I'm sorry, but that piece of doomsaying sticks in the craw.
Australia clearly played the more dominant, positive rugby. Unfortunately a simple skill mis-execution gifted the best team in Europe a try which resulted in a tighter score line than there should have been, tightening a match that the ref was letting be strangled at the ruck until he saw fit to start whistling later in the game.
Nevertheless the Wallabies kept their shit together and won.
Hallowed, we should be so worthy, New Zealand didn't even look as good against a "lesser" (by results) team. But apparently that was a champions close-out.
Sometimes - especially when it means sealing a series - you just need to get the win. We played to the circumstances and did the job.
If we'd had played BBQ footy and lost that I'd being going apeshit.
What would Wayne and other perennial doomsayers be saying then? I think we all know
Whatever your views on the Wales 2 win, that article by Smith is not 'doomsaying' at all. Most of the article highlights how positively important the win was, and credits the Wallabies closing skill in getting it.
Smith's argument - right or wrong take your pick - is that (a) this game showed no evidence of Wallaby innovation or adventure in attacking play and thus they put themselves in a lower scoring position than was justified by their possession and position stats and (b) in his view if that single 'grey' dimensionality of limited attacking play continued, it would likely not build the Wallaby fan base, etc.
IMO, there is some truth in what he's saying, but consistent winning by the Wallabies against top sides here at home is overwhelmingly the important variable in building, or rebuilding, fan support for national rugby. Most critical of all is a BC win very soon v the ABs, just as JO'N has recently stated as a 'must have'.
Finally, calling Smith a 'perennial doomsayer' is quite misleading. He's just about the only Aus rugby journo that's got the intellectual skills and guts to critique the Aus rugby 'system' and attempt to ascertain why it's not producing code growth and more aggregate success. The inference of this negative badging of Smith is that writers like Growden and others are providers of the better optimism for the code. Surely no one could sensibly believe that. IMO, we need the Smiths to support legitimate public debate and critique re Australia rugby, he's clearly the last of a rapidly dying breed, sadly, and such a trend does not serve the code's cause at all well.
A hack is a hack, whatever the mood of the piece.
