After the first Bledisloe Test I was incensed. The performance against the All Blacks was somehow so poor that it managed to outdo the 3-0 series loss to England.
The careers of certain underperforming Wallabies should have ended forever.
Since then we have been thrashed by the All Blacks 29-9 in New Zealand, and had solid 23-17 and 36-20 home wins over South Africa and Argentina.
Both winning matches could certainly have been improved upon. Were it not for multiple intercept passes against South Africa and poor clearance-kicking against Argentina, coupled with some awful scrum referring that did not allow for our surprising scrum dominance to be utilised, we would have won both matches much more easily.
Nevertheless, there were many positives.
Our forwards finally looked like they were interested in playing Test rugby rather than sleepwalking aimlessly around the park, and began to win the collisions, particularly at the key moments.
Our lineout improved significantly (albeit against weaker defensive lineouts than we faced against New Zealand).
We are finally fielding players capable of clearance kicking, and we used this to great effect against the Springboks (although for some reason we reverted to Bernard Foley kicking against Argentina, with disastrous consequences).
Perhaps most importantly, our backline looked like they knew how to attack for the first time since the opening ten minutes against England.
This was largely to do with playing a number 9 who could consistently find the player he aimed for with his pass, and a 10 who knows how to organise an attack and put players through holes.
Additionally, the introduction of Reece Hodge and Adam Coleman have strengthened the defence of both the back and forward lines.
I also suspect Michael Cheika might have whispered in the ears of some of the underperforming forwards, warning them that if they did not lift their game they would find themselves dropped.
It is hard to gauge where we are now, are we a decent team steadily improving and on track to becoming a good side, or are we terrible and Argentina and South Africa are simply worse?
I come down on the side that we are a decent team. Were we fielding Genia and Quade Cooper in the England series, we would have won at least Games 1 and 3. Big call, I know, but we managed to lose those games despite dominating possession because our 9 and 10 were unable to turn overwhelming possession into enough points. This is not a problem Genia and Cooper have.
The remainder of the year will tell where we are.
I will be disappointed if we do not beat both South Africa and Argentina.
South Africa because, even though they are at home, they are the worst Springboks team I have ever seen. They look aimless and un-coached to a point that is worse than the Wallabies against the All Blacks.
Argentina because we are simply a better side, playing at a field that we enjoy, where neither side possesses a home advantage.
We will lose to the All Blacks at Eden Park, I am unequivocal in saying that.
However, the end of year tour is a big test. We should beat most, if not all, of the Northern Hemisphere teams, who have not looked strong the last couple of years.
Losing to England is understandable, they are a good side, however, if the core of our team remains roughly the same as it is now, we should be able to beat them.
What do you think, what are our chances for the rest of the year? How bad are we, really?
taylorman
Guest
Whereas Fionn I think there was a lot to admire about the 3-0 win. to look at a series lost 3-0 by saying we could have won that one and that one if...is being completely in denial over what happened. The Wallaby team was only a poor team because the English made them look poor. England were much more organised, worked much more as a unit and had a gameplan designed to throttle the Wallabies out oif the series. When you lose the first test its supposed to ring alarm bells. It did and Cheika did everything he could to put a team out to win the next. And lost again. Then to rub it in, even when the series was over, England had every right to be in celebration mode as a series win over a SH side is very rare, the Wallabies could still not muster enough physical and mental attributes to prevent the whitewash. 3-0 is more than just we coulda won that one if, coulda won this one if...3-0 means you got knocked down, got up again, got knocked down again, got up again then got knocked out. There is no closeness to 3-0 no matter what way you want to bend it. And frankly suggesting Cooper and Genia would have made a difference. In June they were never going to be selected. Cooper wasnt even making the Toulon side and Genia hadnt played since January- was he even fit in June- apparently not as he still hadnt played when he was eventually picked. And Phipps and Foley had taken the side to the W Cup final- no way on this earth was Cheika going to suddenly pick Genia and cooper to start that series. Thats just silly. Hindsight doesnt win matches last time I checked.
superba
Guest
Well I can't agree with your Usain Bolt analogy because those who finished behind Bolt were in the race. True professionals all the way to the line . This nonsense about if this , if that , if the other is disneyland garbage .Facts are what the scoreboard reads. You won or you lost .You win or you lose. Stop pontificating and start winning against serious opposition .No ifs no buts no maybes .
superba
Guest
Well I am with ruck . This is the weakest Australian team I have ever seen . Watching SA v Australia was like watching Georgia v Romania .
Rick Page
Guest
Wallabies are improving much faster than the Boks. It's good to see McMahon at 8, gives a more balanced loosie trio going forward. Credit to the selectors for the likes of Robertson coming from nowhere. Front row is back to solid and growing depth and the line out much improved, more physicality in the engine room, Coleman and Mcmahon et al. Pretty much all those new players bought in this year look like keepers, only the lack of experience may expose some at times but they will all grow and they all have a lot of talent at test level. To me Cheika is doing a very good job at rebuilding. I think they beat the Boks Saturday and are a good chance to even beat England this year, will at least be close, and that at Twickers. Even if they don't win that one, WB's will be better than England by the end of next season IMO. AB's too far ahead yet, WB's need to re develop that relentless continuity game that's given AB's so much trouble in the past, its an area they used to consistently outdo AB's and stretch them to breaking, when they beat us too often back in the day.
Akari
Roar Rookie
It's good to see that Ian Mark Narev, a Kiwi and the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Commonwealth Bank Group shines your shoes, Rebellion. Or is it the other way around? Don't get me wrong as I'd love to see that royal commission in Oz banks get off the ground soon as.
Terry
Guest
The below were or are horrendous WALLABIES .. 9. Nick Phipps 6. Dave Dennis 5. Nathan Sharpe 4. Kane Douglas 3. Ben Alexander 1. Benn Robinson
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
Taylorman, I didn't choose the title. My original title didn't mention the Boks or the Pumas at all. Sorry for the confusion there. I'm definitely being completely hypothetical in regards to England, I just saw nothing that really impressed me in that England team. I think they should have been able to put the team we put up away much more easily, and I am surprised 2 of the 3 games were as close as they were. I just think that if a very poor Wallabies outfit were within a few points of winning games 1 and 3 (I know the list minute try in game 1 changed the score overall) then a much better Wallabies outfit that had had time to play together and to get their selections a bit better would have been able to beat England. It is all conjecture, but I simply wasn't that impressed by England and thought the team we played was just awful. In regards to the Springboks I think their issue is down to coaching and selection. Their coach seems to have no idea what he is doing—their strategy seems to be non-existent. They look totally aimless and without a plan. They are suffering from some of their guys being injured (Pollard) and others not being picked despite being much better than the players that have been in the team - in this list I include le Roux, Bismarck du Plessis (who is now injured) and Frans Steyn. I don't think Faf de Klerk or Janties are up to international standard, and I think their weak 9 and 10 is—like was the case with the Wallabies in June—making the entire team much, much worse. If they pick Steyn this weekend they will do much better. It'll be interesting to see if Lambie is any good after taking so much time off. Argentina are simply always doing what they have done for the last 2-3 years. They play a high-energy high-tempo physical game where they smash the opposition for about 50 minutes, and tend to dominate possession and territory during this period, but are unable to put enough points on the board to stop the opposition from coming back and winning during the lull they have in the other 30 mins. They did it against the Wallabies in the RWC semifinal where they dominated for the middle 50 but didn't do put enough on the scoreboard; they did it against South Africa in game 1 of the rugby championship, dominated for 50 then South AFrica came back; they almost did it in round 2 vs South Africa where they dominated at first then South Africa started coming back, and only lost because Steyn (for once) missed a penalty; they did it against New Zealand a few weeks ago, and; then they did it against us. This is a pretty standard pattern for Argentina. It is a lovely strategy to watch, but it simply isn't good enough enough of the time (yet, anyway).
Dally
Guest
Timbo - Yes, I do think you'll see they were not that good in due course. Australia will be back with a new look side by next year and it'll be a different story.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Is it Bolt that makes sprinting dull? Oh hang on, it isn't dull. If it's being made dull then it is surely the opposition making it so.?
taylorman
Roar Guru
Shoes need shining Rebellion? Kettle need polishing perhaps?
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes they could. They could do the second half of the RC first and have NZ and oz going to SA and Argie first. Personally I think oz have a better draw with the first up in Sydney, and the results confirm that, that's where they've had better results vs NZ. SANZAR just seemed to have settled on the current format.
Rebellion
Guest
Council, It doesn't explain why there are at least a dozen kiwi roarers jumping down the throat of an Australian roarer posting an opinion in an inoffensive way. Ruck' has crossed the line in this thread and he didn't need the usuall All Black bash brigade putting their two cents and a boot in as is always the case. Take responsibility for your actions as a group and take a look in the mirror
Timbo
Guest
Sorry; I'm still confused Fionn. Firstly, this brand new team you were 'bedding' down. 10 of the starting XV in Test 1 in June started the game against England in the RWC. In addition Holmes and Kepu simply swapped places from the bench to the team as a selection decision on form. The only other change in the pack was Arnold for Douglas. In the backs Genia and Phipps swapped starting and bench places, and Haylett-Petty came in for Ashley-Cooper. At 12 Kerevi made his debut. I was confidently informed on these boards before the game that this was an inspired selection and he was going to tear the 'poms' a new one. So 12 of the starting XV in Test 1 in June were in the 23 for the RWC game. If slotting 3 players into a team causes such massive problems, problems that apparently couldn't be resolved over 3 games, perhaps the coaching isn't all that good. Second, your point seems to be that Genia and Cooper would have won the series for Oz. As a pair they never caused England major problems when they were at their peak (played 3, lost 3), but apparently, they would turn the series now when they're clearly not as good as they once were. Thirdly, this 'would've, could've, should've' about how the games panned out can be answered with a simple 'didn't'. England won all three relatively comfortably, certainly considering they were matches between teams closely ranked. Fourthly, regarding your locks I said 'other' top five teams. I didn't think it was controversial to say your locks have been terrible. I think you used 6 of them over the three games (not counting when Fardy and/or Mumm lined up there). It's clear Cheika was very unhappy with them. I thought Eales was going to get a call up at one stage. Regarding their relative standard, none would even get on the bench of NZ, SA or England. I also think they would struggle to get into Wales or Ireland's starting XV; and even have doubts about them ousting the first choice two of Argentina. England 'turned it around pretty quickly' from the RWC debacle by having a big player clear-out and replacing every coach. Seven of the starting XV against Oz in the RWC, and 12 of the 23, are no longer in the wider squad.
alex
Roar Pro
Losing to England is never understandable
CUW
Guest
cool hope he has a similar impact to Byrne with NZ ( and now OZ). but the funny thing is , the guy who needs most lessons , may not play (jantjies :) ) anyways , everyone knows the current bok coaches are not up to it , he must be the upgrade ...
Jesse langley
Guest
In game one of foleys try was awarded (which was marginal obstruction at best) then it was game set match!
Council
Guest
What the almight heck are you on about? Suzy is South African I believe. And this post shows the negative view you have of Kiwis. Wake up.
taylorman
Roar Guru
You're saying that at the time of the England series Cooper and Genia were Oz's best 9 and 10? Where does that come from? Hindsight? The fact that they would play well three months later against Argie and SA? They weren't even playing at the time, neither were they the incumbants, neither played through to the World Cup final, the immediate last tests. How on earth were they the best 9 and 10 in June? Explain that please?
Rebellion
Guest
Just remember Suzy, Many a Kiwi has come to Australian shores seeking a good job to have either ended up shining our shoes or collecting welfare. Rugby is only a game but that cycle is a tough one to break.
nigel brown
Roar Rookie
Fion . Cooper came back because he was found out over in France.He was not up to their standards and was struggling to get game time as a play maker