Interpreting some games of rugby is akin to interpreting a Rorschach inkblot. The Rorschach Test was developed by Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach in 1921 to give insights into personality characteristics. It asks subjects to describe what they see in 10 symmetrical inkblots and the tester will make various assumptions about their personality according to the interpretation. – by John Eales
If you see a naked woman in every one of the blots, for example, it will indicate that, while consistent, you might have some problems to address. At the moment, Wallabies coach Robbie Deans might only see the inside of the accident and emergency department at the local hospital. The interpretation of that is fairly straightforward.
In contrast, the interpretations of the Wallabies’ loss to Ireland were many and varied. Some blamed the referee, some accused the Irish of cheating, others said the Wallabies lacked commitment or brains.
The fact is the Wallabies were outthought and outplayed. So there is less variation in the antidote required to turn it around: more consistency.
As with much psychological theory, interpreting rugby is subjective. Although some coaches would have you believe they have followed valid scientific methodology to draw their conclusion, it is probably more pseudo-science than it is science, as they draw on convenient occurrence rather than reliable evidence to infer causality.
As well as inkblots, the Swiss are also recognised for their watch-making, the ultimate intersection of art, technology and performance, of form and function, where precision is vital and little is left for interpretation.
World Cup success might not have the predictability of clockwork, yet equally it will not simply be attained through luck, chance or magic.
At its pointy end, with little separating the top teams, victory will more likely be determined in the subtlety and nuance, rather than in seismic-like differences.
So in interpreting the matches from the weekend, we must look to the nuance. What does the Wallabies’ 67-5 win over the US tell us? How can it illuminate the impending challenge of the Springboks in the quarters and the All Blacks in the semis?
For the Wallabies, the nuance will more usefully nod towards the reliability of clockwork than the variability of interpretation. Our biggest bugbear is inconsistency, not inability.
The team demonstrated in the Tri Nations decider in Brisbane its pure ability. It has done similarly through other encounters over the last 24 months as far afield as the high veldt of South Africa and the playing fields of Paris. Unfortunately, they have also demonstrated the flipside.
Pleasingly for Wallaby supporters, you don’t have to be either the best or the most consistent team in the world to win the World Cup, just the best team on October 23. Mostly, but not always – with the Springboks’ victory in 1995 arguably the exception – they are one and the same. But you won’t get to October 23 without first displaying order and consistency on the weekends of October 8-9 and October 15-16.
So the Wallabies need 240 minutes of excellence, 240 minutes of getting the basics right, 100 per cent of the time. It is the simplicity of that equation that excites the most, yet also concerns the most as the Wallabies’ execution is not as consistent as that of the All Blacks.
In assessing a victory, former Wallaby coach John Connolly used to look to a few pointers: was the team technically correct, did they achieve continuity in phase play and in the development of the team, and did they get through with no injuries.
Clearly Deans will be unsatisfied about the parlous state of our injury roster but he might also be unnerved about our technical proficiency and our ability to reproduce continuity under pressure.
Through the knockout stages of this competition, opportunities to score will be more miserly than some of the profligacy on display at the moment. Therefore teams will have to construct their accumulation of points through layers of excellence, rather than rely on sheer individual brilliance.
A pass mark against Russia this weekend, then, will revolve more around form and function than the specific scoreline.
Central to the Wallabies’ success will be the form of Quade Cooper and his interaction with whoever plays beside him. To date he hasn’t been at his influential best, quite possibly because he is feeling the pressure to have to conjure the magic, rather than to fulfil his primary role as construction manager of a crafted team performance.
If he does the latter, as he did with the Reds and again at Suncorp in the Tri Nations decider, the former will follow automatically – and probably spectacularly.
Among the special highlights of the Cup so far was the celebration of Richie McCaw playing his 100th Test for the All Blacks. While many have achieved this milestone for other nations, there is good reason he is the first All Black to do so; it is tougher to be selected for the All Blacks than any other team in the world.
Despite this, McCaw’s position in the team over the last 10 seasons – and indeed his position among the best few players in the world – has never been disputed.
Like a Swiss watch, there is no need for interpretation. He remains a model of consistency both on and off the field. A model the Wallabies would do well to emulate.