0
Truth of Twickenham revealed
November 15, 2008
Two former Wallabies props believe Al Baxter and Matt Dunning have unfairly carried the blame for the scrum fiasco against England three years ago, reports Rupert Guinness.
On the eve of the Wallabies' Test match against England at Twickenham, Ewen McKenzie and Ben Darwin contacted the Herald to explain what really went wrong with Australia's scrum in the 26-16 loss in 2005.
Both agree that Baxter and Dunning have been wronged by their many detractors who blame them for Australia's poor scrum. McKenzie and Darwin believe the critics made their judgements without knowing the facts.
The Wallabies' scrum was dominated by England and penalised six times that day by French referee Joel Jutge. Late in the match, Baxter was sent off for allegedly collapsing the scrum, forcing Dunning to replace him by switching from loosehead to tighthead, with Greg Holmes coming on from the bench to loosehead.
But then the re-set scrum - the 16th of the match and leaving the Wallabies pack only seven-strong for the second time in the Test because of a sin-binning - also collapsed, causing injury to Dunning, who was carried from the field. With Australia's scrum deficiencies exposed, the last 10 minutes were played with uncontested scrums. It was a humiliation.
While the Wallabies' scrum has improved since, Baxter and Dunning are pilloried to this day. But McKenzie and Darwin believe the record in defence of both props should have been set straight long ago.
They say a prop's performance is largely determined by the strength and tightness of the scrum that is behind him. "Scrummaging is more than just the front row," said McKenzie, who won the World Cup with the Wallabies in 1991. "It is an eight-man effort. You can't do it without your back row. You can't do it without your second row.
"The purpose of the front row is obviously to battle with the opposition, but it is also to direct the force and pressure delivered by the back five of your scrum. If there is little or none, then it is a hard contest to win."
Against England in 2005, Dunning and Baxter were desperately short of support from behind to challenge tighthead prop Phil Vickery and loosehead Andy Sheridan, who have been picked in the English front row this week.
Most critics refer to those 15th and 16th scrums that led to Baxter and Dunning leaving the field, but McKenzie and Darwin both believe their match-ups against Sheridan in those two scrums have been wrongly judged. "Sheridan was a bit of an unknown and he really shook things up with a strong performance," Darwin said. "No one had seen a six-foot-four [193cm] prop before. Not even the great [Carl] Hayman or Olo Brown could have fought and won the battle Al had on his hands.
"Al has improved hugely. In the World Cup quarter-final last year, he was excellent against Sheridan."
Darwin also rejects claims in the British media this week that Baxter deliberately collapses scrums, saying those comments were an attempt to influence the referee.
"If you ever speak to a tighthead, they say whenever you play a tall loosehead you go low as you can," he said. "It is the loosehead's job to keep the scrum up. Al was doing what he should be: go as hard and low as you can. Some No.1s collapse if they don't like the hit. If he doesn't like what he gets, he wants another shot.
"Saying a No.3 is a collapser puts it in the mind of the referee and the public that it will be Al's fault. Also about one out of four scrums just go down and there is nothing anyone has done wrong. But referees like to make a decision. If he has a preconception, he will give 50-50s more the English way."
McKenzie said Dunning was adapting well to the tighthead position and that he had been inexperienced in that role in 2005. "The mentality on the right-hand side suits him. He is strong and he can fight his way out of trouble," McKenzie said.
But he is angry that Dunning is still savaged for one performance over "three or four seconds" against Sheridan. "History talks of Sheridan destroying Dunning when in fact they packed one scrum against each other and Dunning had to move to the unfamiliar position of tighthead, a position he now plays regularly," McKenzie said. "That is what sticks in my craw … He suffered a lot of personal vilification, yet from a technical point of view it [the Wallabies' scrum] was flawed the whole way through."
That Baxter and Dunning were still in the Wallabies after being coached by Eddie Jones, John Connolly and now Robbie Deans was testament to their credentials, said McKenzie. "Much has been said, much of it rubbish. Becoming a good prop does not happen overnight," he said. "Dunning and Baxter are still there, so the judgements by Jones, Connolly, Deans are that they are amongst the best available and certainly the most experienced on offer for the task."
What Baxter and Dunning were up against at Twickenham in 2005 is illustrated by one overhead image of a scrum in the 27th minute of that Test (see inset) when England were down 3-6 and halfback George Gregan was in the sin-bin.
"Blind Freddy can tell you there are technical flaws and they are not in the front row," McKenzie said.
It was England's feed. Wallabies No.8 George Smith had moved to halfback leaving the pack numbering seven.
The back row was small, with coach Jones having opted for speed at the breakdown rather than strength at the set piece by picking a faster back row of Smith, No.7 Phil Waugh and No.6 John Roe.
"It was like bringing a knife to a gun fight," said McKenzie. "The instinct of these players is always the play after the scrum, so the generation and resistance of force is not a strong suit. They would be outweighed by 10 kilograms per man minimum by any other international back row in Europe."
The Wallabies' second row was also ill-positioned. Nathan Sharpe was on the left side he prefers, but his strength, size and experience was suited to the right where a smaller Hugh McMeniman, on his Test start debut, played.
And with McMeniman being more of a No.6 than a second-rower, Darwin said: "We were really playing with four out of our back five being breakaways. When you have lots of sixs and sevens , you will be at sixes and sevens."
Darwin says the image shows how England capitalised on the vulnerabilities of the Wallabies scrum.
"England focused all pressure on numbers two and three. This threw Dunning's hips out, placing pressure on McMeniman," he said.
"When Dunning's hip goes left, Sharpey has to back him … all of a sudden [Sharpe and McMeniman] will get split pretty hard. Without a heavy No.6 and No.7, the hips of tighthead are going to be thrown out as well."
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/n...e#contentSwap1
Reply With Quote
