As we move another day closer to the third Test, there’s still time for one more article that dissects Game 2 from the sandpit in Melbourne and attempts to suggest something new that hasn’t already been discussed to death.
This might just be that article. And it’s my first, so go easy lads.
Australian leadership
Michael Hooper and Stephen Moore had time with the captain’s armband in Melbourne and while both gave their all for the green and gold, there was some concerning decision making by both of them.
Much has been written about the decisions not to take the kicks at goal. Other much more experienced writers have referred to this as the Super Rugby versus Test rugby styles and it is definitely an interesting point. English fans remember the pain of Chris Robshaw not taking the three points in the Rugby World Cup against Wales.
But the question I want to raise is over Moore’s leadership style in the game. He seems to have tried to execute the Wallabies team mantra – don’t take a backwards step – but in his desire to embody that phrase he seems to have lost what a rugby team needs most from its leader. That unrelenting commitment to be the calm, resolute man on the field who all can look to for the example.
Was he trying to ‘out Hartley’ Dylan Hartley when he charged into the group after Robshaw had almost popped Nick Phipp’s head off like a champagne cork? Yes, I agree the ref’s decision was a bit off when he overturned England’s two offences but Moore shouldn’t be doing that in the first place.
Australia don’t need Moore doing that. Australia need Moore leading the team and being the clever, calm, tactician. The stable hand on the ship’s wheel who loves the heat of the battle but also knows it is sweeter to take the three points than to drop a shoulder on Dan Cole.
Australian strategy
Given the fact that both Hooper and Moore elected to turn down gettable penalty kicks at goal I do wonder whether that was as a result of a pre-agreed team strategy. If that was the case then that raises two questions.
Why would you keep that strategy? And is the captain not allowed or encouraged to adjust the strategy on the field if they feel that a change is needed?
Beyond the decisions not to kick for goal, there was the broader Aussie strategy that never seemed to change. They played their usual fast-paced game and ran hard, I assume with the belief that it would result in tries just like it did in Game 1.
Fair enough.
But after 50 minutes of that not working the only change that seemed to take place was that the Aussies tried to run harder and faster in the belief that a tired England would eventually buckle and the points would come. Why didn’t Bernard Foley, Moore or Hooper take a moment and think – we need to try and adjust our plan here?
Yes, England were getting more and more tired from defending so much, but it felt like they had found a rhythm in that defensive effort where they knew exactly what was coming at them and knew the main thing they had to focus on was putting their body on the line time after time. Which they did.
If the Wallabies had changed, even for just ten minutes, the style of their attack, then maybe the English defenders would have had to take a moment each phase to think about what was coming at them next.
Was it a crash ball from a forward near the ruck, was it a chip over the top, was it a kick wide to the wing? Maybe that would have caused some hesitation in the English defence that would have given the Wallabies’ backline a little bit more time and space to work their magic.
English defensive effort
One of the key things about legendary stories are that they are often one-offs. Donald Bradman is a legend because he is a one-off. The story of heroes from Gallipoli is legendary because it was one moment in time. And England’s defensive effort in Melbourne has legendary potential.
But the key is that England cannot look to repeat that game after game. Not for that length of time. Sure, the great teams know they can rely upon their defence when needs be and their histories will undoubtedly have tales of that game where they held out the opposition for 60 minutes.
(My own Under-16 rugby school team still shares stories of how we held out the all-conquering Bedford Modern for 80 minutes and how the 0-0 draw felt like the sweetest victory to us. But the next week we got pounded and conceded many, many tries.)
England must show in the next few games that they have the attacking gameplan that matches that defensive courage and organisation. They will not win anything big (series against All Blacks or World Cup) if they have to rely upon courageous defence too often.
English strategy at the ruck
In the first Test the Aussie backs found space on the outside and sliced up the English regularly (partly explaining the four tries). But on Saturday the English seemed much more comfortable not competing at all at the breakdown and having all their men in the defensive line.
Time and again I noticed that at the ruck there would be the Aussie player who had been carrying the ball on the ground, maybe one other clearing out and then Phipps in there to get his hands on the ball. Meanwhile, there was maximum one white shirt (the original tackler) there.
This meant that more often than not the English gave themselves numbers and time in defence. This combined with how fast these defenders were off the line meant that there just wasn’t the space or time for the Aussie attackers.
Nick ‘The Crab’ Phipps
Phipps far too often was doing his impression of a crab and taking two steps across the pitch before releasing the ball. This is something that his opposite number, Ben Youngs, has been guilty of but seems to have corrected.
Not only did this mean that the ball was taking longer to get to the first receiver but when you add in my first point, you see that the main attacking players from the Aussie backline just didn’t have as much time and space to get behind the English line like they did in Brisbane.
There were a number of times when the English forwards would also get hands on Phipps, putting more pressure on the Aussies when they were desperately trying to make forward progress.
There were lots of other interesting points from the game but these are the ones that stood out to me. If Australia want to avoid the whitewash in a few days time then they really have to address some of these points.
MA
Guest
Phipps doesn't have a good pass but a lot of his problem is Foley. Foley is too deep and way too wide. This accentuates Phipps poor passing but more importantly allows the defence to rush up as the flight time on the pass from 9 to 10 is too long. It is mentioned that Phipps sole job is to clear the ball fast and accurately. This is true the same as Foley's job is to be a playmaker and organise the back line. Both of thes jobs Foley is totally failing at. As soon as we go past 2-3 phases we just play shuffle the ball along. Foley rarely makes his backline look good. The call has been made to bring in a second playmaker. Perhaps we should start looking for a single playmaker who can actually do the job so we can select a proper 12. Kerevi has been sacrificed because Foley is at best an average Super Rugby 10. Just as the backline has to be adjusted to accomodate a poor 10 the forward pack has to be adjusted to accomodate a 7 who has no interest in being a forward. I invite people to watch the last test match again and focus on Hooper. 20 min and you will see that Hooper is a lazy, wannabe back. Fardy participates in 5 rucks to Hoopers 1. Hooper is most often found resting out on the wing waiting on the glory. Once we start playing a real 7 then we can start playing a real 8 and maybe we can start to dominate the breakdown.
Buk
Guest
Good article Oliver, you summed well up a number of issues that people feel frustrated about. I would stick with Phipps (and Foley). Not working ideally right now, but then I give Eddie & England kudos there for putting pressure on them & the Oz team in general. They have worked out ways to do so, and carried out the plan. The question has to be asked what is Phipps being instructed to do, and how much practice time is being put in to carry it out - plus is any mentoring & input available (from say Gregan or Farr-Jones or such like). Half back is a work in progress for us at the moment, & I am not sure any replacement would fare much better - hopefully Frisby can prove me wrong. I don't know the answers, and am a bit anxious about the Wallabies chances this Saturday - half expecting Eddie to pull some slight variation out of the hat that gives them an edge. Interesting that in an interview he said "I want England to play positive attacking rugby, we're not capable of doing it yet but we will be in a few years." Of course we may have lulled England into a false sense of security by being 2 nil down :)
RedandBlack
Guest
Of course it helps if the players realise that the ref can enjoy the game too ... help facilitate that and you are well on yr way. Constantly being whinged at for some advantage or other is terribly depressing and most unenjoyable - esp. when the request is ridiculous or transparently designed to remove attention from another issue. No wonder some ref's get a bit short tempered - the captains attempt to treat them like the village idiot.
Brendan
Guest
Hi mate. Nice article. Well done. Your first point about the goal kicking I feel has evolved into a tactic by Australia by England tactics and strengths. Firstly by kicking to the corner you nullify the English goal kicker by playing England in their own territory for long periods. secondly in both matches Australian mistakes have given England leads at crucial times and the first test in particular Australia leaked 13-16 points in a very short period of time ( Folau blunder, and silly penalties all after they had scored the early trys). The Game turned on its head so quickly, that the decision makers in the Australian team were in shock and reacted poorly to that scenario. We all saw Australia 10-0 after 10 minutes and expected the punishment to continue. That's also how the Australian team would've been feeling and sometimes it's the worst thing that can happen to you. We certainly saw Australia were sent into a tailspin. In the second test again Australia took false belief from their possession and field position, and like a minnow v European giant encounter in the Euros they would have expected eventually the points to come. To summarise this is not at all an Australian tactic we will see in rugby championship they have reacted to what they've seen on the pitch from England. I expect Australia to win matches from goal kicking in the rugby championship. Re the test or super rugby debate I agree with Michael Chieka http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/36608734 England have lacked enterprise and have been overly reliant on goal kicking to win games. I also believe Australia should've seen that coming and kept better discipline, and England have simply continued where they left off in six nations. The difference this year and last year is simply that England are comfortable in their skins. They're playing to their strengths and it's the England of old in many ways. Their back line won't set the world alight so why pretend? There's no issue with that from me but it's not test rugby vs super rugby it's England vs Australia and both are comfortable with playing the matches their way. England are a bit more hardened from six nations rugby while all Southern Hemisphere sides are growing into test rugby for this season that's a factor too no doubt. I do completely agree with your other poster that Australia has thrown away these games ( I would) but England pressure is a factor too. And scoreboard pressure in particular. McCaw became a huge advocate ( perhaps after the France lost of 07) of taking some points from every attack as mentally frustration sets in if you attack and attack yet still find no change to the score. He also knew the importants of getting your nose in front at the right times. Hats off to England once in front they've built pressure and have stubbornly kept the lead in both games. But 3 of their trys have come from Australia chasing the game or errors, they've created 1 try in 2 matches from their own attacks and that's not good enough to win against the worlds best sides. At 1 point in the first test Australia were chasing their 5th try to draw a test in the final 3 minutes vs an opponent who scored 2 trys...folaus error inclusive. ( the penalty kick was an attrocious decision to close the gap to 4 by the way). As a advocate of running rugby I instinctively no matter who's playing can't accept how such a ludicrous loss could ever occur.
moaman
Roar Guru
CUW"maybe the analysis teams need to watch the refs as well , look at their behavior and teach the players how to deal with them." They do.At least some countries do. This was touched on by Nicholas Bishop in an earlier piece I believe.
moaman
Roar Guru
BBA "What you are looking for is smart rugby vs dumb rugby. In Tests many teams get the taking or not taking of penalties wrong it is not related to a competition but poor judgement in the heat of battle (aided by the power of hindsight)." Particular emphasis on the word 'hindsight'; I couldn't agree more. More often than not--pundits come down harshly on a decision taken that subsequently backfires--something I view as both unfair and churlish. But there are times when it is obvious what the decision should be--or fairly obvious anyway. The 2nd Test scenario with Oz enjoying a glut of possession and field position ( trailing by 6) but unable to crack the last line of defence---well that was an obvious situation where taking the easy points to draw level, and then enlisting scoreboard pressure to the cause, was the right decision. I don't buy so much into the 'heat of the battle' argument when you have a team of coaches and advisors both up in the stands with a birdseye view and clustered along the sideline--all in close communication. How often do we see the cameras cut to the Coach urgently muttering instructions into his microphone when a penalty has been awarded? You have to assume management had the final say in those decisions.Has the Australian media quizzed Cheika on who decided to kick for the corner?
Homer
Guest
Finally the elephant in the room is revealed. The much ignored fourth phase of play (set piece, breakdown, re-cycle and anthem) is being addressed at last. A good anthem is worth three points - even when sung into the wind! Learn from the Welsh. Mind you - it has to be a team effort - is Folau a baritone? Coz with Phipps being a tenor-alto and since you're now missing Kurtley Beale's rumbling bass, the best you can hope for is a that Folau can fill the gap with a reasonable rumbling or a convincing lip-synch.
Ray
Guest
This is a slight deflection from mainstream views, but could someone have a chat with Israel Folau and suggest he try a little harder with his attempt to sing the National Anthem during the pre-game ritual.
OJP
Guest
Barnes loves a chat with the players I reckon. Its a fine line; you want to encourage good communication between ref and players but discourage constant complaints / inquiries etc. Referee management shouldn't be underestimated; they are only human and you'll only need to spend 60 seconds on the Roar to find 2 people who see the same issue in polar opposites... it makes sense to understand how a ref ticks and at the very least, try not to antagonise them.
OJP
Guest
'aided by the power of hindsight' so true BBA!
Oliver Matthews
Expert
Cheers Ralph! Many thanks
Oliver Matthews
Expert
Thanks Alex - really appreciate the feedback and support!! You make some good points about Phipps and judging from the other comments below he really is a love-hate kinda player. I think you're right that he showed he's got some skills that the Wallabies really benefit from and that he probably does better than any other #9 in Australia. I think though that his distribution made things a lot harder though for Foley and in turn that made it harder for players outside of him. England really worked hard on getting to Foley as quickly as possible knowing that with no other playmaker/kicker option the ball was going to him 95% of the time and that if they could shut him down then they would go a long way to stopping players like Folau getting the ball in space. Maybe the question is not what to do with Phipps, but how Cheika can bring in another play maker to take pressure off of Foley and give the Aussies more options.
maxxlord
Roar Rookie
Alex you are missing the point a little. In a game like the wallabies are playing the only thing that matters is quick ball and accurate passes from the scrumhalf. It is his only role. It does not really matter what else he does if he can't satisfy that requirement. He may as well be a prop. You cannot tire out or beat any team out wide if your scrumhalf is slow and passes at ankles like Phipps does. His "organizing" is allowing the rush defence to smash Foley and company. He is the only reason the Wallabies lost game two with so much ball. Emphasized by his shocking passes 5m out from the tryline. He turns quick ball into slow ball, the last thing you need when you are trying to catch a rush defence on the back foot, while it is still getting back onside. It is a good gameplan but the "execution" issues all stem from him. Cheika is rubbish for not spotting this one fact.
Bfc
Guest
There in lies the problem...as least part of it anyway. We have a scrum half with a poor pass, and is slow to clear the ball from rucks so that every receiver is under increased pressure.
Ralph
Roar Guru
Well done Oliver.
CUW
Guest
@ Shop IMO , the auzzy captain has no control over his troops. if u look at teams like NZ or Wales or Ireland , the captains do rule the events. there is little talk from other players and the captains approach the refs for clarifications. with auzzy (and even boks) few players go to the ref and intermittently there are players talking to the ref . it happens not only with joubert but other refs as well. maybe the analysis teams need to watch the refs as well , look at their behavior and teach the players how to deal with them. refs like joubert and owens are stiff ; they dont like to talk with each and everyone but only the captains. refs like peyper and jackson and the frenchies dont mind chatting with others. refs like barnes and lacey are full of themselves. they do it their way and even dont listen to the tmos :D
BBA
Guest
I hate the super rugby vs test rugby analysis. If a team in super rugby had lost the way the Wallabies did in super rugby they would have been criticised too. What you are looking for is smart rugby vs dumb rugby. In Tests many teams get the taking or not taking of penalties wrong it is not related to a competition but poor judgement in the heat of battle (aided by the power of hindsight).
Alex Wood
Roar Guru
G'day Oliver. Solid first article and, in my opinion, a pretty good assessment of where the Wallabies fouled things up in the first test. My one disagreement is that I think Phipps cops more flak then he deserves - yes, his passing is sub-par but his work off the ball and ability to direct traffic (in the right directions) are exceptional. I like the idea of Frisby as a second, to clean-up service and let the finishers run away with the match. Keep writing, you're good at it!
Homer
Guest
Nice article Oliver - keep 'em coming.
OneEye
Roar Rookie
There's been a lot of stuff written about coaches,captains, players and referees. Not surprising when this is what makes up a game. "Get rid of the coach" - "keep the coach and have patience" - "change the starting line up" "change the bench" - change the style" - "the referee doesn't suit our style of play" - the other team did ........" All good reading and all right - but so conflicting. Every team and this includes players, coaches, trainers and the man running the water (sorry - person) is praised as brilliant when things go right but the worst in the world if we don't win every game (always by a big margin) and even then there are highlights of some things they did wrong. No question Australian Rugby is stuck in a difficult place in finding the balance of entertaining rugby to keep the money required flowing and just winning games (even if ugly). All great teams that produce a legacy have the "style" that makes them what they are. It doesn't happen overnight and it requires adjustments of game plans and players along the way. The All-Blacks have not been the dominate team they are forever (it only seems that way) and they will not be there forever. Putting never-ending pressure on coaches, players and referees make great reading but is about as useful as arguing with a referee and expecting a result. It's time to put some faith in the group to move along with their plan for a style of rugby to create a legacy be it winning or just entertaining, fast rugby that competes at all levels. "Give them a fair go"!