"The Australian Way"

Rightio, what is it?
I suspect it is different things to different people and different generations.

To me, when I hear the phrase "the Australian way of playing Rugby", what comes to mind is the flowing avalanche of backline running Rugby circa-Ella era through to Larkham. Bursting runs from Fullback by Gould and Latham. All supported by a strong lineout and world class Backrows over the breakdown.

When Jones returned he was using the phrase, but when after some weeks he articulated the vision it was a different painting to mine.
It seemed (as I recall some months later) he was talking hard grit, uncompromising etc etc.
To me they are a given of being an International sportsman, not a "way"?

Waugh now (and also others) is using the phrase.
Does he mean the same as Jones, or is it a different vision again?

So, what is your "Australian Way"?

This is a huge bug bear for me.

There is no "Australian Way" of playing.

This term is loosley thrown about yet there is no defintion of it anywhere, and I have never seen or heard of any other country referring to "The Australian Way"

It is usually used to justify selecting an Australian coach more times than not.

It seems to elude to a "running backline", however we are not the only country to ever have had a running backline style of play and we certainly do not own it!

Cheika seemed to want to hold poccession and attack through forwards and then backs.

Jones wanted to give away poccession and rather defend.

Yet both referred to it as the Australian way.

Rugby is pretty simple, you want to hold poccession and fatigue your opposition so that you can break their defence to make a gap and score a try.

You can run at a gap, you can collide to try and form a gap, you can pass to get a gap, or you can kick and chase to try and regain poccession and make a the gap.

Rant over....

I dunno Burgs, probably something akin to what you were thinking of. The reliance on perfecting a set of the "basics of the game" that favoured the Australian resources available at the time, plus the need to compete with the continuous action of rugby league and Aussie Rules. Certainly there was a lot of innovation and resource-allocation in the way it was played. I think when I watch a lot of rugby from other nations now, plenty of it reminds me of the Wallabies from the 80s and 90s- certainly when something out-of-the-box happens, reminds me a lot of the "old days"

I'm with Tazz. The game play and tactics evolve all the time. Just watch some English Premiership. Does that look like the stereotype NH way of playing? Good coaches are a step ahead. I just have this nagging doubt about bolting a top down carbon copy of NZ onto a very different foundation.
Still; I suppose it can't be worse than the past 2 decades. I hope.

What ever it is, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include box kicks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darren

What ever it is, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include box kicks...

---

Amen!!!

There was a while when the 'Australian Way' appeared to be picking forwards for their ability to run with ball in hand, rather than their set-piece ability, and picking backs who could compete well at the ruck (presumably because the forwards couldn't do it!).

These days the 'Australian Way' appears to be to play almost as well as the opposition, no matter how good the opposition are (or aren't).

A rugby version of the Dutch "Total Football." I also remember the old mantra of "soft hands, quick hands" with the players standing flat instead of the French style of standing deep. I know there was also an idea of the play being called further down the line from the fly-half, usually at inside-centre, and also an emphasis on being able to call backline set-moves during open-play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darren

What ever it is, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include box kicks...

---

Can't we just ban the thing all together.

It is an obsession with backline play, without real understanding or regard for what creates the conditions for those plays. It comes out of a deeply ingrained sense of inferiority regarding League, unfortunately felt most strongly in the regions that sit at the centre of Union, and IMO due in large part by confusing the success bred by 100 years of professional administration with success due to the product. Deep down they don't feel or know how to be professional, so they subconsciously think if they copy the product it will fix their shortcomings. Instead they just get rubbish game plans that professional Union teams have no problems dealing with, and an over-regard for 'finishers' rather than 'doers'.

And a continued lack of any idea how to run a complete code. They focus entirely on the professional game, but the more they spend on it, the worse it gets, and rather than question why that is, they just keep trying to find still more to spend. All while paying lip service to the rest, but worse than having no idea, they have just one and are prepared to ride the game into the grave on the back of that one trick.