The Waratahs blew winning the Super 14 tournament
By Spiro Zavos, 18 May 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Chris Hickey, Phil Waugh, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs
169 Have your say

Crusaders' Andy Ellisleft, bottom left, tackles the Waratahs' Dean Mumm as his captain Phil Waugh jumps to make room for a pass during their Super 14 rugby union game at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney, Australia, Saturday, March 21, 2009. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
The Bulls won 10 of their Super 14 matches this season. The Chiefs, Hurricanes and Waratahs won 9. The Crusaders won 8 matches and drew one. The Waratahs also won all three of their matches in South Africa.
This apparently is the first time an Australian and New Zealand team has done this.
On these series of fact I’m convinced that the Waratahs should have been in the Super 14 finals, and that they would have won the tournament.
In the last few matches when Kurtley Beale was played at inside centre and the obsession with the kicking game, rather than the ensemble passing and running game, was given up, the Waratahs looked to be the best all-round side in the tournament.
The pack was never out-muscled. The set pieces were strong. And when the kicking obsession was finally played out, the backline looked to be a dangerous unit.
There is no doubt in my mind, therefore, that if the Waratahs had made the finals, they would have won the tournament. What is absolutely frustrating is that a tiny 4-points in the points differential (with the Crusaders PD + 33, the Warartahs PD + 29) kept them out of the finals. That and the fact that the Waratahs gained only 5 bonus points to the Crusaders 7, which compensated for their draw.
The worse thing about this bloody-minded approach by the 2009 Waratahs to ‘win ugly’ and to hell with the consequences is that it was stupid and self-defeating.
Bonus points are built into the Super Rugby tournament’s structure to ensure that teams do more in the pool rounds than try to ‘win ugly.’ They should entertain their supporters, too, while they are winning.
So the Waratahs who played in last year’s final are out of this year’s finals. They have also alienated their supporters to such an extent that unless there is an intelligent determination to take spectators on the journey towards a title next year they will lose even more support than they have lost this year.
The interview given by Phil Waugh after the absorbing, high-octane game against the Lions does not give much hope for a change in attitude and policy.
Here are some snippets: ‘It is a pretty good effort to get to 41 points. Considering how much we have been written off all year, too.’
Zavos response: ‘Phil, you were not written off. Most of us argued that there was a champion team within the Waratahs squad, if this team was allowed to play as champions. As for attaining 41 points, so what? You needed 41 points and another converted try to get past the Crusaders. What about the times this season when the Waratahs were leading (the Western Force match is an example) and a shot at goal rather than an attempt to score a try was the option taken?’
Waugh: ‘We are very proud with the way we hung in all year despite the criticism of how we play … the level of commitment doesn’t get recognised and people seem to focus more on the negatives.’
Zavos: ‘It took until the middle of the season for the Waratahs coaches to change the backline so that, with the New Zealand two five-eighths system, it could release the outside backs to make the sort of attacks that Timana Tahu launched against the Lions to open their defences up.’
As for recognising commitment, that is a taken. Professional athletes, like professionals in any activity, are expected to play like professionals, that is to give their all for the cause. The criticism was not directed at the professionalism of the Waratahs players but at the no-brain way they played for most of the season.
To get so close to making the finals with a style that could have been easily tweaked (and was) to make the finals a certainty for the Waratahs was very difficult for Waratahs supporters to stomach.
If you play to win ugly and don’t succeed, you have actually lost ugly which represents a double whammy against the interests of the supporters.
NSW Rugby needs to have an intense debriefing on this 2009 campaign. The team is named after the Waratahs of the late 1920s who developed a rugby equivalent of tennis’ all-court game with a great deal of quicksilver running and skillful passing and a minimum of kicking. The captain and the coach, Chris Hickey, need to be told that unless they can take this tradition on board in 2010 they should hand over their leadership responsibilities.
We don’t know how 2010 is going to turn out, even if the current Waratahs start to play in the Waratahs spirit.
But we do know that the Waratahs should have gone one better than last year this season, the season when they blew winning the 2009 Super 14 tournament.
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.
- Explore:
- Chris Hickey, Phil Waugh, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs

Ed said | May 18th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Totally agree Spiro, how unbelievably frustrating… the thing that gets me, as you mention, is next year, even if they play as well they did at the end of the tournament, they will have a Dan Carter NZ team or a Giteau led brumbies to compete with, which is tremendously intimidating.
It was open for the taking, and whoever wins this year won’t shade on the potential the ‘tahs had for this season. I think all the top 4 teams have significant deficiences in one aspect or another
Knives Out said | May 18th 2009 @ 6:58am | Report comment
As a European rugby fan I find it astonishing that after 13 games of Super rugby the Australian media and fans alike still believe that the Waratahs have the potential to be great. The Waratahs do not have one world class individual in their ranks – in stark contrast to the Bulls, Chiefs and Hurricanes. Not one. They have a collection of hard-working players but are quite clearly poorly coached and poorly captained. Despite this, I feel that they played to their strengths. As did the Bulls. Both teams relied on grunt up front and a kicking game and the Bulls only garnered one more win and bonus point than the Waratahs. The Waratahs did not make the finals because they aren’t one of the best four teams in the tournament. Simple. The team has no balance in midfield, no balance in the back three, nor a goal kicker who is consistent enough. Had the Waratahs attempted to play like the Hurricanes and Chiefs then I sincerely doubt they would have finished as high as 5th.
There was certainly no great invigoration brought about by Beale playing at 12 – despite the fact that he rarely actually played second receiver. Beale was allowed a roving role which hid his defensive frailties and allowed him to run from deep, but there was nothing in the 3 South African performances to suggest that not playing him at 10 is the answer. Let’s not forget that the Waratahs did not beat the Lions due to any inventive, original back play. Their game plan was a mess and they were fortunate to win. The Australian rugby community should be more concerned with why a collection of such mediocre individuals managed to finish higher than the star-studded rosters of the Brumbies and the Force.
Hemjay said | May 18th 2009 @ 7:00am | Report comment
If you ask me the only thing that is self serving is proclaiming that the Waratahs would’ve won the tournament had they made the finals. That in itself would have to be one of the boldest statements made this season. The fact remains they didn’t make the finals they just weren’t good enough to make the semis let alone win the competition. If any team could’ve won it would’ve been the Brumbies but they too just weren’t good enough. If they were as good as you and others make them out to be. The Tahs would be playing finals footy+this+weekend++the+only+thing+final+about+the+Waratahs+is+finally+their+boring+over+hyped+season+is+over+consigned+to+the+dustbin+and+history+books+of+09.+Also+the+crusaders+went+through+02+unbeaten+so+the+Tahs+efforts+while+good+is+not+that+special
ohtani's jacket said | May 18th 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Spiro, I’m confused.
The past few weeks you’ve been full of praise for the Bulls. Now you’re saying that the Waratahs blew the tournament. I notice you said: “if the Waratahs had made the finals, they would have won the tournament.” Do you think they could’ve beaten the Bulls in Pretoria and then won the final in NZ? Or do you think they should’ve finished top of the table or at least gotten a home semi?
Their last three wins in South Africa, while admirable, weren’t really good enough on a points basis. They gave up way too many points to the Lions on the weekend.
Hoy said | May 18th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Spiro is saying they blew the tournament because they played a shit game at the start of the season, and won, but won ugly. Had they played to supposed potential, they could have won with bonus points, and then would be a lot higher on the table.
Bonus points make the difference.
mitzter said | May 18th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Don’t know if they could have won it but I do think they should have made the finals. 2 teams on equal points – it should have gone to the team with the best winning record before it goes to points difference
Even looser said | May 18th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Spiro there is much about what you have written that I would like to agree with. However, and I’m saying this as a Tahs fan, we were dead lucky to finish 5th with our woeful performances. Even in that last game in Sth Africa, Lady Luck did us a huge favour on that Lion’s disallowed try. Sorry but the truth is the truth.
Kindly put me out of my misery by explaining this. And I quote “The Bulls won 10 of their Super 14 matches this season. The Chiefs, Hurricanes and Waratahs won 9. The Crusaders won 8 matches and drew one. The Waratahs also won all three of their matches in South Africa. This apparently is the first time an Australian and New Zealand team has done this. On these series of fact I’m convinced that the Waratahs should have been in the Super 14 finals, and that they would have won the tournament.”
How is it that ‘these series of facts’ convince you that the Tahs would have won? Your not suggesting that the Waratahs were improving but the other teams weren’t are you?
Rickety Knees said | May 18th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Thanks Spiro – on the money for mine mate.
What stuns me is that the Brumbies experienced the same when Rod McQueen first coached them and Hickey was his assistant! McQueen changed to an attacking style in the ensuing season and the Brumbies won. Hickey must be ……
hemjay said | May 18th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Mitzter Spiro,
The reality of all this is the Waratahs have known for a very long time that bonus pts are vital and they could define your season. The Waratahs failed in that aspect and are deservedly out of the finals, I personally do not think they would beat either of the finalists. Look at the canes on the weekend they did exactly what they needed to early then coasted foer the rest of the game making sure they stayed far enough in front. The Chiefs basically just did all they had to do in not losing the match. The Bulls did it tough as did the Crusaders a team who noone expected to feature in the top half of the table let alone in the finals.
The Waratahs have taken a huge step backwards from the beaten finalists last year to a non entity this year, they are gone and you can cry your what ifs all you like but IF is all it will be. How about look at reality they are gone Tah Tah Waratahs.They simply did not do enough to get to the finals and they knew all to well what is expected in the Super competition.
In summary they weren’t and aren’t good enough to contest a semi let alone the final.
mother teresa said | May 18th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
they have made the finals in previous years ,why not this year ,whats the reason.players,strategy or coaching ability.most are screaming at me its the latter two.how can a reasonably experienced backline with wallabies and potential wallabies play such banal rugby.;surely this can only come from direction /instruction and definitely not from the rugby board who promised better and brighter than last year and produced neither,what it gave was a backline coached with yesterdays innovation which produced zip