0
By John Eales
Sometimes leaders have to ask very tough questions of their team, their tactics and themselves. It's perhaps a little trite to draw comparisons between the labour of the Wallabies and the Australian election, but suffice to say that sometimes, especially in the face of resounding defeat, the answers are neither convenient nor comfortable.
Last weekend, optimistic Wallaby supporters looked to history in hope, rather than to the previous fortnight and the disappointing losses to the All Blacks, for more measured reality.
The Wallabies hadn't been beaten by South Africa in Brisbane since 1971. They had won seven games straight at Suncorp Stadium against the Boks.
Why shouldn't this continue?
Well, one reason why it shouldn't continue is that history is not always relevant. Such history, while not mutually exclusive with present and future success, is sometimes more a crutch of convenience than a reality.
The reality is that, after a humbling and numbing 38-12 loss to the Springboks, the Wallabies are now soul-searching for answers to some confronting questions.
The biggest question Ewen McKenzie has to quickly answer is, does his ambition for his team, at this point in their development, dwarf their ability? Or more specifically, is his ambition to play a high-paced, tactically variable game plan too ambitious for a team down on confidence and seemingly unable to execute basic skills with reasonable certainty and regularity.
One of the problems at the moment is that many of his team play the Medusa and lure you in with one trick but punish you with another. An example is Nick Cummins, who searched for work, made good breaks, but then lost the ball in contact. I love the Honey-badger's courage, energy and uncomplicated style but, like many of his teammates, to become a compelling and automatic selection he must address his consistency.
Quade Cooper is another whose game will come under rigid scrutiny and, in this showing at least, not pass muster. To some extent he was the victim of a haphazard forwards effort, where poor ball was transferred and he was expected to play Rumpelstiltskin and turn straw into gold. There would be no such magic here. A bottle-green defensive wall ensured as much.
Now, I am no doyen of five-eighth play but I do know that an advancing target is more difficult to dampen than a static target or one that is crabbing across field. This is partly Cooper's responsibility to remedy and partly his forwards.
On the other hand it is also a given that a pivot is only as dangerous as the options he has been presented by those around him. One of Cooper's great strengths has been in the players around him, who provide the offensive threats from which he selects the best option.
When he has been most dangerous he has had the likes of Digby Ioane and Rod Davies putting themselves in holes at dangerous pace inside and out. He had precious few options to call upon on Saturday evening.
And the lack of damaging, running, back-row forwards further increased the pressure and workload on the backs.
McKenzie must decide, and this will inform so many of his decisions around personnel, how much of the present does he give away for the future? For example, in choosing his tactics, does he sacrifice some short-term enterprise and focus on a less expansive and more easily executed game plan to deliver some confidence, a few wins and, importantly, hope.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/un...#ixzz2eRua935K
Reply With Quote
