The Wallabies went into Saturday’s Test against a depleted Springbok lineup with a ‘must win’ imperative, so victory alone was never going to be enough. To convince themselves – and the rest of us – that they are the real deal, they had to be dominant. That they did! To convince the analysts that they could continue to go forward, they needed more again. They needed to show urgency and physicality at the tackle zone and ask serious questions with their attack. They did both of these also!
The Boks were well under strength with about eleven first choice players missing and, as was clear with the second-string Wallabies against the Samoans, this is rarely good enough. However, vital elements of the Wallaby performance were massively improved – namely, numbers with commitment at the tackle contest, alignment and realignment of the attack, and straight running.
All of these will stand up against any opposition and, although coming opposition will offer much sterner defences, the finesse of the Wallaby performances will improve. It’s enough that this performance gives them a solid foundation on which to build. After the match, Rocky Elsom commented on the need for the Wallaby forward pack to provide the space for their lethal attack to operate. This has always been true for even the greatest attacking teams – indeed, this Wallaby team threatens to be one of those!
The Wallaby defensive effort was also – for the greater part of the match – of the highest order. The role for the ‘10 slot defender’ was handed to Digby Ioane and he was superb. He must have tallied the highest all-time tackle count for any winger in an international. He simply revelled in the role and continued to offer himself, in both attack and defence, for the hard yards in the tight zones. Curiously, his ball-handling let him down on a number of occasions, some significant, but in his Tri Nations debut match – another surprising statistic – he made a significant contribution to the Wallaby performance.
The Wallaby defensive style consistently featured a lower body tackler – who stops them in their tracks – with a second tackler over the top, who prevents off-loads. With the second tackler intent on regaining his feet to initiate the counter-ruck, this was clearly an effective facet of their game that constantly pressured the Springbok team. Mental pressure, added to the obvious physical pressure, had an important effect on the accuracy of the Springbok play.
The Springbok defensive effort, on the other hand, was well short of the standard required. Their front row, in particular, was frequently found wanting, mainly beaten hopelessly for pace, and I think that their selectors will need to look again for genuine World Cup candidates to back up their first choices. Conversely, the Wallaby frontrow showed excellent pace. Tight-head Sekope Kepu even made one decisive tackle, running back chasing a Ruan Pienaar break.
These are significant contributions – and they are needed from all eight forwards. Alexander and Moore showed the same for their tries. As was required, they gained some dominance at the set scrum. If we can get Tatafu Polota-Nau and Benn Robinson back for the World Cup, we have a serious group who can handle pretty much anything.
A few weeks back, when commenting on Australia’s chances at the World Cup, I said that the Wallabies had probably more individuals than any other nation who could significantly alter the outcome of a match. Some of these – Genia, Cooper, Beale, Ioane and O’Connor – showed just that potency. The mere presence of these players anywhere near the ball raises the anxiety levels of defenders, and starts to ask difficult questions. With Elsom and Pocock starting to return to their best, the Wallaby team have a much more threatening look about them.
A couple of years ago James Horwill was also a genuine attacking threat and he has plenty more to offer. Think about how much the addition of Higginbotham and TPN – maybe even Samo and Timani – could mean to the support play. I have high hopes for our attack!
So just where are we, in terms of our readiness for the World Cup?
- I thought that Rob Simmons played his best game at this level. He showed an admirable urgency, added to his normal high work-rate. More urgency is needed from other forwards; we looked a bit plodding at times.
- Our passing needs to improve a lot. Frequently it was too hard; at other times it was ill-directed. We left three or four tries on the grass, and this is not good enough. Diligence is needed from our coaching staff!
- We lost focus in the last quarter, no doubt influenced by the stack of substitutes made in this period. Our subs need to add to the performance, not detract. Elsom and Horwill were subbed off and they are both dominant influences on the pitch. Food for thought!
- The shape of our game was much better. During the telecast, Rod Kafer used the word ‘pattern’, but this suggests a preconceived sequence of plays, and is consequently a word that I hate. The foundations of the shape of our game came from (i) speed and numbers to the tackle, (ii) urgency in recycle and (iii) urgency in realignment. These factors impose a shape to your game, influenced only by the reaction of the defence, and make for a series of difficult questions of any defence.
- I have a strong feeling that Rocky is heading into top form – clearly a massive step forward for us. His captaincy is likewise looking more obvious – maybe the absence of pain, for the first time in a year, is helping.
- We are heading in the right direction. We’re not there yet, not by a long way, but we are on the right path!
