Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

‘Hard to watch’: One reason it went wrong for Wallabies against Springboks

By Finn Morton
Rob Valetini of the Wallabies in action during The Rugby Championship match between Australia Wallabies and South Africa Springboks at Optus Stadium on August 17, 2024 in Perth, Australia. (Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)

Former Wallabies halfback Nick Phipps has weighed in on what made last weekend’s 30-12 loss to the world champion Springboks “hard to watch.” Stephen Hoiles and Morgan Turinui also chimed in on one of the ways it went wrong for the Wallabies in Perth.

ADVERTISEMENT

Following the Wallabies’ 26-point loss to the same Rugby Championship rival one week earlier in Brisbane, the men in gold looked to bounce back on the west coast. As the forecast predicted, the Test was played in very wet conditions at Optus Stadium.

Noah Lolesio was named in the Wallabies’ No. 10 jumper for the fourth time this year, but coach Joe Schmidt changed who would partner the 24-year-old in the halves. Test veteran Nic White was promoted to the starting side, and that seemed to benefit the Wallabies’ attack at times.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

The former ACT Brumbies teammates combined well as the Wallabies threw the ball around a bit more than what they had seven days earlier. White and Lolesio linked up with Tom Wright at one stage which created the space for a perfectly executed 50/22 late in the first term.

But it wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows. While there were glimpses of promise in the Wallabies’ attack, Nick Phipps has criticised how they weren’t able to move Springbok defenders around the park more effectively.

“It’s not hard to develop, especially the quality of players they’ve all got, right? They’re the best players in the Super Rugby system, they should be able to just have a chat about that on the run,” the former Wallabies halfback said on Stan Sports’ Between Two Posts.

“I can only think that maybe they were a little bit nervous about the weather, they would think you can’t really play too much off that… in their attacking zone, it was very one out. It was always one off the halfback, or then when it did go to the backs, it would just be a truck by Hunter (Paisami).

ADVERTISEMENT

“Noah didn’t really get his hands on the ball enough. The first trigger I saw out the back of a forward pod was 50 minutes into the game. I just know when we played… when you’re playing South Africa, you’ve got to move them around. They’ve got to be running.

“That’s why it was a little bit hard to watch when you want them to stress the edges, move their forwards all to one side of the field, then we’ll play out the back a few more times, move them all to the other side of the field.

“I think maybe they were thinking about the weather a little but you’ve got to be pushing the button against South Africa.”

Lolesio opened the scoring inside the first few minutes with a successful shot at goal from close range. Much to the delight of Wallabies fans in attendance who toughed it out in rainy conditions themselves, the hosts had landed the first blow.

ADVERTISEMENT

But South Africa rallied and probably should’ve piled on more points going into half-time. Springboks flyhalf Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu and winger Makazole Mapimpi kept the Wallabies in with a chance as they both bombed genuine try-scoring opportunities.

Instead, Lolesio’s accurate goal-kicking boot meant the Wallabies went into the break two points down – they would’ve been ahead if the playmaker had converted one last shot at goal before the two teams made their way to the sheds, too.

But it was a different story during the second half.

Replacement hooker Malcolm Marx scored two of the Springboks’ three second-half tries as the world champions showed their class. It was a bit tense at times but the result never seemed in doubt with 20 to play as the visitors claimed their second successive win Down Under.

“You don’t need to be too creative. You don’t need to have three passes in every play to get wide but they’re not deep in their attacking carries, the Wallabies, so then the Springboks have line speed,” Stephen Hoiles explained.

“Because South Africa are so direct and physical, we’re running into them and we’re brave, they’re brave, (but) they’re just bigger and stronger, so they’re just bashing us. Then we’re going around the corner so no one’s moving defensively.

“You don’t have to go side to side the whole time, you can just get a little bit more variety in where you carry on the field.

“Their big boys were just standing there, just weren’t moving essentially.”

With the Wallabies losing two matches to the Springboks by a combined score of 63-19, there’s a lot to critique, question and ponder ahead of the team’s upcoming Tests against Los Pumas in Argentina.

However, the analysis of Phipps, Hoiles and Morgan Turinui highlights an area of concern for the Wallabies. It’s certainly something for the Aussies to consider and learn from as they look to bounce back in just under two weeks.

Morgan Turinui added: “We have lots of people that watch this show that are quite analytical… watch how many times it was the second defender that was able to make just a good, straight shot on our attackers.

“The Wallabies deliberately went in there because they think that was the better option than risking it out there. The issue is two weeks in a row… if you’re not winning that, you just don’t move them around.”

Enter now to stand a chance of winning tickets to all three British & Irish Lions Tests vs Australia
You can also enter our ticket giveaway to win tickets to watch them take on Argentina in Dublin for the first time ever!

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

1 Comment
A
AF 28 days ago

It's all learning. I'm just not sure if they have the quality halfbacks required at this stage. If Lolesio can keep developing his game and learn fast, then they will.

S
SK 28 days ago

If you move the ball to the edge in those conditions you can drop it or it can get turned over by the waiting and able poachers SA send into the breakdown so its easier said than done. The Boks do so much damage off turnover ball and that is what they live off. So beating the rush is really a tough and tall order. Aus just outclassed by a team later on in their development. They will get better

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

A
Anendra Singh 39 minutes ago
Scott Robertson has mounting problems to fix for misfiring All Blacks

Okay, fair points in here. Agree Razor isn't transparent. How quickly the climate changes from one regime to another. I'm sorry but when I refer to "human values" I'm alluding to Razor prancing around like a peacock at the 2023 RWC, knowing he had had the job but going there to smirk while Fozz went about his business. What need was there of that when Razor had already got the nod?


Besides, that's why caring employers don't put their employees through that spin-dry cycle following redundancy, although Fozz would have relished the opportunity to ride the waves to redemption. He had come within a whisker. I'm guessing Fozz's contract wouldn't have allowed him to terminate employment, glory of RWC aside. Now, I'm not saying fora second that Fozz was a fine head coach because he had erred like Razor is with selections across the board.


The captaincy debacle is just that, so agree with that. More significantly for me, Barrett has the unenviable record of collecting two red cards in test rugger — the most anyone has. His 2nd test against the Boks was questionable, considering the lock hadn't carried the ball until after the 60th minute. In both Boks affairs, he was hardly visible as a leader.


DMac is a Hobson's choice. You can have a "unique" kicking game but if the others are not on the same page, is it worth anything? Player, selection, and/or head coaching issue? For me it's all 3. I've not religiously watched Super Rugby Pacific matches but I did see how the Fijian Drua had homed in on DMac at The Tron. He was rattled and even started complaining to the ref. That's where we part ways with "aggression". All pooches are ferocious behind their owner's fenced property. DMac enjoys that when he has the comfort of protection from the engine room. The pooch is only tested when it wanders outside the confines of the yard on to the street to face other mongrels. Boks were going to be the litmus test, although no home fan saw the Pumas coming. At best, a bench-minutes player.


Leon MacDonald. Well, besides debating the merits of his prowess as "attacking guru", it doesn't override one simple fact — Razor chose his stable of support coaches. Its starts and ends there. If MacD didn't slot into the equation, Razor is accountable.


Why appoint a specialist when you're not going to listen to him, especially if you have an engine-room background? Having fired him, Razor looks even more clueless now than ever with his backline, never mind attacking. Which raises the pertinent question? Which of his other favoured coaches have assumed the mantle of backline/attacking coach? (Hansen/Ellison?) If so, why is Razor not dangling them over burning coals?


"His [MacD's] way might be great for some team, maybe in another country, and with the right people." Intriguing because he has led his team in his own country's premier competition to victory against a number of franchise players who are in the ABs squad that had failed to make the cut after a rash of losses and Razor's "home". You see, it's such anomalies that make the prudent question the process. All it does is make Razor look just like another member of the old boys' network. Appreciate the engagement.

108 Go to comments
J
JWH 1 hour ago
Wallabies' opportunity comes from smaller All Black forwards and unbalanced back row

Ethan Blackadder is a 7, not an 8. No point in comparing the wrong positions. 111kg and 190cm at 7 is atrociously large.


Cane + Savea are smaller, but Savea is certainly stronger than most in that back row, maybe Valetini is big enough. I don't think Cane is likely to start this next game with Ethan Blackadder back, so it will likely be Sititi, Savea, Blackadder.


Set piece retention + disruption, tackle completion %, and ruck speed, are the stats I would pick to define a cohesive forward pack.


NZ have averaged 84.3% from lineout and 100% from own scrum feed in their last three games against top 4 opponents. Their opponents averaged 87.7% from the lineout and 79.7% from own scrum feed.


In comparison, Ireland averaged 85.3% from lineout and 74.3% from own scrum feed. Their opponents averaged 87.7% from the lineout and 100% from the scrum.


France also averaged 90.7% from lineout (very impressive) and 74.3% from own scrum feed (very bad). Their opponents averaged 95.7% from lineout (very bad) and 83.7% from scrum.


As we can see, at set piece NZ have been very good at disrupting opposition scrums while retaining own feed. However, lineout retention and disruption is bang average with Ireland and France, with the French pulling ahead. So NZ is right there in terms of cohesiveness in lineouts, and is better than both in terms of scrums. I have also only used stats from tests within the top 4.


France have averaged 85.7% tackle completion and 77.3% of rucks 6 seconds or less.


Ireland have averaged 86.3% tackle completion and 82.3% of rucks 6 seconds or less.


NZ have averaged 87% tackle completion and 80.7% or rucks 6 seconds or less.


So NZ have a higher tackle completion %, similar lineout, better scrum, and similar ruck speed.


Overall, NZ seem to have a better pack cohesiveness than France and Ireland, maybe barely, but small margins are what win big games.

14 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING 'Right up there with the world's best': All Black lock hitting new heights All Blacks' lock hitting new heights
Search