Has Wallaby Back Line Coaching (or Players) Lost The Plot?

[RedsHappy]

From Austin's excellent GAGR post today re Wallabies vs Ireland:

The back line has just about come to a spluttering halt and the combination of Cooper and Giteau is not working at all. The Wallabies would have known going into the match that Ireland’s defence would be well organised yet the only options the back line had were a) hope Quade can dance his way through; b) turn the ball back to a runner coming inside; or c) just pass the ball through the hands until the ball had travelled the width of the field and there was no space left. The backline didn’t attempt a single starter play to split the Irish defence!

I went to Wallabies training last week and watched the lowest intensity back line training session I’ve ever seen and I seriously mean from Under 11′s to other international teams. The only thing Robbie Deans and Richard Graham had them practicing was turning the ball inside to a runner, all done at half pace. The guy I was standing with and I were perplexed and I made the comment at the time that the complexity of the session looked like something you’d run through with a schoolboy team where the players had never met and need to just need to get to know each other. Then I thought, a) they’re not running anything in public and are saving their starter plays for a private session; and b) what do I know compared to Robbie Deans? Then as I sat watching the game footage earlier today I realised that they back line played exactly the way they trained!

I’m not advocating and overly complex style of play but the approach used by the Wallabies aginst the Irish clearly didn’t work and it certainly won’t work in the Tri-Nations. Or, is Robbie foxing and is going to bring out something special and make me eat my hat?

We saw (generally) excellent back line play in Perth. Since then, it has gone utterly AWOL.

What has gone wrong, and what needs to be done?

 

[#1 Tah]

Giteau has gone wrong, and Giteau must be done.

 

[Reddy!]

Watching The Rugby Club tonight. Goddamn that show is becoming slightly irritating. Anyway, I thought Kearnsy got it wrong...

...the panel were discussing player ratings for the past few weeks and Giteau, Horne, O'Connor and Mitchell (almost the entire backline) scored quite badly. Kearnsy remarked that the reason why these players aren't having an impact on the game is because of Quade Cooper. Apparently he isn't bringing the players around him into the game and is ball hogging. I believe this is wrong, and like my old mate fatprop has been saying, the backline is lacking big ball runners like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Digby (or Mortlock) that are threatening to get onto the end of a Cooper ball and split defenses open. Too many pin up boys fluffing about and kicking possession away.

And while I'm on this topic, how awkward was that interview with Burgess?!?! I don't think he should be in the test team, but come on, do they want to ask him any more stupid awkward questions that he can't answer? I felt sorry for the bloke having to put up with those clowns.

 

[Groucho]

Watching The Rugby Club tonight. Goddamn that show is becoming slightly irritating. Anyway, I thought Kearnsy got it wrong...

...the panel were discussing player ratings for the past few weeks and Giteau, Horne, O'Connor and Mitchell (almost the entire backline) scored quite badly. Kearnsy remarked that the reason why these players aren't having an impact on the game is because of Quade Cooper. Apparently he isn't bringing the players around him into the game and is ball hogging. I believe this is wrong, and like my old mate fatprop has been saying, the backline is lacking big ball runners like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Digby (or Mortlock) that are threatening to get onto the end of a Cooper ball and split defenses open. Too many pin up boys fluffing about and kicking possession away.

And while I'm on this topic, how awkward was that interview with Burgess?!?! I don't think he should be in the test team, but come on, do they want to ask him any more stupid awkward questions that he can't answer? I felt sorry for the bloke having to put up with those clowns.

What sort of things did they ask him, Reddy!?

 

[Reddy!]

I’m not advocating and overly complex style of play but the approach used by the Wallabies aginst the Irish clearly didn’t work and it certainly won’t work in the Tri-Nations. Or, is Robbie foxing and is going to bring out something special and make me eat my hat?[/I]

Nahh man it's called "playing what is in front of you"... *sarcasm*

If I here anyone (journalist, player or what have you) use that term again I will scream. What the hell does it mean? Why is it a good thing? That's not coaching, it's just a recipe for mayhem and confusion! Do the Wallabies even follow that method or is it a tag given to Deans coached teams by the media?

If the Wallabies really played what was infront of them they would realise that there is a try line at the other end of the field and that there are rucks that need to be hit along the way!

 

[Reddy!]

What sort of things did they ask him, Reddy!?

Why does Deans think you are a good player and why do you think he has kept faith in you? (Because you are obviously are pretty bad player, so say the critics, was the under tone to this question)
Marto ripped into after the game against Fiji, do you agree that it was your worst performance this year? (Marto forced him into saying, yes it was)
Australia obviously lost against England because Genia was playing, I bet you were happy about that, right? (Burgess didn't answer this and just laughed if off, clearly awkward)

Then you got clowns like JP ripping into other Wallaby players and expecting Burgess to agree with him and provide an answer and criticise his team mates.
I think they were also kinda suggesting that some of Burgess positional play/passing has been because of all the flyhalves he has had to work with this year, saying that he hasn't been able to adapt.

 

[Langthorne]

Nahh man it's called "playing what is in front of you"... *sarcasm*

If I here anyone (journalist, player or what have you) use that term again I will scream. What the hell does it mean? Why is it a good thing? That's not coaching, it's just a recipe for mayhem and confusion! Do the Wallabies even follow that method or is it a tag given to Deans coached teams by the media?

If the Wallabies really played what was infront of them they would realise that there is a try line at the other end of the field and that there are rucks that need to be hit along the way!

I've got to agree that phrase is quite ambiguous. Is it just Deansspeak for "be observant"? I'm not sure. Maybe it is a very reactionary way to play - watch the other team and try to adjust accordingly. Does it preclude dictating terms to the opposition? Is it a way of getting out of backline drills and moves?

The sad thing about Mitchell is that he arrived for Wallaby training on the back of a brilliant s14 season and has deteriorated since.

 

[DPK]

I believe "playing whats in front of you" is like zero- not a number, instead representing the absence of a number. That dumbarse Deanspeak refers to winging it rather than establishing a suitable gameplan.

My question is this; do the Boks change their gameplan to beat us?

 

[Jets]

I would have thought that "playing what's in front of you" is what all rugby teams do. Even when you are running starter plays and backline moves you are looking at what the opposition are doing and taking the option that will find space. The great try that AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) scored at Suncorp last year was off a starter play when the Wallabies hit the player running into space. To me it seems that "playing what is in front of you" is an excuse for not having structure. It is my belief that having a certain level of structure allows you to manipulate the defence so that you can take advantage of mismatches and wholes that appear. I didn't see the Wallabies doing much of this on Saturday night.

As for Kearns blaming Cooper for the backline issues I think that Kafe provided the answer on his chalkboard. Play with width. If the Wallaby backline was spread across the field then it would create more space for the outside backs to attack. I would have thought the major reason that Cooper was selected was his long passing game. At the moment they seem to underplay it.

 

[Brumbies Guy]

Bench Giteau and give Quade a hard/straight runner inside him... if only for half a game to see how it goes

Fainga'a/AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)/Horne/anyone.... even if it fails, the plus will be it'll give Giteau the kick up the arse he needs

 

[Scott Allen]

I've been to a coaches session with Robbie Deans where he talked to us about "play what's in front of you".

His philosophy is based on the fact that in attack players need to think about eight spaces - I don't have my notes with me but as I remember them they are - the space alongside the defender in front of you (step him or put on a fend) - the space between the defenders in front of you (run into a hole / go through them) – the space outside the defensive line (go around them) – the space where the ball came from (go back there if the defence has overcommitted to following the ball) – the space above the defenders (high ball) – the space below the defenders (grubber) – the space behind the defensive line (kick or chip into space) and finally the space between the defenders ears (deception, out thinking the defence).

Even on a whiteboard it was a little complex and I hope the Wallabies aren’t spending too much time thinking when they get the ball in hand because even though no-one wants them to be robots, too much thinking can slow the feet down.

A simpler way to put it - every player needs to be aware of, and take advantage of, opportunities the defence presents you as a result of defenders being out of position.

I always coach players that no matter what move you’re running or what you originally intended to do in attack, if a hole opens up somewhere unexpected, forget the move and take the hole. That means everyone has to be ready to receive the ball, not just be a decoy runner or assume they won’t be involved in the current play.

 

[DPK]

I completely agree, Austin. Whenever I'm involved in a backline I try and bring in a system where the flyhalf is the main controller, and plays are set up so that he can pass it to any player and they will be ready to recieve and attack.

A great example of this is the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) try vs the Boks in Brisbane. Both runners came back in on the angle but both were ready to take the pass from Barnes.

 

[RedsHappy]

One other thing about PWIFOU. (Btw, I will now deem it PIFOU to save space and because it deserves it.)

You may all recall that there was wild enthusiasm over PIFOU in the mainstream rugby media in mid-2008 when Deans arrived. It was like the Queen Mary II had berthed and 20 new Campeses disembarked from it.

PIFOU was contrasted highly positively as a powerful new doctrine that would liberate the Wallabies from the allegedly hidebound, over-controlling, excessively structured playing style apparently insisted upon by Jones and others before Deans.

When Deans started to win some good games in that early 2008 season period, PIFOU's support reached crescendo status via by players and media and many part-time ex-Wallabies who now saw the light on the hill.

Mid-2010: PIFOU has recently been put into cold storage just in case she is needed again one day.

 

[Ruggo]

I believe "playing whats in front of you" is like zero- not a number, instead representing the absence of a number. That dumbarse Deanspeak refers to winging it rather than establishing a suitable gameplan.

My question is this; do the Boks change their gameplan to beat us?

I don't think we allow ourselves to play what is in front of us as we shy away from the hard work to create those oppurtunities. We need to get stuck in at the breakdown to pull defenders in. Against Ireland we did not commit and as a result Ireland certainly was not going to waste resources by commiting.

As it stands, I can't see the Boks changing much. Until we start fronting up at the breakdown, they will have no need too. I think we miss a half back that orders his troops around and directs them. I look forward to the return of Genia as he did this really bloody well for the Reds this year.

 

[DPK]

Yeah, I think Australia just dont earn the right to swing the ball out to the backs at the moment.

Backline opportunities are earned, not given.

 

[Moses]

Why does Deans think you are a good player and why do you think he has kept faith in you? (Because you are obviously are pretty bad player, so say the critics, was the under tone to this question)
Marto ripped into after the game against Fiji, do you agree that it was your worst performance this year? (Marto forced him into saying, yes it was)
Australia obviously lost against England because Genia was playing, I bet you were happy about that, right? (Burgess didn't answer this and just laughed if off, clearly awkward)

Then you got clowns like JP ripping into other Wallaby players and expecting Burgess to agree with him and provide an answer and criticise his team mates.
I think they were also kinda suggesting that some of Burgess positional play/passing has been because of all the flyhalves he has had to work with this year, saying that he hasn't been able to adapt.

It was terrible wasn't it. I was getting quite pissed off that they'd put their guest in a position like that. Full credit to Burgess, he once again impressed as someone who is not flustered by the media, someone who can answer a question (a rare and precious skill), and someone who maintains their dignity in refusing to be drawn into obvious and childish traps.

I was a bit pissed at the way they handed out "Wallaby Report Cards" to a random selection of everyone they've decided isn't performing, and none of the players in good form. Seemed like a thinly veiled excuse to put shit on the team, unless they intend on working through the rest of the team in the next two weeks? For the record I believe the player ratings we do weekly are a lot fairer, looking at the entire team on a consistent scale, backing it up with reason, and inviting discussion on the marks.

Marto was being a complete wanker, tried to get Burgess to agree that Fiji wasn't his finest game and then went on to say how he had already apologised to him in a casino. Nicked My Car, who I think does a good job, called him on it and said "A hug at 2am in the Casio doesn't count as an apology"

 

[RedsHappy]

It was terrible wasn't it. I was getting quite pissed off that they'd put their guest in a position like that. Full credit to Burgess, he once again impressed as someone who is not flustered by the media, someone who can answer a question (a rare and precious skill), and someone who maintains their dignity in refusing to be drawn into obvious and childish traps.

I was a bit pissed at the way they handed out "Wallaby Report Cards" to a random selection of everyone they've decided isn't performing, and none of the players in good form. Seemed like a thinly veiled excuse to put shit on the team, unless they intend on working through the rest of the team in the next two weeks? For the record I believe the player ratings we do weekly are a lot fairer, looking at the entire team on a consistent scale, backing it up with reason, and inviting discussion on the marks.

Marto was being a complete wanker, tried to get Burgess to agree that Fiji wasn't his finest game and then went on to say how he had already apologised to him in a casino. Nicked My Car, who I think does a good job, called him on it and said "A hug at 2am in the Casio doesn't count as an apology"

Moses, agree with you and Reddy, it was an embarrassing disgrace of a show last night (apart from, solely, Kafer's analysis segment) and I don't use that last word lightly. Imagine the childish stupidity and waste of time in trying to get Burgess to criticise Genia! Kearns of all people should know better. Do these men think this enhances our game for the people watching it? I really felt sorry for Burgess, as I did for Genia in a similar situation during the Fiji game when Marto let fly re Burgess in the most OTT manner.

My other objection was that ridiculous JP-led (btw, he's a twit is he not?) bit when he and Kearns attacked JO'N for having the temerity to even make the slightest points of concern re the Wallabies' performances in recent times. 'It all should be kept behind closed doors, etc.' How utterly absurd. This is 'old school Australian rugby of blazers and mates and ex-players at the bar' at its insular and introverted worst. We need MORE _open_ debate re the Wallabies situation, not less, if anything JO'N should be tougher and more demanding than he is. BY NZ and SA standards of rugby CEOs and similar speaking out, he's a delicate flower.

 

[Scott Allen]

Agree that Wallabies need to earn the right to go wide but leaving that aside, what about what the back line did from set pieces where the forwards are less of an issue and the attack can have up to a 2 man advantage (fullback and winger are normally deep to protect against kick).

Against Ireland the Wallabies had 7 lineouts outside their 22 and where clean ball was won. None was less than a 6 man lineout so majority of forwards committed. The forwards took 3 of those opportunities and set up a drive - fair enough as that is an attacking option. The other 4 were sent to the back line - and they did absolutely nothing with the opportunity. All four attacks were directed at the 10/12 channel - two short balls to Mitchell who took up a crash ball one out, one inside to Beale (who dropped it) and one straight to Horne who took a crash ball one out. Of the three times they held onto the ball, the next phase was a one out runner close to the breakdown so this wasn't even a strategy of one crash ball to suck defenders in then spread.

The Wallabies also had four scrums in attacking position. Again perfect opportunity with forwards out of the way. Burgess took one himself and Mitchell knocked on at the ruck. Next one the ball was passed across the line and basically went sideways until Mitchell came back inside and dropped the ball. Next one Cooper danced a little then passed to Giteau who by then was almost standing still - next phase forwards took the ball on. Final one Cooper and Giteau basically ran into each other and ball dropped as a result.

It wasn't even a case of trying too many things and it going wrong. They didn't attempt one move from these 7 opportunities. That was either an instruction from the coaches or there was no organisation on the field to agree what they'd run.

I'd rather see them having a crack at something and making mistakes rather than what was served up last weekend.

 

[Ruggo]

Good post Austin. I agreed with what Kaf said last night about the wingers in the 5 meters and that we looked bunched up. On the organization front, it looks a mess and I would be blamming Gitau for this. I think he needs to wake to up to that he is not always fucking the cat and sometimes he has to hold the tail. Cooper needs to be calling the shots.

 

[RedsHappy]

Good post Austin. I agreed with what Kaf said last night about the wingers in the 5 meters and that we looked bunched up. On the organization front, it looks a mess and I would be blamming Gitau for this. I think he needs to wake to up to that he is not always fucking the cat and sometimes he has to hold the tail. Cooper needs to be calling the shots.

Many of you are far more experienced in the finer points of the game than me. I defer to you on all back line specifics. But sometimes an 'overview' perspective can complement a more detailed one.

Reading many of these posts (and seeing the last Test), and especially Austin's very detailed observations, it is (for me anyway) obvious:

(a) the 'team mind' of the Wallaby backs is shot, or close to it. Confidence and trust in each other seems v low. No one seems genuinely in charge on the field, whatever the formal roles may be designated as. Intensity is low, plays appears often listless, poorly prepared then almost aimless. None of the players look as though they are enjoying the Wallabies experience. Austin's analysis above points to a serious lack of aggression and preparedness, even when opportunities are glaring. Fundamentally good players like Mitchell seem to have become nervous and mentally detached.

(b) at least on the field, there is precious little evidence of viable, imaginative, well-practiced or disciplined back line coaching interventions and coach-led game strategies. Or else the strategies that are meant to be, the team cannot or will not execute. It's almost like - 'you are all talented, just make it up yourselves as you go along'.

(c) something is seriously wrong with this team's culture and functioning. I am not of the view held by some that top players can just go figure out alone the best combinations and plays in some democratic huddle and absent very able coaching and man-management skills. Plus, we know there are egos in this team that, left alone, will inhibit progress.

My belief is that Richard Graham (aka "Skills Coach" and whom is I am told de facto Wallabies back line coach) is today badly failing in his job, a key part of which is to ensure situations as we have them today never occur, or only do so only as rare aberrations. All of Graham's coaching record was on the mushy fields of England, where back line talent and traditions are way different to ours here in Oz and in the 3N generally. He has no prior Test experience as coach (or, I think, as player).

Unless there is major, consistent improvement v soon, I would suggest that Larkham not take that job with the Brumbies, but be recruited urgently as Wallabies full-time back line coach. It would be hard to imagine a better candidate, provided Larkham was able to adapt to an elite coaching role.

Whatever, something radical needs to be done, and yelling at and just booting out players and trying other ones will not address the core problems. (What this poor situation says about Deans's confidence and leadership today is another matter for another day.)