WARATAHS assistant coach Scott Wisemantel has staunchly defended his coaching of the much maligned NSW back line, including the "eyes and ears" philosophy that he has introduced this season.
The Waratahs backs have been at the receiving end of criticism throughout the season, even when they were undefeated after the first four rounds. They now sit in seventh place as they prepare for round 12 against the Cheetahs in Bloemfontein on Friday.
The criticism has been an indirect attack on Wisemantel's credentials as NSW backs coach. But on Monday Wisemantel fired back. He said many of his detractors had not even attended Waratahs training sessions this year to see first-hand what he hae been trying to achieve before coming to their conclusions.
Asked what he felt about the criticism, Wisemantel said: " don't really care. It is people's opinions. I haven't actually seen many of those people at training. They are more than welcome to come if they want to look at what we are doing. [But then] differing opinions are good. They make you work harder, question what you do. I am comfortable with what we are doing."
Wisemantel then gave the thumbs-up to his belief that a back line can operate more effectively if its halfback and five-eighth have the pressure on them alleviated by using his "eyes and ears" theory - inviting the centres, wingers and fullback to be more involved in the plays.
The Waratahs have only rarely entertained by spinning the ball wide, but Lote Tuqiri and Lachie Turner have both been more involved in looking for the ball by coming off their wings. And fullback Sam Norton-Knight has been regularly called upon to come in to the back line as first or second receiver.
Wisemantel's theory is that the wingers and fullback should play like three fullbacks and be the "eyes" of the back line. He says one of their roles should be to communicate their reading of the game to the centres - the "ears" - who relay that information to the halfback and five-eighth to help them to make better decisions.
But some critics feel that the transfer of so much information only clutters the lines of communication and fluidity of back-line play, and that a No.9 or 10 should be able to read play themselves from the ruck.
Asked if he thought it had worked, Wisemantel said: "I do because players have responsibility in knowledge if what they are doing. As an outside back, you can be oblivious to most of the other things. Now they have to have the knowledge across the board. It takes pressure off the 10s."
He dismissed criticism that it created confusion and took away the No.10's playmaking instinct and unpredictability, saying: "No, they make a decision and once the decision is made they run with it. The 10 still runs the show, but they are receiving information from the outside in. The reason [that they are passed on information from outside them] is that predominantly nines and 10s, who in most sides are decision-makers, are actually looking at the ruck.
"It's very hard to see what's in front of you. Everyone says, 'Oh great, let's play what's in front of you.' It seems to be the latest catchphrase. But it's very hard to play what's in front of you when you are looking at the ruck. This means you can actually do that by receiving information from the outside in."
NSW halfback Luke Burgess said the theory had improved communication. "Guys inside need to communicate, but you need to listen as well," Burgess said. "There are ways as a half back to see running opportunities and to read the game.
"As much as shifting a ball, and technically having a sufficiently sound pass [is vital], understanding how to look for running opportunities is just as important."
Burgess said there were times when a call outside would require those plans be shelved.
"You may get a call late-ish, or are looking at a running opportunity," he said. "But you get a call from outside and have to quickly put that away, shift and still do that effectively. That is not a flaw in the system. It is the system working."
