RWC - Wallabies v Ireland - 17th September 2011

[Groucho]

This coach (and don't forget his assistants who must also be held to account) have provided more and lower milestones than any two other coaches in Professional Rugby history. If the Wallabies Rugby brand was truly a business the management would have all been sacked for gross under performance and failure to meet targets.

Yeah, well perhaps we just aren't good enough to win consistently, no matter who our coach is, and never have been. It has always been like this with the Wallabies, ever since I started playing and watching rugby as a schoolboy in the 70s.

 

[Ash]

Anyone else have a sense of deja-vu: Eden Park in the wet?

Anyway, well done Ireland. They won the collisions, they won the breakdown. I posted earlier in the thread about winning the breakdown is halfway to winning the game, and they did that. The Irish big names in the pack stood up and were counted. It's an historic win for the Irish, and they get to rightly celebrate mightily.

The Wallabies? For all the complaining about the backs, it was the forwards who didn't show and deserve the most criticism. Which, again, is deja-vu for Eden Park in the wet. Bryce Lawrence is an awful ref, true, who is random, true (both teams suffered), but he lets the dominant team get away with murder at the breakdown all the time. The Wallaby forwards have themselves to blame for letting themselves be bossed like that. What can you do when your forwards just don't turn up to play?

Incidentally, you could see it within 5 minutes: the defensive line was static, and the big hits in defence were gone. On our ball, the clearouts were late, and we let Ireland kill the ball (through whatever means). For some of our forwards, it was the worst Test games I've ever seen them play, especially TPN and McCalman. Other guys, like Elsom and Samo and Kepu were just too invisible when they needed to stand up.

I think Deans and the coaching staff were shell shocked and they went back to their tactics of yesteryear of not using their bench until too late (incidentally, why was Palu brought on before Higgers, and why so long to replace one of the centres when we needed a bit of extra penetration from the backs to make up for the forwards?). Even so, the coaching panel couldn't replace both props, the entire backrow, and even the entire second row.

I don't know where the Wallabies can go from here - because I don't know whether this was a one off down weak after a long time trying to peak (Super 15, tri-nations, world cup) or not. I am concerned about bringing in some of the injured guys, because TPN and Slipper (and it was even obvious for Palu in the brief time he got on) have looked well off the pace. Horne and Barnes have the best chance of proving themselves against the minnows as they got some decent clubs games under their belts, but even then I am not too hopeful.

The one thing I will say about the backs, is that I am also concerned about our centres - McCabe just doesn't do it for me as he offers nothing on attack, and Fainga'a just isn't a 13. McCabe is fine if you want to play a NH-type game, as he is defensively great, but offensively we need more from either the 12 or 13. We have fabulous options at wing, a wonderful fullback, great halves, and probably the most pedestrian set of centres in living memory. If your game is attacking football off good ruck ball (assuming your forwards show up), I think we need more penetrative centres.

In saying that, I won't fault our backs for the result last night. You need to score miracle tries when your forwards are so smashed, and it's nigh on impossible to do that in those kinds of conditions and with the good defensive set of backs (O'Gara aside) that Ireland has.

 

[Gnostic]

Yeah, well perhaps we just aren't good enough to win consistently, no matter who our coach is, and never have been. It has always been like this with the Wallabies, ever since I started playing and watching rugby as a schoolboy in the 70s.

That's just patently untrue. Since 1984 there have been period of great consistancy, from 1990 -1995 they beat everybody including SA when they returned and from memory only lost to NZ. Undefeated 1998, 1999 lost one game to ABs from memory, 2000 the same etc etc etc. and funnily enough I have been watching rugby for the same period.

Against all predictions I am an optimist and fervently believe that we can and should compete with the very best. I am not as upset that the Wallabies lost as with the manner of the loss when taken in conjunction with the other losses experienced under Deans reign.

 

[FrankLind]

24 Hours on and my second review via fast forward for most of it.

1) Lawrence was generally wrong in the scrums with the Irish bearing down and hinging in most scrums which they duly got the penalty for. I can only re-iterate what I have said previously for two years, Alexander (even thought not truly at fault) has exactly the same issue as Baxter, one of perception. How can he fix what isn't wrong? Well instead of allowing the scrum to collapse drive up and through, if he pops up so be it at least he won't be collapsing. Then approach the ref with the Captain and point out what is happening and the fact he is tacking measures to correct the issue. Just say nicely "i want a contest but don't want you to form the opinion I am taking it down because bugga lugs is hinging."

2)Deans - I will point to four losses over the Deans era which IMO have been the direct result of Scotland, England x 2 Samoa and now Ireland. In there have also been other glaring examples but those four best show the total neglect of preparation of his side. The lack of any game plan apart from shuffle it to the X-Men players and hope they pull some magic. The lack of reasonable and prudent selection based on actual form. The lack of any use of the bench, the lack of any real hard culture. These aspects have all been apparent in every game under Deans' reign to a greater or lesser degree and once or twice a year they all combine to make the perfect cluster F*&%$ of a game for the Wallabies. I great example of Deans meticulous planning actually comes from his application and interview for the ABs job, it has been reported that when asked who his assistants and specialists coaches would be if granted the ABs Head Coach job he had no answer. He was so prepared for this he played what was in front of him and rambled. I ask why is anybody surprised 4 years on the Wallabies are the same when tough questions are asked. I thought it was a great idea when he was appointed as he was without doubt the most successful coach at Super Level, nobody came close. What made me question was after the 2009 EOYT and the 2010 season debacle with the inexplicable loses, I questioned why he wasn't being held to account anywhere. Where were the tough questions and why wasn't he under any pressure, and why were his goal posts continually being moved.

3) Too many want to focus on individual players. I have done so when I felt it was warranted, such as my comments about Giteau and McCalman to name two. However these are examples and can too easily be turned into scape goats who deflect the core reasons why the team continually fails. Do not forget that Sharpe has been the scape goat for the scrum and Vickerman the saviour, is he now the villian? Brown was the backrow problem is it now Samo? This focus on individuals is part of the problem, this is supposed to be a team, but they play like individuals with each individual playing what is in front of them, with Beale a great example of this and probably as good a reason as any as to why he will go for the individualistic chip and re-gather attempts as every turn or try and run a hole himself - he almost never tries to set up a team mate.

I take no pleasure in being vindicated that what I saw happening with the Wallabies under Deans is coming to pass. I hate it. I don't like the Wallabies losing but what grates is the way they don't even show up for so many games.

Well I am totally over it. If the Wallabies do come second in the Pool and do face the Bok in a semi I cannot see how they could win, that would mean their third win in a row after smacking some minnows to get their anger out. Thus would my final prediction of the EOYT 2010 come bitterly true - elimination in the semi's. I want to see Deans sacked or he can resign, I don't care. I also realise that such an occurrence will also result in the likely sacking or resignation of JON. Well so be it, it proves that the shonky back door deals
in resigning both parties before the latest "real" test of their management was taken.

Great analysis, except you will face the Boks in the quarters, not the semis. If you win that, you will probably face the All Blacks in the semis.

 

[Groucho]

That's just patently untrue. Since 1984 there have been period of great consistancy, from 1990 -1995 they beat everybody including SA when they returned and from memory only lost to NZ. Undefeated 1998, 1999 lost one game to ABs from memory, 2000 the same etc etc etc. and funnily enough I have been watching rugby for the same period.

Against all predictions I am an optimist and fervently believe that we can and should compete with the very best. I am not as upset that the Wallabies lost as with the manner of the loss when taken in conjunction with the other losses experienced under Deans reign.

Yes, we've had some good years and a good long stretch, but those are outliers. Yesterday's loss was the absolute template for a Wallabies capitulation. Blaming Deans for it is like blaming any other variable. It is the constants we should be looking to.

 

[maxdacat]

A few quick points:

- where was the intensity we showed in the first 40mins against the All Blacks last month....even 70-80% of that would have been nice, to get over the adv line and smash em up front.
- don't think i've seen Oz centres get held up then turn the ball over for an opposition scrum much in ther last few years, let alone 3 times in the first half. I'm not asking for Nonu but a bit of physicality in attack would be nice. Shame as well we were actually going forward on these ocasions - am I right in thinking in back in the day it would have been a feed to us?
- scrums were pinged before they even had a chance to go down...is this just being overzealous or important for player safety?
- also saw Samo pop the head up to see what was going on, only for us to concede another penalty...not good.

 

[darkhorse]

I've always been a Deans defender, but some of his decisions last night were weak. Sure it was a bad game, an even worse ref, but what made me angry was the way we played and how Deans responded.

For the most part the team picked itself, the majority of the decisions were hard to argue with. However, I have gripes with the perseverance with McCalman and the continued omission of Sharpe. McCalman is not a 7 period, nor he is an international 6 or 8 and he probably never will be. He lacks the required physicality for Test Rugby. The same must be said of Simmons. He is clearly has a great understanding of the game and performs his role selflessly. He was a significant part of the Reds this year and was an unsung hero. Yet Super Rugby is obviously less psychically demanding than test rugby and whilst he has the right mindset he struggles to be effective at international rugby. He will be a great player for the Wallabies over the next couple of years as he develops, but Sharpe surely should have a place on the bench.

Now for the bench. Why does Deans not use it? Samo - a great player - is not an 80min player, why did he not he use Palu? Whilst Rocky was below par, when he was subbed he was our best player. Samo was dead tired, McCalman had been ineffective from the outset. Finally our scrum was clearly struggling, why put on Slipper known to be a weak scrummager?

Our backline was set up as a strong defensive unit, but Ireland were not putting them under pressure in any way. Surely Mitchell should of been used earlier to provide another attacking outlet.

 

[Groucho]

That's just patently untrue. Since 1984 there have been period of great consistancy, from 1990 -1995 they beat everybody including SA when they returned and from memory only lost to NZ. Undefeated 1998, 1999 lost one game to ABs from memory, 2000 the same etc etc etc. and funnily enough I have been watching rugby for the same period.

Against all predictions I am an optimist and fervently believe that we can and should compete with the very best. I am not as upset that the Wallabies lost as with the manner of the loss when taken in conjunction with the other losses experienced under Deans reign.

Yes, we've had some good years and a good long stretch, but those are outliers. Yesterday's loss was the absolute template for a Wallabies capitulation. Blaming Deans for it is like blaming any other variable. It is the constants we should be looking to.

I'd like to qualify my last comment. Yesterday's loss was the absolute template for a Wallabies capitulation since the start of the reign of Eddie Jones. Under Jones, Connelly and now Deans, the Wallabies forwards have been completely nullified in just this way on many occasions. Why is that?

 

[Shiggins]

Ireland had a good game plan at set piece. They didn't compete at the line out ( I actually thought the defending team had too Match the numbers of the attacking team) and had back towers defending in the 10 to 13 positions.

The scum was fine. It was just reffed horribly. At least 3 of the penalties at scrum time were reffed completely wrong.


Go the force!!!!

 

[MontyBurns]

So every Irish player played better than Beale, for example?

I think that depends on whether you view the 1-10 score as an absolute yardstick (so someone who gets a 5 objectively played better than someone who gets 6) or whether you weight it according to expectations.

Imagine an Aus U18 team taking on the ABs - and losing, say 30-15. An astonishing result, where clearly the Aus kids played out of their skins, even in defeat, and possibly the ABs underperformed. When scoring such a game, you might mark the Aus U18s for their expected level vs. their achieved level of performance, and the same with the ABs.

So yeah, it depends on what approach you take to your player ratings.

 

[RedsHappy]

Yes, we've had some good years and a good long stretch, but those are outliers. Yesterday's loss was the absolute template for a Wallabies capitulation. Blaming Deans for it is like blaming any other variable. It is the constants we should be looking to.

Climate change?

 

[Gnostic]

That argument is just too simplistic.

Under Jones the game plan (and there actually was one) called for a homogeny of player types with a few specialist but in general everyone had to defend and concede no points. It was very Leaguesque and the set piece largely ignored. Be in quadrant such and such at so and so time in this play etc.

Connolly took too many old heads from the Jones era and applied his own rigid inflexible game plan and did in fact concentrate on the set piece. Yet he as well selected poorly and picked players out of position and out of form. In the end the inflexibility of his plan was his major downfall and the team could not react and alter their approach when something wasn't working.

Deans now has done a few things I really like, as much as I make light of the term at least telling players to "play whats in front of them" means they can adapt and take advantage when opportunities crop up, such as counter attack. But that said this side doesn't have any real structures and doesn't in general build any pressure through hard work. So all they have is a throw it around and hope we make a break type game and defend really well. Hence they haven't let in many tries.

Your argument leads one to the inevitable conclusion that Australia doesn't produce any decent forwards and is incapable of forward play and that is just rubbish. Link, Eales, Giffen, McCall, Morgan, Poido, Wilson, Smith, Waugh, and the list goes on and on and on along with the periods on dominance I outlined prove that conclusion to be a lie. What none of the coaches you have named did was produce a complete Rugby game plan and instill that plan in the team while thoroughly preparing that side to play test match Rugby at its highest levels.

Their plans were different but the results were the same because in each case the very ground work they put in was flawed and each picked unbalanced packs to play their rigid (Jones & Connolly) game plan or runners (Deans) to play his no game plan.

One last thing why isn't anybody blaming Vickerman for the alleged poor scrummaging performance, wasn't he the messiah TH Lock? Wasn't Sharpe the reason for Marseille?

 

[tblackadder]

its hard to see where aust could play worse...so i am sure wallabies will turn things around by the quarters

irelands forwards were awesome and their defence off the lineout was great as well..

after watching bryce ref england/argentina and then that ireland game.........i hope he doesnt get any knockout games....too many dodgy scrum calls....nothing more frustrating than getting pinged in a scrum over and over again at the end of the game

 

[Jethro Tah]

Well played Ireland. Horrendously played Wallabies.

That was the least amount of actual rugby played that I have ever watched during an 80 minute game, and full credit to the Irish for dictating the tempo. As someone said at the pub, and probably by Thomo somewhere here - we got Munstered !!

Conspiracy theory - the Darkness ground staff rigged the coaching radio frequency to prevent Deans getting his messages to the bench. Surely !!

My advice for the USA and Russia games and any thereafter, four simple things:
- forwards to maximise pick and drive with plenty of bodies in support;
- second and third forward into opposition breakdown to actually contest the ball;
- Quade to alternate between running the ball into the tackle and basic catch pass; and
- to all players, low body height with ball into a tackle.

 

[fatprop]

Finally watched the game, no intensity, not enough units bending their backs and little ability to adapt - we got what we deserved

This lot simply struggle to get up week in, week out, maybe in a couple of years they may mature into a hardened team, maybe, but they clearly aren't there yet..

 

[exISA]

24hours on - and it hurts more. I thought I was ok with it , but tonight it hit home more. hate copping so much shit on facebook. it feels like we got knocked out . hope we turn it around. im gracious in defeat but this one hurt, only 3rd to losing ot england in 07 and 03......

Slack summed it up today best - "we are still in , we can still make the quarters and we have to still win 3 games against 3 good sides to win so it doesnt change anything".... thats about the most positive thing I can take from it.

To those sinking the boot in to me. Yes it hurts. hope it feels good. IM gutted.

 

[Thomond78]

That's just patently untrue. Since 1984 there have been period of great consistancy, from 1990 -1995 they beat everybody including SA when they returned and from memory only lost to NZ. Undefeated 1998, 1999 lost one game to ABs from memory, 2000 the same etc etc etc. and funnily enough I have been watching rugby for the same period.

Against all predictions I am an optimist and fervently believe that we can and should compete with the very best. I am not as upset that the Wallabies lost as with the manner of the loss when taken in conjunction with the other losses experienced under Deans reign.

When SA first returned from isolation, they got beaten by a lot of teams; England (1 H, 1 A), Australia, NZ (2 A, 1 H, 1 D), France (1 H, 1 A, 1 D).

 

[da_grubster]

No you either misunderstood my comment or are over analyzing it.


What i said or atleast implied is that something happened that caused the Wallabies to misfire on all levels - which most people are, probably rightly, calling Irelands forward dominance in all aspects as the main culpritt.

You could look further and accuse the play makers like Cooper as not having enough patience.

I dont think its really bigging my team up if I say the Wallabies should of scored more than 2/3 tries against us. Infact its quite the opposite in that im bigging your team up.

Hey, sorry Dubs, I have a quick look at your post and thought you were an aussie. Didnt realise that you were irish. Congratulations on a very good win yesterday.

My point was about the your comment about the aus backline being the best ever. They aren't even the best Aus backline ever and from my team, I would take a number of All Black backline over the current Aus one.

As I have mentioned, Aus are too inconsistent to win the world cup. win, bad loss, win, win, bad loss is how it goes for them. Cooper is not the 10 that will win you a world cup. he showed it at eden park against the AB's and again yesterday. When the pressure come on he is too flaky.

I did pick England to beat them and thought Ireland would give it a very good go. Anyone who saw the match in Dublin against England knew that Ireland had the game to beat Australia with.

I have been saying for a while that Aus have quite a similar to NZ in 2003, only with an inferior backline! They will come good in a year or two but I feel that this world cup is a little early for them

 

[PaarlBok]

Congrats to the Iere. I expect them to take this one. Wallabies was ready for the picking. To many fancy stuf and to little hard stuff. Will be tough from here on, no team has won the WC losing pool matches. Can they make history?

 

[Apostle]

Well, I must say I'm not too disappointed - now - that I had to sell my tickets to this game...