- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
You hope they will play to their potential. You hope they will stick to the plan. You hope they will do what is expected of them. But so often they don’t.
The inbound Test window has historically been one of the safer times to expect and hope the Wallabies perform well.
But this time they’ve come off the back of a poor Super Rugby season, the opposition was more determined and focused than usual… Plus, this is the Wallabies we’re talking about.
I’m sorry I expected them to play to the standard they are capable. I should have protected myself, and the dear readers of my last two columns, and searched for the storm ahead of time.
Down two-nil, it’s time to admit the Wallabies have underperformed, woefully in Melbourne and with more fight in Brisbane. But it’s also time to praise the *gag* England team *wretch*.
Far from the Wallabies reaching their potential, this English side came prepared and well drilled enough to smother them, before calmly playing the percentages and watching Australia wilt under pressure.
Did anyone notice that England started the first Test with a big midfield, anticipating Australia would do the same? But how many people noticed that once the Wallabies had thrown some of their best punches, George Ford came on after just 29 minutes and remained in the starting team for the second Test?
I hate to sound like a broken record, but Michael Cheika let the Wallabies down by not selecting a tactically flexible Test match team. The best-case scenario is the Wallabies throttle themselves into the England line with possession and eventually the dam wall breaks, but the reality is 80 per cent or more Tests are played in that murky ground, where each team thrusts and parries at the strengths and weaknesses of the other.
To win most of those matches you need to have a flexible approach and the ability to command field position, not just possession. Maybe more than possession.
Since Ford was subbed into the first Test, England dominated field position and set the tempo for the series.
They kicked their first cross-field kick just 15 minutes into the second Test, and their second one 17 minutes in, which led to a penalty and a maul drive for the first try.
A single-minded England defensive line rushing Bernard Foley into pop gun bombs for the wing, from ten metres behind the defensive line, is not a Test match kicking plan.
Foley kicked bomb after poorly placed bomb as the England defence pushed him further and further back.
Not having a second tactical kicking option was such a glaring failure.
While England calmly flipped field position when they couldn’t make significant headway, Australia repeatedly ran the same wide, running plays off Foley that made the England defence look even more heroic than it, admittedly, was *gag*.
The entire Wallabies attack revolved around long passes from Nick Phipps to Foley. The occasional long pass went to Rory Arnold or Sean McMahon for a midfield dart.
Where were the inside balls off Foley? Where were the pick-and-drive runs? Where were the short runners around the corner off Phipps? The only time they tried this was about five metres out from the line. Why wait until then?
Why was the gameplan stripped back so significantly? Why so many questions instead of answers from a national team playing to keep hold of their second place ranking?
The Waratahs, when playing the Chiefs in Super Rugby, made an intelligent adjustment to beat a strong rushing defensive line – they kept attacking the pillar and post defenders. Either through pick and drive or two or three runners in a row around the corner. This had the effect of creating relative acres of space for Foley. There was no attempt to do that by the Wallabies on the weekend.
One massive advantage of using pick and go or runners around the corner is it will eventually isolate the Wallabies’ strength against England’s weakness – backs on backs. If you pick and drive you eventually create space out wide.
The way the Wallabies attacked was too much like a rugby league team, with each player strung across the field running in their channel. Rugby teams excel when they create physical and numerical advantages by grouping together around the ruck or on the blind side.
That fundamental rugby awareness wasn’t there from the Wallabies. That was disappointing because that awareness was there at the World Cup.
Another part of the Wallabies’ game to slip since the World Cup is discipline and mental toughness.
The first penalty came after three minutes in the second Test. Sekope Kepu just pushed a bloke. I mean, seriously.
Worse than that was the lack of mental toughness and belief.
The Wallabies have shown they are excellent at defending in phase play, both in this series and in the World Cup. What they aren’t good at is keeping composure when behind or at stopping the attacking side on set-piece attacks.
The second penalty of the second Test was the most worrying – because it was an admission the Wallabies didn’t believe in their own defence. They lost possession at the ruck and instead of lining up to repel the attack players went into desperation mode in the ruck and committed a penalty. Most of the time the Wallabies should back themselves to stop a team during phase play, but they baulked.
England showed the same commitment to their defence for phase after phase at times. Australia refused to kick the goals on offer and England were content to tackle for ten or 15 phases in a row. Australia should have had the same mentality.
Both discipline and mental toughness were lacking in the Wallabies and were obvious from England.
One area that was also lacking in this series – and it pains me to say this – was Stephen Moore’s captaincy.
The recent performance of a macho Moore is not the reason he was made the Wallabies captain. He was a smart pick because of his ability to lead by example, being the first person picked in the forward pack, and because his work rate and commitment offset a fiery coach’s style.
This series has seen more of a ‘whoop, whoop, psych the boys up’ Moore pop up. That isn’t the best captain for this team. They need someone absorbing the contest and telling the team to adjust accordingly.
The Wallabies rarely play well when they try to adopt a macho swagger. England do, sometimes the All Blacks and South Africa do. But the Wallabies don’t have those natural personalities. They are workers, grafters and speedsters.
They are all about physical and technical attributes above emotional and charismatic attributes. Having a captain leading in the latter two seems to have distracted the outfit from performing in the former two.
I’ve been down this rabbit hole far too long, but there’s one other massive area the Wallabies lacked in this series compared to their stellar World Cup level: players.
David Pocock was sorely missed in the second Test. Sean McMahon is not as good as him.
But Will Genia is a better and more varied halfback with a stronger pass than Nick Phipps. Adam Ashley-Cooper is a more rounded wing than either Rob Horne or Dane Haylett-Petty. Kane Douglas and Rob Simmons are a more formidable lock pair than Simmons and Rory Arnold at this point.
Matt Giteau has far more Test match nous than any Australian inside centre on show here. Kurtley Beale has more impact off the bench than Christian Lealiifano or Luke Morahan.
Despite all this – and here is that word again – I’m hoping Michael Cheika will force the players to take a good hard look at their, and his, failings this week and they bounce back with a confidence-restoring win.
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.