Waratahs 2012

[waratahjesus]

"No elite person rises to the pinnacle of their field without being driven to perform and a strong desire to win."

You believe this but then speculate that the Tahs organization is built in dodgy KPIs that don't drive them to do more than the bare minimum?

 

[Badger]

And before the tahs fans say that if the crowd doesn't turn up then it's a poor reflection on the crowd: that arguments worn out and wrong. Look at the reds crowds when they started winning!

The decline in crowd numbers has been ongoing for a number of years and looks like it will continue to do so. You don't have to be a genius to realise that rugby is in a competitive market for the hearts, minds and wallets of the public. Do the Tahs realise (or care) that if you don't serve up an enticing proposition people won't turn up, especially in a place like Sydney which likes a winner?

Nothing much seems to change year in year out despite some of the faces being different. It brings to mind the quote, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."

 

[waratahjesus]

Crowds in Sydney for everything are pretty direat the moment and have been for a few years.

I have a background in advertising and media and I can't come up with any way for it to change currently.

The lact of free to air existence really puts rugby behind. The NRL and to an extent AFL (speaking only about Sydney) haves platform to engage average folks in free to air television almost daily. The ability to get personalities over and hype games and events really puts rugby behind.

 

[mark_s]

Not sure I agree Waju, the sharks got a better crowd to their game V the knights last Sunday and the sharks record has been crap for, well forever really. I don't know the answer b ut it has to improve quikcly or the tahs will be in real trouble $ wise.

 

[MrMouse]

Actually WJ thus far NRL crowds in NSW are up 4 thousand on average versus 3 years ago (17600 vs 13600). The AFL gets very little FTA coverage barring games.

Yes, not having FTA coverage hurts but the ARU made that decision, for another 5 bloody years, knowing full well what it meant.

These are all set, environmental factors that the Tahs can't control though. What they can control is how they carry themselves, the amount of access FTA news gets to the players, the number and quality of press releases, and their advertising and marketing strategies. I'm sure others could add more. Although I don't entirely agree with Badger that people won't turn up in Sydney unless you're winning, it's also a fair thing to ask whether "the Tahs realise (or care) that if you don't serve up an enticing proposition people won't turn up"

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Crowds in Sydney for everything are pretty direat the moment and have been for a few years.

I have a background in advertising and media and I can't come up with any way for it to change currently.

The lact of free to air existence really puts rugby behind. The NRL and to an extent AFL (speaking only about Sydney) haves platform to engage average folks in free to air television almost daily. The ability to get personalities over and hype games and events really puts rugby behind.

Rugby is not about attracting average people. If the object was to do that we would: eliminate the scrums and lineouts, abolish rucks and mauls and after someone was tackled let them get up, stagger around and roll the ball between their legs while the other team get back 10m.
The problem with the Tahs is not that they dont attract average people its that people who love rugby, for all its imperfections, are jack of their underperformance.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Barnes to 10 (judicious kicking as you've been doing at 12 please), TC in to give them some starch, or Hangers refinds his mojo.

A major contributing factor to the situation that the 'Tahs find themselves in is a selection experiment that has now been demonstrated to be wrong. It will be interesting to see if coach Foley is prepared to reverse that decision or if he persists with it against the Sharks.

I refer to the replacement of Tom Carter with Berrick Barnes at inside centre for the last two games. Carter had had an outstanding game in Round 2 against the Rebels so we can assume he was not dropped because of poor form. The logical inference is that Foley feels that Carter's contribution to the team is so insignificant that he should be the one dropped to make way for a player still carrying an obvious injury and/or that Barnes is a better player than Carter at 12.

Tom Carter has been the linchpin of the Waratah's backline since he made his debut in 2008. Since then he has missed just one of 64 games the team has played. He has been a starting player in 51 games, very occasionally at 13 but predominantly at 12. He is the foremost kick chaser in the competition and he is the go-to man in the backline when it is being pressured, because of his ability to take the ball forward and bend the defensive line without turning it over. He is the architect of the Waratahs' impressive backline defence but I contend that he does a somewhat similar job in relation to their attacking alignment. Evidence of this was the very obvious lack of structure and shape of the backline in both defensive and attacking modes in the last two games. Too frequently it verged on the chaotic.

So did the omission of Carter give more thrust to the backline as had been widely anticipated? In Rounds 1 and 2 with Carter at 12 the Waratahs played against a strong team and then a weak team, judged by the betting odds. In Rounds 3 and 4 with Carter on the bench the Waratahs again played against a strong team and then a weak team. In the first two games the Waratahs made 10 line breaks against 2 by their opposition. In the two most recent games the Waratahs made 1 line break against 7 by their opposition. [Source: Rugby Stats]

No one would argue against the proposition that Barnes is a more gifted player than Carter. The point at issue is who is the better 12.Let's look at some relevant statistical measures for the two players in Super Rugby since 2008 when they both made their debuts:

Runs: Barnes 200; Carter 370
Tackles bust: 51; 109
Linebreaks: 15: 19
Pilfers: 0; 5
Turnovers forced: 1; 5
Errors: 79; 28
Tries: 3; 13
Tackles attempted: 482; 579
Tackles missed: 88; 56
Percent of tackle attempts missed: 18.3; 9.7
[Source: Fox Sports Fantasy]

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Runs: Barnes 200; Carter 370
Tackles bust: 51; 109
Linebreaks: 15: 19
Pilfers: 0; 5
Turnovers forced: 1; 5
Errors: 79; 28
Tries: 3; 13
Tackles attempted: 482; 579
Tackles missed: 88; 56
Percent of tackle attempts missed: 18.3; 9.7
[Source: Fox Sports Fantasy]

Great analysis and the stats dont lie

 

[barbarian]

The fact is Carter and Barnes play very different styles, and to compare them directly on generic stats is disingenuous.

I would suggest Barnes is the better 12, but it depends entirely on the style you want to play, as well as the styles of the men with 10 and 13 on their backs.

Are the Tahs better suited to a crash-baller at 12? I think they probably are. But I disagree with Bruce's hinted notion that the lack of Carter was the key behind the Tahs poor attacking efforts of the past two weeks.
.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Firstly what is the obsession with calling people disingenuous: it means, essentially, dishonest.
Secondly: rule #1 get to the gain line.
Whether its hangers or barnes fault they get to the gain line better when Carter is 12.
Which style is it that involves not getting to the gain line?

 

[Forcefield]

The decline in crowd numbers has been ongoing for a number of years and looks like it will continue to do so. You don't have to be a genius to realise that rugby is in a competitive market for the hearts, minds and wallets of the public. Do the Tahs realise (or care) that if you don't serve up an enticing proposition people won't turn up, especially in a place like Sydney which likes a winner?

It's hard to know whether it was the winning or how they were winning that brought the fans back to the Reds. Winning pretty is a guaranteed recipe for bringing them back but is much easier said than done. The Tahs need to go down the line of losing pretty over winning ugly. Perhaps like the Reds, by losing pretty they will learn what it takes to win pretty.

But perhaps it is less about individual games and more about the whole seasons. With 5 teams now, there has to be opportunities for success for those teams. The Lions fans have had some success with the Currie Cup and the Cheetah's fans no so long ago either. We need a competition underlying Super Rugby that allows the Brumbies/Force/Waratahs/Rebels a chance to win a championship- because let's face it- it's highly likely the Reds will be our lone finals team.

Now we don't want to start up an ARC debate. But what if the Super Rugby model moved more towards the Heineken Cup model and entry into that competition (2 tiered as it is in the NH) was based on the ITM Cup, Currie Cup and an Australian Competition. This would strengthen their competitions as they would be playing for both a championship and a place in the coming competition. We could simply formalise the 8 home and away games each Oz team plays against each other in the current format.

 

[Sully]

I would just like to point out that the vast majority of Barnes's games were played at 10 not 12. So yes less crash ball because that's not really his job. And yes more missed tackles because a lot more huge backrowers run at him. And yes more errors because he a 10 handles the ball more than a 12.
I agree that Carter should play though but I'd look at the bloke playing 13. Who is out of form and missing tackles.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I would just like to point out that the vast majority of Barnes's games were played at 10 not 12. So yes less crash ball because that's not really his job. And yes more missed tackles because a lot more huge backrowers run at him. And yes more errors because he a 10 handles the ball more than a 12.
I agree that Carter should play though but I'd look at the bloke playing 13. Who is out of form and missing tackles.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

Carter cannot beat a man on the outside so he cannot play 13. Whatever everyone thinks about AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) they are in dire straits and they should pick him - on reputation if need be - at 13. so Barnes, Carter, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and just throw whoever else they've got in around that and hope for the best

 

[nathan]

A major contributing factor to the situation that the 'Tahs find themselves in is a selection experiment that has now been demonstrated to be wrong. It will be interesting to see if coach Foley is prepared to reverse that decision or if he persists with it against the Sharks.

I refer to the replacement of Tom Carter with Berrick Barnes at inside centre for the last two games. Carter had had an outstanding game in Round 2 against the Rebels so we can assume he was not dropped because of poor form. The logical inference is that Foley feels that Carter's contribution to the team is so insignificant that he should be the one dropped to make way for a player still carrying an obvious injury and/or that Barnes is a better player than Carter at 12.

Tom Carter has been the linchpin of the Waratah's backline since he made his debut in 2008. Since then he has missed just one of 64 games the team has played. He has been a starting player in 51 games, very occasionally at 13 but predominantly at 12. He is the foremost kick chaser in the competition and he is the go-to man in the backline when it is being pressured, because of his ability to take the ball forward and bend the defensive line without turning it over. He is the architect of the Waratahs' impressive backline defence but I contend that he does a somewhat similar job in relation to their attacking alignment. Evidence of this was the very obvious lack of structure and shape of the backline in both defensive and attacking modes in the last two games. Too frequently it verged on the chaotic.

So did the omission of Carter give more thrust to the backline as had been widely anticipated? In Rounds 1 and 2 with Carter at 12 the Waratahs played against a strong team and then a weak team, judged by the betting odds. In Rounds 3 and 4 with Carter on the bench the Waratahs again played against a strong team and then a weak team. In the first two games the Waratahs made 10 line breaks against 2 by their opposition. In the two most recent games the Waratahs made 1 line break against 7 by their opposition. [Source: Rugby Stats]

No one would argue against the proposition that Barnes is a more gifted player than Carter. The point at issue is who is the better 12.Let's look at some relevant statistical measures for the two players in Super Rugby since 2008 when they both made their debuts:

Runs: Barnes 200; Carter 370
Tackles bust: 51; 109
Linebreaks: 15: 19
Pilfers: 0; 5
Turnovers forced: 1; 5
Errors: 79; 28
Tries: 3; 13
Tackles attempted: 482; 579
Tackles missed: 88; 56
Percent of tackle attempts missed: 18.3; 9.7
[Source: Fox Sports Fantasy]

Surely minutes played is relevant as well? Not to mention that Barnes has played a large part of his career as a 10, rather than a 12.

 

[MrMouse]

No one would argue against the proposition that Barnes is a more gifted player than Carter. The point at issue is who is the better 12

I agree wholeheartedly with everything except this, Bruce.

The simple fact is that BB is playing injured. He can't kick goals, so he lacks one of his main skill sets, and he is off in some other areas. In addition, the balance of the team is not right. I think with both players at their best, BB is in fact a better 12 than TC, but I do not think that he's right or right for the team at 12 right now.

 

[Sully]

Carter cannot beat a man on the outside so he cannot play 13. Whatever everyone thinks about AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) they are in dire straits and they should pick him - on reputation if need be - at 13. so Barnes, Carter, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and just throw whoever else they've got in around that and hope for the best

I thought he went alright in the 13 jumper.

 

[MrMouse]

I thought he went alright in the 13 jumper.

I think he did too - but would you opt for 'gun at 12' or 'alright at 13'? I also think for team balance it's better with him at 12...

 

[Sully]

Well I thought wyou were trying to fit Halangahu, Barnes and Carter into a backline and Horne has been 'Alright' as well. Maybe Barnes is nearly right to kick again.

 

[cyclopath]

It seems obvious to me - 10 Barnes, 12 Carter, 13 Horne.
Barnes is likely to provide our best attacking spark and tactical kicking (God, can't believe I am in any way endorsing Tahs try tactical kicking!!) and robust defence at 10.
Carter for all the reasons Bruce enunciated in his excellent post. I don't give a flying fuck if he's good enough for the Wallabies or not, he's good enough for Super rugby; he has done the job, and is really not the problem with the Tahs.
Horne seems the best 13 option, and maybe Carter can get and keep him aligned better in defence. Horne can tackle, but goes for too many big hits and rushes up too much, so misses crucial ones. Good tackler in general, bad defender at the moment.
Bench Hangers, and if he needs to come on Barnes can go to 12, Carter to 13 if needed, Foley can move around, there are options.
BUT - this is predicated upon the assumption Barnes can kick goals.

 

[MrMouse]

I'd go 10. Barnes 12. Carter 13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)/Horne. 13 depends whether Pakalani or some other winger is fit to step it up. Hangers on the bench covering 10/12 and being kicker.

That assumes Barnes can kick. If Barnes can't kick, he shouldn't play, much as I like the guy.