Time to toughen up

Interesting article from Matt Burke: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/its-time-to-toughen-up-20120825-24t66.html

It seems he is less than impressed by the current Wallabies. Their post match interviews all seemed to include effusive praise for their AB counterparts. There may well be motives for doing this. Firstly, it sends a message to their other 4N opponents: you think we're bad, well wait until you guys play these guys. Secondly, it seemingly admits defeat already for the extra Bledisloe match in October. Of course, I don't think for a second they believe that they've already lost. It just seems to me that they wanted to draw a curtain on these two opening games and to try and pick themselves up for the remaining games.

But Burke thought the Wallaby players were not only too respectful of the ABs, they were also too chummy. It seemed to him defeat wasn't hurting them enough or indeed at all. He thinks referring to them by their first name. Instead of talking about Israel, Richie, Sonny Bill it should be Dagg, McCaw and Williams. He thinks the AB players are certainly not talking about Digby, Quade and Kurtly.

I can see where Burke is coming from. Sometimes an attitude shift is mirrored in your own words. I remember the French coach in 2007 refused to call the team he was facing the All Blacks. His team was playing against New Zealand. He wasn't going to build an aura around the opposition was facing. That tactic didn't work out too bad for them. Of course it wasn't the reason they won but sometimes the little things can add up into something important.

Then again, when you see the stats from 2008, they make for grim reading if you're not an AB fan. The ABs have a winning percentage of 84 per cent. They have lost ten games and only France, SA and Australia have beaten them during this time. John Eales made the comment that sometimes courage is not enough: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/when-courage-is-not-enough-20120828-24xgu.html Last week's game was a battle between stability and instability, confidence and uncertainty. If a team is playing regularly together and is getting consistency in performance from regular combinations and core players contributing each game, then it's very difficult to overcome. You can have the perfect attitude but the odds are against you.

I think the solution for the Wallabies lies somewhere between the two. There can be no doubt that there has been huge disruption to the team. Take Palu, Mitchell, Pocock, McAbe, Horwill, JOC etc and add in Beale and Cooper who don't quite look on top yet and that's going to affect your continuity in a huge way. Any team´s performance in world rugby would suffer from that many injuries. But you've still got to go out and play a test so your attitude has to be right. You have to think it's war and have that circle of wagons mentality. We know we're outnumbered and outclassed here but we're going to dig in and give it our all. I think the Wallabies came off last Saturday knowing they had put in a huge defensive performance. They also probably came off thinking they had done nothing on attack and so only a defeat was possible.

The Wallabies will be glad to see the back of the ABs. Time to toughen up says Burke (not Matt). Eales said they had the courage just not their best team out on the park. So seeing which team comes out against SA is going to be intriguing to watch.

I agree to an extent. They just didn't look fired up when they were playing and post game there still seemed to be that "who cares?" attitude hanging around. Is this down to coaching? Environment? Or something else...

I do feel they're missing some key players.

Not just those injured names listed but the likes of Mortlock, Elsom, Burgess and Giteau are three massive names that have gone from the set up over the last couple of seasons and never been replaced. The Wallabies are not only missing their game changing abilities but also their experience in the team not to mention the fact that having a player like Burgess around helped to force Genia to up his game and likewise Elsom and Giteau were good competition for the newbies coming through.

Can't remember who mentioned it but one Aussie pundit wrote that Genia was in need of a rest. Not so much a physical one but a mental one because often when you`re not mentally right, the risk of injury goes up. It did appear Genia was in the clouds during both those matches against NZ. Maybe the pressure of needing to be the catalyst for the Wallaby backline proved too much of a mental burden, particularly given the fact that key stars like Cooper and Beale were off their game and the ABs closed down the space of Ioane and Genia knowing the threat they could provide.

You have to go back to 1962 I think for the last time Australia were held scoreless. I certainly can't remember a recent match where a top ranked side was held scoreless. It must be a debilitating feeling to have given your all on defence and come off the park not only thinking you've just been beaten 22 - 0 but also knowing you were lucky not to have conceded 40 or 50. Psychologically that must leave you shell shocked and thinking there is no answer to that.

In fact what has happened to Elsom? Ever since that season for Leinster where he looked like a god amongst insects he seems to have vanished! Is he in Japan?

This article on Scrum.com could shed some light on that stat for you...

Is there a more miserable experience than getting nilled? Not a single point, not even a token penalty goal to show for your efforts, or for fans to cheer. It is rugby's version of that word much favoured by Americans for describing unsuccessful sports teams - futility.

It was, of course, Australia's fate on Saturday at Eden Park. It added an extra humiliation on top of the now routine loss of the Bledisloe Cup, whose main purpose now seems to be to tantalise frustrated Wallabies as it is shown to them pitch-side, brandished by Richie McCaw and then returned to its lodgings in Wellington.

But if that is now an annual event, getting nilled certainly is not. It was pointed out by the television commentators that it was the first time the Wallabies had failed to score against the All Blacks since 1962.

It was in fact a pretty long time since they had emerged scoreless from 80 minutes against anybody - nearly 39 years to be exact since November 24 1973 when Wales ran up 24 points, with debutant hooker Bobby Windsor scoring the only try of his 33-test career, without reply at the National Stadium. They had played 346 matches, close to two-thirds of their entire test rugby history, since - including the one at Lang Park, Brisbane on June 2 2007 when they returned the compliment by beating Wales 31-0, also with a debutant try, from Digby Ioane.

It was the first Rugby Championship nilling for more than four years, since the All Blacks beat the Springboks 19-0 at Cape Town in August 2008, and only the fourth in the tournament's 17 year history.

To find a Six Nations nilling you have to go back even further, to 2004 and France's 31-0 win at Murrayfield. To get some idea of how long that is in terms of rugby lives, one need only note that aside from two tries by Yannick Jauzion, that match saw the debut of Julien Bonnaire, who has just retired as a much-garlanded 75 times capped veteran.

There have been only three Six Nations nillings during the professional era, all inflicted by France. They had beaten Italy 25-0 at the Stade de France only a month before they obliterated the Scots and six years before that massacred Wales 51-0 in their temporary home at Wembley Stadium.

France, by contrast, have not been nilled for 260 matches, since 1990 when Finlay Calder and Iwan Tukalo scored tries, and Alan Carminati was sent off, in Scotland's 21-0 win at Murrayfield. And the All Blacks' run of scoring in every match is now closing in on its half-century, since it dates back to the 0-0 draw with Scotland at Murrayfield on January 18 1964.

That was the last pointless international - at least in terms of those played by the major nations, The Portugal-Italy match of 1972, some time before Italy could be considered in those terms, and Togo v Nigeria in 2004, have finished pointless since.

It also represents something of a turning point. Until then getting on for one in seven of the team from the eight foundation nations who took the field for an international match returned from their 80 minutes of endeavour pointless. Ireland were nilled at a rate of one in five, failing to score in 47 of their 234 matches between the introduction of a generally accepted points system in 1890 and that weekend in January 1964. Wales, locked out in 23 of their 235 matches, were the least likely of the home nations to be nilled, while the All Blacks went scoreless 8 times in 118.

Naturalised Russian Prince Alexander Obolensky (1916-1940). In his first match for England, he scored two tries in the first half against the All Blacks at Twickenham. January 4, 1936
Prince Alexander Obolensky played a key role in the nilling of the Kiwis back in 1936 © Getty Images
Enlarge

Since then the All Blacks have played 371 times, and never failed to get the scoreboard ticking at least once. They have been restricted to single figures only four times in the professional era, most memorably in last year's World Cup final, which they of course still won.

But it has become a scarce experience for everybody. Thirty-seven teams from the original eight have been nilled since January 18 1964, from a total of 3052 who have taken the field, a rate of once every 82.5 appearances which rises to once every 108 in the professional era. Scotland, Wales and England have all been held scoreless seven times since 1964, but only the Scots have done it at a rate of more than once every 50 matches, and then only very marginally.

When somebody finally does nil the All Blacks it will be a memorable achievement, but that will not in itself be anything new. The eight on their record to 1964 include perhaps the greatest day in Welsh rugby history (3-0,1905), the most memorable performance by a single player for England (Alexander Obolensky, 13-0, 1936), a scalping from the boot of Springbok Bennie Osler (17-0, 1928) and a French win signalling their arrival as a significant force (3-0, 1954). Nobody will be keener to do it than Australia, who have to look back to June 1910 for the only occasion on which they shut out the old enemy from across the Tasman and have been paid back in kind eight times since.

Cheers for that yappysnap. Good read.

I think the odds of a team nilling the ABs again is remote. I think now NZ have played 101 consecutive games and scored at least a try in all those matches.

The frustrating thing for Australia was they had a golden opportunity to go for 3 points out in front when they were 22 0 down and 30 minutes still left to play on the clock. You could say it was a message of attacking intent but I prefer to look it as a sign of stupidity. 30 minutes is ample time in test rugby. Seeing 3 points on the scoreboard instead of 3 is a psychological boost. Australia gave away a chance to take vital points in the first test as well. To me it seemed an admission 'we don't have the confidence to do this in 3s. We need a lucky break and get 7 points in one go.' But when you have a chance right out in front to take points against NZ you take them!

I agree, it also breaks up the flow of the opposition scoring then scoring again. There's nothing better then getting to the second half and seeing 0 on the other teams score board.

Oz just weren't in the game though, they'd send their u16s' along instead!

Well it might be an obvious statement...but the AI's will be interesting...either the Wallabies come in firing...or they could seriously go home with a 0 win this tour...

Early days yet Geordie. Australia have only played NZ so far and plenty of other teams have been made to look ordinary by them.

Also, Australia don't have a domestic competition really so most of their players after the 4N have a chance to get over their injuries and get up to fitness.

Some great matches to look forward to though no doubt. England have the toughest of schedules.

Realistically one top three team always has to lose the TriNations/RugbyChampionship.

That's never stopped them coming up here in the past and handing our arses to us though, just a depressing sign of the different standards of rugby getting played.

England always have the toughest schedules. Not sure if it actually helps at all but it's all about the money really.

"England have the toughest of schedules.."

Indeed...but i like that they're not dodging anyone.

You want to be and eventually beat the best you need to play them.

We have a young developing squad...they need to feel the power and skills of these teams so they can emulate and better it.

South Africa was a first taster for many of the squad...hopefully they will have learnt from that experience already...

I think a lot of people should relax about Aus doing so poorly.
Aus have won 3 times under Deans against Henry coached ABs. How many coaches have that many wins against the world champs?

yappysnap wrote:England always have the toughest schedules. Not sure if it actually helps at all but it's all about the money really.

Too right. The 3N teams are all short of cash. You keep giving us bucketloads of money and we'll keep coming over and whoopin yo' @ss

I think the key word is "consistency" coupled with "of selection" which is not there in the OP article.

Henry was a big rotator, allegedly kicked out from him in 2007, but if you watch the run up to 2011 and check the combinators it clearly wasn't.

Obviously Hansen has another approach, the more traditional one of earning a jersey from the encumbent player.

NZ made only 1 change between Bledsiloe#1 and #2, contrast to Australia playing musical chairs in the backs and bringing in Quade Cooper with instructions to turn some water to wine and feed the five thousand with a fish. It all smacked of equal parts desperation from Australia and confidence from NZ.

Next time up, expect again 1 change from NZ, Smith for SBW.

The depressing thing for Australia is that many of those losses under Deans had a margin of 6 points or less. With the injuries to this side, that margin has blown out a little more.

What's more important is how they play in their remaining matches. Their defence looks solid but the toughen up cry of Burke seems more directed at the Wallaby attack. Injuries are a sad part of rugby and you just have to deal with them when they happen. Nobody cares down the track what team lost. The only thing that matters is the fact you lost. So man up and go out there and play to win. Not contain.

I dunno Henry still used a fair few players post 2007, it's just he realised that in a WC it's kitchen sink time once the QFs start.

Agreed about the Aussie attitude Kia. I've never seen that before from Aussie and it was bloody sad. If I were an Ocker I'd have been tearing my hair out. Was like David Tua not firing a shot at Lennox Lewis. Sure he's better. But give it a crack, give it everything, and who knows you may luck out and smack him over. If you're not in you can't win.

History is rewritten by the victor as they say, but remember this test was actually very close in reality.

Australia spurned two simple chances for 3 points, so think 6-22. Also the pass to Read in the build up to Daggs try was probably forward. If Owens called that back then think about 6-15. Suddenly not such a heroic day, and maybe some of those longer range penalties that Austraila kicked for touch might have become shots at goal...game on.

The NZ line defence was very good, but it was helped by Dean's tactic to attack the perception of weakness on the ruck fringes and through the center with big ball carriers which just didn't work. I don't think it's fair to say Australia had no intent to score and win and just wanted to contain - they were very positive in turning down the penalty shots, a conservative English approach would have seen the 3 pointers taken to control the score line. Australia fired lots of shots it was just from a rusty blunderbuss into kevlar body armour.

I think the Wallabies are getting too beaten up about this, i mean, i know it sounds bad but beating the all blacks at home is so incredibly hard, they lost 2 matches against the Kiwis last year and they won the thing, they have to rely on SA again but, well beating the All Blacks in their own turf is just hard.

The Wallabies were simply outplayed, outmuscled and had no answer to the relentless AB pattern of play in Auckland.

In that scenario; any team would have got a 20 + point walloping. Sure, they could have taken 3 or 6 points here or there but they were obviously intent on trying to crack the uncrackable defence - which again was on another level... another world of pain you might say.

And as AWOP says, they also chose the wrong options repeatedly and then had no answer to the ABs counter-play with SBWs trademark offloads to A1 support pouring in alongside him. How many offloads were there and how many linebreaks/meters did he make? Lots!

Maybe that's one little plus for the next meeting... but Ben Smith is no slouch either and should slot in seamlessly and I'm sure the ABs will shift their focus adequately to still remain a handful for whatever SA and Argentina can throw at them.

Mentally for the Wallabies, it is almost a case of a blank sheet approach for the upcoming contests. Physically they are battered and bruised; mentally they are lacking that hard-edge experience of more capped players - on the field - which is a 'must have'.

There is also absolutely no way you can even think about beating (or even coming close) to a Champion side with any of our 'top' players unavailable... not even half of one player missing! You need them all fully fit and focused, injury free, mentally topped up and even with all of that in place... a good deal of luck to make any mark whatsoever.

So, there's been a bit of talk here about 'why are they having a short break for a few days?' I actually think that's sensible. What's left of them will regroup on Sunday as best they can and then head to Perth to continue to lick their wounds and prepare for South Africa.

I know it sounds cliche (not to my NZ friends of course) but they'll have to draw the line (if they already haven't last Saturday night) put the losses behind them and treat the rest of the RC as another 're-building' exercise - both in terms of new combinators and simultaneously trying to cobble together some kind of mental framework to take on SA.

That's about it really.

Drsambo they beat NZ in Brisbane last year. NZ lost to SA in SA and the game went down to the Brisbane match. Australia deservedly won but seemed like the victory made them overconfident and they got undone by a spirited Ireland and got into the wrong side of the draw.

AWOP the two tests had similarities. Australia weren't that far behind on the scoreboard and in both tests they turned down points to go for a try. Suspect AB defence let in Nathan Sharpe and I think it led them to believe that they could score more like that just so long as they got close to the line. I have never seen such a toothless display on attack by Australia. The fact they turned down points to go for a try was not a positive for me. It merely showed how clueless they were out there.

A mental break is indeed what they need LB. They were physical enough. But mentally they looked drained and rattled.

How can you say that South Africa didnt give them a favour. If NZ beat the Springboks in SA then the trophy would have gone to the All Blacks, thats ridiculous to think that Australia whole heartedly deserved to win the 3 nations last year, im not try to diminish their achievement(although maybe I have) but you have to admit SA had a helping hand, and a pretty big hand at that.

Well NZ similarly sent a few B players to SA and tried to play running rugby from the kick off.

All I'm saying is that NZ, minus a couple of players who went out injured during the game, had their best side to face Australia in Brisbane. They lost and so Australia deservedly won the 3N. I really don't care that SA didn't get into contention by only beating NZ in SA. If you don't play your best squad then you deserve to lose. We paid that price in SA. Obviously both teams had their reasons for not committing their best sides to the tournament as they thought it'd work against them in the World Cup. But Australia can't be blamed for that. You play whoever the opposition put up against you. SA and NZ are not in the business of giving away favours! Not least to Australia.

Yeah, we didn't/don't have that same luxury as the other big teams. We were lucky of course to have a few players missing from the preferred AB lineup and still had to play damn well to win it... just.

Same as Ireland in the RWC group game with a few of our top guys missing. No apologies or excuses.

It's still an achievement and we/you have to take them on the very odd occasion when all the planets align.

You cant mention the world cup, it diminishes the 3 N win I feel.

Mate the 3N is for Australia for all eternity. That bugs me more than just a little. Winning the World Cup, although a huge relief, does not fill the void.

What might console me is holding every available trophy. Currently we have the Gallagher Trophy, the Hillary Shield, the Bledisloe Cup, The World Cup and there is the RC on offer and not sure about the name of the trophy between SA and NZ or indeed its actual existence. But put all those in the trophy cabinet and get the world record for consecutive test victories and you might get me to say I am adequately satisfied with our performance and achievements...

Fair enough, although id be happy with a world cup.

Well I admire your lack of greed. Problem is as an AB supporter your thirst for success never fades. It's impossible to sate. The more you have, the more you want. Some people need a good slap and need reminding how good they have it!

Think it's the Freedom Cup Kia.

I'm guilty as charged. I'm always dirty after an All Black loss. For all our stats that happens once out of every four tests and in this day and age I should be bloody used to it!

If we had won the 3N we'd have every trophy available to the senior team. So we'd better pull finger and win this RC malarkey! Unbeaten. Show the world you can win a WC and not sh*t the bed afterwards. We did in 87.

Is it rainbow coloured? Sounds ambiguous!

Love your work disney.

Yeah and every time South Africa win it it gets presented to the captain by a hot Russian-looking lady in a waitress uniform. You'll never guess what name's on the badge.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Mate the 3N is for Australia for all eternity. That bugs me more than just a little. Winning the World Cup, although a huge relief, does not fill the void.

What might console me is holding every available trophy. Currently we have the Gallagher Trophy, the Hillary Shield, the Bledisloe Cup, The World Cup and there is the RC on offer and not sure about the name of the trophy between SA and NZ or indeed its actual existence. But put all those in the trophy cabinet and get the world record for consecutive test victories and you might get me to say I am adequately satisfied with our performance and achievements...

I think the Henry era is really to be comended here. The AB qualty increased significantly from the late 1990's, early 2000's when we were really awful in terms of consistency and turning out top class players. Now we are revelling in many very good solid wins based on a very solid foundation, player quality and structure.