Waratahs are in the top four, but can it last?
By Spiro Zavos, 22 Mar 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Chris Hickey, Phil Waugh, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs, Western Force

The Waratahs Berrick Barnes kicks the ball against the Sharks during their Super 14 rugby match in Sydney on Saturday, March 7, 2010. AAP Image/Paul Miller.
Six weeks into the 2010 Super 14 tournament, the NSW Waratahs are in the top four. But is this elevated position a case of flattering only to deceive?
The other three leading sides are there without any qualms about whether they’ve been promoted above the level of their abilities. Can we say the same about the Waratahs?
The Bulls are the unbeat-a-Bulls at Pretoria. They have won 15 Super 14 matches on the trot at home. New Zealand rugby writers are beginning to wonder whether the team are the new Crusaders, the second Super Rugby dynasty since the tournament started in 1996.
They started the season blowing away South African, Australian and New Zealand sides by taking the ball up hard from first phase play and then setting up their big runners from second phase play.
But against the revitalised Hurricanes they went back to their traditional game of booting up-and-unders or launching driving mauls. These are tactics that the new interpretations have supposedly de-powered this season. But if referees allow kicking teams to take catchers out (in the pretence of playing at the ball) or allowing any number of stoppages for driving mauls until there is no other option but to drop it down, the Bulls will remain unbeatable.
There should be a call now, as well, to referees to be really strict on teams forming the maul at the lineout, something that the hapless Paul Mark actually got right and was (unfairly) disciplined as a consequence. Also, there should be no leeway when the maul stops.
The point here is that the maul goes against the most important principle of rugby in that there should be a continual contest for the ball. There can be no contest if the ball is parked down the back of the maul, with the bound forwards in front of it technically off-side. Defending sides should be rewarded for stopping the maul, which is the only real defence against it.
The issue for the Bulls is whether they can transport their Pretoria game, which is best played at altitude, to Australia and New Zealand. When they play the Western Force in Perth we should get an idea of just how unbeatable the team really is.
This presumes that the Western Force will play as determinedly as they did against the Waratahs. You can’t help thinking, though, watching the Western Force that there are still issues between the majority of the players and the coach.
The team desperately needs a new and Australian coach who will hopefully drop Nathan Sharpe as captain and build a new squad around David Pocock as captain and a number of the younger players.
This brings us to the Waratahs and another team, I believe, that certainly needs a new coach and new captain to replace Phil Waugh (this is sacrilege, I know).
After the match, Waugh said one of the only interesting things I’ve ever heard a player or a coach say in those idiotic on-field interviews. ‘We probably didn’t kick enough in the first half,’ he noted when he was asked about the way the match went and the strong effort put up by the Western Force.
The kicking by Berrick Barnes and others was actually quite good. Generally it was for field position. But you don’t score tries and put pressure on other sides by kicking the ball to them. Gossip has it, though, that Waugh is the leader of the kicking tactics.
It must drive forwards crazy when they fight to win some possession only to have a back boot the ball to the opposition. And under the new interpretations – except for when the South African Jaco Peyser is refereeing – teams can hold on to the ball for long periods of time and mount sustained attacks once they get hold of it.
Peyser ensured a Waratahs victory when he penalised the Western Force several times on the Waratahs tryline when Waugh was blatantly grabbing the ball before the tackled player could play it.
Thankfully, Luke Burgess has rid himself of his kicking habit. But like a smoker who alleviates his cravings with fast food, he now runs excessively across the field before passing. This is almost as bad (but at least the ball is not delivered to the opposition) as kicking the ball away. A number of Waratahs players are carrying injuries and bruises from the hospital passes delivered to them by Burgess.
The Waratahs coach, Chris Hickey, will be under pressure if his side doesn’t make the finals. I always believe that 90 per cent of good coaching lies in accurate selecting. Hickey seems to have got the forwards right. This is a plus for him. The Waratahs pack, especially the loose forwards, have a bit of mongrel and an appetite for the rampage about them.
But the backs are a mess. They did not create or make one line break against the Western Force. Nor did they look like making such a break. Last week I called for the immediate introduction into the starting back line of Josh Holmes, Rob Horne and Kurtley Beale. Surely this has to happen next week.
The halves do not have much energy in engaging the opposition loose forwards, in contrast with Will Genia and Quade Cooper of the Reds.
With Berrick Barnes and Tom Carter in the centres there is not much penetration and too much plod, especially from Carter.
Drew Mitchell is playing splendidly. But he is a one-man band in the back three. There is no guile or real pace from Sosene Anesi. Lachlan Turner is coasting. He had one run out of trouble against the Western Force. But he is too willing to kick the ball away rather than bolt away with it. He does not seem to be involved in any set movements, either.
But then the Waratahs backline does not appear to have many moves in its bag of tricks. They occasionally shovel the ball along the line and appear to hope that something will happen.
This gets us back to the coaching staff. You could say that Michael Foley has done an excellent job with the forwards, that Scott Wisemantel, the skills coach, needs to get the backs playing smarter and more constructive rugby, and Chris Hickey needs to start selecting a side that reflects the best of the talent in his squad.
The obvious answer to all of this, of course, is to say: ‘We can’t be doing too much wrong if we are in the top four.’ Winners are grinners, as the adage says.
But can the Waratahs keep on winning with their present pedestrian style?
On Saturday night against the Blues we will get a better indication of what the answer is to this question. The Blues are an erratic team but against the ACT Brumbies at Eden Park they played more effectively than they have for some time. Rene Ranger proved too much for the Brumbies outside backs to handle.
If Ranger can be kept in check and if the backs play with the pace, efficiency and skill of the forwards, the Waratahs can entrench themselves in their top four placing, a nice position to hold in the run in to the finals.
Will this happen, though?
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Chris Hickey, Phil Waugh, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs, Western Force


March 22nd 2010 @ 5:55am
katzilla said | March 22nd 2010 @ 5:55am | Report comment
Well the Blues are as erratic as anyone. But assuming that both teams show up with their A game then I cant see the Waratahs getting past em.
As much as I dislike the Jaffas they were a joy to watch. Direct hard running from the backs AT PACE. Great support and great option taking with ball in hand. Rene Ranger may blow a bit hot and cold, but if he shows up then the Waratahs backline will go the way of the Brumbies, Swiss Cheese.
As far as the Waratahs Championship hopes……….you need a class first five.
Carlos Spencer
Andrew Mertens
Stephen Larkham
Dan Carter
Morne Steyn
Daniel Halangahu? I rest my case. A club rugby plodder at best.
March 22nd 2010 @ 7:31am
van der Merwe said | March 22nd 2010 @ 7:31am | Report comment
“The point here is that the maul goes against the most important principle of rugby in that there should be a continual contest for the ball.”
But weren’t you an advocate for the new ruck interpretations, Spiro?
March 22nd 2010 @ 11:42am
What!!?!?! said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment
A ruck isn’t a maul……
March 22nd 2010 @ 12:57pm
Viscount Crouchback said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
The principle is the same. Spiro seems to be in favour of the contest for possession when it comes to mauls, but not when it comes to rucks.
The southern hemisphere bleating about the rolling maul is laughable. It’s perfectly possible to defend against it. Just watch any Guiness Premiership match.
March 22nd 2010 @ 7:52am
johnny-boy said | March 22nd 2010 @ 7:52am | Report comment
It’s been puzzling me re Link’s efforts at the Reds as to whether it was Waugh insisting on boring play when Link was coaching the Tahs and not Link. Waugh seemed to intimate at the time he effectively took over from Link near the end.
It could just be that Link has loosened up a bit on the french champagne. Interesting article in NZHerald re Jock Hobbs’ former company Strategic Finance going belly up to the tune of $325 million. This is one of the geniuses that re appointed Henry & Co.
March 22nd 2010 @ 6:31pm
ohtani's jacket said | March 22nd 2010 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
Who cares about Strategic Finance, what about Carl Hayman?
March 22nd 2010 @ 8:05am
Chris McKay said | March 22nd 2010 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Spiro,
Burgess needs to be dropped. His cross field running, especially under the new laws where teams have 13-14 men in their defensive line, denies his outside backs time and space and the short passes to forwards in channels 1 and 2 are not working as they are being easily picked off. Hodgson had a field day with this tactic.
To crack defensive lines you need good forwards to pick and go in channel 1 – Tahs have this. What they lack is a 9 who gets in and flicks the ball immediately out to his back line.
The other ingredient is a genuine 13 in Horne who has blistering pace and looks to get on the outside.
The Tahs season, and I believe Hickey’s job, are on the line this weekend as the Blues will go all out.
March 24th 2010 @ 9:39am
Short-Blind. said | March 24th 2010 @ 9:39am | Report comment
McKibbin,McKibbin, McKibbin – Holmes is not the answer. Will take guts though and for that reason it wont happen.
March 22nd 2010 @ 8:08am
Harry said | March 22nd 2010 @ 8:08am | Report comment
NSW 10 and 12 don’t threaten the line enough – Barnes is hanging back, Hangers too pedestrian. A player who does create attacking momentum, Beale, can’t be palyed in those positions because he can’t tackle effectively enough for the modern game. Not helped by slow service from Burgess, who at least has bought back those little bursts from the base of rucks and scrums into his game. Anesi is a dud and should be benched, Turner to 15 to force hm to get involved.
March 22nd 2010 @ 12:09pm
Pete said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
They need to bring Beale into the game (10 minutes at the end of a game is hardly going to develop him). Cooper was a poor tackler but has improved remarkably because he was given game time and mentoring. Deans trusted Beale in the mid week game on the Spring Tour and he repaid him hansomely. Rumour has it (if the Telegraph can be trusted) that Deans has had a word with Hickey to involve Beale more.
Anyone noticed how Tuqiri has performed for the West Tigers. 2 tries in 2 games… and he didn’t look to me like he was lacking pace. Perhaps it was the Waratahs ‘safety first/forward orientated’ play that hampered his try scoring ability…
March 22nd 2010 @ 8:11am
Justin said | March 22nd 2010 @ 8:11am | Report comment
On form the only Tah back who would make the Wallaby 22 is Mitchell (pains me to say it). The rest are doing sweet FA.
There is no real game plan when they get the pill other than to kick. The 9-10-12-13 has to be the worst attacking combo in the comp. Slow ball movement, cross field running, uninventive moves, no taking the line on. Really poor with the ball in possession.
Horne may start to rectify things to a small degree but unitl Burgess, Hanga’s and Barnes begin to challenge the line and learn how to pass (Barnes passing is slow, has poor technique with big foot plants and body angled towards the touchline) they wont score tries and set up their outside men.
Wisemantle seems to get gig after gig. Can someone let us all know when he actually got a backline going? Serious question…
March 22nd 2010 @ 8:26am
Rickety Knees said | March 22nd 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment
Like you Spiro I can’t understand what Hickey/Weismantel are up to with the backs. It is just sooooo frustrating watching play in slow motion, getting hammered and turning the ball over. There was a time when would set a great platform and the backs would hit the ball on the charge – not any more. Burgess starts it all by running across field and predictably the inside runners get hammered. When he eventually passes to 10 the backs are also moving across field with him. Holmes has to start if only to keep the Blues guessing this weekend.
Like you I can’t help to feel that Waugh is at the heart of playing ugly. It is obvious that he does not trust the backs and would rather keep it in the forwards. There is something fundamentally wrong with the Tahs. Waugh has been a most wonderful player for the Tahs and Hickey’s Shute Shield record is excellent – somehow the combination of the two is just not working. In the interests of the Tahs they should both go and Weismantel with them.
The Tahs will lose ugly to the Blues this weekend.
March 22nd 2010 @ 8:47am
Harry said | March 22nd 2010 @ 8:47am | Report comment
If the Tahs still have the man with the whistle in their team as they did Saturday they will make the finals.
March 22nd 2010 @ 2:43pm
el gamba said | March 22nd 2010 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Ubelievable how how the ref changed the game with those two late penalties to Waugh, made him look better when the reality was Hodgson was the best loose forward in that game by a country mile. Those two penalties were wrong in the new rule context, the Force should’ve scored (whilst perhaps they should’ve gotten more creative close to the line, you have to play the ref – he would have penalised the defending time for those two for the first 75 minutes. How can you play the ref when he abruptly changes his interpretation in the last five minutes?) and Hodgson should be heir apparent to Smith to work with Pocock.
Bitter Force fan? Correct…
March 22nd 2010 @ 3:23pm
Rusty said | March 22nd 2010 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
Think you will find a few Sharks fans that share your pain
March 23rd 2010 @ 6:06am
sportym said | March 23rd 2010 @ 6:06am | Report comment
and lots of games to go…
March 23rd 2010 @ 10:04am
el gamba said | March 23rd 2010 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Agree Rusty. Don’t think that it was a penalty try but in terms of interpretations, the ref changed it in regards mauling from the lineout late in the piece in that game. Waratahs have dodged a couple of bullets and if you include the Reds game, the Tahs would be languishing near the bottom of the table. “Luck” is a funny thing.
March 22nd 2010 @ 9:30am
Apelu Tielu said | March 22nd 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Spiro,
You touched on the issue I have been raising for a while now with referees and people like Eddie Jones: the rolling maul.
If obstruction is not allowed elsewhere, then it should also apply to the rolling maul. That means once the ball is transferred to the back of the maul, the referee should call end of the maul and the opposition should be allowed to collapse it. This is the ugliest and most unfair part of rugby, and it should be banished as the ruck had been.
As for the Tahs, well, we all know they will gravitate slowly down the ladder.
March 22nd 2010 @ 12:02pm
Sam said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
I can see the NH scribes going crazy here but I must agree. It is the only phase of play where there is not a contest for possession. I think once a maul stops, the team in possession should have to use it or lose it, no second chances. How many times do we see a maul static and then start moving again. Shouldn’t be allowed.
March 22nd 2010 @ 12:40pm
BennO said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
I disagree that there is no contest during a maul. It’s up to the defending team to dismantle the maul while remaining on their feet. That is the contest. If they can do that they can win the ball. Of course it’s very difficult but it can be done by tight binding and focused drive from the defending team. It’s a long time ago and a different league altogether, but I recall it happening in school rugby when I was playing.
I do agree though that as soon as it is stationary, it should be a case of use it or lose it.
March 22nd 2010 @ 1:01pm
Viscount Crouchback said | March 22nd 2010 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Precisely. Every southern hemisphere forward should be ordered to sit down and watch videos of Simon Shaw “padlocking” the opposition ball carrier before the maul can form around him. He’s a master at it. Failing that, there are various ways of driving against the maul at an angle to cause it to fall of its own accord.
Counter-mauling is a technique like any other. Australasian teams just aren’t very good at it.
March 22nd 2010 @ 3:26pm
Rusty said | March 22nd 2010 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
agreed mate – it is possible to stop its merely technique that needs to be developed. On the flip side I do think the refs needs to come down on the pause and reform interval.
March 24th 2010 @ 11:02am
Colin N said | March 24th 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Isn’t there a rule that states a maul can be collapsed when there is only one defender in the maul? Thus, they are allowed to pull it down
I remember Chabal doing it quite often.
March 22nd 2010 @ 4:34pm
Justin said | March 22nd 2010 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
The main problem that need to be fixed regarding the maul is where players who join it end up in front of the ball carrier.
You should not be able to bind in front of the last man. If you want to join it fine but you must have the person carrying the ball pass it to the new person who has joined in behind that previous ball carrier.
The maul is a great part of the game and commits defensive players to a specific to free up space somewhere else for the team to attack. If mauls were able to be brought down ELV style I think we would see less space for the great attacking players in the game.
Thankfully no one has mentioned the rubbish about it being unsafe to bring down mauls which was bandied about liberally on certain forums when the ELVs came in.
March 22nd 2010 @ 4:50pm
BennO said | March 22nd 2010 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Actually Justin I don’t think it’s rubbish at all.
In a first XV trial back in my school days a maul collapsed on me and I landed head first with a bloody lot of weight behind me. My arms were tied up in the maul so I had nothing to brace myself as it went down and weight from above sent me head first into the ground. Serious neck trouble for several months followed with shooting pains up and down my spine. I did get back on the paddock which was great. In any case, with all the torsion and force from different directions in a maul, the potential for serious damage in a collapse is definitely there.
In any case collapsing a maul is as against the spirit of the game as collapsing a scrum. You immediately put an end to any contest for possession. So it always seems ironic to me when those suggesting mauls are the only facet of the game where there is “no contest for possession” suggest a law that would allow the defending team to kill off any contest there in the first place.
I also agree with you regarding joining the maul, but I don’t think I’ve seen what you talk about very often.
March 22nd 2010 @ 5:03pm
Justin said | March 22nd 2010 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
I think it happens in just about every game. Watch when new players join a maul and they magically end up in front of the “specialist ball carrier”.
Re mauls being dangerous. I know injury can occur but the place where most injury happens in rugby is the tackle. Mauls are brought down every match whether legally or illegally. The fact it was made legal didnt result in a surge of serious injuries from previous seasons.
March 22nd 2010 @ 7:28pm
BennO said | March 22nd 2010 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
You’re right of course, it didn’t result in a surge of injuries but it doesn’t mean it didn’t increase the risk or chances of them occuring. Good luck to any employer who changes workplace practices that increase the risk of injury.
In any case it’s a moot point because my objection is based on the fact that collapsing a maul is counter to the philosophy of a continual contest for posession.
March 23rd 2010 @ 12:18pm
mattamkII said | March 23rd 2010 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
I love the maul and my eyes light up when the other team form on…nothing like hanging of until the support show you their ribs!
But I have to agree with BennO a but. Over the years I have pretty badly injured both ankles, shoulders, knees, elbows and neck. Most of that came from mauls.
Oh I have ruined my back a few times but mostly picking up dirty socks.
March 23rd 2010 @ 12:31pm
Sam said | March 23rd 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
“Good luck to any employer who changes workplace practices that increase the risk of injury.” This is a perfect statement of why I think the IRB would never have allowed mauls to be collapsed if it was as dangerous as people say. They have a duty of care (or the individual unions do) and would have been in massive trouble had injuries increased (legal and otherwise). They have a number of doctors that they consult on matters regarding the safety of the game and I just find it hard to imagine they didn’t seriously investigate this before allowing the ELVs to be trialled. Justin is right though, scrums used to be the most dangerous part of the game but now its the tackle ball area.
March 22nd 2010 @ 10:19am
Go_the_Wannabe's said | March 22nd 2010 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Maybe someone at training should line the Tahs backline up long and deep like we did at primary school?
I have never been a fan of the flat attack line. How do you break the line from a flat footed start?
Bring back runnin’ rugby and line ‘em up long and deep!