A neutral's opinion on the Wallabies

By Conor Wilson / Roar Pro

First off, this is my first ever article on this site, and I just want to start with a kudos to The Roar for letting a Pom like me talk rugby with you guys.

I’ve been a massive fan of this site for years, and can’t even begin to tell you how much more insightful and knowledgeable the average Roarers are than the so called experts that decorate our newspapers of dross.

I start my fledgling and potentially hugely short lived journalistic career with a neutral’s opinion, on the Wallabies. Things that have been stirring around my mind since June.

Like all of my countrymen watching the series in the clubhouse, we were jubilant at the Test series and how it was played. England finally getting a result that made the world pay attention, moving up to second in the World, two class teams going right at it, three tight games going to the wire – more so than the second game’s scoreline suggested.

Proper, fast and competitive Test rugby. Everything we would want from a Test series.

Some of my brethren however, were a little more cautious in our victory, highlighting the huge experience that had been left in France, and how much of an impact they would have come RC time. This split quite a large opinion over here, with many of us remembering the final last year, and how lethal the Wallabies can be with good, fast, effective, front foot ball.

So Rugby Championship time came along, and the Bledisloe Tests happened. The result was not what I personally expected.

Now no-one can say what would’ve happened had that game gone by injury free. Yet, the miserable luck of both Matt Giteau and Matt Toomua going off and before you know it, the Wallabies twin-playmaker strategy is no more.

Now when Cheika decided to play Quade Cooper and Bernie Foley at 10 and 12 respectively, the result was very much as I thought it would be. Both of them (mainly Foley) fighting over the position for first receiver, with QC not really getting much of a chance to showcase his spark and make his mark on the game.

Most of the plays in the Wellington Test came from Foley at first. The tactical kicking (more on this later) was very poor. And this goes against the plan that Cheika had of letting Cooper showcase his flair and what he can bring to the game.

Right now, my theory is that the Wallabies are in a process of rebuilding. There are players who are being brought through whom are the future of the team, yet, they were left out in favour of the old stalwarts of Australian rugby.

Adam Ashley-Cooper, Giteau, and even Stephen Moore etc. So rather than play players out of position to suit a hastily put together game plan that to me, doesn’t showcase the players he has in their correct positions, Cheika should experiment with some of the new blood he has coming through, to suit the game plan that the Wallabies have chosen.

In a brilliant article that I believe Nic Bishop highlighted earlier in the year, it was illustrated that the Wallabies attack structure closely mirrors that of the Brumbies, with a pod of forwards running first receiver off the ruck closest to the Blindside, with another pod further out, followed by the backline.

A winger standing just behind the first pod allows the option of a back pass being played. The winger can then pass to the second pod of forwards, who then, depending on the space available are able to truck the ball up the centre, or can draw and pass to the backs who are waiting on the openside.

Overall, it is a very effective pattern, especially given that it can provide Australia’s backs, who can be lethal with ball in hand, space to work.

Over on our side, this structure is not too dissimilar in structure to the Diamond attacking shape used by Bath in the 2014/2015 season.

Bath’s structure would have a runner standing deep, usually a lock running straight of the 9. The 9 would pass behind to a prop forward who would stand very flat behind the first decoy runner.

The prop who would then have the other hard running lock coming off his shoulder. He would pass behind to Ford, who would then straighten up, take the ball to the line and distribute judging on how much space had been created.

This system, taking into effect the skills of Ford, could suck in approximately six defenders, using three decoy runners.

Bath played some magnificent rugby. The diamond allowed Bath’s backs, of whom include George Ford, Jonathan Joseph and Anthony Watson, space to open up and dazzle with their outside breaks and scintillating runs. Unfortunately for this Bath supporter, it all fell apart in the final against Saracens.

Sarries are known for the pressure defence, and use it to pressure opposition teams into errors, such is the physicality of their pack. That day, Sarries were so quick off the line that they were on the Diamond and disrupting it, before the ball could even be passed to the second receiver, who would act as the link man for the backs behind the second forward runner.

This, in conjunction with the nine being tackled rapidly off the fringe at every opportunity and an abundance of slowball killed Bath. They could not get their attack going, they were pressured into mistakes, and whenever the ball actually got to their backs, they were so deep, Sarries simply drifted onto them, using the touchline as a defender.

The same Paul Gustard defence has since been employed by England, and in the series it proved very effective against a not too dissimilar attacking structure to Bath’s. That of the Wallabies, and the Brumbies.

England were up quickly, using their physicality to bruise the Wallaby forwards, catching them behind the gainline, and forcing them back further and further. Simultaneously, through a combination of a lack of distribution skills from the second pod, and the pressure of the defensive line already being on them, the second pod of forwards had to stand very deep to even have a chance of passing the ball out to the backline waiting on the openside.

This, allowed England to push and drift very cleverly, and when the ball was passed to the backs, the England line moved across, shepherding the Wallabies backs closer to the line. The Wallabies had actually lost ground even when the ball had been passed out to the openside Winger.

Doubtless, this is where Cheika hoped his twin playmaker option would prosper. Much like George Ford and Owen Farrell, selecting two 10s would allow for a far smarter kicking strategy. With the forwards being pushed back, Foley had no real option but to kick.

Choosing Cooper or Toomua would take the pressure of him. And using a back three whom I would say are lethal in space to chase, the Wallabies could get behind the All Blacks line, play some offloads, and launch real go forward platforms to score points against an All Blacks defence in disarray.

This didn’t happen, due to the injuries at 12. Secondly, the All Blacks were so ruthless and physical in defence, much like against England, the Wallabies backs never got moving.

The Brumbies’ attack pattern can be made to work with the players Cheika has at its disposal. Now, this is where I potentially make many enemies within the Roar community, and should I offend, I heartily apologise.

In my view, you need three broad paint strokes to get it working to its best ability. You need:

1. A ten who plays flat
The Wallabies in Bledisloe I/II were so deep I was in complete shock. Even the forwards, who were so much deeper than normal the backs had to go off them.

You need ten who can play flat to the second pod of forwards and is comfortable doing so. You only had to look at what George Ford brings to the England set up to see this, and how much faster and lethal the England backs are with him at the helm.

For this, I would pick Reece Hodge. Not only is he a flat playing ten with great distribution, but he has one hell of a boot on him, which keeps the opposition line speed a little more restrained out of fear of being penalised for being caught offside.

This works for the Wallabies forwards in multiple ways, allowing them to stand a little flatter, and not being caught so far behind the gainline.

He is also a very capable 15. A ten who can counter like a 15 when the ball is hoofed to him? Best of both worlds.

2. Greater physicality in the back row
The forwards pods, who create the space out wide for the backs, are not powerful enough.

They do not break the gainline enough, thereby keeping a line speed in check, or even acting as decoy runners, tie in as many defenders as they need too to allow a flat backline the space to work.

The selection of Lopeti Timani as an eight is a huge step forward. That guy running hard at opposition defences, will keep the opposition pinned and committed. That, along with a better hooker, Dave Pocock being made captain and seven for his gentlemanly relationship with referees, could help.

Add in better options at the locks for lineout work and boom. You have a better physical go forward back row, more balance with them, and greater lineout options, which teams have learnt to target the Wallabies for.

Lastly, and this is comprised a little backline reshuffle. But here goes.

3. 9. Genia, 10. Hodge, 12. Kerevi, 13. Folau, 11. Mitchell, 15. DHP, 14. Speight
I’d also say there was a place for Rob Horne, and there will always be a place in my heart for the Honey Badger. The main reasoning behind this reshuffle is for the centre pairing. Sam Kerevi and Israel Folau.

Hodge likes to play flat, and thereby commits defenders, if you have created space with the forward pods, you’re playing flat off them and therefore greater space to work. The dynamics of this backline for me just click.

Kerevi is a huge 12, gives you great go forward, and a massive gainline break ability, but as a decoy runner, he will commit defenders. Folau at 13, is truly, one of the best broken field runners in the world, and should see as much as the ball as possible.

Give him space from a Kerevi hard line. He has an amazing outside step, and can get around the defence, which should already be stretched (by the forwards/Kerevi/Hodge playing to the line).

Add in your world class back three playing in their right positions. I see metres gained – massive metres gained.

These are my remarks on the Wallabies and where they could go. Because, I sincerely believe they are a class team with world class talent, and with the proper application, can really do something with it.

I don’t understand why they are picking players that are counter-productive and don’t bring out the best in their attacking structure, which they are keen to stick with.

With the right application, the Brumbies pattern can be very effective.

I will be supporting the Wallabies for the rest of this Championship, as I believe the world needs a strong Australia.

Harken back to the days of John Eales, the Ella’s, George Gregan and Steve Larkham. There is too much history to see the brand descend into nothingness.

With a little rebuilding and a little injection of the new blood. I feel the Wallabies will get their groove back on. I do believe it’s coming, and I do look forward to it.

The Crowd Says:

2016-09-07T11:27:29+00:00

Tony H

Roar Pro


I missed that one Harry.

2016-09-07T05:20:54+00:00

DCNZ

Guest


The Dan Carter dude got stuck in with his tackling!

2016-09-06T15:07:13+00:00

McCaw was onside?

Guest


It would be nice if Aus had a Kaino, McCaw and a Read. They dont though. They dont have a Savea on the wing or a A.Smith at 9 either. So to simplistically say "If we did what NZ does" as if thats a solution is quite naive. You dont have those players. It doesnt work like that. NZ picks those players because NZ has those players. You dont.

2016-09-06T15:00:19+00:00

McCaw was onside?

Guest


Oh rubbish. The Wallabies against Eng were without Pocock for 2 games for a start but they were also were without Beale, Toomua, Cooper, Genia, Mitchell, Giteau, AAC and a few others. What you are doing is trying to justify your bias against a selection. You are blaming what you want to. Australias lineout was poor and thats a problem. Theyre tackling and defence has been poor. Their scrum hasnt been as good and they are missing a lot of players through injury or in the Eng series it was also due to no Europe based players being ready to return. To pretend none of that matters and blame Pocock and Hoopers selection is sad and quite obviously an attempt at blaming what you want to. Thats frustrating but this is the Roar.

2016-09-06T14:49:51+00:00

McCaw was onside?

Guest


Pffft. Yeah, if Aus used a ball carrying 8 theyd be better than NZ. Nice one. As Ive said, the Fard-Pooper combo is the best Aus has by quite some way and they were excellent last year.

2016-09-06T11:16:24+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


Thanks for the article and insights on Bath.

2016-09-06T10:15:06+00:00

Perthstayer

Roar Rookie


McCaw - Yes they do. England and ABs figured out how to neutralise last year's WBs game plan, with some ease.

2016-09-06T10:04:57+00:00

Tony H

Roar Pro


I can't believe that let a Pom write about Rugby. This site is seriously going to pot! In all seriousness, great article Conor. It picks up on quite a few shortcomings that the Wallabies have and that most of the Roarers seem to agree with (although we'd all solve the problems differently) I like your backline, but I don't think Drew Mitchell is the answer. He's not going to be around at the next world cup, and he blocks the way of someone like Luke Morahan, who is both skillful, and frighteningly quick. I look forward to reading more of your stuff!

AUTHOR

2016-09-06T09:05:23+00:00

Conor Wilson

Roar Pro


I see it as an option to accomodate Hooper, who although he gets a bit of stick I do rate. My personal opinion though is that your 6 should be a grafter. Someone who is always tackling, hitting the opposition, and can be personified as a constant menace. I like Fardy's work rate. Hence think he nabs it at 6 for me. Though moving him to Lock for Hooper to play at 6 is a valid option. I don't doubt Hoopers heart and commitment. Just think Fardy adds a bit more ballast. Though I will say that Rory Arnold and Fardy at Locks with Timani and Pocock in the back row does give you far greater flexibility and options come lineout time. This is why Cheiks is paid what he is i guess! Hard call to make.

AUTHOR

2016-09-06T08:53:48+00:00

Conor Wilson

Roar Pro


I was a little surprised as I actually quoted TPN in brackets after the better Hooker option in point 2. The reviewers may've edited that out! I like TPN, not only is he a better carrier than Moore, and I think better to break open a line, but he is not so hostile to referees. Taking Moore out and making Pocock Captain for me is the best of both worlds. You get a better hooker and a far greater dialogue with the Officials. (Pocock even gave Nigel Owens a hugand congratulations on a great game immediately after the WC Final) Such is the measure of the man. Feel he would make a great Captain going forward.

2016-09-06T08:04:42+00:00

axel

Guest


Which is why they were only ever 2nd best and are now 4th best. Lacking ball carrying forwards has been a Wallaby weakness for some time now and why wouldn't you want to improve on this weakness? The ABs are always striving to improve which is why they're always one step ahead. Compare the carry metres of the AB loose trio in the RWC final to the Wallaby loose trio, a big disparity and key reason why the ABs usually play on the front foot while the Wallabies tend to struggle behind the gain line.

2016-09-06T05:22:20+00:00

soapit

Guest


tpn used to be able to at least ralph

2016-09-06T05:15:28+00:00

Odds'n'sods

Guest


while I have some sympathy for selecting Hodge at 10 - to say that he will play flat is to make a stretch of it. Foley liked to play flat, then he got challenged by a good defence and dropped back further. As did Quade. The Same will happen to Hodge. My reason for thinking of Hodge in the 10 position is to bring his tackling ability and kicking to the front of the Wallabies game plan. This obviously throws the ball in hand style out the window. The back line selections then become centered around sound defense and kick-chase. But that is another discussion.

2016-09-06T04:57:48+00:00

CUW

Guest


Both England and Bath (and some of the other aviva clubs) use decoy runners way up to the Letter of the LAw, imo. from what i have seen , they are more like the screen used in basketball , where u are breathing up the other guy's face but not touching him (else u get called). the refs have been indulgent and also becoz of lack of contact, they cant call . but imo it is bordering on obstruction becoz of the "heard running - meaning 3 guys running up front " . u can argue that any one of the 3 can be a receiver of the ball but in fact, none gets it while the 9 or 10 or a forward is running behind the screen. in super rugger on the other hand , it is usually not more than 2 runners who play the decoy. anyway it is not so prevalent in super , as much as in aviva. (even in the little of top 14 i have seen , not so much as in aviva). anyways bath were good in the year before last. it will be interesting to see what kind of new stuff TB has got in store :)

2016-09-06T04:55:18+00:00

Ralph

Roar Guru


True, I guess at one level it doesn't matter who carries the ball over the gain line, so long as somebody does it for 80 minutes. However, I suspect a pretty strong argument can be made that the absence of a ball carrying number 8 in 2015 was not actually a positive thing (as in new and revolutionary) but was a weakness (as in something that has now been discovered and subsequently exploited).

2016-09-06T04:38:37+00:00

McCaw was onside?

Guest


Not in good enough form to challenge NZ. And yes, people blame what they want to.

2016-09-06T04:33:26+00:00

McCaw was onside?

Guest


No, I wouldnt convert Hodge. Hodge at 12, perfect. Hodge at 10, disaster. Foley, Cooper and Toomua for the 10 role is enough. Im not 1 to try and justify bias after a poor performance. Im not going to blame senior players coming back from Europe or Mumms inclusion in the 23 like some sad people try to. For me the problems in Australias 2016 so far are simple. Against England they were without Beale, Lealiifano, Toomua, Douglas, Pocock, Giteau, Genia, Cooper, AAC, Mitchell and a couple of others for a large chunk of the series. Skelton, Moore, Kuridrani, Foley, Simmons and a few others were out of form and Hooper, Folau, Fardy and a few others were not in their best form. And there it is. That combined with England showing pretty good form... Against NZ their were still a lot of injuries to key backs. NZ have improved since 2015 and will get better in the year ahead and into 2017. They are widening the gap between them and the chasing pack despite the misguided predictions of weakness after vets from 2015 moved on. Although Genia, Cooper and AAC were good on their return, the Super Rugby based senior players like Simmons and Moore got worse. The lineout got worse and new players such as Coleman and Kerevi, although showing promise, failed to make the most of their opportunities. I dont think Aus should change the Fard-Pooper combo. I think it is excellent and by far the best combo they have. I dont think Douglas, Coleman and Fardy are not enough lineout jumpers to get by, I just know theyve failed to execute and respond to pressure well and Moore has not helped. To some degree its been a perfect storm for Wallaby humiliation. They have had injuries and form issues, their excellent 2015 set unrealistically high standards for an already self entitled Australian rugby public and questions over players, captains and coaches abilities and positions within the group have all helped Australia lose games and confidence. But let me make this clear. England and NZ were better teams on paper and England is finally starting to play close to its true ability. However, a full strength and firing Australian side is a top 4 side. The only thing is that they are not fully fit, they are not in any kind of good form and they have a captain and coach setting a very bad example. Imo the solutions to Australias woes are not easy. First they need to stop the tantrums borne of frustration during and after the game. You blame the ref, question their calls and officially complain about them all the time and its going to seriously damage culture and your teams chances. 2nd they need to drop Moore to the bench and give Hooper the captaincy. As far as selections go, I would like Hodge at 12 and Folau on the wing with DHP at 15. On the bench I would like to see Timani (not a starter imo) at 19 and McMahon at 20. Drop Simmons from the 23. Simmons is the only player I think Aus should drop. The constent returning to Simmons due to the failure of Australia to develop a lineout calling lock of quality is ridiculous. GET IT DONE.

2016-09-06T03:18:44+00:00

UTB

Guest


I think its a fair point about Coopers commitment but he's always played that game (and most 10's do). But for now its got to be Cooper or Foley. The idea of putting Hodge in as an international 10 is just wishful thinking/ pulling at straws. He's got nothing like the experience he needs to function at 10 in that environment. Not least while the rest of the backline is anyone's guess. There is no doubting his potential but I reckon long term he'll be the AAC replacement - high class utility player - possibly playing closer in than AAC does. While the Wals are in such a state of flux they need a steady hand at 10 - so they'll be going for experience I reckon. One thing is for sure - they need the ball in Folau's hands as much as possible and a move to 13 might be the way forward. That said whoever is going to have de Allande running at them needs to be solid in defense so TK might be a better choice (not that Izzy has poor defense - just less experience in that channel). My view is that the AB's are simply too far out of reach from every other side in world rugby to give a real idea of where the WB's are at the moment - the SA tests will be a much better gauge (although this is not a great SA side either). See what happens Saturday...... Good article btw and interesting analogy with Bath - my only comment is that I found watching the Brumbies this year really tedious. I hope Larkham gets some new ideas. Cheers Sam

2016-09-06T02:35:42+00:00

Hello

Roar Rookie


Great article Conor thanks

2016-09-06T02:28:27+00:00

Wal

Roar Guru


There's a bit of derth at present perhaps pinch a Kiwi #10 :) I think Hodge could be a longer-term prospect

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar