The Waratahs stood up against the Canterbury Crusaders in Christchurch last night, despite going down 17-11 in what was a searching examination.
Losing by less than a converted try against the competition favourites at their place was no disgrace, and the game could have easily gone the other way, given that Peter Hewat missed two goals (his first missed goalkicks in three games).
More importantly, the game showed up the Tahs’ strengths and weaknesses. Wendell Sailor, who has been playing well, was ruthlessly targeted, and returned to the confused stumblebum from league, which he’s always been in top class rugby. Sean Berne was also exposed as a weak link, and my guess is that we’ve seen the last of him for the season. Al Kaanar and Daniel Halangahu, both of whom have shown much promise this season, were also outclassed, but will benefit from the experience. Chris Whitaker’s understudy, Brett Sheehan, is also on a learning curve.
Sam Norton-Knight, on the other hand, was home in this company, and should now have a permanent starting position, probably at the expense of Berne, with Mat Rogers returning to take over from Halangahu. There was also a glaring moment when Benn Robinson replaced Matt Dunning in the scrum and we immediately won one against the feed. The balance of the forwards played with great determination and force, and in the backs Hewat was an inspiration. Turinui and Tuqiri were also in this class.
The game augers well, and not only for the Tahs. There is a bigger jump in class from the Tahs to the Wallabies then there is from Canterbury to the All Blacks. Australia will therefore take a lot of hope from last night. Which is also to say that Easter Sunday’s looming local derby between the Tahs and the Brumbies promises to be a cracker. (NSWRU match report)
They were very promising, weren’t they. Thanks for the assessments, Chris.
Wasn’t it around this time of tournament season the Tahs would do something that blew away the goodwill of earlier games and brought on the bad vibes and chatter? To me, this loss was more of a win in that the Tahs were solid enough under the circumstances. That we haven’t lost hope in them around-about now is a key positive.
One of the pleasing things about NSW rugby this year has been seeing the belief Ewen has had in his team, and obviously himself and his coaching team, come through: bearing in mind his plan was to succeed over a series of seasons. He’s going well.
Peter Hewat was keen to have a go all night last night. Love it when those fullbacks take a tough opposition on, especially with that happy to fu attitude. There’s something very green, still, about Hewat, which when added to his considerable stability is noteworthy. He’s one those players who might rise considerably in playing stature by the sheer energy and occasion of international contest, much over and above where he’s currently and welcomely at. We won’t know until he’s there; let’s see.
Dell is all at sea. Really, he’s a vulnerability and has to go. He’s only achieved, and that’s rarely, when the game suits him: a sure sign he’s one dimensional and, basically, skillshort and rugbybrain thick. It would be a pain in the arse playing with him, I’d imagine, as you’d forever be wondering if you could rely on him. You’re better off playing with fourteen men than with blokes like that, as then at least you are certain of what you have to do.
But what happened to our trusty hooker? No field goal this week? No chip kick, pivot or flick pass? Another good sign: unlike Dunning who in similar situations of post match wraps went out next week to utterly lose it, Freier sensibly put his head down in tougher requirements. Some of our scrums were very solid indeed.
All good stuff, this game, in the larger context, serving also to hone the team’s focus what exactly is required to take out top honours. That’s a very positive conversation to have right now.
Only slight personal disappointment was not seeing Lote tear it up, though he did more than required as usual with what he had to work with on the night. And let’s not mention that near-intolerable kiwi accent. Poor bastards. That included in the wash up brought us out in front, I’d contend.
I have never been a fan of Dell, but I couldn’t do much to fault him for last night. The halves were simply not up to it, and accordingly the ball wasn’t distributed regularly until the last 20 odd minutes, when we all saw how differently they played.
Even then, they desperately missed Roger’s ability to break the line. Why isn’t Sailor used as a inside runner off either half? He’s big enough and fast enough to make 5 yards in any ‘static’ tackle, which the forwards apparently weren’t.
Also, how is Dunning still in the Waratahs? I mean, I would have pushed him out over the Tasman after last year’s Bledisloe, but I can understand people not being that drastic – but I would have thought that any sane coach would have sacked him after it became apparent that he was at best a club prop with, to boot, scarcely a gram of personal discipline.
And fwiw’s Hewat missed three kicks totalling 8 points. But he was also the only player who beat a tackle one on one.
… and it’s about this time the Brumbies come into focus. Man, they can play some good rugby. Still the benchmark for creative attacking play.
Dell’s biggest blunder for the night was to come off his wing to let the first try in. In doing so, he broke one of the commandments of wing play; and moreover Waugh had the guy he came in for covered. It was panicky stuff. At other times, Canterbury was content to kick over his head, which leaves Dell cornered by the time he turns and chases. The targeting of Sailor brings two kinds of benefits: firstly, his limited skills make his options predictable and easily contained, so long as you don’t give him wind-up room, and there’s always a chance of an error. The other benefit for the opposition in playing to Dell is that it keeps the play as far away from Lote as possible, as we saw on Friday night.
I agree with all the other comments, especially re Dunning, who I’ve gone right off. On Hewatt, what always strikes me is his presence of mind in the play, on the run. He plays the game in front of him on its merits, not in his head. As I’ve said before, there is a touch of reflex excitement about his game that always reminds me of the young (pre-broken leg) Russell Fairfax. As Robert says, we won’t know how good this guy
My point about Hewat was that you probably don’t have to have a look! And won’t this world cup.
Fullback, for example, is clearly one retirement out of reach – and maybe more, since Cameron Shepherd is playing very well as well, and might be perceived as a stronger defender.
That leaves wing, which is clearly attractive since a) he can beat his man and b) he can kick. But Mortlock, a shoe-in, can kick, as can Latham, another shoe-in. Digby Ioane is very highly thought of and extremely industrious. Mark Gerrard similarly, and then of course Ben Tune and Lote Tuquiri are contenders, and Drew Mitchell has already had a run.
His real problem is that Tune, Tuquiri and Staniforth are all contenders for the wing because Mortlock freezes them out of the 3/4.
So whilst I agree that he would make a very attractive reserve back, I am much less sure that we are going to see Connolly agree.
Ah, the optimism of the one-eyed supporter. Guys, the Tahs lost. And they’re gonna lose again this weekend …
No. Once you subtract the home ground, we really won, dd. Or at least I’m sure that’s what Billy Sneddon would have argued. As for this week, we’ll see china, we’ll see. Bring it on!
There’s plenty of room to doubt most of those assessments, Patrick, although let’s not muck about: Mortlock is the outside centre and Lote Tuqiri is on one wing, end of story.
Tah cast-offs Staniforth (too old) and Shepherd (a deadset perhapser) are also out of the question, and Ben Tune is out of gas. The other wing is Rathbone or Gerrard. I haven’t got a fix at all on Digby Ioane, so I’ll let that go. In my book, I’d start Hewatt slowly, bringing him on from the bench, with only Rogers in front of him at fullback (assuming Larkham at 10).
Nonetheless, you’re probably right about Latham of Socks Down. He’s a strong runner with a big left boot from Queensland, but that’s it; and the last qualification is what probably makes him a shoe-in. In truth, however, he has a smaller game allround and is, in particular, imho, a poorer defender than Hewat (who has been unfairly picked on in this department for mine: he probably averages less missed tackles than Rogers in a game – the criticisms of his defence have not been due to his tackling, but his intercepts). One more point, none of these players, including Morts, has a goalkicking range like Hewat, notwithstanding his fairly poor night with the boot on Friday. Come the world cup, we do need a fully fledged goalkicker, something the Wallaby brains-trust has long been (unpardonably) guilty of treating like some kind of optional extra.
One would hope Latham of SD is not a shoe in. Hewat is by far the more consistent player, though LSD is more psychedelic at times, and his lows more down, too, often in defence as you remark, Chris. Gee what to give for a set backline, and the knowledge players could strive for a spot and keep it.
Beaut article here by the way, from Grant Fox, if you haven’t caught it. How’s it for a traditional styled player talking the mod lingo and still, wonderfully, no backward steps in his thinking – a winner’s attitude all the way. No wonder he was so effective! What to give, also, for a return of that mindset for Australia: here’s looking at you, Knuckles.
http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/04/10/1144521244573.html
This week will be seriously interesting. On a stable base of historical evidence the Brumbies would be favourites for this, as they get a whiff of the end of the season, and they know how to close out a season better than the Tahs. But the Tahs under Ewen are a different team again, and you do get the sense that they’ll take this game on like a test match itself. They’ll be aware more than any of their need to focus and win at this time. It’s a head and heart thing: head says Brumbies, heart says Tahs, but too early for a punt yet. Let’s see how the week pans out, and what the vibe is as we get closer.
In a way, as footnote, Australia is in a bit of an unfortunate place due purely to age of players and timing. Larkham is exceptional, but can he stand the Test intensity, physically, enough thru to France? How to blood the younger when Bernie’s so good and so deserving? Gregan is as good as he’s been for a long while, and yet the guy with a bit more hunger, Cordingley, is just that smidgen too old himself to blood while George is holding spot ok. Hewat is no springy chicken either, losing for himself the take-a-punt invite into the top side on the basis of blooding for the long haul.
It all points a bit to a make-do selection criteria, on the basis of opportunistically getting to and through the World Cup matches, and look again after that. Given Connelly’s contract ends after France, that seems to be what we’re in for. Fair enough, too, I guess. We have a good pool of players and the logic there is to get the best team on the paddock, under a new coaching style, to win in France. We stand to regain some face in the meantime, too.
Contrast that with making the changes now and setting about blooding those players who’d be fresher for the Cup, and though this would be my preference (to discard only after being seriously assessed), always, it’s this year made less realistic due to the slightly older ages of the ‘younger’ replacements. The only stand out in terms of age and blooding is Berrick Barnes, and yet to watch Larkham last weekend it would be a travesty to not let that magic continue.
While a pool like this is good to have, in one way, it also beckons towards that continual changing of players in positions which if this continues I’d hazard will lose us the Cup before we start. While players are considered for Test selection, I wonder if there’s happening in selector’s eyes that crucial need to pick and stick.
Actually, I’ll provide you with some non-NSW perspective, and reassure you that Tuquiri is definitely fighting for his wing spot, and that for the moment Gregan Larkham …. …. Mortlock Gerrard Latham are deadset.
the gaps are most likely to go to Ioane and Rogers, with Turinui, Giteau and, perhaps, Hewat on the bench. But Tune will finish the season a much stronger contender than he is now, as might Drew Mitchell.
But the real thing about his goalkicking is that he didn’t pick any old game to have a poor showing, did he? If he doesn’t make amends this week and in the finals, he’ll really struggle to convince anyone in the Wallaby selection team.
I’ll back Tuqiri for a spot, but we’ll see, Patrick. This Sunday’s match should tell the story. As I’ve said before, I agree that Latham of Socks Down is also set, but it’s a parochial shame, imho. I don’t think Tuney has a hope at wing, given the way his speed has fallen off, this being why he has been hanging around outside centre, where there is a player traffic jam. Great player that he once was, I’m afraid it’s all over for Ben.
Thanks for that link, Robert. Excellent piece. Friggin’ Sailor, targeted even when he isn’t there! Spiro Zavos dovetails with his column today. I guess Hewatt is no spring-chicken at 28; but he is compared to Latham of SD, who is 31 now. More generally, I reckon we need some experimentation against the northern sides, but then, come the Tri-Nations, we should head towards ‘pick and stick’.
I see Grant Fox (link in Robert’s comment above) makes exactly the same point I’ve been making for a couple of years now, namely that the secret to the crusaders’ success (and to a slightly lesser extent the All Blacks as well) lies in the calculated “side to side” width of their play. I mostly made those comments in the context of advocating a top rugby league 5/8 or halfback playmaker like Andrew Johns. Spiro Zavos makes exactly that point in the article cs linked immediately above:
But Johns isn’t the only great playmaker in rugby league. Others like Craig Gower (Panthers), Matt Orford (Manly) or Jonathon Thurston (NQ Cowboys) would be almost as good and more durable because they’re younger. Matt Rogers will inject more creativity and penetration for the Waratahs than Halangahu, but he isn’t a great playmaker in the class of a Johns, Gower, Thurston or Orford (or for that matter Larkham). I haven’t seen much of Berrick Barnes, but as a recent league convert he certainly didn’t show anything like the form of Johns, Gower etc in the 13 man game.
Like Zavos, I reckon the rugby scouts should stop chasing Gasnier (although I think he’s a better player than Zavos gives him credit for, and he’s been partly playing out of position at 5/8 himself over the last couple of weeks at the Dragons) and chase a top league 5/8 instead. Larkham isn’t going to last forever, and possibly not even until the World Cup, and I doubt that either Barnes or Rogers are good enough starting fly halves to allow the Waratahs or Wallabies to play the sort of calculated expansive game they will need to beat the Crusaders or All Blacks (although both are good flyhalf substitutes ). Of course, the other problem is that I doubt that Knuckles has the will or capacity to aim at a NZ-style expansive game anyway.
Edifying comments all round here. I wonder how much of the play made by NZ is solely attributable to a playmaker back, or, equally attributable to a game plan which involves also the forwards.
Watching the Crusaders these last few weeks, and so too the Brumbies when they were hot last week, when both teams were playing expansive rugby, there was a distinction in their play that their forwards appeared to achieve the same results of other teams committing many players by these teams committing only two, perhaps three.
That’s a powerful, controlled, indomitable mindset there. It relies on near absolute belief in your fellow players. There are no wasted players, no lost energy. In attack or defence, whatever resulted from the ruck or maul (short on as it was) was then crisply assessed and the players there to create accordingly. In that way, the forwards were very creative – on reflection, creative far beyond the roles of the older style game (limited pretty much to ‘taking it away’, one way or another!).
Maybe the playmaking 5/8 is really just taking advantage of the creativity of the forwards until that point, where he shows up with the goods.
The Tahs don’t quite have this same thing. Sometimes they do, of course. But it’s a cultural mindset that must surely come from the game plan itself, and the players’ love and commitment to it.
What it basically says to other teams is: “We’re going to hit you with what you need to stop you, no more no less. We’re going to continue stopping you until we get the ball. When we have the ball, we -all of us – are looking at the whole field for ways we can penetrate your defence. We have time. And we are shotgun willing all the time.”
Having the whole field at your disposal is a different approach from, say, Eddie Jones. His basic plan showed up as committing forwards much tighter (fieldwise, though not always at the breakdown) and spreading them only as far as the centres, where he’d thrust them against opposing centres. It was based on a different tenement of thinking: that the forwards would wear down the opposition and the breaks would come. That’s different in the outstanding teams mentioned where the forwards very much appear to be thinking creative attacking play – almost to the point of doing so while in defence.
Maybe it’s a subtle distinction, but it shows itself in the devastation those teams have. rather than in the warm hot moments of others. If every forward is thinking attacking, creative rugby, and given they’re those no nonsense guys of world class, you’ve got devastation for opposing teams who’d choose to plan on something less. Bear in mind those forwards are not expecting to score or run breaks or anything necessarily like that: they are instead aware of the greater attacking movements that phase holds, and the next, and their positive contribution at that moment to it.Maybe, also, this is another area where Jones’s mind just wasn’t believing enough, powerful enough, to step away from stats and run the team on what NZ, Crusaders and best Brumbies do.
Those quick passes under pressure you see Crusaders do come straight out of rugby league excellence in forward attacking play – one of the better things about their game. These come in part from knowing the field is their own, and the will and drive to use it.
So I think it’s more than just a playmaker required by the Tahs if they’re to play consistent fine rugby like these teams. Then again, a playmaker arriving could help inspire a change in plan. For sure, that Halangahu dude is not the goods – one of those guys who jinks and steps and carries on, then hits exactly the same spot as he would have had he gone straight ahead, successfully only satisfying his own fantasy. And Rogers is too quick and too urgently in need of his own breaks to want to absolve that energy into continual controlled creativity for the team. For him, it’s that harelike awareness and snap it up when he can, always waiting, expecting. A playmaker has that, but his main need is to psychically move players, theirs and ours, around through phases or moments forever creating the gaps and opportunities for the team as a whole.
The Tahs are obviously in need of a better 5/8 (how they could go with Donnelly shows this), and Gits isn’t the answer. Johns is the playmaker indeed, but can he adapt to the altered lines, angles and timing of rugby? Of them all mentioned lately, he’d be far the better chanced to do it.
Nationally, Berrick Barnes may become one, but he’s a long, long way from it, being altogether too young and green.
How about this. How about we get the Ellas to coach our pack, and let’s keep praying for Larkham. For one, I hold my breath every time he ghosts away.
As an addendum, for the fun of it, there are a couple of other ways to go when you don’t have a playmaking second five.
The idea is to remove any reliance on playmaking from the position, and select someone there who can allow it to occur elsewhere. In Australia’s case, without Larkham, say, and in the case of the Tahs, without a playmaking 10, where there is sufficient variable attacking ability outside that spot, the go would be to dissolve the playmaking role from one position and instil it across two or three.
What you have then is a second five who either tackles hard, runs hard, passes well, and kicks under pressure, or all of those, but who doesn’t consider himself a playmaker at all.
Then, you construct your attack around that guy passing the ball on.
You can choose a little bloke if he’s a good clearance kicker, but it’s best to go with a big guy who’ll withstand the inevitable targeting.
It actually works. The IC and OC form a stronger bond, cutting and scissoring, kicking decisively (where before the 5/8 did it), either working towards your pack for safety or cutting free if you’re game. It’s not as dangerous or vulnerable as it sounds. In a very real sense, the IC and OC become one, taking on the roles of the position inside him.
The 5/8 is there to back up, secure the ball, or feed again, from whatever these outer blokes do.
In the professional game it would see gone the silly running up to defence that second rate Tahs 5/8s do, often. That’s lost initiative, lost momentum, lost energy as the forwards rush to back the dill up, and far more vulnerable than if he was mentally taken out of the game (by your own team) beforehand. It would also mean the IC and OC are far more active and involved, which would necessitate closer reliance on the loosies – all part of the plan.
So in this way you have a bridge made: the forwards remain the same, the halfback works upfront with the loosies when he senses the second five can’t hack what’s gonna happen, or he passes straight to the IC (yep), the IC and OC are the attacking playmakers given continual ball, and supported once again by the loosies, with the 5/8 there in support as well.
There is more cutting in towards the pack than you’d see otherwise, and more occasions where you stand to lose ground: but these are taken into account and the idea is to make sure quick ball is given to continue the play around that breakdown, forward. Often, while you do have your heart in your mouth a bit on occasion, you find gaps opening up around the rucks and mauls that more than compensate. Those players knowing they must be there in support is the key, rather than waiting to see what happens.
If that doesn’t sound palatable, perhaps it’s a different way of saying that you choose a 5/8 on the main basis they pass the ball on. Same thing.
I guess it’s a matter of pretending you have a playmaking 5/8, or accepting that you don’t.
Bit of fun over, and on current form, I’d be choosing Rogers at 5/8 for the Tahs, trying to build that teammanship with him and through him – ie, upfront asking him to take the extra teammanship role on, and in return, give him the spot, stuck. He’s considered a switchable back, which is another way of saying he hasn’t blitzed one position yet. I’d give him that chance, on those terms. The pay off would be security for him, and the possibility of taking over from Larkham through injury. Rogers I believe could become a playmaker, but he needs time to grow (quite a lot) in that understanding, and the security to be able to take that time. Chopping him around removes all chances of that. However, in this scenario for the Tahs, he’d also be able to play utility for the Wallabies from the bench.
Not having seen the players from league Ken has mentioned, Rogers long term and under guidance would be my choice. Perhaps others can throw observations on the table regarding those league alternatives.
I think you most of what has been said there is pretty true, although the disparaging of Barnes seems unfair since he a) has played better than Halangahu and b) is, er, 19.
I also think we don’t need any more league players right now, although a 5/8th would clearly be the most important. But our backs can really hold their own against anyone.
I also think (I do think a lot!) that you are all getting a bit carried away with 15-man rugby. Whilst that was what won us the previous world cup and gave us a golden streak (does anyone remember 17 phases to score against NZ in, I think, carisbrook?), it is only ever successful when predicated on a strong pack – and in France, 15 man rugby will inevitably be negated by stronger packs. Also, although it was called 15-man rugby at the time, it was based on people like Finegan crashing over the advantage line in tight, and then people like Roff and Burke and Herberts crashing over the new advantage line in the middle, and then back to Finegan or Kefu, and then back to the Roff, Burke or Herberts (or Tune who ran off Horan/Grey a lot) ad nauseaum until the other team opened up and Larkham or Horan picked the gap or put someone else through it. So whilst it looked very 15 man, it was pretty damn structured.
Basically, back to the RWC, over there we must hold our own in the scrums, be rocksolid in the lineouts and negate the English, South African and French mauls. If we can do all that, then our backs will win it for us the old-fashioned way.
But the point about not-overcommitting forwards remains particularly valid because you have to get quick ball to avoid being bogged down.
When you guys talk about 15 man rugby, most of you mean having the 5/8 pass the ball, running rugby with the backs doing the running.
Robert had it down pat, though – 15 man Rugby, Crusaders style, is forwards who can hit the ball with pace when necessary, backs who will drive hard and low (they won’t actually ruck, thats a bit beneath them). A good example is the first try (I think) where McCaw and Jack combined out on the left wing – there were players all over the place, but the Cursaders vision and slick passing got the ball out to the big guys, with enough room to exploit their size. By comparison, the NSW first try was a lucky bounce from a chip kick.
BTW, I’m not going to slam Matt Dunning. It’s not his fault the selectors are idiots and that the ARU still have this fixation with finding the new Ella’s, to the detriment of our foward depth – just think about whether Dunning would get a start in a 1st division side in the old NPC let alone S14 or the national side, if he lived in NZ. That should also let you know my opinion on whether the ARU should keep chasing league backs….
Martin
I’m not sure what others might mean by 15 man rugby, but I mean exactly what you’re talking about, and I’ve been talking about it for a very long time on this blog. Here’s an extract froma post I wrote on 22 June 2004:
I think you most of what has been said there is pretty true, although the disparaging of Barnes seems unfair since he a) has played better than Halangahu and b) is, er, 19.
Agree Patrick. I think Barnsey is a player to watch. I hope he’s not injury prone. It’s also still early days for Halangahu, who is 22, has shown promise, and is on a learning curve. With Norton-Knight, Rogers, Giteau, the great Bernie still playing like a maestro, and the exciting young Curtley coming into the ranks next year when he finishes school: all of a sudden we have talented fly-halves coming out of our ears.
I certainly didn’t disparage Barnes. I merely commented that he hadn’t demonstrated in rugby league last year that he was yet up the standards of gun playmakers like Johns, Thurston, Orford etc., a point no-one would dispute who actually watches NRL. But Barnes is young and an up-and-comer. He may well become a real great in due course, although possibly not by next year’s World Cup. I think Sam Norton-Knight is likely to be a better immediate prospect if Larkham’s ageing body gives out. Rogers is individually creative but will never be a great playmaker, and Halangahu though young doesn’t seem to me to have what it takes (although he’s a more than useful standby at provincial level). But I might be wrong there, I haven’t seen a lot of him in action. I’ve never heard of Curtley. Who is he?
Ken, Sorry, it’s Kurtley Beale. I haven’t seen him play, but some of my mates have had a very good look, and are convinced they have never seen his like before. I get mixed up with his name, because he is referred to around my parts as “Bernie Ella”. If he is as sensational as everyone to a person says that he is, you never know, he may be on the Wallaby bench, come the World Cup.
By the universal opinion of all my rugby mates, the SMH‘s chief rugby correpondent, Greg Growden, is an idiot. His favourite topic is trivial off-field incidents, upon which he endlessly obsesses, and he seems to have no real interest in or even knowledge of the game itself. Does anyone know if he ever played? The only reason for reading him is that he often gets good leaks, and seems to have been given a brief on the Wallaby selectors thinking so far on Thursday, highlights of which are:
Smithy is being considered for no 8 (as I have long argued for), with Knuckles looking for tall timber on both flanks. Rocky Elsom and Daniel Heenan are the leading contenders, with Phil Waugh and Wycliff Palu coming off the bench. In the second-row, Dan Vickerman is a certainty, expected to be accompanied by Nathan Sharpe. Adam Freier is preferred over Jeremy Paul at this stage. There’s no word on the props. Lote Tuqiri is a certainty on one wing, with the other between Mark Gerrard and Clyde Rathbone.