It is easy to get caught up in recent experiences at the expense of the past.
If you ask any average Joe on the street if Australia was a top rugby nation, they will probably say we are useless. And why not? We are ranked number six in the world, bowed out of the World Cup in the quarters and have had some demoralising losses lately.
But this recent period is the exception and not the norm and maybe that is why our recent lack of success upsets us so much.
In the nearly 25 years since rugby union went professional in 1996, the Wallabies have been a very successful team. If you look at the period overall, it is a toss-up between the Wallabies and the Springboks as to who has been the second-best team overall. The All Blacks are obviously at the top and England are fourth.
Here is how the Wallabies have fared against our big three rivals since 1996. Against South Africa, Australia has won 27, lost 25 and drawn three for a winning percentage of 49 per cent. Against England, Australia has won 13, lost 18 and drawn one for a winning percentage of 42 per cent. And against New Zealand, Australia has won 17, lost 47 and drawn two for a winning percentage of 26 per cent.
(Phil Walter/Getty Images)
So if you look at the numbers, we just had the wood on South Africa overall. England has just got us although they do have the big advantage of six more home games in those numbers and our horrible recent run against them. And the All Blacks, well, they got us pretty good just like everyone else. But we have the equal best win percentage against the All Blacks, equal with the Springboks and ahead of England on 17 per cent.
Included in these figures are horrors of the last few years, arguably the worst in Australian rugby union history. Under Michael Cheika we only won 22 per cent of our matches against these three major foes compared to 40 per cent for the rest of the professional era.
Under Cheika, the Wallabies’ win rate against New Zealand fell from 26 to 21. Against South Africa, it fell from 49 to 38, and against England, it fell from 52 to just ten.
The English figures are particularly shocking with the last seven matches going to the Poms. I recently watched a replay of the Wallabies versus England from 2006. The Wallabies had about one third of the possession but easily ran out winners 43-18.
We kicked excellently and produced lovely cross-field kicks in attack. We were menaces in the ruck and choked out England’s attack with aggressive defence. We forced English turnovers and counter-attacked for a few beautiful tries towards the end of the game. The Wallabies focused on quality of possession and not quantity.
You could basically switch the teams and use the same summary to describe the last seven losses in a row that Cheika’s teams have had to Eddie Jones’ England.
Michael Cheika was once a successful coach but in recent years he forgot he was coaching a rugby union team. In the end his strategy was a hybrid of league and union built around a bunch of big physical players continuously hitting the ball up in attack.
His defensive strategy was basically a league one of tackling and waiting for an unforced error with next to zero competition to win the ball back. His kick strategy, well, he joked they didn’t even practice tactical kicking at training!
(Dan Mullan/Getty Images)
Unfortunately, these strategies have trickled down to our Super Rugby teams too. Super Rugby players are more likely to play the style of the Wallabies as they feel that will give them the best chance of selection.
Maybe it was not entirely his fault and he was pressured more towards this. There is an idea in Australian rugby union that we must compete with rugby league and play running rugby to bring in the crowds. We do not!
All the Wallabies must do is win. The Wallabies team that held the Bledisloe for five years straight is a prime example of this. And fortunately, winning rugby is attractive rugby to watch too. I have not seen too many bad matches involving the All Blacks.
In the late ’90s and early 2000s we were the best rugby team in the world. From then until pretty much the last couple of years we were consistently in the top three teams in the world. We should all be positive about the future of Australian rugby.
We don’t need to reinvent the wheel and all we need for the Wallabies to succeed is to play a simple classic rugby union strategy: effectively clear your 22, attack from broken play, pressure and force turnovers in defence, kick for territory and as an attacking weapon.
The Wallabies were once known as the smartest team in the world. As such, we need to go back to our old style of selections with more of a focus on a player’s rugby smarts over physical attributes like size, strength and speed. The most important asset of the rugby player is their decision-making skills.
If the next 20 years of Australian rugby are like the first 20 of the professional era, we should all be very happy. The future is looking bright for Australian rugby. All we must do is copy the Wallabies’ successful past and just play rugby union.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
Nah mate, Link’s team got to the RWC final. From 2016 onwards we saw the real Cheika, when he had to rely on his own coaching to build a team rather than use Link’s.
derano
Roar Rookie
The Wallabies were basically the Brumbies who had the advantage of playing together.
derano
Roar Rookie
And the fact that Bledisloes were 2 matches and the holder needed only to win one game.
Bentnuc
Roar Pro
I think you summed up Folau very well there 'exciting but not a good fullback'. Unfortunately over the last decade we have been trying to fill the teams with 'exciting' players. But exciting players dont win matches - just look at Fijis world cup squad. Everyone was talking that they were 10ft tall and bullet proof. Flash forward and 1 win 3 losses from their campaign.
Bentnuc
Roar Pro
Cant agree more! It amazes me that the all blacks have been on top for so long yet we dont try and copy their tactics. It would be a very simple thing to do. They compete for the ball and when a turnover us produced transfer ti counter attack immediately. They kick often for territory and put in attacking kicks too. The wallabies used to play like this (the match from 2006 was a perfect example). Why we dont change tactics is beyond me!
The Crow Flies Backwards
Roar Rookie
And the dogs only there because one of the blokes is blind
Gary
Guest
Agree with your analysis. As a ‘Pom’ who played in the 80s/90s it was clear the best SH teams (Aus then being the best) constantly out played the NH teams by attacking space and keeping the ball alive, as apposed to creating collisions in order to make space to attack. Interesting to note the NH teams catching up on SH teams in recent years is perhaps their adapting to the more ‘attack space with continuity’ approach?
James
Guest
And that 40% win rate was on the back of Eales, Gregan, Larkham, Mortlock, George Smith et al....it might be partly the coach...be our cattle are nowhere near the greats of the past.
Trev
Guest
Agree Jaeger. Have a look at any old vids of Gregan and Larkham in their prime. They completely controlled the game. The difference in game management between then and now is vast. In recent years our scrummaging and tight 5 has improved, we have some talented and effective outside backs but everyone seems to be continually flustered and confused.
Roberto
Guest
Not to mention that he would always say that he was always looking for the team to take to the world cup, but the team always changed every match. Either changing players out or putting players where they didn't belong. Even at the world cup, the team changed all the time. To me this would've given the team a huge under confidence in playing and if the team can't play condfidently then they will loose because you are all of a sudden playing with different people or playing with players out of their specialised position. Yes it's good to have all-rounders, but even that is specialised and not many can do that. Then in relation to this, we had a captain, don't get me wrong he is a good player, at least I think so, who wouldn't speak up about this and this kind of thing has to be picked up by senior players, they are the leaders, including the coaches and if they either let this and everything else slide then we will not have a good rugby side
Tooly
Roar Rookie
I heard Hansen say that the ABs had three game plans. They are certainly able to adapt and swoop on errors. Cheika had one plan that he kept talking about. The players were more on the look out for opportunities.
Docshay
Roar Rookie
Anybody ever ask why the All Blacks can be behind at half - time, and then come out and win the second half and the game? In my opinion this is entirely due to the rugby smarts of the coach - in this case, Steve Hansen. Remember the shots of Cheika jumping up and down, waving his fists, in the coach's box, while Hansen, next door, sat impassively, analysing the attack strategy of the opposition and working out a counter attack strategy for the second half. In the dressing rooms, we saw Cheika ranting at the Wallabies while Hansen spoke calmly, giving his team instructions on how to change tactics and win the game, as they almost always did... Cheika actually admitted that he didn't bother looking at previous games played by opposition teams - how stupid and ignorant is that, as understanding the enemy prior to battle, and changing tactics if required during battle are surely the most valuable assets of a good General...
Jeansyjive
Roar Rookie
Cheika was a terrible coach.
Rod H
Guest
We've lost our way. So much competition from rugby league. But I'm amazed we don't copy NZ and everything they from competition structure to game play. Why not mimick the best. Also how do you win without a decent kicker or decent 5/8. Folau, although exciting had no clue about rule of fullback. So many times he was up in the line in defence, when competition broke the lube there was NO flashback back there to defend his no one day that amazed me. Happened time and time and time again with Folau. They even moved players back there to defend for him. That's all wrong. And we need a 90% kicker. Kicking goals wins matches. Also get a decent 5/8. Haven't had one since lynagh in the nineties!!! Time also to replace Hooper as Captain.
gazza
Roar Rookie
I strongly disagree. Cheika’s players as a squad far inferior to opposition. Two big changes since the past (a) refs do not enforce offside as vigorously as before because of criticism that penalties slowed the game, and (b) teams now have to be deep in top players as substitutes vital to results. Finally when did he ever have a reliable kicker of goals compared with opponents - never. The kicking art has disappeared in Australia.
Benjamin Kaika
Guest
Australian rugby really needs a structured set up similar to New Zealand and South Africa where players are nurtured from High School thru to the top echelon of the sport. I could not believe that the millions of dollars made when the world cup was hosted here was not spent on putting a similar structure in place. Down hill in the years since. Less talent to choose from. Country rugby used to throw up some incredible players. I will not join in the Chieka thumpers but will look at the history of rugby in this country since the world cup was held here. The demise of Western Force diminished the player pool. As a kiwi who has lived in OZ for many years I have missed the fast, hard hitting competition between our two countries.
Bentnuc
Roar Pro
True Bingo. Not many top rugby teams in history would consider a full back without a kicking or passing game. If we had him on the wing and put in cross kicks it could of worked put (but his defence would have been an issue). Pretty sure we lost out overall (team performance-wise) from having him there over the years
In brief
Guest
Folau, our best player a joke?? And people humour this sort of comment?
In brief
Guest
You mean in the empty stand with two men and a dog watching the Whine filled cup
In brief
Guest
Link was out of his depth and you know it. MC was a breath of fresh air when he took over - he got us to the WC final, not link. Agree he lost his way a bit in the end..