The Waratahs need to try harder to score tries
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 16 Mar 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- NSW Waratahs, rugby, Super Rugby
The Blues-Cheetahs match, the first match in the fifth round of the 2009 Super 14 tournament, was the 1,000th Super Rugby match since its start in 1996.
The official statistician of the NZRU, Geoff Miller had done all the calculations and he has worked out that 50,689 points were scored in the 999 lead-up matches.
There were 5,724 tries with an average of 5.7 tries a match; 3,965 conversions, with kickers having a 63 per cent success rate; 4,532 penalty goals; and 181 drop goals.
For me the intriguing aspect of these statistics is that there have been substantially more tries scored than penalty goals, and that with over 60 per cent of the tries converted it is obvious that if you score tries you will win most of your Super 14.
The ELVs, moreover, have intensified this bias in the scoring model towards teams that score tries. There are fewer shots at goal with the short arm/long arm penalty regime currently being played in the Super 14.
In the earlier round Hurricanes – Waratahs match, for instance, the Waratahs were penalised by Stuart Dickinson 19 times with short arm penalties. Without the ELVs short arm dispensation these penalties would have been long arm penalties, and given the Hurricanes field position for most of the match there would have been about 10 kicks at goal.
In a sense, the reduction in the number of shots at goal under the ELVs has put an even greater premium on sides having an accurate goal-kicker.
The Crusaders, for instance, should have won their match against the Western Force comfortably if they’d had a half-way decent kicker. Stephen Brett, who otherwise played very well at first five-eighths, had a shocker with the boot missing his first three kicks, all of them relatively easy shots.
Towards the end of the match he was given a final chance to kick the winning penalty from near enough to in front and about 35m out. He missed it comfortably.
Matt Giteau, on the other hand, kicked well in slotting over most of his attempts with an easy nonchalant swing of his left boot.
So another Zavos Rule for the Super 14: It is essential to have a 70 per cent plus goal-kicker in your run-on side.
This rule was violated by the Waratahs (as well as the Crusaders and Highlanders). Kurtley Beale missed his first three kicks, all of them easy shots. This meant that when the pumped-up Brumbies scored a try to go with their penalties, the Waratahs had given up too much ground to make up.
This presumes that they were capable of making up the ground, which I doubt. The Waratahs came out trying to play wide and bringing in their speedsters Rob Horne and Lachlan Turner. Horne had a couple of touches in the first few minutes, more than he has received in most matches for the entire 80 minutes.
But when the initial enthusiasm to run the ball dampened a bit under the ferocious rucking and counter-rucking from the fired Brumbies, the Waratahs lapsed back into their ‘take-no-risks, don’t try to score tries’ game.’
We had Luke Burgess who is playing like the Energiser bunny whose battery has completely run down (where are the scything runs of last year?) kick the ball away to the Brumbies even when the Waratahs were on a bit of a roll.
The Brumbies scored a wonderful try from hand-to-hand passing at speed with backs and forwards charging on to the ball. Why couldn’t the Waratahs do the same? They have skillful backs and agile, fast and big forwards.
The answer must be that the coach Chris Hickey is determined to play it safe as he feels his way into coaching at this level.
He might claim that this slow, safety-first game the Waratahs are playing has given them four wins out of the five games. But the loss to the Brumbies was the first match they’d played with a neutral (in this case non-Australian referee).
It is intriquing, too, that Lawrence put Wycliffe Palu into the sin bin in the first half, when Dickinson threatened to do this to the Waratahs at the end of their match against the Hurricanes, even though he would have been justified in going to full arm penalties and then yellow cards at least early on in the second half.
My feeling, too, is that Hickey may be getting too much imput from officials who should be running the off-field stuff rather than what happens on the field with the Waratahs. The NSWRU, for instance, has a Rugby Committee. What on earth is this for? Surely the rugby side of things should be left to Hickey and his coaching staff?
The Queensland Red’s coach Phil Mooney, on the other hand, seems to have had a free hand to reshape the way his team plays after the locust year of Eddie Jones. Mooney has the team playing a modern, expansive, high-pace and high-skill game.
It hadn’t really come off in the first four rounds because the set piece play was not strong. Against the Sharks, though, the set piece play was excellent, with the lineout and scrum going well. The Reds, like the Brumbies, were enthusiatic and tough at the breakdown. Importantly, too, they tried to score tries rather than hoping (like the Waratahs) that they would somehow happen.
A couple of the tries scored were as good as examples of ensemble play as you could hope to see. They made a mockery, too, of the know-nothings who have been complaining that the ELVs don’t allow for structured play.
What is more structured than player after player, some of them running intricate lines, bursting on to passes and balls popped up out of tackles, or as in the case of Digby Ione’s beauty to seal the match, coming in close to the ruck to take the inside flick?
The Waratahs remain the leading Australian side after the fifth of the 13 rounds of matches before the finals. But their report card should read: ‘The Waratahs need to try harder to score tries’.
The Reds and the Brumbies are getting their game together with their set pieces improving and their attacking play, especially that of the Reds, finally clicking into gear.
Their report card should read: ‘Keep up the good work, the rewards should come at the business end of the season’.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- NSW Waratahs, rugby, Super Rugby
Knives Out said | March 16th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
“Without the ELVs short arm dispensation these penalties would have been long arm penalties, and given the Hurricanes field position for most of the match there would have been about 10 kicks at goal.”
“the know-nothings who have been complaining that the ELVs don’t allow for structured play.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you contradiction number 1.
“What is more structured than player after player, some of them running intricate lines, bursting on to passes and balls popped up out of tackles, or as in the case of Digby Ione’s beauty to seal the match, coming in close to the ruck to take the inside flick?”
Erm.. that sounds like counter-attacking to me. I’m pretty, pretty sure that counter-attacking could be defined as unstructured. So what could be more structured than that? Possibly set piece plays an field position. Although that is just a guess, I could be compeltely wrong of course.
Spiro Zavos said | March 16th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Knives Out, the fact is that most counter-attacks have well-planned structures to them. Why do you think that the Crusaders under Robbie Deans were able to counter-attack so effectively, match after match? I asked Deans about this once. He told me it took hours and hours of practice to make the counter-attacks look as though they were spontaneous. The players are coached under Deans to ‘play what is in front of them.’ But then he gives them the structures to do just that.
So there is no contradiction to think about the running ensemble play as structured play.
Knives Out and so many of the British commentators can’t think past set pieces when they think of structured rugby. You can, if your players and skilful enough and the coaching is precise, have structured rugby with the expansive game.
Dexter William said | March 16th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Also:
“Without the ELVs short arm dispensation these penalties would have been long arm penalties, and given the Hurricanes field position for most of the match there would have been about 10 kicks at goal.”
If the game was played using the pre-ELV, then players are more unlikely to infringe because they would be penalised by long arm penalties.
Spiro you have your head in the sand. Some ELV rules are good, but the worst thing is that it encourages territorial play rather than possession. Even running teams in pre-ELV is resorting to mindless midfield kicks.
Mind you I was supporter of the ELV until I got sick of watching mindless midfield bombs from every team in the S14. The pre-ELV we had teams that kicks (Tahs) but now the Hurricanes, Crusaders, Brumbies, are reduced to kick fest. The Reds tries a bit of ball in hand, but they are punished for most of their effort.
Get your head out of the sand and reflect more on what you are advocating. Changing your mind is not painful, unless you have a big ego.
Knives Out said | March 16th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Ah, but your piece did not make that clear Spiro. Technically I’m correct. With reference to Deans I am still unsure how you can coach teams to counter attack because to counter attack means that the ball has probably been gained in an unexpected matter, therefore it is hard to plan where players would/could be etc. You can improve a players skill set but how precisely can you plan to counter attack? Surely a counter attack is reliant on a mistake, and if that is true then the genesis of the counter attack must lie from a practiced, structured ploy. The reason I mention set-piece play is because quite obviously nothing is more structured than a set piece. That is just logical. I still maintain that a counter attack must follow on from a good set piece – a stolen lineout or a disruptive scrum, therefore a follows b.
Knives Out said | March 16th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
.. And if a follows b, then obviously expansive rugby is workable inside an structured frame. That is probably why the British jouranlists (?) fixate upon set pieces.
Leonard Lee (Eljay) said | March 16th 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Spiro, the truth of Friday’s game is that the Tahs were simply not good enough to match the Brumbies. It was an exciting game – if you supported the Brumbies. It was like watching their games of old when in the late 90s they began revolutionising the way the game of rugby is played. It was fantastic stuff with the Brumbies forwards ripping into it with fire and purpose and the backs handling crisply and running delightful lines: goosebumps for this old fan.
And more of the same on Saturday night with the inspirational Reds. I watched it in a pub here in SA without sound. By God, it was fantastic to watch, not least the extraordinary form of Hugh McMeniman. This fearless young man is better than John Eales and that’s really saying something.
Earlier I watched the Force V Crusaders and although not quite as exciting there were moments of sublime rugby from the Force, certainly from Giteau and Mitchell. Fine, fine rugby players.
The poor Tahs run a drab fourth by comparison.
sheek said | March 16th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
A couple of points.
1. You can change the laws all you like. If teams are disinclined to play attacking rugby, then they won’t. Simple as that. So blaming the laws are rather pointless.
2. For every law change designed to improve the quality of the game, you can be sure players & coaches will find a way to neutralise its intention! Regrettably, this is a darker side of human nature. So think carefully about any proposed changes.
3. Counter-attacking rugby requires more effort, just like support play. Counter-attacking rugby requires players to fall back in support, just as running rugby requires players to get off the deck & backup.
4. Far be it for me to be cynical! But that’s why you see so much kicking & one off hits from mauls. Both require less energy & less thinking also, than ball in hand support play.
A few work colleagues had raised eyebrows when I suggested the Brumbies would beat the Waratahs. But I had taken my cue from Spiro. The Tahs had won without looking dominant. Indeed, had the Reds taken all their opportunities created, they should have beaten the Tahs.
So I figured if the Brumbies took the game to the Tahs, they would win. At the risk of offending NSW fans, I would say, at this stage, the Waratahs are false front runners!
Eljay said | March 16th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
PS to my last. If you name a team after a shrub, in this case the ‘Waratahs’ or worse, the ‘Tahs’, we shouldn’t be surprised if they play like shrubs; it’s quite logical. Far better I would have thought to re-name them the ‘NSW War’, like they did with the’ Western Force.’ I bet their standards lift immediately.
Dexter William said | March 16th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Sheek
“1. You can change the laws all you like. If teams are disinclined to play attacking rugby, then they won’t. Simple as that. So blaming the laws are rather pointless.”
You need to have laws that encourage possession, which the current ELV is not rewarding.
Like I said: Even ball in hand teams are resorting to territory under the ELV.
Now the game is to give possession away, gain territory and wait for mistake for a counter attack near the opponent’s 22.
Short arm free kicks are not severe enough to stop foul play, so more players are giving them away. So in a sense we are watching League.
The law must encourage possession and ball in hand play. If the current law has been exploited, change it.
Like I said, I do like a lot of what the ELV is trying to achieve, but the end result is a kick fest in the middle of the field. Even a brilliant coach like RD had to resort to this tactic – look at the way the Wallabies are playing under his charge.
Also how many kicks a game are going out on the full outside the 22? From my observation between 5 and 10 in every match. More time wasting. You may say that it is because the kickers are not skilled enough, but even our best kickers, SNK, MG, BB. QC, all kicked out on the full many times.
By practising lots of mid-field kicking, the players obviously kicks instinctively during the real deal.
Another change desperately needed is “bring back old fashion rucking.” Benn robinson was all over the ball spoiling the Brumbies attack, GS “gently” rucked him, but the attcking team got ping in the 22. What is going on?
Laws and rules need to be changed to encourage free and fair play. ELV is at the moment a waste of time – more modification needed. And stop talking about how great ELV is, and about the number of minutes the ball in in play.
Mart said | March 16th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
An interesting twist to the counter attack / British commentator comments by Spiro above and also his previous “The English play boring rugby’….have a butchers at the Eng / France game played overnight (especially the first half). Some great counter attacking and structured rugby on display. But I do agree with Sheek – wotever rules get made it’s up to a team to implement their game plan around them (or have a plan to negate them)….