I must admit I have very little sympathy for the ‘talent’ and their ‘feelings’…a professional environment demands professionals who are willing to do the hard work that no one else will do – exceptionally, repeatedly, selflessly and uncompromisingly – and to accept honest, straightforward feedback which improves the individual for the good of the TEAM. The Wallabies of the last decade have been much too pampered, and have followed the example of the Australian cricket team on too many occasions, believing in their own glorious hype and entitlement to not have their feelings hurt. The question is – do you want to win , or not?

If you want to be the best at something you have to DO THE WORK…McDermott’s failure to do the work on his pass shows you a great deal about his approach to his Rugby. It’s not enough to just have ‘talent’ and to maximise the things you are good at. That works at SRP level, but not at international level. Who does Tate McDermott aspire to be? And what is he prepared to do to get there. I remember reading years ago about Nick Farr Jones spending hours a day passing bricks like footballs in his backyard until he had a bullet pass off both hands from the ground (because he recognised that his pass off his left hand was weak). Do. The. Work.

Can any of you erudite Rugby scholars tell me if Cormac Daly is eligible for Wallabies selection?

There is an enormous amount of academic research into the unconscious biases demonstrated in sporting contests, by both spectators, players and referees.

In general, what the research shows is that (1) refereeing decisions will be affected by things like home crowds, previous team and individual performance, and other individual heuristic decision-making cues, and (2) spectators will see around 80% more errors called against their teams as unfair (even when they are not), as opposed to only seeing 20% error rates in the opponents play (even when they are there).

However, the most important aspect of the research is neither of the points above, it is that this: unconscious bias is unconscious, and cannot be immediately or reasonably addressed. Even if you can tame some of the referee’s confirmation and other unconscious biases (for a start games would be played without crowds), you will never be able to battle the biases of the millions of fans!

What does this mean? It means that no matter how you apply the rules, how accurate your technology, or effective the use of the TMO, or indeed how many officials you employ, the fans of the losing side will never be satisfied. More importantly, the losing fans will always be able to identify an action, an omission or a moment that confirms and proves the cognitive paradigm in which they exist…that their team was robbed!

Trying to find methods of officiating that ‘pleases’ fans, players and officials is cognitively impossible. I think the most we can hope for, which is illuminated by @The Journeyman’s comment (in his very well constructed essay) is this:

The right outcome should also mean the right outcome for rugby

Not the winning or losing fans; no one ever won an argument around belief by offering logic…

I had to laugh….

At the same time, World Rugby has promised that there will be a 50 per cent rise in Tests played between tier-one and tier-two sides.

My maths isn’t great, but I’m pretty sure that multiplying 0 by 50% still leaves you with 0… 😛

I would agree with your assessment @Bliksem, South Africa are now a Northern Hemisphere Rugby nation, they are only geographically located in the Southern Hemisphere…

I agree with your assessment @Hoy, Ireland rely on executing simple plays well, where everyone knows their job…but against a dynamic, agile and fluid opposition with defensive nous, they can’t break through.

Very interesting stats CabinBoy!

Astute comment as always Mr Zavos. I was also disappointed with the behaviour of the Irish supporters…I have always applied the personal rule that one should not be an arrogant tosser unless one is certain of winning, and since one is never certain of winning, best not to be an arrogant tosser!

Good article John, and I agree with your general thesis that IFL is ‘truer’ to the new Wallabies Way, particularly if we are looking forward to the Lions and next RWC. Jones still has some credits in the bank for bolder decisions, I would love him to use them.
My own 10c worth on the 9s though – and this is an impression/opinion not a statistically-backed fact – is that playing to structure and gameplay means they arrive at the ruck with a pre-determined outcome, not with their heads up and looking to see what opportunities exist, particularly when momentum is building through fast ball at the breakdown. (I can’t believe that I am about to write this but…) look at the really good halves in Rugby League, they arrive at the ruck with their heads up and their eyes forward at the opposition, looking for the play to make.
If the box kick is the right answer to the problem, then fine, play the box kick. But arrive at the breakdown looking for the ‘right play’…don’t arrive at the breakdown knowing what job you are about to do.
This (I think) is what is meant when coaches say they want players to play what’s in front of them. Although I find him very hard to like, Aaron Smith of NZ is an excellent example of a 9 who plays with his head up.

I agree with @Cec, good job @Favourable Matchups, very well written, good analysis!

@UOB, I see where you are coming from, but I think what @Favourable Matchups is getting at is not that England have the game to win (because that requires faultless execution which they can’t consistently achieve) but the method of winning at this RWC is clear. As he says: what makes France and South Africa so good is that they build pressure to score points. The All Blacks, on the other hand, score points to build pressure. I think he might be right…

Chile!!!!!

We are very focussed on individual players, as though one player’s talent or lack of talent is going to make or break the team. While there is certainly truth in the fact that a team full of rubbish players will be rubbish, I am not convinced that the Wallabies have developed a deep ‘full team gameplan’ that will trouble any of the serious contenders for the title. There is too much reliance on individuals to pull the team through for the win (and NZ have fallen this way now too). Great teams win World Cups with great methods and gameplay…

Was the first time in a long time that I’ve seen the ABs without answers when placed under pressure. Their systems weren’t working, and they didn’t seem to have an executable Plan B (or C). They seem to just keep playing to the same strengths, which had been largely mitigated by the French. In fact, the ABs looked a lot like the Wallabies of the past ten years (only with better individuals) in this game – reliant on one method, and clueless when it didn’t work. I assume everyone in NZ is just waiting out the in-between period before Razor takes over and normal service is resumed? Is this the 2023 version of the John Mitchell ‘recession you had to have’?

I just wish that if Eddie Jones was going to ‘full scale/new wave revolutionary’ in his selections he had been ever further mad-cap future-focussed and picked Issak Fines-Leleiwasa on the bench instead of Nic White. Superb pass, a strong as a Gregan-shaped Ox, can cover injury across the backline, and (apparently) even flanker too! Could have dropped Suli off the bench and inserted an additional high-impact forward and followed the Springboks with a 6-2 bomb-squad bench

You know that feeling you get in the pit of your stomach as a Wallabies supporter? The one where your logic brain says: ‘of course we will win, we are the Wallabies, it’s only [insert Italy, Samoa, Fiji, Scotland, Argentina, Georgia…], but your watching-Dr-Who-from-behind-the-leg-of-the-couch, there’s-a-monster-under-my-bed brain whimpers: Oh no, not again! Yup? Well I got that feeling…

Mr Zavos, I fear you might be right…“Though this be madness, yet there is method in ’t.” Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2 Let’s just hope the Wallabies campaign does end up as a tragedy (or worse, a comedy!)

It’s just a football team playing sport…save the blood boiling for something that really matters 😁

I think also you have to judge a 10’s talent on how they perform on their worst day, rather than on their best day…that’s what made Larkham, Carter, Lynagh, Wilkinson so good, almost no difference between their best and worst performances.

Talent is a hard thing to define, isn’t it. O’Connor and Beale also had talent. Arguably Cooper was the closest of the three from that cohort to actually realise some of it…still think Quade’s inability to make a tackle means he was never the full ‘talent’ deal though.
No. 10 doesn’t need to be the most talented player in the team, just the best at steering the team around. Michael Lynagh was a talented kicker, but wasn’t unnecessarily talented as a player, but he was surrounded by talent. His gift was being able to unleash the once-in-a- generation players around him

@KCOL, who is the most talented from your perspective?

I for one was not surprised when Quade Cooper was left out to the Wallabies RWC squad. The perspective that I have is that Eddie Jones is trying to create a ‘team’ not a squad of talent. While it’s nice to have talent in your team, if they play as ‘one-sies’ then you are never going to win except when the opposition slip up.

QC’s defensive frailties mean that his inclusion upsets the team’s balance – the game plan suffers because you are having to mitigate a single player’s weaknesses. QC has a nice step, a good longer pass and is a reasonably reliable goal kicker, but those individual talents don’t compensate for the effect he, as an individual, has on the game plan. As Spock once said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Conversely, when you see Richie Mo’unga play, not only is he brilliant, but he ‘fits’ into every aspect of the All Black’s game plan, plays his part, and no-one has to do things they normally wouldn’t to cover his weakness.

I like to see the 10 not as ‘General’ commanding the troops, but as the fulcrum around which the team pivots. This is what I see in Eddie Jones’ plans, and QC was the ‘one-sie’ not the ‘fulcrum’. Carter Gordon doesn’t need to be a ‘brilliant talent’, he needs to be a ‘brilliant fulcrum’…I think he can be (and bloody well hope he is!).

I don’t mind watching League when there is nothing else to watch on the TV, and I think they have some really good athletes; however, most of League’s ‘greatest game of all’ hyperbole is just self-inflated provincial hype designed to cover the game’s many shortfalls and enduring inferiority complex, and to make League supports feel better about themselves.
So let’s do some real numbers, not just hype, hyperbole and opinion…
The English were really disappointed last weekend when only 55,000 people turned up to watch England play Fiji in a practice match for the World Cup, as they are used to 80,000 always turning up. Conversely, the 2023 version of the self-proclaimed ‘greatest contest in Australian sport’ aka State of Origin only managed to attract 48,000 people to Adelaide Oval (which seats 53,000).
There are three professional Rugby League competitions in the world – Australia/NZ, England and France. Just some of the top flight professional club-based competitions in Union include The Premiership (UK), Top 14 (France), Super Rugby Pacific (Australia, NZ, Fiji, Sam/Tonga), United Rugby Championship (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, South Africa), and League One (Japan). That’s before we get into professional 2nd-tier professional competitions across the world including the NPC (NZ), Currie Cup (SA) and Major League Rugby (USA), and before the European Championship tournaments. All that, of course doesn’t take into account the first-tier international tournaments…The 6 Nations, The Rugby Championship, The Rugby World Cup, and the second-tier international tournaments such as the Rugby Europe International Championships, the Pacific Nations Cup, and the Asian Rugby Championships.
857 million people watched the 2019 Rugby World Cup on TV, while 30 million watched the 2021 Rugby League World Cup. The Rugby World Cup sits third in the list of most watched tournament style World Cups after Football (Soccer) with 3.3bn viewers, and Cricket with 2.6bn viewers.
In terms of players, there are about 300,000 Rugby League players globally, while the last World Rugby census lists 9.6 million Rugby Union players. In France alone there are half a million Union players, but only 8,000 League players. There are nearly six times as many Union players in New Zealand than League players. Madagascar has nearly the same number of Union players as England has League players. India has as many Union players (220,000) as Australia (178,000) and England (44,000) combined in League.
For reference, the world’s third biggest football code for participation behind Football and Union is American Football with around 5 million players.
Rugby Union 7s is now an Olympic sport and, although no-one really cares, a Commonwealth Games sport too.
Rugby League is certainly stronger in Australia than Rugby Union, but only just, 175,000 to 138,000 players; and both are still dwarfed by other sports in the national participation numbers, with League sitting 7th in the national totals well behind Basketball (800,000), Aussie Rules (555,000) and cricket (550,000).
The whole of the NRL is valued at around AU$3bn, while the All Blacks alone were sold to a private equity firm for US$2bn. Even this is dwarfed by world-leader the Dallas Cowboys who are valued at around AU$8bn. The highest valued Rugby League club, the Penrith Panthers, is valued at AU$46m, while the top valued Rugby Union club, Racing 92 (France) is worth more than half a billion dollars. The 10th place on the Union list – Wasps (UK) A$184m – is still worth 4 times as much as the highest ranked League franchise.
If you sold the entire NRL at its listed valuation (AU$3bn), you would still not be able to purchase even a single club team listed in the top 50 valued sports teams in the world. You need A$3.1bn to buy #50 – Paris Saint Germain football team in France.
League definitely gets good viewer ratings in Australia, but is neither Australia’s national sport (AFL and Netball), nor a true international sport able to compete with Football, Cricket, Union. Globally, it sits on the second tier of football codes well behind the giants of Football, Union and American Football, and alongside Gaelic Football and AFL.
It can be fun to watch, and certainly has some athletic appeal, but let’s not kid ourselves, Rugby League is a largely unknown, provincial variant with appeal to a small portion of the world’s population who largely live on the East Coast of Australia and the North of England.
It is ok to think that League is the best version of football for you to watch – that is, you might prefer to watch League and are proud of it. That is a matter of opinion and no one can take that away from you (and nor should they, we live in a free democracy). But…quit with the ‘greatest game of all’ nonsense…the numbers don’t lie…Rugby Union is both hugely popular and highly successful.

Well assessed! The thing I find ironic is that the more things change, the more they stay the same (in a good way). Rugby has come leaps and bounds since the dawn of the professional era, both in terms of resources, high performance planning, spectacle, ball-in-play time; and yet at its simplest, winning a game of Rugby is still wonderfully simple, brutal and passionate. The brave souls who throw themselves whole-bodied into the fray make Rugby the game it is, enduringly! Bravo, long may it continue!