Yep, it’s Tuesday again (geez it comes around quick, doesn’t it?) and that means it’s Top 5 time! This week we grade our teams, consider some of our Wallaby “stars”, talk reffing and laws, look at teams who are flying past us and grit our teeth for the Good, Bad and Ugly.
Report Card
Waratahs C+ They got the win against the old foes, but it wasn’t really convincing, relying on a huge penalty count against the reds to kick their way to victory. They did enough to get the win though, and in this tight race between the Aussie teams, that’s what counts.
Reds D Poor discipline really hurt them, to the tune of 15 points in penalties (I must admit, some of those were dubious at best). They showed some good running in the 1st half but just didn’t have enough of the ball in the 2nd.
Force C+ The Force put up a really good fight against the Lions, doing better than most had probably expected. If they had played the way they did after the break for the whole game it might have been a different story. While it might not have cost them the victory as it did in Canberra, a late penalty against Ross Haylett-Petty cost the Force a losing bonus point, which may be important come the end of the season.
Rebels E Honestly? The less said the better. 4 Penalty goals in their 2 game South African road trip. Poor options in squad selection didn’t help, along with injuries. But even so, they are just playing poorly.
Brumbies D They reverted back to the kicking game that has not really been very successful this season, with kicks that were not even very contestable. There was little sign of the great running we saw against the Reds, they didn’t really look threatening.
Incumbents v the “others”
So with just over a month until the Wallabies take on Fiji, I thought it might be time to take a look at the Wallabies. Notably who we think will fill some key positions.
It’s pretty clear that there are certain players who … well … getting dropped seems to be harder than getting picked for some players. So let’s look at some of the incumbents and see if we think they have done enough to keep their spots. (And of course I’m not even looking at OS based players, keeping it purely those who currently play here.)
Moore – He has been very patchy this season and at times I wonder if he would be considered if he wasn’t the current Wallaby captain. His main rival? Latu. He has improved out of sight after starring in the NRC last year. There were concerns regarding his discipline and flair for the punch, but that has been calmed down. Solid in the lineout, great over the ball and tough on attack. TPN is also having a solid season so far over in the west.
Hooper – Not really worth the argument over this one. Not the best over the ball but good with ball in hand. A bolter could be Alcock, but does anyone really imagine Hooper not being the first one picked.
Phipps – Dropped from the Tahs starting side and apart from scoring a try against the Reds and doing lots of yelling, he didn’t really do a whole lot to show he is worthy of a Wallaby start. His main rivals come in the form of Joe Powell and Jake Gordon who have both done well for their respective teams. Frisby, the back-up Wallaby 9 last year looks to have played himself out of contention.
Foley – He’s only played a handful of matches since his concussion issues, but has steered the Waratahs well in those matches, being the steadying hand they needed. His main competition for starting 10 would be Cooper, but he has been patchier. He showed some outstanding skills on Saturday, but is it enough to unseat Foley?
Folau – Fullback? Outside centre? At the moment he is being outplayed by Hunt at 15 and Kerevi at 13, so Folau should be in trouble when it comes to retaining his starting spot. But he won’t be. Despite a lean run this year and a fairly quiet International season last year, Folau will most likely be right up there with Hooper as first picked, because on his day he can be great. He just hasn’t had that day in quite a while.
WTF? Is that the law or ref?
Wow. I have to honestly say it’s not often that we get poor refereeing in consecutive games, but on Saturday that’s exactly what we got with the first two games.
I’m not sure if Will Houston is simply out of his depth or just having a run of shockers that have required a few words of guidance from Lyndon Bray, but on Saturday he really struggled. The poor Sunwolves must have felt rather duped after being on attack for nearly 7 minutes inside the 10 metres, and having the Chief penalised initially for offside, then for collapsing the maul off a lineout drive; then with the Sunwolves scrum showing dominance were awarded penalty for angling on Hames (Hames is the most penalised prop in the competition this year), then a short-arm for early scrum engagement by the Chiefs, then for the Chiefs for collapsing the scrum (Hames again) to then ironically be penalised, turning the ball over when Hames opposite popped up out of the scrum. Incredibly no warnings were issued to the Chiefs in that period and to rub salt in to wound Hames was penalised again 3 minutes later, making that his third penalty in 6 minutes. You know it’s bad when the Kiwi commentators are questioning the lack of a yellow card.
Paul Williams certainly didn’t lift the bar, with the Reds v Tahs making for an exciting and unpredictable 80 minute game of reflotto for those playing along at home.
This one I do need help with. SANZAAR apparently ditched the TMO “any reason why I can’t award the try?” review going to a new protocol this year. Now the new question is “can you give me a reason not to?” Clearly different, right? So it’s all about the on field decision which leads to an interesting question. If you’re sure it’s a try, and you ruled it a try why are you asking for a review? Why? What is it that you want reviewed and why? Paul Williams during the Tah’s game provided the perfect example of the issue with the Phipps try. In seeking review he stated “I have an on field try, can you give me a reason not to?”. Why? What was the problem, where is the doubt? What part need to be reviewed? If he can see it’s a try and has ruled it a try but can’t identify any concerns, is this just a waste of time or a referee unsure of what he thinks he has seen and ruled and basically guessed? Is this not just a blanket review by the TMO?
It’s not often we get a double joker in reflotto but we got it this week.
So the first, guilty by association. Check out this heinous act of foul play! The horrifying act of standing still and being landed on. He is lucky it’s only a penalty.
This one is all about who jumps first and the highest.
The laws of rugby are clear that if there is potential for a contest its dangerous. The fact that that Kerevi successfully ripping the ball away caused Folau to end up to land on his feet then his ass is a penalty every day. In all seriousness, the law is very clear on this one. So if someone can explain it please do.
Is Aussie rugby “learning challenged”?
It’s actually a fair question to ask. In the last few weeks we have seen the Kings push 4 of our teams and leaving with a 50% win loss ratio. The Kings of all teams!
But consider where the Kings were at the start of the season. They are team that is new, thrown together from what was left over after the franchise was resurrected. They have 3 players with international experience and the most capped Kings player has less than 40 caps. So how can a team starting from nothing and with so many unknown players be above 4 of the Aussie teams and just 3 points behind the Brumbies?
10 rounds of super Rugby; that’s what it has taken to get a team playing to their strengths and playing up tempo running rugby. They have scored more points than any other Aussie team and conceded less points than the Tahs. How can this be? It’s not like they have some big name super coach either. He is a first-year coach in Super Rugby and current Currie Cup coach for the South Western Districts Eagles.
Somehow this bunch of players have learned as they have gone and in 10 rounds are arguably on par with the Aussie teams right now.
Trying to put this down to an anomaly is not easy to do. If the touted cuts happen in Super Rugby and the conferences are realigned we might end up with a really big headache and be headed for humiliation. What, you may well ask?
You see its those damn pesky Sunwolves. For those that missed the game on the weekend the Sunwolves, on tour in NZ, facing Kiwi teams for the first time away and evolving and improving with each game, are sticking to their attacking mantra and have worked out how to play the game. They pushed the Chiefs to a 27-20 loss but it’s the way they are playing that is making people take notice.
It gets even more concerning when you see that the Lions influence has started some of the South African teams playing running rugby. The Stomers have evolved and the others are showing signs. We also know the Jagaures are starting to get it together more often than not.
So, is rugby in Australia learning challenged? It’s a real risk and even Cheika has publicly called for all Aussie franchises to ditch the play books and start throwing it around. This weekend really did show signs that we are well behind the rest of the class.
Can you imagine if the Sunwolves topped the proposed Aussie conference!
Not to heap on more bad news, but the pride of Aussie rugby rests in the hands of the Brumbies. They are yet to face the Kings and are our last hope of keeping Aussie rugby on the winning side of the ledger in the battle against the Kings. Worst of all the Kings will have 12 rounds of experience and evolution by then!
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
Good: How great was it to see Quade Cooper back to his brilliant best during this try?
Bad: Some of the refereeing decisions this round. As discussed above, there were some downright bad calls\non calls.
Ugly: Last week someone asked me to put the overall ladder at the end of the article. I guess this is as good a place for it as any. It doesn’t make for an entertaining read if you are an Aussie rugby fan.
