The scrum-half’s play sets the tempo of everything. In today’s game that tempo has to have the urgency of 7’s – no dawdling around, ever! Scrum: in-out-go; line-out maul: secure-out-go; tackle: release-out-go (someone must be there-before full-on ruck forms); offensive maul contests should be avoided at all costs – unless by design and even then, over-out before opponents get organized.
It’s a style of play and mindset that is driven by the scrum-half and everyone else is at his mercy – he’s the one with the foot on the gas…or not! Nick White has not adjusted to the new game and could’nt do it if he wanted to…too slow of foot and mind. While he waits around considering his options, our scrum gets pushed off of the ball, we’re counter-ruck off the ball at breakdowns, mauls are spun and stripped, our backs are off balance waiting for service – then overrun by defenders…all bad. The scrum-half, no one else, not even the best fly-halves…set the tempo of the game!
If you (like me) cannot watch the Wallabies play without feeling anxious have a look at the scrum-half’s play before you blame anyone else.
Isaac Fines-Leleiwasa made a fist of trying to up the tempo at 56 mins but by the game had lost all semblance of structure and pace – it was too late.

“Nic White has the best pass in Australia”…rubbish! However, even if he did, add to that his slowness to the breakdown, unwillingness to reach into scrums or rucks for the ball, his ‘passive’ defense, and his hesitant and slow delivery of that ‘best pass’, and what have you got? A huge liability.
A good (not even great) scrumhalf can prevent a lot of bad things from going against a non-dominant pack by getting stuck in, and getting the ball out quickly – before the defenses get organized, before the scrum falls apart, before a counter-ruck rolls over the ball, before a teammate does a stupid cleanout (and gets a penalty or worse) to give him an easy shot at the ball… Sadly, Nic White isn’t that interested anymore.

Nick White’s 4.5 is a gift to him, and a he’s now an all-to-predictible gift any side the Wallabies play. When in recent memory has he been anything but a shadow of the once great 1/2 back of 8, 4, or even 2 years ago? He’s seems bereft of imagination (or no longer confident in his ability to execute) so defaults to kicking far too often (even if that is the plan) and to no obvious end but to relieve pressure – often of his own making. He’s busy enough, but doing what? He goes missing far too often at breakdowns leaving ball that might be won quickly… out slow or even lost as options close down. There’s been little in his game this year to justify calling him ‘world class’, when too much of the time he substitutes his annoying ‘string – puppet’ antics for getting on with the game. Tate McDermott was better, but by then the match was long. As woeful as we were as a ‘team’, that match would have been much more competitive and interesting had Eddie Jones started the combination of Terarwa Kerr-Barlow and Carter Gordon as the halves. We’d at least have had a chance of seeing something like real Australian rugby.

Wallaby fans will continue to be disappointed unless/until the players as a group can match the fitness and strength levels of the those on display when other top-tier nations take the field. After watching many hours of rugby on the weekend the most obvious difference between us and them is resilience – we’re simply not up to the strength and cardiovascular fitness level demands of the current game…not even for one match let alone two weeks in a row!
It’s not enough to say we need better players, coaches, skills, when the players aren’t prepared for the physical and mental demands of the game. IF they gave 100% for 80 mins (they don’t) we’d still lose because our players’ current 100% isn’t good enough!
While we’re collectively taking a poke at coaches and players we should expand the target to include the training staff – they aren’t doing the job required for the Wallabys to be competitive. Fatigue clouds thinking and leads to poor decision-making as well as reaction times and poor execution.
We’re getting out of it what we put into it!

Rubbish Guess! Absolute rubbish!
It is patently ridiculous to blame Foley’s shortcomings on the pack, and totally bizarre to criticize Lolesio for being ‘too good’ at defense.
Foley can kick FGs. When those are not on offer he’s mediocre in all aspects of the game bar one…he’s the unchallenged master of the fall-off non-tackle! Watch him closely and you’ll see he’s very artful at being all over the place, close to the action but uncommitted to any engagement that might entail aggressive, forceful contact…its a busy MO that keeps him on the spot for the occasional pass but mostly for back-slapping and high-fives when things are going well. Not much of that on Saturday…but plenty of tackles to be made that weren’t!
When the team was announced a mate and I had an animated disgustion about the Foley -Gordon passage to the goal line the selectors had gifted the ABs. Combine Gordon’s slow and not-that-flash (or far) passing with Foley’s fear of contact and that passage is open to be exploited on both offence and defense. The ABs used it to good effect.
Injuries are no excuse for selecting Foley (or Gordon). Almost any SR AU starting flyhalf (they aren’t all injured) e.g., Lolesio (for his tackling alone!), or even Edmund would have done the job better AND would have been an investment in the future!

Tom Hooper! How can he be overlooked after the season he’s had thus far? He’s very young, seems smart, is a HUGE unit, works his @ss off for 80 mins and stays out of trouble. In these discussions he should be preferred over Swinton at #6 and Holloway for second row. The Brumbies barely missed Valetini!

…only allow the TMO to come into play if the referee asks for it. Absolutely! When did the TMO get a license to argue with the referee? Never!
Like the call or not, Nic Berry had already made up his mind in the Fiji v Wales match…when in steps the TMO.
Assistant referees have gone lazy and the TMOs have taken over from them and the referee, to the detriment of the game.
Watching the referee and his/her seemingly clueless assistants stare at the big screen while the TMO runs half a dozen slow-motion second guesses is hugely annoying…and disrupts the game.
Give the assistant refs kicks in their behinds and have the TMOs stick to their limited writ!

Head contact or not (I think not – unless whiplash counts) the correct outcome for that encounter was a Yellow card to Koroibete for over-enthusiasm, AND, a Yellow card for Jelonch for unsportsmen-like behaviour when he took that pathetic dive to influence the referee.

Gatesy;
Much improved match commentary is critical to the promotion and success of the game in the US There is a lot at stake here for the investors and rugby. Good commentators do much to enhance a viewer’s impressions and likelihood of becoming fans. Bad ones are a curse.
The matches I watched last season all ended up with the sound muted. The commentary is far, far worse than listening to the Fox crew gush over a Waratah’s match. I’ve a low tolerance threshold for the standard US style – fill every moment with noise – for rugby, much of it naive, ill-informed and hyperbolic – ‘that was a brilliant play Bob!’. Seriously? Didn’t see much at the WC.
There is a lot of money being spent to promote the game. Some of it should go to finding and developing high quality commentators. Here (almost everywhere) they drag out a retired international or ex-whatever and a sycophant colleague to ruin the match with blah blah.
Internationals aren’t inherently good at everything else. A small minority of them become good coaches. A smaller minority become good match analysts and commentators – those few who can analyze a match in progress, articulate what they see coherently, speak well, and know when to shut up.
With the exception of Greg Gowdin the Fox bunch is a mob of talking heads with accents. NZ has better commentary from unknowns on the sidelines in the Mitre 10 competition. The same can be said for the NRC. Some of the Roarers here would probably do a better job as well. Surely the game deserves better front women and men.
Back to your excellent review of US developments. Any insights on how Canada is going, and perhaps prospects for an integrated 4 conference set-up with their top players involved? US teams in NE and teams in Canada’s SE; and, US teams in NW and Canada’s W/SW would seem to make more sense than a Canadian internal comp. It might make more sense for the US as well.
Cheers.

KP:
LAW 19. 20. 15 (f.)
When both sides are square, stable and stationary, the scrum-half throws in the ball:
f. Straight. The scrum-half may align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, thereby standing a shoulder-width closer to their side of the scrum.

This ‘option’ has resulted in what is the essentially a rugby league put-in – rarely straight and often as not behind the hookers feet.

Stillmissit: In my experience (as a hooker and referee) neither hooker striking almost always results/resulted in the ball coming out the other side of the tunnel. This did happen when both hookers weren’t settled and ready for the ball to be put in…but in it came straight down the middle and out it went on the other side.
If you could get this (no hooking) tried/implemented it seems likely to me that the props would be required to use their outside foot to ‘close’ the open tunnel. This was essentially the norm way back – when winning the ball was a contest between two hookers and their respective collaborating props – at its best a moment of skill and beauty in an otherwise brief and brutal smash-up. Both the loose and tight heads (at least for the team with the ball) would start with the inside leg & foot set slightly back, momentarily bearing most of the weight; then the outside foot would step/lurch forward (and optimally plant in the middle of the tunnel) when the ball left the scrum half’s hands and the weight came on – all to prevent the ball coming coming straight out.
With no hooking, the only outcomes I can imagine would be:
(1) both props on the opposite side (if not both sides) of the put-in given a de facto license to bore in – a natural result of the offset positioning of their feet;
(2) the extinction of ‘hookers’ in favor of another prop-like full time pusher; and,
(3) more and increasingly dangerous collapsing

Sinclair: Likewise. Thanks for reading and comments.

Mark: All the instruction, cameras, etc. are in place at the top level and we still have a mess – not available as we go further down the line. Is there really any study that shows props boring in or not packing squarely causes scrum collapses? Props getting too low surely contributes to instability, but it isn’t the really the problem. Two props squatting down and driving into each other aren’t inherently unstable or inherently dangerous. Its when they are leaning in with their bodies at 30 degrees to the ground with weight behind them that they get unstable. At that point it takes very little to have them go up or, mostly down. Ref admonitions notwithstanding, there is nothing about current scrum mechanics or the governing law that effectively addresses prevention or mitigation of modern scrum instability. Your comments make a very good case for the inefficiency of relying on the threats and enticements of penalties, i.e. the perceptions of the referee. Shouldn’t we try to render the issue moot by stabilizing the core of the scrum and just get the ball back in play quickly and safely?

Querry: Over the years the scrums at the top level of the game have devolved into a phenomenon that more resembles sumo wrestling than a contest for the ball – from which channel and when the winning team wants it. As players got bigger and stronger, all the band-aide adjustments (with the exception of the Crouch – Bind – Set protocol) have have been ‘played’ to make things worse. What was once a contest that restarted the game – usually with minimal fuss and repetition – has become an increasingly annoying and dangerous waste of time. If we don’t fix the scrum now the next IRB knee-jerk reaction will be to trial taking away the option of a scrum for a crooked line-out throw in a retrograde reaction to the mess they have ‘designed’ the scrum to become – too dangerous and time-consuming.

Mzilikazi. Thank you for actually reading the article. I do think the hookers could easily do as I suggest. Way back the laws actually said the hooker had to be in’ a position to hook’ – essentially balanced in a crouch position. This wording was to preclude a hooker from extending a leg (or both) into the opponent’s front row to drag a lost ball back – easily contered with a knee drop into the opposite’s groin. Cross-over hooking as you describe it was (is?) common. However, it was a fool’s game inasmuch as it gave away the proximity advantage afforded by the loose head put-in. A left foot stab with a slightly bent knee at the opposing tight head’s left foot was closer, faster and blocked (not hooked) the ball back with a little sweep to assist. The same stab worked brilliantly against a cross-over hooker on a tight head put-in. I rarely ever pushed in a scrum. If you start in the position I have described it is not difficult to stay there – even if there is movement. If everyone else is pushing it is relatively easy for a ref to see the hooker’s body position and where their feet are – the two hookers should be in the middle. If not, and the ball isn’t out cleanly, and quickly someone gets a penalty. This will work.

No hooker (or sane prop) wants a collapsed scrum – even to win a big match. The lottery to which In Brief refers is played by a collective ‘blood-rush’ to the head by rest of the pack. When the packs are so low there is only enough room to put the ball in, the scrum is not stable, period! Yes, it looks amazing – like a cleverly engineered bridge with too long a span – unstable, fragile and dangerous. A hooker, in a squat position or even on her/his knees could prevent a collapse and give time to get the ball out. I don’t remember the 2007 ELV to which you refer. If it did fix something why didn’t they implement it?

Yes.
However, if the hookers are required to keep their feet below or in front of their hips to stabilize/hold up the front row neither will be able push – so 7 vs 7 – a ‘fair’ contest.

Purdo; This would eliminate the 8 man shove but not the spectacle of a contested scrum. I’d hate to see scrums de-powered. This does not do that. It would just stiffen them up and make it more clear which team should be penalized if it went down. The issue of reducing hooker injuries is a significant bonus. Current scrum mechanics leave the hooker in a helpless position when the scrum collapses. An earlier article (not mine) suggesting a time-out for scrums is no more than a band-aide – waiting longer for an injury. This idea might might just address the real issue – low, powerful scrums just aren’t reliably stable and too easy to bring down, reset, repeat.

The Giteau rule is a parochial anachronism.
We should be sending players North, not just to develop their skills and rugby nous, but also to get some of the arrogance and complacency thumped out of them – starting right now with Michael Hooper.
Rugby Australia (RA) pays Michael Hooper’s ludicrous salary. For the sake of Australian rugby RA should work something out to send him to…Leinster for a year and then to…Toulon for a second year. Make him develop in an environment where he is not the chosen one; and, where he is expected to play the role for which he is paid. If he has to convince a couple of practical, hard-nosed coaches the #7 jersey is his perhaps he will come back as a bona fide #7, or a give it up and become a mediocre #11/14.
Defense of the Giteau rule is also myopic. The argument that there are only a couple players worth bringing back right now is meaningless. In 3 years time there may be a dozen.
Every Wallaby plays their 1st game sometime. Teenagers have been selected and played for the Wallabies – because they were good enough. It certainly could not be said that they’d demonstrated some arbitrary measure of loyalty to Australia; furthermore, when selected they almost always pushed out someone with a long history in the gold jersey (but that didn’t matter a wit); and, their selection invariably ended the dreams of numerous solid journeymen who could have gone overseas and improved their games and fortunes but didn’t – because they deceived themselves into thinking they would develop at home, and that the system was ‘fair’, so they held out hope of eventually being called up.
Is it realistic to expect a large pool of players to accumulate 60 games before going overseas while still developing so they can be enticed back when fully mature and still playing their best rugby? No, it isn’t. Not today and not in any foreseeable future. There simply aren’t enough test matches to go around. There aren’t even enough Super Rugby matches to go around.
If we as fans and RA want the best, then it is expedient, particularly in World Cup (WC) years, to select overseas Australian players who are arguably better than their domestic counterparts. Availability for selection for the EOYT prior to a WC year, and half or a full season of Super Rugby to showcase themselves should easily be enough to evaluate and integrate them into the system for WC selection.
It is wrong to argue/speculate that RA needs a de facto ‘trade restraint’ to prevent all the good players from going North and leaving Australian rugby a wasteland. First of all the market for potential talent isn’t large enough to gut the SANZAR+AR and South Pacific player pool. Secondly, contrary to academic economic theory, not all actors/players are rational and not all resources/players are mobile.
If New Zealand’s top 30 players were all rational and mobile most would have been playing somewhere up North before this last WC. Most will eventually get there, but for many the irrational lure of playing in the black jersey postpones that adventure until they’ve played their best at home.
The financial incentives are important. However, the current state of Australian rugbyy has depreciated the lure of the gold jersey, and the clearly delusional fantasy of actually winning 60 test caps – before a player’s career is truly over – are the root causes of the current, objectively modest, player exodus. It is totally rational for the young, talented, and mobile to take advantage of a sure thing overseas when offered.
It will be equally rational for RA to scrap the Giteau rule and make reasonable provisions to welcome them home if and when they are needed.

Agreed, the Boks blew it – more specifically the coaching staff, Kolisi and all the rest of them who let Faf de Klerk continue to kick the ball away to ABs. His kicking was abysmal.
What were they thinking, that they would nullify one of the best counter-attacking teams on the planet by giving them all the ball to practice with?
What particular element of de Klerk’s game justified letting him kick possession away; his defense, offense…tactical nous? Rubbish – he’s one of the most overrated players in the tournament. Did he do even one thing in that match that Herschel Jantjies could not have done just as well – in addition to Jantjies keeping the ABs guessing with his sniping away at set pieces?
If de Klerk had been pulled at 1/2 time (at the latest) this whole discussion could have been focused on the AB’s mistakes failure to adjust to the x-factor Jantjies brings with him.

‘…if they can beat the Hurricanes at home, they clearly have the depth for at least two teams while remaining competitive’. Seriously? Take a break and reload mate.

John, Michael Ruru was the revelation of the weekend for me. It is great to see that you noticed him as well. In addition to slipping in seamlessly with Cooper, he appeared to be calm, clever and quick on his feet. His service was precise and intelligent. He is also a big unit. Assuming Genia sits out at least the next game, it would be good to see him show up Phipps/Gordon this coming weekend. A performance to draw some attention away from Phipps, Gordon, McDermott and Powell, would be good for Australian rugby. None of them have me hopeful, let alone convinced, they are credible stand-ins for Genia.

If someone will set up a GoFundMe (or Australian equivalent) account to pay for an interim coach, I’m in with at least $100 USD.

David
Spot on…until you mentioned the second half of the match in Salta.
Had Sanchez been fit to play that would have been a very different 40 minutes of rugby. What happened there said more about the importance of Sanchez to the Pumas than anything about the Wallabies
The Beale/Ashley-Cooper debacle is reflection of the state of Rugby Australia (RA) and the Wallabies (WBs). Together, a pile of putrescent rubbish.
RA is a feckless mob of self-serving talking heads.
Cheika and his staff have no clues, let alone a plan, and they have lost the trust and respect of the players.
‘Team’ is a meaningless label attached to the collections of individuals Cheika trots out in the Green & Gold test after test. Judge them by what you see, and what you see is predominantly self-absorbtion, complacency and incompetence.
There is no urgency to the way they play, no pride in the jersey they wear, and, notwithstanding the inept coaching, no shame for the inexcusably mindless performances they routinely produce.

Selections for Salta are out. Same rubbish different test.

There are no synergies from playing Michael Hooper at #7 and David Pocock #8. Hooper doesn’t actually play anywhere in particular but shows up (and was shown up in the 1st minute last week) mostly in the backs.

Meanwhile Pocock is overworked and his natural game compromised. The Wallabies lose the skills, height and power of a specialist #8. Cheika’s persistance with this sub-optimal pairing hurts the Wallabies and benefits only their opponents. Pocock, at his current burn rate (on a hiding to nothing), will be lucky to make it to the WC.

Bench Hooper. Pocock starts – knowing he has approximately 45 minutes to play himself off his peak. Then, before he slips down his performance curve, replace him with Hooper. Preserve Pocock for another day. Give Hooper 35 minutes to show us what $6 million buys – but make him play like a real #7.

Captain? Matt Toomua is cool head and an instinctive organizer. Clearly the best choice on offer but he ‘lost’ the battle for #10 (between Bernard Foley and Kurtley Beale – go figure that out) so is sitting on the bench this week.

Of course all big tests need impact players on the bench so Foley’s mate, Nick Phipps is given another gratuitous opportunity for a cap. If there was any objectivity in selections both Foley and Phipps would be on the bench for their respective NRC teams this week.