If the Waratahs go for it they can beat the Stormers
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 17 May 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Bulls, Crusaders, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Stormers, Super Rugby
134 Have your say
Related coverage
The Waratahs Kurtley Beale celebrates his try against the Hurricanes. AAP Image/Dean Lewins
In the end the four best teams in the 2010 Super 14 tournament – the Bulls, the the Waratahs, the Stormers, and the Crusaders (in that order, I reckon) – have made it to the finals.
A slightly shaky case can be made for the Queensland Reds to join that group, perhaps. But on statistics, the Crusaders are in front of the Reds and are worthy finalists.
The Bulls won 10 matche,: the Waratahs and Stormers 9, the Crusaders, the Reds and Brumbies won 8. The Crusaders drew with the Hurricanes (the result that made the difference in the end). The Reds were unlucky to lose to Waratahs. The Reds, though, conceded more points and scored fewer points than the Crusaders.
The Crusaders were unlucky (to put it mildly) to lose to the Bulls two weeks ago. The SANZAR high performance referee coach, New Zealander Colin Hawke, has slammed the performance of Marius Jonker in that match. And New Zealand newspapers are openly and correctly, in my opinion, criticising the decisions that allowed the Bulls to snatch a victory they should not have gained.
This result changed the whole dynamic of the finals. The Waratahs might have been playing a home final (if the Stormers lost), and the Bulls would have had to play a full strength side against the Stormers rather than have the chance to rest their best players for the finals.
Now, the Crusaders and the Waratahs have to fly to South Africa and face the home ground advantage which is very strong, intimidating really, at Cape Town and Pretoria. The Waratahs have a South African referee, Mark Lawrence, officiating in their match…
The Bulls – Crusaders match is to be refereed by Stuart Dickinson, a referee who has been extremely tough on Crusaders earlier this season.
Under these circumstances you’d have to say that the South African sides are in the box seat. They don’t have to travel, they will have South African officials on the field and on the sidelines, and they will be supported totally by the most partisan, referee-intimidating crowds in world rugby.
The Crusaders are in the most difficult position of the travelling sides. They will have been to South Africa, then back to New Zealand and then back to South Africa in two weeks. They will play a rested Bulls side, at altitude. Although they almost pulled off a victory last time, I can’t seem them doing it again. There is just so much stress a body, even that of Richie McCaw or Brad Thorn, can take.
The Waratahs, though, are in a slightly better position. They were beaten 27 -6 in pool round against the Stormers at Cape Town. But they are a much better team now. And they are playing at sea level, rather than at altitude.
I have been very critical of the play or the style of play of the Waratahs earlier in the season. But they have come right at the right time in the tournament. They played splendid finals rugby against the hapless Hurricanes on Saturday night.
Admittedly it was a home match and that they have won all their matches at home this season. But they did have to contend with a New Zealand referee referee (good practice, perhaps, for what is in store for them in South Africa).
The Waratahs are finally playing what I would call an all-court game (in comparison with the continual net-rushing game of, say, the Hurricanes). Earlier in the season they tended to play from the back of the court, a bit like the boring Ivan Lendl. Berrick Barnes did kick a couple of times when he should have run the ball against the Hurricanes.
But in general, a strong effort ball-winning and running effort from the pack, clever ball-in-hand raids, with some incredible chip-and-chases (a tactic I usually deplore) from Kurtley Beale gave a try-scoring flourish to the attacks.
The Waratahs scrum is a bit shaky without Benn Robinson. The lineout is excellent, though. And the pack are playing as a unit so effectively the Hurricanes number 10 Aaron Cruden did not touch the ball until 30 minutes of play had elapsed on Saturday night.
The Waratahs, however, like the Stormers with Bryan Habana, are very dependent for their attacking plays on Rob Horne. He played a blinder against Conrad Smith on Saturday night. The first time he got the ball he made an incisive break. His defence was extraordinary in that he saved several tries with last second tackles.
Horne must be the Wallaby centre this season, and if he plays as well as he did against the Hurricanes, the Waratahs are in with a strong chance of -finally- going all the way.
I have one finals proviso to all of this. In the past the Waratahs have tended to go back to their baseline (kicking/negative) game in the finals. If they do this again on Saturday night they will fail, as they have in their previous finals.
But if they play with the passion, hard running, quick-thinking and resolutel defence of Saturday night’s match,they are as good, if not better, than any other team in the competition.
So go for it, Waratahs!
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:
- Bulls, Crusaders, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Stormers, Super Rugby
May 17th 2010 @ 12:32am
adam said | May 17th 2010 @ 12:32am | Report comment
i hate to say it spiro as iam a south african but you might be right the tahs r looking good
and the stormers r starting to look shaky
May 17th 2010 @ 1:38am
South African said | May 17th 2010 @ 1:38am | Report comment
Stormers have best points difference in the tournament.
May 17th 2010 @ 2:02am
johno said | May 17th 2010 @ 2:02am | Report comment
The Tahs can beat the Stormers if they revert back to form and start playing ugly rugby, and Beale and Horne take players out of the ball as per usual or slap the ball down, etc. Oh by the way these things haven’t been picked up by any of the refs on a consitent basis and probably won’t be on Saturday either. So I’d say with the Tahs cheating as usual, or stretching the laws as far as possible (watch the ammount of reset scrums in relation to the Bulls Saders game) they could possibly beat the Stormers, but the week after this comitment will be a completely different assignment.
They’d have to drive into the heart of darkness,where the Buccaneers ply their trade, their’ll be no white faces on their journey to the stadium and the ground is smaller and much more incaptulated than Loftus, so good luck with that. Oh and then there’s the Bulls team, but I thought I should at least give you a few more viable excuses apart from the whole ref bashing thing.
When the Saffers were protesting the whole Bakies incident last year you were the first to jump on board the bandwagon, so maybe it’s time for you to shut it and accept the decision of the officials, seeing that you thought they were beyond reproach in that incident, they would therefore also have to be beyond reproach on every subsequent occasion.
It’s rather intresting that every time a NZ team doesn’t get their way they go crying of to the head of some reffing panel which then steps in on their behalf. If they get outscrummed, Paddy steps in, now Colin Hawke wants to throw his toys, who’s going to be next?
Way back in 2007 when the Boks got beaten 49-0 they raised the issue of Steve Walsh being biased, but none of you ever considered that a valid argument. Why is it that you consider the question of bias a valid argument now? The refs have for the most part been consistent. The team that has been advantaged the most by an Aussie ref is the Tahs and the team that has been advantaged the most by a NZ ref is the Saders, just go watch the Cheetahs match. The Bulls have lost to NZ / Aus opposition with a SA ref in charge twice. Neither the Tahs nor the Saders have lost to opposition from any of the other SANZAR nations when a ref from their home country has been in charge.
The problem here is that for years the SA teams have had to play with inferior NZ / Aus refs, since most of the top SANZAR refs are from SA, and they were just not getting used to the inconsistencies and inferior standards of reffing. Now that standards are much more consistent and refs are held publicly accountable, we’re seeing a completely different situation developing.
It’s come to stay Spiro, so get used to it. Aussie teams are going to lose to SA teams much more in the future since they are now being treated fairly on the field. Off the field it is still a different story, since I see the only person that got a 5 week suspension for a speertackle has once again been a Saffer in Aus. The rest of them all got 2 or 3 weeks, and I’ve seen no citings for that punch up netwen the Reds and the Highlanders yet.
So where’s the consistency in that. But don’t worry Spiro the Saffers are a smart bunch. They usually get what they come for and all they want from a rugby match is usually a good game where the ref didn’t directly influence the outcome, which is now starting to happen for the greatest part.
As much as you are whining about the refs, you’d have to admit that the tahs are only in the semis in place of the Sharks. The Sharks have suffered the most of all teams when it comes to iffy reffing decisions and the Tahs have profited the most. The Jonker incident, after several replays, is at most still 50/50 with the various angles, I don’t know how you can definitevly say the ball was passed forward, maybe it was, but even unbiased refs have missed those kind of things, and Jonker made mistakes that advantaged both sides. Go see the first Saders try, Reid was part of the tackle, yet he never let go of the player and ripped the ball which let to the try. So based on that, I don’t think that anybody has a leg to stand on, or accuse Jonker of bias. He may have had a bad game, but that is exactly what it was, just a bad day at the office.
May 17th 2010 @ 2:11am
rugbyfuture said | May 17th 2010 @ 2:11am | Report comment
wow, an article in itself and full of contradictions, in any case, saffas are cheats.
May 17th 2010 @ 5:34am
SA said | May 17th 2010 @ 5:34am | Report comment
Haha rugbyfuture please explain that comment. As a south african enlighten me on how we cheat.
May 17th 2010 @ 9:44am
Mike said | May 17th 2010 @ 9:44am | Report comment
It’s old hat now; but throwing a match between two teams of the same country that influences the semifinal location – Whilst not technically “cheating”, has questionable ethical merit.
Especially considering the considerable amount of money on the table for SA rugby for a second home semi.
This was not akin to a Man Utd team resting players for a 3rd division FA cup or Carling cup match. Complete stitch-up in my opinion and I say “balls” to those that justify the unsportsmanlike affair with “they earned the right” to throw a match.
May 17th 2010 @ 12:10pm
Lee said | May 17th 2010 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
When the NZRU decided that they were to rest a whole raft of frontline AB players for the first half of the 2007 Super 14, this effected the entire comp, was not in the interests of the sport and if anything threw the entire Super 14 comp that year into disrepute. Yet no one moaned this much then?
May 17th 2010 @ 12:14pm
Jerry said | May 17th 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Uh…everyone moaned then/ What are you on?
I don’t think you’ll find many people who reckoned it was good for the comp at the time.
May 17th 2010 @ 12:25pm
SamSport said | May 17th 2010 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
A lot of people moaned. Most of them New Zealanders. The two aren’t quite the same though – the main beneficiaries of the NZRU policy in 2007 was the South Africans!
May 17th 2010 @ 12:36pm
Lee said | May 17th 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
I really struggle to see how people see this as a conspircay though, to me it is akin to believing the moon landings were a hoax.
Would the Tahs and Force agree to this kind of arrangemnet if the ARU asked? I doubt it very much.
The simplest answer is that the Bulls had their bye in week 4 and have since done a tour of Australasia, the managemnet decided it would be best to rest most of their squad so that they recovered from fatigue and little niggles before the knockouts.
If you believe the Bulls were honour bound to play a full team then you don’t get pro sport.
Also if this was a SA stitch up, then why let the Sharks beat the Stormers the previous week? Surely the all powerful SARU would have set that match up already.
May 17th 2010 @ 12:41pm
Jerry said | May 17th 2010 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Only tin hat wearing people see it as a conspiracy. I reckon the Bulls pretty much earned the right to rest players, but it’s extremely unfortunate that another finals contender got the benefit of it. If they’d been playing the Cheetahs, no-one would have said boo.
May 18th 2010 @ 5:13am
mike said | May 18th 2010 @ 5:13am | Report comment
I’m not saying it was a conspiracy – I can see the motive to do it from the Bulls’ perspective.
However my concern is that it was not just resting a few players. It’s that it was a tactical (calculated) loss. There is a significant difference.
Especially in this case where there were implications on other teams and when there was money involved (even if the Bulls had no monetary motivation).
I guess you could say the Bulls players on the field tried their best to win – but no B team is ever going to win against an end-of-season finals contender. Surprise, surprise, they were comfortably thrashed.
So resting the entire team is effectively throwing the match, which has obvious ethical implications in my opinion.
History now, but it should be checked so that it doesn’t happen again in the future.
May 17th 2010 @ 2:34pm
el gamba said | May 17th 2010 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
And sending Andre Pretorius to the Force to pull out on the eve of the first game throwing their backline in disarray and costing them the first 6 games and ultimately therefore a home final (6 x 5 is 30, they would have finished on 49, 2 ahead of the Bulls).
Is this a bit of a long shot?!
May 17th 2010 @ 10:12pm
rugbyfuture said | May 17th 2010 @ 10:12pm | Report comment
eye gouging, questionalbe tackling, referrees who, for some reason have high penalty rates against australian and new zealand teams.
May 17th 2010 @ 5:39am
Lee said | May 17th 2010 @ 5:39am | Report comment
Wow insightful comment there! Would you like to justify your position? And before you say anything about ref bias, I’d check Dickinson and walshs career stats when reffing any team from the republic at super 14 or international level…
I find it funny how south Africans bleated in and on about the lack of nuetrality concerning Anzac refs, and were told where to go. Now the shoe is on the other foot…
If dickenson is the best ref Australia has, no wonder they went to merit based appointments instead of neutrality. People have been complaining all season about how sanzar said they switched to merit appointments to save costs but then fly a saffa ref to nz for a game involving a sa team, did anyone think the real reason could be the lack of a quality australasian ref?
May 17th 2010 @ 2:11pm
el gamba said | May 17th 2010 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
We need a kiwi to come in and mention Susie, the waitress from the ’95 world cup in SA…
May 17th 2010 @ 3:07am
sandal-tan said | May 17th 2010 @ 3:07am | Report comment
and your point is ??
May 17th 2010 @ 6:29am
JK said | May 17th 2010 @ 6:29am | Report comment
Is there a point in there?
May 17th 2010 @ 6:42am
seiran said | May 17th 2010 @ 6:42am | Report comment
I read the first line ok but then all I read was ‘blah blah blah’.
May 17th 2010 @ 10:12am
Hansie said | May 17th 2010 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Does the word ‘paranoid’ spring to mind?
May 17th 2010 @ 8:50pm
Sylvester said | May 17th 2010 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
I wouldn’t accuse Jonker of being biased, just of having a very poor game.
May 23rd 2010 @ 11:02am
Ace said | May 23rd 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
As a Saffa I can say definitively that Jonker is NOT biased. He is merely incompetent.
May 17th 2010 @ 4:23am
Stormer said | May 17th 2010 @ 4:23am | Report comment
Stormers got this one in the bag, home ground advantage favours us.
May 17th 2010 @ 7:39am
warrenexpatinnz said | May 17th 2010 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Bulls and Tahs in the final, why, because they can play different styles during the same game with the Bulls great at it and the Tahs finally coming to grips with it.
I don’t think the Stormers were done any favours by the Bulls fielding a second string side as it would have relaxed them defensively for this weekends game and also allowed them too much leeway in attack which you assume won’t be the same against the Tahs. Will be a close game but Tahs by seven and under.
Crusaders have started to play very well but their discipline at the breakdown with Stu Dickinson will be tested and as this will also be a very close game goal kicking will be paramount. Dan Carter is still running hot and cold with his kicking and I still don’t think he is completely on song. Bulls again by seven and under. Note though if the Crusaders get up, they deserve every credit given to them as if they beat the best side in Super Rugby for the past two seasons whilst having to endure the sudden death games and travel they are truly a great side.
Go the Tahs.
May 17th 2010 @ 8:23am
TembaVJ said | May 17th 2010 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Yeah anyone walking into 1st Semi-final in ages will be relaxed… nope did you watch the game Sunday morning, newlands is awesome when packed. Its will be to much for the Tahs… fumbles and will revert to a kick game, then the Stormers will grill them.
May 17th 2010 @ 11:45am
warrenexpatinnz said | May 17th 2010 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Relaxed as in not tested and if that causes the Stormers to miss a tackle and that leads to a try?
Yes i got up and watched the game and to be perfectly honest I would have in my top ten lists of things to do before karking is to watch a game at Newlands or the Bull Ring.
The atmosphere is amazing (have a big screen and surround sound so get a little of what it is like) but it is not only that but the atmosphere and lead up to the game.
We have a SA staff member who is rugby mad and mentions about the BBQ prior to the match then the game itself and said it is like a full days entertainment.
Still backing the Tahs though I am not putting any money on them so that gives you an idea that I am not 100% confident eh!
May 17th 2010 @ 12:08pm
TembaVJ said | May 17th 2010 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Only the brave will be putting money on next 3 games.
May 23rd 2010 @ 11:03am
Ace said | May 23rd 2010 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Go home the Tahs. Thanks for the visit. All Stormers fans enjoyed it. Immensely.
May 17th 2010 @ 7:52am
formeropenside said | May 17th 2010 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Tahs one of the best teams going around? They were gifted the matches against the Sharks and Force by the ref – there’s 8 points (or more precisely 6) they should not have got. Take that out, and they are a mid-table finish.
May 17th 2010 @ 9:25am
JK said | May 17th 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Third best attack and second best defence, if you think those stats are worthy of mid table, then we have a problem
May 17th 2010 @ 9:28am
formeropenside said | May 17th 2010 @ 9:28am | Report comment
What I said is pretty simple maths – subtract 6 points from the Tahs, and they are mid table. Or you could argue that there were no refereeing errors made that cost the Sharks and Force their games against the Tahs, but I notice you did not try that.
May 17th 2010 @ 5:34pm
Ron said | May 17th 2010 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
what a ridiculous thing to say.
you could also argue that the tahs were deprived a certain try, against the crusaders when beale was incorrectly called offside when taking an intercept, that would have almost certainly given them the game.
all teams have probably had reason to feel ripped off this year. that’s rugby.
thanks for contributing one of the worst posts of 2010.
May 17th 2010 @ 5:37pm
Jerry said | May 17th 2010 @ 5:37pm | Report comment
The game they lost by more than 7 points?
May 17th 2010 @ 6:03pm
Peter K said | May 17th 2010 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
Jerry Crusaders won 20-13.
May 17th 2010 @ 9:35am
Jerry said | May 17th 2010 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Yeah, but you could argue those points all day and it generally evens out – The Crusaders got some lucky calls against the Canes and some unlucky ones vs the Bulls. And NSW and QLD fans will swear blind they got a couple of dud TMO calls against the Crusaders and Stormers respectively (I disagree, but that’s not the point).
May 18th 2010 @ 12:16pm
scottmit said | May 18th 2010 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Agreed. There have been 50-50 calls across all the close games. What about the Brumbies against the Tahhs, and Reds and Bulls.
I think Spiro’s point that the right teams are in the final is correct. And also in his point that the poor refereeing at the end of the Bulls/Crusaders match has had a significant impact on the order.
May 17th 2010 @ 8:18am
TembaVJ said | May 17th 2010 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Speaking of warm ups Spiro, is this saffa bashing article a warm up for the 3N?
You have been moaning about the refs the entire season, god I hope they change the it back to nutural refs soon… because if a saffa team wins this year it would be because of the refs or the cheating bulls resting players.
Last year it was the boring kick-chase, this year its cheating saffas and crook refs.
I hope the Stormes run the hell out of the Tahs, I hope they give them a solid thumping so that next Monday I don’t have to hear about refs… all I want to hear is good game.
Must add the Tahs played exceptional rugby on Friday their best game of the season but the Stormers won’t leak as many points and have a better over all game. Newlands is not a joke it nearly as intimidating as Loftus.
I don’t thing the Tahs are the second best team of the S14, in my opinion its 1.Stormers 2.Bulls 3.Cru 4. Tahs.
May 23rd 2010 @ 11:14am
Ace said | May 23rd 2010 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Temba, dude, please! The ref was a Saffa. Of COURSE it was ĥis fault that the Stormers strangled the Tahs and choked the life out of them.
De Jongh’s try? Mark Lawrence “didn’t spot” the knock on / forward pass / obstruction / moon in the house of aquarius (ascending) / double blind sidestep shimmy&shake / blah blah / (Spiro, feel free to add something here), etc.
Grant’s penalties & Barnes’ misses? Surely you noticed How Lawrence huffed and puffed and blowed, farted and grunted to help Grant make it & Barnes miss it?
May 17th 2010 @ 8:37am
Tragic said | May 17th 2010 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Provided there are few injuries for the waratahs then I think they can win the match against the stormers. It is a tough assignment, but one that they are not incapable of achieving. The matcht hey played against the stormers earlier in the season was a case of not showing up, as occurred in Invercargill, and in that last game in Cape Town the waratahs looked very similar to the Brumbies on the weekend: Unable to build momentum, unable to make the gain line, uncohesive in attack in general, making too many mistakes. The most problematic of those is the mistakes. The stromers and the crusaders will punish you for any mistakes. They will number up in defence, dominate the breakdown and then turn counter-attacks into one or two phase scoring opportunities.
The stormers defence is the best in the comp, so you are going to make inroads from running ball back them in broken play, where their defensive patterns are more susceptible and the individual flair of our back three can come into play. If the opportunities are not presenting themselves in building phases in midfield (which they are unlikely to – as in the pool game against the stormers) then we may see more of the chip kicks that have been a “feature” of the last few games for the waratahs.
Another factor which is big is the psychological arena. The Stormers claim to have it, but this is not unfamiliar territory for the Waratahs. They have improved since that pool game and I would dare say are being given another opportunity to make amends for that loss. Notably from that pool game was the frustration that was evident from the Waratahs, most obviously in their captain, Waugh. I think the combination of the new interpretations having an impact on Waugh, the underestimation of the Stormers, the niggling effect of players such as Habana, and the inability of the Waratahs attack to penetrate were all factors which clearly favoured the Stormers, and clearly infuriated the Waratahs. I think cool heads will prevail on Saturday.
As for the Crusaders Bulls? I’m tipping the Crusaders. I think a sense of entitlement has crept back into the Crusaders play, and the great champions they are may feel they have rights to this game, considering their misfortunes in the last. Entitlement is also something the Bulls clearly have exercised by resting the bulk of their squad – let’s see if it was a good idea….
Its going to be a late one on Saturday night.
Flower Power, man!
May 17th 2010 @ 8:59am
sheek said | May 17th 2010 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Spiro,
I’m sure it was you who thought the Stormers were the best team in the comp several weeks ago, but I could be mistaken.
Too many “but ifs” here. What if for example, Qld had won their opening match against the Tahs? Which they happened to lose on the bell. The Reds didn’t know in that opening round how good they were going to be for the rest of the season.
Anyway, with respect to what’s happened these past few weeks, home ground advantage appears to be King & God combined. So, with this in mind, the Tahs & Crusaders have no chance.
Especially the Crusaders who flew home from SA to play a home game against the Brumbies, & now have to hike it back over there. They are human remember…..
Maybe this is a good argument for all the semi-finalists to have a week’s break in future, before the start of the play-offs.
May 17th 2010 @ 12:16pm
stuff happens said | May 17th 2010 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
‘Maybe this is a good argument for all the semi-finalists to have a week’s break in future, before the start of the play-offs’.
Entirely agree Sheek – the Crusaders travel schedule is plainly stupid. I seem to remember an SA team burdened with a similar schedule against the Crusaders some years ago.
So what’s the problem with a one week break?
May 17th 2010 @ 2:04pm
Rusty said | May 17th 2010 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
it was the Stormers in 2003
Rnd 7 – bye
Rnd 8 – beat Reds 21-20 away
Rn 9 – beat Blue 51-23 away
Rnd10 lost to Chiefs 14-29 away
Rnd 11lost to Saders 9-24 away
Rdn 12 beat Sharks 31-24 away
Semis lost to Saders 16-27 away
So basically travelled for a month, returned to SA to play the Sharks in Durban and then jetted back to NZ. Saders will be doing something pretty similar this week
May 17th 2010 @ 9:04am
leftarc said | May 17th 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
if we are playing what-ifs, and missed opportunities, lets go back to the Brumbies vs Waratahs (and Steve Walsh). Due to poor calls by Walsh (Ashley Cooper’s try) , and not liking the criticism of the poor calls (Hoiles calling bullsh*t on not releasing the ball, and NSW getting a penalty), the Brumbies were jipped anywhere between 8 and 11 points. Given the final result was 19-12, you do the sums.