The Rugby Championship 2022, week 6 and final thoughts

While last week had some meta-commentary, this week not so much. Let’s dive straight in, and then finish up with some reflections on the whole of the championship.

NZ v Australia

This match ended up 40-14 and, honestly, the Wallabies were lucky to a) score both their tries and b) lucky not to have conceded about three more than the five they did. They can also count themselves lucky that Brace only saw a tip tackle when Holloway took Papalli to an inverted vertical and then dropped him as a Yellow Card only in the second minute. I’ve certainly seen Red Cards given for them - and it wouldn’t surprise me if the citing commissioner looks at that incident. Although there was a lot of pressure, the Australian defence held throughout this ten minutes - I think a YC after two minutes is perhaps easier to defend just because everyone is fresh, although the AB came really close (like an unlucky bounce of the ball close) on a couple of occasions. They did rack up 10 points rapidly after Holloway returned through - not quite quickly enough you can say it was the relaxation of “we got through the card’ and they lost focus. It seemed to be that the All Blacks kicked into gear a little bit better. The Wallabies had a second player see yellow in the first half as the rider for a penalty try, and again the AB were not able to score with that extra player but this time it was the Wallabies that piled on the pressure - almost scoring a try themselves (the only time you can really say they built one from pressure rather than scoring from luck).

In the second half the AB knuckled down and ground out the tries and penalties. The Wallabies scored from a charge down - it’s good defensive work to get the charge down, but it’s luck that it bounces into a Wallaby’s hands and that they reach the line without being tackled, then they score against the run of play in the last minute.

While stats don’t always tell the real story of a match, the Wallabies gave up something like 20 turnovers in total, and double digits knocks on. The ABs gave up three knocks on and fewer than 10 (I think it was eight) total turnovers (the extras are things like penalties at the ruck where they’re in possession). That despite about 60% AB possession. Of course you don’t have to have most of the ball to win - the Kiwis are past masters at pouncing on turnovers and scoring quickly then going back on defence and doing it again, racking up huge scores from 40% possession. But not having the ball and dropping it or giving it back through breakdown penalties whenever you do get it… you never get to score, as we saw here.

Fortress Eden Park remains intact. While this didn’t guarantee an AB victory in TRC, it put the pressure on the Boks. They needed a 40+ point victory over Los Pumas with a bonus point (hard to imagine they could do it without). Not impossible but they were lucky to stretch out to a 16 point victory last week so it seemed unlikely.

South Africa v Argentina

This match was an odd replay of last week’s match. Some of the actors were different - the return to play protocol and other injuries meant that Frans Steyn was playing at 10 for possibly the first time ever in his test career for example - but it’s not just a lazy cliché to suggest this was a match of two halves.

Just like last week, in the first half The Boks dominated and Los Pumas were horribly I’ll-disciplined. If SA hadn’t been chasing a bonus point and 40+ margin of victory it could have been a runaway score - at one point in the first half the commentary team said SA had turned down eight kickable penalties. While you can’t say how it would play out if they took some of those - certainly some stacked up where the Boks got a penalty, kicked to the corner, got another penalty; if they’d kicked the first they wouldn’t have got the second and so on - it is a decent reflection of their dominance. Then, again like last week, in the second half Los Pumas fought back. The penalty count, and the yellow card count swung back to something like parity. So did the scoreboard. A late try denied Argentina a losing bonus point but, while no team ever takes all its chances, arguably they created enough that they should have won. A few moments of panic - dropped passes, bad passes and stupid penalties - cost them 14, maybe 21 points and then a season when they’d have beaten all three of the other sides for the first time ever.

You might notice this match summary is much shorter than the other. Essentially it was quite a boring game. We all know what the Boks try to do. In the first half they imposed their game plan, got lots of penalties and scored some points, not as many as they’d like. In the second half, Los Pumas disrupted the Boks game plan for large parts of the game, forced penalties and cards for desperate defence and repeat infringements but were just contained. In the moments when the Boks could impose they scored just enough to win with a flattering amount of space on the scoreboard. It was slow, boring rugby to watch and it was hard to summon much enthusiasm to write about. The only positive thing to say was the SA started by looking for the big victory but, by half-time, it was clear they couldn’t do it and Los Pumas came back at them.

Final Thoughts

The “mini tours” format has been great and I hope it continues. I wouldn’t mind SA and Argentina doing a mini tour format while Australia and NZ do home and away for the Bledisloe Cup. The distances for their travel are far smaller after all.

NZ won the closest standard format Rugby Championship (they play an abbreviated form in RWC years) we’ve ever seen. In my week 4 report I said they basically need to win all their matches through to Paris to redeem Foster as a coach. It might only be two matches, and I think it’s fair to say it’s “only Australia” these days, but the victory in week 6 was as impressive as the one in week 5 wasn’t. But at some point you have to think they’re changing from “papering over the cracks” to “becoming confident” and the systems and partnerships are starting to settle in. We’ve seen that with the kiddies in the front row. We’ve seen Ioane start to grow to become a passable 13, if Foster continues with him, he might become a good one. I still have my issues with too many selections to feel positive about the AB chances next year but they’re in a better place than they were and they have a chance to build with a moderate November tour coming up.

SA placed second and explored a lot of their squad depth. In a lot of places this was pretty positive. Kriel might not be an Am in the 13 jersey but as a utility back he played a lot of roles well. They seem to have a near endless supply of props. But third hooker - and you really need three at the RWC - is an issue. At least they know that. I don’t know that this policy cost them the title but it feels like it might have done, particularly their loss to Australia. Their attack system is designed to win games, not to smash out huge victories. It can be beaten if you’re good enough to be more aggressive and keep their loose forwards and Marx away from the breakdown for enough of the game to impose you plan (NZ) or if their kicking is wayward enough that they can’t compete for the ball (Australia). Wales used a mix of these to win in SA for the first time back in July. We have yet to see how they will perform against the current big sides in the world. SA are playing Ireland then France in November so I guess we'll find out…

Courtesy of a losing bonus point Australia came third. That is about the best thing that can be said. There are a lot of positions where it’s not clear that Rennie has a clue who is his best player (I’ll touch on this in my next post as I sort through my thoughts more clearly). A few places where they have tough calls is a good thing. While I think the rotation policy in SA was overdone, it was a clear policy and I think it had the desired effect. I think NZ stuck to too many players who were not best-in-slot for too long but, over the last three matches, they’ve largely started to gel and look better together. None of those seem to be true of the Wallabies. Some of their changes have been forced by injuries and suspensions for red cards but, even there, the planning is hard to discern. Australia seem to be lacking quality players in too many places and that’s not the national coaches fault, but it is his problem. That said, some of the decisions the coach has made are pretty hard to fathom and they do seem to be his fault as well. The chopping and changing at 10 in particularly seems to be aimed at destroying the confidence of a young player rather than developing his ability and surely that’s not for the best? Tier One and Tier Two isn’t based on world rankings but you have to expect Australia will lose to Ireland and France. They should lose to Scotland and Wales based on these performances. Italy is looking like it might be a challenge… I haven’t done the maths but 15th in the world? Ouch.

Argentina came last, again but… first time beating NZ in NZ. A big win over Australia. Two matches where they were really close against SA until the last few minutes. A new head coach who has explored the squad, maybe not as hugely as SA but he’s got a good idea of who is there. Ironically in a team where discipline has been their major weakness, he’s taken Lavanini, a walking card magnet (he holds the undesirable records for the most red cards and the most yellow cards shown to a player in test matches) and instilled discipline in him. He's been shown one YC for collapsing a maul, which isn’t smart but isn’t for being stupidly aggressive, while Los Pumas gave up a bucket full in each of the last two games. You can see Cheika has a plan. You can see his players believe in it. They’re not necessarily delivering it under the kind of pressure the AB playing well and the Boks can apply but even against them it’s there in patches and it’s getting better. They might have finished bottom but it really feels like they’re on an upwards trajectory and have a plan.