If they didn't know before Saturday night then they're in trouble. I knew, like most punters did, that the ABs were going to pick up their physicality massively after what they would have felt was a poor performance in Sydney.
Guys like Carter have never experienced it in full flight. I don't think a couple of the other blokes who have come in the last couple of years saw it to that level either. You can't train for that, clearly, you can only experience it and learn from it.
Go and look at the ABs in 2003. They were Lords of the Universe, couldn't miss a trick, smashing people by 20+ every game with the odd one that would get close, then suddenly they'd pull away with ease. Then in the semifinal, the Wallabies drew a line in the sand, and stopped playing into the AB hands, and the World Cup favourites lost.
The illusion from Sydney last week was that we knocked the ABs off their game - the first 15-20 minutes in the rain we absorbed a lot of pressure, then the ABs were kicking a lot away. We thought we'd weathered it, then got some ball and started firing our own shots, getting over the gain line at will. The assumption was we could hack it. We were wrong.
It's not a criticism of Hooper. It's just understanding that what the Wallabies desperately need right now is more like what Pocock used to bring to the table rather than what Hooper currently brings to it.
Pocock is a great fetcher, and hard over the ball. But your assumptions are based on the Laws last time he played Test rugby - the interpretations the way they are now, fetchers are having a much tougher time of getting the penalty or turnovers unless the guy falls at their feet e.g. Sam Cane got one of these each of the last two games, but made the turnover happen with quick hands.
Hooper shares a lot of characteristics with Pocock, including a big engine. He's much better with the ball in hand, and not quite as good without it. To say Pocock would have brought more on Saturday is to make a whole heap of assumptions about the ruck that just aren't valid any more.
Didn't see the Sydney game so I can't comment on what he did there but I'm not surprised at all about his performance on Saturday. I don't care if he was injured or not from about 30min on, what you saw on Saturday is about what you will get from Palu for most of the Tests he plays against NZ and SA. I've said this over and over again here - Palu just doesn't cut it.
If you didn't see the Sydney game, then I understand why you're making these comments. In Sydney he looked much better because we were much harder in contact, and were actually making yards, and knocking black shirts backwards.
At Super level this year he was dominant because the Tahs forwards were operating better as a pack. On Saturday we were getting walloped so how could he impose himself? Three or four of our forwards were utterly shite, and Palu topped the tackle count, so its not like he's going to run the ball much if he's shot from defending. Doesn't excuse him dropping the ball.
But has Palu ever played in a forward pack that really took it to the ABs? I doubt it. Either through injury or the poor form of our team in general, I don't think we've once put in a performance that could even be described as better than parity in the last decade. We smashed the Boks in that time, but he was usually out through injury, and our backs were the ones doing the damage in utter floggings like 49-0.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in the first sentence? This is one of the things I noticed when I first moved over and started playing club rugby. Why do you need to make tackling and defence so.so.so.technical?!
You've missed my point, but as a Kiwi living here that doesn't surprise me, because the assumptions you make about rugby from back home don't apply here for a range of reasons.
I'll explain my point about defence further in three areas that ALL relate to the technical details of smashing someone:
1) Put a shoulder in. Our poor tackling technique of grabbing instead of hitting was due to individual skills, and also defending on the back foot.
2) Alignment. We played up and in on defence, leaving the wings open for Cruden's cross-kicks. This is a tactical mistake.
3) Discipline. Several times, we had two players shoot out of the line to try and put a hit on. The ball is faster than the man, so the ABs just used the space left in behind those two players. Next time you're not about to shoot out, particularly when you've copped a few penalties for being offside.
So tell me - how are you going to "just go out and smash someone" when the ball is already 10 metres away, or you're not going to bother using your shoulder?
The end result is you sit on your heels and wait for the ball carrier on the Ad line because you've encountered three ways to fuck up and don't want to go there again.
This is all basic stuff, but unfortunately, competitive rugby here isn't at the same level as it is in NZ. When someone is physically ahead of their peers in their school competition, there aren't enough rivals to take that away from them.
That's why Kurtley Beale is such a shitty defender and tackler - he was fast enough and strong enough to just strip the ball off the attacker, and run away for a try, and never had to learn otherwise. A succession of coaches have failed to address this, or drop him because of it, so we find ourselves where we are in terms of his individual performance.
The forward pack should have been better, but were not prepared for the reasons I stated at the top of this post.
We do have players in our nation who play like they don't give a fuck. But you can't pick them when they're injured (from not giving a fuck), and you don't have a bunch of other guys lining up to take their place.
Take the hooking position in NZ right now: if the excellent Coles gets injured, you have Kev (who had a shocker in Sydney) to back him up, and then rookie, rookie, rookie, nothing.
We have that problem across all positions.
