Tri Nations Analysis So Far: Australia

The loss in Sydney not only was the second time that the Wallabies under Robbie Deans have lost three straight, but it appears that every loss is only raising more questions of a team that only two months ago was really beginning to look the goods.

As Deans took his post as coach of the Australian test team at the beginning of 2008, the first question I asked would be how he would adapt to a vastly different rugby environment.

In Canterbury, Deans was a rugby connoisseur of his surroundings, culture and history of the region.  The fact that he is considered a good coach was almost secondary to the fact that he had such an ingrained sense of belonging in the famous province.

To say Canterbury and New Zealand rugby is in his blood is an understatement.

Born in Cheviot North Canterbury, rugby player at the Christchurch institution Christ’s College, capped 146 times for Canterbury, played a total of 19 All Blacks matches (five tests), first year as coach of Canterbury in 1997 won the NPC title (ironically beating Graham Henry’s Auckland), and winner of five Super rugby titles with the Crusaders.

So while his general rugby pedigree is faultless, there was never any guarantee that his brilliant record would translate to Wallaby success.

You could almost argue that Australia as a nation doesn’t have the production line that Canterbury does, or at the very least—with no centralised domestic system outside the Super 14—struggles as a pure rugby conveyor, especially considering the competition the code suffers from other sports.

This can be epitomised by the statement that seems to be said with increasing frequency around Australian rugby circles “that Deans simply doesn’t have the cattle.”

This is highly debatable.

When looking at Australia’s playing ranks, there is no questioning the quality.

At World XV level, there is Matt Giteau, George Smith, and Rocky Elsom.  Stirling Mortlock and Berrick Barnes could be added to this list.

Depth is developing as well, especially in the front row, for so long an Achilles heel of Australian rugby, with Benn Robinson, Ben Alexander, the maligned Al Baxter, Stephen Moore, and Tatafu Polota-Nau.

As we saw earlier this year against the Barbarians, Azzuri, and Les Bleus, the Wallabies have the arsenal to put in highly impressive displays.

Equally, while their recent second half performances are so depressing for Australian fans, not many teams could boast that for four consecutive matches, they led the All Blacks at halftime.

This is the key issue.

There is a lack of mental strength, the ability to absorb comeback pressure, and the ability to keep doing what—in the case of their matches against New Zealand—is clearly working for opening periods in the match.

A great analogy would be that of a distance runner.  The finest such track specialists will always measure their race, never running too hard in the early stages, maintaining pace with the opposition throughout the crucial middle stages, but keeping enough stamina and focus in the tank to close out the final metres and win.

This is a fundamental lesson that the Wallabies can’t seem to put into practice, that Rugby is an 80 minute game.  And this Green and gold side is far from good enough to be able to win a match with an outstanding 20-40 minute burst (as seen by famous All Black teams of the past).

For the Australian supporters, this would be the most frustrating aspect of Dean’s men, and increasingly of the Canterbury man himself.

Why are the Wallabies failing to heed all of the clichés of rugby?

Just as important as the fore mentioned point is the single truism that that rugby is a game that must be won up front.  Worse still for the Wallabies, this maxim can be ignored if you are smart enough to take this out of the game. 

Incongruously for Australia, they have done this before.  Wallaby teams in the last decade have not had packs in the same class of their opposition, but have been wily enough to take this out of the equation.

Perhaps too much is trying to be changed.

Early in the Dean’s era, it was with great anticipation that we waited to see if the Wallabies would transform into an awesome international hybrid of the Crusaders—a heady meld of excellent rugby basics, patience and counter attacking brilliance.

None of this has eventuated so far, with the dominant message being that Deans is trying to get his Australians to play what is in front of them.

This seems to be in stark contrast to the modern strength of their rugby, with the potency under the Rod McQueen/John Eales era being of sides that thrived on structure and patterns.

Are the players subconsciously confused as to their roles?

Other speculations, such as fitness, are probably off the mark.  In the modern game a team of full time professional athletes should have what it takes to match their antagonists, although the responsibility of this area is not just in the realm of the international setup, but of the Super 14 managements as well. 

Hopefully next year, Deans will reverse his 2009 approach and work more closely, and even demand certain requirements from his Super 14 counterparts.

The foundations are there, but it is just a case of remembering the basics and finding the right mix.

The Wallabies against both the Springboks and All Blacks are coming off second best in the physical contest, and are being forced off their game. 

In this, if the men on the park are not delivering to the expectation required of an international test player, then as Deans has suggested, these players need to be culled.  If the former Canterbury coach says that poor discipline and flagging standards will result in a player being dropped, he must back this up.

Richard Brown is a prime example here, with two yellow cards and two less than required performances from a flanker, whose primary role is to lead the way in the tackle and ruck contest.

Yet he remains in the team, while a physical warhorse such as Phil Waugh continues to be overlooked.  For the Wallabies sake, let us hope that Deans is not playing loyalties and favourites to the detriment of international success.