While I love the new attacking rugby style, I am also a traditionalist at heart and don’t mind watching the strategy involved in what some might call boring rugby.
While watching the Waratahs versus the Stormers, it was clear that the Waratahs were instructed to play a field-position strategy which – given some of the inconsistencies in calls by the officials and the fact that they stayed with the Stormers right to the end – may have been a smart tactic.
To be honest, though, I have to say that they were strategically outplayed in that style of play due to the superior kicking by the Stormers.
When the Waratahs had the ball in hand early in the second half, Rob Horne went over for what was quite an entertaining try.
While watching this I contemplated some questions:
When does a team change its strategy if they are behind?
Or should they maintain the will and hope that it works in the end?
Who makes the call to change? Is it the captain, the ball player or the coach?”
I was sitting there at around the 65 minute mark, noting that the Waratahs had played a field-position strategy.
Even without dominating they had kept that strategy in their game, maintaining the difference of less than a converted try.
Given how successful they were early in the second half with ball in hand, it seemed like it might have been time to change strategy and attempt a ball-in-hand approach.
At that time, Berrick Barnes did another kick and the Waratahs ended up losing another kicking dual, with the Stormers gaining more ground.
This approach went on into the final 10 minutes and I thought to myself, what is the benefit of the Waratahs playing this style?
It was not as if the bonus point for finishing within seven would have helped.
The Waratahs played out their strategy until the end and came away with a six-point loss and a bonus point, pretty much wiping out their season for another year.
Again I pondered who would make the call?
Does the coach maintain control in that situation (i.e. the team must play his strategy until the end)?
Or does the captain or leadership group get to manage it on the field and change the strategy to attempt to win?
After all, a 20-point loss while attempting to win provides the same outcome to the Waratahs as a six-point loss while maintaining a losing strategy.
I don’t know the workings of a Super Rugby team and I hope that the players have the freedom to risk a big loss attempting to win.
But regardless of the situation I think the Waratahs got it wrong on Saturday.
They were outplayed in the field-position strategy and didn’t seem to be willing to try another strategy to try and save their season.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
Coming off the bench, he scored a double as the Canes beat the Tahs 41-12.
Ben Grant looked to have scored but the officials found a knock-on after the initial charge down.
In a lopsided first half, attacking opportunities were few and far between for NSW.
The Hurricanes took the lead inside the opening three minutes setting the tone for a dominant first half.
It's another big week of trans-Tasman rivalry with four Aussie teams going up against Kiwi opponents and the Brumbies hosting the Fijian Drua. See…
The final result was 4-1 for the Kiwi sides but some of the results could easily have been different with a bit more maturity from the Aussies.
