I think this is a difficult one at this point.
When Link was appointed there wasn't really much time to look at other appointments. The Rugby Championship was only a few weeks away and the Reds were still alive in Super Rugby.
Whether the ARU gave him that option at that time is also unknown. Those coaches would have been contracted until the end of the year and it is unknown whether the ARU would have allowed the appointment of new coaches knowing that they've had to continue paying the old ones.
Given the lack of time I think sacking the coaches and appointing new ones would have also been a bad move. In that sort of time frame you'd have seen him appoint the coaching staff he already knows because that is the only real option you have in that situation. Link wouldn't have known if the coaches already at the Wallabies were any good or not so making a decision to get rid of them without working with them would have been entirely arbitrary.
There needs to be a thorough review of all the Wallabies assistant coaches (including the ones they don't have!) at the end of the year so we can start next test season with a settled coaching team. There just isn't time to do any of this prior to the EOYT.
Bh81: a number of others have also advanced these perfectly legitimate arguments - somewhat counter to my own above - so I'll try and address them here.
Link said upon his appointment as Wallaby coach, and with much bravado re taking on the ABs as his Test No 1, something like: '.........I've had years to think about how we can beat the ABs.........what a perfect challenge........' etc.
Now any good Head Coach at national level (or any major level) will or should know that his support staff are of simply fundamental importance to his own fortunes of ultimate success, or otherwise. White moved very quickly to get his support team in place for the start of the Brumbies season in 2012, Link did similarly in early 2010, Henry in his autobiography highlights the utterly crucial role his support coaches played his AB periods, Gatland heaped massive praise upon his total 2013 BIL support team and so on. Running an elite national sports team is a truly serious enterprise in 2013 - it requires deep excellence in many management and technical positions, the Head Coach is just one important part of many.
Link had obviously been contemplating his (then potential) new job for years - if so, would he not be also contemplating the optimal support team make-up, and assessing the global availability of alternatives talents for these positions? And, just as much, carefully observing and listening to qualified opinion wrt the post-RWC Wallaby support coaches' capabilities? I'd be staggered if these contemplations were not embedded in his bedtime reflections.
And was there much distinct evidence that these current Wallaby support coaches had really advanced the calibre of their particular designated aspects of Wallaby play since their installation in early 2012? - I would argue not. Link has exceptional contacts deep into the global talent pools of rugby coaches - he's been operating at elite level in a Tier 1 rugby nation for well over a decade.
My point is that to effectively argue Link had few or no choices other than to grant the status quo Wallaby support team the absolute benefit of the doubt right through to the end of his crucial honeymoon period, I find that thesis highly debatable. And btw: what a massive waste of time and opportunity if Link and we all arrive at a death valley end-point of Wallaby disasters at the end of the 2013 EOYT cycle and the whole enterprise has to almost start afresh with new assistant coaches from June 2014, only 15 months out from RWC '15.
Now, if the other conjecture is correct that the ARU in all its stupidity and short-sightedness forced Link to keep the existing pre-Link support coaches on for contractual or financial reasons, that, given their endless, proven capacity for poor decisions, is way more credible, even though the grand folly of it would be obvious to any astute follower of the game. In that way, Link is thus granted potential legitimate excuses for poor Wallaby performance or, much worse, that performance is highly compromised in the quest to revive fan engagement for the team at a very important juncture for Australian rugby. Can we or the ARU really afford to say that the whole of the 2013-dated Wallaby Test period can be considered some kind of experiment in the virtue of lowering the immediate cash cost of the Wallaby coaching and support team? Does this sound like good strategic management of our code?
Finally, indeed, we here broadly don't know what precise support coaches are available and from where and from when. How could we, that's not our job. The ARU and related bodies are meant to be top grade at that, and do so full-time for a living.
But surely we can credibly speculate that - just as one example - a man of L Fisher's obvious skills as forwards and forwards attack coach might have been motivated to immediately join the national team in a quest to - let's get real - save the national game from a potential 'tipping point' into very serious commercial and fan-based decline if the Wallabies continue to test the depths of mediocrity and indefensibly poor execution?
