The Waratah’s decision to starve their own lineout of spoiling opportunities cost them the Super 14 title.
Throughout the 2008 Super 14 final the Waratahs showed a genuine dedication to leaving their best rugby on the ground.
Despite fielding a scrum that seemingly offered little resistance to the Crusader pack, the men in blue were intent on playing glorious, open, running rugby.
At almost every opportunity the Waratahs backed themselves with wave after wave of attack blowing Deans’ men back like dust from an old book cover. It was great to watch as the likes of Elsom and Palu ran hard into the Crusader defence before offering the ball to their flocking hordes of support.
Out wide Lachlan Turner surely earned himself a gold star, impressing with two tries and a mountain of enthusiasm under the nose of the incoming Wallaby coach, Robbie Deans. Even with his ‘Donald Duck feet’ shoes, Lote Tuqiri also loomed as a constant threat at the end of a willing backline that was skilfully guided by Kurtley Beale.
But against a genuinely well rounded team, like the Crusaders, running rugby alone isn’t enough. You need a strong set piece and you need to use it.
The Waratahs’ strength all season has been their lineout’s ability to put pressure on the opposition. It is an area of play where the New South Welshmen definitely had an advantage over their New Zealand opponents.
Instead of kicking for touch and allowing their dominant lineout to put pressure on the Crusaders’ jumpers, the Waratahs were obviously directed to keep the ball in play and run again and again at their opponents’ defence. Rather than apply pressure to the Crusaders, they put themselves under pressure as Richie McCaw and his team manfully withstood the barrage and inevitably stole the Waratahs’ possession.
The resilience of the Crusaders’ defence should not have been a surprise to McKenzie and his brains trust. McCaw’s brilliance at the breakdown is well documented and his performance in the final was little more than ‘par for the course’ for the great flanker.
By taking his own lineout out of the game, Ewen McKenzie made a dumb tactical decision that should now remove the veil of lingering sentimentality that has fallen over Waratah-lane following his badly handled axing.
McKenzie took a team with all of the necessary skill, talent, heart and determination to the Super 14 final. Unfortunately he blew it on the day with bad tactics.
swifty
Guest
Taylor Bridge, If NSW had used their lineout more and not kicked back into the field of play wouldn't they have reduced the impact of the amazingly mobile crusaders? You're not wrong about the crusaders its just that you are missing the point that the tahs could have been smarter and not played the game so loose. More lineouts means less chances for the saders to control the breakdown. I thought it was Beale's best game of the year by the way. Good to see him rise under pressure.
taylor bridge
Guest
Canterbury won because the had a amazingly mobile and hard working pack of forwards who won so much turnover ball that Waratahs could not maintain their attack. In the 2nd half many times the Crusaders had 4 or 5 players ahead of a single Waratah ,maybe two to the breakdown. That is why they won. this talk of lineout tactic is ignoring the amazinly mobility of the men in Red and Black.
sheek
Guest
Garth, I agree with the comparison in the sense that NSW were damned if they did, & damned if they didn't. At the end of the day, the Waratahs played much better by being expansive. But Canterbury had all the answers. Had NSW gone into their shells & played conservatively, they would have been slaughtered.
Garth Hamilton
Guest
The game reminded me of the 1991 world cup final when David Campese managed to talk England into abandoning their successful game plan and playing 10 man rugby for the next 17 years. Maybe Robbie Deans' use of statistics should be viewed in a similar way. On the back of Spiro's post maybe Deans did talk McKenzie into changing his game plan. If so it would seem Link was 'Campo-ed'.
johnny boy
Guest
The reason John O'Neill has sought a NZ coach is because Australian coaches are obviously not up to speed yet for elite rugby. McKenzie and Nucifora might eventually get there. NZ Rugby will rue the day they drove the worlds best coach out of NZ and in to Australia's welcoming arms. Love him or hate him John O' Neill is ten times smarter than NZRFU officials, which still might be damning him with faint praise There's more pain to come for the All Blacks.Any All Black team coached by Henry & Co is no longer (was it ever?) a real All Black team. At the very least the All Black coach should have some integrity. Otherwise the mentally insecure/soft All Blacks will again falter. It a shame that such great players are going to have to cop even more humiliation, purely to protect Henry & the NZRFU's egoes The trickle of players (steady flow ?) leaving NZ will soon become a flood, and Henry stabbing Jerry Collins in the back by saying he wouldnt have been selected anyway following Collins retirement announcement, will be the last straw of respect for Henry, for some. Robbie Deans; competitiveness will ensure he will do his best to rub Henry and the NZRFU nose in it. Who knows but an 'australian' coach might finally actually let Tuquiri run with the ball in open space - heaven forbid such a heresy ! Go the Robbielies !
Shahsan
Guest
The only way to "use the lineout" is to try and kick for territory and hope the ball bounces out (which gives the opposition the put-in) or in such a way that they kick it out, which means you get the put-in. Even then, against a good side, a lineout is a tough contest for possession and a bit of a lottery: there is no guarantee you will win your ball back. Too many things can go wrong and often does, especially in finals. Trying to dominate a lineout against a team that is also very good at it is a weak strategy. Far better to try and use the ball, i would have thought. I dont get it: what happend to all the prematch 'advice' about not kicking the ball too much and to run the ball where possible? I think the Waratahs tried to do that. If they had had two fast wingers instead of just one, and if not for a couple of wayward kicks and bad decisions, the Tahs could have won. As Spiro said elsewhere, though the Tahs played well, the Crusaders played just that bit better.
sheek
Guest
Well said Garth, It's true, the Waratahs played with a great deal of passion, but no so much smarts.
Paul
Guest
On saturday night after the Tahs lost another of their lineout throws (or only just won it with scrappy ball to the half-back thanks to some serious Crusaders pressure) i thought to myself about how i'd read all week on this site and others about how great the Tahs line out was. What happened to that? The new 'pass-back' laws about passing into the 22m and not being able to kick it out on the full has meant that the mid-field bombs have returned but it seemed a couple of times when the Tahs did it there was no communication and thus no chasers, giving the Crusaders the ball. I don't know whether this was because of the pressure of the line out or just because if they didnt' kick they thought they'd get smashed at the break down.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Robbie Deans was asked before the Super 14 final about the Waratahs lineout strength. He reacted very sharply by stating: 'Our lineout is number on attack and number one equal on defence.' The Crusaders won a couple of Waratahs lineouts. Perhaps Ewen McKenzie looked at the stats and opted for the kick down field, instead of into touch. My objection to the tactic of not kicking for touch is that possession is turned over often in good field positions for the opposition to attack from, as in the mid-field bomb that led to the Crusaders first try. In a thread on my piece about the Waratahs someone made the point that the Crusaders changed their kicking game to kick more 'contestable' kicks. This is a shrewd observation. The Crusaders used the tactics of the Pumas of mid-field bombs, with a great chase, to unsettle the Waratahs' defensive line. d like to see the stats on how many tries are scored from team's kicking the ball away and not chasing well. A lot, I reckon.
Blinky Bill - Bellingen
Guest
Prior to match many here on Roar advocated not only kicking out but kicking the ball well into the stand so that the Crusaders could not opt for the quick throw-in. It was felt that the Crusaders main strength is counter attacking & the Waratahs was the lineout. No doubt the Crusaders would have noted the Tahs lineout winning against opposition throws and tried to work out ways to nullify our jumpers but so what? Let them try. The lineout is our strength, so why did we move away it and opt to keep the ball in the field of play. Perhaps it was a surprise tactic. It certainly surprised most of us watching at the pub.