Wallaby Coaching Staff

[A mutterer]

im surprised the last few posts are focused on os based players, as i think this is probably the least set of concerns to be addressing.

the coaching structure - there are serious questions marks over chieka being the forwards coach as he cannot get the tight 5 to lift their game around the park consistently. we need a proper full-time forwards coach and i shudder at foley's name being bandied about.

the set piece still has question marks.

grey's systems and our overall defense has been poor, we've leaked more points this year.

we are consistently unable to implement plan b - not sure whether this is because we don't have one (on chieka's shoulders) or we are drilling the troops in such a way that mentally they are unable to recognise and implement changes at appropriate times during the game.

while im still a chieka fan, there are parallels between the tahs and the wallabies in that there was short term success that could not be replicated in the following season.

 

[Strewthcobber]

im surprised the last few posts are focused on os based players, as i think this is probably the least set of concerns to be addressing.

grey's systems and our overall defense has been poor, we've leaked more points this year.

I reckon Grey has done his primary job OK. We're not losing games because of phase defence, that's been relatively good all year.

The massive issue is the intercepts, charge downs, kick-throughs, knock ons, counter attacks from pop-gun kicks, poor lineout work etc etc

I've never seen a team give up so many cheap points

 

[Brumby Runner]

Bringing them back is the way to go and he deserves support for doing so.

I can support that as well, but even then I'd prefer to see those players put in for half a Super Rugby season before being selected on merit for the Wallabies. Some have come back recently straight into the squad when they were still recovering from injury and where there was no real indication of their current form. One or two others have gone straight into the 23 with little evidence of form.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Beale is in his mid 20's and on pre-injury form about 7 times better than the next best 12 we have. The best long-term centre is not exactly a short term fix.

IIRC, for a while before he left Beale was used primarily as a super sub. Don't think he had too many starts as our No 12.

If he does come back into the starting lineup, something else should be done about the makeup of the backline. We should not go back to a system where both the No 12 and the No 10 are 'hidden' in defense. That just interferes with the positioning of pretty much the whole of the backline. With Hodge now filling the 12 spot, we can see a whole lot better impact in defense by the backline as a unit.

I think there has been a definite improvement in the Wallabies' defensive structures since Hodge has come in. Remember the early tests when Both Cooper and Foley played 10/12, the outside backs were being left stranded on almost every occasion the opposition ran the ball wide. Even to the extent there were a lot of calls for DHP to be dropped for his poor defensive efforts. Events since have shown that he is a very good defender when he doesn't have multiple runners coming at him. If I were Grey, I'd be insisting on not having more than one weaker defender in the side at any one time because it makes it almost impossible to put together a viable defensive plan.

 

[KOB1987]

Long term is lessens our chances of success.

Short term fixes rarely ever achieve long term successful outcomes.

I prefer not to talk of individual players as it brings emotion into it.

He's actually a good example (Beale) because he is coming back. He meets the 60 test threshold and will be back for the 2018 test season. SO on that basis I see no reason to leave him out of the loop in 2017.

 

[fatprop]

I reckon Grey has done his primary job OK. We're not losing games because of phase defence, that's been relatively good all year.

The massive issue is the intercepts, charge downs, kick-throughs, knock ons, counter attacks from pop-gun kicks, poor lineout work etc etc

I've never seen a team give up so many cheap points

It all comes down to struggling to execute under pressure

 

[Braveheart81]

One element the overseas players brought in June is that they know the structures and can slot straight in with limited preparation.

I don't think enough consideration is given to the fact that it takes a new player to the squad some period of time to get up to speed with everything and that is a primary reason why few players come into the 23 immediately upon joining the squad.

New players need extra attention and it is probably also a reason why debuts were staggered through the season. Too many debutants at one time is likely to create instability and make it tougher for those players to slot into the setup effectively.

Clearly we lost that June series 3-nil so maybe it was the wrong option but I can see the desire to bring players back who are familiar with the situation.

It's pretty hard to be definitive regarding whether the current selection policy for overseas based players makes any difference on contracting decisions. Would any of them not have signed to go overseas if they'd known their chances of Wallaby selection were zero during that time? Other players have subsequently benefited from more contracts (and particularly higher value contracts) being available due to those 60+ test Wallabies moving overseas. How many of those wouldn't have stayed if that increased opportunity hadn't arisen?

I think all these things are pretty nuanced issues where there is no clear best choice.

 

[fatprop]

I don't think with the load of newbies being integrated this season having a load of experienced old heads around the squad is/was a bad idea at all

If they can add value, why not; and I just don't mean on the playing field, but also on the training paddock, the team hotel, the rehab rooms etc etc

 

[TOCC]

Yep, selecting overseas based players shouldn't happen, as much as a i like Genia as a player, what incentive is there for him to return to Australia.. currently he is getting his cake and eating it as well..

It's set a dangerous precedent and choosing an arbitrary figure of 50 odd caps will fluctuate with the calibre of player available relative to caps. Wallaby selection is that intangible asset which should be reserved purely for players playing their trade in Australia.

I would accept marginal number of foreign players in RWC Campaigns or EOYT if injuries/depth have hit hard.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's pretty hard to be definitive regarding whether the current selection policy for overseas based players makes any difference on contracting decisions. Would any of them not have signed to go overseas if they'd known their chances of Wallaby selection were zero during that time? Other players have subsequently benefited from more contracts (and particularly higher value contracts) being available due to those 60+ test Wallabies moving overseas. How many of those wouldn't have stayed if that increased opportunity hadn't arisen?

I think all these things are pretty nuanced issues where there is no clear best choice.

Impossible to know BH, but if any of Coleman, Hodge, DHP or Naivalu for example had left for O/s then the net impact would have clearly been negative for the Wallabies.

 

[Braveheart81]

Impossible to know BH, but if any of Coleman, Hodge, DHP or Naivalu for example had left for O/s then the net impact would have clearly been negative for the Wallabies.

Definitely.

Quite a few of those guys will benefit substantially over the next couple of years due to their new position within Australian rugby that would have likely been delayed had some 60+ test Wallabies stayed in Australia.

The most costly player drain in recent years are the promising players that have a few tests under their belts but aren't a guaranteed first choice player that is likely to be amongst the highest value contracts on offer in Australia.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I think that overall we shall see a greater number of players heading overseas.

Playing for Australia is great, awesome but after a player has played several times or 10 or 20, the gloss may wear a little thin particularly when much larger paypackets are available.

In the past players have gone towards the end of their careers. Now, not so. Case in point To'omua , Beale and Gill (and Holmsie). Cheika obviously wants to keep his playing pool in Australia as large as he can and often says certain things to certain players in an attempt to keep them in the fold. Players talk to other players.

Players are going mid career or even earlier before they've had the chance to evenrepresent their country.

All those 4 mentioned above were only ever on the edge of a starting berth with Beale the only likely one to be a starter or even, irrespective of whatever spin bench option (and he would have been a beauty).

All have played for Australia, some more than others. Reckon they all are very proud Australians and love representing their country and wearing the green and gold.

However they all went.

It's a sad day to me when you have to try and reconcile nationalism with money

Just doesn't seem to work unless you are Poey who gets $750,000 (from the ARU) for NOT playing next year. Bizarre.

 

[wamberal]

There are very few of us who have ever been in the position of making huge financial choices very early in our working lives, and it is pretty obvious that making those choices must involve some complex financial and non-financial calculations.


If I were in the position of counselling a young person who is in this situation, the first thing I would do is to try to understand the framework within which the decision will be made, how much of the decision is purely financial, and able to be expressed in net present value dollar terms, how much is emotional, or subjective, whether or not a dollar value can be put on, for example, the kudos that arises from representing your country, directly or indirectly, through sponsorships, employment opportunities after retirement, business opportunities after retirement, et cetera.


There are also tax issues to be looked at. There might also be personal issues, to do with relationships, family support, and so on.


In other words, my first step would be to try to define the framework within which the optimal decision can be made, but I would also point out that every single component of that decision-making process is open to sudden or gradual change. Any elite athlete is one catastrophic injury away from immediate retirement, and there are many other exogenous factors that can come into play.


Every individual player's decision is a complicated business, or should be.

 

[half]

W

This is just my observation aided by a experience so long ago when I was 17.

I started work with the CBC bank and somehow found myself in the banks inter business house mid week competition. I was promoted well above both my knowledge and academic training.

Today and for many years this competition has nor run.

Also many benefits of being a Wallaby or even if you played for the Galloping Greens doors would open, and positions would be made for you.

Today there is little or no, positions for players. Well no where like former years.

Consider you are mid 20's, and over the next five years you can earn enough to buy a decent house and put a reasonable amount aside for your non playing career. IMO there is for most only one answer.

Actually its a good thing in many ways the trick is for local clubs to develop ways of identifying players in rugby playing countries who can come to Australia and play.

Essentially my observation is no longer are the same business careers available after a playing career is over and players should do the best they can for themselves financially. In time more players would come to Rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

W

This is just my observation aided by a experience so long ago when I was 17.

I started work with the CBC bank and somehow found myself in the banks inter business house mid week competition. I was promoted well above both my knowledge and academic training.

Today and for many years this competition has nor run.

Also many benefits of being a Wallaby or even if you played for the Galloping Greens doors would open, and positions would be made for you.

Today there is little or no, positions for players. Well no where like former years.

Consider you are mid 20's, and over the next five years you can earn enough to buy a decent house and put a reasonable amount aside for your non playing career. IMO there is for most only one answer.

Actually its a good thing in many ways the trick is for local clubs to develop ways of identifying players in rugby playing countries who can come to Australia and play.

Essentially my observation is no longer are the same business careers available after a playing career is over and players should do the best they can for themselves financially. In time more players would come to Rugby.

I agree half. But what you and Wamberal are talking about is the players' decision making process. I'm talking about the coach's. They are two different things.
The player, as a professional, should clearly be maximising his earning potential in order to set himself and his family up. The national coach on the other hand has no such considerations. His job is to develop players for the present and for the future. If players make themselves unavailable because of career choices, then the coach needs to pick and develop someone else.

 

[Scrubber2050]

W

This is just my observation aided by a experience so long ago when I was 17.

I started work with the CBC bank and somehow found myself in the banks inter business house mid week competition. I was promoted well above both my knowledge and academic training.

Today and for many years this competition has nor run.

Also many benefits of being a Wallaby or even if you played for the Galloping Greens doors would open, and positions would be made for you.

Today there is little or no, positions for players. Well no where like former years.

Consider you are mid 20's, and over the next five years you can earn enough to buy a decent house and put a reasonable amount aside for your non playing career. IMO there is for most only one answer.

Actually its a good thing in many ways the trick is for local clubs to develop ways of identifying players in rugby playing countries who can come to Australia and play.

Essentially my observation is no longer are the same business careers available after a playing career is over and players should do the best they can for themselves financially. In time more players would come to Rugby.

I don't disagree with you but the fact the private schools are providing less players and the influx of PI lads is probably the major factors

I remember one lad/man who got to the top was pretty proud of getting his machine operators' licence a while back. With the money earned AND correct mentoring he should have been fairly financially secure. Alas, that did not eventuate.

Times are a changin'

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree half. But what you and Wamberal are talking about is the players' decision making process. I'm talking about the coach's. They are two different things.
The player, as a professional, should clearly be maximising his earning potential in order to set himself and his family up. The national coach on the other hand has no such considerations. His job is to develop players for the present and for the future. If players make themselves unavailable because of career choices, then the coach needs to pick and develop someone else.

Deciding someone is unavailable because they play overseas is purely through an arbitrary rule though. The player is not actually unavailable.

It's pretty difficult to determine the best solution and the reality is there probably isn't a perfect one.

Times are a changin' and the current "Giteau Law" was established in response to those changing situations. How and when it is used is another question and now that it has been around a bit longer, perhaps it will be used less frequently.

We have lost enough capped Wallaby players (even those who are regularly selected) who are nowhere near qualifying under the "Giteau Law" to suggest that deciding that players outside Australia won't be considered isn't enough of a drawcard to keep all our players playing in Australia.

If any international team becomes less competitive it surely then follows that selection in that team becomes less of a carrot for the players to keep them playing in their home country.

 

[wamberal]

Absolutely right, BH, each individual player's situation is unique to him. "One size fits all" works when it comes to cheap clothing, but not when it comes to a complex question of resource management.

 

[Quick Hands]

Deciding someone is unavailable because they play overseas is purely through an arbitrary rule though. The player is not actually unavailable.

It's pretty difficult to determine the best solution and the reality is there probably isn't a perfect one.

Times are a changin' and the current "Giteau Law" was established in response to those changing situations. How and when it is used is another question and now that it has been around a bit longer, perhaps it will be used less frequently.

We have lost enough capped Wallaby players (even those who are regularly selected) who are nowhere near qualifying under the "Giteau Law" to suggest that deciding that players outside Australia won't be considered isn't enough of a drawcard to keep all our players playing in Australia.

If any international team becomes less competitive it surely then follows that selection in that team becomes less of a carrot for the players to keep them playing in their home country.

Although recent results suggest that the more that the "Giteau Law" has been used, the less successful the Wallabies have become.

Interesting to note that for a while, England used to select players who played outside England. They changed recently and it seems to have worked on a number of levels.

 

[Braveheart81]

Although recent results suggest that the more that the "Giteau Law" has been used, the less successful the Wallabies have become.

Interesting to note that for a while, England used to select players who played outside England. They changed recently and it seems to have worked on a number of levels.

We used it more last year than this year and we had substantially better results last year.

I think it's a good thing that it exists because it creates options. I don't think it should be used all the time and the longer it is in place, presumably coaches will learn more about when it should be employed and for who.

England has had that rule in place for a considerable period of time. Certainly far longer than the current year where they have performed well. I think it is a leap to suggest that selection policy is the reason they have done well this year just as it is a leap to suggest our selection policy is the reason we have done badly this year.

If you are comparing the fate of the Wallabies and England this year, perhaps the below average performances of the Australian Super Rugby sides compared with Saracens winning the European Champions Cup (first English team to do so since 2007) are a better indication of why the national sides fortunes have shifted substantially.