RWC RANT No.6
I decided to wait a couple of days before reporting on the Wallabies first game as I wanted to wait for the outcome of the NZ v Namibia game to see if the score lines between the powerhouse nations and the minnows are changing. The answer is yes, but the questions is whether it is a result of the minnows improving or whether the powerhouse teams have plateaued or recessed? I prefer to think the former as more national players are honing their craft in better competitions during the 4 years between cups. While there have still been some big scores so far and using Namibia as an example, the 58-14 loss to NZ this year is much more respectable than their 87-0 and 81-7 loss to SA and Wales respectively in 2011 or their 87-10 loss to France in 2007. This appears to a very positive thing for World Rugby, it’s still nowhere close to being a level playing field but the gap is starting to close and not continuing to widen – case in point, Japan.
So back to the Wallabies and as the saying goes an opinion is like a bum crack – everyone’s got one and I’m just about to show you mine. But again, I wanted to wait to see what all regular pundits were saying about the game and see whether my thoughts aligned or not.
The analysis has gone in a couple directions. The interesting thing is everyone with an opinion (me included) is not necessarily basing it on what the Wallabies have been set as goals and objectives with their coaches, but instead on our playing and or coaching experience and what we expect the players/team should be doing in comparison to other nations we watch. The truth is, the only person that would know if the Wallabies achieved what they were supposed to is Michael Cheika. Some may say the players and other coaches would be privy to what Cheika is expecting; may be, may be not. Cheika may being saying one thing in the hope of getting something else – he loves his mind games. The only thing consistent about Cheika is his inconsistency especially when it comes to selections, playing shape and media conference spin.
So what issues did many of the other pundits raise?
1. The effectiveness of the backrow combination of Fardy, Hooper and Pocock – more Pooper.
2. The lineout is rudderless without Simmons
3. A much improved Wallaby scrum
4. No bonus point secured
5. The Genia/Foley combination
6. Lack of impact from the bench
All of the above points are valid and questions should be asked, here is my take:
1A. The Wallabies new Holy Trinity certainly gets the job done and are highly effective on and off the ball however, the Wallabies will be horribly exposed if more than one injury occurs to fracture this combination. This is why I wasn’t all for taking Skelton and Palu in place of players like Gill and Hodgson. If Pocock was injured will Palu or McCalman have the same impact? Unlikely, and the same applies to Hooper; sure Poey could move into 7 if Hooper got hurt but we lose that extra punch a channel or two out as well as a critically effective defender. With respect to Fardy – the quiet achiever, I think McMahon or McCalman whilst different in the way they play could fill 70% of the void if Fardy went down, whether that would be enough is yet to be seen. Let’s hope our backrow remain injury free.
2A. Yes, the Wallabies lost 3 lineouts in a row after Simmons left the field and that should be seen as an issue because possession must remain king. There always seems to be a lot of reliance on one player when it comes to the calls, I’m not sure if it is because others just don’t get it as well as him or others haven’t been adequately trained by the coaches to take over effectively? It must be said that trying to read the opposition and the mental computation required to figure where to throw and where to compete when you’re lungs are burning, you’re in pain or behind on the scoreboard isn’t as easy as it may seem; you need a tactical mind because lineout skills and defensive prowess have improved dramatically over the past 4 years. Moreover, when you select a range of secondary jumpers (shorter guys) or ones that are too big to lift easily or aren’t dominant in the air you have to get the other stuff right and have a contingency for everything- I’m not sure the Wallabies do? They need to sort this out and they need to have another lineout General who is likely to be on the field for at least 70mins like Hooper, Fardy, Moore or Pocock to takeover if and when Simmons leaves the field, even if it’s just for a couple of lineouts until the official replacement gets into his groove.
3A. An improved scrum, well the bar was pretty low and Aussie fans were happy if the boys won their own feed against the scrum machine, so the swift rise in ability since Ledesma has come into the fold has mesmerised us all. The truth is, we’re now in line with the way nations ranked in the top 5 nations should scrummage. Well overdue, but grateful it has arrived but let’s not get too excited until we pass the test of a Northern Hemisphere side. I have faith purely based on their upgraded angles, foot positioning and body shape.
4A. I’m with Cheika on this one. A bonus point is important but a win should always be the priority. I’ve always maintained a one game at a time approach. That’s not to say you’re not thinking about how the team is building and developing to take on other opponents, but you can never get too far ahead or you start to worry about things that are irrelevant at the time – It needs to be about here and now. The bottom line is the top 2 teams go into the quarter finals and the winner of Pool A plays the runner up in Pool B and vice versa, so if Australia just wins every game they will come 1st or 2nd and will play SA, Samoa, Scotland, Japan or USA in the quarters.
Interestingly a lot of people were saying Australia by 30, which in the past was a fairly reliable prediction. I held my tongue because of the way Fiji performed against the old foe, I wasn’t sure but my gut feeling was predicting a tight game for the first 40-50mins and then the Wallabies would finish off with 2-3 quick tries in the final 10mins. The score may have indicated this but the game didn’t replicate my prediction, it was the complete opposite. Many underestimated the ability of our Pacific Island cousins and to be truthful it has all been a little disrespectful because most of their players nowadays are professional and contracted in either Australia, NZ or Europe and have full access to better coaching, better training methods, better recovery protocols and better medical attention. McKee like Cheika should be congratulated on his ability to ready a team well for combat in a very short period of time.
5A. It’s always hard to know what constitutes the right decision of a 9/10 combination, that is when should they kick, run, pass, snipe or take the ball into contact? Cheika and Larkham spoke about the combination working fine during training and I believe them because they are professionals and they swap and change more during training than they change their undies so we have no choice but to trust their judgement. Cheika openly said he thought Genia’s experience would be highly effective during the RWC; I’m not so sure. May be it’s because I just don’t like Genia’s style of play and never really have, that rise of the back and those steps always creep back in. I think Australia has a real issue with producing commanding No.9s. I’ve said it before, Stirzaker was the form No.9 out of all the Australian franchises and I hope he is given a chance in 2016. I’ve never been a Foley fan either because he is too conservative for a 10 in the modern game. He makes Michael Lynagh look like a master risk-taker (if you’re old enough to remember); other than his goal kick I’m not sure he brings enough to the team. He doesn’t threaten the line often enough, his tactical kicking is hot and cold, his defence is OK but sometimes he misses badly and his support lines are often too deep – but it does pay off occasionally. Of course I’m making these comments based on the kind of 10 that I believe would complement the current group of skills the Wallabies have. It’s unlikely to change and I still think they have a more than fair chance of getting into the semis.
6A. Yes, the bench lacked impact but they also lacked enough time to make any kind of a real difference. This is one of the inconsistencies of Cheika’s strategy. One minute he uses the bench as a second half tsunami and in others they’re used as backwash, almost an after thought to give them some game time. His team; his prerogative. The bench has become an important part of the game and needs its own strategy. I preferred the old replacement rule – a player needed to have a genuine/permanent injury to be able to replace them. It’s all becoming a bit League-esque. Cheika appears to be a fan nonetheless, as he refers to his bench as his ‘finishers’.
Final comment. I was thinking about the classic excuse from the pundits ‘they’re a bit rusty”, “first game nerves” etc. I reckon it’s a bit of a crock. These guys are professional athletes that train and play enough games a year to never be rusty or have first game nerves progress further than the first 5 minutes of a game. I can imagine my tradie mates taking a deep breath and feeling a bit anxious just before they install a switchboard or knock together a roofing truss, or some of my white collared friends feeling a bit rusty as they enter a mitigation meeting or assess the financial status of a client. I’ll concede nerves can exist pre-game but after the first 5 mins they should be gone, but being rusty doesn’t cut it anymore as, if anything autopilot should kick in from the change room.
Bring on England!
sayitwithglee.com 