I know how you feel. Sitting up at that hour with the flu I thought, why am I putting myself through this again. But I stayed. Didn’t go to bed fully satisfied because we almost let an even bigger one get away. But the memory of Kurtley steaming that ball through the posts is one that will stay with me for years.

Disagree here. The nature of 30 blokes falling over the line, some on top, some below, shoving their arms and legs in, means that sometimes you are not going to see the ball with a television camera. I think the question “Can you see a reason why I cannot award the try?” is the correct way to deal with this situation. It is postive refereeing as opposed to negative. Benefit of the doubt is given to the attacking side. It should not be the onus of the attacking team to make sure a camera sees the ball. The defending team have allowed them over the line and that’s when I think the benefit be clearly with the attacking team. Also we don’t really know what the ref saw. Maybe he thought he saw the ball placed but didn’t see everything leading up to it. Lastnight he did the right thing. Did you see him almost call “held up” when Moore crossed. Then he diverted to common sense and asked the video umpire.

Yes I certainly agree as well. I remember being quite incredulous during the first half at the amount of time it felt like between whistles. I was thinking ‘finally, a ref who doesn’t feel like he has to influence the game.’ And he was measured in dishing out the discipline. Even I as an Australian spectator would have run on the field and yellow-carded Faingaa for being so foolish.

What a bizarre game. I think it will take a while for all aspects of that match to sink in.
1. Wallabies have a blinder of a first half. The last time I remember them scoring tries so freely must have been v. Namibia 2003.
2. Astonishing resolve by the Boks to comeback. The Boks are certainly not short of confidence and leadership.
3. What was Saia Faingaa thinking?
4. Kurtley Beale’s headbutt will win the grandfinal this year in Australia’s Funniest Home Videos.
5. What become their finest hour could well have been their darkest. Would the Wallabies have ever squandered such a big lead as they easily might have? The fact that they eventually worked out how to stem the blood flow and find themselves in a place to win in the final minute could mean that some of the Wallabies actually became Wallabies lastnight. Dramatic stuff.
6. I loved the irony in that final penalty shot. Altitude helped that kick, I have no doubts. Absolutely it was a perfect kick and no ordinary player could have made it. But that kick would not have made the distance at sea level. It’s marvellous that the hoodoo of Winning At Altititude turned out to be the breeze that blew the winning kick over the posts.

Like it, Mick, like it. Jokes aside I think you’ve hit upon a salient point in that perhaps the Wallabies are, at the moment, a group of distracted individuals.

Kurtley Beale did a wonderful job of over-coming the Law Of Inertia (Newton’s First) as he carved up the Boks leading to O’Connor’s try. As he gets larger he will find this harder to do. Quick “dancers”, as de Villiers puts it, still have a place in the game. They don’t all need to be bigger although I tend to think that you can’t be too fast. Let us not forget that one of the beautiful things about this beautiful game is that it accomodates all shapes and sizes – from ballerinas to piano-movers.

Spiro, I think your point about making a new captian is a good one. Don’t know why you placed this comment in brackets though. It probably should be the subject of a whole article. If Deans comes under so much pressure from The Roar writers and readers, then why is Elsom getting off almost scot-free?

This match seemed a very good illustration of the difference between good and poor captains. I can’t really say what Elsom does wrong as a captian because I can’t really say what Elsom does full stop. This is my main point because at the same time Jon Smit is a very visible captain to spectators. When the Wallabies blitzed the opening stanza of the test, Smit gathered his players and you knew exactly what he was saying and what sort of confidence and reasurrance he was instilling in his side. I doubt Elsom was filling his team with reassurance when they were well ahead with two-thirds of a test to still to play.

Now Elsom is a very good player. That alone makes him invaluable to this team. But he is not the captain he should be. On the other side, Smit is a shadow of his former self as a player but his captaincy makes him one of the most valuable assets in World Rugby. If he is still captain in 2011 then I think the Boks are a chance of defending their world title.

In light of all the criticism Deans has copped recently I am putting this comment out there for review: The Wallabies are a team with a world-class coach and a mediocre captain. The Boks are a team with a clown coach and a world-class captain. (The All Blacks, of course, are world-class in both categories).

I agree with the point that the Wallabies did not get overly tired from the altitude. I’ve seen them look much more ‘shagged’ at sea-level. They looked pretty good after 80-minutes. Maybe they had more in the tank than they thought?

I think it’s difficult to assess captaincy unless you’re very close to the game, if not on the field itself. But it always seems that Smit has a tremendously positive influence on his team, even when he’s not playing especially well himself. Elsom seems to be visibly the leader he is supposed to be only when trying to pull up the ref.

In terms of leadership-by-example I thought two players in particular stood very tall. From the Wallabies Kurtley Beale took the reins on a few occasions, and as stated above, that run that lead to O’Connor’s try was scintillating. From the Boks, their halfback, Hougaard, was a revelation. His tackle on Ashley-Cooper was possibly a match winner as much as any other play I thought.

The characteristic that the strength of Rugby lies at the base level, while very desirable, seems to be tied to the amatuer era as you allude to JK. We can’t say that professionalism has hindered our success because everyone is professional now but there are many qualities of sport that have been tossed out with the proverbial bathwater that would probably be of great benefit to the Wallabies right now. Does winning matter as much as a pay-cheque? I’m certain everyone playing says it matters more, but the question is does winning matter as much as it did before? Is it now enough to lose with a big pay-cheque? How much do players go onto the field with a purely team-based objective and to what extent do players now run onto a field with their careers more to the forefront of their minds? I don’t know. So many questions.

Nice article with a fresh take.

And I am certain that fitzy himself would hand you a cup of salt to save you the trouble.

That’s not what I understood, but I will stand corrected if you have figures. I thought membership at a club level was substantially higher in NZ. I can’t remember why I think this, so maybe I’m wrong.

I like what you written here, Sheek. Some say it’s the coach, some say it’s the ‘cattle’, some say it’s the captain. You say it’s the live-and-die pride.

My 2 cents – the big buzz-word in Australian rugby is “BELIEF”. You can’t watch a live interview of a player without hearing the word. Belief is what the ’84 champions had, what the ’91 and ’99 champions had. But lucky for them, particularly in ’99, not a lot of other teams seemed to have it.

The problem today is that the Wallabies are not the only ones who want this magic stuff and some other teams have it already or know where to get it in a hurry. It would be terrific to have some reliable gauge of the Wallabies today up against Wallabies of the past (wins/losses aside). My opinion is that they’re pretty good really but not winning much against the other top nations who are also, over the course of the past two years, near the top of their game.

I want the Wallabies to win really bad and never take a loss well. But Australia is a small rugby nation by virtue of our strength in other codes. NZ and SA are strong rugby nations by virtue of their participation. We are always punching above our weight. So I’m not going to beat up the coaches or the players simply because we do not win. It’s not rational. I’m also not going to question their commitment to the jersey. We all know how much an AB jersey is worth and if there’s anyone on this Earth that thinks their jersey is the only one worth anything it’s the Boks. But I’ll celebrate in a huge way when we do win becuase it’s not only a win but a win we’ve really had to earn. Overcoming the skill, pride and history of the current top 2 rugby nations in the world is no mean feat.

It’s usually when our belief is unshakable and other nations lack-thereof fall into line that we experience our golden eras. Belief is cyclic. I can’t prove this, but only to say that I know of no sporting entity that has held onto it forever.

I stopped reading, Chester, at the first paragraph. Who are these older players that were systematically dropped? Do you mean Waugh? Help me out if it’s just my memory failing.

I see where you get YOUR name from.

Another curious swipe at Wayne Smith(journalist), Spiro. Why?

Wayne Smith has an assessment of Kaplan, and “imposes” this upon him if, in fact, Kaplan actually reads The Australian. And you, too , have an assessment of Kaplan which you have published above. But Smith never mentions you!?!

This article is stupid on so many levels. I don’t know where to begin.

Although it’s obvious you’re not Victorian, I’m inclined to wonder that you’re not even Australian. New Zealand, yes, the No1 rugby playing nation of the world, plays tests at more than one venue. England and Wales combined don’t even add up to the size of Qld. The fact those countries play their tests at ‘home’ grounds in the densely populated capitals with huge transport systems running throughout the countries is hardly a puzzle. I don’t think the kiwis enjoyed their cow paddock so much as they sank into the earth while defending their own tryline. And I suppose you don’t see kiwi expats at Sydney matches because they’re still bathing at Bondi. Hell, you know what you didn’t think of in your article? – the ARU could start asking for passports as rugby fans enter our grounds. Or if we’re losing, then just before full-time we could turn all the lights out so the kiwis don’t get to see their team win.

You may be able to make it to a Stadium Australia match, but I got to see the Wallabies at the M.C.G. in 2007 and it was bloody magic. At half-time two kiwi smartarses came over and actually started consoling me as I was comtemplating how the Wallabies were behind and wondering how they would rise above their halftime deficit. What followed next was Adam AC’s huge try and Mortlock’s sublime step and sprint down the field with the basketball pass to Staniforth. I didn’t see those kiwis after the game. They were gone for dust.

Australia is bigger than Sydney, rollo. And so is Rugby.

Burgess has not demonstrated consistency yet. Only when this happens should we sit comfortably about his place in the team. One fantastic performance, and I whole-heartedly agree. But he wasn’t so hot against Fiji only a week ago and he still has Ireland, the All Blacks and the Springboks to play against this year. I sincerely hope he gets the chance to shine and does so like he did Saturday night. But I’ll reserve my judgement of him until then.

I get the idea of not playing Baxter anymore. Although I don’t think he is past it yet, when we are not crippled by multiple players being injured, Australia does have a little bit of depth now in the forwards, unlike much of the past decade. What’s more the Wallabies, with the talent of Slipper and Ma’afu, are on the cusp of having a depth that in the Jones and Connolly eras would have been beyond our wildest dreams. With some valuable match time the Wallabies can have that depth in place for the World Cup. Saturday night was not a failure. We didn’t go to uncontested scrums. If that had have happened then I don’t think we would be deserving of a win.

…but on the other hand, Wayne Smith for ‘The Australian’ often has an insightful take on things. He compared the Wallabies’ strategy with the front row the other night to the Australian Cricket Team and how they go about blooding new players, ensuring that the team always has huge experience on the field even if it’s at the expense of playing someone past their prime. As he put it, the Wallabies virtually blooded three members of the front row all at once without at least one ‘old head’ to hold them together. Now, the fact that they came through without severe embarrassment is hugely to their credit. But at the same time I question the wisdom of the selectors on this occasion.

Baxter is here. Does he not deserve this one last chance to make a very meaningful contribution to his team in their hour of need and to the careers of three new players and, therefore, the future of Australian Rugby?

On face value I say full credit to Tahu and we need more of that in sport. He has gone up in my esteem. Yes, he could have dealt with the situation differently. But why didn’t he? I wonder if it was just what Johns said, or whether he got a glimpse of everyone else’s reaction to the comments at the time. Did anyone else in the team make a stand, express shock or offense and disapproval, or did they just snigger and chuckle in that typical way that’s very easy to imagine. We’ll never know of course. But until we do you’ll just have to respect what Tahu has done. I do.

You are right James D. Burgess still has to show that he is money in the bank and not just a flash in the pan. I still think that Burgess’ opportunities lastnight were afforded him because of the threat Cooper now poses the opposition.

Agree. Previously, watching him stand around at the base of the ruck waiting for god-knows-what was excruciating. He did this last week against Fiji. But lastnight he got there quickly and got the ball out swiftly. I still think a first choice No.9 should be able to pass better. It’s their job. It’s why they’re there. It’s why they earn the big bucks. Until lastnight, watching Burgess play was watching someone who wishes they were playing 12 boxed up in a 9’s body. Hopefully this is a new Burgess who actually wants to be a No9 and believes he can be. I’d certainly be happy with both Genia and Burgess in the 22. Maybe the best thing Burgess did lastnight was to create some really healthy and constructive competition for the main spot. Until then it was Genia first and who cares next.

Yes, it was an improved performance by Burgess. He was able to capitalise on the Poms wariness of Cooper and find gaps left around the ruck. He still needs to pass better though. Too often players were trying to move onto the ball only to field the pass around head height or above. That pass to Cooper to send him near the posts was a beauty though. And Burgess tackles well above his weight defending the tryline.

Imagine what Genia would have been able to do. Burgess was praised lastnight for his running and we should be careful because I believe that attractive style is what put Burgess in the run-on team for so long this time last year. What we found out is that when teams know that Burgess is looking to run and they close him down Burgess doesn’t have the passing game and vision around the field to back himself up. We’ve seen in the S14 how much Genia can split up the defence and making blinding runs as well. And Genia can pass. He can pass bloody well, and he can do it every time.

Along with Habana, I think Jacques Fourie is also a potential game breaker. We have to view this S14 as some sort of Boks selection as well. Players like Fourie who are in again/off again players will be looking for a big game, making impact.

Head says Bulls, but I have wanted Stormers to win all year because I think they play both games, attack and defense, really well. On balance though I think they have not struck the major blows in attack that some of their star-power warrants.

In a nutshell the Bulls have played this year with their hearts on their sleeve, but the question is whether the Stormers have saved something for the big occasion. I suspect they have, but it’s hard to know for sure. That’s what tipping is all about I guess.

Burgess is not a good halfback. He never has been. He just had a blinder when given his first chance with the Wallabies only it ended up being a terrible fit due to the fact that HE SIMPLY CAN NOT PASS. Why do we only see this now? Spiro, you should have been onto Burgess much sooner. Blind Freddie is tapping me on the shoulder. Sshh – he wants to say something.