Wallaby tight five - boys or men?

[Gnostic]

The usual gumph, I'm afraid, from Kiwis that the Wallabies should have the same track record as the ABs. Historically they haven't, and we can all say we expect to beat the ABs most times, and the reality will remain that we do it far less often than we lose to them. For the Wallabies to beat them 10 in a row would be so far off the bell curve as to be worthy of canonisation. Should we lose 10 in a row? No, of course not. Are the results good enough? No, of course not. But you aren't comparing apples to apples. If we beat the ABs even close to 50% of the time, it would be pretty damn good.
You guys sack your coach when he only loses 3 out of 21 or something.

Just for interest sake what was the Wallaby record v AB in the periods 91-94 & 98-03.

I think you will find we did very well in those times.

F orme W:L ratios are not as important as individual skills and mode of play. My single greatest disappointment in Deans are what turned me away from being a supporter of him is the poor individual skills we have seen on so many occasions and the lack of a coherent game plan of any kind. Where is the vaunted Crusader total Rugby game that was talked about when he was hired?

 

[Bullrush]

We really need to give these Kiwis a test before residency...

That would be the first question on the test.

I thought would be something like:

"Look at this picture of a rugby game and state if a ruck has formed."

And the answer is obviously....

Yes - if Ritchie is in the pic
No - if Pocock is in there

 

[Groucho]

Statistics on the game and my views now posted at http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/austins-tn1-match-review-and-statistics/

The stats are favourable for Alexander - there's no way he can have as many breakdown involvements as he had if he was seagulling.

Watching the game again last night I thought the Wallabies were quite good in the first 1/4 of the game, partcularly in the first 10 mins - in that time the Boks had five possesisons - kicked two of those away after one phase, dropped the ball in mid-field thanks to a strong tackle, dropped the ball from a kick and the Wallabies turned the ball over just prior to the first try.

So: Alexander toiled in the tight, tackled, was solid in the scrums, scored a try, and chased Genia and Ioane 75m at full pelt downfield to be in position for another. Hmmm. I hope they never release these seagulls into the wild.

 

[Gagger]

Trouble is, Gagger, they won't keep losing the ball in contact. They won't at full strength in the Republic. And the All Blacks won't give it up softly either.

I'd love it if you were right, and we were physically dominant rather than just fitter and faster than the Springboks 3rds. But then, that would mean ignoring the way Roussow and Smit bumped our chosen forwards backward at will, not to mention Rob Simmons' lame miss on the goalline that gave up a try. The rolling mauls were just the exclamation mark on a physically stronger Springbok performance.

Mate, if your biggest concern with the Wallabies is our tackle and breakdown work / commitment, we are as one. Just two weekends ago against Samoa we were reminded why.

However, in this game and in the first 20 the Wallabies did the business. I worry about what will happen against the ABs, but considering what the Reds did to the Crusaders only a few weeks back, and the signs we saw last weekend, I've had my hopes built up a bit (to be cruelly crushed again?....)

 

[Groucho]

If the critics seem unhappy now, imagine how distraught they'll be if we beat the ABs. :lmao:

 

[cyclopath]

Just for interest sake what was the Wallaby record v AB in the periods 91-94 & 98-03.

I think you will find we did very well in those times.

F orme W:L ratios are not as important as individual skills and mode of play. My single greatest disappointment in Deans are what turned me away from being a supporter of him is the poor individual skills we have seen on so many occasions and the lack of a coherent game plan of any kind. Where is the vaunted Crusader total Rugby game that was talked about when he was hired?

Well, we won all 3 in '98 ( a rarity) then retained the Bledisloe by squaring most series up to 2002. So overall a little better than 50%. Can't remember 91-94 figures and not looking at the moment. So, in our 2 "purple patches" we are not really close to 10 in a row.
I agree we did well, compared to our historic record against the ABs. I think you'll find we've had a few close ones in that 10 lost games too, but probably not in the mode of play required by some fans, such as yourself. W:L ratios may not be important to you, and fair enough, but Bullrush was talking about them, so I was responding in kind.

 

[RedsHappy]

Just for interest sake what was the Wallaby record v AB in the periods 91-94 & 98-03....I think you will find we did very well in those times.....

Good that you point that out Gnostic. There's not some 'truth of the ages' that the Wallabies can't attain a reasonable w-l% ratio vs the ABs. Most of our more post 2004 problems vs the ABs have come from (a) poor coaching (b) our most serious endemic, long-term problem of poor forwards work at the breakdown and tackle (all of technically, attitudinally and athletically) and (c) weak/soft culture in the Wallabies leading to poor all-of-80 intensity, low sustained killer instinct, and general lack of 'hardness'. Looking at this positively, rather than fatalistically, all these deficiencies are fixable.

If Link's coaching group at the Reds can figure out how to repetitively beat the Blues and the Cru (game plans, plus selections, plus right mindset), the Wallabies and their coaches can, in principle, do likewise v ABs if the application and talent is there.

 

[DPK]

If Link's coaching group at the Reds can figure out how to repetitively beat the Blues and the Cru (game plans, plus selections, plus right mindset), the Wallabies and their coaches can, in principle, do likewise v ABs if the application and talent is there.

If the talent and application was there I'm sure I could coach the Wallabies to a Bledisloe Cup win.

 

[Jets]

I say boys. In the first quarter of this Test the Springboks were flying into the ruck collision zone and totally dominating over the ball. James Horwill battled more or less alone, and more or less lost that battle. Driven backwards in the tackle, time after time. The rest of the tight five were either a bit too late, or a bit too off balance, or didn't have low enough body height or hadn't timed their run into contact properly. Sekope Kepu was the only one who really stood up and did his job properly.

My impression is that Moore and Alexander are, like many Brumbies in days gone by, running centers trapped in front rowers' bodies. Their speed to the ruck battle and technique was far inferior to the Boks'. Sure they run the ball well, and have great hands and run the right angles, but is that what we need from them? I'd rather have seen them make two or three dominant tackles each rather than the tries they scored.

Simmons will be great in a year or two but is still just a boy. He should have stopped that try on his goal line with a simple one on one tackle, but didn't have the power to dominate. England will eat him up for breakfast.

Everything else in the team is working fine, but this is our achilles heel again just as it was in 2007.

I watch the first quarter of the game last night and I didn't think it backed up your statement. There was one ruck where Smit came through but apart from that I think the Wallabies had the better of it. We secured a couple of turnovers in this time too. The one from McCalman securing the ball that lead to the first try.
Simmons worked very hard all night and should have prevented that try. It was his only real big error of the night. I was actually really impressed with him and think that he is in contention for the best 22. I think the scrum improvement was a direct result of the change in locks from the week before.

 

[cyclopath]

Good that you point that out Gnostic. There's not some 'truth of the ages' that the Wallabies can't attain a reasonable w-l% ratio vs the ABs. Most of our more post 2004 problems vs the ABs have come from (a) poor coaching (b) our most serious endemic, long-term problem of poor forwards work at the breakdown and tackle (all of technically, attitudinally and athletically) and (c) weak/soft culture in the Wallabies leading to poor all-of-80 intensity, low sustained killer instinct, and general lack of 'hardness'. Looking at this positively, rather than fatalistically, all these deficiencies are fixable.

If Link's coaching group at the Reds can figure out how to repetitively beat the Blues and the Cru (game plans, plus selections, plus right mindset), the Wallabies and their coaches can, in principle, do likewise v ABs if the application and talent is there.

Sorry, RH, but there is a "truth of the ages"that we haven't done well against the ABs. Overall 45 wins out of about 155, so under 30%. 1991-1994 - 5 wins from 8 for 67.5%, 1998-2003 - 8 wins from 13 for about 62%. So we have 2 purple patches where we got over parity; times when we all recall fantastic Wallaby teams. World Cup winning teams. And looking at individual results, many of the wins are close run things.
So of course we can match them fairly well, but to "expect" a great W:L ratio against the ABs, to me, flies in the face of history. With the team we have had, over the past few years, had they achieved 40% or better, I would have called that very good.

 

[Bullrush]

Well, we won all 3 in '98 ( a rarity) then retained the Bledisloe by squaring most series up to 2002. So overall a little better than 50%. Can't remember 91-94 figures and not looking at the moment. So, in our 2 "purple patches" we are not really close to 10 in a row.
I agree we did well, compared to our historic record against the ABs. I think you'll find we've had a few close ones in that 10 lost games too, but probably not in the mode of play required by some fans, such as yourself. W:L ratios may not be important to you, and fair enough, but Bullrush was talking about them, so I was responding in kind.

To be clear - I wasn't talking about W/L ratio against the ABs exclusively. I was talking about the Wallaby overall W/L ration since Deans took over and losses to teams like Samoa and Scotland.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I've just run some interesting stats, comparing Deans to one of our favourite sons here on G&GR, Bob Dwyer. In Bob's first crack at the Wallaby job, he had a win percentage of 41% (5-6-1) and in the matches from 1988 to the 1991 RWC, it was 61%. Overall, his coaching record with the Wallabies before winning the RWC was:

1982 - 1983: 5-6-1 (41%)
1988 - 1991 (pre-RWC): 13-11-1 (52%)
Overall: 18-17-1 (50%)

That's pretty comparable with Deans. I remember Bob's second period as coach pretty well and he was in a similar situation as Deans, taking a team that had some players either retired or on the wane. The Lions tour loss confirmed this and a clean out ensued. Some poor results against the All Blacks followed and then in 1991 it all clicked and the rest is history. I'm not saying that the two periods are exactly the same, but I think the constant criticism of Deans record needs to be compared in context with other coaches who we hold in high regard.

 

[Scarfman]

You need to understand that Bob was part of the turnaround in Australian rugby. We were shit, then less shit under Dwyer, then very good under Macqueen. We may be in the middle of another turnaround now.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I am well aware of that Scarfy. I was watching the Wallabies with considerable interest all through that period leading up to the 1991 world cup.

I would also argue that we had a golden period between 1984 and 1987 under AJ as well. The problem that Bob had was that a combination of age, retirements and league weakened the team that he inherited. After the Lions tour in 1989, he rebuilt it into the amazing rugby machine it became. It is possible that Deans may produce the same result.

 

[Scarfman]

Our winning % falls, and RD's fans keep calling it rebuilding (every year), despite there being nothing in particular to rebuild from. I have nothing more to say.

 

[barbarian]

Our winning % falls, and RD's fans keep calling it rebuilding (every year), despite there being nothing in particular to rebuild from. I have nothing more to say.

I highly doubt that

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Our winning % falls, and RD's fans keep calling it rebuilding (every year), despite there being nothing in particular to rebuild from. I have nothing more to say.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

 

[Scarfman]

I highly doubt that

...

 

[RedsHappy]

Sorry, RH, but there is a "truth of the ages"that we haven't done well against the ABs. Overall 45 wins out of about 155, so under 30%. 1991-1994 - 5 wins from 8 for 67.5%, 1998-2003 - 8 wins from 13 for about 62%. So we have 2 purple patches where we got over parity; times when we all recall fantastic Wallaby teams. World Cup winning teams. And looking at individual results, many of the wins are close run things.
So of course we can match them fairly well, but to "expect" a great W:L ratio against the ABs, to me, flies in the face of history. With the team we have had, over the past few years, had they achieved 40% or better, I would have called that very good.

Thanks for that Cyclo, good points all, I was probably giving too much weight to the purple patches you and Gnostic note. But those patches do prove that a material period of Wallaby-AB w-l % improvement IS possible and was delivered, these were in fact solid 4 and 5 year periods, they weren't just one-off blips.

Part of my commentary posited that there are IMO broadly identifiable core reasons why we have consistently lost lots more than won via the ABs in, say, the 2004-2010 period. It is not a case of 'they are just geniuses most matches, we are just overall crap most matches'. I think our core problems v the ABs can be fixed, and, in part, as we enter the 2011 AB season, are being fixed. Gagger was right to note in late 2010 that our margin of points loss v the ABs is consistently declining to now very low numbers, this is a good omen. Further, we are today blessed with an impressive number of genuinely outstanding players that, despite their age, have matured rapidly as class players on the world stage and don't fear the ABs; problem is, too many of these are only in the backs, to deal adequately with the ABs we need solid class in the forwards. (And this 'emergence of great players' factor is partly just luck in terms of timing and recurrence - as Australian cricket is finding, Warnes, McGraths, Haydens and Pontings can't be manufactured every 2 or so years, it goes in cycles.)

 

[RedsHappy]

I've just run some interesting stats, comparing Deans to one of our favourite sons here on G&GR, Bob Dwyer. In Bob's first crack at the Wallaby job, he had a win percentage of 41% (5-6-1) and in the matches from 1988 to the 1991 RWC, it was 61%. Overall, his coaching record with the Wallabies before winning the RWC was:

1982 - 1983: 5-6-1 (41%)
1988 - 1991 (pre-RWC): 13-11-1 (52%)
Overall: 18-17-1 (50%)

That's pretty comparable with Deans. I remember Bob's second period as coach pretty well and he was in a similar situation as Deans, taking a team that had some players either retired or on the wane. The Lions tour loss confirmed this and a clean out ensued. Some poor results against the All Blacks followed and then in 1991 it all clicked and the rest is history. I'm not saying that the two periods are exactly the same, but I think the constant criticism of Deans record needs to be compared in context with other coaches who we hold in high regard.

Points taken TBH, bit you are having to go back some considerable time to find the support data that indicates 'look, Robbie's no worse than some well regarded others in the past' . The question that then arises: is that a useful reference point for modern rugby, 2011-version?

I do think there is a major differentiation to be made here in comparing the amateur vs professional eras. Rugby is now a serious business, like it or not, income generation is crucial, crowd and viewer numbers are crucial to income generation, and, like it or not, consistently winning matches in a fan-admiring manner is crucial to all the foregoing that drives the very economic viability (or otherwise) of a code. And with this 'rugby as a business' has come a large expansion in what $s coaches are paid, and the the extensive total resources that are provided to a team and the head coach, in terms of additional specialist coaches, medical support, sports psychologists, etc. This is all aimed, obviously, at consistently winning lots and driving a team's w-l ratio up to levels where crowds and TV viewership grows substantially, kids are pulled into one code/team vs another, sponsors pay more and there are more of them, etc.

Try as one might, in the modern game at the elite levels with its high $ overheads, you cannot escape the ultimate imperative of building a team, or teams, that win lots and wins really well, far more than it loses. The day of reckoning associated with consistently mediocre results can be postponed, but it cannot be eliminated.