Michael Cheika’s Wallabies are on well on track to win a record third Rugby World Cup. But on the way there’s a hidden bonus.
Having beaten England 33-13 and Wales 15-6 in the pool games, the Wallabies face Scotland in the quarter-finals. If Australia wins, they will face either Ireland or Argentina in the semi-finals.
Ireland should defeat Argentina in their quarter-final, meaning if the Wallabies defeat the men in green in the semi-final, that’s a win over all four home unions in the one tournament.
That being the case it will be mighty hard for rugby historians to deny these Wallabies Grand Slam status.
Alan Jones’ 1984 Wallabies are the only grand slammers with victories over all four home nations.
They beat England 19-3, scoring three tries to nil, Ireland 16-9, scoring a try to nil, Wales 28-9, scoring four tries to one, and finally Scotland 37-12, scoring four tries to nil.
That was for a total of 12 tries to one.
The team:
1. Topo Rodriguez
2. Tommy Lawton Jr
3. Andy McIntyre
4. Steve Williams
5. Steve Cutler
6. Simon Poidevin
7. Steve Tuynman
8. David Codey
9. Nick Farr-Jones
10. Mark Ella
11. Peter Grigg
12. Michael Lynagh
13. Andy Slack (c)
14. David Campese
15. Roger Gould
Matthew Burke played on the wing, and Roar expert Chris Roche as flanker against Ireland, while Brendan Moon was on the wing against England.
The tour highlight was Mark Ella creating an all-time record by scoring a try in each of the four grand slam victories.
The first grand slam tour in 1947-48 was captained by the baby of the team – 19-year-old outside centre Trevor Allan – after tour captain Bill McLean broke his leg in an early game.
They very nearly grand slammed, too.
They beat Scotland 16-7, scoring four tries to nil, and defeated Ireland 16-3, again scoring four tries to nil. They then lost to Wales 6-0 in a penalty shootout, and beat England 11-0, scoring three tries to nil.
That was for a total of 11 tries to nil for a perfect defensive performance.
The team:
1. Nick Shehadie
2. Ken Kearney
3. Eric Tweedale
4. Joe Kraeft
5. Graeme Cook
6. Doug Keller
7. Arthur Buchan
8. Col Windon
9. Cyril Burke
10. Neville Emery
11. John McBride
12. Alan Walker
13. Trevor Allan (c)
14. Arthur Tonkin
15. Brian Piper
The team was away for eight months, playing 39 games, travelling to the UK and back by ship, and were paid two shillings and six pence (2/6 or 25 cents) a day.
Kearney switched to league in 1948 and captained then coached the mighty St George during their 11 straight rugby league premierships, and captained the Kangaroos during his 31 Tests as a dual international.
Allan switched in 1950 to play four seasons with Leigh in England, to set himself up financially for life.
Walker also toured South Africa in 1949-50 as a left-arm fast bowler, but didn’t play a Test with Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller in control.
Emery finished up being the senior master at Shore Preparatory School under headmaster Jika Travers, who played for England against the Wallabies on that tour.
Emery’s son Phil was head prefect at Shore in 1982, as well as being captain of cricket and rugby.
Neville always wanted to be a Test cricketer, but ended up a Wallabies player – Phil wanted to be a Wallaby and ended up a Test and ODI cricketer.
Shehadie went on to be knighted, the only Wallaby to receive the honour, as was Sir Donald Bradman the only Australian cricketer to be knighted.
But that’s all in the past as the Grand Slam hopes of this Wallabies team makes this World Cup even more interesting, and more rewarding.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
The point that only Aust had the opportunity in 1984 is what enhances the relevance of that teams Grand Slam achievement. Historically it has been significantly difficult to schedule let alone achieve. Teams that set out on tours that include scheduled matches against Eng, Scot, Wales, Ire do so in the knowledge that they have the opportunity to achieve a Grand Slam. That’s why they call them Grand Slam tours. NZ have placed such importance on the achievement of a Grand Slam that – I can’t recall the year exactly – some time in the late 2000s an additional match against one of the Unions was added to the tour so as to make it a Grand Slam tour. I have a feeling this might have occurred more than once. I think it is somewhat arrogant on your part to say NZ would have achieved many more Grand Slams if all four teams had been played on all of those tours since 2002. We can never know if that would have been the case. What we do know however is that those tours were not Grand Slam tours. And it would be equally arrogant if Aust, putting aside the traditional aspects of Grand Slam achievements, are to claim a Grand Slam from within the context of a tournament where at the start of that tournament not all teams have that same opportunity.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Can you not see the facetiousness in my response to your decision Judge? Went whoosh right past you I think. Whose sense of humour went absent?
Connor33
Guest
David, I wonder if it was called a grand slam in 1912? It was the game that created a tradition. Given that the abs have done a 'grand slam' in 1995, we now have two data points to start a tradition. But I'd rather not get to ahead of myself. One week at a time.
Taylorman
Guest
No, obviously. Not all teams had that chance in 1984 either. Does that make that less relevant? nz would have many more in the last decade if they had played all four on the AIs having only lost one AI match since 2002. We just didn't always have all four on many tours. The ones we did have all four, we grand slammed. Just luck of the scheduling I guess.
Taylorman
Guest
Yeah don't bother with that I reckon. His side was out to another poor England side so he's just applying his usual envy to irritate. Oz as faves for that tournament were so poor no one even remembers them there.
Taylorman
Guest
So what's wrong with it? Despite it being an obvious joke that went whoosh for you? Perhaps I should have added 'got to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.00'? Sense of humour gone AWOL perhaps?
Frontrow
Guest
No NZ didn't think it was a Grand Slam because they know damn well it is not and respect the traditions of the game
Frontrow
Guest
Got the stats on that have we Peterk or is that more assumption, supposition and conjecture? Several of the players threw up on the ground,,,the circumstantial evidence is very strong if you actually study it in detail that something went on Either way I think what is not open to debate is that they were suffering from food poisoning on the field..In the game you could see players dry reaching and one player I think it may have been Lomu actually vomited so they were not 100% that was obvious to blind freddie - how it happened is open to debate maybe but not that over half the team were ill. It was so bad that The All Blacks were going to abandon the match due to the risk to players who had not began to recover. Colin Meads talked the team and coaches around and said we can't do that . He says it was a decision he regrets to this day and that they should have forfeited the match. But anyway....that was then and this now
Frontrow
Guest
I thinking barking up the wrong tree and clutching at straws and once you take the Grand Slam out of its traditional context you demean its value.... The tradition stays and as the IRB rightly do not recognize the WC as place where Grand Slams can be given don't start claiming like it is a fact as you seem to love to state So FACT - it is not a Grand Slam - it is out of context - it is not recognized as one and until it is David you can shout from the tree tops all you want - It is not a Grand Slam and won't go down as one and nor should it
Frontrow
Guest
Dead right and well said
Frontrow
Guest
Pot hale I take your point but by Home Nations I meant home Ruby Nation of a Grand Slam Tour
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
to rugbyhead – and I said it is a title where.? and I said there is a trophy where? Yes it is an achievement within particular sporting fields. tennis, golf for example. A grand slam achieved within the 6N is recognized as a 6N grand slam. How can it be anything else? It can’t be a Tour grand slam. It has to be referred to as a 6N grand slam to differentiate it from the other recognized grand slam in rugby. The Wallabies being on tour has slipped my notice as I thought they were simply taking part in a tournament. So my understanding of a tour would clearly be different to yours. So of all the World Cup teams on tour how many of those teams would be on grand slam tours. To be recognized as a grand slam tour then that team would need to have the chance or the possibility of achieving the grand slam. I know that the All Blacks for example could not be on a grand slam tour because it is known before the tournament that it would not be possible to achieve a grand slam.
Kohatu
Guest
Sorry David but it will not and cannot be considered a Grand Slam. Yes to the result should it eventuate be considered possibly in status but it definitely is not a Grand Slam. Because the simple fact apart from England at Twickenham is that all the other test matches are not played at venues located in the respective home unions of Wales, Scotland or Ireland but are all played at grounds in England.. Therefore the Grand Slam kudos being banded around is simply a misnomer and nothing more.
Derm
Roar Guru
the Grand Slam for touring parties has always been playing the four home nations of the UK at Home.. Incorrect. Ireland is not a home nation of the U.K. It was historically but that ended in 1922. Home Nation refers to England, Wales, Scotland and N Ireland in sports. It has nothing to do with playing teams at 'home'. The term has stuck with rugby to include the island of Ireland. But no one in the Republic of Ireland would regard themselves as a home nation of the U.K. And a good number in NI wouldn't either. The Five and Six nations Grand Slam term is generally understood to mean beating the other four/five teams in the championship. A Grand Slam tour by visiting teams generally refers to playing and winning against the four teams from two countries - Ireland and Great Britain. If that's what Australian fans see as a worthwhile achievement, so be it.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
By times have changed you mean that this can be achieved at a world cup but not all teams at the world cup would have that opportunity would they. It would not be equal opportunity.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
But they are not do or die games to win the world cup are they. If Aust had lost to Eng they were still in the Cup. If Aust lost to Wales they were still in the Cup. The Scotland game will be do or die. Aust may not even get to play Ire so beating Ire is not essential at this point to winning the world cup By the way a grand slam is not won. It is achieved. To achieve a grand slam every game is do or die as you put it. I’d like to see you tell those players from the 1984 Wallabies grand slam team that their achievement means nothing.
IronAwe
Guest
Agreed Clark. We haven't won a grand slam since the 80's so desperate Australians are clutching at straws. Unless the home unions consider it a Grand Slam it doesn't count no matter what spin we put on it.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
ok so let's for arguments sake say in a RWC in Eng Aust has beaten Eng, Wales, then Scotland in a 1/4 final but is defeated in a semi final and defeats Ire in a 3rd/4th play off. would that be a grand slam? you would have beaten all home nations on tour right so using your criteria it would be.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
I think you should fondly remember defeating those teams but how arrogant that would be of you to claim an achievement of a grand slam from a tournament where not all competitors have that same opportunity at the beginning of the tournament.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
to rugbyhead - If it does not matter where the games are played then why do the teams have to be defeated on the same tour. It seems you are setting your own criteria here when it suits and to heck with history and tradition. Let's say the Wallabies defeat Scotland and Ireland in the next couple of weeks then go back next year on tour in Nov and defeat England and Wales all in that order. Let’s call that a grand slam as well – well why not. As you said elsewhere a grand slam is whatever we, the rugby public, choose it to be.