Club Troppo

This entry was posted on Friday, July 20th, 2007 at 10:22 AM and filed under Sport - rugby. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

21 Responses to “Paris 2007 vs Auckland 2007”

1. Bring Back CL's blog said:

   what concerns me is that immediately John O’Neil goes back to rugby the socceroos start imitating the wallabies.

   Posted on 20-Jul-07 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
2. Patrick said:

   Sportsbet are paying 1.17 for NZ as against 5.10 for Aust!! I agree about Cooper and Hoiles. I also agree with your mate.

   NZ and Aust will play off in one RWC semi and, most likely, France and RSA in the other. The winner of NZ v Aust will thump the other winner in the final.

   So this game is just as important to those who really do think the RWC matters more than the Bledisloe (I do if I am talking to a kiwi :)

   Posted on 20-Jul-07 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
3. Club Troppo » Missing Link, Friday 20 July said:

   [...] Sheil provides another excellent rugby wrap here at [...]

   Posted on 20-Jul-07 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
4. Robert said:

   Did your mate play in the forwards? Sleep in his guernsey once or twice as a kid? Polish the leather boots each week – I won’t mention the Indian Tape or whatever it was called – to lace them, under the soles and around the ankles; nor their starching. Nail-in studs and the boot last? And he’s dead right of course.

   Cheers Chris. These games come around every now and then: the circumstances to arrive there for each team is very different, the build up as much so, and for all the intensity we know for these Bledisloe Test Matches those differences fold into the crucible to bring to kick off time a bristling fresh occasion, yet all the while history wraps its arms around it. There is a future outside of all that, and as you say, those doors get closed.

   You’re so right. What point mentioning any thoughts or ideas for beyond Eden Park just now?

   As the All Blacks lift into levels they love so much, God-like untouchable as they choose it so, they raise the Wallabies with them. And once there, face to face, the Silver Fern nation playing out through fifteen men will come to know Gold once again.

   Time for the Wallabies to claim it. Dead right mate. It’s not about the World Cup. It’s about claiming supremacy, tonight.

   Posted on 21-Jul-07 at 1:52 am | Permalink
5. cs said:

   Did your mate play in the forwards?

   He was a hooker, cobber. Passion, I’ll tell you about friggin’ passion. Once I saw him get so offended by the opposition that he proceded to take it out on them one by one. He hammered them to the extent that, finally, they suddenly just forgot all about the ball and the whole team went after him at once. One of the funniest things I have ever seen in my life – 15 white jumpers, all chasing my mate up the field in this long line, with him beavering away for dear life at full pace in front of this furious pack of hellhounds and ultimately tearing off into the crowd. Ah, the amateur days of yesteryear!

   Meanwhile, yes, have we the right to step up so far at Eden Park today? I’m afraid I doubt it, but with immortality there for the taking, go the Wallabies!

   Posted on 21-Jul-07 at 10:03 am | Permalink
6. Ken Parish said:

   Ashley-Cooper isn’t a fullback by any stretch, but he’s an excellent player, and Australia would be a more solid and penetrative outfit with Gerrard and Lote Tuqiri on the wings and Ashley-Cooper as a super sub. Latham is certainly back as the no. 1 fullback, which again makes Australia stronger.

   I still don’t think Matt Dunning is the right man as a starting prop, although he’s certainly a much improved player from 18 months ago. The Wallabies forwards matched the All Blacks for the whole of the first half, but they couldn’t quite stay with them after half time. Maybe David Lyons and/or Wycliff Palu would make a difference as backrow subs. Waugh doesn’t seem to have what it takes these days. Connolly needs to find a way to suck more Blacks forwards into defensive rucks and mauls more often. Our backs have Buckley’s chance of making breaks while NZ can commit only 2 or 3 at the defensive breakdown and keep the rest in a straight defensive line across the field. Surely we could improve the pick and drive from the rucks, and even venture the occasional rolling maul? Those are the classic ways to suck players into the middle. Why didn’t we try them (well, we did pick and drive a couple of times, but needed stronger personnel to do so effectively – like Palu and/or Lyons – Hoiles is more mobile and certainly should start, but we need one of those bigger gamebreakers to come on early in the second half, I reckon)?

   And why didn’t we try Matt Giteau at halfback in the second half when it was obvious something new needed to be tried? They could have put Ashley-Cooper in the centres some time after Latham cam on, and put Giteau at half. Gregan had a good game overall, especially his kicking from the scrumbase in the first half, but he still delivers too slowly and doesn’t really threaten the line despite some occasional darting runs. OTO it wasn’t one of Larkham’s great games, perhaps in part because of the slow service.

   Overall though, it’s hard to disagree with Chris that the All Blacks are simply still a better and more composed team, although I also agree we’re much closer to them than I feared we would be at the beginning of the season.

   Posted on 22-Jul-07 at 9:45 am | Permalink
7. cs said:

   Ashley-Cooper isnt a fullback by any stretch, but hes an excellent player, and Australia would be a more solid and penetrative outfit with Gerrard and Lote Tuqiri on the wings and Ashley-Cooper as a super sub.

   Yes, it was hard not to feel for the Coopster. Hell of an ask, facing the mercurial Carter boot in the wet at Eden Park in a Bledders decider. Still, that steel determination to go-forward was clearly evident again. I’d bet my house that he would acquit himself at 15 in time, but it is time that we don’t have. The job’s Latham’s. End of story, except that Knucks should order him to pull his socks up.

   I’m not so sure about Lote. If Gerrard can demonstrate in the World Cup rounds that he really can keep his eye consistently on the ball like he did on Saturday, I’d go for him and Coops. I know, Lote is big and strong, and he sucks in the defence, but he has a problem scoring tries. For mine, Lote does not quite have the allround rugby skills and killer instinct of the other two. My gut says Coops and Gerrard on the wings, with Lote as the super-sub. This would allow Knucks to bring in the only clear advantage Lote has, which is his size and strength, just as the opposition’s legs begin to get heavy.

   Posted on 22-Jul-07 at 5:04 pm | Permalink
8. Robert said:

   Coops did look all at sea at fullback; perhaps it was the conditions, and certainly it was a hell of a way to blood him at 15: Eden Park in a Bledder’s decider. His natural game appears to be more about ‘getting on the go’ and doesn’t have the ‘stability’ element that a true grit 15 has inbuilt, from which to draw on when needed. Coops’ blunder before half time created a turning point, as a result, which changed not only the game at the time, bringing the All Blacks deep (for the conditions) into our half and riled to score, which they did, it also changed the conversation in the sheds. From what would have been “we can beat these blokes, we’re forty minutes away from winning, this is what we’ll do to secure it” to “we have to get back in the game”. The All Blacks’ half time conversation was changed, too, from “we have to do better” to “we’re on top now, keep it going”. Those pre-break loss of points in those conditions at that time for this decider game absolutely required a full-back to be rock solid in all he does – Coops in his new spot missed those things.

   But I’m growing as a fan of him, for sure. He looks like he hungers to win, and he’s got something others in the backline are lacking, which is the will to want to change a game (in contrast to Gerrard and Gregan). Early days, but the Coopster appears set for a remarkable career. Hopefully, he’ll find (and be given) a spot through which he can guide his natural skill and hunger, without having it dispersed through trying to be all things in all positions at all times.

   Australia started this game very well. I think it surprised them to find themselves deep in All Black territory after the whistle, and staying there. Territory is everything in the wet, and they had 68% of it in the first half – an incredible feat. I think, also, this led to a problem, which was that it seemed every person was wanting the other to convert that pressure into points.

   I’m going to be critical here, perhaps unfairly, but we are in the business of winning and what we did was not good enough. Firstly, the game plan lacked the ability to contain the All Black forwards as noted above, I think, from not expecting to be as competitive as they were – ie, they more than held their own with the Blacks’ forwards but did not go the next step to contain the latter and set the ground for capitalising. Secondly, and this runs with the first point, but stands on its own, the Wallabies lacked the killer element which thrills up in each player to want to change the game. Yes, the conditions were tough, and yes we held our own for a good part of the game, but regardless of the workload required and made no one went that extra step. This is the “claiming it” that was needed.

   Gregan is a key player in this. His whole history is one of playing well behind a beaten pack, or well behind a dominating pack, but he’s never changed a game when things are in balance. This is a halfback’s role. He has to either direct his forwards differently to set up the occasion, or he has to call the moves in the backs and co-ordinate the forwards to that, or he has to do it himself. Gregan did none of this. I wonder, now, at his leadership qualities. Old wily forwards can captain teams for bloody ever, but backs cannot usually. At some point, the difference that makes a player want to be a back – a certain mental sharpness if you like – starts to dull, and while he can get around that through positional experience and game choices as he gets older, the killer leadership qualities go missing. Perhaps he’ll come back again with a vengeance, he has before, but I feel too much of it has been lost.

   So someone else has to call the changes as needed onfield, and Mortlock at OC is too far out to do it. Gits doesn’t do it at halfback, and Larkham should remain free from it. I can’t see a leader in the forwards as a stand out either. Hence, we have a problem, and only the coach (singular ffs) and Gregan can address it, which they must.

   Our scrum was surprising. The wet can be a leveler, but it can also drive a stake through a scrum’s failings, so it gets a pass from me. This is very heartening, and something Eddie the Chat totally lacked.

   Backs can run it and win in the wet – the opposition is on the same footing and when a backline decides to go it, in the wet, a psychological advantage kicks in which puts the opposition off. Mortlock handled it, what, thrice in the first half? That won’t deliver us a win.

   We did well, but critically we should not be pleased. What was missing for us to win absolutely needs addressing or we shall be the good guys and be lost later to squabbles and shit. We need more killer.

   Finally, to win this match we needed to do something that the whole push in modern rugby doesn’t allow for: we had to play an ugly spectacle to end up with the silverware. As noted above, we had to roll the mauls, and roll them, and roll them all day. The crowd should, really, have hardly seen the ball. When the ball does come, we do the territorial and pressure high kicks (done well in the first half), and the grubber in just behind the opposition backs. Larkham tried it, kicking into a wall of opposition feet – and that so early should have called the change of play right then. If you can’t place a grubber through defending feet, the problem is closer in.

   And, run. It is a misconception born of misplaced common sense that you don’t run with the wind, or in the wet. Kicks as mentioned above are strategic, not the base plan. The base plan, given the rolling maul platform (which itself when firmly established serves to settle the forward play back into an easier, more traditional platform) is to run it. Stand very close, passes are five feet or so in length, and run and pass. Wet backline play is about depth, not width. Rugby League does it day in and day out, and we should have this as second nature as that. Of our twenty or so backline moves from Scott Johnson, we did not have one wet weather ‘move’ last night.

   Posted on 22-Jul-07 at 6:36 pm | Permalink
9. Robert said:

   Might as well make mention of a wet weather skill taught Australia by the All Blacks and used over half a century ago. An old Number Eight coach who played against them taught it to us as kids, and it takes a hell of a lot of doing. This bloke had us spending ten minutes or so each training run practising exactly this, and it won us games when Saturday rain came. The All Blacks have performed it brilliantly in the not too distant past.

   You hardly see it these days, if at all, in this hemisphere at least. It is the ability for a forward pack to dribble the ball at their feet. Often the pack links arms, certainly they are shoulder to shoulder, and the ball dribbles and bounces through wet and mud and sludge at the forward’s instep or ankle or shin. It is counteracted by an opposition dropping on the ball, requiring a body sacrifice, but when timed right this skill should allow you to see that coming, when you can drop on the ball and drive over, securing it. This is an adjunct to the rolling maul, needs the right occasion to do it – often happening during a break from rolling the maul, or through a broken lineout win, or from broken play. A forward can drop the ball to his feet, and the pack charges on as one into the weak spot with the greasy ball popping around and under control, scaring the bejeesus out of the pointy heads who have to confront the oncoming mass, and setting up a precious few yards – but, importantly, removing the critical hand-control pressure from where it started often with one man out and allowing your pack to form with theirs in disarray behind you.

   The game has widened in the forwards these days, but what draws the opposition pack back in are these sorts of tactics.

   Does it rain in France?

   Posted on 22-Jul-07 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
10. cs said:

    Gregan is a key player in this.

    Some brief comments. First, I am always annoyed with the prejudice with which George is too frequently treated, most of which I put down to the extreme prejudice of the perennially irritating, utterly predictable, cliche ridden commentary of the talentless, rugby-hating, admin grovelling, League toady, the always and only self-amusing, not to mention loathed-by-every-rugby-fan-I-know, Greg Growden, in the SMH. This is not to say that I disagree with any of Robert’s or Ken’s points, of course. I just had to get that off my chest for starters.

    My qualification on Ken’s view is, yes, compared to Nick Farr-Right Jones, George has slow service. But you always have to remember that Nick had Noddy of The Great Hands outside him, who was always picking Nick’s balls up off his toes, over his head, behind his back, and so on. There is a trade-off here, and it is unfair to just keep ignoring it.

    Mostly, although of course not always, Bernie gets slightly slower but more perfect passes from George. OK, playing my own devil’s advocate, I concede that Whits had a faster pass than George and a better pass than Nick. But there is only so much scientific room to move here, and Whits split the difference. Maybe Whits had an unrealised claim at some stages. But my point is that speed is never everything. You have to figure the rest, and Bernie himself has always seemed to appreciate the accuracy of George’s service.

    On Robert’s view, about Greeg’s never having changed a game when things are in balance. This is of course wrong. George won a Bledisloe for us, and thus deserves a retrospective knighthood, with one of his tackles. OK, I might agree that he has never changed a game as a “half-back”, but I also reckon he’s saved quite a few as a number 8 in disguise. Kilo for kilo, he’s one of the strongest players I’ve ever seen.

    So much for being brief. A final quickie on the captaincy, on which I agree with everything Robert has said, even though I think Morts is in equal parts 100 per cent awesome and 100 per cent heart. Going through the candidates, you end up with the forwards, where you can’t have Smithy, as he goes into his own zone, into which no other human being dare tread. You can’t have Sharpy. Although he’s playing the best rugby of his career, he still fades out in the Force 10 field. Rocky is too young, but may get there one day. Dunning has more than enough on his plate, even though he also might get there eventually if he can keep growing at his recent rates. Waugh is out of the picture, and if he doesn’t get some serious game time soon, could even be at risk of disappearing altogether.

    Yep, this leaves only one bloke, and it’s Vicks. He already runs the line-out, and his form is unbelievably fabulous and incredibly consistent. I think he is South African born, so we might need to run a Fosters test on him or something, but, subject to him having acclimatised to Vegemite, buying a Holden, seen a kangaroo and whatnot, I hereby launch the Vicks for Wallaby Captain campaign.

    Come on down Daniel Vickerman, and stand up tall. The country you have adopted needs you.

    Posted on 23-Jul-07 at 12:34 am | Permalink
11. Robert said:

    Thankfully ‘submit’ ate my last comment; something along the lines of why Number 8′s always love the taste of a halfback… always good, age is no matter; nor that prejudice could go both ways (imagine a fresh halfback: what we’d require; or, of a dried-out old hundred and thirty: what do we allow to fall away). Better never to take ‘em on, even if their mates are hookers…

    And Vicks is interesting.

    Posted on 23-Jul-07 at 4:16 am | Permalink
12. Patrick said:

    Er, Robert, re your tactic, are you more than 60 years old? Because a) no modern player would flinch at diving on that ball, even at schoolboy level, and b) if you linked arms like that you would be red carded today, straightaway.

    I think Ashley Cooper is awesome, too, and I love the idea of him replacing Mortlock in a couple years time, and Gerrard and Turner on the wings with Cameron Shepherd at fullback – surely we have the strongest developing backline in the world?

    I think our scrums are near enough good enough for now. We are still not clever enough more than anything else – Dunning needs to get his bum lower and push Woodcock up (although maybe the only people in the world who can do that are Carl Hayman, Jason Leonard and de Villiers). That way, McCaw drives Woodcock around in on Dunning’s head, Woodcock will just pop up like a jack in the box. Alternatively we need a stronger scrummaging hooker, along the lines of John Smit. But I think we can cope with what we have.

    I think Vickerman is great, but I would have Gregan stay as captain, and if not Gregan, Smith.

    Honestly, that was about their best effort, at home and in the wet. I think we’ll win in the semis, and that’ll be revenge enough.

    Posted on 23-Jul-07 at 9:16 am | Permalink
13. Robert said:

    “no modern player would flinch at diving on that ball, even at schoolboy level”

    Of course, Patrick. And while we’re warmly reminiscing, there was another tactic, which too has gone by the wayside for one reason or another. This was when one of those unflinching players dived on the ball, your team could designate a player (only ever one who performed this) who would gently place his feet against the ‘diver’s” body, and tenderly guide the opposition player through a carefully-made opening for him at the rear of the ruck. This was a delightful manouvre, and reminiscent of some sort beautiful onfield ballet, where the soles of that one person’s designated feet would turn the defender over, rolling them, with deft touch – a pirouette! If the defender was obliging, and they usually wanted to stay there and achieve as much as this as possible together, the designated person might be able to carefully ease the defender through four, maybe five of these delightful pirouettes, to which the crowd would exhale a collective lovely sigh.

    A bloke like Poidevin, for instance, loved it so much he lost sleep at night, tossing and turning in the sheets, causing all that scar tissue where skin should be down the back of both his legs.

    Posted on 23-Jul-07 at 4:43 pm | Permalink
14. Robert said:

    Chris, have had a second look at Vickerman, in the mind’s eye. I admit he’s skipped under my radar. Some while ago I think I wrote the second rowers off due to regular mild performances from his partners, and probably shifted this onto him, but you’re right: he’s consistent and strong. Our scrum has been beaten terribly recently – enough to scare while watching – and taking into account how Vickerman would likely feel, feeling the front row go absent, does throw this in a new light. For a lock to shine he must feel security at the core: the scrum, and I don’t believe he would have. In that way it’s fair to say he’s overcome considerable ground to be as solid.

    Being provocative, perhaps, I believe leaders are born. No matter the politics off field, or other imperatives, a true leader will make a claim by that inherent leadership presence with an end result tending to have all paths lead to him.

    People around the Australian squad, Australia and Australia A, have admitted themselves that a feeling of loss exists beyond (they say beneath) that. We’ve spoken here before about the Australian rugby system not identifying key positional players, and blooding them, treasured. We’ve mentioned also that leadership – forward leadership, and backs, and captaincy overall – has similarly not been identified and blooded, treasured.

    The question arises as to how modern Australian rugby finds, or views by need, its captaincy. Perhaps it sees captaincy differently now: I dare not move thoughts in that direction just yet.

    However, there must be some confidence for Australian captains to develop as a result of the modern process, by these (lack of) actions: that somehow the machination of the selection and game process like a sausage machine if you like (but not to be disparaging necessarily) will turn out a “product” unique enough to take lead.

    It is the “unique enough” element which is disturbing in that scenario.

    The nexus and dynamic between coach and players has been altered beyond recognition. The natural funnel from off-field responsibility and will, and dare I say wisdom, has been decentralised; when once a coach was living the on-field unfolding reality as much as the team yet given grace and time to consider when on-field players didn’t, has changed now to what amounts to players having off-field minders. Removing that pivotal funnel born of time and space from the players’ focus may be creating a new kind of captaincy. In reverse, maybe now what is more required is not so much the calling of on-field shots, but the stabilising of the off-field disparity, so it all comes together on the paddock.

    I don’t lament these changes: they pose challenges we looking on can only catch up with. However, there are essentials, and we are dealing with players and a game plan. If the natural rugby game plan has changed so much that no one source is enough to create success, so be that, for the game would be going in an altogether new direction (ending up as, say, a grafting of League to Grid Iron). But if rugby is to honour its reason for being as historically enjoyed, that leadership nexus and dynamic as gold remains.

    While team, or rather, squad, “housing” as conceived is completely different these days, the leadership requirements and needs are changing subtly.

    The test is on the paddock. As a representative Australian team, the Wallabies in Auckland did not exhibit the ability to change or adapt onfield. Their game was more of the same, and we either win or we don’t.

    In the end, we can look at our incredible workload, our successes, the referee, differences in individual skills (Carter vs Coops) – but we need to be careful that we are not missing the essential thing which changes all of that. That’s leadership: forward leadership – the centralised custodian and disseminator of forward play (we don’t have that: our forwards are equal); backs leadership – the organising of defence (we have that) and the strategic play that will set up the occasion for the break to occur (we have that), yet the combination of them – and the ability to alter it then and there, on onfield evidence is missing. “Wearing them down” or “the breaks will come” is not enough.

    We’ve hampered with our captaincy: that onfield funnel channeling the off=field time and space wisdom, this year. Chris makes points above which could point to why this has happened, as are other criticisms of the known and proven leader Gregan.

    I do wonder how Vicks feels. He’s been leading himself against negatives imposed by weaknesses elsewhere, to overcome. I’ll be looking more closely at him, Chris. I do think you’re onto something there, and I add my uncertainties as to what sort of captain is required these days, depending on where the game is to go.

    If it’s to draw on the great tradition of world rugby, a captain to take hold of here-and-now onfield (and maybe off), and make that ground for future decade success, whether he’s still there or not, either or born or bred, is needed.

    Posted on 23-Jul-07 at 8:41 pm | Permalink
15. Aidan said:

    This meme about Carter’s boot is an odd one. It was Rocko who kicked the ball that AAC muffed. And, in general, the Wallabies kicking game was far superior to the ABs (in the first half, they didn’t have the ball in the second).

    The little chip kicks from Gregan et al were nice, well weighted, and well chased.

    Mortlock was constantly a handful and beat at least 3 tackles every time he had the ball. More play should be set up around him. He will attract more defenders and is a fabulous distributor when being tackled. They should run off him all day I reckon.

    I liked the way the Wallabies found a part of the game they thought they could compete in and used it to pressure the ABs. They contested the lineouts really well and it plays on the other teams mind — they can’t be assured of retaining possession from their own throw, that is disastrous in a wet weather game.

    I definitely rate Hoiles above Lyons. Lyons is ordinary. Elsom should be doing more of the ball-in-hand work. If Smith can manage it, so can he. If he can’t maybe they’d be better with a Hoiles/Palu/Smith loose-forward trio?

    As mentioned in comments above, the Wallaby scrum would benefit from a strong scrummaging hooker. And as I have alluded, the Wallaby pack could do with some more go-forward.

    Jeremy Paul.

    Won’t happen, and I don’t know he would have enough time to get match fit, but he fits the bill in both departments.

    With respect to the “best young backline around” .. the All Black backline are hardly a bunch of old stagers:

    Dan Carter 25
    Brendon Leonard 22
    Luke McAlister 23
    Isaia Toeava 21
    Josevata Rokocoko 24
    Sitiveni Sivivatu 25
    Malili Muliaina 27

    They could all still be there when the next World Cup rolls around (2011, NZ)
    (though in all probability McAlister has been lured to Sale for next season, so the ABs will be light one classy hard running inside centre).

    Posted on 24-Jul-07 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
16. Patrick said:

    I have fresh enough memories of those pirouettes, Robert. The upper thighs and ribcage were the key points, I recall. But just about from tip to toe was covered one time or another :)

    Posted on 24-Jul-07 at 3:09 pm | Permalink
17. Robert said:

    I bet you do, Patrick – it was fun in the cold and wet, too, wasn’t it. Thinking of these things led me back to Eden Park with Hippy getting spat out of the back from deep inside, and lo behold, over at RugbyHeaven there is a storyfrom that day. Great match, great times. Corno – whose hands are huge and could hold the pill like we hold tennis balls – would practise his tackling by running alongside sheep, grabbing them, and then running them into the ground. Up on his farm, that was work to him, and he did it all day (in season or whatever, but that’s of a first hand account by a close teammmate). Those weren’t pretty rugby grounds either.

    Up in the New England competition – not bad, when you look at the Wallaby players from around that time who came from up there – Greg would do the same to five-eighths and centres. Apparently it was more frightening than getting hit head on – a pointy head would find himself suddenly embraced by some bear thing and ‘running’ fast in that hold in whatever direction it wanted, until the landing strip would arrive, and down he’d be driven…zzzzz. It was effective because his teammates would be prepared to pick from the carcass, or at it, and the play would be moved singlehandedly huge distances away, leaving the once-attackers vulnerable.

    Posted on 24-Jul-07 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
18. Club Troppo » Missing Link (delayed, again) said:

    [...] Sheil previews and reviews last weekend’s Bledisloe Cup rugby decider (well, the reviews are more in the comment thread really, although there’s a short wrap by [...]

    Posted on 25-Jul-07 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
19. cs said:

    I have a time problem with commenting (let alone posting), but let me show you a little of what I mean about Greg Growden. His column today is nothing unusual. In fact, he is usually much worse, but it is bleeding obvious why he is reviled amongst rugby-tragics. He starts:

    The Wallabies selectors must be praised for making Stirling Mortlock the World Cup captain, but the rest of the squad announcement is sleep-inducing.

    Translated, I hate Gregan, so I’ll start with my usual cheap shot. I also hate rugby, so I’ll finish my opener by falling asleep.

    There is a real whiff of the failed 1995 Australian World Cup campaign about this one – involving too many players too close to the end of their careers, too many carrying injuries, and too many included for past deeds.

    I don’t need facts to back up sweeping condemnations, for I’m Greg Growden and I’m bored with this game, and I hate George Gregan.

    As everyone in South Africa remembers, Australia departed early in that tournament, and the 1995 selectors have to bear a lot of the blame.

    Sure pal. A reasonable standard is that the Wallabies have to win every World Cup or the selectors have failed. Wanker.

    The 2007 Australian selectors – John Connolly, Scott Johnson and Michael O’Connor – have not taken any risks, and that’s sad. Especially after all the promises made over the past year or so.

    No risks? What planet does this guy live on? For starters we have Julian Huxley, Berrick Barnes, Stephen Hoiles, Wycliff Palu, Hugh McMeniman, Stephen Moore, Sean Hardman who are all newbie Wallabies, and there are many risks in the proper meaning of the word in other selections. Growden is the sad one, a sad case of a man in the wrong job taking it out on his subject.

    It is perplexing that numerous extravagant players have been overlooked, and staid performers who can do the job, but who are known backwards by the opposition, have been preferred.

    See above comment, and there is nothing perplexing about the selections, except what has happened to Jeremy Paul and, I would argue, Benn Robinson. What he means is that he is bored with rugby, which is clearly too perplexing for such a staid reporter.

    Why NSW winger Lachlan Turner was not named in the squad is beyond me, along with the most skilful of hookers, Tatafu Polota-Nau. Thankfully, five-eighth Kurtley Beale was at least considered. Small consolation, though.

    It’s beyond him because the dunderhead we have for a chief rugby correspondent in the SMH is so terminally thick and lazy that he cannot remember that the selectors made public comments ruling out all the promising young guys for this Cup about six months ago. There are some arguments to be had here, but the selectors have also taken a reasonable position looking to the future, which should hardly be beyond anyone, let alone someone masquarding as a specialist rugby writer. What he means is that he is so bored with rugby that he wants a whole new lot to look at to perk him up a bit, sad chappie. This would be believable if he had bothered reporting on them during the Super 14, but alas he found it all too boring.

    This was one of Growden’s better efforts, believe it or not. I think it is crystal clear that we have a lazy, bored, ignoramous, substituting his own bad attitudes and loose language in place of offering Sydney rugby readers any analysis of the World Cup squad. The guy should shift to League, a topic on which he will spend any number of words at the drop of a hat, like today.

    Save Spiro Zavos, the Australian is the only paper for rugby fans to read.

    Posted on 26-Jul-07 at 12:13 am | Permalink
20. Patrick said:

    I agree with cs’ comment. In addition, I would add that he is too kind re the NSW trio. I believe they are good enough to deserve Wallaby spots. But they don’t really deserve them, and didn’t get them, because NSW has a past-it coach and they were all (except to some extent Lachlan, in relation to whom one can google ‘Greg Crowden 2006 Drew Mitchell’ and copy and paste the rest) bit-players in a disastrous s14 season.

    How could someone relegated behind Norton-Knight, patently not a Wallaby, be themselves a Wallaby? How could the selectors decide that Freier was their non-preferred back-up player, and then decide that his deputy was their preferred back-up player?

    Their non-selection is as much McKenzie’s fault as the Wallaby selectors.

    Posted on 26-Jul-07 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
21. Robert said:

    Informative and appreciated. Must say as someone who missed S14 I’ve learned more about the current players here than anywhere else – and certainly more insight and perspective.

    I wonder if the bland, vague and dispassionate rugby writer Crowden’s continuance at the significant Australian rugby supporter destination of Rugby Heaven is due to the floating levels of structure of Australian rugby.

    Currently, players get a S14 contract, play out of position for the higher level, if selected that day, and play at Test or near-Test intensity, starting training (if they ever stopped) in summer heat. So from what still remains enough of club rugby passion and structure, where players come through the ranks in positions they know and love: they’re quickly cut from the lifeblood of that passion and structure and become floating “assets” to a corporate unit, in the above conditions. They feel very ‘individual’ to say the least. The “comfort” level provided by this “union” (anything but) in return for player’s commitment to arrive at the point of knocking on the door is not sufficient, and not “accounted” for by money. Have a look at the battalions of players who have left the Waratahs in the last decade, volitionally.

    At the floating S14 level, players are cut off from below, and through demands requiring often positional change, and a varying corporate mindset, from above.
    There are a lot of them, many more than the teams of fifteen plus reserves on the field, whose passion and commitment is seeking expression.

    At the Wallaby squad level, they’ve tried to accommodate the numbers and provide some sort of structure by creating the Australia A system. The pacific series is great for the island nations (love it for them), but unsatisfactory as an attempt to strengthen structure. Players, again, are often out of position – or include out of combination for that. And, when there, the “lot of numbers” suddenly looks very thin, and becomes of necessity a here-and-now thing, because the same situation will be there next year, so it’s dog eat dog in another floating level.

    On top of that, the Wallaby squad system allows for reaching out, as the others, into a wholely-other sport, League, to grab a player and put them into all of that and shake the system up even further.

    This is not as criticism, necessarily, but to make mention of problems we already know, in terms of how then to write it up.

    There are so many disparate and hungering interests to be served, through all of this, that a writer of passion and point could put the SMH in some heavy off-field lobbying which it just doesn’t want. So you get an amorphous bit of pap to, effectively, feed the general amorphous mass and not upset anyone.

    A site like Crikey specialising in rugby would make a killing. Imagine the insider knowledge wanting a public run? Imagine the leaks. Imagine the quality articles that could be had – all from having no corporate interest or egg-shell passage and serving the rugby fans with what they really want.

    Posted on 26-Jul-07 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

Leave a Reply