By Rhys Thompson
July 1st 2008 @ 6:30am
Loading ...Related coverage
Smith versus Waugh: the great debate rages
It’s that Test rugby time of the year again, and whatever the team make-up, we get the same burning questions: should it be George Smith or Phil Waugh? Who is the better open-side flanker? Who is better suited to Test rugby?
It’s been going on since 2000, so let’s take a look at the reasons why it’s such a tough selection to make.
Starting with Smith, we have a strong all-round footballer, the perfect link between forwards and backs, as all good opensides should be. The guy can hit hard in defence, run the ball strongly, and act as a quasi-playmaker in general play.
Despite a reduction in the opportunities to do so, he also remains one of the premier pilferers of possession at the breakdown in the game.
Then we have the arch nemesis in regards to the openside position, Phil Waugh.
Tough, uncompromising, a true warrior of the game, this is a man you want in the trenches next to you when the going gets tough. He is able to make the turnover and get the ball that lifts an entire team.
He is a breakdown specialist and, as he gets older he has also developed a running and ball playing facet to his game.
Apart from New Zealand, this guy, as is the case with Smith, would be a walk up start to any other international team.
Looking at the Super 14 season, there has been little to really separate the players by.
Smith got the Australian Super 14 player of the year, while Waugh came second to Cliffy Palu in the NSW Best and Fairest, proving to be a driving force behind his team’s near success.
Smith often played a lone hand in what he himself would admit was a badly undermanned Brumbies squad.
Looking at the form from the two tests so far this year, most would have to admit that Smith has struggled a bit. Perhaps the move back to the old laws has stunted his game a little, with fewer opportunities to display his skill.
Waugh has been a revelation in coming on in the second half. His energy has been invaluable to the team. It helped them get over the line against Ireland, and he showed his versatility by playing well at No.8 during the second half against France.
Then we look at who has the runs on the board.
Undoubtedly Smith, with more opportunities given to him, has the edge here. And he has shown consistently why he gets picked for the position, with eye-catching performances in attack and at the breakdown especially.
One feels bad for Waugh, a guy who has always put in 100%, never having a bad game for his country in the few opportunities as a starter he has received and consistently providing energy when injected from the bench.
One wonders if Smith could do the same if the roles were reversed.
Finally, we need to look at what challenges face Australia in what is probably the most physically demanding season an Australian squad has faced.
In the brutal battles against teams like New Zealand and South Africa, I lean towards Waugh as my man. He can take the hits and get up stronger.
In Australia, and against other opponents on dry tracks, I would probably go with Smith as he is efficient at the breakdown and could almost be classed as a third playmaker in the team after Giteau and Barnes.
But what’s your opinion – Waugh or Smith?
Who is the better player? Who better suits the way you want the Wallabies to play?
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(35)
Doctor Best said | July 1st 2008 @ 6:59am | Report comment
Matt Burke said recently that Waugh should captain the Wallabies. Having been born in Australia, he qualifies. However you don’t have to be a Kiwi to captain the ABs. You all know by now that Samoan-born So’oialo will lead the team against the Boks on Saturday. Way to go, Rod. But it turns out there’s been six other foreign-born skippers of the ABs during their history. Another Samoan in Jerry Collins, two Scots – Cliff Porter, 1924-30, and Laurie Haig, ’53-’54 – two Aussies (sorry about that, Kiwis) Jimmy Tilyard from Tasmania (Tasmania?) in 1920, and Des Connor from Queensland in 1962, and an Irishman, Dave Gallaher, 1905- 06.
Some research shows that there were a few players that escaped the clutches of the NZRU, like Willie O (visa problem) and David Campese who was actually born at Auckland’s National Womens Hospital. Weirdly enough, it turns out that Sir Edmund Hillary was born in Cootamundra, NSW, and – this is absolutely extraordinary – Ernest Rutherford, the nuclear physicist, was born in Coolac, which is near Cootamundra.
As far as sports go, at the L.A. Olympics, 1984, New Zealand finished 7 places higher than Australia in the medal count, although Kevin Barry, who silvered in the light-heavyweight boxing for NZ, was born in Broome, WA.
Benjamin Saunders said | July 1st 2008 @ 7:35am | Report comment
With so many games the selection has to be horses for courses. Waugh has provided excellent impact when he has come off the becn so far and that may well be invaluable during the tighter games in the Tri-Nations.
Smith has been so consistently excellent for so long that he tends to slip under the radar a bit. This is even more impressive given that he has rarely played with a dominating pack.
I suspect that Deans will continue to start Smith.
Roger said | July 1st 2008 @ 9:44am | Report comment
As most games start tight then open up in the second half, lets start with the better tight player (Waugh) and end with the better loose player (Smith). Elementary really!
Whilst Smith is a better footballer, his skills are waisted early in a game and his effectiveness later when the game opens up is dulled by the early heavy exchanges.
Peter K said | July 1st 2008 @ 10:03am | Report comment
I think people are dreaming re Smith. Instead of looking at him with Rose tinked glasses i.e. consistently good games, game breaker etc, do a reality check. His weak games are overlooked as an abberation and only his strong games remembered.
I challenge you to name the last international game he had that was a strong one. Then name the last international good game he has had against a strong team.
Smith shines for the Brumbies but that is not Intl level. He is a seagulling dandy glory boy. Wants to do the high profile stuff but not the hard work. Waugh is tougher and grittier. He is of better value when the war needs to be won in the tenches (ruck). Waugh is a better support player , when there is a break Waugh is more often in support than Smith.
Smith is a better ball handler, and yes kicker like we need that for an openside. Smith is a better runner of the ball in open loose play. Waugh is better in tight hard exchanges.
Smith is a back trapped in a forwards body.
I would start Waugh and bring Smith on for the last 20.
Al said | July 1st 2008 @ 10:08am | Report comment
The only reason to pick Smith ahead of Wuagh, his superior ball handling/playmaking skills, have been made redundant with the selection of Barnes and Giteau. Pick Waugh to start and bring on Smith to create havoc late in the match
Roger said | July 1st 2008 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Well, thats a majority wanting Waugh to start…all in favour…”I”, all against “Nay”…the “I”s have it! Waugh starts then Smith comes on at second half! I love democracy!
Lets not turn this into a crticism forum of either player, they both have their respective strengths and weaknesses.
Terry Kidd said | July 1st 2008 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Guys I won’ criticize either player but I will go with Waugh to start and Smith to the bench for the tests this year simply because I believe that Waugh is playing the better rugby more consistently than Smith. In my opinion Waugh looks a little hungier, a little more urgent and tougher in his work and a little more inclined to support the team’s work overall. In no way do I mean any of these comments as a criticism of Smith, simply an observation that Waugh seems to want it a little more and it is reflecting in his play.
Jameswm said | July 1st 2008 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Like most of you I think the selectors usually get it the wrong way round. Waugh is better when the game is tighter and Smith when it’s looser.
Having said that, in a cliffhamger, a match can be very tight at the end. Take the Ireland game for example. The games don’t open up like they used to.
mudskipper said | July 1st 2008 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
George Smith is a Master Craftsman, an adept surgeon who can always remove the ball; Phil Waugh is a resilient Work Horse, who never stops trackling..
Skill vs. Work Load… I choose Smith; let other players build the wall…Smith offers more ball time to the Wallabies…
Peter K said | July 1st 2008 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
Robbie must of been reading this forum, with the changes he put in place.
Sharpe must have very sore knees and throat to keep his place,
…..and I mean he was praying, what else were you thinking?
mudskipper said | July 1st 2008 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
I Think Robbie is resting Smith and giving Waugh more match time… Smiths form has been excellent; Waugh is just in the pocket of the SMH Chief Rugby journalist. So whats going on there? Writing Paragraphs’ on Waugh’s 10 stoic minutes on the field, give me a break. Waugh didn’t win any test match on his lonesome it was the team…
Dave74 said | July 1st 2008 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Smith / Waugh – I agree on the horses for courses approach but think maybe we need to look at selecting only one of them for each match and bringing someone like Hoiles or Brown on to the bench as they can cover more positions (I know Smith has played 6 & 8 for the Wallabies but that weakened the lineout). It also needs to be taken into account whose style o game will be better suited to the ELVs that will be introduced at 3N time.
mudskipper said | July 1st 2008 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
Usually Smith is not in the lineout, Waugh often is at back with half for loose ball. Three jumpers are fine. One man can’t do all tasks. Smith is a specialist. I agree Hoiles could replace Waugh and offer more versatility… Chisholm would be good also…
Cutter said | July 1st 2008 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
My vote is Smith although it is sensible to rest him occasionally as Robbie has done this weekend.
Waugh is a work horse but is limited. Its not that hard to bring energy to a game when everyone else has already been playing for 60 minutes. Thats why they are called “fresh legs”. That is not to take anything away from Waugh who is a torrid player and valuable asset. However, in order to win the games that count, you need something to open up the defence and Smith is more likely to do that with a defining play whether by stealing the ball, popping the pass etc.
Smith has also been successfully used as a line out jumper and playmaker in the past.
Peter K said | July 1st 2008 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
Cutter – Waugh pilfers ball just as much. In the S14 both Waugh and Smith stole the ball 11 times each. So this is hardly a differentiator. Additionally Smith has a better offload but Waugh is a better support player. Waugh has also been used in the lineout.
When was the last time Smith has had a great game at intl level? Then when was the last time against decent intl opposition?
Smith has a better offload but Waugh is a better support player.
So the main way Waugh is limited is he doesn’t have a kicking game and is not a playmaker. We don’t need those in the Wallabies as much as guy who contests the rucks both in attack and defence. Waugh is better in that role.
bigpoppa said | July 1st 2008 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
who agrees that george smith should have never cut his hair?
classic case of samson really isnt it
maybe it just doesnt appear he is playing as well because we don’t notice the long locks flying around everytime he gets a steal??
mudskipper said | July 1st 2008 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
Matt Burke pushing Waugh for Wallabies captain was just more example of ex-Waratah nepotism. This is Waugh’s last season as a Wallaby, the young new boys in Australia A have more to offer. The Wallabies don’t need a one season Captain when rebuilding… Waugh has been rewarded for the Waratahs season. George Smith will be there again next season and the season after.
Cutter said | July 1st 2008 @ 11:18pm | Report comment
Peter K – Smith’s offloads, whether out of the tackle or not, are more likely to be to a player in space because he is a ball player and can read the game better.
Thanks for pointing out that the pilfers were equal. Things that arent equal (based on S14 stats):
Runs: Smith 134, Waugh 74
Tackles: Smith 193, Waugh 173
Offloads: Smith 16, Waugh 7
Oz S14 player of the year: Smith 3, Waugh 0
No wonder Robbie is giving Smith a rest, he must be exhausted.
mudskipper said | July 1st 2008 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
Cutter…nice balanced observation. Watch Smith read the play and how often he repossesses the ball when defending the line. Waugh is a part of the defensive wall, Smith makes the influential play. He did it again this past test.
I would think Deans after working with Richie McCaw for years knows what makes a world class 7.
Peter K said | July 2nd 2008 @ 12:40am | Report comment
Cutter – I have stated Smith stands out at S14. What I have asked is when has he had a really good intl, and then when against good intl opposition?
Smith has been average, and unsighted in the last 2 tests. Waugh in his 2 cameos has had more impact.
Benjamin Saunders said | July 2nd 2008 @ 3:04am | Report comment
Waugh has had the opportunity to stand out against tired opposition in a short amount of time. That was in his favour. If you asked the Wallabies about Smith then I imagine they would sing his praises. Spectators rarely saw what Richard Hill did that was so good and yet basically every player he played with at the top level said he was simply amazing. People forget what a sensational player Smith was when he first appeared on the international scene how much extra work the oppisition had to do to contain him. Waugh was never that good. Smith continued the chapter that Michael Jones left finished upon retirement. Obviously over the years teams cottoned on to Smith and doubled up against him, but he has made the Wallabies consistently. All the coaches can’t be wrong. If openside flankers stand out too much then they’re not doing their job. Long live King George.
Dexter William said | July 2nd 2008 @ 7:44am | Report comment
As much as I love George Smith for his skills, Waugh should be in at 7 for now. George belongs to the last era of openside breakaway. He fashions himself on Josh Kronfield, but that era is over. In comes MaCaw and Burger types. If Waugh is big and more physical, he would be perfect. But he is our best 7 at the very moment. When will we start to look at matching the raw power and dogged enthusiasm of MaCaw and Burger? Who can we develop?
Spiro suggested Hoiles, and in some degree I agree with him, except that Hoiles may need a big dose of aggression (mongrel) to succeed in this position. Richard Brown looked pretty good at the PNC.
What is most important now in selecting our pack? Whether each individual of the pack can hunt as a pack. Palu, Elsom, and Smith goes missing or are too quiet in big games sometimes. Too often the ball carrier gets isolated due to the ineffectiveness of the hunting pack. Or the backs having to contribute to clean outs.
mudskipper said | July 2nd 2008 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I would replace Waugh with Hoiles or even Kimlin to strengthen the second row off the bench. Smith can go 80 minutes easily… Who is going to replace Rocky?
Cutter said | July 2nd 2008 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Dexter – McCaw and Burger are two vastly different players. Burger does, too a degree, rely on power and energy. McCaw is all skill and pushing the limits of the law. Whilst Smith and Waugh arent as tall as either of them, they are close in weight. I’m not sure I understand the argument that Smith can be effective at S14 level but be from a previous era at test level.
The closest player, back or forward, should be cleaning out and/or securing the ball. The days of backs being able to choose not to get involved are gone.
Benjamin said | July 2nd 2008 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Aside from Waugh’s recent impact heroics when did he ever dominate a test match? Clive Woodward continuously mentioned how much of a threat Smith was prior to various England v Australia matches, not Waugh. I’m from the northern hemisphere and frankly I think Smith is superb. Waugh is much more one dimensional and if Deans really wants to start playing an open brand of rugby then Smith very much is the man to develop that process. Waugh is clearly an outstanding player but in the all time stakes Smith is up there with McCaw, Kronfield, Jones, Hill, Back, Erasmus et al.
Roger said | July 2nd 2008 @ 11:00am | Report comment
Now cmon guys, lets not get too defensive about Smith, and also lets not start saying Waught is the bees knees.
The game has cnanged to a point where no longer are the tight five big slowish lugs who just follow the ball around. Nowadays these players are fit and fast and take their place in the defensive line with the others.
The game is faster and there is less space.
Now the premise that Waugh starts and Smith finishes plays to both their strengths. Smith’s effectiveness at stealing the ball 4 years ago is now being nullified by faster and fitter opposing tight forwards who ensure that the ball carrier isnt left alone and molested by Smith.
Waugh’s pilfers are also down, but his tight game and inclination to play closer to the ball rather than being a ball runner is much more suited to the early stages of a game. Gee, if it makes you Smith fans happy, lets play Waugh for the first 35 Minutes and then put Smith on for 45. Does that make you happy?
This isnt a Waugh v Smith, Brumbies v Tahs argumenmt. Its a discussion based on the best result for the wallabies. Why not throw Waugh into the early fray as a ‘expendable” then bring on Smith when the opposng tight five are a little tired. He would reek havoc and I think it would lengthen his playing career.
Dexter William said | July 2nd 2008 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Cutter
“Burger does, too a degree, rely on power and energy.”
Don’t you think that MaCaw rely on power and energy? He is one of the most energetic player in the world. He gets involve in every ruckus.
MaCaw has really redefined the standard of a modern Breakaway with his style of play. Never have we seen before MaCaw anyone similar. Can you name one?
Kronfield was the best before MaCaw, and Smith is as good if not better than Kronfield, but both are nowhere near what MaCaw is capable of. MaCaw reinvented his role.
Unlike Smith, MaCaw and Burger tend to step over the tackle area from the top down, while Smith tries to get in from an angle to pinch the ball. Just watch MaCaw and Burger approach a tackle area. They put one foot over the tackle area while Smith hunch over the tackle area.
So being taller like MaCaw and Burger has its advantage. Both MaCaw and Burger is more strongly build (perhaps using their strength aggressively) and much much more aggressive and energetic at breakdowns. I suppose this is what I refer to as the new era.
“The closest player, back or forward, should be cleaning out and/or securing the ball. The days of backs being able to choose not to get involved are gone.”
You have taken me out of context. I agree with your above statement 100%, but ideally the forward pack should do the clean out so that the backs can continue with the next phase of attack. No point having the fastest winger at the bottom of the ruck when the attack is breaking out is there? How could Tuqiri be scoring tries when he is constantly doing the clean out.
Peter K said | July 2nd 2008 @ 11:41am | Report comment
I am glad people have pointed out the game has changed.
With the speed and fitness of modern forwrads and awareness of Smith’s game he has been largely nullified at intl level. It has been since 2003/4 since Smith has stood out.
Waugh is more effective in the game of power and contest at the ruck that opensiders must now battle.
As has been pointed out, and I agree with, Waugh is better suited to start with the hard tight work. Later on bring Smith on.
If Smith does change his game or starts being a match winner again I would still start Waugh. I would just take him off after 25mins and give Smith 55 mins. Currently I would give Waugh 50 mins and Smith 30.
mudskipper all the players you push are Brumbies. Smith, Kimlin, Chisholm.
Smith I can see the merit and it is a worthwhile discussion.
As for Kimlin and Chisholm most people would rate Vickerman, Horwill, McMeniman (both lock and 6), and Elsom well ahead of them both.
I would then rate Kimlin as the next lock. I would have Brown or Hoiles ahead as specialist no 6’s. That leaves the reserve bench who covers both lock and blindside flanker, I am undecided between Mumm and Chisholm.
mudskipper said | July 2nd 2008 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Vickerman is not back yet but is a starter for sure… however he is moving on. Horwill is good; McMeniman has potential if he can avoid injury. Mumm has plenty of potential just needs more experience at test level as he still looks a little sheepish at times. Mumm is no better player than Kimlin. The future Wallabies locks are likely to be in 2009-10 Horwill, Kimlin and Mumm. No Sharpe, no Vickerman.
I’m just pushing the Brumbies to illustrate there are more options than the men in light blue. This blog is all about the Waratahs fans, pushing Waugh. He is on his last season as a Wallaby and is over rated…however Waugh is a hard worker with tradesmen like commitment. He can loose focus when the game is getting away which has been seen on numerous occasions with the Waratahs. Brown and Hoiles or Chisholm would do equally as good a job coming of the bench as Waugh if not better…
Next years Super 14 the Brumbies will have the dominate Australian pack… So why not get them involved now…
Sluggy said | July 2nd 2008 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Quote:
“Waugh is clearly an outstanding player but in the all time stakes Smith is up there with McCaw, Kronfield, Jones, Hill, Back, Erasmus et al.”
I can understand most of your selections but Neil Back does not rate inclusion in the group. Richard Hill did all the work, and in his absence in 2001 from halfway through the second test, Back was outplayed and the Lions lost their winning edge.
Roger said | July 2nd 2008 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
I recall hearing that before England played Wallabies in the early 200s that their strategy was twofold for Smith:
1. whenever Smith was lining up as first tackler off a ruck, tight five would pick and drive ball over him, clear our hard, and then lie on him waiting for backs to run it or Wilko to kick it. This way, Smith couldnt get to the next 2 phases;
and
2. In all other facets of play, Richard Hill was insstructed to ignore the ball and hit Smith if he came within 2m of the ball at any time.
It worked, and its a good strategy if the other side has a good 7.
Jerry said | July 2nd 2008 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Roger – item 2 is basically cheating isn’t it? Sounds rather like the strategy the Wallabies tried to neutralise Richie McCaw in 2006.
Benjamin said | July 2nd 2008 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
It just illustrates the talents of Smith.
Sluggy, I’m not a huge fan of Back myself however for a period of years he did revolutionise the art of 7 in Europe.
jools-usa said | July 4th 2008 @ 2:00am | Report comment
During last week’s OZ/France game, I think one of the commentators mentioned Waugh as hooker.
Like chicken soup – couldn’t hurt.
Jools-USA
Benjamin Saunders said | July 4th 2008 @ 2:04am | Report comment
That was mentioned years ago and was as silly then as it is now. Insulting to Moore, Polatau-Nau, Freir and Hardman. In fact I’m sure it would insult Waugh too, as well as being dangerous.