Australia Rugby

Star Australian rugby player Joel Monaghan quit the Canberra Raiders when Internet photographs surfaced of him performing a sex act with a dog.

Monaghan was attending an end-of-season house party with players and friends, when a photo was snapped of him and his teammate's Labrador dog.

Monaghan, 28, had a $250,000-per-year contract.

Whoa, hold it.

I'm not sure I can write this story. I know when I started Silliman on Sports, I made a commitment to bringing the strange sports stories to my readers.

And I said I would search worldwide for these stories. Which, strangely, many times involves rugby players.

But, a Labrador having sex with a rugby player? You'd think a Lab would have better taste.

I mean, sure, Monaghan is embarrassed and is getting run out of Australia.

But what about the Lab? Her pictures showed up on the Internet, also.

The Lab is going to have to live with shame she did it with a rugby player.

She's going to tell her dog buddies that there was no penetration, and there wasn't. She's going to tell them she was offered a bone and doesn't everybody like bones?

And then she's going to say she didn't realize the bone was still attached.

And they'll come back, "Yeah, sure. But it was still a RUGBY player!"

And then other dogs will pipe up, "It's not a golfer. It's not even Greg Norman."

And then all the dogs will gather around and repeat, "It was a Rugby player. A Rugby player! They go out to the pub after a match without showering, all sweaty and grimy..."

Joel Monaghan accepts total responsibility and said so in his resignation speech.

"I was drunk," Monaghan said. "The dog did not seduce me. The dog was pretty, yes, but she is not at fault."

Monaghan went on to say he was moving to England and will try to get on with an English Rugby team.

Yeah, like there is no Internet in England.

And nobody with cameras. And, of course, there are no Labradors in England.

Absolutely no Labs.

And, of course, Labs in Australia never communicate with Labs in Britain.

Wow. Is this type of thing unusual for rugby players? Not really.

Silliman on Sports has reported many strange rugby related events. That's why I thought the dogs would be aware.

I can list 100 events where rugby players acted crazy (they wear no helmets), but I'll just list two.

1) There was a rugby player named Johnny Raper in the 60s and 70s who walked through the streets of Leeds completely naked, except for a bowler hat. His name was Raper, and he did this every week.

2) Craig Gower, captain of the Panthers, got drunk at a charity golf event in 2005.

He allegedly verbally abused guests, groped a teenage girl, hit the girl's brother over the head with a beer bottle, then vomited on him.

He then allegedly stripped down, streaked around the golf course, totaled a golf cart, held a butter knife to the neck of a Sydney radio announcer, before throwing it at a hotel guest,and then engaged in a brawl with resort security.

You know what rugby players call this behavior? Saturday.

The dog should have known.

The wonder of a second test match is that the hosting Australians and visiting English know exactly what to expect from each other.

Paradoxically, the losing team from Perth may actually have the edge.  That is if they've learned any lessons from a painful defeat.

The Wallabies, with all their youthful exuberance, are playing a game that is wonderful for its sheer viewing pleasure. And while it is easier said than done, an all-out attacking strategy could be shut down, were it not for the maestro pulling the strings for the green and gold machine.

Deans has introduced new blood and encourages the overused expression of “playing what is in front of you.”

But the real menace in this Australian team is that their structured play, epitomised by lovely angles, support on attack, and a coordinated defence.

The English side showed, as they did under Johnson, that they have the physical might to dominate the Wallabies. And with more facets, the foundation to build progress and record—as their senior players lament—that elusive big scalp is there.

If one created a rugby team from scratch, and gave them a scrum of the power that has been revealed by England so far in Australia, the opportunities should be endless.

What would be frustrating for Martin Johnson and his men would not be so much that their set piece dominance should have resulted in a healthy win. But that there was not even the associated links that one connects with a physical forward pack.

The Wallabies, via a resurgent Luke Burgess, found plenty of freedom around the edge of the ruck, an area where no team would be given any change when Martin Johnson and his “white orcs on steroids” ruled the world.

Even when the Australians recycled possession, there was no menace or hunger in the counter ruck, something a big physical forward unit should be revelling in.

Equally rumbling English forwards attacking off first phase should have broken the advantage line to enable some semblance of a pressure sustained attack.

But, all too often, they were picked off by enthusiastic Wallaby hit men.

England seems to resemble the side that carried all before them when Johnson and Clive Woodward engineered an unbeatable hegemony. Yet, by the same token, it seems worlds apart, despite being run by the same man who captained them to such heights.

England will not click their fingers and suddenly wield a dazzling backline attack. For this test at least, they must surely plot their success via their pack. Trying to engage the Wallabies in a running game will result in an embarrassing loss.

This is where it could be dangerous for Australia in a development stage.

They are ahead of the curve in regards of where they want to be.  And, unlike England, they seem to have a process in place in terms of their rugby maturity.

However, notwithstanding all the wonders of their cheeky backline attack, and despite the fact that they continue to be recognized under Dean's as arguably the most intelligent rugby side in world rugby (and rightly so), all the wiles in the world will not always cover up a lack of heavy artillery up front.

Their forward pack seems to operate solely to support their attacking three quarter division. And here they have painted a huge target on their backs if a side is willing to take up the challenge of shutting them down via trench warfare.

One may marvel at the Wallabies' style, but recent history has proven that such an all out attack, with an apparent disregard for the tenets of rugby via forward play and set piece dominance, can come horribly unstuck.

The most obvious example would hail back to 2003, when the All Blacks travelled to Pretoria and Sydney to open that year’s Tri Nations with 52-16 and 50-21 triumphs over their old foes.  The New Zealand side used a blitzkrieg style offensive from a sparkling squadron of backs.

However, in return games, despite losing, the Springboks and Wallabies discovered how to overcome such a formula. In that year’s World Cup semifinal, the Australians simply gave New Zealand no ball and swamped the ruck to win 22-10,  crashing them out of the World Cup.

The assistant coach of the All Blacks, and backline mentor that day, was Robbie Deans. One wonders, despite his obvious credentials, if he is repeating history with a different test side.

England has been on a curious road now. They still seem unable to settle on a desired match day approach. But for all the criticism of their lack of adventure, perhaps their best path lies in a switch back to forward orientated and uncompromising rugby.

Under Johnson, Brian Ashton, and Andy Robinson, the Red Rose has taken more steps backwards than forwards, en-route to no Six Nations titles, only four Tri Nations scalps since 2004, and a less than acceptable 29 wins from 66 matches.

It is time for England to decide once and for all the direction they need to take.

The Wallabies have.

While there are areas that a Springboks or All Blacks team could capitalise on, if Deans is able to iron out the kinks, and buttress his side’s forward play, the Wallabies could become the most dangerous side in test rugby.

But with delicious irony, an English victory in Sydney, which they are well capable of achieving, could suddenly mean Johnson is on the right track, and send Deans back to the drawing board.

The Wallabies last night went down to an offensively inhibited Scotland, in what was one of the worst performances by an Australian sporting team ever witnessed. Australia have now won five games, drawn one and lost six out of their last twelve matches and to put it mildly, heads must roll.

It is bad enough that rugby is struggling to such an effect that the Australian public are just not interested in the game. Performances like this one though are likely to send rugby into sporting oblivion. Even rugby die-hards like myself can barely draw enough enthusiasm to watch this forgettable team.

Mentally this team is extremely weak and don't deserve the support of their rugby public. They obviously went into this match thinking they would win easily, yet they showed no real attacking belief.

Australia crossed the line four times to come away with only one try. Scotland to their credit did defend brilliantly, but to be realistic, should have lost by 40 points to this side.

Time and time again the Wallabies took the soft option of kicking for goal or even a ridiculous field goal attempt, instead of pushing for a try.

It took till the last two minutes for Australia to realise if they kept the ball in hand they would score, then Giteau missed a conversion any 14 year old could kick to put icing on a dreadful performance.

The Australian media will not accept this performance. Regardless of what happens against Wales, the wolves will be at the door when they return home. Robbie Deans has tried hard to mould this team, but its just not working.

Maybe they need to learn from the Rugby League Kangaroos, (who would probably thrash all the worlds best rugby teams at their own game), who back themselves and attack at all costs.

Whatever happens, better happen soon. Maybe Giteau should return to inside centre, maybe we should send out an SOS to Rod Mcqueen to come back and take over this team.

Heads must roll because this is unacceptable for any Australian team to put in performances this poor. Otherwise we may as well send our women's netball team to play rugby as they would probably put in a better performance than this team. 

Scotland 23-10 Fiji

But having said that, it was more clinical than we are used to, wasn’t it? How many times have we seen the scrum-half break (usually Mike Blair) with no-one on his shoulder and the move fizzles out?

This time when Cus went through the gap, pack-attack-captain Beattie was on his shoulder and lo-and-behold, try! While on other days a better (Aussie?) defence might have stopped that one, or the pass for Morrison’s try would have been given as forward.

Scotland don’t usually get the breaks in International rugby so we’ll take them against a team that were ranked higher than us. So far, so good—a win’s a win and all that.

The game and the Scotland team went a little to sleep in the second half though, and there were still signs of the odd silly error or turnover of old. The defence was up to the Fijians attempts to counter on the day. The opposition will be much stiffer next week and I think the intensity and concentration levels will need to go up a bit.

Hopefully the crowd levels will go up a bit too—it’s extremely poor not having some sort of ticket buying facility on the day. It’s not rocket science SRU, it means you can make more money!

Even if Andy Robinson is a fan of big wings, there is a pretty good argument for bringing Thom Evans in for Danielli. Given that pace, confidence and ball skills seemed to serve the Irish backs well against Australia yesterday (easily game of the weekend that one) and Evans has these in spades, the move makes sense.

Alex Grove made a solid debut in the 13 shirt, where he tackled well and made very few mistakes that I saw, along with a couple of nice passes that hinted at what he might offer in attack if the ball got to him more.

To replace him or not if Cairns is fit possibly becomes Robinson’s biggest decision this week. On the other side, the Wallabies have ball skills up the yahoo but there is still a fair amount of inexperience in their backline (Matt Giteau aside), so it’s almost an even contest in terms of experience if Scotland can find any sort of platform with which to take them on.

The improved Wallaby front-row could make the scrum an even contest (or worse) but with Moray Low and Kyle Traynor on form and Euan Murray still to come back at least we’re starting to get some depth on both sides of our props department.

The line-out went well despite the second-rows being generally quiet, but as always with Scottish hookers it could be a different story if their throwing-in is challenged by the opposition (or the ref).

Looking at the level of effort Ireland needed just to get a draw against Australia, it looks like quite a hill to climb for Scotland and Robinson. If we can get close enough to be in it with a few minutes left there’s a chance, but where is the Scottish Brian O’Driscoll who can create a bit of last-minute magic just when you need it most?

Oh, the lunchtime news tells me they’re going to fire the Scotland football coach (where of course it counts as news news, not sport news—which will also be all football). Maybe they should hire an Englishman? It’s working for us so far.

The mixed-up state of Wallaby rugby was emphasized when it was revealed that Western Force coach John Mitchell actually presented the Springboks with their jerseys on Saturday night.

With the Perth-based team so heavily represented, as well as the match being played in Mitchell’s stomping ground, there could not have been a more blatant exchange of intellectual property.

If he handed out the jerseys to the all-conquering South Africans, rest assured he would have offered insider information worth its weight in gold.

His stirring address, containing lines such as "this jumper has been filled by great players, only you can bring attitude to the jumper, you have what the Wallabies want, don't give it to them," was said to have stirred the Springboks to the core.

Perhaps such motivation, delivered by a formidable rugby hard man, would have been better if said to an Australian team that was not far off from clinical depression.

Where to start for a team that appears to be doing the opposite to what Robbie Deans is consistently preaching? Of course, no coach, who has the job of motivator amongst other things, should ever publicly admit, “we’re [insert expletive].” But this Wallaby team is taking countless steps backwards.

It starts and finishes with the coaches, who select, determine the game plan, and must react when bad things happen. But the players are equally culpable; who must, beyond all other things, put their bodies on the line for their country—such is the expectation for the honour of wearing a jersey emblazoned with your national colours and emblem.

Even the positives are hurting Australian rugby, with the Wallabies looking—in what is now a seven match losing streak against their Tri Nations opponents—competitive in periods (the slaughter in Johannesburg aside).

Their problem is that when they are not being competitive—an all but guaranteed emanation in recent games—they are displaying an ineffectiveness which is costing them matches. 

Off field issues are hardly helping, with the Tuqiri-gate scandal no doubt having players ask questions to themselves about their employer, and the uncertainty regarding the crispness of Australia’s Super 15 bid (with three bidders for one team in the same town) providing disturbances to the national fabric that are unwanted during a time of on field crisis.

Deans has responded by bringing in new faces to his Wallabies team, in Australia’s last test match on home soil.

It gets no easier for the Wallabies after this, with back-to-back tests against the All Blacks in Wellington and Tokyo, and then a European Grand Slam tour.

The question now is whether or not this current group of Australian players are fit to achieve what is the ultimate goal for both Deans and the Wallabies, a successful assault on the World Cup in New Zealand in 2011.

For while the hounds may be circling the Canterbury legend, it is unlikely that his job will be at stake, for it was the ARU boss John O’Neill’s decision to attract Deans, and there are no other overwhelming candidates.

But for all of the pessimism that may be surrounding the team, there are always positive slants.

First, we must take into account their Tri-Nations opposition.

The Springboks are the best team in the world. Even if that fact was to be disputed—by Irish or Welsh teams perhaps?—the reality is that South Africa’s arsenal has been far beyond their SANZAR rivals.

Even the All Blacks, whose quality may be disputed, are on a five match winning streak against Australia and have had (in Bledisloe terms) the stick on their Trans-Tasman foes since 2003.

Dean’s coaching?

Clearly something is working, as the Wallabies have been competitive in even losing efforts—again Johannesburg aside—but they are missing key winning ingredients.

Identification that rugby requires an 80 minute mindset, not dominance for every second, for not even the Springboks have achieved this, but maintaining momentum enough to remain competitive, or more importantly knowing how to close out matches.

Much of this comes down to confidence, when is decreasing by the match.

As for the players themselves, inclusion of players such as Will Genia will help, but the Wallabies selection net should be cast out in the coming months.

Identifying young talent is almost impossible, and here, Australia’s lack of a nationalized domestic competition is hurting.

Looking at senior men that have been neglected so far by Deans may be the Wallabies therapy.  Phil Waugh comes to mind, crucial considering that the Wallabies biggest shortcomings have been physically and through leadership.

But perhaps new foreigners may hold the answer. Think of the players off shore.  Recently departed are Mark Gerrard and Sam Norton-Knight. High profile league converts are Mark Gasnier and Luke Rooney.

Deans has two years to rectify a growing melancholy in Australian rugby that is affecting results now, but will eventually disturb far more.

There were more than 7,000 empty seats at a major test match at Perth against the Springboks.

Australian rugby cannot afford to lose any more ground.

The loss in Sydney not only was the second time that the Wallabies under Robbie Deans have lost three straight, but it appears that every loss is only raising more questions of a team that only two months ago was really beginning to look the goods.

As Deans took his post as coach of the Australian test team at the beginning of 2008, the first question I asked would be how he would adapt to a vastly different rugby environment.

In Canterbury, Deans was a rugby connoisseur of his surroundings, culture and history of the region.  The fact that he is considered a good coach was almost secondary to the fact that he had such an ingrained sense of belonging in the famous province.

To say Canterbury and New Zealand rugby is in his blood is an understatement.

Born in Cheviot North Canterbury, rugby player at the Christchurch institution Christ’s College, capped 146 times for Canterbury, played a total of 19 All Blacks matches (five tests), first year as coach of Canterbury in 1997 won the NPC title (ironically beating Graham Henry’s Auckland), and winner of five Super rugby titles with the Crusaders.

So while his general rugby pedigree is faultless, there was never any guarantee that his brilliant record would translate to Wallaby success.

You could almost argue that Australia as a nation doesn’t have the production line that Canterbury does, or at the very least—with no centralised domestic system outside the Super 14—struggles as a pure rugby conveyor, especially considering the competition the code suffers from other sports.

This can be epitomised by the statement that seems to be said with increasing frequency around Australian rugby circles “that Deans simply doesn’t have the cattle.”

This is highly debatable.

When looking at Australia’s playing ranks, there is no questioning the quality.

At World XV level, there is Matt Giteau, George Smith, and Rocky Elsom.  Stirling Mortlock and Berrick Barnes could be added to this list.

Depth is developing as well, especially in the front row, for so long an Achilles heel of Australian rugby, with Benn Robinson, Ben Alexander, the maligned Al Baxter, Stephen Moore, and Tatafu Polota-Nau.

As we saw earlier this year against the Barbarians, Azzuri, and Les Bleus, the Wallabies have the arsenal to put in highly impressive displays.

Equally, while their recent second half performances are so depressing for Australian fans, not many teams could boast that for four consecutive matches, they led the All Blacks at halftime.

This is the key issue.

There is a lack of mental strength, the ability to absorb comeback pressure, and the ability to keep doing what—in the case of their matches against New Zealand—is clearly working for opening periods in the match.

A great analogy would be that of a distance runner.  The finest such track specialists will always measure their race, never running too hard in the early stages, maintaining pace with the opposition throughout the crucial middle stages, but keeping enough stamina and focus in the tank to close out the final metres and win.

This is a fundamental lesson that the Wallabies can’t seem to put into practice, that Rugby is an 80 minute game.  And this Green and gold side is far from good enough to be able to win a match with an outstanding 20-40 minute burst (as seen by famous All Black teams of the past).

For the Australian supporters, this would be the most frustrating aspect of Dean’s men, and increasingly of the Canterbury man himself.

Why are the Wallabies failing to heed all of the clichés of rugby?

Just as important as the fore mentioned point is the single truism that that rugby is a game that must be won up front.  Worse still for the Wallabies, this maxim can be ignored if you are smart enough to take this out of the game. 

Incongruously for Australia, they have done this before.  Wallaby teams in the last decade have not had packs in the same class of their opposition, but have been wily enough to take this out of the equation.

Perhaps too much is trying to be changed.

Early in the Dean’s era, it was with great anticipation that we waited to see if the Wallabies would transform into an awesome international hybrid of the Crusaders—a heady meld of excellent rugby basics, patience and counter attacking brilliance.

None of this has eventuated so far, with the dominant message being that Deans is trying to get his Australians to play what is in front of them.

This seems to be in stark contrast to the modern strength of their rugby, with the potency under the Rod McQueen/John Eales era being of sides that thrived on structure and patterns.

Are the players subconsciously confused as to their roles?

Other speculations, such as fitness, are probably off the mark.  In the modern game a team of full time professional athletes should have what it takes to match their antagonists, although the responsibility of this area is not just in the realm of the international setup, but of the Super 14 managements as well. 

Hopefully next year, Deans will reverse his 2009 approach and work more closely, and even demand certain requirements from his Super 14 counterparts.

The foundations are there, but it is just a case of remembering the basics and finding the right mix.

The Wallabies against both the Springboks and All Blacks are coming off second best in the physical contest, and are being forced off their game. 

In this, if the men on the park are not delivering to the expectation required of an international test player, then as Deans has suggested, these players need to be culled.  If the former Canterbury coach says that poor discipline and flagging standards will result in a player being dropped, he must back this up.

Richard Brown is a prime example here, with two yellow cards and two less than required performances from a flanker, whose primary role is to lead the way in the tackle and ruck contest.

Yet he remains in the team, while a physical warhorse such as Phil Waugh continues to be overlooked.  For the Wallabies sake, let us hope that Deans is not playing loyalties and favourites to the detriment of international success.

As the two somewhat dazed sides come into Bledisloe two, in the long run they may actually benefit from their recent losses in the build up to the 2011 World Cup.

Any particular comfort that either Graham Henry or Robbie Deans had regarding the status of their team has been erased in their recent matches.  While a loss for either man unleashes the wolves, there will be cold comfort in the fact that it is better to have such problems now, and not in two years time.

For Deans, this Tri Nations has been an awakening as to his side’s pedigree.  After going through their home tests on cruise control, with Australian media trumpeting their quality, back to back losses have revealed some glaring deficiencies in the side.

Of these, it would be the lack of composure that would be infuriating Deans.  Not only is this uncharacteristic to Australian teams, it would be the last thing anyone would say about a Crusaders side.

Other aspects seem almost confusing, with the once vaunted Wallaby lineout having malfunctioned shockingly off late, but in the same breath, their once laughed at pack able to repeatedly shunt back a Springbok scrum.

Some have said that Dean’s philosophies may be the problem, and the above certainly backs this if there is an identity crisis.  But equally this is somewhat irrelevant, as the Wallabies are forgetting the basic tenets of rugby, which would not be a gaffe by Deans.

Two of which are fundamental.

Win the collision, and play for 80 minutes. 

The Wallabies principle of low commitment to numbers in the ruck is disrupting their rhythm, but their inability to play an entire match is a cardinal offence.

A sin that has haunted them against the All Blacks.

And of the visitors, it is almost a case of how the mighty have fallen.

At the beginning of June, New Zealand was undoubtedly the best team in the world.  They had won everything on offer in 2008, were ranked number one in the world, and had supplied three teams to the Super 14 semi-finals.

They then lost to France, outhustled by a passionate Les Bleus side, and now have suffered back to back losses against the Springboks.

While injuries served a legitimate excuse early in the season, the worst feature now is that it is difficult to say what is wrong with the All Blacks.

Clearly their patterns have been altered by their coaching staff, playing a far more up tempo style than we witnessed last year.  But key features of the All Blacks game, evidenced by over a hundred years of benchmark rugby, have gone alarmingly quiet.

They are not dominating at the ruck and impact areas, are rarely offloading in the tackles, and often when players make breaks, there are precious few players looming in support.

A feature of the All Blacks in the modern era is that sometimes they become too cute.  Try too many fancy moves and overcomplicated structures.  Sometimes, the best thing for any team is to remember the fundamentals, and remember who does what. 

A feature of Henry’s teams is to have forwards stationed in the backline as ball carriers, but are they forgetting that in open play, their key role is to secure possession?  The famous All Black forwards of yesteryear worked as a cohesive unit, with one able to throw a blanket over their pack. 

As Henry has reportedly dished out some harsh truths to his players, maybe the best approach would be to go back to schoolboy basics.

But beyond anything else, few All Blacks have shined, with form deserting even their superstars.

On paper, both teams appear well matched.  The Wallabies boast 547 caps in their starting XV, to the All Blacks 544.

Dan Carter’s return will lift the side, irrespective of the camps comments to the contrary.  There are still question marks, and this match must be won for the future of many All Blacks.  The last time Henry lost a Tri Nations glittering careers were ended, and already both Kieran Read and Luke McAlister have been elevated to the starting XV.

Read offers more options in the air and the Canterbury captain is known for his leadership qualities.  McAlister hardly deserves the position on form, but restores a traditional first/second five playing bloc for the All Blacks, as well as more kicking options.

As for the Wallabies, the return of Rocky Elsom should revitalise them in the loose, but whereas the bulk of the All Blacks questions are aimed at their men, for the Wallabies it really is a question of attitude.

They are in the comfort of Stadium Australia, and must win or the Bledisloe is gone for the seventh consecutive year.  And for the All Blacks, it is that statistic that will give them comfort, knowing that in the last 12 matches against Australia they have won ten, and may have a greater psychological edge on the Wallabies than Dean’s men would care to admit.

Tight match, but the All Blacks don’t go six matches without firing.  New Zealand by eight.

The Wallabies have had to endure a preparation without coach Robbie Deans, as they prepare to face the team now considered the best side in the world.

Some in the North would argue this point, with Ireland and Wales, who provided the bulk of the recent Lions side, having not played a Southern nation for over eight months. 

The reality is that the All Blacks had earned the right to be called the best side in the world based on their heroics of 2008, and were overrun both by their own tactical inanity and a sublime unadorned game plan by Peter De Villiers' men.

Back-to-back victories by South Africa over the men in black have earned them both the IRB’s tag as the No. 1 team, and deserved favourites at this stage of the Tri Nations.

But a lot can change in one match.

For Australia, they will look to get a faltered season back on track, after losing to the All Blacks in Eden Park when they had the players, the early lead, and the momentum from a four-from-four home season to have killed off their old adversaries.

Ironically, the All Blacks victory and comeback in the later stages of that game was based around a pressure game plan and physical dominance in the tackle.

This was then the manner in which the Springboks defeated the All Blacks.

An approach that was simple and devastatingly effective.  While some, even within the Bokke’s borders, may say that it is a methodology that is boring and unspectacular (not adhering to the basic principle that rugby is ultimately entertainment) the be-all and end-all in test match rugby is about one thing.

Winning.

As the All Blacks have learned; for while their almost kamikaze approach was geared towards attacking and entertaining rugby, few care for a flamboyant style of "you lose."

In this, the Wallabies need to find a medium, and the Lions did show the necessary blueprint required to beating the fearsome Springboks.

Quell their physicality, run at them with well executed and supported attacking lines (a la Jamie Roberts and Brian O’Driscoll), and don’t let them apply a stranglehold in your own half.

This needs to be backed up by a strong kicking game, with the Springboks reigning supreme with a triple-headed punting menace in Fourie Du Preez, Morne Steyn, and Francois Steyn.

If this threat can be nullified, the South Africans have shown little inclination to run the ball.  While the application of their strategy is brutally simple, it is hardly one that cannot be countered.

However, that is easier said than done.

While the Wallaby pack will be faced with their biggest challenge so far this year, the fate of the Australian’s success will rest on their playing axis of Matt Giteau and Berrick Barnes.

The Springboks have not encountered a pure twin playmaking bloc so far this year, and if the two talented “first and second” five eighths can control and sustain the play, something the All Blacks could not do, then the Wallabies could spring an upset.

The advantage here lies with the Wallabies in the fact that the Springboks will not likely change their patterns, and the tourists will not play dumb or high-risk rugby.

But as the All Blacks showed in their Garden of Eden, a confrontational style will upset Australia.

So for all the talk of guile and poise from the Australians, if the Springbok pack, anchored by Victor Matfield and Bakkies Botha playing their 50th test as a combination, dictates terms, then the Bokke will clean sweep all of their Tri Nations home games.

The Wallabies cannot do what the All Blacks did at times and shirk from this threat.

Again, as the Lions showed, you must attack the Springboks where they are most potent.

On paper, the teams appear to be relatively well matched. 

It will be both De Villiers' and Dean's 19th test match in charge of their men, with both fielding unchanged starting XV’s for the first time in their respective tenures.

No one has mentioned it, but there may be thoughts of revenge on the minds of the Wallabies, having suffered a test record 8-53 loss in Johannesburg in their last meeting.

In this though, the Wallabies will field what appears now to be their strongest side, with no obvious weak link in the team, whereas at Ellis Park the Springboks ran riot in Timana Tahu’s channel. 

However, the Springboks have evolved this year, unveiling two brilliant match winners who can do no wrong on the field. 

The Wallabies though may target the new threats of Steyn and the outstanding Heinrich Brussouw, with the home team relying on the Bull’s first five’s boot and the new dimension they have at the breakdown with the Free State flankers scavenging.

In summary, it is simple. 

If the Wallabies can shut down key aspects of the Bokke, they will win.  If the World Cup winners are allowed to impose their rudimentary play on the visitors, it could get ugly.

Head to head: Played 65, Springboks 38, Wallabies 26, Drawn 1

At Newlands: Played 9, Springboks 6, Wallabies 3

South Africa: 15 Frans Steyn, 14 JP Pietersen, 13 Jaque Fourie, 12 Jean de Villiers, 11 Bryan Habana, 10 Morné Steyn, 9 Fourie du Preez, 8 Pierre Spies, 7 Juan Smith, 6 Heinrich Brüssow, 5 Victor Matfield, 4 Bakkies Botha, 3 John Smit (captain), 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 Tendai Mtawarira.
Replacements: 16 Chiliboy Ralepelle, 17 Jannie du Plessis, 18 Andries Bekker, 19 Danie Rossouw, 20 Ricky Januarie, 21 Ruan Pienaar, 22 Adi Jacobs

Australia: 15 Adam Ashley-Cooper, 14 Lachie Turner, 13 Stirling Mortlock (captain), 12 Berrick Barnes, 11 Drew Mitchell, 10 Matt Giteau, 9 Luke Burgess, 8 Wycliff Palu, 7 George Smith, 6 Richard Brown, 5 Nathan Sharpe, 4 James Horwill, 3 Al Baxter, 2 Stephen Moore, 1 Benn Robinson.
Replacements: 16 Tatafu Polota-Nau, 17 Ben Alexander, 18 Dean Mumm, 19 David Pocock, 20 Will Genia, 21 Peter Hynes, 22 James O'Connor.

Referee: Alain Rolland (Ireland)

With the double signings of both Berrick Barnes and Drew Mitchell today by New South Wales, it has become obvious that the Australian Super 14 hopes will be a two horse race in 2010.

More to the point, both the Queensland Reds and Western Force will struggle to compete let alone finish in the top half of the table.

Both teams have not done this in recent Super rugby history. 

The Force did finish seventh in their second year, but placed one position worse this year, and will not have the services of key players next year, most notably Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell.

Fortuitously for the three year old team, they still are able to recruit shrewdly, employing a strategy based on the fact that they are still a rugby state in genesis, banking on the reputation of John Mitchell as a back to basics rugby coach—who is still highly regarded despite this year’s controversies—and pulling over players who are “stuck behind” other front line players in other teams.

Headlined by former Springbok Andre Pretorius, the Force has also signed Brett Sheehan, Nic Henderson, Pek Cowan, Tim Fairbrother, Matt Dunning and Sam Harris.

While all are solid signings, these men are not championship winning additions.

The Queensland Reds however, a foundation Australian rugby state, are in complete disarray.

They have finished no higher than 12th in the last three years, and haven’t finished better than eighth since 2003.  It is a damning statistic on a team whose history books reflect victories over the All Blacks and British and Irish Lions, and who threatened the Super rugby title in the late nineties.

In the long term, for a rugby nation about to host a fifth team, whether it is actually a local side or a “lodged team” from another country, this could present problems; for the ARU, the already tenuous SANZAR alliance, and the market value of the Super rugby broadcasting deals.

If the fifth team is of locally composed players, how will it be manned considering the gross in-balance of current Australian rugby stocks?

The Brumbies next year will field eleven Wallabies, most of them first choice.

Key amongst their new signings is Rocky Elsom and Matt Giteau. 

This allows the two time champions to make a concerted assault on the 2010 title.  With Elsom, Giteau, Stirling Mortlock and George Smith—the Canberra based franchise wields a minimum of four players who could be counted as inclusions into a possible World XV.

For the Waratahs, their position is even more impressive, able in theory to roll out an entire starting team of internationally capped players.  Eleven of their squad featured in the Wallabies last match 22 against the All Blacks at Eden Park, and despite losing both Lote Tuqiri and Timana Tahu, they will look to hoist a maiden Super rugby title.

The strength of these two teams is a reflection of precious little control over Australian playing stocks and associated movement.

Some detractors will be quick to point out that there is lack of balance in both South Africa’s and New Zealand’s Super rugby squads, but this is not based on the players making decisions to move teams/states.

In South Africa, while the Cheetahs and Lions certainly struggle for success; the Sharks, Bulls and Stormers are legitimate title contenders (despite the Western Province side’s poor season this year—they came fifth in 2008). 

The three blue chip South African sides are strong based on their domestic union allocations, not due to an unfair player trading schedule.

The Stormers draw primarily from Western Province, winners of the most Currie Cup titles (32), while the Bulls draw from the Blue Bulls, winners of the second most (22), while the Sharks draw from Natal—the current Currie Cup champions.

In New Zealand it is similar, with the strength of their teams reflective of the depth of their geographical catchment areas, with the sides drawing from the 26 New Zealand domestic unions.

The Highlanders and Blues draw from three, whereas the Hurricanes draw from nine local unions.

All five New Zealand Super rugby franchises can lay some claim to success throughout the 13 year history of the tournament.

Furthermore, the NZRU has a draft system that allows the teams to protect 24 players, but those outside that safeguard are able to be traded fairly (by and large) to other “super provinces.”

But despite ambitious bids—for the 15th Super rugby team—from New Zealand and South Africa, this is a moot point.

Australia will host the new side, but with their domestic house not in order, certainly the likely continued hegemony in the local landscape by the Brumbies and Waratahs will need to be addressed soon.