The long rugby season rolls on! What should we be looking for out of the Spring tours?
Like a well-constructed maul, the rugby calendar enters one of its most interesting phases just when you’d thought it had lost momentum.
The Spring Tours are always intriguing and besides the early/late viewing times, great for spectating. Seeing the players we’ve watched all year compete in new environments and against vastly different oppositions and tactics is a treat.
Here are a few questions to get you thinking about what’s coming up.
Is a Wallabies Grand Slam really on?
I don’t think so.
It’s admirable to aim for a Grand Slam (defeating all four Home Union nations: England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland) whenever you have a chance to achieve one. You don’t get to the top without aiming for it.
But this team is hardly consistent enough to win three matches in a row. Let alone four out of five that is required to take the grand slam (allowing for a loss against France in the middle of the tour.)
The Wallabies showed they had improved by making the third Bledisloe Cup Test close for about 60 minutes. But across four Home Union matches there are too many weaknesses.
If the Wallabies win three of the four Grand Slam Tests I would consider that a good tour. The most enjoyable result either way would be a win against England to get some sort of revenge for the tailspin they pushed the Wallabies into this June.
The midfield defensive problems, inattentiveness to their own ruck, a limited lineout and shaky scrum are going to be put under too much pressure across five weekends in a row to come away undefeated.
Can the Wallabies fix their own ruck?
As I noted last week, the Wallabies laziness when it comes to securing the ball at the ruck is an obvious weakness of the team.
The Wallabies forwards often prefer to fan out for the next phase of attack, allowing the opposition room to disrupt the ball or turn it over.
When the defence is tired this tactic helps produce attacking options, but when the defensive line is confident and scavengers are active this leads to frustrating turnovers and lack of continuity that starves the Wallabies’ confidence players of multiple touches.
Many of the Wallabies best players have been short on form this year and they seem to need repeated phases in possession to find their feet in matches. Against good teams that pilfer and counter-ruck that doesn’t happen until late in both halves because the forwards aren’t focused enough on securing the pill.
In the Northern Hemisphere teams love to bully the Wallabies at the ruck, and multiple tacklers will hold up ball runners. We’ve all seen it before. But without adjusting the Wallabies will not secure multiple phases until they’re behind in the game.
Will the Wallabies midfield picture become clearer by December?
The midfield is very concerning for the Wallabies at this point. Whether Israel Folau moves into 13 or not – I hope not – they will be putting a new inside and outside centre duo on the park yet again in the first Test.
Defensively the problems are obvious. Communication, understanding and reps are all going to be lacking.
In attack the Wallabies have failed to fire this year, and that’s also partly because the sheer number of combinations that have been tried in the midfield. At this point they need to settle on something to let it build through the tour.
Set plays can be drilled throughout the week and run on the weekend, no matter how many Tests the midfield have played together.
Where the inexperience is lacking is in phase play. Everyone needs to know the tendencies of those around them to make the most of the small openings, turnovers and quick passing that breaks Test rugby open.
One thing that will help the midfield on the tour is Will Genia. While he won’t be free for all Tests, when he is it will be important. He was one of the top performers – if not the best – of the Wallabies during the Southern Hemisphere season.
Nick Phipps tried hard against New Zealand, but Genia has been much better. More decisive and a better pass. He makes those outside him look better.
Can New Zealand finish with a points-differential as ridiculous as their Rugby Championship one?
One thing I noticed going back over the results of the Rugby Championship this week, was the final overall table. Not exciting at first glance – but then you zero in on the All Blacks row and see they scored 178 points more than they conceded across the championship. That’s an average of 29 points to the good in each of their six matches.
That is a truly staggering number in what is meant to be a tough tournament.
Every other side finished with a negative points differential. Because when everyone is getting thrashed by the All Blacks it’s hard to win the rest of your matches by enough to get into the black.
My question is whether the All Blacks will be able to sustain that sort of form into the 10th month of a long season, and on the road?
I’d expect the first Test against Ireland to be tougher, but the second one to be close to the 29 point margin the All Blacks had in the Rugby Championship. They should cover that spread against Italy as well. So it depends how well they go first up and in the final match against France.
What makes me believe they can sustain the form for another month is the incredible power coming off their bench every week that will push the starters and be more than capable should the coaches decide to rest some first-teamers.
Which Hemisphere will come away with a winning record?
Considering the All Blacks slate brings me to the obvious objective of the Spring Tours: It’s another opportunity for the Southern Hemisphere heavy-weights to go abroad and hammer their Northern Hemisphere counterparts.
Will the ledger be lopsided come the first week of December? Or will the Northern Hemisphere show the four World Cup semi-finalists they’ve improved this year?
Four wins is very much in play for the All Blacks.
The Wallabies should win three of their matches. The question will be whether Ireland, Wales and France can add to the Wallabies most likely loss – England – to really tilt this trip in the favour of North.
The Springboks should win at least two of their three. Italy aren’t consistent enough to roll through a better version of their own team. Wales will be a hard slog but are beatable. And England, again, will be the biggest test. I think the Springboks will play this tour safe and focus on results over development, meaning two wins is likely.
Argentina play Wales, Scotland and England on tour. And they’ve be disappointed not to get at least one win from that stretch.
It looks like 10 wins from 15 matches is on offer for the Southern Hemisphere travellers. But a second Wallabies slump or a disinterested Argentina touring squad could squeeze that margin.
Jerry
Guest
"Developed by the Irish schools/club system" His club coach was a Kiwi, tbf.
Derm
Roar Guru
I'm fully aware that it has always been the four, T-man. And that it now refers to the four teams from two countries - UK and Ireland - instead of just one. And that the original four in the Home Nations Championship has since become the Six Nations Championship including France and Italy. I'm not seeking to apply it to England. A grand slam in the then four home nations championship was and still is called the Triple Crown. As I said previously, if that's what Australia wants to call it, let them at it, it's their choice - as in that's what they choose to call it. NZ and SA too. i still agree with Moaman though. :)
Shooter McGavin
Guest
Good article - the point about the wallabies being lazy at the ruck is spot on, I thought that was by far the biggest issue against England and it didn't improve, which in my mind makes Cheika incompetent...
Jerry
Guest
No, a Grand Slam means whatever people says it does. It's used in about a dozen different sports in different manners and the SH rugby one has been being used for about 50 years so it's kind of pointless quibbling about what it means.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Elisha as good as the ABs were in the RC Ive a feeling you might have erred when you mention whether they can 'sustain' this sort of standard. I think its more a matter of how much better can they get. If you were to ask the ABs if they can sustain this sort of form I think they would say we hope not, we have much more we can improve on. The improvement on last years side is immense and I think theyre just building momentum.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Again its not a choice pot. It has always been the four. Dont see why you dont get that. You are just showing an ignorance towards SH rugby. A SH GS can never be the same as a NH one. England can bever beat all four home unions so the definition of a GS can not be the same. Ot also doesnt change just because some tournament changes.
taylorman
Roar Guru
It's hemispheric primarily because of the season each plays, so there is a physical difference between the two. It's also split into two on the basis of tours...northern tour in June, Southern in November. You don't see England touring Wales for multiple tests or SA touring Oz or NZ anymore so if anything, the division between the two is more pronounced now than ever. It's not just country versus country, it's NH country versus SH country. You can think of it in isolation but fact is the NH have their schedules and the SH have theirs, and until the two truly combine, never the two shall meet, so you will always, justifiably have that NH vs SH concept.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Well I see it differently. For us...oz and NZ, and I believe SA, the grand slam has traditionally been, and traditionally is the key word here...England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Simple. If we play and beat all four on one tour, that's it, grand slam. Rightly or wrongly that's what evolved for us a the definition of a Grand slam. There are vagaries in the past that prevented us from achieving it for one reason or another...Wales win in 05, not playing Scotland in 24, Ireland in 67 etc. That's never changed. It's you who are moving the goalposts here. By increasing your participants you change the concept. That has nothing to do with what we perceive as a GS. By your description- all wins on one tour- the ABs would probably have racked up more grand slams than any of the 6 nations participants themselves, but we don't see it that way, nor do we call a sweep of the RC a grand slam. So when you say a Grand slam 'generally' means...well not for us it doesn't. It specifically means...the four home unions, even though there are no formalities around it, no trophy...it just, is, regardless of how you interpret it in the NH.
Derm
Roar Guru
Indeed, Bakkies. In professional era., the home record for tour games this weekend are two of the worst: Ireland v NZ - 0- 6 Wales v Aus - 2-9 Miserable. Some of the other home records are better.
Derm
Roar Guru
Hey Moaman, Yes the NZ media have already picked up on the fact that "NZ-born" Joey Carbery may get a game in the first test. His father is from Auckland and moved to Ireland about 25 years ago to work, married an Irishwoman, and they moved back to NZ where Joey was born, and then moved back to Ireland again at age 10 to his mother's hometown. Developed by the Irish schools/club system, he's already started 6 times for Leinster whilst in second year in academy, including a couple of Heineken cup matches. It's his 21st birthday tomorrow apparently, and he could get a nice present by being named in the team. Here's a few clips of him in his debut european match - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKi9diQus1o
Derm
Roar Guru
A grand slam generally means winning all the games or hands or whatever in a contest or championship - in other words winning all the contests. The grand slam in the 5/6 Nations meant/means beating the other 4/5 teams in the tourney. Another expression commonly for it is a 'clean sweep'. For example, New Zealand achieved a Grand Slam in the Rugby Championship this year. The "grand slam" term used by Australia refers to a similar clean sweep when Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland were actually the home unions or home countries of one entity. "Home" means Britain or UK same as the Home Office in UK government or the former BBC Home Service radio station - I remember radios used to be manufactured with stations printed on the dial, one of which was BBC Home. In many other sports, the Home Nations factually refers to the four countries of the UK e.g. in soccer, the Home Internationals are played between Eng, Scot, Wales and Northern Ireland. It doesn't mean the British Isles which is not used by the Irish Government any more - the British and Irish Isles or British Isles and Ireland is now more regularly used, and is what is taught in Irish schools. The term is an anachronism that has carried on in rugby even though it now refers to two countries, not one. The intent of a grand slam with the objective of a former colony defeating all four home unions i.e. the UK is no longer true and is now somewhat ironic since it now means defeating Britain and a fellow colony, Ireland. As Moaman points out, a proper grand slam where five teams are involved like this tour, would be beating all five. Dropping a game in the middle would mean a clean sweep couldn't be achieved. "If Australia only played Italy, France, Wales and Scotland in one tour and won all games that would not be a grand slam." Well yes it would, since it would be a clean sweep of all the test teams on the tour. But if that's what Australians want to call it, it's their choice. It just seems an odd claim in modern times - 'we won a grand slam by beating 4 out of 5 test teams on a tour'.
nickbrisbane
Guest
According to the all knowing internet, the BBC has the rights to the Scotland and Wales games with Sky covering the rest. If that's the case you can log into a free VPN for the game, tell it you want to be in the UK and you can at least watch these two games.
Bakkies
Guest
'Which Hemisphere will come away with a winning record? ' Time to stop this hemisphere v hemisphere nonsense. It's country v country in test Rugby.
Rugby Tragic
Roar Rookie
yeap mate ... used to be Setanta
moaman
Roar Guru
; I would expect Barrett to start and Luatua on the bench...if anywhere.
CUW
Guest
that is a 6: 2 bench :) dont think it will happen. the advantage of LUATUA is he can play 5 6 8 . Barrett and Savea most liekly , coz if there are any injuries in the 3rd row Luatua covers 2 positions. if there are any injuries in 2nd row Barrett can cover with Read and Kaino. 7 is the specialist position.
Bob Wire
Guest
I hope the Wallabies don't agree with those people who say their effort in Bledisloe 3 was good enough because the All Blacks are the greatest ever, and that winning three games out of four on tour is acceptable. They let in six tries and scored only one! Aim high. Talk of a grand slam is downright ridiculous, they should give their full attention to the next fixture. Larkham was a fantastic player and a joy to watch, he's most fortunate to be doing his coaching apprenticeship with the Wallabies, how the ARU can consider him as the next senior coach is beyond me, how many tries have the Wallabies scored this year, in spite of having heaps of possession? The lack of coverage on free to air is very disappointing for a dwindling rugby fan base, who can we thank for that?
Dcnz
Guest
So paddy luatua kaino cane read ...with barrett squire and savea on the bench ?
CUW
Guest
@ moaman Tuipolatu and Luatua will most probably start. either Barrett or Fifita will be on bench. maybe barrett becoz Fifita is more of a 6 and they do have Squire also. the great thing with Luatua is that the plays 5 ,6 , 8 . so the bench can have numeros options.
Zack
Roar Rookie
I think Kaino will move to the second row and Liam Squire comes on at 6, with Luatua and Ardie Savea off the bench.