It was like watching a different beast completely.
Sitting pitch-side in Canberra on Saturday night, it was fascinating to see a Brumbies side so comprehensively outplayed in the contest in the two games prior suddenly dictating terms, not unlike the way they ripped into the first seven rounds of Super Rugby in 2020 before the competition – and the world, pretty much – was put on hold as the pandemic took hold.
After leaving nothing in the tank to fall agonisingly short against the Crusaders in Christchurch to kick off their three-week tour of New Zealand, the Brumbies were disappointingly bullied out of the contest against both the Chiefs and the Blues.
They didn’t measure up physically – by their own words, standards, and admissions – which allowed the Chiefs and Blues to dominate proceedings and control all aspects of plays. The second half against the Blues read 21-0, and “selection disappointment” resulted, as Dan McKellar put it.
The reaction against the Hurricanes was exactly as hoped, and the relief on Brumbies’ faces was very clear after they secured the 12-10 win right on the bell. And after losing however many games it’s been this year in the final play or with the final kick of the game, it was nice to have some luck finally turn their way.
But if it’s true that you make your own luck, then the Brumbies did plenty to create theirs on the night.
The game opened at a frantic pace, but slowed as the home side started controlling the breakdown speed. The back-row battle was fascinating in itself, with both teams happy to push the envelope as far as the could get away with; a level reached once the Hurricanes lost Du’Plessis Kirifi to a yellow card midway in the first half, during which neither team added a point.
As the Brumbies gained the lead in the second half, they continued to play both direct and in the wider channels, crucially making sure the Hurricanes’ defenders were always engaged. For a match so evenly scored across the stats sheet and the scoreboard itself, it’s interesting to note how many more tackles the Hurricanes forwards made.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
The Brumbies upped their desire to carry in traffic, with Rob Valetini, Henry Stowers and Lachlan Lonergan surprisingly leading the way. I say surprisingly for Lonergan, because it was noticeable how often he found offloaded ball and good second-phase metres. He and brother Ryan aren’t twins, but there was a twin-like connection with the number of times the siblings found each other.
In the face of stiff defence, the Brumbies carried strongly, made regular gain-line incursions, and pressured the Hurricanes into mistakes and infringements. Essentially, everything the Chiefs and Blues did to them the fortnight previous.
And while this was great to see, it was of course a few weeks too late.
The importance of this point being that a few weeks too late in such a short competition like Super Rugby Trans-Tasman is the difference between contending and playing for pride. The Brumbies’ inability to back up their performance against the Crusaders hurt them dearly, and now the best they can hope for is to finish the season strongly at home and play spoiler for the ambitions of the Highlanders.
Sadly, this is the common story among the Australian sides.
With no wins recorded by the end of Round 2, three wins was never going to be enough to finish in the top two. As it stands heading into the final round, four wins likely won’t be enough either.
Just as the Brumbies did on Saturday night, the other Australian sides have improved significantly as the competition got on, all of them showing elements to their game that have improved hugely since the end of the Australian competition, too.
(Photo by Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images)
The Western Force, for instance, are playing wider again and actually looking to play toward their best finishers again, something they did well across the final rounds of Super Rugby AU, too. They worked the centre corridors really well – Fergus Lee-Warner and Ollie Callan were impressive – and then identified where the space was and played to that.
The score is the score, and none of this changes that. But it’s a sign that the Force do know – or at least have remembered how – to play to the attacking strengths that have developed this year. It’s a good sign, almost a shame we’re rapidly running out of time to see more of it.
The same applies to the Melbourne Rebels’ scrum as well, which seem to find a switch that’s been buried for most of 2021, and just suddenly started dominating the Chiefs’ pack before halftime on Sunday.
I’m sure I wasn’t alone at 19-0 after 25 minutes thinking that the Chiefs were about to do a Black Caps on England at Lord’s. Next thing you know, Isi Naisarani is steering five blokes in front of him and with the ball at his feet to obliterate the Chiefs’ scrum with a pushover try.
That seemed to spark their generally misfiring attack, and Naisarani was making metres for fun with the ball as the Rebels cancelled out the Chiefs’ lead completely at the break.
That they couldn’t go on with it is another issue, and I still wonder if the approach of interim coach Kevin Foote is going to be different enough for the Rebels to play more dynamically and more threateningly than they have for the last few seasons. But this, too, was a good sign.
The Waratahs’ defence remains an issue; we all know that. They’ve conceded nine, eight, seven, and ten tries over the four games of Trans-Tasman. That’s ten more than the next worst defending team in the comp.
But in scoring 15 tries across the series, they’ve now equalled the same number of tries they scored across eight games in Super Rugby AU. Jack Maddocks’ try was well worked, and Mark Nawaqanitawase’s try was exactly the sort of counterattacking try Australian teams have been on the receiving end of over the ditch for years. Good signs.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
It was good to see Queensland playing a lot more directly against the Blues in the Primary Colours Cup, after being guilty of playing too laterally of late.
Much of that was out of necessity. The late withdrawal of Bryce Hegarty on top of James O’Connor being ruled out of what would’ve been his 100th game forced Hamish Stewart to return to flyhalf for the first time in a long time. But playing a largely distributing role, Stewart played into the strengths of Isaac Henry and Hunter Paisami in midfield, while Mac Grealy on debut and Filipo Daugunu got in on the action as well. Harry Wilson had perhaps his best ball-carrying game of the series as well.
The Reds played a lot more in the face of the Blues and the game swung accordingly. It will be interesting to see how or if the Reds can reproduce this against the Hurricanes, or if they can follow the Brumbies’ lead in controlling the breakdown contest the same way.
They’ve shown they can dictate terms in the collision this year, so why not?
And this is why all the Australian coaches are united in their belief that a full Trans-Tasman competition in 2022 will bring more benefit than the domestic plus cross-over format of this year.
Playing better opposition consistently, rather than just in a block after the full home-and-away domestic competition, is where the required incremental improvements will come.
Of course, they all know that what is needed from a rugby sense might not match what broadcasters would prefer, too. But it is possible to have both. You could play a domestic sprint series after Trans-Tasman, for example.
In the end, how it’s sliced doesn’t really matter. The improvements we’ve seen over the round and more should convince people that more Trans-Tasman competition – and not less – is what’s required.
AndyS
Guest
By definition, spending on club rugby as a replacement for NRC means wasting almost all the money on players that have no place in professional rugby.
Malo
Guest
Just because you pay huge wages doesn’t mean the players are any good.. ra need to spend and develop the Sydney and Brissy comps (not nrc) rather spend so much on administrators , coaches and exorbitant wages on average players.
twodogs
Roar Rookie
I guess this is the core of our differences Jacko. Rugby in Aus is so close to death, and was brought so close to the brink by SR from 2015-2019 that I no longer care about competing for the spot of number 1 or beating the Kiwis. I don't want SR to be a feeder comp to national teams. I just want to enjoy Aussie rugby and for the code to survive in Australia. Which is why I want 70% domestic 30% TT next year. This is survival mode for us. We need to figure out how to keep Aussie fans and win new ones and make the rugby entertaining again. And while you might think of us as "sore losers", try walking a mile in our shoes as fans and Australian Rugby supporters. I have nothing against Kiwis and hope to travel NZ one day as the people seem lovely, but at this stage I would rather just enjoy Aussie rugby and tell you all to leave us the fuck alone, cuz playing you blokes week in week out for the past 5 years has done nothing to improve Aussie rugby, just demoralize it.
Rhys
Roar Rookie
That's true, it all goes back to the roots of the game and developing from there so we have better coaches developed than graham and foley to name a few. But, in terms of short term success, a framework that communicates ideas so we don't have terrible tactics being used (ala Reds kicking exits) and gameplans that are adequate for the opposition is important. I suppose that we need centralisation is what I believe. Hopefully such restructuring comes this year with RA seeking to change the governance model to be less hamstrng by the monopolies of NSW and QLD.
AndyS
Guest
No, I'm saying that with their central contracting system NZR would keep their best 5 teams worth of players in NZ and allow the two teams worth of developing NPC players to play professionally in Australia on RA's dime (because who else funds the SR teams?). It will be one way traffic, because what amateur is going to get drafted to SR over a NPC player with a couple of years professional development under his belt? Sure NZR could completely dismantle their contracting structure and make it a free-for-all, but why would they when they could retain control of those players as the quid pro quo for opening up player movement? And while it probably would patch up the performances of the Australian teams, to what benefit as money and opportunities flow out of the Australian development system? The only winner would be NZ, so probably lucky they won't have a bar of it.
Firstly twodogs I see from your writing that you are a clear rugby fan and thats awesome. I too will travel almost anywhere to watch rugby and have, as a Chiefs fan, spend many weekends flying in to NZ for a game and a 3 day weekend with rele's and old friends so I get what you are saying. NZ is no 2 at the moment but I do see them as a top 3 nation on a constant basis. Many seem to think that because NZ has had a very dominant period for the past 15 years that thats the way its always been but Im older than that and well remember the times going into a series where I didnt expect to win so it wont shock me to have the ABs back to being a normal team compared to the team we saw from 2005-2019. You mention seeing BB play alongside some Aus stars ( kerevi )as something you would enjoy watching but to me this is all doable right now as their is nothing stopping this from happening. I know that if BB played in Aus he has to decide he is no longer available for the ABs but history can point out a lot of names that have done it in the past and Nani Laumape leaving soon is just another in the long list of players who earn far bigger money OS than at home, But of course kerevi is most welcome to sign for an NZ franchise but he too would have to give up playing for Aus to do so. Im not aware of any situation where NZR has blocked a player leaving NZ's shores but just this year RA blocked JOC from going to the Chiefs. At this point in time NZ ( just like Aus ) doesnt have a choice but to keep this rule in place as its still stemming the flow but I do see a time in future where this will need to be reviewed. Just not for a few years yet. Yep sport is dying all around the world as far as participation rates is concerned and that will eventually ( it is already ) lead to some new thinking but at the present point I hope they keep the rule as it is still working. At this point it looks like PE is perhaps the only way to keep the status quo and then it will be time to find other solutions. Just not yet...
twodogs
Roar Rookie
can you elaborate Andy on a few points. "all their best at home and a large pool of developing players paid for by Aus" - do you mean that all the best players (exaggerated assertion) in NZ will be playing in Australia, as well as the developing players and that Rugby Australia (administration) will foot the bill and not the Clubs themselves when they contract players? Are you arguing that its impossible to change the central contract structure? A new competition means just that, its novel, and as such there would have to be huge structural and procedural changes in order to create a competition alike to the NHL. That's why I said its not possible with the Kiwi's involved, unwilling to change due to the obsession with being number 1. Unfortunately looks like that obsession will lead to their downfall (already witnessing).
twodogs
Roar Rookie
Hey Jacko, they would get a growing, competitive and entertaining Rugby product that would both help the Australian Union market grow and compete with its major code competitors. This would have flow on effects to the NZ market which has been tapped out, I don’t see any growth potential for the NZ rugby market as it is at its ceiling, and one could even argue that NZ are currently facing their own decline in Rugby interest domestically. This would put more bums on seats and create a more competitive competition. Fans would be able to support their team nationally through tests, but Kiwis and Aussies would be side by side as fans of these teams and with an open draft. I would love to see Kerevi Line up outside Barrett in our own competition and use that electric interest to generate revenue in our market, not in Japan. An open draft system would add new layers of interest and content to be engaged with by fans, and also potentially increase fans travelling between countries to attend games. Using that money, we could mirror the Top League approach to bring in star names and quality players, which will increase the interest in the competition from N.H and South African players, thereby building the Oceanic code overall. Once again Jacko, at its core, Rugby union in Aus/NZ needs to make money to compete. Australia is the larger market by a considerable factor. All our pollies harp on about this “ANZAC” tradition, and yet to see this spirit of camaraderie in light of the Australian code crumbling around us. The Kiwi’s will not be number 1 for ever, its not a question of IF its a question of WHEN. Everything is cyclical. Arguably we are closer to that time than ever before, think you would agree there. We need to think long-term. To create the capital required to keep good players and IQ here, as well as lure in players and rugby IQ from other countries, we need an entertaining product. I believe we are failing to see the wood for the trees. Wallabies vs All Blacks is already Australia VS NZ. Why does every other game have to be the same? I’d happily become a Chiefs fan if they had a few Aussie blokes in the team, even jump on a plane and watch a few games and share some beers with my Kiwi Brothers. In that sense, I also believe it has the opportunity to bring us together as fans, and we can save all our jongoistic behaviour for the tests.
percy P
Roar Rookie
I think the TT as a spectacle has been engrossing. I think the delivery of it by Stan & Nine has been good. It engages the casual spectator much more than their predecessor. The school person who may not have a tribal allegiance would be drawn to the clash of the 2 cultures, of the Ozzie battlers pitting themselves against the style, grace & power of the Kiwis. I think it's an enthralling narrative & one to develop & persist with. I think it's a winner!
AndyS
Guest
Yes, IMO it is. Because if nothing else, Australian rugby is fundamentally lazy and it would too easily paper over the cracks. With NZ centrally contracting players, I think it would wind up as 5 main NZ teams in NZ, effectively 2 NZ teams in Aus auditioning to return home (and obliged to do so each year for NPC to avoid residential qualification), effectively only 3 teams of Aus players, and a significantly reduced pathway for Aus players to make their way into professionalism. More than happy to see it kicked to touch as a bad deal, regardless of who thinks so.
Well its great for Aus rugby that NZ isnt even considering then isnt it Andy. NZ rugby already provides around 2 test sides to other nations with the Samoan, Tongan teams and a few in each of the UK sides plus a few in the Aus and japanese sides too and thats only the top 15 countries in rugby.
AndyS
Guest
TBH, what they'd get from it given they are centrally contracted is all their best at home and a large pool of developing players paid for by Aus rather than running around in amateur rugby. It is one of the main reasons RA themselves should be flipping the bird at the idea.
AndyS
Guest
Still then hinges then on who runs the national system. If that had been around for a while, could have easily been a Michael Foley or Richard Graham. It is all a pretty closed shop with not many faces, because there are few professional teams.
Well that makes SA rugby look even more pathetic then doesnt it for not coming to the RC. 500mins and all that...All the UK guys were all still playing rugby. I note they put their hand out for the SAANZAR profits from the RC tho.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
The open policy started in 2018. And that is when they started to select overseas players en masse. Before that, they hardly selected any overseas players. And that is a fact. Jacko.
What will NZ get from allowing that Twodogs?
As a policy yes but in reality SA players have been going north far earlier than that and still being selected.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
SA's open selection policy started when Rassie took over in 2018.
Rhys
Roar Rookie
Interesting take potsie, I think regardless of the playing model the improvement in Aus sides needs to come from within and that is headed by changes in nationwide coaching structures to improve rugby IQ of players, which would come from a national system. Rennie is fine giving advice but is a lone wolf, there needs to be greater consensus in my opinion about how to mentally upskill players and in turn improve our patterns.
potsie
Guest
You could see the results of this year's TT as an endorsement of the beneficial effect a separate domestic competition has had on Australian rugby. In the old Superugby an Australian team would pick off the odd NZ team in the first couple of rounds while teams were still getting sorted and at different states of readiness - but wins became few and far between as the season progressed. In this year's TT, the teams were already battle hardened, so winning 2 games (and the Reds were excellent in the weekend even if they didn't win) against prepared NZ teams should be seen as a significant improvement in performance by the Australian teams compared to the last 4-5 years. They have certainly been playing better skilled rugby this year than the spoiling rugby of the last few seasons. So maybe it is less about improvement via playing NZ teams but more about improvement from not playing them.