With the break in the test season this weekend, I decided to take a YouTube trip down memory lane and watch the Brumbies host the Crusaders in Canberra in the 2004 Super Rugby final.
The game was characterised by a spectacular Brumbies opening, putting 33 points and five tries on the Crusaders in the first 20 minutes, followed by a grinding tussle for the next 60. The score ended up 47-38 to the Brumbies.
More than the spectacular result, the game was an interesting history lesson on tactics. Stephen Larkham in particular gave a kicking masterclass as the Brumbies No.10, with 17 of his involvements being kicks from hand in open play. Most of Larkham’s kicks were perfectly weighted long punts to the corner, often turning around the Crusaders outside backs, but with some variety. His teammates made another 16, most of them by fullback Joe Roff.
In general the Brumbies’ seven tries were scored from commitment to chasing the kick or from turnovers generated as the Crusaders attempted to rumble the ball back up the park, with the Brumbies loose forwards and backs making lightning strikes to score.
The Crusaders were also a wobbly in the lineout, with Radike Samo pinching a couple, which facilitated the Brumbies galloping ahead in the first part of the game. The Brumbies achieved their result with less possession and territory than the Crusaders.
Does any this sound familiar? Because to me it sounds like just about every big game the Wallabies have lost since 2016, with opponents playing them like a dope on a rope. This is what brings me to Larkham.
I simply don’t believe after he starred in games like these that Larkham doesn’t know what is going wrong with the Wallabies’ tactics. It should be patently obvious to anybody who has been following the Wallabies over the last three seasons that Michael Cheika is behind the obsessive ball-in-hand tactics that they have employed.
Cheika has belatedly tried to incorporate a kicking game in 2018, but much of the effort appears to have revolved around form over substance. The extreme example of this was the Wallabies’ unsuccessful high-kicking strategy from their own 22 during the Ireland series – apparently because getting Israel Folau to catch high balls 70 metres from the Irish try line was a good idea.
It didn’t work, and by the time they played the Pumas they were back to keeping the ball in hand.
It seems to me that Larkham has to coach the Wallabies attack within constraints that Cheika imposes, limiting the kicking game to one that doesn’t create the opportunities the Wallabies backs need to score tries. The same goes for the quality of ball that Larkham’s backs are getting from Cheika’s forwards – his job is made harder by forwards who can’t win consistently at the lineout or the breakdown.
We know that when the pack is doing its job those backs can score tries – they managed to average over four a game in the 2017 Rugby Championship compared to two per game this year. I don’t see how Larkham can reasonably be blamed for problems that are the responsibility of Cheika.
(AJF Photography)
The problem is that while many have reasonably concluded that Cheika has to go, the reputational damage has spread to Larkham, with calls for him to be sacked along with the rest of Cheika’s coaching staff. I think that if this were to occur, it would be a tragedy for Australian rugby.
Many Australian rugby fans complained when a Kiwi, Robbie Deans, was appointed Wallabies head coach, yet in 2018 we have so little Australian coaching talent available that Rugby Australia couldn’t find a decent Aussie coach to replace Cheika. Three of the four Australian Super Rugby franchises are coached by foreigners, and with the Brumbies’ Dan McKeller having just coached Super Rugby for his first season, clearly he could not be considered a candidate.
If Cheika goes and Larkham gets discarded with him, Rugby Australia will have lost another prospective Aussie Wallabies coach. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I think Larkham has the goods to do a decent job of the Wallabies gig right now, and I stand by that assessment. Many people vehemently disagreed, and that is fair enough, but surely people can see the folly in discarding Larkham along with Cheika.
If the Wallabies have to have an experienced foreigner coach them in place of Cheika, then so be it. However, it should be somebody who is prepared to work with and develop Larkham and any other Australian assistant coaches so that we can get back to having a competent Australian in charge of the Wallabies as soon as possible.
Kane
Roar Guru
"he learned" That's a very good point. I'd go as far as saying he should learn more about coaching a test team before he gets the Wallabies job.
Lezoire
Guest
The best Brumbies team and my favorite super win of an Oz franchise. Radike Samo still playing and so is Mark Gerard and George Smith. Not much point being the backs coach if you cant work it in with the game plan if that is what he is doing
Barry
Roar Rookie
As a person who generally likes to read comments rather than make them, I’m going out on a limb here and agree with Hoop, in the education system the worst maths teachers are mathematicians as they have trouble explaining things that are obvious to themselves (those who can do, those who can’t teach). Maybe Rugby Australia needs to look at developing coaches as well as players. Don’t hammer me to much I’m a Roar Rookie.
Smiggle Jiggle
Roar Guru
Have to disagree. How can you coach a team without knowing the ins and outs of the game? Best coaches have been players in the past, not always test players, but I think at least first division for a province/state. There are some coaches that haven't played high-level rugby but have coached all there lives from school to test, aka Henry.
Smiggle Jiggle
Roar Guru
I'd like to kick Grey to another country. What a useless defensive coach.
Buk
Guest
DH - 'I just hope that he is not head coach of the Wallabies too young too soon too inexperienced, and ruined for those reasons' My thoughts exactly - another of the 'saviour' mentality experiments for Australian rugby. But what exactly do you mean by 'better top and back end support' for Umaga at the Blues? and is it available to Rugby Australia? (Personally I don't Umaga has enough experience coaching, & was promoted to that job too soon)
Cadfael
Roar Guru
As a coach for the Brumbies, he did OK but didn't set the world on fire. As such, I think a jump to head coach for the Wobblies is in the future not the now. As Stern said, just because a footballer is a great player doesn't make them a good coach. Look at the likes of Jack Gibson in league, average first grader was it but an excellent coach.
waxhead
Guest
Yes Rhys........ I agree Larkham should be given the Wallaby coaching job after Cheika departs. He should not be blamed for the past 2 years of results and be given a chance to shape his own tactics and selections
Realist
Guest
Thank you Jeznez for your voice of reason as always - agree 100% Whoever is responsible for Hooper’s $6 million contract should be sacked on the spot. Imagine those funds being allocated to a top flight coach who commands player’s respect.. or Hooper and Larkham
Die hard
Roar Rookie
Fair comment Rhys. You can't see how he has to operate currently and under what constraints. It will be interesting for example to see how Tana goes with the blues this year with better top and back end support. Larkham like Tana did the job under duress at the brumbies and probably under Cheika as well. For all we know Larkham might well be a genius yet uncovered. But the question of how do we find out is a bit more gnarly. I wish he might have spent a few more years at super level. Either here or north for experience. It's hard for these guys to ever path backwards. I just hope that he is not head coach of the Wallabies too young too soon too inexperienced, and ruined for those reasons
Die hard
Roar Rookie
And yet after forty years plus of citizenship and no residual accent I am told here I am still a kiwi all the time. Are you sure that piece of paper makes him aussie.
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
Kicking was actually a weakness for Larkham when he started at 10, he learned and the others can too. Beale became a very good long tactical kicker while he was at the Wasps, and DHP and Hodge have big boots too. I don’t think their innate abilities are lacking, they just need to practice but if Cheika doesn’t prioritise the skill, they won’t.
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
You can thank the Roar team for the video Bunratty and yes, they were an awesome team.
Jez
Guest
Unfortunately while Hansen is not a 1 man band Cheika certainly appears to be. I do think Cheika picks players based on their ability to run the ball with no real thought to their ability to pass or kick. Larkhams attack strategy seems to hinge on passing and kicking. There is a disconnect there and one or the other needs to go, either drop Larkham and have someone whose attack strategy is is more aligned to Cheikas selections or drop Cheika and bring in a head coach who will give Larkham control over his back line selection to suit his attack style. Both are decent coaches in their own right but their styles don't seem to mix.
Lara
Guest
I understand the need to nurture your own buddy coaches n the RA is obviously supportive of this idea. The selection of Cheika, Larkham n Gray are along those lines. My questions are, was it due to desperation, were they ready for these appointments, have they performed to the required standard, do they have the vision to take OZ rugby forward, or has it be a case of learning on the job n the Oz rugby public just have to be patient n wait for the results. As Gregan would say " 4 more years" is that the time frame, because the last 4 years started with a RWC final appearance n that all folks , was it a fluke n it's been a con job ever since. Cheika's appointment was a result of a disaster from his predecessor. Larkham's appointment, was a choice by Cheika n ARU. Cheika has already stated Larkham is already on his way to be a World class coach n appears to be the need in line. Cheika is not World class , but he is grooming Larkham, Larkham has no results of note, no overseas experience n by international coaching standards is a novice at the game. Larkham would probably take the Wallaby head coach position , if offered. Will RA be dumb enough to offer it. Looking at how the RA manage things, I wouldn't put it past them .......4 more years, mate! Just heard about Gregan's appointment.
gatesy
Roar Guru
Most good players don't make good coaches and not every good coach was a good player, but sometimes the circles collide and you get a good player who makes a good coach. It helps that you have played at the top levels under other good coaches. Steve Larkham had natural ability in spades and was mesmerising to watch. but he had some pretty good coaches along the way, like MacQueen for one. Being a Level 1 or 2 coach doesn't take a great amount of theory training, but Level 3 does (though I don't have personal experience), so you would be surprised if someone like Steve Larkham hadn't learned a thing or two along the way, and couldn't read a game and a player. I think it would be a tragedy to get rid of him. He was doing good things at the Brumbies and bringing them out of the Jake-Ball era (which Jake was right to use, initially) and I for one, would have like to have seen him have another year or two at the Brumbies.
jimbo81
Guest
Who cares? sack Grey now!
jeznez
Roar Guru
White has the international credentials. Wessels, Larkham, Thorn might all get there but need to put the runs on the board at Super level first. Is a worry that Larkham appears to be the annointed replacement for Cheika when there are question marks over his performance both as head and as an assistant coach. I'm not sure RA have the cash to support it (especially after splashing out as they did for Hooper) but if Cheika were to be sacked or resign in the near term, then I think White would be ideal to transform the Wallabies. Then when we get sick of him because he's made us boring, we can look at one of the younger coaches based on performance. In the meantime our defence is sure to improve as is the lineout, mauling and kick chase (scrum is already heading in a great direction). Ideally in that scenario Larkham is showing his wares as a head coach at Super level, or for one of the pro clubs internationally, then we'd have real competition between him, Wessels and Thorn as the likely looking candidates to compete for the role.
jameswm
Roar Guru
"The wallabies need more x factor players too be a attacking threat". I wholeheartedly disagree with this. We need good players who don't let the side down with silly mistakes or poor decisions. In the 2nd Bledisloe test we had the ball on their quarter 6 times in the first 30 minutes, without any "X-factor" players, but each time lost it due to lack of game smarts, or on one occasion Retallick ripping it. Koroibete is an X-factor player, but makes way too many mistakes to stay in our test team. Morahan is not an x-factor player, but is big enough, fast, skilled, smart and reduces mistakes. Just the sort we need. Smith, Smith, Cane, Retallick and Read are not x-factor players. They are very good players who do the basics well over and over.
jameswm
Roar Guru
There's nothing wrong with the physical athletic ability of our players, or their hand eye, compared to the ABs. The differences is how their game play, skills and conditioning have been developed. The NZ system is way ahead of ours, and ti starts several layers below test rugby. Put a lot of our players in the NZ system and they'd be better players than they are - Arnold, Sio, Uelese, Latu, Timu, Tui - some are doing better due to Thorn's presence. Look for Tui, Rodda and Tupou to be world beaters in 2-3 years. Humble, hard working good team players.