30 so he should be sweet.However, he should of assessed player burnout prior to selecting the team. My guess is he won't go with with 4 wingers and only 2 props again. I watched the full replay of the Anzac Test again and the contrast is stark.Slater on fire brah! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k38bBTALAFc
nerval
Guest
DWZ was not dropped, he broke his foot in training! Whare is marvellous and under-rated, but Hurrell is a far greater attacking threat than SKD. RTS was down this year, but in terms of sheer talent is miles ahead of some of the Kangaroos that both did and didn't feature.