I’ve not posted for a very long time, but my views on RA are mostly unchanged. Here’s one person’s perspective, and I welcome others’ … . .Does pulling a few wrong strings, making bad calls, or collapsing scrums, make us generally not prepared consistently for top notch international competition? Is the solution really in ‘Hooper v Samu’, or ‘Oz coach vs foreign coach’? I reckon we’ve had a succession of good people playing and coaching, but they’re not supported by a comprehensive system, say like like in NZ. As Zach Buckley wrote back in 2013, reflecting on successful NBA franchises: “If superstars are truly the face of the NBA, they’re only afforded that lofty perch by the genius minds tasked with maximizing their effectiveness in the right system.” . . It’s a team sport, and that team is way bigger than a few dozen players and coaches. . . So sometimes I wonder if it’s futile to constantly blame the coach or the players (we’ll, those that are still fit to play) when they are actually subject to the strategy, (dis)unity, capability, culture and size of the wider RA system. . . . That system started burning cash after professionalising. It relished in the glory of 1991 through to 2003, but didn’t learn how, when they had the $$, to continuously evolve: to regenerate, improve and thrive, despite – but also leveraging – our seeming disadvantages compared to stronger rugby nations. Other than rules-driven playing patterns, it sometimes seems to me that we haven’t advanced near as much as many others. . . .
For instance, because we favoured the glory , and marketability, of elite players back then, there was a relative lack of depth in developing locally: resulting in a limited talent stream through to the Wallabies. We didn’t invest enough or early enough in local rugby (compare with Penrith RL club’ s development system) … while AFL invaded our turf. And we really needed to – it’s not the money that makes one a professional. . .
To the greater extent I have always put our deficiencies down to the senior leaders who are responsible for the culture and capability of that overall organisational system. These limitations include the state rivalries that it seems have too often – especially when turning professional, failed to contribute to and collaborate within an integrated national rugby system.
And so in some respects it seems we’re little changed since 1970, when I first played rugby. We were the amateur 3rd or 4th winter code then and in several ways remain so. . .
But as long as we lay the blame on coaches who only work with the players in the system, or blame the players themselves, we miss the much bigger picture. . . So, what have those leading and governing RA learned from other successful systems?. What have they learned from NZ Rugby, or Barcelona FCs system, or English or Irish rugby, or Manchester FC, or Richmond AFL. Or checked out San Antonio Spurs: 14 consecutive 50-win seasons, 16 straight postseason appearances, four NBA titles. . . All these systems / clubs / franchises have learned many lessons though their successes, and especially from their problems. Or, for something completely different, look to Toyota – boring, yes , but systematically streets ahead (sorry) of their competitors.
Do our RA leaders and governors have the same commitment to continuous learning and improvement that they expect of the on-field folk? . .
Anyway, I reckon it’s good that we’ve stopped idealising run-at-all-costs rugby – that was great before John Muggleton set modern defence patterns/skills for us, and major nations copied us.
Can we now stop blaming individuals and look to the larger system? Not just playing patterns or a coaching system, but a root and branch reflection on the longer-term trends, constraints and advantages (surely some) across the total RA system. . .
There’s another RWC coming our way. Will we blow it again? . . . . . . Now some of my views may be different to yours, and at nearly 70, I’ve not played in a long time. So I may not know what I’m talking about. But please do focus on the big picture ….Can we win another RWC, RC, Bledisloe, etc while we sweat the small stuff?

Taylorman
Thanks for that last thought.
No, I would never pin hopes on one player. Do you remember Jonah Vs Boks in ’95?
The game has become so fast, so tough, so skillful, it demands a great TEAM to be successful. And at RWC these days, that means a team with at least 3 or 4 of the very highest calibre of people and players. ABs certainly have that and Oz aren’t far behind, hence their ranking. So if Oz win it won’t be because Pocock played well, but because he was part of a team that played well. Ditto McCaw and ABs. They may have a strong influence, but they can’t be everywhere.
So all this talk about one player verses the other, the stats, the team comparisons; it is really a lot of hot air. Its about as useful as saying that Oz always wins RWCs in UK. Media can say what they like, but that’s a load of claptrap.
What really matters is how many on each team really ‘turn up’ on the day. That is, how they well they turn up (especially mentally) and how well they’ve been prepared to maintain that for the duration, plus how well they adapt to changing conditions. And there’s not one person on Roar can predict that. But my word we do have a red hot go at it anyway.

You may be right about the gouging. Its a long time since I read it, and my brain seems to be as weak now as my hair is grey . . . .

No need to apologise taylorman, I agree with you.
Pocock does not yet have the runs on the Board that those I mentioned notched. Clearly they are in a very excusive class as footballers.
However I do see in him a worldview, a presence and a mental strength that equates to the same sort of personal characteristics that the others have brought to this great game. Whether he will be part of a champion team, as have been Fitzpatrick, Johnson, Eales (x2) and McCaw (also to be x2 I believe) is yet to be revealed. But he wouldn’t be out of place in one or leading one. He has that mental wherewithal.
Also, he plays rugby, but he doesn’t define himself and his life just by rugby. He is active in many areas that are much more important than sport. And, I believe, that puts the game in perspective for him and so he can transcend it and not be subject to it, or to the forces that it applies.
So no, not in that class as a footballer, but yes certainly as a man.

Spot on Bob and Wal.
And when a game is close (which one typically hopes for) a crucial factor is the capacity for a team to maintain its focus, it’s shape, it’s clear headedness while the ‘rub of the green’, the bounce of the ball and the ref’s decisions, go against it. While any AB edge in physique and skill is not huge, I think their strategy and adaptiveness are greater than Oz at this stage. And as Kipling crafted:
” If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs . . .”

McCaw and Pockok, like Fitzpatrick, Johnson and Eales before them, have all demonstrated that they transcend the game, the match and the moment. The are not subject to the same psychological pressures during the event because in their lives they have already risen above it.

Consider Johnson leading England against the ABs in June 2003. His command of and inspiration for his team while Back and Dallaglio were sin binned was just awesome. Having seen the slow slide of the Wallabies since their 1998 – 2001 zenith, I reckoned in June that it wasn’t just the ABs we’d have to get over to keep Bill. Also coming to mind is Eales’ warning to the ref in the 1999 RWC final, that if the French didn’t cease biting, he would lead his players off the field rather than tolerate such conduct.

If you get a chance to read Eales’ biography, check his personal diary notes from the evening before that final. McCaw’s biography has similar character building and character demonstrating chapters.

These are moments when the inner powers of great people (not only men) rise above the tension, risks and demands of the moment. When something flows that is beyond what one is entitled to hope for. So I don’t dare hope for such moments Sunday morning, but I won’t be surprised if McCaw or Pocock stand up in some way that goes beyond just playing superlative rugby.

Elegant assessment, thank you.
The pattern you described applied to Eden Park too. ABs blew Oz away with three crushing tries between 50th and 65th minutes. The question will be whether dogged defence, as against Wales, will be sufficient. Personally I’d back AB creativity over Welsh effort. That said, if Wallabies are still improving towards a future peak, as I believe, they may be lifted by the moment to a point where they can compete It will be great to see how that pans out cone Sunday morning

Moaman
That experience is not the same as previous teams’ experience. Hansen has developed an adaptiveness in the ABs that is new to rugby. Their last 2 games displayed that. I’ll back their ability to adapt within the game. The question will be whether the Wallabies can match that. Do they gave a rugby intellect on the pitch as good as their coach’s in the stand.

I reckon Cheika selects for worldview and mindset potential as much as he does for physique and talent. Plus I reckon he backs his own ability to develop individuals further as well as collective mental strength and combinations.
Even as he pinched the RC he kept experimenting to discover exactly who was just right, and with whom, in just the right team set up. And all thus while introducing new playing patterns. Not a bad job in a short term.

I still cherish Cornelson’s 4 ‘flukes’
Was that 1978?

At Eden Park ABs scored 3 tries in 9 minutes against a still-experimental Oz squad, winning 41-13 in a very convincing victory. It will be interesting to see whether a full strength Oz squad can stay with ABs for a full 80 (or 120?) . So much speculation, we’re worse than the chattering class.

RR
Yes, It would be Wallabies’ greatest win ever. And if they are close, ‘honourable losers’, it could be their best (hopefully not greatest) loss ever.
While following the Wallabies for many years, albeit somewhat less emotionally than some correspondents here, I have really admired the way that the ABs have developed progressively over the last 8 years. A stark contrast to Oz deterioration until recently.
I don’t think that Oz have peaked yet by a long shot; this game comes about 12-24 months too soon for that. When their reserves are as deep and strong as ABs, they will be able to play at that lofty level, consistently, for a full 80 minutes (maybe even 120 mins).
So on the surface a Wallaby victory will be as extraordinary as an AB victory should be predictable. However I reckon shrewd Cheika has an ace up his sleeve that may surprise us.

It’s the human condition You see on display there Gary. Lots of people celebrate all sorts of things, big and small. If you’re interested in or concerned about celebrations, watch some NFL and check how players celebrate for effecting one tackle. That I’d call over the top

That should be ‘flukey’. But in the last 15-20 mins, maybe my spellchecker will prove right, if mental strength doesn’t hold out

Well said Shrink
It’s much bigger than the two great players on each team, or even the two back row squads.
This will be determined by what the 23 man squads bring to the field, their mental resilience, their clear thinking and agility in changing conditions, their ability to hunt in packs – in attack and defence.
These 2 teams are a cut above the rest of the world in that combination of capability and culture, strategy and tactics.
, as noted above, the ABs are more advanced than Oz at this stage, but on the day, the bounce of the ball and flakey outcomes, or what a ref can or can’t see in the Hurley burley of congestion and fast moving bodies, can change the tone and tide. Who knows what the real catalysts will be.

It’ll be a great spectacle

Well spoken, Speak Softly. Almost poetic

I can’t be at Twickers, but if the game rises to the drama of the only RWC Final I have attended, 2003, then it will be a spectacular event. I remembered feeling robbed at the end of that match. Not by Wilkinson’s drop kick (and let’s never forget the systematic foundation the Pom pigs manufactured for that play!) , but by the pace at which the game progressed. It seemed like it was all over in what felt like 1/2 time.

, the Wallabies have great talent and skill – equal to ABs I believe – so if they can overcome or stand up to ABs more mature strategy/tactics, resilience/agility capability, then we’re in for a fabulous match. I’ve backed ABs to win and would be pleased to see such great players retire on such a high. But I’ll be very pleasantly surprised to see Oz get up.

Either way, it does shape up as a true clash of Titans

How on earth does one’s sexual preferences affect one’s ability to adjudicate and control a match? The Roar should have moderated that one sentence paragraph out of the article! And the rest of the crowd should ignore it!

Notwithstanding, it may be that his refereeing style may suit the ABs better than Oz.

but I do enjoy his direct communications and banter. Owens’ microphone feed is almost as entertaining as the game itself.

Is there a risk that supporters are putting too much faith in fetching and thieving to win the RWC? Too much reliance on one mortal?
Do the Wallabies have the superior mental, skilful, tactical game across the park such that they can be resilient to the AB blitz and pressure plus match the agility to adapt their game to changing tactics and conditions. What Dean’s called “playing what’s in front if you”, but at the collective, not the individual scale.
Boy, if they do, that’ll make MC the coach of the century.
I reckon Oz will give it a good shake, but I suspect their transcendence to that new standard being set by the ABs is still 2 – 4 years away. And if MC can deliver that, we’ve got a fabulous era rolling out

The Kiwi press are showing good respect here, much as they would have against SA and probably had any of several other teams earned the right to join this challenge. It will be good to see supporters and the Oz press follow suit.

Correct
It doesn’t take a particularly great deal of maturity to separate the game played and the relationships off the pitch. One mustn’t lose sight of the traditions, not just of the SA NZ rivalry, but of the older traditions of the game itself. In fact I would argue that such a mature approach is what makes rugby special and distinguishes it from some other sports that have not retained, or never had, that culture.