By itsuckstobeyou -
March 11th 2010 @ 4:39am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Examining the Waratah paradox
The NSW Waratahs are faced with a seemingly impossible choice: to win ugly or to lose pretty. Against the Sharks, their fans cast their vote.
It is no secret that the Waratahs have adopted a ‘negative’ brand of rugby over the past few seasons. In many respects, this decision has been justified by the success of sides who have adopted such a game-plan. Of the six finalists over the course of the last three seasons, it could be argued that four of the sides, the Bulls (twice), the Sharks and the Waratahs themselves, focussed on starving their opposition of territory and momentum with intelligent (albeit incessant) kicking and slowing down of the opposing breakdown, scoring tries, primarily, from the set piece. These sides followed the international model of ‘points accumulation’, made fashionable by the victorious English side in the 2003 RWC and likewise, the South African side in 2007.
The switch to the ‘points accumulation’ ethos saw the Waratahs move from 2nd-last on the table in 2007 to 2nd in 2008. This fact it seems, is hard to ignore for a new coach just entering the frame.
Since Chris Hickey’s appointment as coach for the 2009 season, it would appear that the objective for the Waratahs is to do what they did in 2008, only better. It appeared then that the fans were results driven, seemingly flocking to games when the Tahs were winning, regardless of their style of play.
The resulting season saw the Waratahs finish a respectable 5th, missing out on the finals by just one try and winning the same number of games as they had the season prior. Not to be ignored however, was the franchise’s all-time leading try-scorer, possession-starved winger Lote Tuqiri, finishing the season with a solitary try. This was symptomatic of a side who had stuck to ‘Plan A’ far too rigidly, playing the odds that tight rugby would win enough games for them to make the finals. The true impact of the failure of ‘Plan A’ was felt at the SFS, where despite winning their first four games, Waratahs home crowds dwindled, down 12 per cent (approx. 3500); a point seemingly ignored by Hickey and the powers that be at the Waratahs.
It was easy to see how the downturn in crowds could be dismissed as an anomaly. As promised, they did what they had done the season before, they won as many games as they had in 2008 and finished only one win behind the Bulls who finished 1st. There was a global financial crisis. The NRL was having its best season in at least a decade. The match against the flailing Reds, which in previous years would have sold out, not surprisingly came up short in crowd numbers. A 12 per cent drop could be acceptable under these circumstances. The Waratahs, tried and true, saw no reason to abandon ‘Plan A’.
During this season, Hickey made moves to strengthen his game-plan. The Waratahs signed Drew Mitchell in April 2009, a traditional winger with an ability to finish, but more importantly for Hickey, a prodigious boot and a solid defender. In July he signed Berrick Barnes. Of all the number 10’s in Australia, Barnes is probably the strongest at defending the vital channel one off the ruck. Despite showing little imagination or flair in attack thus far, he has an intelligent kicking game, almost equal to that of Matt Giteau.
These two players were ideal for Hickey’s version of the ‘points accumulation’ game-plan. Mitchell’s kicking ability made him preferable to Tuqiri, and Barnes would be the final piece in the jigsaw, a superior defender and kicker to his predecessors in Beale and Halangahu.
It wasn’t until January, 2010, that the franchises met with the ARU to agree on an edict that the sides would play an entertaining style of Rugby. The Waratahs had no choice but to agree. The franchises also agreed to new law interpretations which made turnovers far more difficult to execute.
Attacking from your own side of halfway would become a far more inviting prospect than kicking the ball to your opponents back three and defending the counter-attack.
Unfortunately for the Waratahs, they had built a squad on the basis that the defending team has all the rights. The wheels were set in motion long ago and it was too late for them to abandon their game-plan.
After 63 minutes of the Waratahs round 4 clash with the Shark, the Waratahs fans, rightfully, had had enough. They had watched the New Zealand sides, the South African sides (with the exception of the Sharks) and the Reds embrace an entertaining brand of rugby, unseen in Australia since the Brumbies golden era. They had paid their increasingly hard earned money to watch the same thing they had watched for the past few years, only this time, it didn’t cut the mustard. They booed their own team, the ultimate shame for any sporting side.
So how do the Waratahs appease their fans?
The obvious answer is to play ‘pretty’ and win. The problem is that Chris Hickey has assembled this squad on the notion that playing ‘ugly’ wins matches. Either the squad is incapable of winning pretty, or at the very least, Hickey believes this to be so. To play the style which the fans are vocally demanding would come at the cost of victory.
The fans have made it clear. They are prepared to wear that cost.
Discover the best in new art and culture at our sister site, Lost At E Minor
The Roar 2010 Book is a piece of Aussie sports history featuring the best expert columns and roar of the crowd articles, and a short exclusive essay reflecting on the year in Aussie sport. Pre-order now.
(25)
LeftArmSpinner said | March 11th 2010 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Nice assessment, just the wrong conclusion. you sell the players at the tahs short. the players are more than capable of playing running rugby. they are also capable of adapting to the new interpretations. all have played under such arrangements in their rugby careers. (they have probably played 20 seasons, on average, since commencing in the U6′s)
it is not as black and white as you present.
in fact, they have a mobile pack, particularly in second and back row, TPN, Douglas, Mumm, Roodt, Mowen, Dennis, even palu when he is in form.
They have four play makers (Burgess, Beale, Hangers and Barnes) and speed in the back three (turner and Mitchell).
They can play the running game. They, the coaches, choose not to.
Saying “The resulting season saw the Waratahs finish a respectable 5th, missing out on the finals by just one try and winning the same number of games as they had the season prior.” is a very odd conclusion.
It was not respectable to finish 5th. They played ridiculously boring rugby, “losing ugly” got greedy and changed a valuable home game into an away game (Crusaders to Homebush) and paid the price.
How can they not have learnt from the prior seasons?
They know all of this. read their press. They promised to run the ball and, other than the bulls game, have failed!!!!!
Wavell Wakefield said | March 11th 2010 @ 7:27am | Report comment
‘the players are more than capable of playing running rugby.’
Based on what evidence? Time in the Wallabies camp hasn’t improved the core skills of Burgess and Mitchell one iota. So surely it isn’t as simple as saying “They can run the ball.” There is no doubt in my mind that the Waratahs have the 3rd best backline of the Australian S14 sides.
itsuckstobeyou said | March 11th 2010 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
I agree. Here are the sides who I believe would beat the Waratahs in a game of running rugby:
Reds
Brumbies
Chiefs
Crusaders
Hurricanes
Bulls
Sharks
Last year they lost only four games and missed out on the finals. In this context, you can see why Chris Hickey is hesitant to change game plans. Again, I’m not saying he shouldn’t, just suggesting why he hasn’t.
JK said | March 11th 2010 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
Maybe we should form a new code called running rugby! what exactly is running rugby, are you suggesting that if these teams decided to play a game where you are only allowed to play” running rugby”.
that they would all beat the Tah’s?
So who would the Tah’s beat in a game of walking rugby? :p
Seriously what does that mean, kicking is a component of all teams game plan the difference is when and how often and in the end it is still about territory wether you keep the ball in hand or kick, it’s what you do about that territory that counts, example Chiefs v Reds, Chiefs full of running rugby in the first 15mins, then Reds tighten up defence, next 65mins Chiefs running rugby ineffective.
Don’t get me wrong the Tah’s on Sat were woeful and provided an example of what I said above about when and how often they kick because they pretty much got it wrong all night, but from where I sit Hickey is playing for field position with the plan to attack in the red zone and obviously keep the ball outside thier own defensive red zone which is pretty simple, well simple anyway. Over the last couple of years they just have not been good enough to take advantage of that field position, personally I am happy to keep the flair in the offensive half just need to work on execution. just my take anyway
itsuckstobeyou said | March 11th 2010 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
Fair point.
What I was trying to get across was, that in the eyes of their coach, only chance this Waratahs squad has of beating these sides is to stick to their current game-plan.
RE: Chiefs vs Reds, you’re absolutely spot on. The same thing happened the week prior with the Bulls vs Tahs. The Bulls and Reds showed they were able to change their game-plan to suit their circumstances. The Chiefs and Waratahs showed an inability to effectively change theirs.
Grimmace said | March 11th 2010 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Well written. Even though Hickey may have assembled a squad to win ugly, I find it hard to swallow that these guys can’t play an expansive brand of football,despite the lack of basic skill displayed at times on Saturday. I feel Tom Carter’s days starting in that backline may be numbered as Horne gaines fitness.
Fatigue has been mentioned as a reason why they kicked so often after the hour mark. I’ll buy it, this time only.
sheek said | March 11th 2010 @ 8:18am | Report comment
The only paradox is that the biggest rugby state in Australia couldn’t run a chook raffle…..
Once upon a time the Tahs were renowned for their running game, & quite frequently the only loss suffered by a touring side was to the Tahs.
As LAS says, the conclusion is wrong. The Tahs are more than capable of playing both attractive rugby & winning rugby. This is evidenced from past performances, & also as members of the Wallabies & for their local club sides.
It takes courage, discipline, trust in team mates & a lot of effort to play attractive rugby. Unfortunately, collectively, these qualities are missing from the Tahs leadership group – both senior players & coaching staff.
eric said | March 11th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Of course these current players can play attractive rugby if they want to, collectively, with encouragment from the coach. However, I am highly suspicious of Phil Waugh’s influence. I think he sets the tone. Time to bench or move him on.
Troy said | March 11th 2010 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Agree with you there Eric, think someone else should have a crack at captaincy. Maybe Barnes?
Phil’s a great player but have to question his ability to lead the Tah’s to a running game?
itsuckstobeyou said | March 11th 2010 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
I think that the primary reason Waugh is captain is that by being captain, the referees are less likely to yellow card him. His discipline in the first 3 weeks was atrocious and to be honest, he was fortunate not to be heavily penalised again on the weekend.
Troy said | March 11th 2010 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
That’s prob why he was praising the ref after the game..first time this year!
Red Rooster said | March 11th 2010 @ 10:23am | Report comment
I thought the Waratahs ran the ball against the Bulls – so they obviously can but someone chooses not to – everyone sets up their teams and you always have to adapt to the rules. Bringing in Mitchell, Barnes and Anesi was supposed to increase the attack so I cant follow the arguement on both fronts. They have the players to do it and they showed againstthe Bulls they can so there must be a reason they kick (twice as much as the Reds) and Hickey/Mumm told us at halftime that its all about field position – go figure the players and coaches are in agreeance kick first run second
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | March 11th 2010 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Wasn’t the Tah effort against the Bulls pretty convincing evidence that they can play running Rugby? It sure looked that way to me.
Just like cats will never go back to No Name Brand tinned cat food after tasting the good Gordon Bleu stuff, the Tah fanbase has tasted the good stuff. We now want the team to build upon that and never resort back to the dire crap we saw against the Sharks.
Enough is enough and besides it wasn’t really winning Rugby anyway.
itsuckstobeyou said | March 11th 2010 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Thanks for your comments all. Please excuse me if I try and cover them all off at once.
Just to be clear, my personal opinion is that the Waratahs can win games if they play pretty, despite there being little evidence to support it.
The objective of this article was not to say that the Waratahs can’t play pretty, it was to explain why they don’t.
I’m suggesting that it is Chris Hickey’s belief is the Waratahs must play ugly if they are to win. The loss to the Bulls was a case-in-point and would have only fortified his beliefs.
The Waratahs caught the Bulls off guard by playing expansive rugby and accumulated a substantial lead. Once the Bulls regathered, they were easily able to account for the Tahs, despite trailing 17-0 at one point.
Whilst I’m not a Tahs fan, my hope is that the coaching staff take note of the out-pouring of frustration by Waratahs fans on Saturday night. As I mentioned, I hope they are wrong and that the Waratahs can win playing expansive rugby. But even if they are right, it was made clear by the fans on the weekend that they would rather see them play pretty than play ugly, regardless of the result.
If I asked you which game you would rather watch again, would it be the Bulls game, or the Sharks game?
Matt said | March 11th 2010 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Hear Hear……And this is from the most avid Waratahs fan.That game was painful to watch at least i had a remote. I think the fans may have been at more forgiving if this brand had at least delivered that elusive Super Rugby Trophy to the great state of NSW!! As much as it pains me to say it if a Reds game and a Waratahs game were on at the same … See Moretime I think i would watch the Reds and IQ the Tahs……Now thats something i never thought i would say. NSW sports fans have always been fickle WIN and your the flavor of the month, LOSE and watch your crowds drop. But its clear NO ONE wants to pay to watch a BORING team WIN against inferior opposition!!!!
Ohhh yeah and only JUST win.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | March 11th 2010 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Barnes for capt. makes sense……then the backs can make the call to run the ball all the time. No excuses then!
andystath said | March 11th 2010 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Didn’t the Waratahs beat the Reds in a game of running rugby?
itsuckstobeyou said | March 11th 2010 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
No, that was 7 minutes of desperate rugby. They were tryless until your mate Barnsey got the hook.
andystath said | March 11th 2010 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
stu said | March 12th 2010 @ 7:49am | Report comment
The waratahs too depressing to go and watch live
I’m sure i’ll get roasted for this but from 2005 – 2007 the waratahs played more often than not exciting rugby – i think that this was because of Peter Hewat. Hewat was a speculator, he wasn’t the fastest nor the best defender but in setting up an attack he was great.
With his absence the tahs have no spark and it is easier to play a fwd focussed game
I also think that the tah fwds and the coach don’t trust their backline and perhaps quite rightly – last week the pick and goes from 2 yards out were never going to break thru – fast ball out wide with a strong back three (if they can catch the actual ball) was always on – but with burgess’s passing game and carter’s catching game that isn’t a real option either…better to try for a penalty.
johno said | March 13th 2010 @ 2:35am | Report comment
If the Warratahs hadn’t fired Mckenzie, they would have started to win pretty by now, but since they did, it will take another two seasons for them to start doing this. There will be the occasional run away such as against the Lions but that’s all it will be an occasional happening against an underperforming team.
The type of rugby you are hoping for does not come from one, two or three seasons and the more pressure put on this team to start performing in this way, the longer it will take for them to sort out their game!
The Bulls didn’t just start off playing the type of rugby they’re playing now, it has taken them at least ten seasons to get here. In the late nineties they were in an absolute shambles. Heyneke Meyer was as close to being fired as Bakkies is to being overly robust.
But the structures and processes that he has put into place was with a long term goal in mind. This constant whining about winning in style prevented the Tahs from getting to the semi’s last year. It’s the same sickness that’s affecting the Stormers fans as well.
If given the choice between coming out on top all ugly and battered, or lying at the bottom of the rugby pile all pretty, I’ll go with ugly, because sometime somewhere down the line ugly is going to start getting pretty as the players and coaches get versed in there systems, etc.
Remember this is Super 14 things happen at the speed of light in relation to the type of rugby that the average Waratah player plays the rest of the season, the step up from NPC and Currie Cup is already considerable, but Aus players don’t even have that step to help them stay sharp.
And then there’s the travelling factor, which means that the Tahs and Brumbies effectively crossed ten time zones in the space of three weeks.
itsuckstobeyou said | March 13th 2010 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
I’d take it one step further and say it’s not just a new coach, but a new backline. It’s easy to forget how young and inexperienced the backline is.
Of the backline they fielded on Friday, Drew Mitchell is the most capped back at age 25.
Further, there are only two players who have played for the Waratahs more than two years, Turner and Halangahu who only debuted in 2007. 3 out of the 7 debuted for the Waratahs this year.
I agree with you entirely. As a coach it would be easy to come to the conclusion that tight rugby is the only winning formula, at least against more competitive sides than the Lions, Cheetahs etc.
Ora said | March 13th 2010 @ 5:53am | Report comment
How insane was that score last night, the Lions seemed to shut up shop and go home. I am really worried for this team how they can capitulate so badly and give up like they did is beyond comprehension. The Tahs were good don’t get me wrong but 73 points come on lets get real here. When the chiefs scored 72 it was hailed a disaster and they did it on the High Veldt. The Tahs do it at home against a team that looked like they’d rather be sitting in customs waiting to head back to South Africa. Mitchell had a solid game as did Beale, I am left wondering how much one can take from this game.
itsuckstobeyou said | March 13th 2010 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
I rarely enjoy blow-outs, but this one was an exception. As I’ve said, I’m not a Waratahs fan but it’s good to see the Wallaby wingers bagging a truck load.
The good news for Waratahs fans is that over the next few weeks, they’re up against some pretty meager opposition. They have the Force (A), Blues (H) and the Cheetahs (H).
I’d like to think that the thing we can take from this game is that the Tahs will chance their arm against these sorts of sides.
bennalong said | March 13th 2010 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Johno gives the other side really well, and if you read LAS up the top you get a pretty good clue to the Paradox.
It’s not in the nature of humans to play a game well unless they postulate they’ll win if they execute their game plan.
It’s in the nature of NSW Rugby to win…….at all costs.
Throw in law changes and therefore abysmal standards of reffing that we continue to see, and then add the fantastic defense the Tahs have constructed, and you get CONSERVATISM.
And it won games because the laws gave penalties so frequently against the attacking team
It takes years to really ‘get’ Crusaders style, which I believe allows ‘chancing your arm’ to accompany solid defense. Witness the Wallabies under the man who coaches the Crusaders style.
But the Tahs have the players to do it………….and the will……….and the reason!