|
 16/10/07
The Wallabies' dismal performance in going
out of the tournament to England in the
quarter-finals has elements of a Bermuda
Triangle mystery about it. How on earth did
it happen?
The Wallabies' scrum had improved,
supposedly, to the extent that a scrum was
taken against Wales instead of a tap kick.
Yet, like the All Blacks' scrum against
France, the Wallabies scrum disappeared
under a heap of opposition bodies. And then
there was the lack of a reaction, except for
the occasional swing of the arm from
second-rower Daniel Vickerman, to England's
counter-rucking.
Yet in this year's Tri-Nations all the sides
were counter-rucking madly. Watching a
plodding England side with no back-line
attack hold France and then take the lead
with 10 minutes to go raised the inevitable
question - how did the Wallabies contrive to
lose to such a pedestrian team?
Unlike the New Zealanders, Australian
supporters can't even begin to blame the
referee. After all, Stirling Mortlock was
given a shot at goal, admittedly from a long
way out, to win the match almost on
full-time. France against the All Blacks, on
the other hand, played a perfect second half
in that they gave away no penalties, even
though they were under intense pressure most
of the time.
Against England, France were penalised four
times in the second half, the same number of
times as England. The plainly wrong
refereeing decisions went France's way
against NZ, and England's way in the
semi-final. The most obvious howler by the
referee was an alleged high tackle that was
merely a slap that really missed. Jonny
Wilkinson kicked the penalty to give England
a two-point lead with 10 minutes left.
England play the rugby equivalent of the
Warren Ryan-devised rugby league game of the
1980s, when you conceded very few points,
tried nothing in attack so that no errors or
turnovers happened, and then drop-kicked a
goal to win 1-0, or 3-0 if you could get a
penalty shot over as well.
This is a hard game to defeat, if, as the
Wallabies did against England, you try to
play the same game. No Wallabies side is
going to have a kicker as skilful as
Wilkinson. The Wallabies had to keep the
ball in hand and run the big England pack
around.
This is what the Springboks, in the main,
did against Argentina. They seized on the
Pumas' mistakes and used their superior pace
out wide to create chances for Bryan Habana
to finish off. Australia's Habana is Drew
Mitchell. He was left on the bench until the
game was virtually lost.
The RWC format makes it an easy and hard
tournament to win. Hard because the last
three matches are knock-out affairs. Get a
game wrong, as the Wallabies and the All
Blacks did, and you're out of the
tournament. But easy because a team may miss
out on having to play the best team or teams
in the tournament. There is no way, for
instance, that England are the best or
second best team in the tournament. But that
is tournament play.
South Africa had won a hard (on paper) group
match against an England side that did not
have Wilkinson in it. Then they had a
quarter-final against Fiji, which they
almost contrived to lose. Then a semi-final
against Argentina, which was won
comfortably. This journey to World Cup glory
has been much easier than a Tri-Nations
tournament.
No team that has lost a group match has gone
on to win the tournament. So England, the
winners in 2003 with a very good side, will
have to create history to win the final on
Saturday with an average side. No team,
either, has won successive finals.
I'm hoping that history isn't made. Reason?
To shut up the obnoxious British journalist
Stephen Jones and his Basil Fawlty-type
rantings about how the Wallabies are con
artists and how the slow-plod and endless
kicking of the British club game is superior
to the athleticism, excitement and pace of
the Super 14 style. C'mon the Boks!
SPIRO ZAVOS -
Sydney
Morning Herald | Tuesday, 16 October
2007 |
Comment on this article |
