Wally the Fly

While Mitch Johnson has impressed with the bat over the summer nothing quite prepared you for the his blasting 123 against the Saffas.

To get a century with a strike rate at over a hundred against one of the best bowling attacks in cricket, to smash through the so-called nervous 90s by slogging the best seamer in the world for six was just sensational.

The press heralded that the left-armer is officially an all-rounder. Whether he is or isn’t is really not the point and getting too carried away with his batting ability may put us into the position where we start making wrong selections (again!).

We need Johnson first and foremost as a bowler. We need a left-armer that can take wickets the way he has in the past six Tests, who can intimidate opposing batsman and continue spell after spell to put the ball down at the pace that he does.

While Australia are in a great position having him bat at 8 we should never put him any higher in the order. Johnson’s 96no and 123no were innings played by someone without the pressure that comes with being a specialist batsman or designated all-rounder.

If we start expecting him to take wickets and make runs every Test then there’s a chance both may suffer.

A thrilling Test match overnight (well the second half at least) as Ireland took the Six Nations title and the Grand Slam (beating all five other teams) for the first time since 1948 and only the second time in history.

So what do we make of the past couple of months of the northern hemisphere’s finest?

At the beginning of the season there were two important themes for mine: firstly, can Wales back up their fantastic 2008 form (winning the Grand Slam and beating Australia) and show they are genuine contenders with the Southern hemisphere giants?

Second, who will make the Lions XV and do they have any hope of beating the Springboks in the rainbow nation?

Well on the first front Wales, despite a great win against England, showed they are not yet global force. Far from fast exciting rugby they displayed against the Wallabies last year the wheels fell off towards the end of the tournament.

Bad options under pressure lost them the winnable (but tough) game against Le Bleus at Stade de France while against Ireland last night they were unable to come up with a single five pointer.

Indeed for a team that needed to win by 13 points to steal the championship, why did they constantly go for penalty goals?

They have a dominant scrum and a back row that can capture good ball at the breakdown but seem unable to win the tight games (All Blacks last year, France and Ireland this year…Australia being the notable exception).

IRB World Player of the Year Shane Williams had some good touches but goes missing massively in games, barely gets his hands on the pill against the Irish and the French.

As for the champions, Ireland may not have played the most attractive rugby, particularly against England Ireland fell into the trap that has been evident in many of the Super teams this season; useless, pointless, aimless, terrible kicking.

However they have two inspirational, world class players in lock Paul O’Connoll and Brian O’Dristcoll. O’Connoll is an unbelievable talent, a brilliant lineout player and a tough tight five who leads from the front. Brian O’Dristcoll was also sensational; hard as nails in defence, coming up with some pivotal backline play and twice coming into the messy ruck and bashing his way over the opposition forwards for crucial tries in two different games.

Ireland and Wales both have the ability to be up there with the Springboks and the All Blacks. If Ireland can build on their superior line-out and match it in the forwards they stand a chance moving towards 2011. The big asterisk on that one is that O’Gara, undoubtedly a kicking ‘stand-off’ needs to unleash some of his impressive backs in O’Dristcoll, Kearney and the speedster Tommy Bowe.

As for England, despite officially coming second (due to superior points difference, France, England and Wales all lost two matches) are a mess. At one point the men in white had conceded 10 yellow cards in just four games.

The sin binning machine developed from the fact England were desperate and often quite terrible and resorted to negative rugby. It was negative rugby in terms of their playing style, the many professional fouls and rough tactics (especially against Ireland).

France proved to any who still doubted that they are the Italy of rugby; capable of beating anyone on their day but equally be woeful the next.

So there you have it! Plenty of action, some great games and some terribly dull, kicking orientated rubbish us south of the equator usually associate with the Six Nations.

Next post: Lions tour.

There was a nice little to and fro with Wally’s great pal Mad Dave Weiner today about the Wallabies plan to play the Barbarians in June this year… oh and Sonny Bill Williams is playing.

Mad Dave reckons the match is a ‘waste of time,’ that Messiah John O’Neill wants fans ‘to turn up to watch penalty kicks in a match of little to no significance.’ 

He continues:

“As Laurie Daley pointed out, shouldn’t the league fraternity revel in the fact that a league convert is still needed in NSW to spark up interest in a Rugby contest? But all this misses the real question to be asked!  

Where the hell is a Barbarian from anyway? Of course the answer is nowhere, a bunch of nomads brought together for the sake of tradition, an exhibition contest that might, hopefully, be worth savouring for the rare treat of attacking rugby. But it’s not exactly a full blown all-star match, so what’s the point. It’s a great gimmick” 

At this point The Sideline Eye took offence and ordered men to the ramparts and the loading up of the trebuchet.

A certain recalcitrant fly shrieked:

 “Clearly you don’t understand the nature of the Barbarian fixture which rather than a stunt or a gimmick which you lazily suggest (lazy as you didn’t bother to read up on where it actually originates from). Ba Ba’s fixtures began in 1890, yes quite a while before league raided rugby’s best talent to ’spark up interest’ (to use your Laurie Daley quote out of context) in the new sport.

Saying the Ba Ba’s game doesn’t mean anything shows ignorance in the importance the fixture has played in rugby for over a century… You wouldn’t have said the game was meaningless if you’d seen the Ba Ba v Wallabies game from the spring tour last year. Where George Smith bashed his body against the likes of Jerry Collins and Skulk Burger and in the after match interview, head covered in blood told the interviewer how important the game was for Australia to win… 

The hypocrisy of leaguies to talk about boycotting the game is hilarious not only because a) as if leaguies go to Ra Ra games anyway and b) you’re just helping rugby get free promotion for this game. The game is more about getting an exciting fixture in the June Test window because the Home Nations will be in South Africa as part of the British and Irish Lions side and we’ll be stuck with an ordinary Italian outfit.

And Sonny Bill? He’s a talented player and there is widespread interest in how he goes in a new code. Will he put bums on seats? Of course and good on rugby for thinking outside the square to get him out here.” 

So yes nothing brings out robust debate like sport, especially when the dividing line is between the rugby codes. But as harsh as wallythefly’s comments seem it was done in good humour. 

The point of course is this; the league commentators are bemoaning it as a stunt where the more correct term would be a smart, strategic move by the ARU to put a spark in the usually dull June Test window.  The Barbarians game meaningless? Watch it this June (which will have a dramatically increased TV audience no doubt) and come back and say the 30 men on the pitch thought it was ‘meaningless’. 

To see the full debate see Mad Dave’s blog here.

Are rugby league trial games really worthwhile? 

The question first hit me when watching the news about a month ago which gave all the trial results including Penrith playing two trial games on the same weekend at different towns. They split their team in two! 

South Sydney used the ‘return to Redfern’ trial game in February as a big carrot for their membership drive. However there were plenty of complaints from fans who were traveling long distances for the ‘historic’ game only to find out Souths were basically fielding a second string side. I noted that in the Andrew Johns autobiography he reckons there are too many games a season (regular season should be 20 games) and that trials should be scrapped completely. 

Similarly the Daily Telegraph’s Josh Massoud wrote an article about how the long and tough NRL season means players will be more likely to play overseas where they can play in a less physically gruelling competition. In this context he calls for trial games to be scrapped.

On Saturday night I went to the Charity Shield, where the game was pretty poor but the fact that 25,000 people rocked up shows that it does have some meaning to the fans.

The fact that a lot of the games are played in regional areas, promoting the game to people who live hours away from the closest stadium is something the league should take a lot of pride in.

But my question remains: do teams really need trial games? Would one game (like the Charity Shield) for each team be enough?

Sitting back watching the beginning of the 1st Test in Jo’Burg it seemed that finally, the Aussie selectors had picked a well-balanced side.

 A side where bowlers were picked for their bowling (not batsman with ’handy’ spin) and a genuine run scoring number six.

This would have been the case had the selectors resisted their ultra conservative nature in selecting Andrew McDonald.

But more on that later.

First of all let’s champion the fact that Phil Hughes has been given the opening spot and despite a nervous shot to get out for a fourth ball duck has justified his place with a well worked 75 in his second ever Test dig.

(Just to change the topic momentarily, why on earth couldn’t Katich have faced the first ball? Phil Hughes, 20 years old had to face the first ball of the Test against the world’s best seamer, surely a slightly slower introduction to Test cricket, i.e. from the non-strikers end, would have been called for).

Secondly, to get a genuine batting all-rounder in at number six in Marcus North proved successful when the debutant scored a remarkable century. It’s fair to disclude Symonds who has no form to demand his place in the team and north, as stated before on The Sideline Eye  North’s batting talent puts him above any of the other contenders in D Hussey, White or McDonald.

But while selectors seemed to have finally after a long summer and tour of India characterised in some part for poor selections it became apparent as you looked down the batting order that A McDonald was Australia’s fourth bowler. With all respect to McDonald he is in the awkward position of not being a good enough playerto justify his place as a genuine Test bowler or batsman. The fact he was batting at 8 and bowled relatively few overs is testament to this. 

Given that North has the so-called all-rounder position at 6 why did they decide to plunk him in? Was McGain’s form so bad that having a so and so medium pacer who can bat a better option? While that sounds ordinary logic to any one that watched White in India its probably the most likely scenario.

While Australia are looking good in this Test so far the lack of a specialist spin bowler in the attack will come to bite sooner or later.