Chris Hickey is out of his depth

Stillmissit - you and i are joined at the hip on that one brother As with most things in life with politicians - i just want to see consistency and accountability throughout I do think there are a lot of guys in the team who do put everything on the line for the cause but as others have said before if you're going to win it has to be EVERYONE - one bloke I'd love to see back in action is Beau Robinson (I remember watching him get in the middle of every flare up regardless of where it was and who it was)

Ruckingisfun - I am sure you are right but I have never read or heard that message. The only one that I have heard is that they want to ensure the fan base and grow it, and you cant do that by playing boring rugby whether its win or not. The bottom line is that the NSWRU and the Waratahs are joined at the hip by $$$$$$$$$'s and if one side let's the other down the whole lot can come down and its happened before when O'Neil had to step in and take the NSWRU over. The trouble with rugby in NSW is that most people forget what is at stake and only want to play politics to get a little + in their miserable existences and they delude themselves that this is a real deal. The only real deal is getting players on the pitch who want to play for NSW and want to play an open attacking form of rugby whilst at the same time winning. It ain't easy but we have a legacy laid down by 100 years of great players to look to for inspiration. This gutless stuff of avoiding hard work and throwing away hard won ball really pisses me off. As I believe it does you.

Stillmissit - what i am saying s how can you on one hand say - the coach is gone beause although we are winning - the games are boring Then the next year - when the cricism comes that the games are boring - turnaround and say - it doesn't matter because winning is the most important thing I actually believe there are merits for both arguements - but what frustrates me as a fan is the apparent inconsistencies in the messages coming out - its either one or the other. If I know the priority and direction is to win no matter what - I'll support the team on that basis - if the priority is to entertain and play expansive, although we may not win - I'll support my team on that basis. I think Queensland has done this well - their coach has said we are the self appointed entertainers - I must confess (shock horror0 that i am developing some affection for watching their games at least knowing what they want to do I dont think the Board made any personal investment in the players did they? I thought they investd the cash received from the publics ticket purchases? I dont think its all bollcks - its a good formum for robust debate - keep the views coming guys less than 2 1/2 hours to go

Ruckingisfun - I beg to differ with you and Bonza. I think they have been very consistent in their message. The message appears to me to be this. Paraphrase 'We have paid a bucketload of money to buy the best in the business based on coaches suggestions of what was needed. We asked that the return on this investment is that the coach and the players fill the SFS.' The coach and the players have not returned there part of the agreement and crowds have been down for several years due to the boring 'win but who cares how' mentality of the coach and players. Now you guys are jumping up and down about Boards responsibilities and what the NSWRU should be doing. What they are doing is only what any company would do if it invested in a product that didnt produce what it was intended to do. If anyone of you guys had personally made the investment in the Lote retirement fund and other players funds and were getting a loss on that investment what smart arse moves would you make. Go over to the park and tell them all that they have your unqualified support. This is all bollocks.

Bonza - I'm probably more just frustrated by some of the comments i read coming out of NSWRU Board last year - with complaints about the style of play. From where i was sitting early in the year the Waratahs were winning games against good teams in atrocious conditions (the weather at the Hurricanes and Brumbies games was appalling) which was important to get back on a winning track after 2007 - and then they were publicly being criticised by their own Board in a very spiteful way - what sort of organisation is that. Then this year the same board before the start of the season says it is going to be an exciting expansive game and THERE WILL BE NO EXCUSES - and as soon as the team starts winning in a stodgy way - they all come out and say it doesnt matter what style you play - winning is most the most important thing. For goodness sake where is the consistency!

Ruckingisfun - you sound like a pom or someone that has lived there at least? It sounds like the NSWRU board has decided that the style of play is not important anyway this season so there is no reason for the staff and players to entertain a Kiwi crowd. The win is the most imprtant thing because you don't have to worry about "excuses".

The reality is a tight constricting boring game will win for the tahs - takethe points and worry about the style later (no such thing as a glorious loss)

agreed bonza the Blues defence was terrible. Unless they improve it the waratahs will win .But the waratahs are a team under pressure they must win.

You are correct Ruckigisfun - a win over the Blues and the bandwagon will rumble on again until the next loss of course

Very inciteful observation Bonza - I'd also add that most Boards are accountable to the shareholders. I'm not sure where the accountability lies with Sports bodies (I do know the AFL club Boards are elected by the Members) At the end of the day if a Board is not performing how are they held to account? Anyway the tahs will smash the Blues and everyone will forget about thhis!

Spot on Ben C. A teams culture or lack of it is defined from the top. The decisions of the board affect the "flow" in any organisations and regardless of what the players or coach do to improve the culture the board can undo this by their actions or lack of action. It is the same in any business. The big difference in Professionam Rugby is that the boards remain honourary while the rest of the organisation is working full time and paid to do so. The unpaid board members do it either for kindness but more likely ego and as it is effectively their second or third "job". It gets about that much real effort. There are a bunch of people that do it for the right reasons and others it is just a personal vehicle for higher ends. Perhaps there need to be a geater amount of time and effort into deciding what types of skill sets a board needs and whether they can actually add to the leadership mix. The board is really there to provide leadership - If the organisation is "underperforming" consistently then obviously you would start looking at the organisations leadership

Ben C - Just read the latest Poideven outburst and it looks like the politics is back on again. Poideven was a good (not great in my book) Wallaby but as a political animal he sure does take some beating.

The Link only lost two matches last year and punted by l'estrange and Paterson for winning in a boring fashion - hmmmmmmmm

Based on some things I have heard Hickey should perhaps be given his marching orders at the end of the season IF the Waratahs slide out of the top four. BUT Hickey should only be released only after all the officious, bumbling and politically riven NSWRU management/board are shown the door first.

Hickey has won 5/7 and is only half way through the tournament.For all the Tah fans its time to step back,relax and see what Hickey and the Team can do at the business end of the tournament.Even the mighty Dingo Deans didn't go through undeafed in his first season coaching the Crusaders(although they did it in 2002).

I can't buy into that. How can the coach need a season to bring a team that competed in the Final (with 13 touring wallabies) the previous year back on track? I think they were already well and truly on track when he inherited them. The forwards have been playing fine and have been winning the set pieces - so there is plenty of ball available to play with - the issue is what is the plan when they get the ball - and I'm still trying to figure that out. Given that they have scored at least half their tries from turnovers - I would suggest whent they get the ball they should give it t the opposition - because that appears to be when they are at their attacking best (apologies about that flippancy). There was a lot of talk from the NSWRU when they turfed Link mid season - that it was necessary so that they could secure the best people in terms of caoches and players! So again they can have no excuses in terms of not having the required playing roster. I think its too easy to blame players - these are the same players who got into the finals regularly - and performed extremely well on the wallaby tour -

Chris Hickey needs this season to get the Waratahs back on track? Interesting concept and I agree to a certain degree. What good coaches do is have an immediate impact and then make incremental improvements. Motivating the Waratahs is the biggest hurdle to get over. I saw Chris Hickey saying that they had trained extremely well last week but couldnt reproduce it on the night, he needs to find a way for these guys to play as a group with intensity and passion balanced by control and power. Not an easy thing to do at the Waratahs. The player balance is not right and the leadership group consists of one - Phil Waugh. The loss of Vickerman as a leader and player is huge. Lets look at what Hickey faces. Huge loss of experienced players. Forwards - No recognised or effective locks, Baxter is the only experienced prop. A Number 7 who is making little impact and a No 8 who is the best in the world and is blowing hot and cold at the moment. Backs - A 5/8 who has potential but is learning his craft. Inside centres who can't establish themselves in the role. Outside centres one is learning the game and the other is a highly talented youngster. The wings are irrelevant at this time as the ball rarely gets to them with an overlap due to problems inside and forwards not winning fast ball. A full back who is a 5/8 and is leaving at the end of the season. From where I sit this is hardly a situation for a coach to sort out in a couple of weeks. I think all he can do in the short term is ensure they get on the paddock as well prepared as possible and wound up to play. PS on the + side of the player roster at the moment we have Waugh, TPN, Baxter, SNK, Burgess, Horne, Ben Robinson, Palu (most games), Sheehan these guys seem to put in each time, some of the others go AWOL or dont seem to me to be able to hack it at this level. Still half a team of workers is OK to start with.

This talk about inheriting Links squad is correct but not in the way some are proclaiming - unlike most coaches who inherit squads - Hickey inherited a winning squad - Vickerman and Elson may be gone - but Elsom is covered by Mumm the current wallaby No6. And Vickerman was prone to frequent injuries. What should be remembered is that the Link went through the pain of having to 'blood' a lot of the current squad in 2007 when the the team was decimated by injuries. The players introduced that year included: Robinson, Polta Nau, Mumm, Beau Robinson, Carter, Turner to mention a few. the difference is this year the same players are experienced and have tasted success. How anyone can say ingheriting that squad is a handicap i beyond belief - I thought NSWRU said at the start of the year there would be no excuses?

Swifty - No question that there is more to it than results - its a pity more organisations don't see it your way. I detect a dislike of Eddie but it would be fair to say that apart from Marc Livrement - all professional coaches get their jobs by demonstrating a track record of success. Not many continue to climb when failure is attached - unless time is afforded. It is worth noting that Heyneke Meyer got sacked twice from the Bulls for finishing last but came back to win the S14 on his third stint. The performance %'s i mentioned is how the organisations think about their coaches ultimately like it or not

Bonza are you kidding? It is crazy to judge Mooney on results purely. look at who he has developed, look at the passion of the players, look at what he has changed. The Reds are a different team under Mooney but above Mooney are still the same old todgers who stuffed the QRU. If the Waratahs played the sort of rugby that Mooney has got the Reds playing they would be very dangerous and very good to watch. Tuqiri is wasted at the moment as is Turner. Digby Ioane was a bit of a nothing player until Mooney got him going just as he did for Peter Hynes. James Horwill has turned from a liability into an inspirational captain. Quade Cooper is making less silly mistakes and more game winning decisions at fly-half. Higginbotham has come along in leaps and bounds and Daniel Braid looks like the best aquisition any of the Australian teams have made since Noriega. The idea that a coach should be judged purely on results is what got Eddie Jones the job as Wallabies coach even though he was running into a massive gap set up by Rod MacQueen. Jones had the team winning but not because he was a good coach.