The chinks in Chek are starting to show, there is no hiding place once a national HC gets to around 8-10 Tests of tenure.
- the 'rotational and experimental' changes to the Sydney squad were, as some of us predicted prior, high risk and potentially reckless, and at EP, they were revealed as such. Little if anything was gained from them, and much was lost via them. The notion that the Aus rugby community as a whole will value a great RWC performance more than wining a BC is flawed in my view (and Deans putting all his declared eggs into 'developing for RWC 2011' vs a hard focus on 'winning now' ended in tears at that RWC).
Wonderful fan and media enthusiasm - rightly consolidated with excitement and pleasure from the Sydney victory - was squandered in Auckland where we looked worse than 2014's Test there, if such was possible.
A sensible and positive goal from Sydney was further improvement in Auckland, and a narrow loss. Instead, we went backwards, H2 of the game was a classic modern Wallaby debacle of brain fades, lowered intensity, poor forwards work, idiotic kicking, fallen skills. Come yesterday back in Aus, newly positive, wide media coverage of the 2015 Wallabies turned sceptical and sour all over again. Big shame.
(Do I vaguely recall that the ABs tried some kind of 'experimental/rotational' squad design policy pre RWC 2007 and G Henry wrote later that it was one of his biggest-ever mistakes and 'never again'?)
- I said ages ago that Cheika showed subtle, and potentially dangerous, signs of hubris and managerial over-reach in insisting to the ARU that he coach both the Tahs and Wallabies in 2015. And that this would end with neither being optimised and neither getting the desired outcomes in 2015.
I stand by that assessment. Chek understandably entered 2015 highly distracted by those two crucial parallel roles. The 2015 Tahs did not evolve and innovate enough vs 2014, and they paid the price very clearly as they had no answer when the Clan so brutally unlocked their overly-rigid code in the S15 SF.
- I posted weeks or months ago that we'd rue the day that we did not build anything like a comprehensive enough national Wallaby coaching team to (a) deal properly with well-established serious Wallaby weaknesses of long vintage and (b) compete with the full-scale coaching professionalism of particularly the ABs, and just as likely the likes of England.
I then highlighted the lack of a dedicated Wallaby forwards coach, the lack of an experienced line out coach (Ledesma is not that), and the lack of a full-time kicking and catching coach, and, ideally, the lack of a sports psychologist or mental skills coach (a la the ABs exceptional G Enoka).
It's very clear after TRC and the BC that each of the above crucial facets of elite national rugby are far from being attended to adequately and optimised by the Wallaby coaching group.
Our forwards play is at best erratic and inconsistent, the moment the ABs put the real heat on at the breakdown at EP we crumbled, partly as we had no Poey to start the match, as we did similarly vs the Boks in Brisbane where the Boks far superior turnover rate nearly won them the game. We will not win BCs or RWCs with numbers 1-8 that only really turn up for 1 out of 3 games, and/or only for home games. It's in this area that a really good, wholly dedicated forwards coach - like an M Foley or a L Fisher - can make a huge difference over time. HC's trying to run backs or forwards themselves just stretches them too thin given the technical, S&C and skills work required in today's game, neither task is optimised.
Do I need to even mention the line out debacles? Saying it's all about Simmons' absence is woefully superficial. The prices paid for a chaotic or inconsistent line out in Tests - well, we all know them don't we.
Gnostic above made his typically astute observations re the kicking capabilities (or the lack thereof) of our back 3, and the criticality of kicking skills to productive and successful exit strategies. It's obvious is it not that even our better kickers back there (let alone btw our 10s) - e.g. Mitchell - are not kicking from hand consistently well enough, they need full-time technical support and guidance. Posters here that have said they only need more intensive practice by themselves are a relic of the 1970s, they don't appreciate what the M Alred's and S Lierich's of this world do as kicking coaches and why they're so valued the best kickers. And, btw, who should we see shoulder-to-shoulder with Hansen on Saturday night in the ABs' coaching box - none other than the Aussie Mick Byrne, the ABs kicking/catching/ball skills coach! - funny about that.
It's bullshit that the Wallabies don't suffer psychological anxiety playing at EP - it's so obvious that at that ground, they start to crack mentally when the ABs breathe fire and start to dominate them. It's precisely these types of exceptional pressure conditions that crack mental skills coaches work out how to compensate for and overcome, that's one of the biggest reasons sports psychologists are a booming global profession - the best-managed teams/sports businesses have come to realise they can deliver key '1%-ers' in team mind improvement, the crucial small gains in mindset that can make major differences to outcomes on game day.
My impression is that Chek has decided that his clearly excellent man-management and motivational skills coupled with a only small, incomplete group of support coaches are quite enough to get to the big time and drink from the big cups.
In the hyper-competitive global rugby world of 2015, and into a RWC against an AB side that has invested in deep, extensive coaching capability that is truly world-class (as their record shows), to me Chek's managerial attitude betrays both hubris and inexperience at this level.
Further, there is no one in the ARU even vaguely experienced or smart enough to provide him the high-level of advice he probably needs in these areas. Chek's personal talents are real, they may well take us upwards, however standing alone in their current guise, they may be proven necessary but, unsupplemented as they are by deeper coaching infrastructure, insufficient to get to the pinnacle.
