After a one-sided first-half between the Wallabies and All Blacks in the MCG - the stadium of  "broken New Zealand  dreams" (if you don't know what I mean, check out the underarm bowl of 1983), the mighty All Blacks fell well short of a talented and determined Wallabies side.

The old heart-breakers went back to the famed Australian side of 2003 (Stirling Mortlock, George Gregan, George Smith etc, those cunning devils!), wreaking havoc against a slightly under-cooked and overly-arrogant All Black side who maybe thought they had the Tri-Nations clash won at half-time.

The New Zealanders ruled supreme for 40 minutes and the game was more or less in the bag. But this famed side fell to pieces (hmm, reminds me of a particular World Cup semi-final in 1999) in the face of persistent Australian defence and scrappiness in the second-half and were beaten 20-15.

'if anyone writes off the Wallabies - whether they lose every match for a straight year of not - it is done at peril and not realising the strong, competitive and proud Australian spirit'


To all intents and purposes, the All Blacks were dominant in the first half, with strong scrums and (even) defensive lineouts. But where the forwards shone, the backline faltered with Aaron Mauger and Rico Gear, in particular, letting the side down through messy knock-ons and missed tackles, faltering through the outstanding defensive organisation of Stirling Mortlock, Matt Giteau, Stephen Larkham and Co.

After half-time talks, the Wallabies came out rejuvenated and plucky (where have we seen that before?) and managed to claw back a nine-point deficit through disciplined defending against a messy and arrogant All Black side that didn't quite know how to react in the face of true pressure.

The Wallabies never really looked like winning until the dying minutes, when penalty after penalty was given away by a desperate and slightly bewildered All Black outfit that thought that they had the game in the bag - particularly after beating the cocky Springboks in Durban the week before.

So what lessons can the world take from this sloppy test for the World Cup? Firstly, the All Blacks are fallible (but we always knew that, anyway - they lose a match every year). Secondly, if Graham Henry chooses to use his subs in the early stages of the second-half, the All Blacks may not be able to utilise their potency to advantage. And thirdly, if anyone writes off the Wallabies - whether they lose every match for a straight year of not - it is done at peril and not realising the strong, competitive and proud Australian spirit.

The Australians played the game they wanted to play. With old and wise heads, they were able to run this game to their advantage, even when the All Blacks had ascendancy in their forwards. Daniel Carter had a subdued game, but not a bad game. He missed a couple of important kicks but he can't be superhuman every moment of his life. The big fault of the new Kiwis was that they chose not to play for territory. Rarely did we see an All Black throw in the opposition 22.

Instead, we saw committed and tenacious Australian defence; an All Black team devoid of ideas when the clock started to run down; and a gleam in the eyes of those who thought the World Cup was New Zealand's and theirs alone. Two months out and the competition is wide open. If an aging Wallaby back-line can beat this famed New Zealand side, what does it mean for the French, the English and the O'Driscolls of Ireland?

Game on. France, Rugby World Cup 2007. Let the action begin.