Nick Taylor reviews Western Force's 2008 season

[travelling_gerry]

Nick Taylor reviews Western Force's 2008 season


Nick Taylor
May 17, 2008 06:00pm


A HORROR draw, Matt Henjak, quokkas and injuries ... Nick Taylor reviews season '08 for the Western Force.
IT was a season that looked like offering so much, but delivered little.

Nobody can write the script in sport, but when the Force were sitting pretty in fourth spot after six rounds, the last few pages were looking good.

But they struggled to maintain the momentum and the idea of a happy ending was soon despatched to the bin.

It shows just how quickly fortunes can change in Super 14 rugby, demonstrates how tough the competition can be and that sides cannot take their foot off the pedal for even one game.

Some blame for the slump can be laid on the huge injury toll, which at times exposed a lack of experience that forced coach John Mitchell to send 10 players out on debut.

The side had a particularly tough opening to their itinerary, but that is something players have to learn to live with.

But there is no escaping the blame that can be laid squarely on the shoulders of disgraced halfback Matt Henjak. His sacking hurt the side. How much is difficult to gauge, but "severely'' is a word that comes to mind.

His experience and defence around the base of the ruck and scrum were lost to a rush of blood, compounded by other unsavoury incidents. It was as severe a blow to the side as the one he laid on Haig Sare's jaw.

Mitchell had stressed from day one that he wanted a big, strong halfback who could fill the role of an extra loose forward.

He does not have that now.

The Rottnest quokka-abusing affair was undoubtedly unsettling and is a chapter the club will want to put behind it, but episodes like that tend to take a long time to disappear.

It was not all doom and gloom. There were high moments and encouraging performances that Mitchell, his captain Nathan Sharpe and the side can take from the otherwise disappointing year.

There were two wins in South Africa and it broke its losing jinx in New Zealand.

There were positives in the performances of the new breed: Tom Hockings, Sam Wykes, Nick Cummins, James O'Connor, Dane Haylett-Petty, Kieran Longbottom, Josh Tatupu and Pek Cowan.

But on-field there were also deep lows, none more so than the demoralising performance against the Reds.

The error-ridden 32-16 loss at home to the Stormers was not exactly a night to remember, either, and there was a missed chance to deliver an after-the-siren knockout blow to the Waratahs.

So the curious conundrum remains: how they could they have left South Africa with two wins from three - and very nearly an unblemished tour;- play so well against the Crusaders at Subiaco, albeit in a loss; and beat the Blues and Highlanders in New Zealand, only to turn in the poor performances.

There will be regret over lost chances, but on reflection some players may well admit that in the end they were not ready for a place in the semi-finals.

New chief executive Greg Harris will take a long hard look at many aspects of the Force, on and off field.

Top of his must-do list will be re-signing the likes of Matt Giteau and David Pocock.

Mitchell says he is not one to dwell on the past, but he will scrutinise every game, every player, as he plans for next year.

He has shown that reputation counts for little when it comes to selection and he will wield the axe with devastating effect.

He is looking at new blood for some key spots, notably halfback, front row and on the flank.

Whether those players come from outside or surface from within the club, only time will tell.


http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/stor...005401,00.html

[Thequeerone]

Just wondering what will change - we have a lot of really good lads there now - don't want major changes - hoping for development and stabilisation of what we have - will Josh and James still be as dynamic next year - what will the fitness guys do to Keiran Longbottoms body in the off season etc.. Will Hockings get a hair cut - seriously he has had a remarkable first season.

In another part of the liftout today - the Force has had 10 debut players this year
1: Pek Cowan
2: Kieran Longbottom
3: Tom Hockings
4: Sam Wykes
5: James Stannard
6: James O'Conor
7: Nick Cummins
8: Josh Tatupu
9: Dane Haylett-Petty
10: Sitilaki Timani

[Burgs]

I think the protrayal of the Henjak impact is sloppy in this article.
Sure he broke Sare's jaw and there was fall out from it but he didn't actually walk out on the team, he was sent.
I'm sure if Henjak could have he would have been there week in week out doing what we have paid him two an a half years to do.
It is also not his fault that we had no equal on the bench to take his place.
Forget the Sare incident took place for a moment, what if in Round one Henjak had his leg broken, same result, no big Scrumhalf to act as an extra Backrow and a sudden panic to sign up a replacement.
You've taken an easy target there Nick, I think the emphasis should be far more on the massive injury toll and the effect of the late Bye.
Plenty of questions but very few answers...

As to next year, once bitten twice shy on the off field front you would hope.
A far more favourable draw.
Ten second year experienced players for a far deeper squad we otherwise wouldn't have had.
And fingers crossed for a few less injuries and a couple of key signings and re-signings!

[Blackswan]

The article appears to me to be pretty superficial and doesn't present any new and pertinent facts, it just regurgitates the bad news from the season.

The reality is that the Force played reasonably well for the first five games (the two games lost were against the two best sides in the competition, Crusaders and Sharks, both by 7 points) and then did not for the next five. They played their first ten games without a break and along with the Bulls were the last to have a bye. After defeating the Blues in Auckland in round 5, the demise started at Queenstown the following weekend with a scrappy performance against the Highlanders. That poor performance might be easy to overlook since the Force won the game by eight points.

From there it got progressively worse. A thumping by the Stormers the next week when the Force appeared almost incapable of breaking down a strong defense. This was followed by a one point win against the Bulls - who were not in good form at the time - and a win should not lead us to forget that it was a poor performance. Then defeat to the 'Tahs (albeit by a narrow 5 points) followed by the abject embarresment in Brisbane the following week.

It just got worse as that five weeks wore on.

Then came the bye. The last three matches after the bye were far better with two good wins and a brave defensive effort in atrocious conditions.

So, in my humble opinion, it's a matter of not having the strength in depth to withstand injuries and/or ten weeks of unrelenting and unforgiving matches that places the front line players under too much pressure. It's something that has to be remedied by having the guys who can step up and cover for the front-line members of the team for 80 minutes, not just off the bench (it used to be called "rotation" although I gather that's now akin to swearing). It takes some time to build a strong squad that can provide this level of cover and there are promising signs that it's not too far away.

Keep the faith. Here's to 2009.

[James]

The article appears to me to be pretty superficial and doesn't present any new and pertinent facts, it just regurgitates the bad news from the season.

You hit the nail on the head there. The word review makes you actually think he looked at it and will provide some meaningful insight.

They played their first ten games without a break and along with the Bulls were the last to have a bye.

Did anyone else notice that the Bulls won all three of their last games despite having a largely poor season before the break? With the travel load in this competition 10 weeks straight will hurt all but the most depthful squads.

So, in my humble opinion, it's a matter of not having the strength in depth to withstand injuries and/or ten weeks of unrelenting and unforgiving matches that places the front line players under too much pressure. It's something that has to be remedied by having the guys who can step up and cover for the front-line members of the team for 80 minutes, not just off the bench (it used to be called "rotation" although I gather that's now akin to swearing). It takes some time to build a strong squad that can provide this level of cover and there are promising signs that it's not too far away.

Sitaleki's departure aside, Sam Wykes and James O'Connor are the only two of those debutants who aren't re-signed for 2009 but I see no big reason why they wouldn't. So we shouldn't have anywhere near as many green players. Another big plus is that of those guys Cowan, Hockings, O'Connor and Cummins (if his injury doesn't rule him out) should get a good run in Australia A while Wykes and Dane should do likewise in the JWC. Making a much strong, much more experienced squad for 2009. I wouldn't imagine any more than say 5 at most new players to the Super 14.

I'm really looking forward to 2009. Not least because I'll be back home and able to come to home games again.

[NTT]

Burgs i totally disagree with you in regards to henjak. The whole saga threw into disarray the team planning for the opening weeks of the season. It also placed undue pressure on the player group to readjust. Henjak was a seasoned professional who let down the franchise tremendously considering the fresh start and opportunity given to him when he signed. The media and ARU pressure placed on the force was akin to the Ben Cousins situation, probably more so considering it became news internationally. The fact there was not a similar bodied and talented replacement meant losing him would be a huge loss for the team to cover, one which became even more glaring every week. Henjaks not to blame for the whole season, but it was a horrendous way to start the season considering the player group was already on notice after the so called quokkagate. The fact the team was able to start the season as well as they did is a credit to the character of the rest of the squad.

[NTT]

Not having Henjaks experience really cost by the end of the season as his partnership with giteau would have been one of the best halves combinations in super rugby. Henjaks actions robbed us of that. Henjaks experience in choosing the right options under pressure would have maybe been the difference we needed to beat the Tahs and Crusaders. His actions robbed us of that. As one of the more experienced players in the squad, Henjak had the opportunity to really step up and provide a leader and mentor to the young guys coming through in the backline. His actions robbed us of that.

From what i hear Valentines a bit of a hot head too, but certainly not a Matt Henjak ability wise, and hasn't signed yet.

[Burgs]

Burgs i totally disagree with you in regards to henjak.

That's your perogative, I still stand by what I wrote though.

His actions didn't rob us of anything, the actions of his judicary led to him not being around anymore, he just hit a bloke on a night out.
They set standards that are beyond those the community set on themselves and let themselves be a trial by media pressure.
In my opinion the actions over in Rottnest (including those that were hushed up) were far more irresponsible than a fight between to blokes.

In any case, regardless of that debate, as has been seen with many teams a player can be injured for the season in the first ten minutes of the first match.
That player can't be held accountable for the person they then replace him with.
If Gits was injured we had viable alternatives to replace him with.
As at Round 1 we did not have, and so far still don't, have a comparable option at #9.

As for the comment about hot head etc, wouldn't you think a team mate might know not to annoy a "hot head" when he has been drinking?
It amazes me how Sare has come out of this smelling of roses.
If you want to blame anyone blame him for being stupid enough to create the situation!

[fulvio sammut]

A valiant attempt to defend the indefensible Burgs, but no cigar.

Blaming Sare for not accomodating Henjaks temper? Shall we blame little old ladies for carrying their handbags in public and encouraging muggers?

But in other respects you may well be right.

Onwards to a better 2009.

[Burgs]

Nice to take things to the extreme Fulv, I'm talking about people who are known to each other.
There are people I know that when they have been drinking you don't get in an argument with. The bush is full of them and I would suggest most Rugby Clubs would have one or two too.
If that person, who is now being blamed as a main reason for a bad season because he was so valuable, was a team mate of mine I think I would just stay the hell out of his way when he was drunk!
It takes two to tango and I think it is unfair to lay 100% of the fault at one persons feet in a fight between two "friends".
I assume you recall the photo of Henjak showing how much he had been bruised too? It was not one way traffic and it could just as easily been him who got the broken jaw.

Whatever, the fact of the matter, regardless of circumstances, we had no back up player for Scrumhalf.
My point is that you can't blame Henjak for us not having a qualified deputy.
Is it Rudi's fault that we had to blood junior Locks because he decided to go home (for perfectly valid reasons)?
Perhaps it was Canno's fault we had a then very inexperienced replacement in Holmes when he injured his neck...

[LarryNJ]

I'm with you Burgs! If Henjak's absence hurt the team it's not his fault, he simply punched his team mate. For whatever reason the team wanted to set an example and they made the decision to not let him play. If they would allow a fight or two during the game like they do in ice hockey there would be no need to punch your team mate. Henjak would have been able to save it until the Tahs game!

[James]

Sorry to add fuel to the raging debate but...

John Mitchell showed a lot of faith, patience and good will to Henjak in his first year. He invested in him for the future even when the rest of WA wanted the guy dropped. Henjak was aware of this of course and the cost to the Force was O'Young's departure to Scotland.

And how was that faith, patience and good will rewarded? If Henjak wasn't prepared to 'do good by the Force' he shouldn't have put himself before the team in 2006.

Had O'Young had a full pre-season with the Force and played under some of the ELVs in the MARC I think he'd have had a much better season this year.

Its like when Mat Rogers walked out on the Waratahs last year which was a major factor in them ending up in 13th place. They had counted on him as a fly-half because Beale wasn't going to be ready yet. While the specifics are slightly different the point is the same. Players sign a contract that says they will do a job and if they render themselves unfit to perform that job then it is their fault. Teams don't usually carry two experienced players for one position (Locks and wings etc excluded). These are all things Henjak knew full well of.

[Burgs]

Hookers, Scrumhalves and Flyhalves, always have a back up, Coaching 101!
Even the poxy Tahs managed to have three of them.
Henjak was prepared to "do good" by the Force, he just wasn't prepared to take shit from another player.
But then, that's right Sare is an angel.
That's why he copped an eight week ban while he was spending eight weeks mending his jaw, now that is a joke.
His ban should have commenced last week when he was declared fit.

[shasta]

I'm not gonna get into the "who's fault" game and I know the decision was not purely made by the Western Force. I don't even know (or recall) what was John Mitchell's take on the sacking. But things were on a slippery slope at the time as far as public behavior goes, so drawing a line in the sand was probably appropriate. Letting these incidents slip by one after another is not a good policy and not good for the ethos of the club. Just look where it got West Coast.

[BLR]

shasta: Don't you remember the story when Mitchell found out about it he was going to tear up Henjaks contract then and there?