Bob Dwyer Rugby Workshops

Cape Town. 8th August, 2009

The Wallabies sure had their share of problems at Newlands last night, but we could certainly sum them all up and use one of the oldest adages in the game to offer some advice. “You can’t win without the ball!”

In an overwhelming Springbok performance, the Australian team came up with just about every means possible in the game of rugby to concede possession. The tackle contest was one-way traffic; the lineout was a shambles from the start; the scrum was decidedly creaky; and we constantly used the kick as a first-choice attacking option. This all added up to half-time statistics of 61% of possession and 64% of territory against the Wallabies. The Wallabies also surrended five of their own lineout throws and a crooked scrum-feed in this period. It was no surprise then that the Springboks led 23-10 at the break.

We started strongly, rucked aggressively, won our lineout throw and attacked with the ball in hand for an excellent try for Adam Ashley-Cooper, albeit assisted by some ordinary Springbok defence. That was just about it for us, until the last quarter of the match.

From our first attacking scrum, five metres from the Bok line, we were penalised for a crooked feed. This is nothing new from Alain Rolland and we should have been much more careful. Two minutes later and Morne Steyn was converting his first penalty kick. A huge turn around!

Then the most doubtful penalty for obstruction against the retreating Wallabies gave Steyn his second successful penalty two minutes later, followed soon after by a third after some particularly sloppy passing from the Wallabies.

The rest of the first half, 25 minutes of it, was a rearguard exercise by the Wallabies in resisting the Springbok attack. Luckily, there’s not that much that’s clever  to the Springbok attack and the Wallabies bravely withstood most of these, but conceded penalties, plus, vitally, two yellow cards – to Mat Giteau and Richard Brown.

The Wallabies were not helped during this period, indeed throughout the game, by a total lack of consistency from the referee and his assistants. Morne Steyn’s second kick for goal came as a result of an inexplicable ruling that Wallaby defenders had deliberately taken Pietersen’s line and obstructed his chase. Rolland subsequently explained that this was not permitted under law. I have two things to say about this. The first is that it clearly IS allowed, because he allowed it for the rest of the game – most obviously when Springbok forwards deliberately moved to block Wallaby chasers on kick restarts. My second point is that, if more than one person is RUNNING for the same ball, then obviously their paths are going to intersect at some point and surely, with the retreating Wallabies in front of Pietersen AND running back, they would need eyes in the back of the head to block “his path” – as if he, and he alone, owned that path!

The referee was particularly savage on players “going off their feet at the breakdown”. Once again, it is not an offence to go to ground. It is an offence to go to ground over the ball, and seal off the opportunity for your opponent to play it. On one occasion Al Baxter was penalised, when he stumbled and momentarily lost his footing, but the ball remained at all times in front of him and was always available for the Springboks. I can’t see this as a penalty at all.

On the other hand, the referee saw no problem at all with Springbok tacklers remaining on top of the Wallaby ball-carrier and not immediately releasing and rolling away. There were many offenders all game, but perhaps the worst was Jean de Villiers – and this clearly is against the law of the game!

On one occasion late in the game the chasing de Villiers landed on top of Berrick Barnes as he went to ground to cover a rolling ball. This was “play on” for Rolland and the Wallabies subsequently conceded a five metre scrum and the pressure continued. In my logical (I think) assessment of the situation, there were two possible correct rulings of this situation. Neither of them were “play on”, which the referee adjudged. The first was an “early tackle” by de Villiers; the second was “diving on a player on the ground in passion of the ball”. Barnes never had the ball until he was on the ground.

I’ve got no problem with the Giteau sin-bin. This was an absolute brain explosion and defies explanation. Giteau seems off-beam to me. He kicks when he should run or pass. When he does run, it is frequently way across field. When he does pass, it is long and wide which often puts the attack under pressure against the side-line. A couple of turnovers came from lineouts conceded in this way.

I want to come back to a point which I made earlier – “the tackle contest was one-way traffic”.

Robbie Deans has consistently preached that “you have to win all of the contests in a game of rugby”, and the tackle contest is clearly the most frequent. You simply cannot win the tackle contest if you do not commit numbers to it! Consistently, we did not commit numbers and were absolutely decimated by a committed Springbok pack in this vital area of the game. Our hideous structured game saw support players, badly needed at the tackle, taking up pre-planned positions to run the recycled ball. Only problem was, we didn’t win it.

It is way past time that our coaching staff addressed this obvious problem!

This, along with their dominant lineout, was a most significant part of the Springbok performance. The commentators kept talking about the “counter-ruck. Forget that; this was “rucking”, purely and simply. Rucking has always been a vital and traditional part of the game of rugby and it still is. The Springboks reminded us of this in no uncertain terms. I thought that this concentration on a rucking game was a huge step forward for the Springbok team performance, even from their already powerful performances so far this year.

There were some positives for the Wallabies. Our replacement players did very well and contributed significantly to a much improved second half performances.

Our scrum improved markedly with the inclusion of Polota-Nau and Alexander and both have significantly more pace than Moore and Baxter. In addition, Polota-Nau is hugely strong – I understand that he is the strongest in the squad. Dean Mumm was prominent when he arrived and O’Connor was amongst our best. Will Genia seems sharper and gets to, and rid of, the ball more quickly than Burgess. I think that Pocock contributes on a higher level than Richard Brown, despite Brown’s obvious commitment and courage.

A few final points.

I read where we have two ball-players at fly-half and in-center, in Giteau and Barnes. Actually, we have two kickers, one left foot and one right. I live for the appearance of the two ball players!

Stirling Mortlock’s injury may be a blessing in disguise for the Wallabies, just as Schalk Burger’s suspension has been a blessing for the Springboks. We may at last see the belated inclusion of Ryan Cross in the team – now if only we can get someone to pass him the ball!

As for the Springboks, maybe with Morne Steyn at full-back and Ruan Pienaar at fly-half, we will see yet another string to the Springbok bow. Additional attack with the ball in hand is a scary thought!

Bob Dwyer.

P.S.  Look carefully and then tell me what it was that George Smith was sin-binned for. The ball was clearly out of the ruck and in the hands of the Bok scrum-half. George Smith was on his feet and clearly on-side. He attacked the ball and arms of the ball-carrier, which happens plenty of times in the game with no offence ruled!