The price of Anglo-Saxon stoicism

Small

Paul Rees

12 months ago

A week after the home unions returned to the British Isles after their tours to the southern hemisphere, the Chiefs played the Highlanders as the Super 15 resumed.

The game was instructive, as was, if to a lesser extent, the encounter between Western Force and the Brumbies, while in South Africa the Stormers and the Lions later showed that any satisfaction England felt at drawing the final Test against the Springboks was misplaced.

Only Scotland had any reason to feel a sense of achievement, defeating Australia in a Newcastle swamp before winning with a late try in Samoa. A team that was whitewashed in the Six Nations found a measure of salvation.

The tours showed, yet again, that there the game in New Zealand and Australia is fundamentally different to that in Europe, all the more so that the French have abandoned laissez-faire for Anglo-Saxon stoicism.

To watch the Chiefs against the Highlanders was to take in two teams whose players were not only comfortable with the ball in hand and skilful, but willing to take what in Europe are considered risks: running from their own territory and off-loading.

The Brumbies forced the Force to play in a similar way. There is a perception in Europe that Super 15 is basketball with studs, a tournament that disregards the traditions of the game in pursuit of simplified entertainment, a disdainfully superior attitude that is self-defeating.

The hits in Dunedin had as much impact as any in the English Premiership or the French Top 14; defence was not an optional extra. The key difference was the attitude of the team in possession, less concerned with territory than confounding the defence.

It was like watching Spain in the recent Euro 2012, cavaliers compared to the lumpheads of England, able to retain possession and mount clever attacks with running off the ball a notable feature, a compelling mix of individualism and teamwork.

Wales arrived in Australia as the Six Nations champions having won the grand slam. Their deficit in the three Tests against the Wallabies was a mere 11 points, less than four a match, and they lost the last two after leading in the closing minutes.

They got what they deserved because they did not push themselves to the limit. Their gameplan was to kick long and often, attacking in opposition territory, and they were ultimately undone by a lack of creativity in midfield. James Hook was not used as a replacement for the injured Jamie Roberts, and if there was one incident that summed up Wales it came in the final Test when the centre Ashley Beck had two men outside him but went on his own and got nowhere.

European teams too often deal in three-pointers, playing territory for penalties or drops at goal. New Zealand and Australia trade in five-pointers which give teams the option of an extra two. Australia were under pressure at forward against Wales in the series, but they had ball-players in midfield and the try they created in the third Test, immediately after falling behind, marked them out from Wales.

New Zealand are Australia with an extra gear. They nearly paid for coasting in the second Test against Ireland, but in the first and third they outclassed opponents that contained the core of the Leinster side that retained the Heineken Cup.

The All Blacks were irrepressible in the final Test, all speed and bewildering movement by players who wear jerseys without numbers. It was a dazzling exhibition of total rugby, something that is foreign in Europe.

England’s series in South Africa was an arm-wrestle between two teams looking for the road to redemption. Creativity was at a premium and it was a missed opportunity for the men in white.

Allowances have to be made for the European teams who were at the end of what was an 11-month cycle. Fatigue was a factor, but it is in November when the southern sides pay reciprocal visits and tend to come out ahead.

Until the game in Europe discards the who dares sins motto and places a higher premium on passing rather than kicking, the home unions will continue to lose tight matches against Sanzar counterparts.

One more try per game would have been enough for Wales to have taken the series against the Wallabies but, as the saying goes, if you aim high and miss you can still succeed. If you aim low and miss, you have had it.

Get notified of more articles like this

We frequently post interesting articles and comment from our world class content providers so please provide us with your email address and we will notify you when new articles are available. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Posted under News & Opinions

5

Comments

au
Missing-small

Report as inappropriate

Huw Bowen

12 months ago

Ergo, Australia are NZ minus a gear, hardly! Two or three gears maybe! The Wallabies rugby lacked the same ambition you accuse NH teams of! They were painful to watch!

As regards kicking check out kicking stats for ABs/Crusaders etc. You’ll be surprised!

The point of difference in kicking games is not how often the ball is kicked but rather how effectively it is kicked and critically, chased! NZ teams use kicking as part of their attacking options and not merely to clear lines and gain territory!

As regards the positive, dynamic and highly skilled rugby displayed by the ABs and NZ S15 teams I agree, however, no one else is close to emulating them. Especially Aussie S15 teams! See earlier point re Wallabies!

For one I am bored of the NH v SH who’s best debate, it’s a little childish! I celebrate the fact we have a sport that is played differently according to culture, tradition, weather conditions etc! The Scotland/Wallabies game was compelling and yet no tries! Go figure!

de
Missing-small

Report as inappropriate

Rugbyfish

12 months ago

agree with Huw – Southern Hemisphere teams don’t actually kick less – it just feels like it because they play fast, exciting rugby as well.

us
Small

Report as inappropriate

Peter Evans

12 months ago

Well written Paul. Much more could have been said, but you covered the main issues. As a Brit I long for the day when our national sides can win against SH teams. I’m not greedy as I don’t even ask that we might win more than we lose. The skill level in NZ is sublime. They ran rings around Ireland, and would have done the same with any NH team. It begins and ends with coaching the young ‘uns all these sleight of hands skills. To play the modern game forwards need to be heavier backs. One could write a book on why ABs are so dominant, not least of which would be that they attack at pace, in space, and keep the ball alive. IN NH rugby we do just the opposite. We glorify the player who after taking 3 or 4 steps manages to get past the glorious gain line. I think many coaches honestly believe the theory that you can win a game by keeping possession and making a couple yards at a time off the back of rucks, and slowly ’walking’ the the team into try zone. The other thing we need to do in NH is get better fields. Most of the fields do not recover between games and are riddled with small potholes that do not help the running game. And why not stop rugby during the worst periods of winter months and let it run into summer months?

za
Small

Report as inappropriate

S Spooony

12 months ago

There is no risk anymore. NZ are a counter attacking side. They force you to kick it down your throat then run at back at you. Australia have to play their style as Rugby is ffighting for supporters with other codes.

au
Missing-small

Report as inappropriate

Huw Bowen

12 months ago

Tahs v Brumbies – full of attacking intent eh!? Somebody please explain Rees article! I’ve watched Leicester teams who’ve tried to play more rugby! Leicester…..!!!!