The tiny Pacific Islands nation of Samoa humbled the might of Australian rugby yesterday at ANZ Stadium in Sydney. Yes, humbled! Because the scoreline of 32–23 and four tries to two does not do justice to the superiority of the visitors.
Thirteen of Australia’s points came when Samoa were reduced to 14 men, with a belated yellow card issued to Daniel Leo, and our final try came with victory pretty much out of sight. Samoa have indeed climbed another mountain in their gradual ascent up the rugby rankings, and I would suggest that they will climb a few more in the not too distant future.
The Independent State of Samoa (formerly known as Western Samoa) has a population of only about 190,000 – less than the city of Hobart – but they are a warrior race of superb athletes, just made for rugby. Their influence across the world game is staggering. In Australia, New Zealand, England, Wales, France and Japan, they have significant numbers of players across virtually all of the clubs. With professionalism, these numbers can only grow and, as with the other island nations of Fiji and Tonga, rugby may well become their major export earner, with shared income flowing back to the families at home. Such is their need and such is their culture.
During the week, I read in the press the Western Samoan team selected for the match and immediately said, ‘This is not going to be easy!’ These great rugby athletes now have solid ongoing development as individuals within solid teams. Whenever they come back together again, as they did on Sunday, they will always be formidable opponents.
We all laughed, back in 1991, at the plight of the Welsh team, defeated in Cardiff by the rugby minnows of Western Samoa. Even the Welsh press mockingly commented, ‘Thank goodness we didn’t have to play the whole of Samoa!’ Well, no one will be laughing from now on! On Friday, 30 September, Samoa will play South Africa at North Harbour Stadium, in the last pool match for both teams. This will be a virtual home game for the Samoans and promises to be a battle royal. Book your seats!
I know that it’s much easier to recognise this in hindsight, but we showed the proud Samoans no respect at all! No respect with our selection — I wouldn’t have had to think hard for motivation for the team throughout the week, had I been the Samoan coach — and no respect with our on-field decisions – I would have thought that turning them around, both physically and psychologically, would have been high on the agenda for our game plan. It’s clear that there was no conscious disrespect within the Wallaby camp, but it is just as clear that the same decisions would not have been taken if the opponents were one of the so-called major nations.
The Australian selection choices were considered important, given the recent workload of the Queensland players, but there were other possibilities available outside of the Reds players. Special care was needed, as a consequence of the necessary selections, to ensure that the subconscious mood within the team was not overly confident. If this risk was recognised, then the steps taken to guard against it were not successful. If the opposition want to wreak havoc at the tackle contest, then take three points every five minutes or so, it begins to both dampen their enthusiasm and raise the ire of the referee – even this referee, who must have handed out ten ‘final warnings’ for various offences.
Regular readers have heard me say this before, maybe only a hundred times or so: rugby is about winning the ball, advancing the ball and keeping the ball. On the other side of the coin, it’s about making it difficult for the opposition to win it, advance it and keep it. You ‘advance it’ with quality attack asking questions of the defence, which requires quality support with options available to the ball-carrier. You ‘keep it’ with much the same – just add body height, commitment and leg drive. Alignment and realignment are essential components of subsequent phases. In defence, the same parameters apply. Realignment is paramount. So is attacking their attack, keeping all of their options in mind. Samoa clearly understood and believed all of this; we didn’t!
Don’t make the mistake of putting this loss down solely to a poor performance by the Wallabies. Samoa played very well. They were up against a 71 per cent possession and 75 per cent territory imbalance in the first half, but with a well-designed and passionately executed game plan, they led by 17 points to nil — until they were reduced to 14 men! They tackled with venom, no surprise there, but they also defended excellently — realigning with urgency, maintaining their line and closing on the inside for the entire match. Their speed off the line, in both attack and defence, was first rate, as was their speed in scrambling back in numbers when needed.
Their numbers at the breakdown was clearly an important part of their strategy, no doubt courtesy of their NZ-based contingent, and once again they performed at the highest level. As a perfect example, in the 60th minute the Wallabies launched an attack from a quick throw-in. Giteau carried wide and switched to McCabe, who was tackled. Nos. 4, 5 and 8 from Samoa drove in and past the tackled ball, without a Wallaby forward in sight.
They beat us for passion, for enthusiasm, for urgency, for toughness – in general, for commitment. They had a quality kicking game – with Pisi and Mapasua outstanding – with a quality chase. Their individual skill levels were even higher. Tuilagi leapt high for a wayward kick, then ran and kicked ahead. The chase was passionate and George Pisi gathered and beautifully rolled in the immediate tackle to pop the ball to big brother Tusi for the TMO-awarded try. Great commitment, great awareness, great skill — five points ,then two more. Fantastic stuff.
An outstanding performance by Samoa! It did not look like a one-off to me!
For the Wallabies, our first choice team will do much better – as was obvious from the 60-minute mark when the subs began to arrive. However, there were a number of glaring worries. Some players looked way off the pace and lacked any real presence at this level. We need better than Mark Gerrard, Nick Phipps, Matt Hodgson and Ben McCalman were able to deliver.
Someone has already commented on this, but Alexander and Kepu must surely change sides – then we can decide whether or not to keep them. Kepu has had a very good season – at tight-head! Alexander has had a poor season to date, but yesterday spent more time with his head up out of the scrum than in it.
The Wallabies have a long history of quality scrum-halves. Why then are we being subjected to the rubbish dished up by the current crop (Genia alone excluded)? The time taken for the available ball to be delivered to the hands of the first receiver is simply unacceptable!
Once again, the Wallabies’ performance has suffered from poor technique and poor execution in the fundamentals of the game. It is the responsibility of the coaching staff, supported by the selectors and their selections, to rectify this immediately.
I fall back on a quote from an old NFL coach in answer to a question on the value of the coach. ‘You can’t win without quality players’, he said, ‘but you can lose with them. That’s where the coach comes in!’
