So my quickish review of the game which will also count towards the tour as a whole.
1) The Australian Coaching gets one tick for recognising, finally, they the defensive system they had for two long years was a steaming pile of shit. We could all see it at the Tahs but with their superior rugby intelligence they ran it at the Wallabies for the same effect. So a tick for their belated recognition of this, small and in pencil.
2) I have to say I am immensely disappointed that we have seen little discernible improvement in the kicking game of the Wallabies since Mick Byrne came into the system. It has been atrocious since Latham & Burke retired at 15 and we have not had a really good kicker at 10 since Flately the mythic "running game" has seemingly killed it. The kicking from hand in all three tests was atrocious in general with only occasional bright spots, and to lump it all on Foley is unfair and a mistake, Beale is no better today than he was all those years ago when he debuted for the Tahs, Folau still cannot reliably kick and did we see DHP in position to kick? It is not just the individual skills though, it is the selections and structures of the side that see Folau at 15, Foley nearly always the exit strategy etc.
3) Chieka is an absolute embarrassment. The novelty of passion is fine but in key moments and occasional, not every time the whistle blows or doesn't. The TV is showing it because it is there and so predictable, but still embarrassing.
4) There remains little in the way of ensemble play, no running lines of depth support apart from set plays, and the team relies on the big names to make the break and make something. There is no real rugby being played, it is very league like with one out runners time and time again even in the forward "hit ups" as opposed to the close support we saw from the Irish with their real phase play system.
5) Foley has copped a battering in this thread, but ask yourself a deeper question about the structures. To my eye the Wallabies backline are playing just like a Macqueen backline from 20 years ago. Constant at pace hit ups with a long kick and defensive line chase (no individual on the receiver chaser/s). Is it Foley or is it the systems? I really don't know but suspect the latter, because of what I see in the way of the backline structures around him.
The positives are in the forwards only, particularly in the front and second row. There the side has both starters and reserves of equal quality, excepting perhaps Hooker where they will I am sure develop as the depth is coming through, just injured ATM. In the backrow for me the Pooper is a liability, one or the other and change the tactics away from always looking for the Jackal ball and actually ruck a bit. Too often the tackler does not roll to give that half second for the Pooper to get onto the ball and the penalty is conceded for that reason. It is a mindset and no doubt a coached tactic. It will not work, the referee's are coached to do a checklist at every tackle it runs thus:- 1)tackle made 2)tackler (and assist) release and roll 3) ball carrier release 4) small window for Jackaler to get hands on ball cleanly for ONE try 5) ruck formed and if Jackler has not won the ball hands away (unless tackled player still hanging on). It is a very small window and limited. Real counter ruck pressure is needed and the Pooper does not provide that.
Finally the Refereeing performances across all the June tests I got to watch were sub-standard in terms of the interventions driven by the TMO. They were inconsistent, too often obscure or pedantic and took far far too long to come to a decision. Honestly technology is there to assist the on field referee, the TMO must be relegated to an assistant and have no decision making ability, there must also be a time limit of some sort and certain individuals have totally failed the game in this regard. The system must be refined greatly, it will not be done away with so we can forget petitions or suchlike, but we can push for its use to be severely moderated and the onfield ref be returned to being the sole judge of fact and law.
