There is no doubt that when Michael Cheika took over he wanted to play an attractive brand of rugby driven by a running ball-in-hand game.
However, when it came time to select a team to execute his plans, he has been struck with a huge dilemma. He believes he has found the players best suited to his attacking style, but he has had to paper over other areas of the game at the same time.
I won’t go into the detail as it’s been discussed ad nauseam on The Roar; however, in summary, his need for a fast mobile back row has caused an imbalance which has in turn caused weaknesses in set pieces and a reduced physicality in contact.
Further, his desire to have his preferred attacking options has led to a lot of moving parts in defence and limited field position options, including:
- a fullback with an exceptional step and offload who can’t kick and lacks positional awareness;
- backrowers who are fast and mobile with limited set piece contributions or who in some cases lack physicality in the tackle, at the breakdown and in advantage line running;
- a five-eighth who takes it to the line beautifully and has plenty of zip but doesn’t possess a long passing or kicking game; and
- creative inside backs who need to be hidden in defence.
How can these guys have made it to the elite level without developing all their skills? I admit that last week’s performance saw a significant improvement in some of these areas – some of it due to skill-related execution and a lot of it due to better game planning – however, let’s not pretend that these issues will go away unless our Wallabies become more complete players.
When you think of some of our most successful Wallabies teams of the past, this was never an issue. Tim Horan could play a hard hit-it-up game when required or mix it with the best with ball-in-hand skills.
Could you imagine him ever being hidden in defence? Michael Lynagh possessed a tremendous tactical kicking game, yet he could have a run or unleash a back line as required.
I know the game has changed significantly since these guys were playing, yet has it changed so much that some of the basic rugby skills do not need to be taught and developed? New Zealand still manages to produce guys like Conrad Smith and now Ryan Crotty, who provide composure and options in the backline as they have the full package of skills.
So why do we have a lack of complete rugby players at our disposal?
(Image: AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Maybe it’s the fact that our Super Rugby teams have hidden players in defence and not allowed them to develop areas of their games that need attention. These players come into the Wallabies at a young age and their deficiencies continue to be hidden and neglected.
Would they be better served with longer Super Rugby apprenticeships with the international coaches and ARU development personnel working with them? Think of some of our great Australian cricket batsmen of the past – they had some chances when they were young; however, once deficiencies were exposed they were sent away and welcomed back when they were more mature and their games had developed.
Or is the dilemma that these young guys will run off overseas if they do not receive their instant gratification? If this happens, it may not always be a bad thing as long as the ARU and national coaches do more than just keep in contact with the odd phone call.
This could be part of long-term career planning with an aim to bring hardened forwards back from Europe in their late 20s. They could even be contracted for longer terms when they are younger and seconded overseas or into New Zealand NPC in the early stages of their careers. This process could be managed.
However, I would say that irrespective of the above, it needs to start earlier. Much more needs to be done before these guys hit the Super Rugby level. The skills need to be getting taught through the juniors and then developed via the pathway.
We also need to be doing more to retain young talent like the Angus Crichtons of the rugby world. I don’t know enough about what the ARU actually does in these areas and therefore my opinions are self-acknowledged generalisations, but clearly it is not working, as some of the skills at the senior level are not good enough.
Maybe some of you will say that these players are actually out there and that the main issue is poor selecting at the national level. I was going to propose my complete Wallabies team – one that can run or play field position, that competes at the set piece yet is mobile and that defends in their own positions.
However, I gave up as I couldn’t get past selecting a five-eighth, so why do we lack complete rugby players and what can be done to improve this situation for the future?
Tooly
Roar Rookie
One of the most complete rugby players we ever produced was Mathew Burke and look what they did with him . He was shunted around to make way for Matt Rogers , Andrew Walker and Chris Latham . Rogers and Walker were pretty complete players themselves and suffered the same fate . Chris Latham was brilliant in attack but he had no kick except an up an under an no head on defence , he was rarely moved to the wing . . Common sense suggests you pick the number one guy in his best position . With these four Burke 15 ,Latham and Walker on the wings and Rodgers 12 with Ben Tune at 13 . Of course there were other options at this time but not at FB . Our coaches make the complete player their utility player either from the bench or in a stop gap position they never get to settle or produce their best . With Chekko it's become even more inane . A FB who can't kick , a winger DHP who is a FB and a 7 who plays ball boy . I have no worries with Foley and Beale defending at 10 and 12 with McMahon , Kuridrani and Speight around . I don't have much confidence in the defence of Hooper , Hannigan , DHP or Folau . The closest we have to being a complete player in their position are Paul at FR , Smith at 7 , Pocock at 7 , Gill at 7 , Fardy at 6 , Genia at 9 and Speight on the wing .
Phantom
Roar Rookie
Absolutely
Phantom
Roar Rookie
I was there and saw the lot. The three best players on the park never played for Australia again to the best of my knowledge.
taylorman
Guest
True running rugby isnt a method Bob its an attitude. Its an understanding that you need to create as many moments as possible to use space to create tries. Running means space, because without it, you cant run. With a running game attitude you also seek to create something out of little or nothing. Ozs first too tries were exactly that. Folay positioned himself in a way that rather than simply apply the standard defensive mode he also 'looked' for an opportunity to create...the intercept. Its that running game mindset that says 'whats the best outcome here?'...a try to Oz. And so it was. It doesnt always come off but without the attitude, no way he would have scored that unless somehow the ball miraculously fell into his hands in a good position. That didnt happen there. He saw it, and went for it. Same with Foleys try. Oz scrum was backpeddling so fast its almost impossible to see anything positive coming of that. Genia did. Took off without a thought for his forwards who were about to crash all around him. Attitude. Two moments you would rarely see happen in the style you mention. And without those moments of opportunity oz would have been beaten by a huge score. So it works for oz particularly as their all round game is shot. It didnt win, but it created the opportunity to be able to win. And it proves that you dont need to earn it to be able to run. Oz core set piece game would never give that permission so you do it anyway, because its the only way. The ABs have both, and thats the reason they win more than oz, or anyone else. But only Oz and NZ have it as a core pare of their culture, bar the less successful PI sides, who all have it. SA and England are toying with it lately, and Wales and Ireland have their moments.
Fionn
Guest
Skills have declined a little then, with Fekitoa, Laumape and SBW playing in the centres for NZ. Coaches are becoming attracted to big physical players over the mksf skilful players.
englishbob
Guest
I never got this obsession with the 'running game' that Chek alludes too. Rugby is far too nuanced a game to be successful playing one very specific method. The truly great international teams have all been fantastic at every element of the game, a few recent ones that stick in the mind NZ 2012-2015 SA 2007+2009, Aus 90's and early noughties and England 2002-2003. They didn't play a specific style, they became very good at the basics, set piece, kicking, handing catching and passing and that naturally led to pressure. Other skills like counter attacking off turn over ball, broken play defence and attack, mauling(dull I know but its in the rules and its effective) grow with practise. Playing 'running rugby' is like saying ''we'll just get really good at drop goals and kick one everytime we get in their half''. Maybe its an aussie coaching thing trying to ape the success of league and AFL. Completely agree on the lack of complete rugby players world wide, France and Wales both used to produce blistering attacking nightmares, sadly its not the case anymore France especially has a side that fully suits its domestic leagues obsession with scrum after neck crunching scrum. So that's my theory, kids that are overtly skilful these days but maybe on the small or undeveloped side will be divided in two by a kid a foot taller than them. Even the great Pinetrees would only be an average sized backrow now.
Fionn
Guest
Indeed, Riddler! Crazy that Stiles bet on Nabuli and Kuridrani over him! I don't know much about Stiles but he seems to have a temper on him. I bumped into and had a drink with Scotty Sio and Rory Arnold, seeing them at the pub made me realise that I am pretty harsh on them. I realised how proud I was of them and the team when I saw them, so I'm going to try and be more positive about the team from now on.
HiKa
Roar Rookie
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, indeed!
Riddler
Guest
Fionn u got lucky with banks..have no idea why stiles let him go.. Hopefully stiles will be gone before next season.
Riddler
Guest
Yes mate it does.. sorry Last time we scored 5 tries against them in nz Was 1978.. With cornelson's fab four
mapu
Guest
I bet he could pass unlike exceptional footwork and offload...Really Falau exceptional footwork yes but off load.No
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Beale was given a watch by Seiko, his sponsor. The award has lost it's credibility and is purely and advertising opportunity. It is only given to High Profile Players.
Fionn
Guest
Wasn't going to mention 4, Timbo ;) but I believe we think alike.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Porcelain dolls hiding in plain sight come out without a scratch while the players stepping up to do their dirty work for them as well as their own get injured. I recon I can make a causal link here. Niavalu, 2 tries 4 tackles 58 minutes. Best performance of the day before he hobbled off. Last year Poey copped 4 injuries at 8, Sean Mac, 2 or 3. The front row is considered a specialty position and I am beginning to believe that #8 is too. It takes a particular type of big hard B@$st@rd to do the Job. Naisarani, Mafi, or Higgers for example. Macca and Poey are true 7's, utility 8's
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
4. Cheika removed as Wallaby coach. His replacement selects players on merit in position. Spotted Mack Playing NRC last year for QLD country (i think) and had 1, Maybe 2 Games for the Tahs while Bernard was getting his marbles checked. Seems to have good vision and a great attack. Like Macintyre, needs/needed another season or 2 in development rather than being hidden behind a Wallaby fave. Would be a good fit for Brumbies or Rebs if they drop their imports.
Waxhead
Guest
Agree 100% Andrew. You've nailed the basic issue WHY our current crop of players are not good enough to consistently compete with the top 5 nations. And also why they are sub-standard compared to great Wallaby teams & players of the past. Nearly all of today's Aussie players are very limited. Only a few have all round games without serious weaknesses. Wallabies have centres with poor defense, Flyhalves with poor kicking games, error prone halfbacks, locks who don't jump in lineouts, loose forwards who are poor at the breakdown, poor scrummaging props etc etc etc. NZ don't have any limited players even at their club level. Most of the Wallaby squad would not get a contract in any NZ Super Team - they are too limited. Guys like Phipps, Hanigan, Rona, Robertson would not make a NZ club team None of the current Wallaby squad would have made a World Cup winning Wallaby squad either. Imo that's the main reason for the Wallaby slide down the world rankings. Coaching is also an issue but it's mainly the declining quality of players.
Tenfour
Guest
Good comments. Except beale was man of the match (for the wallabies) the week before
Fionn
Guest
Naivalu has been fantastic. I think Cheika will continue playing Beale at 12, and so I am hoping that by next year Banks continues to improve and we can have a back three of Naivalua-Folau-Banks. If Kerevi goes to 12 then whoever is playing the least well of Banks, Folau, Beale and Naivalu can go to the wing – all of them have the speed and/or power to be great bench impact. I am concerned by Naivalu's propensity for injuries, however.
PeterK
Roar Guru
DHP does seem to be another cheika favourite but if his form continues to be poor he may be shunted when Hunt, Naivalu become available. Banks looks very good. I would like to see him there ahead of DHP next year, assuming Banks doesn't suffer from second season wobbles like a lot of players do (opposing coaches work them out). Agree Banks could play as a pure winger with his speed. Folau is really playing mainly like a roving winger now anyway so the other wing spot is more like a f/b. I wouldn't mind seeing Beale there (preferably officially at 15 but that doesn't matter much). Naivalu has performed well when he has played for the wallabies so a bit harsh to just drop him though.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Copy - Paste Rant. So it is not just me and my tinfoil hat that thinks this.