I was chatting to a (former) Waratahs tragic about the pathetic performance of his team going down to the Highlanders 49–12 in a ‘must-win with bonus points’ match on Friday night.
“At least we won’t have to put up with any more garbage play from them until next year,” he sighed.
“For this relief much mercy,” I told him.
But in the context of the Waratahs brand and, more importantly right now, the prospects of the Wallabies in the coming Rugby World Cup tournament in Japan, the collapse of what should a premier side in Australian rugby is a devastating business.
Even Paul Cully, an ardent booster of the Waratahs who even found gold in the fallout of the Israel Folau matter in the form of Kurtley Beale at fullback, is dismayed.
In his Sun-Herald column on Sunday, after getting in his usual dig at those who disagree with some of his views, he wrote this about the Waratahs capitulation to a jittery Highlanders side:
“Dancing on the grave of Australian rugby has become a sport in its own right. It’s hard to stomach because you get the sense that some people, with supposedly the game’s interests at heart, enjoy that dance far too much. But what we all saw on Friday night, and the week before was sad and worrying.”
Now that writers like myself have the approval of Paul to be critical of the Waratahs, here goes with my take on what has gone wrong and why.
The rot set in early this year when the Waratahs CEO Andrew Hore addressed the coming season for the Waratahs with gobbledygook nonsense that made no rugby sense.
In the SMH article headed ‘Waratahs CEO Andrew Hore opens up on the future of Daryl Gibson and Super Rugby,’ he told the SMH’s chief rugby writer Georgina Robinson this:
“At the moment, the big problem we’ve got is people don’t feel that they’ve been loved enough and cared for. That’s our big problem …”
He went on to insist, despite the fact that Gibson had had a very poor 2018 as head coach, that “you cannot make knee jerk reactions. They create instability, and your organisation plummets into a tailspin … Since the final whistle last year that man has been through a massive transformation.”
Waratahs coach Daryl Gibson. (AAP Image/ David Rowland)
Where were the Key Performance Indicators that any chief executive would put in place for coach Gibson to fulfil? None apparently.
“The results would have to be dire,” he said for him to contemplate sacking Gibson.
Well, the Super Rugby results in 2019 for the Waratahs were even worse than in 2018.
And who is coaching the Waratahs next year?
Daryl Gibson.
What does a coach have to do get sacked under the touchy-feely regime of Hore?
Gibson so badly managed the international players in his squad that he came into the final crucial match against the Highlanders, with his side in theory having an outside chance of qualifying for the finals, not being to play any of his front-line Wallabies. Tahs number 10 Mack Mason, a youngster, had played only 67 minutes of rugby for the team in 2019.
In 2018, the Waratahs scored 74 tries in the regular season. Israel Folau scored 11 of them.
In 2019, the Waratahs, with Gibson’s chosen attack coach Chris Whitaker on board, scored only 46.
In his own six years as attack coach of the Waratahs and later the head coach, Gibson has not produced a single young break-out player, either in the forwards of the backs.
Aren’t good coaches supposed to find and nurture young talent and enhance the abilities of senior players?
None of this has happened on Gibson’s watch.
It is astonishing to me, too, that Gibson and Hore allowed Michael Hooper and Nick Phipps to tell the media that they would not play or did not want to play again with Israel Folau.
Israel Folau (Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)
To my mind, this is a serious breach of the Code of Conduct that both these players signed as Waratahs and Wallabies.
In effect, they made a Pentecostal Christian who is prepared to express his religious views in public a rugby ‘untouchable,’ as far as they are concerned.
It is not as if Hooper and Phipps are complete cleanskins in these matters of judging appropriate conduct for a rugby player.
Hooper supported Kurtley Beale after the off-field drama involving a female employee of Rugby Australia, Di Patston.
Phipps, who was celebrating his buck’s night, was thrown out of a packed upstairs section of the Woollahra Hotel in April 2018 for urinating on the bar. A witness said Phipps was ‘dressed as a cow.’
Both Hooper and Phipps should have been censured by coach Gibson and CEO Hore for their blackballing of Folau.
Players should not decide who should play or not be allowed to play for their team. And this is especially the case when religion is involved.
Nor should they be commentating about the quality of their coaches.
Phipps was the captain of the Waratahs for their dismal performance against the Highlanders.
After the match, he told journalists that Daryl Gibson was ‘absolutely’ the right man to coach the side.
Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?
Despite obvious flaws in his play – he kicked away too much ball against the Highlanders for instance – Phipps has generally been the first-choice halfback for the Waratahs this year.
And guess what, he re-cycled the Andrew Hore nonsense about Gibson would grow into the job in the off-season: “It’s been a disappointing year and he will be hurting as much as anyone. It’s a good opportunity for him to get better in the off-season and grow and take this new squad to new heights.”
Fortunately for the Waratahs, Phipps is moving on to the London Irish club next year.
But the failed leadership group that has damaged the Waratahs brand – Andrew Hore, Daryl Gibson and Michael Hooper – are still in place.
I was going to say, God help the Waratahs in 2020 with this crew of leadership no-hopers.
But in this era where some Biblical injunctions are out of bounds, I’ll take this back.
Perhaps only a miracle (is this allowable?) can save the Waratahs from another year of disasters.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Timbo: Opinions are not enough for science and the idea of taking a majority view is false in all science. Likewise appeals to power are stupid. Who has the temerity to discredit a serious climate scientist who not only contributes to the IPCC report but agrees that CC is real? The IPCC agrees with Pielke but your mates don't! Sounds weird in terms of scientific endeavour and is guaranteed that in your life science will lose it cache. Medical science is excluded as the cream of scientists goes into this area. Stop reading left wing sites and grow up scientifically. Einstein said in reply to hearing that 100 of the worlds top scientists refuted his theory, "Why 100, only one would do?"
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Sounds like I haven't done the reading you want me to. You keep sending links to discredited people and organizations and using them to support your argument..... A belief system based on lies...... Sounds familiar.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Timbo: I can see you have done zero reading on this issue and are relying on your CO2 is the end advocates. Extreme weather events are NOT happening according to the IPCC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS8Rr0AxmFI
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Looks like you are using classic denier tactics, cherry picking short periods and obscure studies that have been disproved. Tivalu (I think) is no longer arable due to the rise and salinification. the pentagon are planning relocation/modification of their naval bases to accommodate the rise, contrary to their governments stance on it not existing. Glacial contraction, moquito infestation creep due to an extended breeding season, the indicators go on, and on. The scientific community were clever when the changed from global warming to climate change. Apart from a net temperature increse, What they measured were increases in extreme weather events, the mechanics linked to thermal increases - yes heat causes snowstorms and your Thaems anomaly. 100 year floods are now on a 35 year cycle. Insurance companies have started adapting to this change. It is a sure sign that when big money starts adapting, that there is truth to it. Global Dimming - Atlanta temperatures rose by 5 degrees after september 11 when they grounded all flights. The clean air let in the sunlight. Overnight temperatures fell though.... "Let's pollute the sky to prevent sunlight" urgh.... Not sure about nuclear. or your windmill stats. Adjust for per tubine/per reactor/per gigawatt if you aren't playing with yourself. my gut feel is that Nuclear is better than fossil, but not renewable, Fukashima isn't non-trivial. I see it as a transistional solution. Key solution is to get a renewable fuel source for cars, one that does'nt have a coal fired plant on the end of the supply chain.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Tim Minchin has a great bit on this. If gravity is just a theory, why don't you just float the away. It is an interesting point though. Scientific terminology has been polluted by the use, misuse and abuse of the English language. "It is just a theory" is one of the most disarming comments, when in fact, It's a theory, Wow, we have an overwhelming confidence that this is how it works, we just haven't quite reached the pole vault bar we set for ourselves to make it a law. I can see why Dawkings has "Dumbed it down" to re-instate confidence and support.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Timbo: almost finished a reply to your questions, pressed back space and all went. First I will state my stand on energy and cc. Then I will answer some of your questions. I want energy to be universally available to everyone 24hrs a day at almost negligible cost. To do this I want small, phase 4, fail safe nuclear generators as the initial solution to power requirements. Moving as soon as practicable to fusion energy where I think the solution to WW energy will reside. Using windmills and solar panels will not bring this immediately. The west has spent over 1 trillion US dollars at a result that = approx 5% of total energy requirements. BTW more people have died maintaining windmills than have died in ALL nuclear accidents in history! Re: CC I have been following and reading this for over 20 years and these are my thoughts about it from a science pov and ignoring the left wing alternate political reasons behind it. In my lifetime I have witnessed global cooling in the 1970's which does not get much press these days The scientists at the time suggested burning more fossil fuels to reduce the impact of an approaching ice age or at least a much cooler planet, so this was the genesis of global warming. To answer your questions: 1. The temperature trend of the planet is rising. A1. True and it has its basis in coming out of the last ice age and compounded by the last mini ice age in the late 1700's and into the 1800's. At this time the Thames froze over each winter so thick people skated on it. The question is what is background noise and what is man made? There is a man made componenet but it is hard to identify how much and that is the basis of the argument from scientists with some integrity on both sides. 2. It has a correlation with CO2 levels. A2. According to the IPCC but not in the raw data or in the IPCC data of 20 years ago. 3. Man has released a bunch of CO2 commensurate with the rises A3. A very contentious point as the data is so adjusted and altered who would know? The adjustments mostly cooled the past and made current temps appear higher. After the Uni of East Anglia deleted 2/3rds of records and triangulated the earths temp many odd things happened. In Canada they left only 1 thermostat north of 85 degrees and that in a place called Eureka the warmest place in northern canada. In Australia BOM has deleted the thermostat recorder in Charlottes Pass the coldest record in Australia. They have also truncated very low data ie Goulburn when it dropped to -8c. 4. Sea levels are rising. A4. No upward change in the last 100 years. In NSW a guy produced the tide heights for Sydney Harbour the last 110? years and this showed a barely registerable change in Sydney harbour. The average over the last 150 years from tide gauges that have been around that long is an increase of approx 300mm per 100 years ie just over 1 foot! This is consistent with the current readings and has not accelerated as the IPCC forecast. It also lines up with the move away from the last ice age. I think that's enough as I am concerned about losing this long post!!
SandBox
Roar Guru
If you read his article. He would say that using theory, is confusing to the public. Using fact would better describe the wealth of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Also, even Newtons laws don’t apply at the quantum level. Getting something to be determined as a law in science is nigh on impossible these days. Theory, fact is just semantics. Evolution has so much evidence to support it, debating it over the scientific term ‘theory’, is just a red herring
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
@ Sandbox. There are hypothesis, theories and laws. Facts are what they are built on. Dawkins has some good science, but he is also and anti-religious evangelist which does put him in the cross hairs. He may be misrepresenting the science, as good as it may be.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
@Sm I am a little confused as to why you are pushing what appears to an agenda that there hasn't been any new science in years. Philosophically, you can make a case, but to what end? Are you trying to discredit science by suggesting that because James Clerk Maxwell's characterized EM Radiation that the MRI isn't a modern invention? Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", whilst a dumbed down version, demonstrates several significant points. 1. The temperature trend of the planet is rising. 2. It has a correlation with CO2 levels 3. Man has released a bunch of CO2 commensurate with the rises 4. Sea levels are rising Sure Correlation does not necessarily = causation, but in most cases it does. The earth's temperature cycles, but gradually, and never this fast without a cause like a meteorite or solar flair or population bloom. The trend line starts in 1700, and goes for 320 years, not a cherry picked 3 year la-nino cooling cycle that the skeptics quote. What is your takeaway from Ridd's study? Sure JCU got into trouble sacking him, but it didn't validate his research, the thinning greenland ice sheet seems to contradict it. The effects and mechanisms of the warming process are not fully understood, that is clear. I give the example of putting water in the freezer. the temperature falls steadily until it reaches 0 deg, at which point latent heat of solidification stalls for 334 Jules/g, before continuing to lower temperature without any noticeable change. Does that mean it isn't in a freezer? I don know why you keep insisting that I have an ideology or that it is being preached, you are misrepresenting me, ironically, trying to discredit me by comparing it to religion. Sure there are people campaigning for responsible use of energy, but this isn't the science. The science doesn't ask for anything, it states facts, it is up to us to react accordingly.
John and Ruth Alexander
Guest
Hi Offside, the seal shooting Andrew Hore you refer to was interviewed last year from a Central Otago country pub where he was playing club rugby for I think the Maniototo Maggots and working on his dad's farm I think the one running the Waratahs might be a different guy I certainly hope so. Darryl was moved on after a period as Assistant Coach at The Crusaders and picked up by Cheika. Not a great choice to be head coach but he didn't appoint himself. ????
SandBox
Roar Guru
Initial thoughts were that he’s on a downward slide. Is it a Jim Jones level slide? He also has some sunk cost fallacy going on and feels a need to double down
SandBox
Roar Guru
“I asked, “Is there a God”” “You said, “No.”” “I said “Prove your claim.”” Ah, the old burden of proof. The people saying there is a God are the ones with the burden of proof. If you want to make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. As Carl Sagan would say “extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence”. Providing no evidence at all for your claim, then saying “prove me wrong” is not going to cut it. Then again Billy Connolly points out how bad Ghost Hunters are when they do try to gather evidence. Maybe you should stick with “prove me wrong” then https://vimeo.com/226821162
SandBox
Roar Guru
Professor Dawkins would say that evolution is not a theory, but fact. He’d also say “If you have evidence that evolution is wrong. Write your paper, get it peer reviewed, then collect your Nobel prize” https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
After the fire, the first thing the bishop of Notre Dame did when he got back inside, was lead prayers for the cathedral. Which bit isn't he getting?
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Timbo: Agree with most of the first half but wi fi and GSM were built on the shoulders of wireless and from sat technology. The mobile invented by Martin Cooper developed wireless equipment and many other inventions based on work by Marconi. Cooper was born in 1928 Hardly a man of the late 20th C. Would be happy to discuss the climate issue with you if you know anything about the science as I have been watching it for the last 20+ years. If all you know is what your ideology is preaching then it is a waste of time. Re ocean acidification read Peter Ridd.
Ralph
Roar Guru
Thanks for the thoughtful exchange.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
For the record, other than unlikely, I have been careful not to say a single thing about what your God is or isn't. I speak a lot about Doctrines with questionable origins that contains some obsolete material. Why should John Smith be any more or less credible than Constantine or Mohamed? Atheism has science at it's core, statistically speaking. Hard numbers from surveys. I already ackowleged that it is a correlation not a criterion. You have hit the evolution trip wire. Evolution is a "Theory" not a "Law" like gravity is. It acknowledges that there is a significant weight of evidence supporting it, but not quite enough to have certainty. This is a problem caused by time and decaying evidence. Intelligent design hasn't made it past the "Hypothesis" stage, with no more than a couple of microbes with a yet to have their mechanism of evolution explained vs things like the nerve structure in a Giraffe's neck that indicates that our intelligent designer was smoking crack the day she designed it. Social sciences get fuzzy and that is why we end up at the hypothesis and theory end of science, which, by the way, allows for uncertainty in its results. That said, advertising companies use a lot of this research to manipulate us into buying shiny things, so, whatever the approximations are, the statistical outcomes show that they are close enough. You also get competing theories, which are supported by the method. Wave vs Particle is one of the more famous ones. The theories can be applied, tested repeatably, but there is an acknowledgement that there is most likely driving the behavior. This question has kept Physicists in chalk trying to reconcile the 2 for the last century.
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
Your call!
SandBox
Roar Guru
Yeah “good news! Prayer has healed your life-threatening illness. No need for me now” Said no Doctor ever. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2006/03/prayers-dont-help-heart-surgery-patients/
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
I suspect that this says more about your insurer. My private heath insurer let me swipe the card on the day, Hicaps does the rest. Last I checked, the Rugby insurance was roughly 60% cover, mine was 100% on hospital, 80% on outpatients. It is possible that I have read it wrong and they have parity. Either way, The fine print says you can't claim from 2 insurers. and in my case, what is the point in paying for insurance that is valid for 80 minutes a fortnight for 6 months, provided that you don't use the insurance that is valid 100% of the year. My point is that it should be elective/selective - Like CTP Pay the Rugby insurance or supply your BUPA/HBF et al policy number at registration time.