Can Cheika ball work for the Wallabies?

[daz]

In the spirit of fairness, given Cheika was made coach a full 3 days before the EOYT, I don't think any of the ball right now could be labelled his.

 

[Sully]

In the spirit of fairness, given Cheika was made coach a full 3 days before the EOYT, I don't think any of the ball right now could be labelled his.

That's a fair call Daz.For this tour. But do you think the Waratahs 2014 style can convert to the wallabies?

 

[Train Without a Station]

But what wallaby coach gets copious amounts of time with the team? More time for him to prepare himself would have been ideal but as for time with the squad, it doesn't get any better and more consistent than the EOYT.

 

[daz]

That's a fair call Daz.For this tour. But do you think the Waratahs 2014 style can convert to the wallabies?

Honest answer? I really don't know. Link had no real success transferring his style, and maybe Cheiks won't be able to either.

Given Deans and Link failed so badly, I can only hope Cheiks makes an impact.

 

[Brumby Jack]

I think they will eventually work it out but it won't be easy for them to do so.

There are no inbound tours next year and the first Test is against South Africa in The Rugby Championship so you can dominate tackling bags and witches hats at training all you want, it's what happens on the day that counts and the fans remember, despite 'the hard work that is being put in off field' statements that are normally made.

 

[Omar Comin']

We just lost by 3 points to the form team in world rugby at the end of our season away from home. And that included a 14 point swing against us as a result of their intercept try.

I think given that result was after just 3 test matches in charge that Cheika's style can certainly work for the Wallabies. I'd say it's already starting to given that result. What do people really expect? Does anything short of a 20 point win in every match mean we're not good enough?

 

[Lorenzo]

You cant hand wave away the intercept try as an anomaly whilst granting credit for the length of the field try we scored. If they're going to play aggresively, mistakes that cost points are going to happen, and people aren't going to disregard them.

Your analysis has us losing to wales since folau scored in exactly the same set of circumstances.

 

[barbarian]

I think it has a better chance of working than Link-ball. Ultimately the Waratahs game plan was built on physical dominance- hit-ups over the gain line, big hits in defence, brutal cleanouts from the first man in etc. This type of play will never go out of style at any level, though it depends a lot on your cattle (Tahs forward pack was the cream of the Super crop, but the Wallabies aren't in the top 5 international packs).

Link's Reds were more about rat cunning, silky skills and a mobile forward pack that could adapt to anything and play to their strengths incredibly well. That is a more hit-and-miss strategy, and so it proved during his Wallaby tenure.

Don't mean to make it a Link vs Cheika thing, just that since Link had a similar path to the job it is the most relevant comparison available.

Ultimately it comes down to a bit more than the plan on paper, though. Intangibles like attitude are just as important. Both Cheika and Link got their teams ticking at Super level, and hopefully Cheik can succeed where Link struggled.
.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think it has a better chance of working than Link-ball. Ultimately the Waratahs game plan was built on physical dominance- hit-ups over the gain line, big hits in defence, brutal cleanouts from the first man in etc. This type of play will never go out of style at any level, though it depends a lot on your cattle (Tahs forward pack was the cream of the Super crop, but the Wallabies aren't in the top 5 international packs).

Totally agree. It's actually rugby at its most basic. If you execute the above well you will win a lot of games, even at test level.

 

[Omar Comin']

You cant hand wave away the intercept try as an anomaly whilst granting credit for the length of the field try we scored. If they're going to play aggresively, mistakes that cost points are going to happen, and people aren't going to disregard them.

Your analysis has us losing to wales since folau scored in exactly the same set of circumstances.

I'm not waving it away, but it's highly relevant to the result and I don't think it had anything to do with the coaching. It was one small bit of poor execution that resulted in a 14 point swing against us. Most little mistakes in a rugby match don't cost 14 points.

At the top level in world rugby the margins are very small. I'd be worried Cheika's style wasn't going to work at international level if we'd lost all our matches by 15 points, but that isn't the case.

I think there's little doubt the Wallabies will be more cohesive and better at "Cheika ball" next season. If we're having very close matches with quality sides right now, with so much improvement left to come, then I think we're in a good place heading into the world cup.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

I think Cheika can get the team winning consistently, but my concern is that he only gets them as a group for a short period each year. Considering the period it took to get NSW to where they needed to be I just don't know if he's got time before the RWC.

In my opinion he's smart enough to adapt his style to suit test rugby, so I don't have concerns about whether Cheikaball will work or not, I trust he'll come up with something that will.

I suspect part of the reason he wanted to be so inclusive of the other state coaches at the start was in the hope of getting them onside for requests during the season about specific players.

Which is also the main reason having a current state coach as the national coach doesn't work. An independent party (Deans or Link) would be lucky to get a hearing, no Super Rugby coach in Australia is going to pay any attention to a request coming from a rival state coach, no matter if he's the Wallaby coach or not.

 

[fatprop]

That's a fair call Daz.For this tour. But do you think the Waratahs 2014 style can convert to the wallabies?

It nearly did on the week end

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think it has a better chance of working than Link-ball. Ultimately the Waratahs game plan was built on physical dominance- hit-ups over the gain line, big hits in defence, brutal cleanouts from the first man in etc. This type of play will never go out of style at any level, though it depends a lot on your cattle (Tahs forward pack was the cream of the Super crop, but the Wallabies aren't in the top 5 international packs).

Link's Reds were more about rat cunning, silky skills and a mobile forward pack that could adapt to anything and play to their strengths incredibly well. That is a more hit-and-miss strategy, and so it proved during his Wallaby tenure.

Don't mean to make it a Link vs Cheika thing, just that since Link had a similar path to the job it is the most relevant comparison available.

I can't help but think that provincial bias has gotten the better of people.

Take the team names out of the equation and look at what you have?

One coach, whose tactic is to find a game plan that best suits the players he has at his disposal and another who has a game plan that he attempts to impose on this team he has.

At provincial level you can change up your squad, bring in marquee players to fill roles, etc.

At national level, the players you have are the players you have and that's it. Only injuries will change this for the worse.

As I have noted previously, Cheika can't bring in 5 internationals to add to what he already has. Some players will come back (Moore, Pocock, Fardy, Palu, etc.), but guess what? More players will probably get injured along the way.

People can talk about "oh we said those things about the Waratahs in 2013. Cheika's plan just takes time" all they want. He doesn't have Potgeiter, Beale, Phipps, Hoiles, etc. to just parachute in next year.

How would the Waratahs have fared this year had these 4 starting grand final players not been there?

This is not purposely an anti-Cheika agenda rant. As I have said numerous times previously, we have nowhere forward we can move by appointing any new coach. I'm just saying Cheika could do well by adding a bit of Link to his coaching. Astute selections of discarded players, creating a team greater than the sum of it's parts and most importantly, due to the limitations on the roster, coaching a style that suits the team, not trying to suit the team to a style. This is probably the biggest mistake Deans made in his time when he had great talent at his disposal with experienced players still remaining.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think its naive to assume that Cheika will "impose" the pattern he developed with the Tahs on the Wobblies. If he was that one dimensional as a coach he would not have achieved the success he has.
A big part of his approach seems to be emphasis on fundamentals - perhaps that emphasis is as much a mindset as anything else. The mindset stays with the players on the EOYT and can be taken back to provinces. It must be - not just because of Cheika but because this is the weakness in our national game.
When all is said and done the team that wins invariably did the fundamentals better, when you think about it.
To take a very simple and obvious example from Ireland: we did not field the ball well at the back - that's a reflection of some poor fundamentals, and not just in catching, committing to the ball. It reflects concern at Foley, among others, defending in the front line. This shows, to my mind, how fundamentals have implications down the line - particularly when youre having to try and hide deficiencies.
Looked at from the other direction we have poor kick options, both as to the available personnel and as to the kick they execute when called upon to kick.
Frankly, all the provinces need to concentrate on fundamentals!

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I don't think it's so much a case of Cheika-ball contrasting with Link- or Dingo-ball so much as a need to get some basics right first. Our second rowers' pick-and-drive, our kicking out of hand under pressure, and our sliding defence leave a lot to be desired at the moment. If we get those right, we'll become contenders; I think both Cheika's style with the Tahs and Link's with the Reds can win important matches.

 

[Braveheart81]

The defence is improving in my opinion. Both of Ireland's tries were somewhat fortuitous.

The first to Zebo came down to the winger being caught out of position and no one covered it quickly enough.

The second was the intercept which was just a bad pass. If Phipps had hit the player one pass closer, we should have beaten Bowe's rush defence and scored.

Ireland only had three clean breaks and our missed tackles were improved as well.

We had plenty of possession and could have snatched the win in this game much as we could have against France last week.

We need to work out a better balance from our bench so they provide some impetus late in the game. I feel like our current bench has several compromises. Our reserve front row is giving us very little around the field so Skelton is making the bench to hopefully provide some of that. Our backrow replacement needs to be a real game breaker because that is the forward reserve I see as offering the greatest chance of impact in the forwards which is essentially where we're falling down.

 

[Train Without a Station]

To take a very simple and obvious example from Ireland: we did not field the ball well at the back - that's a reflection of some poor fundamentals, and not just in catching, committing to the ball. It reflects concern at Foley, among others, defending in the front line. This shows, to my mind, how fundamentals have implications down the line - particularly when youre having to try and hide deficiencies.

Perhaps he should look at the provincial coach who failed to impose this fundamentals on the players he has had so much time with. So Foley and the back 3? Who played there? AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Beale, Folau and Speight? Who were their provincial coaches?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Perhaps he should look at the provincial coach who failed to impose this fundamentals on the players he has had so much time with. So Foley and the back 3? Who played there? AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Beale, Folau and Speight? Who were their provincial coaches?

Not much he can do about that. These blokes should have the fundamentals by the time they get to S15: Notice there was not a lot of kicking to AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper).
And when the dust settles after RWC 2015 and he can give some "vision" speeches and convince all junior coaches to stop worrying about the triple dummy switch with a twist of lime and worry about catch, pass, kick, tackle run (in no particular order) maybe that will be our turning point.

 

[Train Without a Station]

After at least a full Super Rugby season with them, there is a bit he could have done. But clearly this has been a case of ignoring some "fundamentals" that were very clearly not needed to win Super Rugby, evidenced by his team winning.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

After at least a full Super Rugby season with them, there is a bit he could have done. But clearly this has been a case of ignoring some "fundamentals" that were very clearly not needed to win Super Rugby, evidenced by his team winning.

The obvious one being kicking since he does not seem to believe in it. Don't get me started on the fact that it is unbelievable that that these blokes can't kick with both feet equally well.
But he also did not apparently train scrums (or lineouts) with the Tahs yet the scrum seems improved with the Wobs - and I'm not necessarily giving him the credit for that.