Proof the Australian teams aren’t firing in Super Rugby
By David Lord, 12 Jul 2012 David Lord is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs
148 Have your say
The woeful Waratahs have the Wallabies staring down the barrel (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
Related coverage
Wing legend and Roar expert David Campese made an interesting point yesterday when he posed the question – why aren’t Australian teams scoring tries?
After 17 Super Rugby rounds, the five Australian teams have scored the least tries (161), and given up the most with 202.
The five Kiwi sides are exactly the opposite with the most tries (209), and the least scored against them with 168.
Waratahs expect wide rugby attack from Reds
The South African quintet rests comfortably in between by scoring 178 tries, and having 176 scored against them.
That obviously translates to the New Zealand sides having greater attacking skills, with the tightest defence – the perfect mix.
And answering Campo’s question, the Australians, along with South Africa, both lack try-scoring ability and leak far too many five-pointers.
In the breakdown to individual teams, the seven-times champion Crusaders show the way with a points differential for-and-against of plus-128, from the Stormers plus-91, and the Chiefs plus-89.
The Hurricanes have comprehensively scored the most tries (55), from the Bulls (46), and the Chiefs with 44. But the Hurricanes probably won’t make the play-offs, the Bulls probably will.
The Chiefs have already qualified.
The Stormers have given up the least tries (18), from the Chiefs (27) and Brumbies 28. The Stormers and Chiefs have already qualified by topping their Conferences, and the Brumbies should follow suit on Saturday by heading the Australian Conference.
The critical 18th and final round clashes.
Let’s see if the aggregation of results from the previous 17 rounds means anything:
Friday:
Hurricanes (53 points) and Chiefs (63) at Wellington.
Hurricanes (55 for-36 against) could cause an upset over the Chiefs (44-27) – Hurricanes 4 points.
Saturday:
Brumbies (58) and Blues (28) at Canberra.
Brumbies (40-28) should spank the defenceless Blues (31-49) – Brumbies 5 points.
Crusaders (56) and Force (27) at Christchurch.
Crusaders (43-31) to have far too much firepower for the Force (27-45) with no David Pocock – Crusaders 5 points.
Reds (53) and Waratahs (35) at Suncorp.
Reds (33-34) will have to work to grab a try-bonus win over the Waratahs (31-38) – Reds 4 points.
Stormers (62) and Rebels (30) at Newlands.
Stormers (26-18) have the lowest tries scored, the lowest against, and not scored four tries in any game, but have won the most games of any team (13), and too good for the Rebels (34-57) – Stormers 4 points.
Sharks (54) and Cheetahs (38) at Durban.
Sharks (43-31) should clean up the Cheetahs (35-43) – Sharks 5 points.
With the Bulls (54) and Lions (25) at Loftus.
Bulls (46-36) to crush the lowly Lions (28-48) – Bulls 5 points.
The final table could look like this:
Stormers – 66.
Chiefs – 63.
Brumbies – 63.
Crusaders – 61.
Sharks – 59.
Bulls – 59.
———————
Hurricanes – 57.
Reds – 56.
While in statistical mode, 2,307,256 spectators have watched 113 games, averaging 20,418 a game.
And there have been 552 tries scored in the 17 rounds, averaging 4.88 a game.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
![]()
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs


July 12th 2012 @ 5:10am
Johnno said | July 12th 2012 @ 5:10am | Report comment
Lack of tries are usually the forwards fault and the halves fault not the outside backs fault. Like the cricket term catches win matches, sam in rugby forwards win matches not backs. So maybe we just lack forwad depth coz aussy rugby right now has some exciting backs, but we are bit thin in the forwards not top heavy.
July 12th 2012 @ 5:51am
mania said | July 12th 2012 @ 5:51am | Report comment
so true its not funny johnno. aus definately lack forward depth. its were all the hardwork is done and the attacking platform set. the best backs in the world wont help you if you have a crummy forward pack
July 12th 2012 @ 3:58pm
flying hori said | July 12th 2012 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Johnno, not too sure who your exciting backs are? no good looking exciting on paper but have to produce on the field
July 12th 2012 @ 7:06pm
The Great G Nepia said | July 12th 2012 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
Johnno has hit the head on the nail. Soft forwards, who have poor technique and are not physically conditioned for international football. For ten years the Aussie scrum has been the laughing stock of world rugby. rugby begins and ends at the scrum. simple as that.
July 13th 2012 @ 11:58am
Matt said | July 13th 2012 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Very interesting the Hurricanes scored the most tries yet struggled to win.
Do you have the stats for:
- Conversion kick %
- Penalties conceded
Why score tries when you can slot over a dozen penalties and get more points.
July 12th 2012 @ 6:07am
The Werewolf said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:07am | Report comment
I think you just need to look at all the aussie teams for and against. All but the brumbies are in the negative. Wheras there are only 2 NZ and 2 SA sides in the negative.
But lets also remember that with 5 franchises our talent has been spread and this is a good thing for the wallabies.
Historically, pre Bulls winning super 14 the south africans always did poorly at super rugby but were always ultra competitive at the tri-nations.
July 12th 2012 @ 7:45am
formeropenside said | July 12th 2012 @ 7:45am | Report comment
“talent has been spread and this is a good thing for the wallabies”
Yes, because we introduced a 4th and 5th side, and diluted the talent produced by Queensland, and to a lesser extent, NSW, the Wallaby performances have improved. Post 2005, things have been peachy!
This statement is demonstrably wrong, and is only supportable by reference to the “long-term benefit ” argument (where long-term is defined in excess of the 7 years of Force we have had already).
July 12th 2012 @ 9:55am
Jutsie said | July 12th 2012 @ 9:55am | Report comment
how was aus rugby in the 2003-2006 period prior to expansion?
You may not like the argument but long term gain is the reason and is required, short term thinking is what has got us in this mess in the first place.
July 12th 2012 @ 10:19am
formeropenside said | July 12th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Made a RWC final in 2003, beat the defending world champions in 2004 home and away. Even drew a series against the AB’s in 04 (which we did not do again, and have not since, until Connolly in 07).
Then there was 2005, which was ruined by Eddie Jones, who then went on to ruin the Reds in 2007.
And the pre-expansion period was until 2005, and the mid-season defections cruelled the Reds that year, so its 2004 is probably the last year “pre-expansion”, rather than “2006″ when we in fact had the Force in action.
July 12th 2012 @ 10:36am
Jutsie said | July 12th 2012 @ 10:36am | Report comment
We may have made the final in 2003 but it was a hardly convincing year for the wallabies, just like we may have made the semis last year but it was hardly a convincing performance.
We lost by huge margins to both poms and AB’s at home prior to the world cup in 2003 and also lost the bledisloe for the first time since 97.
Also we drew a series with the AB’s last year. Think the bigger issue regarding bledisloes is the ARU chasing the mighty dollar and organising 4 bledisloe’s in a calendar year making it nearly impossible for the wb’s to regain it as that would require beating the best team in rugby 3 tests to 1.
Anyway whether results are better or worse aus has a problem with player depth so I am all for short term pain at the super level for long term gain at the test level.
July 12th 2012 @ 5:06pm
Lorry said | July 12th 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
Jutsie,
but the point is we still got there!!!
The French didn’t deserve to be there, but we did..
Anyway, that’s the beauty of (real and competitive) World Cups. Look at the soccer world cup, not many different teams win, but a wide variety get to the final rounds!
After the soccer world cup, rugby’s is the closest. Leagues is obviouslt a joke, cricket and hockey’s are ok, basketball’s and baseball’s would be more prestigious but are rendered a bit of a joke as the US doesn’t *really* make an effort to send their best teams…
On another note:
The Wallabies are currently (and usually) between 2nd and 4th or 5th best team in the world. Fans should get used to that. The only real problem is that union has lost popularity to league and aussie rules here – partly to do with the super teams in Aust, and the wallabies, but also just because league has recovered and AFL is just so dominant outside of NSW and QLD – these are things we as rugby fans can do very little about, unfortunately.
As my mate who works at Norths rugby club said, who would attend the ARC rugby championship if it was resurrected? There’s just not enough support for the game to watch the 3rd tier…
I do think the Super teams should get out of their home grounds more, especially with the extended season i.e. games in Adelaide, rural areas, Darwin, Hobart etc…
Then, later, we can think about ARCs etc
July 12th 2012 @ 10:21am
Albo said | July 12th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Wallaby rankings by (end of) year:
2003 – 3rd
2004 – 2nd
2005 – 4th
2006 – 3rd (Western Force first year)
2007 – 5th
2008 – 3rd
2009 – 3rd
2010 – 2nd
2011 – 2nd (Melbourne Rebels first year)
2012 – 2nd
Make what you all will of this but it looks like we’ve been building pretty steadily since the introduction of the 4th and 5th teams. We certainly haven’t gone backwards since 2007 (thank god).
July 12th 2012 @ 6:07am
El Gamba said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:07am | Report comment
You guys don’t watch the Force then? Game after game of dominating up front but no backs to provide a variation of attack, create or finish breaks.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
July 12th 2012 @ 6:33am
mania said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:33am | Report comment
EG – you still need the forwards first
July 12th 2012 @ 12:07pm
AndyS said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
No question about that mania, but I also agree with El Gamba – you need backs that have better ball passing, handling and running skills than forwards. The Force don’t have it, and the Wallabies don’t seem much better – the backs simply grab the ball and run at the nearest player like an undersized forward. If we are going to do that, we might as well pick two packs.
July 12th 2012 @ 12:12pm
mania said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
El Gamba & AndyS – its not a hard fast rule, but as an example, all force need are some decent backs, starting from 10 onwards, then they’ll be a better all round team. as opposed to rebels who have a decent backline but cant hold onto the ball because they didnt invest in enough quality forwards.
learning to play in the forwards is much more technical than playing in the backs, which is why imho they’re worth more. but thats just an opinion
July 12th 2012 @ 12:19pm
kingplaymaker said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
mania it’s worth noting with the Force that they lost Willie Ripia, Jordan Rapana and Will Tupou for most of the season. The last two were league converts so it’s hard to know how they would have done, but doubtless the Force were counting on those three players on producing something and without them they didn’t have the depth to succeed.
Also it’s worth noting that their coach left in the middle of the season so their second half results will look worse than they might have.
July 12th 2012 @ 12:24pm
mania said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
thanx KPM. good points/ tbh i’m not that up to date with my force news. forgotten what they’ve gone thru. still i stand by argument but its always difficult to prove as nothing in rugby is ever ceteris parabis (all this remiaing equal)
July 12th 2012 @ 1:16pm
Wilson said | July 12th 2012 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
The long term injury list also includes (minor injuries not noted): Gene Fairbanks (Season ending Neck Injury), Justin Turner (2nd back to back knee recon), Napolioni Nalaga (many niggles all season), Cameron Shepperd (his usual self before season ending wrist), James Stannard (Season ending Knee), Patrick Dellit (Season ending leg)
If we look at the backs we have had: Richard Brown (coming back from double shoulder recons), Kieran Longbottom (Season ending neck), Salesi Ma’afu (Season ending broken arm), Ben McCalman (Season ending Shoulder nerve damage), Sam Wykes (Shoulder then season ending knee).
With no academy and reduced community funding WA is in serious need of concessions from the ARU. One additional international is good but a little token given the seriousness of the situation. Too little, too late.
July 12th 2012 @ 4:16pm
Xiedazhou said | July 12th 2012 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Well KPM their coach didnt leave so much as he was pushed, after announcing he was going to the Reds next year. I thought at the time the more mature response from the Force would have been to express disappointment, but to knuckle down and rely on the professionalism of the players and the coach to continue to seasons end. The Force should surely have seen that dismissing the coach mid season would be more disruptive and detrimental than continuing with him.
July 12th 2012 @ 11:53pm
Blue Blood said | July 12th 2012 @ 11:53pm | Report comment
X from what I heard the player were rather put off by the statements made in the media by Graham during his announcement, more than the announcement itself. He was also already deeply involved in the recruitment of players for 2013 which was a direct conflict of interest. The icing was that a number of senior players had also recently been contacted by the Reds to leave the Force for 2013. The players understandably would feel that this was far from ideal and more than enough reason to give him an early release from duties. Tough decision but one I support
July 12th 2012 @ 12:27pm
Jutsie said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
good point Mania, u rarely see the force getting blown of the park like the rebels have because their pack will generally grind a game out.
The rebels have the same issue that has plague most aus teams, poor set pieces and inconsistent performances at the breakdown. When the pack is on song the rebels look a million dollars (see crusaders, bulls games) but when they dont turn up theres not much the stars in the backline can due like in the hurricanes game.
I think the rebels have got really good 2nd row stocks and their depth in no 6 and 8 is quite good too but they desperately need some decent front rowers and a pilfering style openside now that lipman is retiring.
July 12th 2012 @ 12:36pm
mania said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
yeah jutsie, front row is where it starts. if the front row are completing their roles then the locks can do higher level (a bit looser) stuff. if all the tight5 are performing then the loosies can solely concentrate on tackling, turn overs and linking.
if the tight5 arent cleaning out and securing rucks then the loosies have to pitch in meaning they dont have time to do the higher level dynamic visable stuff. team work and everyone has to do their roles but for me it starts with the front row
July 12th 2012 @ 12:37pm
AndyS said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Certainly agree with that too, mania. The Rebels seem to be following the Force trajectory to some extent, albeit with a bit more success – starting with a bunch of star backs, then finding out that’ll only get you so far. The pendulum now seems to have swung to the other extreme for the Force, with equally poor results. As you say though, it ought to be easier to find backs (assuming they can keep the forwards intact in the process), although 9/10 is always a bit of a challenge in Australia.
July 12th 2012 @ 12:42pm
mania said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
lol andyS. i started as forward then moved to the backs. when asked why i told them “minimum work, maximum glory”. backs are a dime a dozen, just get some league players or some islanders and they’re half decent backs. finding decent forwards tho is diffilcult.
July 12th 2012 @ 5:24pm
Kuruki said | July 12th 2012 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
it’s easy to get into the forwards vs backs argument but IMO there really is no set in stone formula that proves forwards are more important then backs or vice versa. The only really true statement is that you need to be competent in both areas if you want to be a champion side.
The Tahs have a strong often dominant pack yet they struggled all year due to a misfiring backline.
The Canes only gained parity upfront on a good day yet they cut loose in the backs all year.
When push comes to shove it doesn’t matter if you have strong backs or strong forwards your weaknesses will be your downfall. To be a champion side you need to be strong 1-15 it does not matter where your weakness lies, it will be found out by the good sides and punished. Weather it be a weak set piece upfront or the inability to score tries in the backs. You need to be competent across the board.
July 12th 2012 @ 7:11pm
The Great G Nepia said | July 12th 2012 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
The Force dominating up front? You’ve got to be joking El Gamba! The only thing the Force dominate is the Annual List of Sport’s Most Over-Rated and Ineffectual Professional Outfits, which they have won every year since their inception in 2006. That’s domination.
July 12th 2012 @ 6:22am
Damo said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:22am | Report comment
Oz rugby needs a little more than a few more tough forwards.
But forward depth would be at the top of the list of changes.
July 12th 2012 @ 6:29am
Red Kev said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:29am | Report comment
Just a slight correction to the bottom of your article, but the Reds can’t finish on 56 points.
They have 53 now they can finish on 54, 55, 57 or 58. If they get 4 points (as per your prediction) they finish on 57 and ahead of the Hurricanes (unless the Hurricanes get 5 points from their match with the Chiefs).
July 12th 2012 @ 6:33am
David Lord said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:33am | Report comment
Quite correct Red Kev, but sadly it still means the Reds can’t defend the title they won so well last year, and that’s a damn shame, it’s a delight to watch them play. That’s why they average 50% more than the average Super Rugby crowd.
July 12th 2012 @ 6:36am
Red Kev said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:36am | Report comment
Which means I’ll have plenty of other fat grown men to cry with on Saturday night at Suncorp!
July 12th 2012 @ 6:43am
David Lord said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:43am | Report comment
What’s even more tragic Red Kev, is the Reds would have gone further in this tournament than the Brumbies will. So close yet so far.
July 12th 2012 @ 7:48am
apelu said | July 12th 2012 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Lordy, the Reds have not been convincing nor consistent this year. The fact they will not make the play-off means they would not advance had they made it. The Highlander last week looked far better than them. They should have beaten the Reds, but were chasing four tries, and it backfired.
The Brumbies are playing winning rugby. They are playing the way test rugby is played, and i think that will carry them further into the finals. The Reds might have beaten the Brumbies twice, but there was not much in it. They won at Suncrop when Ayop awarded a try despite Higginbottom being out, and they won at Canberra when Holmes missed a penalty in the final minutes. So both games could have gone either way. At the moment, i think the Brumbies are a better team than the Reds.
July 12th 2012 @ 8:03am
Red Kev said | July 12th 2012 @ 8:03am | Report comment
So you’re on drugs is what you’re saying? Or you suffered a massive head injury which is impairing your faculties?
July 12th 2012 @ 8:32am
Riccardo said | July 12th 2012 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Don’t hold back RK
He has a point mate. Regarding “convincing” and “consistency”.
Where I’ll agree with you and Lordy is in the fact that the Reds would possibly have been more competitive come finals time.
IMO BOTH teams will struggle away from home and won’t go deep.
July 12th 2012 @ 8:55am
Red Kev said | July 12th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
I’m only poking fun, I know the Reds haven’t played well enough to defend their title this year.
But I also can’t let “i think the Brumbies are a better team than the Reds” pass without taking a swing, that’s just not how I roll.
July 12th 2012 @ 2:17pm
B-Rock said | July 12th 2012 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
The Brumbies certainly didnt play winning, test match rugby against the Tahs, they were woeful, and would have got thumped by a top 6 side playing that way.
I think what Lordy/Red Kev are tryig to say is that teh Brumbies just dont have that extra gear to get over the top of a Crusaders/Stormers/Chiefs when it really matters. They will work hard but ultimately fall short.
I hope Im wrong as they are likely our only hope this season
July 12th 2012 @ 10:08am
Lock said | July 12th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Totally agree the Reds would have gone further than the Brumbies. It may sound incongruent to make such a statement but sport isn’t a science. The Brumbies whilst technically and statistically superior this year to the Reds, I fear in Finals rugby they will not have the on-field, match-day poise to win games. The Reds on the other hand lost in South Africa with many top-shelf players absent, and then lost to the Force. This loss in Perth was surely the match that cost them the season. I believe if the Reds had made the Finals then, with the team now essentially back to strength (except Horwill), they would be able to mix it with the big guns from NZ and South Africa. Its not just the Finals experience they have, but the experience the individual players possess at the highest levels (that the Brumbies don’t have). There’s no logic to this belief based on performances, its just one of those things that you know to be true in sport.
July 12th 2012 @ 4:11pm
Xiedazhou said | July 12th 2012 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Yes the loss to the Force looks like it will cost the Reds (following a disasterous tour to SA) but so will the loss to the Crusaders. The Crusaders were there for the taking. Any season is full of what ifs, and this one is no exception. If the Reds fail to progress, it will be disappointing for Reds fans (me included) however we will have to take solace wherever we can find it. The Reds this year have not been anywhere near as consistent as they were last year, however their performances against the NZ sides this year shows that they could have been a factor at the business end of the season. Congrats to the Brumbies for their performances this year, however I doubt they will have the other teams too worried should they make the finals. The Reds beat them twice this year, despite being well below their best. While there is life there is hope, and I’m still hopeful the Reds might make the finals and then give them a real shake. The odds are stacked against them however.
July 12th 2012 @ 7:57am
The Bush said | July 12th 2012 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Actually you can get three points – a tie with four try bonus point. Can’t remember it ever happening though…
July 12th 2012 @ 8:04am
Red Kev said | July 12th 2012 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Good point … now I want it to happen.
July 12th 2012 @ 3:24pm
Jerry said | July 12th 2012 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
53 Points + draw and 4 try bonus point = 56 points.
July 12th 2012 @ 6:45am
Who Needs Melon said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:45am | Report comment
“Brumbies (40-28) should spank the defenceless Blues”. Huge mocka out there now!
If the Brumbies don’t win (and other results go as above) we will be left in the position of an Aussie team in the top 3 despite being on less points than anyone else in the top 6. And we’d get the home final. Is that right? If so, is that fair?
July 12th 2012 @ 9:08am
Kane said | July 12th 2012 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Interesting point to note that the highest ranked team on the current table that the Brumbies have beaten was the Hurricanes and they sit in 8th place. They have not beaten a team further up the ladder at this present time.
July 12th 2012 @ 2:29pm
B-Rock said | July 12th 2012 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Really good point Kane.
Wins: Force x2, Cheetahs, Highlanders, Rebels x2, Lions, Tahs x2, Hurricanes
Losses: Chiefs, Sharks, Reds x2, Bulls,
Will almost certainly beat the terrible Blues.
Dont play the Crusaders and Stormers – two of the top 3 teams. Lucky draw
The Brumbies beat who they should but struggle against class teams. Making the most of their potential but not going anywhere in the finals.
July 12th 2012 @ 6:49am
kingplaymaker said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:49am | Report comment
I made the point on Brett’s thread the other day that if you appoint proven high quality coaches you get good results, if you appoint over-promoted insiders you get bad ones. So Mckenzie and White, coaches who have proven quality elsewhere, produce good teams, while over-promoted assistant Foley, Hill and Hickey produce bad ones. A candidate should at least have been head coach at a professional franchise before. This is why the impending appointment of Michael Cheika if correct is such a good example: a coach who has led a professional franchise elsewhere (he wouldn’t necessarily have needed to win the Heineken Cup, but simply to lead a pro team well). Foley was only an assistant coach at Bath and didn’t even succeed at being a head coach anywhere, nor did Hickey or Hill. So the appointment of essentially unproven coaches is a terrible risk, and one that failed dismally in all three cases.
With luck we’ll see Mckenzie, White and Cheika next year. Once five out of five coaches are good quality then the results should look different.
July 12th 2012 @ 10:01am
Riccardo said | July 12th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Good post KPM.
This argument has merit.
July 12th 2012 @ 10:29am
kingplaymaker said | July 12th 2012 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Thanks Riccardo: to me it’s incomprehensible a head coach can be appointed to one of the Super franchises without having done the same job in another professional sporting team. A complete stab in the dark. As there are only 5 franchises in SANZAR countries as opposed to 12 or 14 teams in England and France, each position should require much more experience and proof of ability, not simply having hung around the top brass of the board and smoozled a way in.
July 12th 2012 @ 2:42pm
B-Rock said | July 12th 2012 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
I agree with you KPM.
Exceptions can be made for very good up and coming rookie pro coaches coming through the ranks, but none of the above are examples of this.
I dont understand why the Tahs in particular dont invest in a world class coach like a Jake White to sort them out. Its either political or financial – or both
July 12th 2012 @ 3:39pm
jeznez said | July 12th 2012 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
To be fair I think Hickey had an excellent record at the levels below. I saw a SMH article once detailing his sides results from coaching juniors right up to the Shute Shields he won with Eastwood. What he did should have provided the template that suggested Hill was not going to be up to it despite his success with Uni.
Definitely agree our best club coaches should be forced into other professional set ups to earn their stripes before being considered for the limited spots running the Aussie Super teams.
July 12th 2012 @ 4:50pm
B-Rock said | July 12th 2012 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Jeznez – You are right in that he had a very good career prior to the Tahs and even with the Tahs – best winning % of Tahs coaches, lots of finals appearances, etc.
What I was getting at is that Hickey coached club rugby for 15yrs before his first professional gig. I want to see young talented coaches get picked up by SR teams as assistants, learn the ropes in a professional environment, do a stint or two overseas, then come back as really high quality, hardened coaches who can drive change at a struggling team. They arent all going to be Jake Whites but we can certainly do better than Hill/Foley/Hickey
July 12th 2012 @ 4:59pm
jeznez said | July 12th 2012 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
B-Rock, I agree with you, my agreement was just a bit garbled.
What I was trying to say was that Hickey’s performance at a lower level was about as good as you could hope for and he still didn’t deliver the Tahs team we wanted from him.
I completely agree with coaches coming from the club ranks into assistant roles then heading os to gain professional head coaching experience before they return to challenge for those 5 spots.
July 12th 2012 @ 8:26am
Uncle Argyle said | July 12th 2012 @ 8:26am | Report comment
The statistics are very interesting indeed David and corroborate the table as it stands. One thing the statistics can’t quantify is the off-field issues that can plauge any team. These issues include discourse within an organisation, injuries or both. In view of the Australian teams only;
NSW – The off field drama of not fulfilling expectation, again, has spread like wildfile through the Waratah state. The rugby has been poor, however some of the earlier losses only by small margin. In Queensland we generally see that as being competitive with good things to come. Conversly in NSW it is a disaster and the southern scribes and fickle fans start the pressure cooker that is Sydney. The stats don’t account for this that no doubt this has effected NSW this year.
ACT – Great year, good culture that is evident with the loss of Wallaby prospect Christian Lialeafano and talent Matt Toomua. Instead of falling in a heap with the loss of these guys. Jake White’s men just kept on going forward. Whilst they may not have been the most entertaining of teams the positive are the table position and at the end of the day that is no fluke.
Rebels – A better year illustrated by that famous win over the Crusaders. Whilst off field issues such as Danny Cipriani and injuries to James O’Connor, Kurtley Beale, Jarrod Saffey, Michael Lipman and Stirling Mortlock coupled with suspensions of Adam Byrnes and Nathan Jones left the Rebels a touch short in the try department however they did at times play some expansive attacking rugby that did not always end in a five pointer but I actually enjoy watching the Rebels play becuase they generally like to use the ball.
Western Force – With the exit of Richard Graham the Force turned into a farce. To their credit they have hung in there with what talent they have. I have no doubt this disruption has impacted the on field. In recent times, excluding Auckland last week I though the Perth boys played some decent rugby. Nick Cummins should be a Wallaby by the end of the year. Nathan Charles continues to impress as does Lochie McCaffrey in the back row.
QLD – Too many injuries early on effected the Reds ability to score bonus points and wins. Case in point last week Chris F’Sautia was sweeping into a wonderful backline move that had 5 pointer written all over it, however banh went the hammy and no try. That is Queensland season in a snapshot!
Due to injury, discipline, selection and or poor culture Australian Super 15 teams have generally lacked cohension in attack. Evident in Wallaby rugby by the lack of tries scored against Scotland & Wales. The stats dont lie and this is only my 2 cents on why.
July 12th 2012 @ 3:44pm
jeznez said | July 12th 2012 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Don’t worry UA – pressure cookers are great things and produce succulent, juicy results. The Tahs have been stewing away for a while now and should be prepping something truly spectacular!
I must remember that a watched pot never boils – maybe that’s why my fellow fans aren’t attending matches anymore? Me, I’m just waiting for the whistle that lets us know it is time to pop the lid and start enjoying what the pressure cooker has cooked up!
July 13th 2012 @ 1:16am
Demon Dez said | July 13th 2012 @ 1:16am | Report comment
Every professional team have disruptions and injury problems… What is your point?
July 13th 2012 @ 6:59am
Uncle Argyle said | July 13th 2012 @ 6:59am | Report comment
Due to injury, discipline, selection and or poor culture Australian Super 15 teams have generally lacked cohension in attack. Evident in Wallaby rugby by the lack of tries scored against Scotland & Wales. The stats dont lie and this is only my 2 cents on why.
July 12th 2012 @ 8:52am
kingplaymaker said | July 12th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
UA the Waratahs have looked dreadful and the fact that their endless losses were relatively close is a no excuse for their failings. They lost because they weren’t good enough.
July 12th 2012 @ 9:04am
formeropenside said | July 12th 2012 @ 9:04am | Report comment
(except for Palu, TPN, and the Timanis, who good enough but were let down by everyone else)
July 12th 2012 @ 9:18am
kingplaymaker said | July 12th 2012 @ 9:18am | Report comment
fos if a team’s badly run and tactically inept and it will fail however good individual players are: it’s not everyone else, it’s the coach. The irony of your post is actually misguided, as some of the players you mentioned did perform very well for the Wallabies, and so it fact the coach has been letting them down: perhaps try working through even an ‘ironic’ point in your head a little more before you post.
July 12th 2012 @ 9:31am
formeropenside said | July 12th 2012 @ 9:31am | Report comment
I’d have had TPN off the bench and probably Palu at 8 for the Wallabies myself, actually (although I might have gone for Higgy at 8 with Gill and Pocock if Horwill had been a fit).
But my point is that until the Waratahs are not given a favourable run for Wallaby selection, they will continue to underperform in Super Rugby, since they can.
July 12th 2012 @ 9:40am
kingplaymaker said | July 12th 2012 @ 9:40am | Report comment
fos TPN’s throwing was very bad against Wales, although Moore wasn’t great either.
However he was absolutely outstanding everywhere else and had a tremendous effect on the force and quality of the pack.
Higginbotham in contrast was quiet, disappointing indeed. Not that I don’t think he should be persevered with as it is early in his career, but the idea of him displacing the tremendous Palu is far-fetched. In fact I think the current backrow is the best for years.
I don’t think the Waratahs forwards lazily underperform, but that the strategic direction of the team is hopeless, the training they get in the week clearly substandard, and the backline coaching awful. Foley is the problem, as Lam is at the Blues.
July 12th 2012 @ 9:53am
Jutsie said | July 12th 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
TPN’s throwing was excellent in the first 2 tests and went garbage in the last, that could also be due to the change made to the lock combo ruining his ryhtm.
Don’t make concessions KPM to your (correct) assertion that TPN is a worthy starting no. 2, fight the good fight
July 12th 2012 @ 10:21am
kingplaymaker said | July 12th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Thanks Jutsie, I think as I said elsewhere the other day that fit and on-form Palu and TPN is the biggest advance the Wallabies have made since generation y appeared: sometimes you have to go backwards to go forward
July 12th 2012 @ 9:57am
Uncle Argyle said | July 12th 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Yes of course they were not good enough as the stats say. Howeve as to why they were not good enough is what I was getting at. NSW clearly have talent to burn but its not transfered from roster to the actual rugby. I think there ‘culture’ and the NSW sporting culture coupled with poor discipline, injuries and tactics are the contributing factors. Hence the stats are what they are!
July 12th 2012 @ 9:05am
Old Rugby Boy said | July 12th 2012 @ 9:05am | Report comment
In a previous Roar I had the temerity to criticise the direction of Australian Rugby and had the even bigger temerity to say that Australian League was at present a better more attractive spectacle. After saying that I and several other Rugby supports were impressed with League’s State of Origin, in Sydney, the Crusader/Chiefs game was put up as a game that more than rivalled the State of Origan. Yes, it was an incredible game of Rugby. It lacked the grunge that League seems to have but it was exciting and free following with the emphasis on scoring tries. It was New Zealand Rugby at its best. It was not Australian Rugby. I was accused of being a troll and a liar, when I outlined my current Rugby activities. Yet here are two prominent Rugby commentators, Lord and Campese, who seem to support my contention that Australian Rugby is not attractive enough to capture more spectators, sponsers or the interest of potential players. Now are these two people trolls and liars? Perhaps the arm chairer on the Roar, who doesn’t actually do anything in Rugby, should start to ask why people with a long history in Rugby are becoming dissatisfied with the direction of Australian Rugby and as somewhat fearful for its future.
July 12th 2012 @ 11:06am
D Maaga said | July 12th 2012 @ 11:06am | Report comment
lord and campese don’t come on here and and compare rugby league to rugby union like you do with every post. to the majority of rugby union fans a boring rugby union game is still more attractive than anything state or origin or league throws up.
July 12th 2012 @ 6:02pm
p.Tah said | July 12th 2012 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
You still miss the point completely ORB. You’re not a troll because you are criticizing rugby, that was outlined to you. You are trolling because you often drop your guard and go into bat for rugby league and put rugby union down. We wouldn’t have an issue if you called yourself Manly Forever (or whatever NRL team you support). It’s that your hiding behind a rugby moniker pretending you like the game when most of your posts are putting it down. We see through it. Give it a rest.
July 12th 2012 @ 8:08pm
Old Rugby Boy said | July 12th 2012 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
Ah, Janet returns. Hoped out of your lounge chair for a bit of a critique.
July 12th 2012 @ 8:23pm
p.Tah said | July 12th 2012 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
Its Ok I’m multi talented I can critique from my couch I don’t have to get up. If only I could develop telekinetic powers I could get a beer to float across the room from the fridge. Damn I’m going to have to get up.
Goodnight Col. Sleep well.