Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Why no Australian side can beat a Kiwi team

Aussie Cover

It’s now been 687 days since an Australian side beat a Kiwi side in Super Rugby. After two contests in 2018, it doesn’t look promising. The rejuvenated Rebels, who started the season well, put up a spirited first half before being blown away 50-19 by the Hurricanes. The Brumbies were a similar story last night.

ADVERTISEMENT

Brumbies head coach Dan McKellar claimed leading up to the clash against the Highlanders “Australian teams are not respected in New Zealand”.

He is right.

There isn’t the respect the way that the New Zealand teams would look at each other. Australian sides aren’t clinical, aren’t creative, aren’t fit enough and lack basic fundamental skills. Many of the sides run the same systems as the New Zealand sides, for example, the Brumbies and Hurricanes both use a 1-3-3-1, but that’s where the similarities end.

Here is the same situation for both sides that will highlight the differences between the Australian and New Zealand sides.

The ball has been spread to sideline through the backs and both sides are looking to reset their 1-3-3-1 pattern, playing back to the open side.

The first three forwards in the Hurricanes 1-3-3-1 take a hit up.

Here we see the first Hurricanes pod of three with Barrett as a backdoor option. Fifita decides to truck it up to set a ruck on the 15 metre tramline.

ADVERTISEMENT
The second phase setup in the Hurricanes 1-3-3-1.

The next phase Barrett moves into first receiver and has the second line of three forwards outside him, with Laumape (12) the back-door option on the swivel pass.

As the play unfolds, we can see a distinct separation between the three forwards on the first level and Laumape as a back-door option on the second level. The Hurricanes forwards are running onto the ball at speed and move together.

ADVERTISEMENT

Umaga-Allen engages the Chiefs defender into contact and his outside option has also done enough to hold the next man. The Hurricanes are direct and moving forward which holds the space on the outside. Laumape is able to time his run to hit the swivel pass at speed.

Now let’s look at the Brumbies in the same situation. The ball has moved wide left and the Brumbies are setting up to come right.

The Brumbies 1-3-3-1 is far less ordered, with players at all sorts of depth.

We see less separation between each first level of three forwards and the back-door option. Each pod of three appears jumbled, with uneven triangle formations with players at different depths.

In both pods, the backdoor options, Tom Banks (15) and Harewa Wharenui (10) appear to line up behind the first forward, and in Banks case, actually inside him.

These are all minor details but are important, as we will see. The Brumbies use the swivel pass on the first pod instead of taking a hit up. As Wharenui looks to pass onwards we can see problems already with the next pod.

The third Brumbies runner is out of position, which is going to mess up the movement.

The third forward is not in a position to be a tip option on the first level. He is almost side-by-side with Banks in the second level, which is going to mess the whole movement up. He was too deep to begin with and can’t catch up.

Poor catch-and-pass. The Brumbies lock is not a playmaker.

Secondly, the lead runner Arnold unnecessarily jumps in the air to catch a perfectly catchable ball, which throws off the timing of everyone. He lands and becomes stationary, swivels around in the opposite direction around loops a terrible pass to Banks.

Momentum lost – the play has already stalled.

Arnold doesn’t have a second outside option on his right and hasn’t engaged any Reds defenders into contact, allowing all of them to slide. The third runner is also now in the way of Banks and risks being called for obstruction, as Banks hasn’t got past his outside shoulder.

Disjointed – the third runner now ends up in the way, risking obstruction.

Banks is not able to get outside Reds centre Chris Feauai-Sautia (2), which the play is supposed to create. The third runner is supposed to pull his attention in, while Banks coming around the back at pace is able to get around him. Even still, quick ball could get the ball to the edge to take easy metres but Banks cuts back into the sliding defence.

In contrast, Laumape gets outside his man as the play is designed, draws the next one into contact (Damian McKenzie) and pops a brilliant offload to Lam into the lane that just opened up. Each player in the movement doing their job properly creates the space.

Everyone plays direct, understands their role and has the necessary skills to do so.

The Brumbies, by contrast, are the opposite. The players either don’t know what their jobs are, are too lazy or aren’t good enough to perform them. It’s sloppy from start to finish with a lack of timing and decent passing. It’s this lack of attention to detail that plagues all the Australian sides and why their attack struggles when they play New Zealand sides.

We don’t sit in on the coaches review each week so we have no idea what kind of details get brought up in film review, however, it doesn’t take long to find constant examples of poor execution like this.

The Reds under their previous coaches were deplorable, they have taken big strides under Thorn but have also simplified a lot of what they do keep things basic. Their attack is very one-dimensional and will get blown off the park when they play the New Zealand teams.

The Rebels have improved markedly under Wessels and the ex-Force movement. Their set-piece attack has become the best in Australia, strategically. They deserve credit for the way they use the platform to strike the opposition with elaborate back play, usually with Will Genia involved heavily. Other areas are a concern and yesterday’s loss to the Jaguares proved so.

Australia’s top side is the Waratahs, they now sit atop of the Aussie conference with five wins from seven and are yet to play a Kiwi side. They will get their chance during May when they play four New Zealand sides in a row. They present the best chance to end the streak, perhaps when they play the Blues in Sydney.

If the Waratahs don’t beat the Blues, it will likely be another winless year for Australian sides against the New Zealand conference.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 5 hours ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Yep, that's exactly what I want.

Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.

It's 'or'. If Glasgow won the URC or Scotland won the six nations. If one of those happens I believe it will (or should) be because the league is in a strong place, and that if a Scotland side can do that, there next best club team should be allowed to reach for the same and that would better serve the advancement of the game.


Now, of course picking a two team league like Scotland is the extreme case of your argument, but I'm happy for you to make it. First, Edinbourgh are a good mid table team, so they are deserving, as my concept would have predicted, of the opportunity to show can step up. Second, you can't be making a serious case that Gloucester are better based on beating them, surely. You need to read Nicks latest article on SA for a current perspective on road teams in the EPCR. Christ, you can even follow Gloucester and look at the team they put out the following week to know that those games are meaningless.


More importantly, third. Glasgow are in a league/pool with Italy, So the next team to be given a spot in my technically imperfect concept would be Benneton. To be fair to my idea that's still in it's infancy, I haven't given any thought to those 'two team' leagues/countries yet, and I'm not about to 😋

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.

Incorrect. You aren't obviously familiar with knockout football Finn, it's a 'one off' game. But in any case, that's not your argument. You're trying to suggest they're not better than the fourth ranked team in the Challenge Cup that hasn't already qualified in their own league, so that could be including quarter finalists. I have already given you an example of a team that is the first to get knocked out by the champions not getting a fair ranking to a team that loses to one of the worst of the semi final teams (for example).

Sharks are better

There is just so much wrong with your view here. First, the team that you are knocking out for this, are the Stormers, who weren't even in the Challenge Cup. They were the 7th ranked team in the Champions Cup. I've also already said there is good precedent to allow someone outside the league table who was heavily impacted early in the season by injury to get through by winning Challenge Cup. You've also lost the argument that Sharks qualify as the third (their two best are in my league qualification system) South African team (because a SAn team won the CC, it just happened to be them) in my system. I'm doubt that's the last of reasons to be found either.


Your system doesn't account for performance or changes in their domestic leagues models, and rely's heavily on an imperfect and less effective 'winner takes all' model.

Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't.

No your systems doesn't. Not all the time/circumstances. You literally just quoted me describing how they aren't going to care about Challenge Cup if they are already qualifying through league performance. They are also not going to hinder their chance at high seed in the league and knockout matches, for the pointless prestige of the Challenge Cup.


My idea fixes this by the suggesting that say a South African or Irish side would actually still have some desire to win one of their own sides a qualification spot if they win the Challenge Cup though. I'll admit, its not the strongest incentive, but it is better than your nothing. I repeat though, if your not balance entries, or just my assignment, then obviously winning the Challenge Cup should get you through, but your idea of 4th place getting in a 20 team EPCR? Cant you see the difference lol


Not even going to bother finishing that last paragraph. 8 of 10 is not an equal share.

126 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search