Phil 'Hypocrite' Waugh

[Moses]

Sounds like a pretty reasonable strategy from Graham - Tahs are strong at home, but not when the crowd are against them (see Cheetahs). You'd be mad not to try and get the crowd against them.

Players fall into 2 categories for you Bazza don't they? Waratahs and players who want to be Waratahs.

Don't forget players not good enough to be Waratahs

 

[Ruggo]

Have you jumped ship Moses? I just noticed the Blues logo at the bottom of your post.

 

[fatprop]

I did cringe at Waughs comments, he should know better than to spout that drivel

 

[drewprint]

I despise the man, but god damn he's good for a laugh.

 

[waratahjesus]

Are people not actually watchingthe tahs this year? Why the fuck if you were coach captain or anything in between would you spread the ball currently? The forwards are making ground and scoring, the backs look like quad Cooper in his debut year.

The tahs have had an unsettled back line for most of the year, there missing two f the strike players and there top replacements out wide. If they throw it around they will lose.

The only thing Grahams comments pointed out was that there are two teams in a game and one teams tactics can affect another teams.

The qlders bang on about Waugh taking 20 scrums blah blah blah, why didn't quad just score 4 more try's and thrill the crowd?

Weak argument isn't it, but yet it's the same one your using.

 

[Ash]

What has four of something got to do with anything? I am lost...

 

[Moses]

Have you jumped ship Moses? I just noticed the Blues logo at the bottom of your post.

I'm back now - just needed a team to support in the bye week, and only one team were playing the Reds

 

[Ash]

In all seriousness, WJ's post makes little sense about the Tahs' choice of tactics. OK, so with a forward pack making metres and dysfunctional backline the solution is to kick aimlessly? How about dropping a forward back then, get some front foot ball then kick to the corner? The game plan was either poor, poorly implemented or couldn't adapt. Whatever it was it wasn't pretty, and it has nothing to do with whatever any other team - including the Reds - did or has done.

 

[drewprint]

I think he just got angry and began blindly mashing the keyboard.

 

[#1 Tah]

The Tahs arent the reds and the reds arent the tahs. Get over it, they are 2 teams, play 2 styles and they are both successful.

 

[Scarfman]

You tell 'em TahBoy!

 

[Tank]

The Tahs arent the reds and the reds arent the tahs. Get over it, they are 2 teams, play 2 styles and they are both successful.

Great post #1, great post.

 

[Mick Sawyer]

Didn't the fans begin booing the Waratahs about the same time that Waugh became captain? He's a courageous but limited player. He's a conservative and blinkered captain.

 

[Scotty]

Are people not actually watchingthe tahs this year? Why the fuck if you were coach captain or anything in between would you spread the ball currently? The forwards are making ground and scoring, the backs look like quad Cooper in his debut year.

The tahs have had an unsettled back line for most of the year, there missing two f the strike players and there top replacements out wide. If they throw it around they will lose.

The only thing Grahams comments pointed out was that there are two teams in a game and one teams tactics can affect another teams.

The qlders bang on about Waugh taking 20 scrums blah blah blah, why didn't quad just score 4 more try's and thrill the crowd?

Weak argument isn't it, but yet it's the same one your using.

No one in this thread is suggesting the forward dominated tactics of the Tahs isn't the right way to go for them. They are pointing out the hypocrisy of Waugh's comments considering the tactics the Tahs implement. If he wants to talk the talk, well you know the rest.....

 

[cyclopath]

Indeed. The option Waugh had was not just to fling it wide, indeed that is far from the issue. He could have gone for 3 points before 10 minutes of reset scrums had come to pass. They could have a better kick return plan than "aimless midfield punt". I don't mind a forward oriented game plan, if that is their strength, but do it well, get points from it, and realise when one thing is not working, that another might be tried. It isn't only an option of grind it up close, or fling it recklessly all over the place. You can see the cluelessness when they struggle - Barnes goes from flat and aggressive to deep in the pocket and passive. It makes it seem all the more likely that Phil calls all the shots and only has one.

 

[Hawko]

What has four of something got to do with anything? I am lost...

WJ usually makes more sense than it appears at first glance, so let me try to elaborate on what I think he means:

The Tahs have copped a bagful of criticism from the game against the Reds, particularly from north of the border. In their jubilation, some supporters have forgotten just how close that game was. If just one of those 50-50 refereeing decisions in the second half had gone the other way IMO the Reds were gonesky. So WJ's point is, I think, "If the Reds are so way better than the Tahs, why didn't they just score 4 more tries through their overpoweringly good backs?" But they didn't, ergo the Tahs aren't as retarded a team as some have made out.

The Tahs have lost one of their three major strike weapons to injury early in the season, another in the Reds game. Only Kurtley is left. We have also had BKH out all season, who was our first choice back-up at 13 (Cross IMO is the back-up 12 being used at 13). When you have to play Anesi in the starting line-up you know you are on the bones of your arse. So, I think WJ is saying that playing an expansive game through the backs is not the smartest move when you are in the position that we are. Nevertheless, we still gave it our best shot up till half time. After that, we looked to play field position and then through the forwards. It worked and we got the points we never should have considering our injury position.

WJ's point is that Graham's strategy of kicking for position all the time forced the Tahs into choosing a particular strategy to counter it. We had to choose to take a different strategy or we would have lost for sure. I have argued on the forum that we didn't pick the right strategy, but at least credit the coach with making a change. Ash's point was that a different strategy would have been better and I concur. But Ash is not correct when he says that the strategy couldn't adapt, it did. And using a forward-centric game with lots of pick-and-drive in the last 20 mins was the strategy that resulted in the win.

It wasn't pretty, but it meant four points instead of one in a game where we were behind the odds from the start. I'll take that any day.

And to make another point: If the Reds had lost S Fainga'a, Hanson, Robinson, Higginbotham, Cooper, A Fainga'a and Ioane for long periods during the season (not just a week here and there) would they be where they are now? I think not, they'd be holding hands with the Ponies. Credit where its due, the Reds have played wonderfully well this season but a little less Tah bashing is probably appropriate, given the circumstances.

 

[Ash]

No, the topic is the Force game, not the Reds, and it is definitely still not complaining about just one "50/50 decision" which could have gone another way and reversed the result (which is rubbish in my view, anyway, not only because I am struggling to find a 50/50 decision to begin with that was clearly decisive, but also because how much a game could change based on different circumstances). Anyway, you need to get past the Reds, or other teams. This has nothing to do with any of that, or even the Tahs' injury toll in a way. Just move on, please. The topic is what the Tahs did vs the Force.

It's a shame you missed Hickey's statements in an article I read today. Hickey pointed out that the Reds made 33 kicks vs the Stormers, but didn't cop the same criticism. Why? As Hickey rightly said, the Reds kicked at the right time, and kicked to the right areas. In the Force game, the Tahs kicked aimlessly and poorly back at the Force, which was the problem. I didn't even think there was that big of a forward battle, most of it was just a dull game of rugby thanks to a lot of the kicking, the vast majority of it poor, from both teams. Not only that, neither teams really tried to have a crack or run the ball back. The lack of expansive game plan is definitely understandable from the Tahs as they are not an expansive team, but the shit execution of kicking the ball back down the Force throats was painful. After the game I wanted those 80 minutes of my life back.

Yeah, the Tahs could've gone to a more forward dominated game plan, as one option. They should've adapted to their poor kicking. Premiership teams, and even bloody Subbies teams, can adapt when their kicking is crap. The complete lack of structure compared to what the Tahs had earlier in the season is amazing - you could forgive one game, but they've had too many.

Oh, and the Tahs had their first choice 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 in the game (if I remember correctly). How that explains their woeful kicking or poor choice of when to kick I don't know. If the Reds, or the Brumbies, or Rebels, kicked just as aimlessly and poorly for a whole game without really having a crack, then all those other teams would deserve the same criticism.

No Force in that list? I think that the Force are lucky to have escaped more criticism for their game plan, with JO'C and Smith and some of their other players they could've made a much better game of it as well. Both teams were willing participants in the destruction of that game.

 

[Ruggo]

Indeed. The option Waugh had was not just to fling it wide, indeed that is far from the issue. He could have gone for 3 points before 10 minutes of reset scrums had come to pass. They could have a better kick return plan than "aimless midfield punt". I don't mind a forward oriented game plan, if that is their strength, but do it well, get points from it, and realise when one thing is not working, that another might be tried. It isn't only an option of grind it up close, or fling it recklessly all over the place. You can see the cluelessness when they struggle - Barnes goes from flat and aggressive to deep in the pocket and passive. It makes it seem all the more likely that Phil calls all the shots and only has one.

This whole episode may well be season defining or ending. That was a must win game for the Tahs and he gambled it away. That was the chance for the Tahs to start bridging the gap between them and the Reds and have a serious crack at taking top of the conference knowing the Reds had some tough games ahead. Now you are fighting for a wildcard spot and the whole incident could be the difference between you scraping in and just missing out.

 

[Gnostic]

No, the topic is the Force game, not the Reds, and it is definitely still not complaining about just one "50/50 decision" which could have gone another way and reversed the result (which is rubbish in my view, anyway, not only because I am struggling to find a 50/50 decision to begin with that was clearly decisive, but also because how much a game could change based on different circumstances). Anyway, you need to get past the Reds, or other teams. This has nothing to do with any of that, or even the Tahs' injury toll in a way. Just move on, please. The topic is what the Tahs did vs the Force.

It's a shame you missed Hickey's statements in an article I read today. Hickey pointed out that the Reds made 33 kicks vs the Stormers, but didn't cop the same criticism. Why? As Hickey rightly said, the Reds kicked at the right time, and kicked to the right areas. In the Force game, the Tahs kicked aimlessly and poorly back at the Force, which was the problem. I didn't even think there was that big of a forward battle, most of it was just a dull game of rugby thanks to a lot of the kicking, the vast majority of it poor, from both teams. Not only that, neither teams really tried to have a crack or run the ball back. The lack of expansive game plan is definitely understandable from the Tahs as they are not an expansive team, but the shit execution of kicking the ball back down the Force throats was painful. After the game I wanted those 80 minutes of my life back.

Yeah, the Tahs could've gone to a more forward dominated game plan, as one option. They should've adapted to their poor kicking. Premiership teams, and even bloody Subbies teams, can adapt when their kicking is crap. The complete lack of structure compared to what the Tahs had earlier in the season is amazing - you could forgive one game, but they've had too many.

Oh, and the Tahs had their first choice 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 in the game (if I remember correctly). How that explains their woeful kicking or poor choice of when to kick I don't know. If the Reds, or the Brumbies, or Rebels, kicked just as aimlessly and poorly for a whole game without really having a crack, then all those other teams would deserve the same criticism.

No Force in that list? I think that the Force are lucky to have escaped more criticism for their game plan, with JO'C and Smith and some of their other players they could've made a much better game of it as well. Both teams were willing participants in the destruction of that game.

The sooner the media stops ramming the "expansive and running game" myth down everyone's throat the better. The 1991Wallabies team was renowned for running as was the 1984 team. With Lynagh 91 and Ella 84 both teams kicked for position a lot. Even by Tahs standards they kicked a lot. The fact of the matter is the number of kicks is meaningless, it is how well they are executed and what the team does then that matters. Against the Force the actual kick execution was shocking and the chase generally poor.

What is stupid about Graham's comments is that the Tahs rarely play any different especially late in the season when wins are a must (and bonus points a second thought) so he should have run the ball back. He made a good tactical start by dropping JOC (James O'Connor) to fullback to receive kicks by WTF did they just kick every ball back. Cummins, Smith and Delit should have been in depth supporting JOC (James O'Connor) to run the ball back at the Tahs poor chase. I have no doubt at all they could have won the game if they had run the ball. There could not be a more predictable team in the competition than the Tahs so Graham knew exactly what was coming and showed how limitted his planning is that he did not have anything in place to counter how they play.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

There is nothing wrong with playing for field position. It's much easier to score from inside the opposition half, after all. But as was already pointed out, if the kicking is poor and the chase poorer, it's booting the leather (or some synthetic variation thereof) off the ball for no reason. I'd rather see the ball being run than kicked aimlessly.