At least we didn’t lose to Iceland. Apart from that extremely greyed silver lining, there aren’t many positives to go on this week.
The Wallabies’ 44-40 loss to England on the weekend steered me strongly towards anger a number of times.
The five tries to four loss is depressing because you could see it coming at many points throughout the 80 minutes.
» The Roar’s Bledisloe Cup coverage
» 2016 Bledisloe Cup draw
» Past Bledisloe Cup scores
» 2016 Bledisloe Cup lineups
It didn’t matter how well the Wallabies played, how many line breaks they made, how many offloads they flicked, or how many tries they scored. They were always going to give away more penalties than they could chase down.
That’s been the theme of the series so far: England do the basics well, wait for the Wallabies to invite a score, and take that chance (usually a penalty, but sometimes a horrific backpass into the shins of the fullback).
Three Tests in and the pattern is so ingrained it almost felt like clockwork on Saturday. In the final five minutes, when England were up by six, they had the ball in the Wallabies’ half and were running one out. You just knew the result wouldn’t be a huge tackle from a Wallaby or a swift ruck movement; it was going to be a penalty.
And sure enough, it wasn’t Wycliff Palu smashing someone, or Scott Fardy ducking into the ruck ahead of the clean out, it was a bunch of gold shirts kicking and screaming across a ruck and diving on top of the partially cleared ball. Penalty, white. Game over.
You weren’t shocked. I wasn’t shocked. I don’t think England were either. The only people who didn’t know what was coming were the 15 men in gold jerseys on the Sydney Football Stadium turf.
They haven’t learnt anything.
The Wallabies lost the first Test – the sole match in this series where they had a claim to playing a game worthy of a win – because they kept giving England easy penalties and collapsing under pressure instead of standing tall.
In the first Test, Owen Farrell kicked six penalty goals to take England past a strong Wallabies outfit. By the third Test, things were the same but different: the Wallabies hadn’t learnt and allowed Farrell to kick another six goals, but this time it was to keep a composed England one step ahead of a rattled and striving Wallabies.
By comparison, Wales kicked six penalties against New Zealand in the entire series. The Wallabies allowed six goals in a game two out of three times. Allowing the opposition 18 points off the boot is close to criminal once, to do it twice shows a lack of self-reflection.
England gave up six penalty goals all series to Australia. Showing game awareness, accuracy around the pitch and self-belief to make the next tackle, rather than taking short-cuts.
England kicked 15 penalties across the three matches, Australia six. That’s nine points per game on average the Wallabies gave up because of poorer discipline.
The difference between the effort, skill and mental toughness between this series and what was on display when they held out England and Wales in the World Cup is a chasm.
In the first 20 minutes of the series the Wallabies played the kind of possession-oriented, fast-moving rugby they wanted to play for the whole series. By the third Test they were blunted.
The possession was more even (66-34 down to 53-47), rucks won became more balanced (101-52 narrowed to 101-90) and the advantage line was harder to reach.
England absorbed the Wallabies’ best, kept their composure and kept refining their game. They found ways to attack more effectively while still sticking to the parts of the game that suited them.
The Wallabies started fast, got pushed off their gameplan, were physically dominated, became inaccurate, and got flustered. They went away from their patterns and got caught up in battles where they couldn’t show their wares.
During a patch in Sydney, after England scored their first try, the Wallabies showed a flash of what was on display during the first portion of the Brisbane match.
But Israel Folau’s bounding from one side of the field to the other to create overlaps does not a Test match strategy make. Soon enough England began choking Australia with a better kicking game and physically dominating the rucks.
The Wallabies missed David Pocock’s strength over the ball after the first Test, but it was still eight versus eight in the pack for the final two. The absence of one player is not an excuse for losing the physical battle.
Michael Cheika has shown an ability to craft a winning strategy worth sticking to throughout his career. But in this series, Eddie Jones’ simple, clear strategy was the winning one.
If Cheika doesn’t tweak his planning, going on current form, losing by 11, 16 and four to England will seem like good times by the end of the Bledisloe Cup and Rugby Championship.
ClarkeG
Guest
Tear Rower - You have gone to great lengths to justify your view that no team was advantaged. This in fact reinforces my view that in fact the only fair way to deal with situations such as this is to immediately stop play and restart with a scrum feed to the team that last played the ball. You seem not prepared to separate the incident itself (ball deflecting from the camera) from what took place on the field immediately following it and the reaction of others to that. Your point that Chieka would have held a different view, if in fact it had worked for his side, again is a very good reason for play to have been stopped immediately. Remove the opportunity for any person to have a view one way or the other or feel aggrieved. If the referee had done as I suggested then everyone, including you, would have accepted his decision, England would not have gained possession of the ball, Ben Youngs would not have kicked beautifully to gain field position 5m from the Aust line, and you and I would not be having this discussion. It is just so simple in my opinion and this can be very quickly resolved by the games power brokers so as this debate and controversy is avoided in future.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hoy, All the could'ves, would'ves, should'ves, can't disguise the is, is, is. Back in 1986 the Wallabies beat a potentially awesome French team 27-14, scoring just one try to three. The Wallas totally tied up the French with a brilliant technical & tactical display. The French tries came from crumbs, two of them very late in the game. I can see parallels between that match & the 2016 series. Unfortunately, this time the Wallas are in the role of the French & the English were the Wallas. One thing I've learnt about rugby as I've got older is that the number of tries scored by each team doesn't necessarily reflect what happened on the pitch. But the penalty goals kicked by each team certainly tells a story.....
Richard
Guest
Blinkered people have no idea what Rob Simnons brings to the game....
Boz the Younger
Guest
Excellent article Elisha, I hope Michael Cheika reads it before the rugby championship.
Boz the Younger
Guest
The Foley try and the Spider cam incident are not comparable. The English players failed to play the whistle on the Foley try and it cost them, that is their own fault. In the Spidercam incident the ref made a questionable call, that was not thd Wallabies fault.
Sir Eddie
Guest
From a an English perspective all we've heard from the Oz on-line bandits re why you lost is referee's fault x 3 and spider cam x 1. Read the article above (it's spot on) and those looking for anyone else to blame bar the squad and coach should go and take a good long hard look at yourselves.
HiKa
Roar Rookie
Love your GnR reference there. Failure to communicate seems to be a problem both on and off the field.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
That article is all kinds of silly. It says Foley hit the wire whilst teying to clear. But Ford hit the wire after kicking 30 out from his own tryline. Cheika says that his players were out of position as a result but they were in position until after the ball hit the wire and then Horne pushed up when he saw the ball hit the wire. That is not unfair on Horne and to suggest only the Australian players could have been out of position is a bit of a stretch. England had to resond to a ball they wanted to kick into Australias half coming down inside their own half again. Cheika, like many on here is upset because of what happened following the incident and is not the "play on" that has him upset but what happened afterwards. I have no doubt that if Owens had said "play on" and Skelton hard charged Youngs kick and scored that Cheika would not be saying that it was unfair. Cheika thinks every decision that goes against his team is outrageous.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
Foley is better than both NZ kickers. He didnt have a great series but Cruden and Barrett are usually at lower % than Foley and are this year in Super Rugby. Foley is not a bad kicker, he just had a bad series.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
Horwill 60+ Naiya 2 'Exceptional circumstances' would not allow Cheika to select more players. It restricts it to exactly what the title says, exceptional circumstances. Not just because you think that guy who plays for Toulon is better than what is at home.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
So blaming a bunch of Tahs isnt thinking. Who would have thought that. Im glad you two have worked that out and put me on the straight and narrow. Now if you could just do it to the other 90% on the roar (or so it seems) that need a little help 'thinking'.
John
Guest
Read Nick Bishop's article - he does a superb job of comparing the 2nd row selections across the three games. it is a very insightful piece.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
Sorry Youngs kicked the ball out, not Youngs.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
Yes. If you asked Ford where he would like the ball to land he would not have pointed 4m ahead of the ad-line in his own half.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
I disagree. The people making out this is controversial are looking at it all wrong. They are attributing what happened afterwards with the ball hitting the wire and giving an advantage to England. This was not the case. As the ball hit the wire it did not advantage either team. It stopped the ball going where Ford intended if anything. Put it this way. A winger is unmarked on the wing and the centre throws a pass that will hit said winger straight on the chest but the ref gets in the way and the ball deflects off the ref, the wing runs back 5m, picks up the ball beats 15 men and runs over to score. Now did the ball hitting the ref give the attacking team an advantage because they scored afterwards? Would stopping play and awarding a scrum be the right call to stop controversy? I understand this was not what happened but Im just trying to show that what happens afterwards cant and should not be attributed to the incident that interupted play just because somebody does something good shortly afterwards. The right call was made imo and there was no advantage to either team. The position and scrore was created after the incident and not because of the incident.
John
Guest
Owens said very clearly to Moore who queried the decision that the ball fell into open play with both sides available to catch it. Hence neither side was advantaged but the English took advantage of the ball that fell to them.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
The ball hitting the wire had nothing to do with what England did afterwards! Yes Australia would rather have a scrum on halfway but the wire did not create the lineout in Australias 22, England did that afterwards. You cant say "OK play on as long as nobody does something good in the next minute".
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
So its best just to kick the ball up real high but only 1m forward. Just so its closer to your chasers? Ford didnt want to kick it long and high? Maybe Ford wanted a longer kick and it disadvantaged him and his team or do you think he wasnt trying to put up a chasable highball into the Wallaby half? Owens made a call and I think it was OK and I have not heard a valid reason why it was wrong. Horne came up after it hit the wire. It disadvantaged England because it interfered with the intended direction and purpose of the kick. It did not cause Youngs to be able to find touch afterwards. It did not cause Moore to fluff the throw. It did not cause the try.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
But not because of the wire! People are saying that because the ball hit the wire there was space behind Horne. That makes no sense. When Ford kicked the ball did Horne rush up? If so wtf for? Was he hoping the rules had changed and he could get an American football style pass from Folau? Also the English players were also out of position as they were mostly ahead of the ball. The ball hitting the wire did not create any advantage or the try. Fords skill put the ball into touch and Australias then messed up the lineout. Then Vunipola scored off the back of a scrum. You guys are somehow thinking that anything England and Australia did after the ball hit the wire was because the ball hit the wire and its not.
A.O.Tear Rower
Guest
He cant ask for a scrum. It doesnt work like that, all he can do is complain. Nigel Owens determined that there was no advantage for either side and there wasnt. The advantage came through good play after, not from it hitting the wire. The wire did not pick the ball up, pass it back and kick it again. England did that, not the wire.