 |
Australia’s rugby record against England starkly confutes the notion that ability is a simple function of resources. England has over 700,000 rugby players; Australia has fewer than 70,000. Yet, more often than not, we flog the place on the field. Of the 33 Tests decided over the last 100 years, the Wallabies have won 20. Despite a playing pool 10 times our size, England’s First 15 hasn’t been much more than half as good as the Wallabies.
Along with everyone else in the rugby world, bar those poor unfortunates who actually live in the place where the sun don’t shine, I expect the Wallaby victory roll to reach 21 on Saturday night. The dangers are the English scrum, Jonny Wilkinson’s boot and the Pommie propensity to go the niggle. If the Poms are good for anything at all, they’ll give us a fair measure of how far our scrum has come since that dark day when we fell apart at Twickenham in November 2005. We’re also likely to get an idea of the tactics Knuckles has dreamed up to counter the field goal, which will be just as vital against the Springboks, should we manage to go all the way.
To see Australia crush England into the French dust would be a joy to behold. Such a result is not beyond the realm of possibilites. But, as hopeless as they have been in the pool games, I don’t expect the reigning World Champions to bow out without a decent fight. Nor do I think a walloping is necessarily the World Cup winning way for the Wallabies. Remember 1999 dear fans. Gradually, Australia lifted through the tournament, rising to the challenge of each match, but rising no further than necessary. I’ll be happy, so long as we’re not on the plane home Sunday.
Go the Wallabies!
Update: Some great rugby reading in today’s paper. Wayne Smith has a pearler of an overview (Knuckles is doing a star turn – if the Wallabies win the Cup, he should start his own tv show). Mark Ella is spot on, as usual, with a perfect summary of the form so far. And then there is this strange one from Simon Barnes, an Englishman who climbs up on his high-horse to declare that he is not “neo-colonial, possessed of a born-to-rule mentality, a racial supremacist, a little Englander, a snooty bastard, an avoider of baths, an oppressor, a cultural elitist, a snob … a racist, Pope Hadrian IV, a Black and Tan, Oliver Cromwell, the Duke of Cumberland, an anti-Catholic, an anti-Protestant, Edward I, a silencer of Celtic languages”. He concludes that the “England-hating O’Neill is (a) pathetic, (b) a bigot and (c) locked in the past,” therein disclosing that he has missed the bleeding obvious, which is that John O’Neil is a headline hunter and Simon Barnes’ scalp is now in his trophy bag. Go the Wallabies!
Update: I wish I could say that the better team lost. Or that we wuz robbed. Or that they were lucky. I wish I could say anything at all, except the dreaded truth, which is that England outplayed Australia. Even worse, the 12-10 result doesn’t reflect how much better the Poms played. Hats off to their forwards in particular, who dominated, not so much in the scrum, where we sort of hung on, but at the breakdown, in a way that I would have never believed possible. So comprehensively did they throw the Wallabies off their game, it seemed as though they had an extra player, or two or three, on the field. Well done and deserved England. Four more years of gloating Pommies. Oh, the pain, the pain. It’s only a game, right? Oh, the pain …
CS said: “Of the 33 Tests decided over the last 100 years, the Wallabies have won 20. Despite a playing pool over 10 times our size, Englands First 15 hasnt been much more than half as good as the Wallabies.”
Sorry to pick a nit, but you appear to be assessing relative goodness by win:loss ratios. If, however, most of the games were very close (say, 45-39, or 23-24), I think that win:loss ratios would give a quite misleading impression of how much better the Wallabies are. I agree that the Wallabies have been better overall, and from a small pool as you point out, but let’s not get too carried away.
76-0 must weight the numbers in cs’ favour don’t you think?
The Poms do this with cricket also – a big player pool (presumably) but nothing too special in terms of results. I rather admire that. They don’t get too excited about it. That old amateur ethic still survives whereas we’re obsessed and driven in sport as nowhere else. Sad in a way. Still it’s nice when we win! :)
“Don’t get too excited” … “Amateur ethic” … the Poms! Gimme a break Nicholas. Where you been?
England scours the world with great wads of cash to pick the eyes out of the world’s rugby teams, which is why Aussies go over there to clean up after their careers finish here. There’s nothing amateur on your life mate. Perhaps one of their big failings is that Pommies think they can just go out and buy success.
As for not being obsessed about winning, have you ever even seen an English tabloid? And who gets Knighthoods, MBEs and London parades when they do manage to win something, once in a blue moon? When they beat us to win the World Cup, the Poms even printed a special stamp that only worked for stuff that was posted to Australia! The only time Poms pose as not being excited by winning is when they are not, which thankfully is most of the time. Don’t be fooled.
I think that win:loss ratios would give a quite misleading impression of how much better the Wallabies are.
Heh. Points scored by Australia: over 700. Points scored by Pommies: under 500. Average Australian points per match: over 20. Average Pommie points per match: under 15.
Some of those tries would be worth four and three points as we go back, which further boosts Australia’s record and firms what cs is saying, because everyone knows England don’t score tries.
Is Nicholas confusing the pommy propensity to sulk? (Some even sulk when they win. And some totally lose it, even before the match. Have a go at the soccer mob).
Fact is, we love to play them in Rugby and we love to beat them. It’s amusing, among other things. But I think they still like us, if only they’d glance up a moment to let us know.
I think they still like us
After one of their rare wins, have you ever had to put up with a gloating Pommie you couldn’t get away from? There are few worse tortures. The only good Pommie is one that’s under your heel. Quite nice chaps then, I agree.
CS,
I plead ignorance. Those beastly Poms with their chequebooks. I never knew.
It’s still not much of a game to watch now is it?
The scrum is the quintessential British institution!
Yes indeed. Friend in Hand hotel, Glebe, England backpacker-specialist on Wednesday crab racing nights – they don’t come any other time – a few days after one of those rare rugby wins by them over us. Smelly, disgusting burpy beery breath all up your nostrils. Leaning into your face with soggy eyes turning you mindless just watching. The common loud belch. The ear bashing. Non-stop used car yard voice about what we did wrong in the match [burpfart] and what they did right [your shout? I got loads of help, more beer, woops, sorry about that, now where was I?}. Her husband was even worse.
I’ve met many of her cousins, Robert.
And then there are those friggin’ Poms who will continue to insist on their gloating rights for victories in sports you don’t even damn well follow, refusing to drop that stupid superior smirk, even after you tell them you don’t know what the hell they’re talking about and don’t give a rats anyway. I’ve never met any countrypersons so hung up about winning, except perhaps the New Zulunders when it comes to the All Blicks – but at least they have something substantial to work with. Pommies. Talk about a place that needs to get over itself. Sheesh.
Quarter finals right, so there are three other games this weekend. Form suggests that the RWC will then between teams from the Southern Hemisphere. Of course, nothing is certain. Still, and fortunately, there is another form of partisanship.
Furthermore, in the end I expect the best team to win, and the Wallabies will account for England.
Some serious grounds to spark inspection, cs. These two are chokkers: countrypersons so hung up about winning, and a place that needs to get over itself. A book in that alone. As a country we mention these things, in relation to such a big part of our settled heritage, but only because we’re engaging them on a sporting field, or, in extrapolated form of portent, in some other theatre on the world stage. Many of our grandparents may have felt British roots, or assumed heritage, some certainly did, as to live it daily. IMO, nationally, we feel free today (so we can comment so). One thinks of the Ellas as schoolboys running through the English tour as though the kingdom of the outback were the playfield. Surely we cut ties then.
That, only, they can look on. (It’s simple really: run you buggers, run! You do have team-mates who will take the ball.. )
Lifting from an earlier thread, for Patrick – the English scrum as constricted headcrunching determinant of national rugby is acknowledged. That is taken into the game. Nothing underestimated. We are aware, too, that in finals a little flick happens, just there, in the corner of the eye – one way and another. Before packing in. One team has the light, the other, fear. It’s quick, as you know. I’ll back the Aussies for that flash of light, and watch once, twice, for a changing of the guard, after engagement, as we haul their chariot assunder. ‘Finals’, as well, is a determinant – a player. If we’re to win, that player will be on our side, once or twice, in the scrums.
I love the spirit Robert. Plus, I have a mate who reminds me several times a year that Martin Johnson was the first captain in the history of the World Cup to make an acceptance speech who did not acknowledge the opposition team.
Personally, I haven’t forgiven the bastards for the potato famine, but maybe that’s just Celtic me. Go the Wallabies!
That Simon Barnes article (per the update) is whacko. Talk about humourless – it’s hilarious!
And while we’re ribbing the men in white emblazoned with a red rose, how embarrassing is it to hear “God Save The Queen” as an anthem? (And how embarrassing that the Queen hasn’t asked it to be ditched – perhaps she likes it?) God save her from what? What would be different if she were saved? The implication is she needs it. Implied also is that there is knowledge of what it’s like to be saved, how else would one request it for her? Must be good, but what is it? Is she failing? Falling? Might be accidentally deleted? God! Save our Queen! She’s gracious, by the way – Please!!??! God!!?!! Please save our Queen.
What a crack up!
Heh. “an avoider of baths” is the first give-away, when everyone knows that the proper scientific term is “bath-dodger”.
Congratulations, England. They did everything required of them to win. Pass to Wilkinson – field goal?, no. Thirty times over. Australian backs – Giteau, Coops, Mortlock – world beaters – shut down before then. If Australia were to win, we had to do the same, to bleach the colours of the opposition, build on our strengths, stay mistake free, and patience. We had patience. But it was England who taught us a rugby lesson tonight. Our backline was bleached to the point of invisible; our tactics, held preciously in the back pocket as gold, remain there, as gold, to dig up at some time later. Meaningless, really, for what are ideals? We had so much we wanted to do, can do. As with the Welsh of decades past, the All Blacks, too, in their time, what may be gained from losses is no surety of future glory.
That’s rugby, that’s life. How else would you want it. We live to revel in the joy of the ups, to dig it up when at times we see there’s nothing to dig into, to hug losses and wins as to suck from that distraction, for the fact that we live on is it.
England deserved it. At the end of the day, that’s the call. Smelly bastards, noisy with the chariot thing – not a look in, scrums-wise, btw – poncy fartharded breathed-up dizzled whick slickled..
Well done.
Four more years of gloating Pommies.
But no gloating Kiwis, at least. That must be some kind of consolation.
why is it that thugby ‘fans’ who claim to have played the game and who badmouth journos who haven’t write up so much drivel and are shown up so dreadfully by said Journo.
Australia fluked a final place last mickey mouse cup. It only had one back of pace and none of creativity and like Whitlam in 77 was never going to win.
By golly that improved scrum was something else and that magnificent pass from the halfback something to really enjoy.
On the other hand whilst the Kiwis had plenty of pace they had no-one to set it up.
Why of why does it take a football fan to state the obvious?
Probably because we have seen it all before.
By golly wasn’t John O’Neill good in taking on his old job.
Since I work with one of his sons who prefers football I will have to tell him that. Perhaps he can add the Argies to the Three nations and make it four nations
Congrats England – played very well.
What a brutal bloody game!
I was completely wrong. The English and French rugby supporters must be delighted, which is good for the game. I don’t expect it, but if France could win, that would be something.
Four years is a long time for this sort of disappointment. While plenty of ideas will come as a result of this Cup quest, only two stand out just now for mine – we need refreshment at halfback; may that decision be right, and may we bring into focus the absolute need to play each Test match through the year as though it were the last (not as part of a Cup preparation). We have to get back that winning feeling, bring it into the here and now, and enjoy that for the gifts it provides longer term. Time to enjoy our national rugby again for how we play, every time we play. We’re proud of our national team, always, and amongst the future pressures on them provided by the professional era the boys deserve to feel the pleasure of playing in the here and now.
What a brutal bloody game!
It’s no place for the faint-hearted, that’s for sure.
why is it that thugby fans who claim to have played the game and who badmouth journos who havent write up so much drivel and are shown up so dreadfully by said Journo.
It might help if you knew even a little of what you speak, Homer. After bagging the Wallabies all year as they began to show some form, two weeks ago – after the worst Wallaby performance of the year, and in retrospect something of a harbinger – said journo [sic] found that the Wallabies “remain alongside New Zealand and South Africa as the main threats of this tournament. Does this mean Fiji will win, so he can show the players up even more? Growden is incoherent. I told you to stay off the drugs.
If Australia were to win, we had to do the same, to bleach the colours of the opposition, build on our strengths, stay mistake free, and patience.
Watching the replay, the Wallabies were even worse on second viewing. Mistake ridden, only George Smith and, appropriately enough in this most unpredictable of Cups, Lote Tuqiri came through with their reputations fully intact. Stirling Mortlock didn’t play badly, but couldn’t get free, was too far out to command the play as captain, and let’s pray that the message has finally got through to the brains trust: the Wallabies must always – repeat, must always – have a top-ranked goal kicker for World Cups. Sheesh. Socks Down had a shocker, unnecessarily taking a kick out to give the Poms a crucial line-out throw, stupidly passing another to Barnsey instead of taking the tackle, to supply a handover – and I think his field-goal attempt marked the point where we lost: it told England that we’d given up on breaking the defence, that we had no faith in our running game. I also have to agree with Patrick: Knuckles and I were both wrong in not picking Drew Mitchell over the Coopster on his form. Knuckles was also wrong in pulling Smith for Waugh early, while leaving the sadly outclassed Stephen Moore on for far too long instead of Adam Freier. Baxter should not have got a start.
Yes Robert, Greegs lost it unforgiveably at one stage, turning a short-arm into a penalty. Apart from his defence and that one early run, he had an unhappy outing. Where we lost it strategically, for mine, was around the inside backs. The combination of the England forwards and the absence of Bernie Larkham put the winning pressure on Greegs, Barnes and Gits. You have to hand it to the Poms. The tactic of spreading it wide at the start spread the Wallabies, and they never adjusted. This is where Bernie was so badly missed. Without him, there is no-one else to identify the necessary counter-play, condemning us to reactive rugby.
Mind you, this has been the most unpredictable World Cup on record. Test form has proved almost no guide at all to Cup form. Despite the Wallabies’ loss, this has in turn also made for a magnificent tournament. Big stadiums, chock a bloc with great fans, all feeling genuinely hopeful for their teams. And, as Amanda says, no matter how bad for how long Australians will feel, it’s a very big consolation to know that, over the creek, there’s a country feeling exactly the same way, only feeling it 1000 times more intensely.
Go Fiji, the Argies, the French and the Boks, in that precise order!
So true, Chris. Thanks for blogging it mate. Made it all the more enjoyable – which it was. Rugby won. Ripper journey.
Let’s go for the ultimate gold – as you point to – where our island freestylers send the game into cosmic proportion mindspins, and flush the rugby world with magnificent second-third-fourth-thought magic. Fiji! to take it out. Go you good things!
Go Fiji, the Argies, the French and the Boks, in that precise order!
So much for Celtic solidarity.
Since when were the English Celtic?
? I refer to the Scots.
Go the Argies, my second home !
I refer to the Scots.
A lost cause, if there ever was one.
Cracker match between Fiji and the Boks. A big differential in the end. But with Fiji missing two tries literally by an inch or two, it could have so very easily gone the other way. A great tournament by the Fijians!
Hmm, guess I’m down to, in precise order, go the Argies, the French and, if all else fails, the Boks!
poor old CS,
it is easy for sophisticated football fans to see the scrum was hopless four years ago. What did we do.
Have Matt Dunning at prop. He is fatter than me, slower than me.
If we had such a wondefrul backline why did we keep putting the ball back into the forwards.
Our plan A failed but we had no plan B.
Goerge Gregan is like howard. Stayed around to long and consequently his liiabilties far outweigh his assets. his pass has always been poor, as slow as a Clapton riff, then put him behind a beateen pack and what happens?
It is no coincicidne that in this mickey mouse cup the two teams which played the most mickey mouse teams lost.
In THE world cup they are no soft games.
Here is a thought why not get a coach that can actually coach and doesn’t need 30,000 specific coaches for the team.
I must note too wasn’t it a great ides of the Kiwis to rest their players
It’s not a good idea to start drinking this early, Homer. When you sober up and learn a thing or two about the game, you might be worth a conversation. Until then, stick to comics.
Well, what a weekend. I woulda liked Fiji to win!
I can’t believe we rolled over so badly. I can’t believe no-one actually stopped the team, or even just the scrum, and huddled them around for just a few seconds to gather their thoughts.
We really did miss Larkham, and Mitchell should have started but might not have made the difference. We lost and deservedly so.
NZ were unlucky but also brain-dead. Just like us, just like France against Argentinia and just like South Africa for a while last night, their composure and their intelligence deserted them. South Africa distinguished themselves, admittedly against lesser opposition, by regathering. Would that we had done the same.
Ultimately, those teams that had to fight for qualification were the better for it. As was rugby. Here’s to France and Argentina closing out the tournament where they started it.
PS: Oh, and finally, can everyone shut up for ever about NZ’s depth? They never had any, like any other team they depended on their champions, they just had a lot. But who replaces Collins, Hayman, McCaw, Williams, Carter, McDonald? No-one at all, really. South Africa have depth, NZ don’t, we don’t.
Neither can I.
CS,
go admit just like howard you got it wrong, badly wrong indeed much worse than the person you villified.
Why is everyone so glum? On CS’s population-pool-adjusted basis, we thrashed them!
You’re off your head Homer, and an unreasonable, stubborn ass to boot. The Wallabies were always an outside chance, a real chance, but an outside one – who I would still happily take any bet would defeat the Poms in at least three out of any five Tests with Bernie playing. The reporter to whom you refer got it wrong one way at first, and then got it wrong the other way at his second go – primarily because his dogmatism is not matched by a genuine feel for the game, just like you. As much as I hoped and prayed, unlike said reporter, I never said the Wallabies would win, nor that they would not win, you dimwit. As I didn’t make dogmatic statements, all I can possibly admit to is bitter disappointment. End of story; end of discussion with you, unless you want to admit how completely wrong you were and still are.
P.S. Growden’s predictions was not even my main objection, you fool. It was, and is, his obsessiveness with off-field behaviour at the cost of SMH readers being able to be served with reports and analysis of the game on the field. I stand by every single word. He should be transferred to covering lawn bowls, forthwith.
stubborn ass eh,, me thinks you protests too much.
no what I said here was exactly the same when your magnificent playing experience based writing was suggesting otherwise.
It is lucky to only have played the game at school. We ignorami can obviously spot weaknesses than highly experienced ones!!
I have no idea what you’re talking about at large Homer, and care a zillion times less. You seem to have been trying to run a dozen arguments. However many fail at any given time, you switch to whatever one you think still works. I assume the latest is that you said before the cup that the Wallabies couldn’t win, whereas I thought they had an outside chance. As it happened, they didn’t win. Whacko! Bully for you. What do you want for being so clever? Put an ad in the paper. Erect a statue. Boast to your mother. Tell your children at bedtime. Include it in your will. Write your autobiography. Strike yourself a medal. Hire a skywriter. Get drunk. Open a blog in your own glorious honour. Apply for an AO. Marry Greg Growden. Take it in spades, it’s all completely yours. I for one couldn’t give a flying. I’m a rugby fan and you’re perfectly free to make your own arrangements. Let me openly admit that it’s abundantly clear that you are a genius, the like of which has rarely trode this earth. On a blog in the middle of nowhere to no-one who cared, Homer Paxton said he thought the Wallabies wouldn’t win the World Cup, and they didn’t. Sheesh. Large crowds will tremble at the mention of your name. Eat your heart out Albert Einstein. I trust you’re now applying for the job of coach of the All Blacks?
Position Vacant?
“…who dominated, not so much in the scrum, where we sort off hung on…”
Fair dinkum. You are delusional. There is nothing even borderline positive about that scrummaging display. Dunning and Baxter should be consigned to the scrap heap, as they should have more than two years ago. Their continuing selection was not only a mystery, but was negligent. But don’t ask me, ask every single Englishman, Scot, Irishman, Welshman, South African and Australian I spoke to about the matter before, during and after the match.
The selection of those two useless twits, ahead of Blake and Holmes, cost Australia the World Cup.
Perhaps murph. That was how I saw it at the time, but many agree with you, I notice in the press. I thought they didn’t do so bad in the first half, and matched at least one scrum in the disastrous second stanza. For mine, the bigger problem was that the effort drained our capacity at the breakdown. Dunning is the strongest of all the Wallaby forwards, so it still looks like technique and strategy as much as size. What is more curious about this is that the scrum achieved close to parity against the Boks and the Blacks earlier in the year. It’s a shame we won’t see a match-up between the Pom and the All Black scrums, but the contest between England and the French, and possibly the Boks, will be v. interesting. I reckon Benn Robinson has the most potential of our other props.
Around about now we’ve been thinking about Australia playing New Zealand in rugby and winning. Well, that happened yesterday. Australian schoolboys 23, NZ schools 17. In my schoolboy playing days they didn’t take on the mantle of ‘All Blacks’, (and the Wallabies were only the Wallabies when on tour), and from the brief article it does appear that tradition has remained.
I hope we’ve a solution or seven in the Schoolboys side for the time ahead, and, of course, maybe a very select, elite, rare oh so rare one or two New Zealand schoolboys may go on to become the illustrious “Junior All Black”. I’ve had the incredible good fortune of meeting one, anyone else?
I’ve never met a “Junior All Black”, but I like the sound of that victory. Let’s see, 17 or 18-years old now means 21 or 22 in 2011! Go the young Wallabies!
It’s a terrific victory. How about a couple of awesome refrigerator props, aged about 25, for next season. Are they allowed to play Schools Rugby? (Incidentally, years ago the touring English Schoolboys side had a policeman in the team, aged 21, due to some weird rules they had). The backs I can’t wait to see, as always.
There was a “Junior All Black” at Tamarama.
For the record, here is ten minutes of rather indistinct amateur “highlights” footage of the Schoolboys match, for the first half and second half. Not possible to tell much from it, but it’s there fwiw, and reason to congratulate the boys and thank the lucky pigskin you weren’t born a New Zealander.
Jake White for coach? Save me!
Also, spotted on Morgs blog:
Difference between the Wallabies and Viagra? At least Viagra will give you a semi
I heard an AFL joke on Sunrise this morning:
What’s the differenc between Port Power and an arsonist? An arsonist wouldn’t waste 22 matches.
I’m sure you could adapt that somehow for the Wallabies ….
for all youse thugby types.
given the cattle available try this for an expurgated version.
With a scrum going backwards it is essential to have a halfback that can pass quite quickly. to see this in action go to 70′s replays of North Sydney’s Peter Carson in action.
both Tony Daly and Ewn McKenzie were very good props. look at them in action and learn.
However as Football fans have learnt over a long period of time a oach can only do so much, you have to wait until the next lot of ellas and O’connors come along
What the hell? You mean that there is only so much that a coach can do! Golly. And you also say that a good team needs good players! Really? Hot dog. Gees, why hasn’t anyone else thought of that before now? I’m gobsmacked.
golly gee if you had actually thought of that you wouldn’t have written the tripe you did.
just shows if you have played the game and love the game you can write tripe with the best of them.
How will I ever repay my debt to you Homer? I can’t wait to try out all my new found knowledge. How does it go again? Oh, yes. A coach can only do so much; you also need good players. Fantastic. Boy, wish I had written that instead of all my tripe. I’d be famous by now. When do we get to the sexy bits about wearing the appropriate footie gear, everyone having to turn up on time before the game, and all that? Or am I getting too far ahead of myself?