Are the Aussie sides on the same page? Do we have Cheika to thank?

We’ve all probably lost count of the number of times we’ve heard the Wallabies coach talking about ‘working with the provinces’ for a more collaborative relationship between the five Super Rugby sides and the Australian team.

Generally speaking, whenever we’ve heard those words, any possible signs of even vague unification have been short-lived. Though the New Zealand franchises can operate quite happily in conjunction with, but also with their own interpretation of the national curriculum, in Australia we remain hopeful that such coordination might finally come to be.

But with the Waratahs winning the Super Rugby title last year with a game plan apparently very close to this supposed ‘Australian way’ of playing the game – and with their coach now the coach of the national side – are the five teams starting to play with similar intent?

It was a thought that came to me midway through the Rebels-Brumbies game on Saturday night. Though the conditions in the second half were particularly challenging for the expansive game, both sides played smart rugby when they had to, before looking to attack wherever possible in the opposition half.

We know Michael Cheika has been talking to the four other state coaches. Indeed, he’s appointed one as his Wallabies attack coach, and has another in the frame to take the set piece reins.

We do also know that Cheika has said he won’t tell the state coaches how to run their sides, and that he doesn’t want the other sides to just adopt the Waratahs attacking mantra because it just happened to be successful. And this is fair enough, too.

If the Wallabies are already guilty of playing too one-dimensionally, the last thing you’d want is for every player to be literally playing the same way at Super Rugby level.

However, I do wonder if the Cheika influence is starting to come through in the other four teams.

Watching the Reds against the Highlanders first up, it was hardly surprising that a Queensland team with James O’Connor at flyhalf would look to attack given half a chance. And when he made the best part of 60 metres from a jinking run right up through the middle of Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin, there was much cause for optimism from Reds supporters.

And though that would prove to be the high point of O’Connor’s return to Australian rugby, he continued to play in this attacking frame of mind, despite the Reds invariably losing the physical battle and not really providing the right platform to from which to attack.

Spiro mentioned Lachie Turner’s move to fullback in his Fairfax column last Saturday, and he was another player looking to run whenever the opportunity was there. Turner and Reds’ wingers Chris Feauai-Sautia and Chris Kuridrani all made more than seven metres per run, with Feauai-Sautia’s efforts nearly double that.

Despite having well less than half the possession, the Reds ran nearly as many times as the Highlanders and actually made more ground. Aside from handling errors and turnovers, the Reds main issue in attack was a lack of shape, but they’re hardly alone there. Even without the shape, though, the intent is heartening.

The Force were terrible against the Reds in Round 2, and though there’s a reasonable argument to say they weren’t much better against the Hurricanes on Friday night, I liked the difference Zack Holmes starting at flyhalf made to their attack.

I’ve long thought that the Force could play a much more natural attacking game with Holmes, rather than Sias Ebersohn, and I think that came to pass on Friday night. Of course, without any semblance of forwards platform, attacking is going to be a difficult prospect for any no. 10, and this was a continuance from what the Force failed to serve up against the Reds.

This all said, I continue to be bewildered with the Force playing Solomoni Rasolea at inside centre with Kyle Godwin at outside. I don’t proclaim to know everything about rugby, but in my mind if one of your centres is a 102kg straight runner and your other one is a 93kg playmaker, you play the creator at 12 and the hole-smasher at 13. Maybe that’s just me.

Right now, it’s like the Force are trying to play a more expansive game than they did last year, but are throttling that very desire with their selections.

The Brumbies attacking intent is clear this season. If the opportunity is there to exploit midfield defences, they’ll take them with clinical regularity. If opposition defence is up to the task, then they’re more than happy to play it tight and attack via set piece. The Laurie Fisher legacy remains strong.

And while ever attacking mauls are allowed to dominate as they currently are, the Brumbies backrowers will score a lot of tries. In Scott Fardy, Jarrod Butler, David Pocock, and now Ita Vaea, the Brumbies also have one of the more impressive over-the-ball teams in the competition, and it’s giving the likes of Matt Toomua, Christian Leali’ifano, and Tevita Kuridrani the room they want to play with.

It’s no wonder Cheika wanted Stephen Larkham on board from day dot.

The Rebels have started the season a lot better than their one-from-two record suggests, and they’re growing in confidence with their attack with every outing. Young Jack Debreczini is starting to find his feet at this next level after a really strong NRC last year, and Melbourne as an attacking unit are growing with him.

If there’s a criticism of the Rebels, it’s only that their ambition is perhaps a step ahead of their current skill level. They created so many opportunities against the Brumbies on Saturday night, but saw the play break down time and time again.

But Mitch Inman is becoming a handful running off Debreczini, and I quite like the way the Mike Harris is injecting himself into the line at times to create more options out wide for Tamati Ellison and the back three.

So where’s all this attack coming from?

Well, though it might be nice to think – or even hope – that the Australian teams have become more coordinated on Cheika’s watch, I think it might be drawing a bit of a long bow. It may well have been a coincidental by-product of off-season conversations and collaborations between the five coaches, but I’ll be surprised if there’s been any directive.

That said, we couldn’t discount the influence of players returning from the Spring Tour, either. Though the Wallabies didn’t have a massive amount of success with the new Cheika blueprint, it is quite possible that the players have bought right into it.

Whatever the reason and despite the varying degrees of attacking form – and taking nothing away from the obvious requirement to build a solid platform up front – it is nevertheless good to see the ball being thrown around again.