Wallabies found composure when panic threatened

By Brett McKay / Expert

The Wallabies got the job done. When presented with the penalty and the bold decision of a draw or going all in for the win, they kicked for the corner and backed themselves.

The short summary of events is that they won the lineout, played 10 phases out to the far touchline and back, before Tevita Kuridrani barged over. Never in doubt, we’ll choose to remember in time (or maybe that’s just me).

The facts of the matter are bit more involved than that, and worthy of closer inspection.

The Wallabies kicked to the corner, but it was the left-footed Matt Giteau kicking to the left-hand touchline. It’s a small thing, but I wonder how much thought was given to the right-footed Matt Toomua taking the kick. It might’ve been the difference between the lineout being five or six metres out, instead of the ten metres out that it was.

Before Stephen Moore threw into the lineout, the siren went. This meant that the game would cease at the next break in play. The Wallabies simply had to be accurate in everything they did from here on. The clock read 80:14 as Moore took the throw. No margin for error.

Rob Simmons took the throw at four in the lineout. The first attempt to get the maul moving was stifled, and when Nigel Owens told David Pocock at the back, “that’s once,” there were already three Springboks on the ground. They weren’t going anywhere.

The Wallabies did manage to peel off though, and while I suspect they may have detached in there somewhere, Pocock made about three metres before Owens gave Nick Phipps the final “use it” call.

The next six phases saw the Wallabies get all the way to the far five-metre ‘tram line’, but they still hadn’t breached the South African five-metre line. But what they did get right was passing to forward pods, or in a couple of cases, backs with other players in support.

If a Wallaby went to ground, there was support not far behind. The Springboks weren’t competing, and couldn’t really compete at the breakdown for fear of conceding another penalty, or worse, a penalty try, if enough forward momentum was being made.

A full minute had been played to this point, and the Wallabies were no closer to the try-line. But still no panic.

Two more pick and drives to the left; three-man pods – ball carrier and two supports. Phipps got to the back of both rucks quickly and knew where his next pass was going each time.

Toomua took a wide pass on the ninth phase, to the left of the posts, but saw Giteau and Pocock back on his inside and so headed back toward the posts. Safety in numbers. 81:28 on the clock, and still no panic. The ruck was four metres from the try line, so they’ve made maybe five metres since the maul ended.

Kuridrani took the pass on the 10th phase. He’s flatter than two other runners behind him, and the pass from Phipps was crisp. Kuridrani accelerated into the contact, and broke the Damian de Allende tackle. Francois Louw coming from the inside brought him down near the line. Whether it was Louw in the tackle, or Kuridrani’s own strength and determination – and maybe luck – the big centre rolled over onto the line as Schalk Burger arrived.

81:41 on the clock. “Try or no try?” Nigel Owens asked. The rest is history…

Be it self-belief, or team unity, or fear of a spray from the coach; whatever you want to put it down to, the Wallabies backed themselves for the play, and got it done. And it was brilliant.

But contrast it to what happened only minutes before that.

The Wallabies won a penalty in the 78th minute, with Giteau stepping up to take the kick from the South African 10-metre line. He’s kicked a lot in France since he’s been gone, so surely 40 metres was well within his range, right?

Wrong. He didn’t get it all, and it fell below the cross bar. 78:07 on the clock when Patrick Lambie forced the ball in-goal.

Surprisingly, Lambie didn’t kick the cover off the 22-metre restart, and Israel Folau caught the ball just inside the Springbok half. The kick didn’t even go 30 metres. The Wallabies went two passes to the right off the ruck, with Toomua going to ground on or near the 10-metre line.

The Wallabies took another couple of phases into the South African forty, but it was one-out runners at width. Support arrived, but it was slow, and more by force of habit than good management. It was hard to see where they’d break the line.

Two more phases left, and Phipps tried to organise teammates, but it was a hotch-potch; it was too slow, and the Boks pinched another one. 79:21 on the clock, and surely they couldn’t lose from here. The Wallabies had shot themselves in the foot.

South Africa organised themselves. Cobus Reinach pointed and shouted, and the pod set itself behind Lood de Jager, who had a massive game replacing Victor Matfield. De Jager took a metre or two and went to ground, but replacement prop Heinke van der Merwe flopped straight over the top of him. Penalty.

“You made no attempt to stay on your feet,” Owens explained, with more than a hint of school teacher chastening the class clown in his voice. 79:41 on the clock.

Moore points to the corner. The left-footed Giteau steps up. And the rest is history…

It worked out so well for the Wallabies, but it very nearly didn’t. Under very similar pressure, in a very similar position, they couldn’t make the gains needed, and in fact turned the ball over from a passive attacking ruck.

Thankfully, they found some composure when all the chips were on the table.

The Crowd Says:

2015-07-22T01:01:29+00:00

Zero Gain

Guest


Same post, different day...

2015-07-22T00:58:55+00:00

Zero Gain

Guest


One metre! He got his hands to it with bent elbows, so his arms must be about 2 metres long, eh?

2015-07-21T23:36:29+00:00

Bakkies

Guest


Kiwi coaches uses it to create mismatches. Rob Penney is big on it.

2015-07-21T23:34:40+00:00

Bakkies

Guest


Not with the TMO ruling beyond the goal line these days

2015-07-21T16:01:44+00:00

Bakkies

Guest


I think Burger might captain this week so he can be in the team. He could play wing as well

2015-07-21T15:34:48+00:00

Connor33

Guest


So true.

2015-07-21T14:48:37+00:00

IronAwe

Roar Rookie


Didn't the Boks also play their forwards on the wing? Pretty sure etsebeth was on the wnig when he scored or at a time he nearly scored? Anyway, just saying this isn't purely an Aussie thing.

2015-07-21T14:41:42+00:00

AndyS

Guest


If you are talking about how they are likely to call it rather than how it should be treated under the laws, you may be right. Personally I don't get it, having no problem with not contesting as a tactic...makes as much sense as mandating that the defending team must contest the breakdown or be penalised. But that still doesn't explain the call for accidental offside for mine in that particular instance; surely if they were looking to negate the non-contest they would have allowed play to continue when the ball carrier was tackled directly as the law allows, rather than hand the defending team possession when there was no-one actually obstructed? Seems more like rewarding the tactic than discouraging it.

2015-07-21T14:33:32+00:00

Vic

Guest


Nah - you just have to cross the border between SA and Zim, skirt a few lions, and you're home free......doesn't cost a thing

2015-07-21T12:39:34+00:00

kezablonde

Guest


If you're willing to put your money where you keyboard is then Samsung have good giant screen HD model out, and OPSM are doing a two for one deal at the moment. You might also want to become a dual citizen of SA and NZ - that could put you out of pocket as well.

2015-07-21T10:52:16+00:00

Glenn

Guest


I have the photo but dont know how to show it here. Oh well

2015-07-21T10:33:45+00:00

moaman

Guest


Thanks everyone-I am more than satisfied now. ;-)

2015-07-21T10:19:53+00:00

soapit

Guest


he's on record as considering both calls as going for the win. earlier one he thought theyd have enough time for another score.

2015-07-21T09:45:56+00:00

chucked

Guest


if Moore is such a brave dashing captain for not kicking for goal with 30 seconds to go..is he a gutless wonder for going for goal. 2 mins earlier? he wasn't brave..he recalled the Gits of years ago who gifted the all blacks several wins from misses right.in front of the posts

2015-07-21T08:31:35+00:00

PeterK

Roar Guru


Andy if they make contact the ref will call it a maul, the defenders have to have their arms in the air and keep steeping backwards. The ref should allow the tackler to attempt to tackle the ball carrier at the back, but they don't they call a scrum. They are doing everything they can to negate this tactic of not contesting.

2015-07-21T08:23:26+00:00

AndyS

Guest


But it is only obstruction if it actually gets in someone's way, otherwise pretty much every single wrap-around move would be whistled even if 10m from the defensive line. I would have called obstruction if the pack had actually prevented someone from trying to tackle the ball carrier, but no-one made any such attempt. Instead they went behind them and directly at the ball carrier, which puts the pack out of play and off-side at the tackle but only if they take part in play.

2015-07-21T08:08:48+00:00

PeterK

Roar Guru


A gave my mea culper on Sunday. On Phipps, Toomua and Horwill, I stated Cooper Toomua should next be used as the 10 12. Toomua played back to his test form. I still do not like having a second playmaker at 12. Kerevi should be given a chance.

2015-07-21T08:05:02+00:00

PeterK

Roar Guru


since there was no maul, the ball was at the back and they moved forward it was obstruction.

2015-07-21T07:50:26+00:00

AndyS

Guest


I have to admit, I was a little surprised at the call as there was no actual obstruction. Had the ball been moved to the back followed by someone contacting at the front of the "maul", I could see some form of obstruction called. But a tackler went directly for the ball carrier, which I would have said was also fine and play on. It was a different way of negating the maul, but not one that necessarily required a stoppage in play.

2015-07-21T07:43:46+00:00

AndyS

Guest


Indeed TM. I have to say I found it interesting that Cheika would apparently have been satisfied with a draw. One can only wonder how he would have reacted if it had gone wrong...he's never really struck me as the forgive and forget sort, although that may be a front.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar