How are World Cups won?

[Bruce Ross]

Australians have an obsession with try scoring. We tend to ridicule games which are won by goal kicking and outraged by victory being snatched through a drop goal.

There is great excitement that we have quite a number of young backs who can score dazzling tries, and there is anticipation that if we can just choose the right mix of backline players we can win this year's World Cup by exploiting our attacking brilliance.

It might happen but history is definitely against us. Let's examine the history of World Cup finals:

1987 - New Zealand 29 beat France 9 - 3 tries to 1

1991 - Australia 12 beat England 6 - 1 try to 0

1995 - South Africa 15 beat New Zealand 12 - no tries scored

1999 - Australia 35 beat France 12 - 2 tries to 0

2003 - England 20 beat Australia 17 - 1 try each

2007 - South Africa 15 beat England 6 - no tries scored

We have put our faith in the assumed genius of Robbie Deans, enduring the most humiliating series of defeats against the All Blacks believing that he is building towards the World Cup. So what have we ended up with? Small backs who are clever attackers but in the main defensively fragile, coupled with forwards who are unaccustomed to and certainly not being physically prepared for the realities of trench warfare.

We are preparing for a battle that isn't going to happen.

Our approach reminds me of the British defence of Singapore; brilliant and absolutely impregnable except that the perfidious enemy refused to do the manly thing and attack in the face of the massive artillery emplacements.

If we can somehow convince the other countries to play this World Cup Barbarians style we are in with a second to none chance.

 

[Brumby Jack]

Sounds like we need a decent goal kicker then.

 

[DPK]

Maybe, Bruce, this will be less like Singapore and more like Trafalgar - Deans tactics may be go against the established tradition and overwhelm a superior enemy.

 

[Richard D. James]

Is it possible we could be the Japanese, and everyone else is the British?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'd call you a buzz kill if the premise of your argument wasn't 100% on the money. I'm still somewhat confident we could contend for the title with our style of play as I actually think the ABs will be looking to do the same. My only worry is as you pointed out is our forwards who tend to be a little soft and retreat into mediocrity when the hard slog is needed. Though in sayind that, and if any Wallaby forwards are happening to read this, prove me wrong boys, prove me wrong.

 

[canowindra]

Prior to the 2003 World Cup, I heard of a study conducted by dietitians which concluded that the heaviest team always won the World Cup.At the time I totaled the combined published weights of both England and the Wallabies, and if memory serves me correctly they popped us by just a few kilos. I remember that after the 1999 final there was much talk about the size of the Wallabies, an official even commenting about the use of creatine(sp?) with virtually the whole team apart from Horan, Larkham and Gregan being over 100 kg.in saying that,I have also heard that Henry has instructed some of the All Blacks to lose some bulk.

 

[Brumbies Guy]

That's World Cup final, where you'd expect a conservative/low scoring game. But you have to win the rest of your games to get there, I'd be be surprised if the average tries scored in World Cup games was any different to regular international games.

 

[James Buchanan]

You normally win knockout style tournaments like the World Cup with solid defensive games. Its a paradigm which is true across many sports. You see it in AFL to an extent, its almost gospel in NFL where its said that "defence wins superbowls".

Particularly with 1999, Australia's win was based on solid defence. Even more telling than the final was the semi against South Africa. 27-21, with not a single try scored. Probably one of the toughest and (aside from the NZ meltdown vs France) most significant games of the tournament. The ability to win ugly is what won us that cup.

I think the belief that Australians like to see "running rugby" and/or "lots of tries" is more prevalent in NSW and QLD. I can only speak anecdotally but when I talk with friends down here - whom are generally AFL supporters - they don't care whether the team wins by tries or goals. They're used to the idea that 'goals wins games'. I suspect it's the NRL influence which has pushed the idea into people's heads that 'tries win games', which is why the noise for more tries is more prevalent in the 'traditional' rugby states.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It is quite true that world cups are won on good defence and accurate goal kicking. I think our goal kicking is more of a problem, especially given that we've lost several winnable games as a result of it. We do need to tighten up in the middle of the paddock and that means that our 12 and 13 need to be rock solid. Barnes and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) would be my first choice there, but JOC (James O'Connor) is realistically an option at 12. He's the long term answer IMHO, but I wonder if he has the size and/or technique to handle Nonu/Williams.

All of this is academic, however, if the pack don't perform. We spend far too much time worrying about the backs and not enough about how we are going to win the battle in the forwards. Even week-by-week heroics in the midfield won't win us footy games if we don't have the pill.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Is it possible we could be the Japanese, and everyone else is the British?

Unlike the Japanese, Richard, we certainly won't have the advantage of surprise. We have been playing Robbie Rugby for three years now, and with the exception of the occasion when the French in effect refused to return to the field after half time, it hasn't been very successful.

Of course that could be the element of surprise; getting it to actually work.

 

[PaarlBok]

Defense won WCs. It giue you the freedom to play without possesion and is build around trust and passion.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

To win a world cup you need to be able to keep the ball and build pressure phase after phase because by the time you get into the business end of the tournament the opposition won't be turning the ball over often. This is why the All Blacks have only won a single wc and will struggle to win again this year; they score most of their tries on turn over ball through counterattacks. It is evident in the nz teams in super rugby. Although, if McCaw is allowed to continue cheating then they maybe a chance.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

Barnes is still too injury prone for my liking (a product of his insane courage in defence). Carter is just crap.

 

[whatty]

Anyone watch the Bulls last night, not a bad template not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but definitely not a bad way to win a WC.

One try a piece two droppies and a bucket of three pointers after kicking for territory and forward domination. Not exactly rocket science but then the Boks have never been good at flash back line moves.

 

[Ruggo]

To win the word cup the Wallabies need to play their own game. To change now will be suicide.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

PK, again with the emphasis on the backs though. Our 1991 and 1999 winning teams also had rock solid set pieces and near total security at the break down. We won all our own ball and some of the oppositions to go with it. John Eales was a towering presence in the lineout, the front row gained at least parity in the scrum and around the ground and the back row supported well and were secure in the collision.

 

[Set piece magic]

I agree with what Bruce is saying 100%.. And for all its worth the following is also true... The last World Cup was NZ's only real choke at a World Cup. Before you all howl me down consider this argument coupled with Bruce's point. Who has started at 10 for NZ in all of their World Cup failures since 87?

91 - An old and tired Grant Fox (If my memory serves me correctly)
95 - Andrew Merhtens - Would not and could not tackle his grandmother
99 - See above I & King Carlos - Carlos is a lot like our current attacking genius Quade - both refuse to work to hard in defence
03 - King Carlos
07 - Dan Carter - The best 10 in the world

Now compare Australia's 10's since 91 - We have always been there or there abouts

91 - Michael Lynagh - Peak of his powers & backed up as a goal kicker in Marty Roebuck
95 - Michael Lynagh - Back end of his career same boat as Fox in 91. too old and played one too many tournaments
99 - Young Stephen Larkham - Exceptional defensive 10 - Attack obviously great as well but not many issues ever in his defensive channel
03 - Stephen Larkham - As above
07 - Bernie one to many World Cups - Left to a 21 year old Barnes - in his 3rd test

If we are to be successful we need the following; Great kicking 10 & Defensive 10... Great Defensive 12 with go forward (91/99 - T Horan, 03 - Flats) We need size in this channel.

For mine this would be my backline based on what wins a world cup not so much what is the best backline or what is the most entertaining;

9.Burgess 10. Barnes 11. Drew 12. Carter 13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) 14. Digby 15. KB (Kurtley Beale)


Let the debate begin... That is a back line to win a world cup in my opinion.

Burgess will struggle big time, no fast ball to anyone would lead to us not getting over the advantage line. When barnes gets concust what are you going to do, and he offers nothing in attack otherwise. Drew is a good choice. Carter should never ever be picked for Australia, and as such 13 14 and 15 are irrelevant because they will never get the ball

 

[disco]

If we can put our best forward pack on the park for the entire RWC then we're a very good chance.

My Test 22

1. Benn Robinson
2. TPN
3. James Slipper
4. James Horwill
5. Nathan Sharpe
6. Rocky Elsom
7. David Pocock
8. Wycliff Palu
9. Will Genia
10. Quade Cooper
11. Drew Mitchell
12. Berrick Barnes
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14. JOC (James O'Connor)
15. Kurtley Beale
16. Stephen Moore
17. Greg Holmes
18. Rob Simmons (Vickerman would need to show his 06-08 form pretty quick)
19. Matt Hodgson
20. Nick Phipps
21. Digby Ioane
22. Matt Giteau

Strong set piece is the key to success. Our scrum is good enough if we pick the right players & with Sharpe in form & controlling the lineout we look good up front.

 

[GC]

1. Benn R
2. TPN
3. Slipper
4. Horwill
5. Sharpe
6. Rocky
7. Pocock
8. Palu
9. Genia
10. Cooper
11. Drew
12. JOC (James O'Connor)
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14. Diggers
15. Beale

16. Moore
17. Palmer
18. Simmons
19. Hodgo
20. Higgers
20. Gits
21. Turner

Go the 5/2 bench split. Gits and Turner can cover every position in the backline. Burgess & Barnes miss out - too limited. The suggestion of Carter is a joke.

 

[Blue]

So, it's the RWC final and I have two choices on which to bet the farm.

Plan A. Monster pack, granite defense, ace kicker.
Plan B. Pack that at best holds its own, with glimpses of dominance, but can disintegrate under pressure. Ability to score beautiful tries from anywhere. Hot and cold kickers (note plural - who is Australia's goal kicker?).

Bets anyone?

Not saying Australia can't win but I am saying you can if a full strength pack takes the field in the RWC and someone kicks the goals else I say you are no chance to get past the semis. Scoring tries a big cherry on top but is not what will make the difference. The opposition will in all likelihood play a defensive pattern so tries will come at a huge premium.

The history is there in black and white.