Aussies shocked into action by defiant Springboks in the Mandela Challenge Plate
As I noted previously, the Springbok guests in Sydney on 07-07-2007 started the Mandela Challenge Plate as if their lives depended upon the outcome and quickly accumulated 17 unanswered points against the heavy favorites the Wallabies. In the first stanza, it seemed that the Aussie’s simply weren’t interested in scoring despite this match being the last home test match for the legendary team of Greegan (133 Caps) and Larkham (100 Caps).
Of course, with two Wallabies having the combined test match experience of the entire South African team, it is not surprising that cool heads prevailed. With tries before and after half-time, Australia brought the score-line level. A South African professional foul gave the home side a 1-man advantage and their opponents quickly took the lead and eventually the match, 25-17.
Despite the win, Australia again showed their major weaknesses: lack of focus early in the match and an underpowered scrum. Both of these deficiencies require solid solutions if the Wallabies are to have any chance at hoisting the Web Ellis Cup at RWC 2007.
In addition, an 8-point margin over the Springbok so-called ’second-string’ line is hardly anything to get excited about and is a testament to the depth of the rugby program in South Africa. If you remember that post-apartheid South Africa came out of almost 30 years of international sporting isolation to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup, the depth of the their rugby program doesn’t actually seem that surprising.
(On Jul 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm)
Vic
A rugby team, that is small in the scrum and comes out of the gate sleeping?
That sounds so familiar, but I cant just put my finger on it.
(On Jul 10th, 2007 at 5:12 pm)
haha. Good one. Now all we need to do is get “waking up” part correct.
(On Jul 11th, 2007 at 7:24 am)
Now now,….a small scrum can be advantageous if your tight and athletic. Beware the bite of the little dog!!
As for the waking up…..I truly believe that intensity, drive, and heart can win games. We just need to get that intensity up.
(On Jul 11th, 2007 at 2:25 pm)
zing! it’s not that they’re necessarily small in the pack, it’s just that they’re terrible at scrummaging. but maybe, just maybe if we could hire their backline we could be successful too.
(On Jul 11th, 2007 at 7:26 pm)
so who’s the most influential guy in the backline for the Aussies? I’ve actually never been all that impressed with Larkham’s general play (great kicker though), so my $$ is on Mortlock.
(On Jul 11th, 2007 at 10:09 pm)
i thought larkham was pretty good this week, but in general, i do agree with you. but then again, he’s been injured pretty consistently since i’ve been watching. i would probably say gregan, especially the way he’s been playing this year. that backline didn’t start looking good this year until they moved giteau back to inside center and gregan back to scrumhalf.
(On Jul 12th, 2007 at 3:12 pm)
From what I’ve seen, being small in the scrum doesn’t make a difference if your fit and play as a team. Canada is an exception because of their massive size they are able to push most teams around.
I watched All-Japan push Danbury’s scrum around like they were nothing. Most of us have played Danbury a few times to know how aggressive Danbury’s scrum is. But they’re mostly a bunch of cro-magnon’s who can’t count to 8. Despite Yue-Houng’s freakish size for an Asian (I hear his mom is Scandanavian), All-Japan didn’t have a guy over 6 foot and more than 230lbs.
I think Australia relies on their back play and don’t pay alot of attention to their scrums. Ireland has a similar problem in that their scrums are weak which continually keep them from advancing in the World Cup. Ireland relies on their back play to win them games, which isn’t necessarily bad considering, O’Driscoll and O’Gara are two of the best backs in the world.
I’ll take a disciplined, fit pack over a large erratic one anyday.
(On Jul 12th, 2007 at 11:12 pm)
I think Greegan is the best back on defense. He consistently tackles the biggest guys and brings them down (no small feat for a 5′6″ half-man like Greegan
).
However, his offensive skills don’t shine (it’s so rare that he runs with the ball and gains ground (sound familiar?)).
(On Jul 13th, 2007 at 10:59 am)
while he isn’t really much of a ball carrier, the aussie backs don’t really seem to fire when he isn’t playing. over the last year or two they’ve tried a number of different 9s like whitaker, cordingly and giteau (i might be forgetting somebody) and they’ve only looked dangerous in spots. i think it’s more than a coincidence that they start firing again when he gets put in again.
i think this may have to do with the way he plays. he rarely throws the ball directly from the base of the scrum. instead, gregan generally will take a step and then release his backs. i think this has the effect of freezing the loose forwards and gives the backs some extra space to work with. whether or not that’s true, gregan’s play this year has been pretty noteworthy. this is coming from somebody who thinks of him as an annoying little shit.
(On Jul 13th, 2007 at 11:09 am)
Ya, sometimes the step back seems good, other times i think it gives the defense more time to close down the running lanes. No doubt he’s world class and I don’t think AUS have anyone of his caliber at the moment. However, I think Mortlock has a larger impact