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.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Ha, I see... Then why don't the so called professionals who study the game and report/commentate to the masses, recognise Fardy and complement his play? And whilst people here might be saying his play compliments Fardy and Pocock, professional commentators all seem to rave about Hoopers work at the breakdown. It is like they just parrot an idea of what they think should be right... I've had enough of it... BAAAAAHHHHH
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I think he's been better than Pollard based on his conversion rate. Penalty rates can be skewed because you can pick and choose. That's why I consider Carter slightly superior. He kicks basically the same for penalty goals, but for conversions where he has to take them as they lie, he is a fair bit better. Sanchez is just a cut above though it appears. I've got in the argument before, but I don't agree with the "pressure" being a huge factor. Every player is under pressure for every action they take in a game, yet they all seem to deliver similar to what they do at Super Rugby anyway, despite the added "pressure". If it was true there would be significantly more knock ons, missed tackles, etc. If we were talking about a kick from the sideline in the 81st minute to win a game, I'd agree that's pressure.
JohnB
Guest
Tsuru, on the wingers, I'm not so sure most of them realistically covered anywhere else. Ashley-Cooper covers 3 positions for sure. Horne I guess could play 13, though on past performance not very well. You would have moved Ashley-Cooper or even Beale there before considering putting him there as a last resort in this squad. They made Speight play 13 v Uruguay and he certainly didn't look comfortable there. While I may well be wrong I was not aware that he'd played other than on the wing for the Brumbies. If he has, I suspect it would have been only very occasionally. Mitchell has played fullback at some stage, again not all that well and he'd be at best 4th choice in that spot in this squad. So I'd say most of them were only likely to play wing (or be shoehorned in out of position in a minor match) in this squad. Certainly if Ashley-Cooper is going to be the fix-it person for 13 you need to have cover for his wing spot, and one for the other wing - but that's still at least one more than you needed. Phipps did make a bit of a hash of performing the score skill of his position more than once at pressure stages in the England and Argentina games. I don't think that's exactly an "oh well, these things happen, everyone makes mistakes" situation.
Digby
Roar Guru
Hi Tock, Thank you for your thoughts. Interesting tips regarding the scrums, I must take in a replay to look at that specifically.
Digby
Roar Guru
Thanks Jim, I agree and apologies for the late response. I suppose in fairness to Coach Chieka, there has not been a lot of time for him to implement his wants and the scrum probably did need to be a priority, as Tock validly mentions in his post below. I guess it demonstrates how difficult it is to juggle every aspect of the game as a Coach but he does seem to have a pattern of not prioritising the lineout,but he does seem to have that golden touch about him when looking back on his accomplishments. I can only assume his tactics and selections provide more positives and outweigh the potential negatives but the Wallaby lineout used to be considered an area of strength, it has fallen away badly from my admittedly 'armchair' view. However, at the highest level it is no excuse either and while he has brought them this far, I really do believe this could prove to be the Wallabies Achilles heel and while Gregs points are well made, as witnessed in the Bok semi final the lineout can be a key area and look no further for Whitelocks steal over Matfield in the closing stages, which I can see replicated against Simmons, personally I thought this to be the defining key moment in that match. I would expect the Wallabies will be calling a lot of short lineouts on their ball but this will not be very helpful if within 10 from the AB line, even more so if the intention is to use the rolling maul which they have become quite proficient in. Just one aspect of what should be a great encounter to keep an eye on this weekend!
Digby
Roar Guru
You hang on to that my man, hold it tight, hug it, love it, it wont be long until it is gone. ;)
rugby7
Guest
How important is the slightly askew final program, meaning - how crucial is the extra day of recuperation the ABs get, as the WBs had their semi-final a day later (and therefore a day less to recharge batteries before the Final)? Could Folau (and possibly Sio) have benefited by that extra day?
tsuru
Guest
No name calling, but I think you've missed a lot of comments about Fardy. This is the umpteenth time I've read the thought that Fardy is unrecognized for great work in the tight. And a number of people have proposed him as MotM in each of the last 3 games. He's the most recognized unrecognized player in the RWC. Similarly it's a long time since I saw anyone claiming Hooper performed any traditional fetcher/pilferer duties. It's the consensus that his skills complement those of Pocock & Fardy. I believe he did try a bit of pilfering in the Scotland game though.
tsuru
Guest
And I suspect that if the Wallabies win on Saturday they will overtake New Zealand in the rankings as well - I believe world cup points count double or at least more than normal, and we're only a couple behind at the moment. As for "Rankings have and always will mean nothing. Trophies mean everything" - they mean different things. Trophies are an indication of performance over a much shorter period. Neither of them is necessarily an indication of what's going to happen in the next match. Ask the South Africans. You're only as good as your next match.
tsuru
Guest
I'm surprised that I haven't read the obvious refutation of the "too many wingers" line before - here or elsewhere. Maybe I haven't read it. But the only one of the 5 who wasn't in there to cover a 2nd position was Tomane. Horne, AAC, Mitchell, and even Speight are all able to cover at least one other position. And I think you're being a bit harsh on the Phipps criticism - on those grounds we could get stuck into Beale for those couple of dropped passes, Mitchell for his missed intercept, etc.But I guess somebody will do that anyway. But I totally agree with " It is great that the criticisms have been largely rendered academic by the very very good things the team has done but I don’t think that means all of those criticisms were wrong."
FrozenNorth
Guest
The game is all screwed up, how can you be up 3-0 on tries and be within one try of being beaten? Madness.
tsuru
Guest
Well actually they would have cover - Toomua or Cooper would go to fullback and Beale would cover wing - and of course AAC can move to 13 or 15 if needed.
WEST
Roar Guru
Just me or did the Wallabies look pretty tired around the 50th minute mark. The Pumas looked exhausted as well. The last ten minutes both teams looked to tired to do much. The first half pace was hectic, another massive test coming up for the Wallabies and the All Blacks, an extra days rest for the All Blacks might help. Making it to the final after such a long season of rugby is a huge marathon. The Final's going to be the battle of the fittest.
Hildy
Guest
I thought that sounded more like a hypnotism attempt.
Hoy
Roar Guru
At the risk of starting a war... or being called all manner of names, there is something that is really irking me lately... I am sick to death of commentators talking up Pocock/Hooper as devastating at the ruck... for a few reasons... 1) being Fardy is actually much better than Hooper at the ruck, but he gets ZERO recognition for his massive workload in tight, 2) because of the Pocock/Hooper partnership, it is Pocock doing all the hard work in tight, 3) because Hooper is actually terrible, and possibly getting worse in tight... Headlines like "Pococks return the key to unleashing Hooper" etc... I mean really? Maybe if he actually did Pocock's work in his absence, but he didn't... This morning, I saw Hooper actively avoid contestable rucks... not for the first time this tourny, or in his 50 matches. Towards the end of the game, there was a tackled Argie, with zero support within cooee, and Hooper had a pretty clear 2-3 seconds of time to get over the ball... and he put his hand up, moved away to pillar, and stood there waiting for another Argie player to arrive... He is a great footballer... great tackler, great runner, but he is really lousy at doing a 7s core duties, and I am sick of hearing about his so called pressure at the ruck!! It is non existent. Are the commentators just regurgitating what they think everyone else thinks we think? Because to watch Hooper actually play at the ruck, is just... I don't know what to say to explain how poor I think he is in that aspect of his game... I am not bitter, but I just want some balance to the Hooper pilering myth!! Please. Great footballer, lousy at the core duties of a 7... Rant over...
Hoy
Roar Guru
IT seems simple to me as well... have real time spider cam for the TMO to give feedback to the ref... technology is there for sure... I thought the Arige props were smarter, not necessarily better.. Old mate was binding pretty clearly on Slippers arm, every time, and was pulling down pretty violently, but was not pulled up for it... Also, why are we so consistenly the team giving away penalties for early pushing? Does noone else see a pattern here?? I can't recall another team doing it, but we always give away minimum 2 penalties a game, first one, half arm, second full arm. Seems a bit odd that we keep getting done for this, but noone else does... Are we so dumb to keep doing it? Maybe...
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
"He's one of Australia's top goal kickers, if not currently the best" You're right... What a pr1ck...
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Greg, I agree defence was important but don't think it was the only factor. I actually saw this game as an amalgamation of the three prior games. Defence worked like against Wales, and Argentina has better attack than they do. You already described it. Attack and breakdown worked like against England. We had possesion when we needed and scored good tries, the last three laboured attacking moves. We had the patience and scored. Errors and penalty count was similar to against Scotland. We gave away twice as many kickeable penalties to Argentina than we conceded against Wales and England, many of which unecessary. We know how to not give away these penalties (e.g. these two games). We also had a high count of errors, some of which allowed some of the many line breaks Argentina got against us. It's clear to me that we have a period in the middle of the game when we fade, lose concentration. Fortunately, because defence was good, we managed to do the cover and avoid them scoring. But against the ABs we can't let it happen, they are the most lethal, they will score on some of these opportunities. Not as worried about the scrum. The Argentinians had our measure, but we held up well against NZ in the last two games.
jim boyce
Guest
Digger - Enjoyed the dialogue. The lineout targets for the ABs are far more savvy than the Wallabies,sadly. To catch a ball on the outside shoulder gives away a crooked throw but you can disguise it by twisting your body in the jump. Everyone has a blind spot and I think the lineout is Chieka's unfortunately. He really cant afford to make replacements late in the game without weakening the lineout. Particularly if you are down by 7 points and a penalty goal is too late,you need to kick for the corner and win your own lineout, preferably at 5 or 7.Well this will be a risky option with TPN and there is always the likelihood of a throw to 2 or 3 resulting in a ruck, where you are pushed over the sideline.
Jerry
Guest
Yeah that one was terrible - he was basically horizontal.