- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
An Adam Ashley-Cooper hat-trick aside, it was the Wallabies’ defence that pulled them through yet again.
While Argentina came in to this game as the tournament’s second best attacking side on paper, Australia gave them a lesson on them how to attack both with and without the ball in a wonderful display built on their defence, as much as another four-try haul.
Last week I questioned the ability of modern defences to handle the complete attacking philosophy of New Zealand and Argentina, and we couldn’t have asked for two better case studies to test this proposal.
South Africa adopted a 14-man front line defensive system, the same that has helped the Stormers be there or thereabouts in Super Rugby for the past five years. It is a defence that is aimed at stopping the attack, the focus being moderate line speed improves line integrity and tackle accuracy – essentially high percentage defensive rugby.
Though effective in slowing the All Blacks down, it was not able to stop them scoring two tries, which were ultimately the difference.
By contrast, the Australian defence was high-risk rugby, daring and courageous in its aim and execution, and demanding of total commitment from everyone in the team in terms of both their effort and their physical commitment. It was high line speed, high-octane rugby.
This style of defence is as much about attacking the opposition as it is defending it, the aim clearly to use it as a means to get the ball back through either forcing errors or pressuring the breakdown – both of which Australia did at will. In big moments individuals stepped up and produced some huge plays: Rob Simmons’ intercept, David Pocock’s three steals in the first 20 minutes, Scott Fardy’s massive hit late in the game.
In the context of the tournament it therefore seems like the Wallabies may have changed a long used saying from ‘Defence wins finals footy’ to ‘Australian defence wins finals footy’.
I focus on defence as well because comparatively it was here that the most obvious difference between the two sides was observed. Both teams had great attack, but only Australia had both great attack and inspiring defence.
In many other facets of the game Argentina matched or outplayed Australia. Their scrum asked questions of Australia in the absence of Scott Sio. Their lineout pressured Australia’s, albeit not to the same extent that New Zealand did South Africa.
In the attacking statistics they had more possession, more metres run, more offloads and twice the line breaks of Australia (10 versus 5). They are a genuine threat with ball in hand and are to be commended on their spirit and what they bring to the game. Moreover they held true to themselves as a team and took a live by the sword, die by the sword approach to their game, attacking from all over the park.
Arguably this cost them in the case of the Simmons’ intercept, a high risk play 70-metres out and so early in the game against a fresh defence, but that is why we love watching them play and why they catch so many other teams off guard.
They were also struck by injuries to key players at key times. Each injury seemed to strike just as Argentina were getting some control of the game. First Agustin Creevy, their captain, followed shortly after by their main attacking weapon Juan Imhoff. When you add to that the replacement of Juan Hernadez shortly after half time you got the feeling that Warren Gatland must have joined Argentina’s coaching team after last weeks knockout.
Some will also point to the dubious yellow card of Tomas Lavanini, though this had much less impact on the game than Maitland’s did last week and while harsh was still understandable.
Hernadez’s injury was itself a result of the Australian defence after he was rocked early by a huge and calculated hit by Pocock. This in itself is an example of Australia using their defence as a form of attack.
Statistically the Wallabies were far better in this facet of play. Argentina defended less but managed only a 63 per cent tackle effectiveness compared to Australia’s 77 per cent. Australia made 34 more tackles than the Argies but missed three fewer, and despite Argentina’s attacks producing linebreaks, Australia scramble the better of the two teams.
While the statistics are great, tactically is really where it was won and lost. Argentina have sacrificed the edges of the field to be stronger through the centre, not completely unfamiliar to Australia. Where they differ is that Australia rush square on, as opposed to Argentina coming in on men, making it almost impossible for them to cover mistakes.
Australia’s second two tries were examples of this, with clear space left on the fringe with no cover capable of pressuring the play. Mitchell’s try started this way as well, and while courageous, against a Wallaby attack that bases its attacking philosophy around playing the width of the field, it was always going to be the make or break of the contest.
Ironically it’s that make or break mindset that is fuelling the Wallabies at the moment; they make every action count and their mentality is centred around the belief that they can win the World Cup.
Confident in their ability to score tries, they are not happy to simply stop oppositions. Their defence is a statement about their mindset, their combative attitude and trust in each other.
It will be a mighty battle next week, but one that this group will fight on the front foot, with and without ball, and for that reason are capable of winning.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.