I had the opportunity to watch Stephen Larkham give rugby tragics one more for the road on the weekend, as he steered a Salty Blue Leopards XV to victory over the previously undefeated Silver Foxes, in a charity match for the Black Dog Institute.
As Larkham cruised about at flyhalf with an enigmatic half-smile on his face, it was impossible not to think of Euclid, the father of modern geometry.
The angles, the lines, the parabola of the passes – whenever Larkham had the ball, the field seemed to morph into the ’80s sci-fi movie Tron, with a neon grid and several back holes through which he would slide to another dimension.
As a defender, the difficulty with Larkham is the line he takes at the defence. It is so exactly halfway between passing and running that it is impossible to pick which he is going to do. At all times both of those options are clearly in play, because the angle is so precisely correct.
One degree shallower and you know he is passing. One degree straighter and you know he is hitting the line. But at that exact midpoint, it is impossible to make a decision, so you don’t, and it all happens around you while you’re thinking about it.
Oh shit – he’s gone.
If the angle is the foundation of the Larkham deception, then one of the main pillars must be astonishing peripheral vision. As he hits the defensive line on that impossible-to-pick angle, at a pace somewhere between an amble and a canter, his gaze is always on the defence, but also on his passing options. He’s like a chameleon, with two eyes looking different ways.
In the defensive line, one can feel the pressure coming on. He can see the gap. He’s looking at it! He’s getting closer. Always that inexorable pressure as the time and space shuts down… And then bang, the break comes, or the pass is sent on its way, and dammit, we’re chasing.
This is the Larkham method – always the ball in two hands, always pressuring the defence, and always the gaze looking for holes and gaps. And of course, this is all backed up by a flat 90-degree pass which starts tucked in close to the hip and uses strength in the wrists and a sharp half-turn of the core, to propel the ball in a startlingly flat parabola to the chest of the recipient, often an unfeasibly long way away.
There is a final nail in the coffin: once the defence figures out that there is nothing for it but to charge up flat out and shut down everything they can lay their shoulders and hands on, here comes the kick, delicately arcing over the tacklers’ heads to nestle in the arms of an unmarked wing, who dots down gently as the autumn leaves blow across the in-goal.
It is easy to see how even the All Blacks lost their mojo chasing the Larkham sirocco about the place. Tears of frustration would be understandable.
Steve Larkham is clearly a genius. But no-one needed to journey out to the hills behind Canberra last weekend to find that out.
What will be most interesting is if he can translate this devastating and intuitive geometry into a plan that his young Wallabies can execute.
The opinions of his former peers who were playing in the match – Wallaby internationals from the ’90s and 2000s and good judges all – were emphatic.
Several felt that the man they call ‘Bernie’ was still easily capable of playing Super Rugby and said so in as many words. Of course, that is never ever going to happen, but the fact that he so clearly has the knack, and apparently regularly runs at training with the Brumbies, must give the players an enormous belief in his thinking and technique, especially when he can not only talk about it but demonstrate it flawlessly in real time.
Which led to the other topic of conversation on the night – Larkham’s impact on the Wallabies. Several former Test players again were enthusiastic about the prospect, with one in particular making the point that it showed a lot of character from Michael Cheika to pick someone who has the potential to overshadow him, and what a contrast this was to former coaches who appeared to regularly pick non-threatening assistants.
Whatever one might think of Cheika himself, the idea of a super-physical Cheika-styled forward pack hammering away at opposing packs, before releasing the ball to Larkham-styled playmakers pressuring opposing backlines, is tantalising. And with the core of the Brumbies’ backline also in the Wallabies – Matt Toomua, Christian Lealiifano, Tevita Kuridrani – the transition should be seamless.
I mentioned Euclid earlier. In 250BC, daunted by the complexity of his geometry homework, a young Ptolemy I is said to have asked Euclid if there was a shorter way to learn the subject. The master replied “For travelling over the country, there are royal roads and roads for common citizens, but in geometry there is only one road for all.”
Fortunately for the Wallabies, in Steve Larkham they may have found their royal road to attacking World Cup rugby.
Connor33
Guest
It was d. Some crazy Pom thought the game would never have made a difference if Larkham had been on the field. I then asked the question: had Wilkinson been off for 28 mins, would have England won? I don't think so. England never beat the Abs the week before and never had in a World Cup.
Mike
Guest
That's the key issue, isn't it? And there is no covering up - if he doesn't really have the stamina and grit to succeed at that level, then Boks, England, ABs etc WILL find him out. At the very least he has to keep improving through the rest of SR.
Dave
Guest
Peter K You are correct, sorry let me clarify. If Larkham did not play = no chance. If Larkham played and Mortlock did not = in the hunt but really lacking go forward. Larkham + Mortlock = long cut-out ball, Mortlock over the advantage line, quick ball and the rest of the backs now in play. Before WC 2003 everyone was pessimistic. I was not. Mortlock had been injured for the Test season. Eddie Jones masterfully held him back until the 1/4 final and then unleashed him. His efforts in the 1/4 final and semi got us to the final. He couldn't do much on his own, but in tandem with Larkham they were a deadly combination
MACDUB
Guest
I still think Skelton is overrated. He will get found out pretty quickly at international level. I also dont believe he is as strong and as big as any other lock going around. I've seen him fall like a deck of cards a helluva lot.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I love Larkham. The only worry I have with him and Cheika is this... Larkham publicly came out last year and said Toomua should be Wallaby 10. He clearly prefers Toomua at 10 over CLL, who plays a more traditional 10 role really, while Toomua plays a traditional 12 role, just with different numbers... So... am I reading into it too much, or how do you get Larkham to be happy with whoever is selected (Foley/Cooper)? Because I don't think Cheika sees Toomua as a 10, but I could be wrong...
Dave
Guest
Its not a criticism, there are time constraints. We have a handful of Test Matches before the WC. There is precious little time to get our playing patterns right. If the WC was next year I would feel much more confident. We had creative Genia and Cooper with a small battering ram at no.12, a defensive rock at 13, and a coach who let the opposition dictate. I said before and during the 2011 WC loudly that we cant win with Deans and his no risk selections - and as brave as the Brisbane victory prior was - it sealed our fate due to the selections and tactics in the mind of Deans (ie, hope for a some individual brilliance, defend relentlessly, and hope the occasion gets the better of NZ). Again, you confirmed my opinion. If you watched the Brumbies or Wallabies sides in the Golden Era, EVERYTHING revolved around Larkham. The running lines, the tactics. It was designed to cater to his abilities. When he was injured, we were rudderless. Quade plays that role at the Reds week in week out, and although many in the Wallabies have played with him too, it does take time and adjustments to get everyone in sync. When that happens, see EOYT 2013. Its not an easy situation for Cheika or Larkham, let alone the players. This is the reality however and I just hope we go into the WC trying to win rather than not lose
Iwillnotstandby
Guest
I'm not sure JOC has shown anything exciting here in Australia? Anyhow, flogging our view on the backline, regardless of Larkham sugar on top is almost pointless when it's on top of shit pie, which is where our tight five seem to be so far. Maybe Cheika can be more involved there if he has the confidence in Larkham to sort the backline. For what it is worth, Toomua and Foley are works in progress. Both have shown major changes in their respective games in the last two seasons (Toomuas main role under White seemed to be to kick the ball away). I hope Bernie can continue making progress with both of them. I don't think Pocock should be a shoo in at this point either. More game time first.
Mike
Guest
Agree.
Mike
Guest
Too early to judge. Larkham's finished his career, Foley has barely started. Even an "old man" like Quade still has many years to go.
Joey Johns
Roar Guru
he has also played one extra game mate but facts never tell the full story.
Rob na Champassak
Roar Guru
Well, he went off several times, didn't he? And the match went to extra time, so either C or D, I reckon.
riddler
Guest
well put
riddler
Guest
not so sure about the coaching influence so much coombesy... who was the oz backs coach while larkham was so dominant? probably 90% of people don't know and even less know where he is today.. without looking it up ;) mcqueen, as he admits himself, was like a general manager.. he was confident enough in his own abilities and thoughts to let the specialists do their thing.. didn't need to be something jones never quite understood.. hoping that larkham, if he selects him, can help bring out quade's supposed potential.. personally for me it just seems like history will look back on quade as a one season wonder type.. like in most sports the pros have analysed and figured them out by the second season.. or maybe even a flat track bully type like hick.. great at county level but never quite there at international.. me personally am less interested in our options at 10, we have more than enough to get by, than our horribly disturbing lack of pigs.. that is where we really have been navel gazing for the last 12 years.. and that frustrates the heck out of me..
riddler
Guest
spot on andrew.. very nicely put..
Nick Turnbull
Roar Guru
Hi Andrew, Well said. However on the running game of Michael Lynagh, to me it is akin to the speed of Tim Horan. It has been said that Horan was as quick as he needed to be; I tend to think Lynagh did not need to run as much as say Ella or Larkham but when he needed to run he could. I have a recollection of a test in Paris, I think in 93 where he ran them all over the place. I would not describe Lynagh as an adequate runner of the pill - perhaps accomplished instead. I have arrived at my conclusions after any number of dinner parties when you get to than end of the night where the boys have gravitated to one end, the ladies the others. The Ella, Larkham, Lynagh debate has often been discussed, debated and argued to the wee hours many times. :) After reading your thoughts I may have to reconvene a few of the boys and get a lamb roast under way so we can do it all again. Do you mind if I table your thoughts for discussion? I guess its all pretty subjective at the end of the day - but its a great topic in my book. Another that gets a run is the best Australian broadcaster; Bray, Fordham or Clarke. But that's for another time. Cheers for the read.
ethan
Guest
Agree Gill is down in the pecking order ATM. I don't see him in competition with Arnold however. One is a 7, the other a lock. The three locks I'd have in my squad for sure are Simmons, Skelton and Timani. The rest are wait and see. Arnold and Jones the frontrowers for mine currently. Horwill and Carter have been poor this year.
MJB
Guest
Hehe, I love this. Euclidian geometry really is the first thing that comes to mind when you watch old replays of Larkham playing. He just manages to find the exact angle to hit the line at so that he can glide past them. It's really amazing to watch.
Mike
Guest
Agreed.
Jerry
Guest
I don't think Stephen Bachop would ever have played a test vs Stephen Larkham. I'm not even sure if Graeme did. Wait, they might have played against him but not for NZ. Stephen Bachop only played a few tests in 1994 and Graeme played a bunch of tests but none after 95, so both of them would have been pre Larkham. They might have played against Aus for Samoa or Japan respectively.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Michael - In super rugby slipper 24 runs 0 counter rucks 66 tackles Sio 20 runs 1 counter ruck 78 tackles. Sio has a higher work rate