The Green Eye

Japan was always a sideshow.

Not Japan, the country, but like, that fixture during the November series. You know the one. The down week game. The de facto win. The rotation game, or whatever passes for that in this Irish coaching set-up. It’s a gimme. It’s instantly forgettable, unless you somehow conspire to lose it.

Anyone who played in it is either getting minutes for the real games — this week and next week — or their getting minutes to reward them for training well, before reverting to their usual role in the squad, barring injury.

Andy Farrell wants to be defined by results, and these are the games where that definition is found. If you aren’t building towards 2027, which Ireland are not in any meaningful way, then you live on the week-to-week grind of This Game. When you live that way, it can be very empowering. There’s a thrill to it. Australia are very much focusing on getting right for their home World Cup in 2027, so This Week is really only in service to that date in the future. As a result, it’s far less important to them than what the same week means to Ireland, even if we weren’t looking for a Statement Performance that might quell the growing unease that all is not well.

I believe that we have seen the best of this particular Irish squad and coaching staff. That doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of pulling together great one-off performances, but it does mean the consistency of those performances becomes scattered. It is the deep hope of the High Performance Unit that this week and next see this squad pull together the fraying threads of the last year and weave them into something that ends this block of games on a high. Like kicking a reliable old TV that’s been on the fritz; sometimes the slap does the job.

Australia, then South Africa.

A good few slaps will be required.

How Ireland respond is anyone’s guess.

At the moment, it feels like Andy Farrell believes the answer is only in the squad that everyone knows, bar a few spots like the 1B slot behind Porter. We might know more about that after these next weeks, and whether or not Marge’s Pink Dress has a few more cuts in it.

Ireland: 15. Mack Hansen; 14. Tommy O’Brien, 13. Robbie Henshaw, 12. Stuart McCloskey, 11. James Lowe; 10. Sam Prendergast, 9. Jamison Gibson-Park; 1. Paddy McCarthy, 2. Dan Sheehan, 3. Tadhg Furlong; 4. James Ryan, 5. Tadhg Beirne; 6. Ryan Baird, 7. Caelan Doris (c), 8. Jack Conan

Replacements: 16. Rónan Kelleher, 17. Andrew Porter, 18. Thomas Clarkson, 19. Nick Timoney, 20. Cian Prendergast, 21. Craig Casey, 22. Jack Crowley, 23. Bundee Aki

Australia: 15. Max Jorgensen; 14. Filipo Daugunu, 13. Joseph-Aukuso Suaalii, 12. Len Ikitau, 11. Harry Potter; 10. James O’Connor, 9. Jake Gordon; 1. Angus Bell, 2. Matt Faessler, 3. Allan Alaalatoa; 4. Jeremy Williams, 5. Tom Hooper; 6. Rob Valetini, 7. Fraser McReight, 8. Harry Wilson (c)

Replacements: 16. Billy Pollard, 17. Tom Robertson, 18. Zane Nonggorr, 19. Nick Frost, 20. Carlo Tizzano, 21. Ryan Lonergan, 22. Tane Edmed, 23. Andrew Kellaway

Macro picture: what kind of team are Australia?

Key metrics across their 12 games so far this season:

Entries

Australia: 7.1 entries/game
Opponents: 9.1 entries/game
→ They lose the entries battle by about 2 visits per game.

Points per entry (PPE)

Australia attack: ~2.98 points/entry (~3.0)
Defence: ~2.19 points/entry conceded
→ Net efficiency: +0.78 points/entry on average.

Linebreaks per ruck (LBR)

Australia: 71 linebreaks from 1324 rucks → ~0.0536 LBR
→ 5.4 linebreaks per 100 rucks
Opposition: 68 from 967 rucks → ~0.0703 LBR
→ 7.0 linebreaks per 100 rucks
→ They concede more linebreaks per ruck than they generate, even though their raw LB counts sometimes look impressive.

Ruck volume

Australia: ~110 rucks/game
Opposition: ~81 rucks/game
→ They live in high-phase, high-ruck games where they don’t necessarily translate effort into more entries.

Kick-to-pass

Australia: 1:7.7 (they kick less than their opponents)
Opposition: 1:6.9
→ Australia are generally more pass-heavy, less kick-centric than the teams they’re playing.

Shape of the team

They’re a side who usually:

Lose territory/entries slightly
Make up for it with efficient finishing when they do get in
Live off long-range strikes and big red-zone outcomes rather than constant 22 occupation
Defensively, they give up too many linebreaks per ruck, but are often bailed out by scramble or opposition wastefulness.

That explains all the one-score games and the weird “we looked good but lost” vibe.

The Lions template, and why it matters for Ireland

The Lions are the best proxy for how Ireland will want to play this weekend.

Across the three Lions tests:

Entries:

Australia: 6.3 entries/game
Lions: 8.0 entries/game
→ Lions take roughly +1.7 entries per match.

Points per entry:

Australia: ~3.07 ppe
Lions: ~2.73 ppe
→ Australia actually shade the per-entry efficiency, but not by much.

Ruck volume:

Australia: 113 rucks/game
Lions: 72 rucks/game
→ Classic Wallaby pattern: they work far harder between the 22s and still don’t win the entries count.

LBR:

Australia attack: ~0.053 LBR → 5.3/100 rucks
Lions attack: ~0.069 LBR → 6.9/100 rucks
→ Lions create more linebreaks per ruck even in games where Australia’s total linebreak numbers look ok.

Kick-to-pass:

Australia: 1:6.8
Lions: 1:4.3
→ The Lions kicked more often and used the boot as a lever to tilt territory and entries, not as a last resort.

Takeaway for Ireland:

The Lions already showed the basic pattern Ireland will want:

Kick more than Australia, take more entries than Australia, and trust that our own attack will be efficient enough that you don’t need to “win” LBR or PPE to win the game.

As for the rest of the season, Ireland can win this game on entry volume, rather than being hyper-efficient.

Where Australia bend and break

a) Entries vs outcomes

You can see three distinct modes in their season:

High entries for both, Australia more efficient
- Example: v South Africa (38–22)
  - Aus: 11 entries @ 3.4 ppe
  - SA: 13 entries @ 1.5 ppe
- Example: v Argentina x2
  - Aus around 6–7 entries @ 3.7–4.6 ppe
  - Arg around 7–13 entries @ 1.0–2.1 ppe
    → They’re happy in “trading entries” games because their finishing is generally strong.
Australia starved of entries, but still relatively efficient
- v Italy (19–26)
  - Aus: 5 entries @ 3.8 ppe
  - Italy: 9 entries @ 2.5 ppe
- v England (7–25)
  - Aus: 7 entries @ 1.0 ppe
  - England: 13 entries @ 1.6 ppe
    → When the opposition genuinely limits their red-zone volume, results swing against them, regardless of how dangerous they look when they finally get in.
Chaos games, long-range strike both ways
- v South Africa and England especially:
  - SA: 14 linebreaks from 76 rucks (~18.4/100)
  - Eng: 9 linebreaks from 59 rucks (~15.3/100)
    → When the opposition’s LBR spikes into the mid-teens per 100 rucks, Australia’s defence can’t sustain it, even if the final score sometimes flatters them.

b) Australia’s LBR profile

Game-to-game, their LBR/100 is all over the place:

Best attacking LBR games:
- Fiji: 10/100
- South Africa: 10.3/100
- Arg2: 9.3/100
But they also throw in:
- NZ1: ~2.0/100
- Japan: 2.4/100
- Italy: 3.1/100

Overall average: 5.4 linebreaks per 100 rucks – solid, but not elite.

Defensively, the scary ones from an Australian POV:

v South Africa: 18.4/100 conceded
v England: 15.3/100 conceded
v Italy: 7.1/100 conceded
Across the Lions series: 6.9/100 conceded

So against teams with organised phase shape and a coherent kick-pressure game, Australia tend to;

Concede more linebreaks per ruck
Often lose the entry battle
Live or die based on scramble and opposition finishing rather than system solidity.

Ireland-specific: what this says about the test this weekend

If we take “Lions = rough template for Ireland” and overlay Ireland’s own tendencies, a few obvious levers pop out.

Make this about entries, not razzle

Australia’s season profile:

Average entries: 7.1 (for) vs 9.1 (against)
Net efficiency: +0.78 points/entry

If Ireland allow this to be:

“Both teams get 7–9 entries and we see who finishes better,”

… then Australia are very live – their red-zone attack is good enough to stay on the board with Ireland.

What Ireland want instead:

Push the entries gap out to +3 or more (think Italy/England models), even if:

Australia still manage 2.8–3.2 points/entry
Ireland are “only” at 2.5–3.0 points/entry

If Ireland gets, say, 10 entries to Australia’s 7, Australia’s efficiency advantage is neutralised by volume:

10 entries @ 2.6 ppe = 26 points
7 entries @ 3.0 ppe = 21 points

…and that’s basically the Wallabies and Ireland’s season in microcosm.

Practical levers for Ireland:

Contestable kicking to pin Australia in their own half and force exit-kicking chains.
Accept a few long-range Australian strikes as the trade for starving them of repeat 22s.
Be comfortable taking 3s early if it keeps the scoreboard pressure aligned with an entry advantage.

Don’t feed their ruck comfort zone

Average rucks:

Australia: ~110/game
Opposition: ~81/game

Australia want this to be a 100+ ruck game where they can:

Build long chains across the field
“Grow” their way into the 22 through phases rather than territory

Ireland against Japan (93 rucks, 10 linebreaks) showed they can live in a high-phase game and be efficient, but vs New Zealand they had 67 rucks and only 2 linebreaks – a reminder that volume alone doesn’t guarantee LBR.

Against Australia specifically:

Ireland should avoid giving them easy +3, +4 phase starts in the middle third.
Break the chain early through:
- Either aggressive counter-rucking in selected zones
- Or firm spacing and being happy to kick back rather than re-entering long contestable-kick tennis from poor positions.

If this becomes another 110-ruck Australia game, you’re inherently increasing the number of “roll the dice” linebreak chances they get.

Target their LBR fragility – Lions and SA/Eng show the route

We know:

Australia season attack: ~5.4 LB/100
Opposition: ~7.0 LB/100
Lions vs Australia: ~6.9 LB/100
SA vs Australia: 18.4 LB/100
England vs Australia: 15.3 LB/100

Ireland don’t have to hit the SA/Eng nuclear levels to be effective. If we can:

Sit in that 7–10 LB/100 range
Combine that with a +2–3 entry advantage

… the scoreboard will tilt.

So how do Ireland get there?

Tight-to-wide sequencing: heavy carries through 3/4/5 defenders early in the set, then play to width once they’ve got the Wallabies folding.

Load the 10–12 channel: Australia’s LBR spikes tend to appear when teams put serious traffic at their midfield and then work off that collapse.

Keep the ball in the right places: kick to contest, not just distance; kick to bring your defence line into the game in their half.

But let’s assume that Joe Schmidt already knows about this. It’s not an assumption, actually; he does know this about his squad and the profile he plays with.

After last week’s loss to Italy — damaging to him, and the squad overall when it comes to perception back home — will have been a perfect illustration of what hasn’t worked for Australia this season. A high ruck count, no penetration, and decisively losing the offensive breakdown battle.

Coming back to Dublin for a rematch, of sorts, against Andy Farrell, I think he’ll be looking to pivot. So what does that look like?

I think it’s a kick to pass ratio well below their average — let’s say sub 1:5.8 — and well below their 113 ruck average.

That makes them more dangerous in theory, but only if their kicking is accurate enough to close the entry gap.

We’ve already seen a version of this: South Africa 22–38 Australia

The one game in the sample where Australia looked genuinely terrifying against a top-three side:

v South Africa
- Kick: pass 1:4.7
- 97 rucks
- Entries: Aus 11 v SA 13
- PPE: Aus 3.4, SA 1.5
- LBR: Aus 10.3/100, SA an insane 18.4/100

That’s the one match where:

They kicked more than usual
Didn’t hit that 110–120 ruck grind
Still kept their red-zone efficiency and attacking LBR high enough to punish.

So this “what if” scenario already has a live example, and it produced the Wallabies’ signature win of the year.

The trade-off in that game was:

“We’ll give you some long-range chaos and linebreaks, but we’ll own enough territory and 22 quality that the trade still works in our favour.”

That’s the best-case version of this potential pivot for Australia, and it’s one I think they’ll be primed to use here.

What changes if they live there vs Ireland?

If Australia deliberately move to:

Kick more (≤1:5.4, so closer to Lions/Ireland volume)
Hit fewer rucks (<100 instead of ~110–120)

… then a few structural things happen.

The entries gap tightens – which is bad news for Ireland if we don’t respond

Right now, season picture:

Australia: ~7.1 entries for, 9.1 against
Net PPE: about +0.8 points per entry

Ireland want this to be:

“We get +2–3 more entries than you; your slightly better PPE dies on volume.”

If Australia start kicking earlier and smarter:

They give up fewer cheap exits and turnover rucks in their own half
You’re less likely to see those 110–120 ruck counts where Ireland grind them into dust through defensive attrition in the middle third, especially with breakdown threats like Beirne and Doris in the back five.
The game can very quickly become 8 entries vs 8 entries, not 10 vs 7

In that world, Australia’s per-entry sting really matters. If it’s 8–8 on entries and they’re anywhere near +0.5 to +1.0 PPE, this is going to be an absolute dogfight.

Defensive stress drops: fewer chances for Ireland to hit their LBR bands

Australia’s big defensive problem is what happens when they go:

110+ rucks against teams with an organised phase shape

That’s where:

SA hit 14 linebreaks
England hit 9
Lions sit around 7/100 rucks

If they keep the ruck count under 100:

They reduce the number of “phase questions” Ireland can ask defensively.
You’re trimming maybe 10–20 rucks off Ireland’s total, which is effectively removing one or two full attacking sets from the game
Their LBR conceded per 100 can stay the same on rate and still hurt less on the raw count

So from Ireland’s point of view, this is: fewer chances to systematically melt their spacing and fatigue their forwards.

They move into a Lions/Ireland territory game without Lions/Ireland’s detail

Important caveat: copying the stat profile ≠ copying the quality.

The Lions’ 1:4.3 kick:pass wasn’t just volume – it was:

Nasty contestables
Backfield manipulation
Disciplined chase lines and fold

If Australia simply kick more, but:

Miss contact,
Overcook long kicks,
Or chase inconsistently,

… then all they’ve done is:

Give Ireland more lineouts (which might play into a wider strategy given our issues over the last year)
Hand Ireland structured entry platforms
Shrink their own attacking phase count and LBR

So the risk for Australia is:

“We kick like we did in Test 3 against the Lions and South Africa on paper, but functionally we’re just donating territory and entries to a side that loves both.”

How does this specifically scan against Ireland

Scenario 1: They nail the shift (best-case Wallabies)

Kick:pass at or under 1:5, structured contestables
Rucks 90–100
Entries finish something like 8–7 either way

In this picture:

Ireland don’t get the +3 entry gap that usually results in an Irish win over the last year.
Australia’s PPE (historically ~3.0/entry) keeps them right in it
The game looks a lot like the last two games of the Lions series, not like England/Italy suffocation

Ireland’s adjustments:

Backfield and aerial work become non-negotiable – you can’t afford a loose day in the air
Exit accuracy matters more than phase volume – panic exits turn into repeat entries
You lean harder into your own set-piece and maul as a way to generate clean entries that don’t depend on long phase-chains.

In this scenario, I think Ireland still have an edge because:

Our phase shape is better than South Africa’s was on that mad 18.4/100 LBR day
They’re used to facing teams that kick heavily and challenge the air

But the margin tightens, or could shrink entirely if our attacking game is overloaded by Australia half-blitzing the edges and winning collisions centrally.

It becomes a three- or four-moment test, not a slow strangling.

Scenario 2: They half-do it (most likely reality)

More probable is:

Kick:pass creeps down towards 1:5.5–1:6
Rucks land just under or around 100, not dramatically low
They don’t quite fix their chase detail

That version:

Shaves a bit of defensive stress off them, but doesn’t really fix the entries problem. In reality, it probably lowers their own LBR because they’re giving up some of the long-phase attack they rely on.

From Ireland’s POV, that’s actually ideal:

“You’ve made yourself slightly less chaotic, but you’re still not winning entries, and you’ve blunted some of your only real superpower, which is your ability to turn 7–8 visits into 20+ points.”

Ireland can then:

Stick to their own Lions-ish template – kick more than Australia, not less
Keep chasing the +2–3 entries gap
Use the reduced chaos to control tempo and squeeze them over 80 minutes.

If Ireland’s scrum and offensive lineout get into trouble, Australia will win this game with a tighter kicking focus than they have shown on aggregate this season. We should assume that Joe Schmidt knows this and has prepared accordingly. I don’t see Australia winning this game by playing through multiple phases between the 10m lines as they’ve tried to do this season. That gives them functional control of the ball, but not of the game itself. Against a side like Ireland, who are arguably more comfortable without the ball than with it, that only ends in defeat.

The question is, are the Wallabies aware of this? If they are, and have dialled in their off-ball work this week, along with a strong set-piece focus, this game could well hinge on one penalty, either kicked for three or deep into the 22.

I see this as being a very tight game, played out in wet, greasy conditions. Usually, the team that kicks better and with a more go-forward scrum wins those; we’ll see which team it is pretty clearly.