Waratahs 2013

[Quick Hands]

I
There have been a multitude of players leave Australian Rugby to play some of their best years OS, when they could have been great players here, if not Wallabies, players who form the foundation of the Province they play at. This is a reason I see that the entire ARU contracting system has to be overhauled and the "top up" system done away with.

The problem is there is much more money in Europe. It's not just Aussies either. Plenty of former Kiwi and SA super rugby and fringe test players playing there. Luke McAlister, Bakkies Botha, etc.

The ARU are either broke or close to it and NSWRU aren't that flash either. Rugby in Australia will need to grow to almost NRL/AFL levels of participation and income to compete - and that won't happen for a long long time (if ever).

 

[Quick Hands]

Great game last night by the boys. Besides his kicking I thought McKibbin had a cracking game, really fast ball and accurate passing. Makes me wonder why the fuck we purchased Phipps.

McKibbin has really improved in the past few weeks, although at the same time his goal-kicking has gone the other way. With Phipps, I've concluded that Cheika doesn't rate Lucas or thinks he's too small, or both and saw in Phipps someone as robust as McKibbin but with a better pass. Phipps also has improved this year.

 

[Gnostic]

Last night's game was the best performance I have seen from a Waratahs side for many years. Some will point to the defensive lapses of the Kings, and they have a point. However the speed and accuracy of execution I saw from the Tahs was simply awesome. I could not be happier with the way they played from a tactical perspective and finally from an execution perspective. The score line is secondary but a satisfying result of how they played. Even the Saffa commentators made comment regarding the energy and accuracy of execution that simply blew the Kings off the park in the first 40. The Kings came out much more competitive in the second 40 but the Waratahs game did not relent as it often has in the past and the Kings, for all their improved effort simply could not match the Tahs, from the set piece to the backline execution. It was simply put a marvellous display.

 

[Gnostic]

The problem is there is much more money in Europe. It's not just Aussies either. Plenty of former Kiwi and SA super rugby and fringe test players playing there. Luke McAlister, Bakkies Botha, etc.

The ARU are either broke or close to it and NSWRU aren't that flash either. Rugby in Australia will need to grow to almost NRL/AFL levels of participation and income to compete - and that won't happen for a long long time (if ever).

It could be argued that players like Bakkies Botha are in the twighlight of their careers and have done it all at Super level and are after a different chanllenge. McAlister is a whole different kettle of fish and is one who just never seemed at home in Super Rugby.

My view are more like players who never really got to their best in Super Rugby leaving before they reached that level, players like Marc Schterbina (sp.), Chris Malone, Tim Donnelly. It would be very sad indeed if things come down to a purely monetary level.

 

[Bardon]

It really is great to see things starting to click for the Tahs. People can talk about poor defence from the Kings and they may have a point. However the Tahs had the running lines and support numbers to create and exploit the gaps in the defence. No one can tell me that last years' Tahs would have been as ruthless, maybe they would have won the game but there wouldn't be the beaming smiles a performance like this one puts on your face.

There will still be bumps in the road ahead, but this year I get the feeling that the squad is actually learning from their set backs, rather than repeating the same errors adnaumseum as in prior years. This year is about improving the accuracy and pace of our play, while also weeding out those players who either can't or won't adapt their game to suit how Cheika wants to play. For me making the finals would be a real bonus. Next year is about adding more power and consistency to the foundations laid this year and delivering on the promise we're seeing now.

 

[Quick Hands]

It really is great to see things starting to click for the Tahs. People can talk about poor defence from the Kings and they may have a point. However the Tahs had the running lines and support numbers to create and exploit the gaps in the defence. No one can tell me that last years' Tahs would have been as ruthless, maybe they would have won the game but there wouldn't be the beaming smiles a performance like this one puts on your face.

There will still be bumps in the road ahead, but this year I get the feeling that the squad is actually learning from their set backs, rather than repeating the same errors adnaumseum as in prior years. This year is about improving the accuracy and pace of our play, while also weeding out those players who either can't or won't adapt their game to suit how Cheika wants to play. For me making the finals would be a real bonus. Next year is about adding more power and consistency to the foundations laid this year and delivering on the promise we're seeing now.

Amazing what essentially the same playing squad can do with a decent coach.

 

[Quick Hands]

It could be argued that players like Bakkies Botha are in the twighlight of their careers and have done it all at Super level and are after a different chanllenge. McAlister is a whole different kettle of fish and is one who just never seemed at home in Super Rugby.

My view are more like players who never really got to their best in Super Rugby leaving before they reached that level, players like Marc Schterbina (sp.), Chris Malone, Tim Donnelly. It would be very sad indeed if things come down to a purely monetary level.

Unfortunately in professional sport things are mostly about money. Talking about past glories isn't going to pay the bills when you're long retired, players have to earn the maximum amount of money they can within a limited playing time. A career ending injury could be 1 game away.

Rugby is their living, I'm sure that they all value representing their country, but they have to look after their own future. This is particularly so with fringe type players.

 

[Gnostic]

Amazing what essentially the same playing squad can do with a decent coach.

I would qualify that by saying Foley is actually a decent coach by all accounts, but as a head coach it is my belief that he is just too focussed on stats and seeks to firstly minimize risk. Some will say what is wrong with that, I think it leads to a restricted mindset and such play will indeed get you close and you will win close fought matches and few sides will ever truly dominate the risk averse team. However getting close isn't winning more often than not and playing decent rugby which will win and retain fans long term. Looking at the Force now they are playing like the Tahs "lite" version IMO and the draw last night against the Reds is proof IMO of this. They didn't really play much but certainly managed their risks and stopped the opposition from playing. They did not however win themselves. When you look at the Reds V Tahs games of recent years it is amazing how similar the game last night was to those fixtures.

I would also point out that this is the first time in many years where the coach it appears to me has actually had the control necessary to implement a less risk averse game plan and focus on actually playing attacking rugby. Let's not forget those facts before condemning individual coaches to the trash heap when the Tahs well know politics created the environment where the risk averse method was the only way the coach would ever get a chance of a second season. Just think back for instance if the Tahs were sitting in the same position with the same for and against (before last nights game) under the previous coaches, including Link, having displayed the same error rate, what would have happened to that coach?

 

[Gnostic]

Unfortunately in professional sport things are mostly about money. Talking about past glories isn't going to pay the bills when you're long retired, players have to earn the maximum amount of money they can within a limited playing time. A career ending injury could be 1 game away.

Rugby is their living, I'm sure that they all value representing their country, but they have to look after their own future. This is particularly so with fringe type players.

I have to shake my head when people say things like that. I am on my third career now, totally unrelated to each that went before it. Why should they be any different, thinking that they have a right to earn a lifetime's income from a career lasting 15 years at most. They can retrain and move on like the rest of us. I also carry more debilitating injuries from my work than I ever got playing any sport, which forced those career changes.

Like I said it would be very sad indeed if all that motivated people was purely money, there is a word for that.

 

[I like to watch]

I think there are several words for it.
Smart,practical,prudent?
What most are saying is that for many players, this is the most they will ever earn.
They should maximise their opportunities during this finite period to ensure a comfortable lifestyle when they no longer earn the big bucks.
Few people expect that ex players should have no need to work again once their playing days are over.

 

[TOCC]

Ive stayed with the some employer for nearly 9 years now, i have turned down a few opportunities for better pay to remain because i do enjoy my work.
That said, i don't begrudge any person who is smart enough to earn more money so they can set themselves better up in life, if anything i'm slightly jealous of them for been able to do so.

Its easy to sit on the outside and say that these players can retrain themselves for a new career, but lets be realistic, whilst many of them do study part time their work experience earned from years of professional rugby is limited to a fairly niche market. Even those who managed to complete tertiary education whilst playing still have a pretty limited resume when talking in volumes of your typical business environment.


Conversely, a person who is trained in accountancy or business management has a large number of skills which are transferrable to other careers..

 

[qwerty51]

Amazing what essentially the same playing squad can do with a decent coach.

Well it's clearly a better squad than last year. Hooper instead of Alcock/Jenkins. + Folau and no Mumm.

 

[Gnostic]

Ive stayed with the some employer for nearly 9 years now, i have turned down a few opportunities for better pay to remain because i do enjoy my work.
That said, i don't begrudge any person who is smart enough to earn more money so they can set themselves better up in life, if anything i'm slightly jealous of them for been able to do so.

Its easy to sit on the outside and say that these players can retrain themselves for a new career, but lets be realistic, whilst many of them do study part time their work experience earned from years of professional rugby is limited to a fairly niche market. Even those who managed to complete tertiary education whilst playing still have a pretty limited resume when talking in volumes of your typical business environment.


Conversely, a person who is trained in accountancy or business management has a large number of skills which are transferrable to other careers..

Mate I was in two very specialised field before my current profession. I have taken no formal skills from either of my previous professions. I am not an isolated case. My argument is that these players have significant earning and that affords them training opportunities that others do not get well apart from the network that they get from the Clubs/Unions they are involved with.

I just do not buy the argument that any professional sports person has this "need" to maximise their earning capacity in a a fifth of their working life because they essentially are unemployable for anything else afterwards. Nobody else gets that benefit.

 

[fatprop]

I bit in the SMH before this game that I thought was interesting (nice dig &@ Foley as well)

"Stats aren't everything but we are up there with the better back lines as far as line breaks, set-piece tries and all those sorts of things," Gaffney said.
"I think the great differential is the fact that this year [head coach Michael Cheika] has come in with a philosophy that we're going to play. He's very much a set-piece person and always has been . . . we want to do well and score off set-piece, whereas last year we played not an adventurous back-line game, we were more constrained in what we were allowed to play and what we weren't allowed to play."
Advertisement
Since moving back to Australia from Ireland, Gaffney has been an attack coach under Cheika and former head coach Michael Foley. He said he enjoyed life under both regimes.
But as a member of the Randwick alumni, he said he relished the players' freedom to attack under Cheika, who he once coached at the Galloping Greens.
"It's a different mindset; one was to score first phase, the one last year was to score by building pressure and scoring after 20 phases," Gaffney said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/few-left-in-back-line-after-tahs-overhaul-20130503-2ixx3.html#ixzz2SPGRcBWw​

 

[TOCC]

I just do not buy the argument that any professional sports person has this "need" to maximise their earning capacity in a a fifth of their working life because they essentially are unemployable for anything else afterwards. Nobody else gets that benefit.

Its not an argument, its a reality of fact that a person will more often then not go after more money...
I dont think anyone has said they are going to be unemployed afterwards, just advocating that they reserve the right to maximise their income during the duration of their rugby union careers. A high percentage of these guys will never again earn as much money as they are earning whilst playing rugby, lets be honest, some of these guys aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

 

[Quick Hands]

I have to shake my head when people say things like that. I am on my third career now, totally unrelated to each that went before it. Why should they be any different, thinking that they have a right to earn a lifetime's income from a career lasting 15 years at most. They can retrain and move on like the rest of us. I also carry more debilitating injuries from my work than I ever got playing any sport, which forced those career changes.

Like I said it would be very sad indeed if all that motivated people was purely money, there is a word for that.

Well everyone is different. Some people start work at 18 and spend their life working for the same employer until they retire and others change employers at regular intervals in search of promotion or higher pay or many other reasons. Some people will stay in a slightly lower paying position because they like their boss or their location etc. But most of us don't have a use by date at around 30 (or less). If you are employed by a professional sports team and they find a better player in your position you won't be re-signed/re-employed. What do you do then? Go back and play Shute Shield? Or do you make a mature evaluation of where you rugby career is headed a sign a contract for another sports team?

Loyalty is a two way thing and fans, adminstrators and journos would be the first to complain if clubs kept players on the payroll on high wages when their skills had diminished. Think everytime an Australian cricketer has a few low scores. You can't expect players to hang around for substantially less money, when they could be shown the door at the whim of a coach.

No-one said they were unemployable, but most of them will never have the same earning capacity after rugby. How many of them do you reckon would be able to earn $300,000 a year (or more) after rugby?

I wouldn't mind someone paying me twice the money to do my job.

 

[Quick Hands]

[

Well it's clearly a better squad than last year. Hooper instead of Alcock/Jenkins. + Folau and no Mumm.

Well that's 2 new players out of 35. I'd call that essentially the same squad. There's probably a couple more as well. Even 30 of 35 is essentially the same squad.

 

[qwerty51]

True but I'd argue Hooper and Folau are the 2 best players in the squad so big influence/difference

 

[Gnostic]

2 players don't make a team. They can influence but the real change this year is in the mindset and overall tactics of how they play. Hence why they play better without some of the big name players on the field than they have in the past with everyone available.

 

[Quick Hands]

I would also point out that this is the first time in many years where the coach it appears to me has actually had the control necessary to implement a less risk averse game plan and focus on actually playing attacking rugby. Let's not forget those facts before condemning individual coaches to the trash heap when the Tahs well know politics created the environment where the risk averse method was the only way the coach would ever get a chance of a second season. Just think back for instance if the Tahs were sitting in the same position with the same for and against (before last nights game) under the previous coaches, including Link, having displayed the same error rate, what would have happened to that coach?

One would assume that previous coaches signed on well-knowing the hopeless administration in place. I'm not an insider, so I don't know to what extent previous coaches did or did not stand up to the administration. If your boss isn't allowing you to do your job properly, one alternative is to resign, so that you aren't held responsible for results over which you don't have full control. I've said on many posts that the administration was responsible for much that was wrong at the Waratahs.

Coaches, like players, are judged on their performances. Not only the win/loss, but also the method they go about their business. Many of us in our jobs outside sport are also judged in this way.

Any objective person viewing the Waratahs 2013 compared with 2012 or 2011 would say that their method is superior. This has to reflect on the coach. Having said that, I do have sympathy with Hickey, he seems a genuinely nice bloke, and my impression was that he never tried to assert himself over the players - particularly the senior players . It might not have been his style to do so, but at that time in Waratah history, that's what they needed. And he wasn't helped by the administration at all. Foley, whatever his qualties, just wasn't the man for the job.