• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

George Smith v Phil Waugh

<div class='quotemain'>
Robbie Deans doesn't seem so sure
[/b]

Why? Because he's giving Phil Waugh a run this week?

I think it was always known that Waugh would get a starting chance at some stage before the Tri Nations begin.

However, if Deans has any sense he'll NEED to start with Smith against New Zealand and South Africa. You can't go with second choice players against those kinds of teams. And Smith has a good history of upsetting New Zealand teams. [/b][/quote]
You know I don't necessarily think that he needs to start Smith to be honest. In fact I think there's a fair argument that it might be smarter to start Waugh. Waugh is a workhorse, and he's good for stabilising the team and adding that extra bit of venom in defence, whereas Smith is a more dynamic/attacking player that will be more likely to put the wallabies in a positive position. That being the case I think that there's actually a lot to be said for bringing Smith on half way through when Waugh has done the ground work and the opposition teams are running out of puff. Of course, as we saw against the Irish bringing Waugh on late can be just as effective with his aggressive defence that can really rattle attacking teams (esp when they're knackered).
 
<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Robbie Deans doesn't seem so sure
[/b]

Why? Because he's giving Phil Waugh a run this week?

I think it was always known that Waugh would get a starting chance at some stage before the Tri Nations begin.

However, if Deans has any sense he'll NEED to start with Smith against New Zealand and South Africa. You can't go with second choice players against those kinds of teams. And Smith has a good history of upsetting New Zealand teams. [/b][/quote]
You know I don't necessarily think that he needs to start Smith to be honest. In fact I think there's a fair argument that it might be smarter to start Waugh. Waugh is a workhorse, and he's good for stabilising the team and adding that extra bit of venom in defence, whereas Smith is a more dynamic/attacking player that will be more likely to put the wallabies in a positive position. That being the case I think that there's actually a lot to be said for bringing Smith on half way through when Waugh has done the ground work and the opposition teams are running out of puff. Of course, as we saw against the Irish bringing Waugh on late can be just as effective with his aggressive defence that can really rattle attacking teams (esp when they're knackered).
[/b][/quote]

My opinion is that Waugh is best utilised coming on in the second half, and I feel he's played his best for the Wallabies as an impact player. For me he's always been average at best when starting for the Wallabies, and you can't waste Smith's talents by bringing him on late in the game. It would be like starting with Masoe and bringing on McCaw for 20mins.

George Smith is needed for the full match because (as statistics show) he is going to create more turnovers, more tackles, more line-breaks, more metres, more offloads in the tackle, and more attacking opportunities for his team.

I also think Deans might also have to start seriously thinking about omitting Waugh from the 22 altogether and bringing someone like Hoiles onto the bench who has such mobility and can cover the entire backrow.

PS I'm sick of all the NSW rhetoric that Waugh is 'hard on the ball'. It seems to be the only argument for him to be in the starting XV. That's great, but he's still not the best player in his position. I'd rather go for the player that creates more turnovers, makes more metres, tackles and has all-round better ball skills.
 
My opinion is that Waugh is best utilised coming on in the second half, and I feel he's played his best for the Wallabies as an impact player. For me he's always been average at best when starting for the Wallabies, and you can't waste Smith's talents by bringing him on late in the game. It would be like starting with Masoe and bringing on McCaw for 20mins. [/b]
McCaw is Smith's best talents (but better) plus Waughs raw agression, he's a solid class above both those players, and more still above Masoe. McCaw has everything. Whereas Smith doesn't have the sting in defence that Waugh has (say what you like, when they brought Waugh on in the second half against the Irish he everywhere in defence and really helped us win the game - which is reflected in the stats: Waugh has made 19 tackles for the Wallabies in 45 mins of game time where as Smith has have almost triple the time on the field but made 37 tackles) and their abilities actually compliment eachother when used properly.
It's also worth mentioning that even with the apparently flawless Smith on the pitch, we were getting absolutely carved up in the rucks till Waugh came on.
 
<div class='quotemain'>

My opinion is that Waugh is best utilised coming on in the second half, and I feel he's played his best for the Wallabies as an impact player. For me he's always been average at best when starting for the Wallabies, and you can't waste Smith's talents by bringing him on late in the game. It would be like starting with Masoe and bringing on McCaw for 20mins. [/b]
we were getting absolutely carved up in the rucks till Waugh came on.
[/b][/quote]

No, we were getting carved up in the rucks (against Ireland) because the forwards weren't committing to the ruck, and Waugh made no difference to that when he came on. And it's laughable to think that he won them the game.

As for France, they weren't much competition anywhere on the park.

It's the same reason England smashed the Wallabies at the ruck in the World Cup, and why New Zealand continue to give us hammering at the breakdown - the Australian forwards just don't show up to the ruck, and it has NOTHING to do with Smith or Waugh. There seems to be something wrong with their gameplan.

Richie McCaw would be useless if he didn't have his fellow forwards helping out.
 

Latest posts

Top