After watching the Waratahs last week, I was forced to check my tea for random hallucinogens that might have drifted in on the wind or something. What the…?
The Tahs were all of a sudden carrying on like genuine title contenders, and although it was a welcome form reversal, the big question remained: can they deliver the same performance two weeks in a row?
They lost against the Bulls, of course, but the game that they laid out was by far their most positive and enterprising for the last dozen or so matches, and one which would have beaten any other team in the competition.
Among the positives was their willingness to play on quickly from both phases and free kicks, as well as their appetite for contact. The Waratah forwards clearly relished the physical exchanges, and surprised the Bulls, who traditionally dominate the breakdown area with a brand of animal confrontation reminiscent of their namesake in a china shop.
The most surprising development was the rebirth of halfback Luke Burgess, who revived the flickering embers of his rapidly fading Wallaby career by taking a few lessons from his usurper. Will Genia’s stock-in-trade is the judicious snipe, combined with the laserish shift from the ruck to 10-plus-one.
Burgess, who was previously reduced to “standing over the ball like an emperor penguin” (to quote another canny columnist), suddenly realised that the action wasn’t in the post/10 channel, but in the 10-12 channel, particularly against the Bulls who salivate over dumb bullocks charging blindly into the close contact.
By shifting the point of contact to the middle of the field, he allowed his runners to bend the line and occasionally get in behind it, forcing the Bulls forwards to turn and chase.
In terms of their recent below-par efforts, it was a staggering and welcome change for the Waratahs and their aggrieved fan base.
However, the pressing question is exaggerated rather than quelled by the turnaround, and that question is “What exactly is the Waratah style?”
This might be paraphrased as “How exactly are they trying to play?”, or even “What is Chris Hickey’s preferred style?”
But no matter, all three questions are equally difficult to answer.
Hickey is the rugby equivalent of John Key*. You know he has an importantish job and he appears in the papers occasionally, but as for what he stands for or where he’s going – one is never quite sure. To the layperson, at least, his philosophy remains clouded and his methods unclear.
Contrast the Waratahs of 09/10 with the Bulls, or the Hurricanes, or the Chiefs.
You know the Bulls will play for territory, and use their forward-dominance to set up for close range tries and field goals. The Hurricanes will punch up the 12 channel and try to break the line, supported by a large and angry back row. The Chiefs love to counter, play wide to their back three, and when the opposition are stretched, get Brendon Leonard to slice them up close in.
And they all do it so well, that even though you roughly know what they’re going to do, it’s still pretty hard to defend against because when they play to their preferred plan, they control the flow of the match.
But with the Waratahs? Who knows?
It would be great if it was last week’s version where they played the Bulls at their own game – a physical, uncompromising brand of rugby, punctuated by flashes of brilliance and only occasionally brittle defence.
But you could perhaps argue that the true Waratahs style is a sort of bastardized Force/Bulls cross, which utilises a lightish forward pack to play field position with a conservative general such as Halangahu or Barnes.
Or is it a tryhard Brumbies model, where the forwards run like backs, but minus the try scoring?
I still can’t put my finger on it and it’s frustrating, because the Waratahs have so much depth.
They have 3 of the top 6 or 7 flyhalves in the country in Daniel Halangahu, Berrick Barnes and Kurtley Beale, and a thousand or so possible backline combinations. Halangahu, Beale, Drew Mitchell and Sosene Anesi could all play fullback, for example. Barnes, Tom Carter, Beale, Josh Holmes and Halangahu could all play 12.
It’s in the second row where the real selection conundrums begin. Imagine sitting down and trying to work out your most effective combination from Dean Mumm, Will Caldwell, Kane Douglas, Dave Dennis, Cam Jowitt, Hendrik Roodt and Chris Thompson.
And then who should go to the blindside flank? Mumm, Dennis, Ben Mowen, Jowitt, Ben Coridas or Chris Alcock?
Too much depth can be confusing, and until the Waratahs can settle on a specialist lineup which works to a distinct game plan, it will continue to lurch from good game, to not-so-good game.
They risk becoming a team of generalists, rather than utilising their depth to develop true specialists in each position. Developing specialists shouldn’t be a problem. After all, it’s not like they’re being forced to utilise players in unfamiliar positions due to lack of depth.
So which comes first? A solid game plan, or a team that can play to it?
There’s not much point in building a you-beaut strategy if you don’t have the players to carry it out. But with the Tahs, you’ve got pretty much got the men to carry out whatever plan you might be able to dream up.
And therein lieth the problem. Are we playing field position? Taking them on in the pigs and then going wide? Counter attacking? Sniping around the fringes? All of the above? Something else? The Waratahs could potentially do any or all or none of it on a given day.
With luck, last week is the beginning of a clear direction.
bennalong
Guest
Andrew, As a Burgess fan I believe he was trapped by the Tahs game plan and perhaps his wilting confidence. Genia's 10 (QC)plays much closer to the gain line than Giteau does/did and last season the changes in the Tahs backline meant Burgess was stuck in close recycling forwards for Phil, which literally cramped his style and his running game. Hanga's is there because he's seen as a solid defender allowing Barnes to cover the 10/12 channel . This of course squeezes out Beale who played well for Deans in the Midweek games and IMO should be given game time to make up for the job done on him by playing him at pivot too early. I believe we owe it to him! And who would have foreseen Quade Cooper emerging from the "Benji's headless chook" moves into his current incarnation where he may edge out Gits. Hangers is good inside Barnes but his star has faded whereas Deans clearly wants to see Beale play.
Nashi
Roar Rookie
Hey Andrew, you pose intersting questions. Hickey has spent too much time dwelling on the strength of the oppoisition. Instead he should be building a single starting 15 that has the capapcity to adjust to the oposition when required. That is choose a team that will give you acendancy early. What I mean is let your attack remain the same but vary the plays using the strengths in each player in each game plan, let the comnibations they have built with the player who is adjacene to them week after week continue to grow.Surely every team wants to start on the front foot. This happnens when the attacking team fires from the start. This allows the leaders to set the tempo of the game, and if they are good enough, they can make strategic decisions to hold that position if and when the tide turns. When the tide turns and plan A no longer works its time to play plan D for defence, thereore the bench should be a mix of attacking players and defending players,each one thrown on to suit the current game situation. If you are safely ahead and some of your key attackers look stuffed, throw on a defender. If you are behind and the key defensive players are knackered throw on some attack. Whenit comes to defense stick with that same team an again look for ways that make them complement one another. The benefit of playing in the same position week after week should not be discounted. The bench players ought to be chosen for a change of tactic. That is any interchange should tell the rest of the team how the introduction of the sub will impact on the game plan. Sure players are changed for injury but, that should clearly signal that the current game plan should remain.
sheek
Guest
Ahhhhh, The very point (well, partly) of an article I submitted recently. If only the Aussie provinces had the spirit of co-operation seen in NZ & SA. Their case being, having too many quality players is an advantage, they don't mind sharing the talent around! Australian rugby suffers on several fronts. Firstly, there is a horrible lack of participant players. This leads to the second problem, a lack of sufficient quality players to showcase the game at the top end of the market. Just imagine for a moment, rugby union had the talent we see in (Australian) rugby league. And imagine if we had those kind of athletic, talented players showcasing rugby union instead of rugby league. Just imagine..........
Hawko
Guest
Lipman will be 31 next year and has had a lot of injuries. I reckon the Rebels would be a natural for Robinson. Raises the question about the Rebels culture if they do take Lipman.
Hawko
Guest
Its one very big brick in the wall!
Hawko
Guest
A couple of years back KB was playing 10 against the Crusaders in the final and in the second half was starting to really fire. At that point I thought the Tahs had finally solved their no. 10 problem; despite being behind on the scoreboard they were a huge chance. Then he got injured and "goodbye was all she wrote". Ewan went that year too and next year the new broom didn't see the potential that could have been until the last few rounds when KB played at 12 and did very well. Then someone decided Barnes was the Saviour and three into two won't go. Had we had a backs coach who had taken up the possibilities and worked with them rather than trying to mix and match all the time we would have had the chance to develop a running game that would set our outside backs alight. So BB, I think you are right on the money! Barnes could have gone to the Force and BOTH teams would have been stronger for it. Same thing has happened with Ben Mowen. One of the best Tah's on the ground for three weeks and now he's riding the pine again. Why? Because we can't decide what to do with DM, DD, KD, etc. In my opinion, the Super 15 can't come quick enough so that some of the great talent languishing on the bench and in the seconds can get a chance at the Rebels. Then the Tah's will have to settle on a team and a gameplan and make it work. They will be the better for it.
JK
Guest
I thought Dennis just re-signed after the spring tour, force were interested
Rockin Rod
Guest
Pocock, Brown,Hogo all good 7s at force Reds Braid (vc) and they bought tomeki back from France and have some really good young guns Brumbies have Mr Smith, and 2 really good young 7s in Hooper and the younger brother of the REDS twins. Salvi will replace Smith. Melbourne Michael lipman NSW Waughy and NSW A Chris Alcock they rate highly. Also ben Coridas and Hugh Perrett is playing As for them too. Melb would be his best shot as Lipman could play anywhere in backrow
Rockin Rod
Guest
Thanks Andrew. I think you have hit the nail on the head. Rumours Melb were close to signing their Sydney Uni boys Hangas and Dennis because of the ex uni coach and now both are starting at NSW. Why would you now go. If KB was off contract i am sure they would find a starting spot for him.
Whaler
Guest
Can ayone fill me in on why Beau Robinson was let go overseas ? WIth the lack of number 7's at the moment, Robinson would have been of great value,,,,,,,,,,,,,,seems strange that when NSW cut him not one of the other franchises picked him up ????
Bruce Ross
Roar Pro
Andrew, as you might suspect I wasn't really taking issue with you, but rather using your comment as a vehicle to get across some basic points about a player who has been unfairly maligned. I think we would all agree, however, that he had really lost his way. Still, any player's only as good as his next performance, so I concur with your closing statement: "Let’s see if he can repeat the performance again tomorrow." and Even looser's: "Facts are he did better and the fans want to see more of it." and Hoy's: "Good for him to play like he can… finally. Hope he can keep it up." I think that Hoy has made a very good point about him being "overcoached". He is very much an instinctive player and rugby has too few of them.
Andrew Logan
Guest
Hiya Bruce... From one Uni supporter to another, I'll excuse your obvious and deep seated Uni bias! I wasn't having a crack at Luke, but just saying he was smart enough to observe what was working for the best Australian halfback, and utilise elements of it. I know for a fact that last year when he was struggling with his pass, it wasn't the NSW coaaches who helped him work it out, but his old Uni coach. So yes the Tahs haven't helped him, but he certainly helped them last week. Let's see if he can repeat the performance again tomorrow. Cheers...
Andrew Logan
Guest
Hey, I'm taking it as a compliment!
PastHisBest
Roar Guru
Come on Loges, you know you channel Spiro in your more enlightened articles. :-)
Hoy
Roar Guru
To me, Burgess has been overcoached, and now he doesn't know what is expected of him. I keep saying, when he played ARC, he was in my mind the best halfback in Aus, bar none. Great, bullet pass, quick service, good runs, more importantly, at good times. For the last three years, he has been floundering in no mans land, and I can't help but feel it is because he has been coached too much, and it has filled his head with twaddle. Good for him to play like he can... finally. Hope he can keep it up.
Even looser
Guest
I don't think it was suggested that he imitated Genia. More a case that Genia has reminded Burgess of the way to play again. Why he went of the boil and now appears on track again can be speculated upon. Facts are he did better and the fans want to see more of it.
Brett McKay
Guest
and Loges, likewise with Polata-Nau, Fitzpatrick and Freier at NSW, and Pek Cowan throwing in WA...
Brett McKay
Guest
and Blinky, that before you get to backrow combinations, as Loges points out....
Bruce Ross
Roar Pro
Andrew, an interesting and insightful article, but I would take issue with one of your observations, namely: "The most surprising development was the rebirth of halfback Luke Burgess, who revived the flickering embers of his rapidly fading Wallaby career by taking a few lessons from his usurper. Will Genia’s stock-in-trade is the judicious snipe, combined with the laserish shift from the ruck to 10-plus-one. " What I saw was not Burgess imitating Genia, but rather him going back to the very distinctive style he developed playing at the colts level; frenetic activity together with an unusual emphasis on lateral movement whether chasing his pass cross-field or running wide before gliding into a gap. The coaches who guided him at that time, principally Todd Louden and Nick Ryan, are to be commended for giving him the freedom and encouragement to express himself on the field. By contrast, when the Brumbies bought him they wanted him to fit into a Gregan-type role and so he spent four seasons holding hit shields. Luke Burgess and Stephen Larkham stand out for me as the two players in Australian rugby who have instinctively capitalised on the potential advantages offered by lateral movement. I was very impressed by Onceinawhile's comment: "I can’t get past the fact that with Burgess playing with more urgency and tempo against the Bulls, the rest of the team followed suit, I know it’s more complicated than that, but geez it helps."
Andrew Logan
Guest
A further point... How is Australian rugby better off at 5/8 for having Halangahu, Beale and Barnes all the Tahs, and Toomua, Giteau and Lealifano all at the Brumbies, while the Force struggle along with various imports and stand-ins, and the Reds have only Cooper?