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.
ScrumJunkie
Guest
Did, wallabies go to pieces as soon as Gits is taken out.
ScrumJunkie
Guest
Absolutely.
ScrumJunkie
Guest
Sorry my mistake, didn't realise you are the worldwide authority on what is right and wrong.
Mike the Oz
Guest
Hi bloodypom! Deluded? "The penalties didn’t come from thin air. They came from stupid/poor decisions by your own team" My point really - lack of leadership leading to constant stupid decision making which conceded penalties. Relax, nobody's taking (well I'm not anyway) anything away from a great English performance. But you won't be worrying teams like the all blacks with your lack of penetrative attack. They won't be conceding penalties like that and if you're going to rely on scoring the majority of your tries from kicks (great tries by the way) you're going to need to be very very lucky all the time. I did say that many of these players were previously heavily bagged in the English press and are now all conquering - Haskell probably the easiest to reference here. Failed 6N - refers to 2015. The one where you guys mentally crumbled against Ireland at Aviva and came second...again. This was seen by almost everyone outside of yourself as not winning and therefore not a success (hint, failed) Oh and from that 6N 8 of your starting 15 from that didn't make the cut for your RWC starting side vs Fiji, Wales and Australia later in the year. Hence.......failed. Bloody poms ay....
Mike the Oz
Guest
Without being antagonistic, is this really an extreme view? I am a fan of his running game and of him generally but here it is....when in form. On his form this year I don't think he warrants selection in game 3 because of his generally good running game. Based on your own assessment he has a good running game, ok goal kicking and the worst kicking out of hand. He would not make any of the other top 4 sides currently and I'm still not clear on why we cannot try someone else. Every other position has been open for change. Why can't CLL have a go?
Akari
Roar Rookie
I don't actually think that to be the case, Ao.
Akari
Roar Rookie
Easier to make the claim but you still haven't provided any evidence of course.
Akari
Roar Rookie
Skelton has been selected to start, Bruce, and we'll find out then, eh?
Timbo (L)
Guest
AOT, I have no problems with his attacking play, he fits well in the Tah's/Walabies plan, that's why I suggest a #11 jersey for him. The accolades are well earned. I must be missing something - My understanding of a back row player: Knocking people over and nick their stuff, protect the breakdowns, clean out, protect over the ball, run the ball from the base of a ruck or maul into heavy defense, jump or sweep in line outs. Bind and push in a scrum. My points of reference: Pocock, Fardy, Gill, McMahon, McCalman, Cotterel, any kiwi super rugby 6 or 7 including reserves, Haskell, Itoge. I am sure if I watch Ireland, Wales or the Boks more closely there will be 6 more effective players in those positions. Watch either test and concentrate on whether or not the gold #7 is doing any of the jobs above to the standard of any of the players above. Get back to me with all of his valuable contributions and categorize them as #7 or #11 roles. I will help: 2 tries and 9 effective Runs, 10 tackles of back line players all from the 11 spot. The groundswell in these forums is a call for a proper big #8 and #6 to give more effective attack and defense in and around the ruck and maul. In my OPINION the rot starts at #7 My problem is the void left when these services aren't being supplied well by an effective #7. The role of a back rower is to eat a crap sandwich. Hooper only eats the crusts and hands the rest of it back expecting mother to eat the rest of it for him. Why the coaches can't see this, I don't know. The captain of the ship gets the credit for a safe voyage, the hard work is being done by he boiler, the rudder and the propeller.
Timbo (L)
Guest
A.O.T, I re-watched test 2 last night. Mumm was one of the more effective players on the field including giving an option other than Fardy in the lineout., I am not sure where the complaint comes from. The normal reason many people Bag Mumm is because they are pushing an agenda to get their favorite player to be on the field. Arnold, Skelton and Palu are all big, slow men who can't get past 50 minutes we would need a 7-1 Bench to cater for all of them, one is enough. I would accept Cotterel instead but could justify both of them on a 6-2 bench. With Pocock and McCalman gone, that section of the bench is getting shorter. Foley had some rubbish service to clean up after which didn't help, the ball was greasy but the dodgy kicks are all on him. I don't want to speak ill of Phipps as i respect him as a player, but the moon shots and worm burners wrecked the back line's timing for the set pieces. it made them look clumsy (more clumsy?). In the 10 minutes Frisbee was on the field, all passes were sharp and on target and he made 2 kicks I think it is time to give him a run. Phipps to back him up if things go badly. Hooper, Just typing his name gives him more airtime than he deserves. Clip-Clop, Clip-Clop the show pony needs to leave the stage to make way for a racing thoroughbred.
buster
Guest
My mistake, it was wild Bill Cerutti. Wild indeed.It was the Wallabies first tour of South Africa, 2nd test, the ball kicked off and totally ignored.Both sets of forwards ran at their opposite number and 8 fights started. The Referee ignored the fight, and when they settled down, said, " now you have that off your chests, let's get on with the game."And that was the end of that. It's interesting to note the different styles of Rugby.The South Africans relied on their forwards to provide good ball to their 5/8, B. L. Osler, who kicked for field position, after which the tactic was repeated. And repeated, ad nauseum. The Wallabies ran the ball from everywhere, even when they did not have field position.The result was S.A . won the series 3-2, with big wraps coming from the Springbok Captain , " their forwards were a revelation and held the Springboks in the tight play as no other international forwards have done in any matches in which I have played.At their best, the Australians were better than the 1928 New Zealanders, and the best side I have played against." [Benny Osler] Not a bad wrap from a team that had such players as Danny Craven, Benny Osler, Gerry Brand, Boy Louw, and Phillip Nel. Victorian forward, Edward " Weary " Dunlop was offered a place on tour , but turned it down to finish his medical scholarship, A decision members of the 8th Division, while prisoners of the Japanese in WW 2 , were thankful for.
jim boyce
Guest
Sheek - Not bad and there were a few batting at the door. Terry Casey ( Fullback ), Ted Heinrich ( Flanker ), Peter Scott ( Outside Centre ), Geoff Chapman ( Flanker )
gatesy
Roar Guru
Maybe we should give Glenn Ella some kudos. How else do you describe the lacklustre performance of the Wallabjes backs. If you go back to Mark Ella's book written many years ago a common theme was how they planned moves to unpick defences. We seem to have lost that way of thinking. Yet they were the glory days of running Rugby. Nobody is running smart unders and overs lines. It almost looks like a race to the sidelines. Maybe Cheik needs to look to a few of his clubmates. Maybe he needs to consult the oracle - Mark Ella.
harry
Guest
Scrumjunkies feeling a bit sensitive geez
bruce bridges
Roar Rookie
No mate you are wrong. He is a big lad who will slow your game down, he does not carry well for his size and if your fitter forwards are struggling to live with the English why do you think Skelton will. You also forget that bloody big second rows trundling towards the line is bread and butter for the AP. He will have limited impact on the English pack and not suit the Aussie style of play and reduce the effectiveness of our set piece. Please play him.
Loup
Guest
Scrum half just needs to pass into the slowly retreating Poms and trip over their prone bodies and they'll get the message.
Loup
Guest
The poor form of Australian Super Rugby sides is partially due to a lack of skills in players - handling, kicking, running lines, defence, breakdown, kick chase, passing, etc. So if players have substandard skills the Wallabies are likely to as well. What we saw in the second test was the Wallabies' lack of skills brutally exposed. Broadly the game plan was good, but the Wallabies weren't skilful enough to execute it. A quick fix is a Jake White style plan B that is easy to execute with mediocre players. Need better kicking for that though. Of course it would be great if the Wallabies could also execute a Highlanders style kicking game as a plan C, but that requires a massive improvement in skills. Given he's reluctant to coach the Wallabies just yet due to his recent work with the ABs, the ARU should employ Mick Byrne as a roving skills coach for all the Super rugby sides, particularly focussing on Wallabies players.
Loup
Guest
Unfortunately Pocock will probably never be a captain because he has well-known political views that probably rub some of the power-brokers and stake-holders up the wrong way. Presumably Pulver and co can veto a proposed captain appointment.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
Blame Phipps....check. Blame Foley....check. Blame Hooper...check. Wait, you forgot Mumm!
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
ha ha I'm certainly not the minority or the extreme one on this view!!