Michael Cheika

[wamberal]

England's performance vs NZ showed us precisely what he might have aspired to deliver but didn't have the acumen or cattle or skill to do so.

Eddie has the cattle, and he apparently has an unlimited budget. Tuialagi is a prime example of the sort of player who would have been pretty handy in our squad, he went to the northern hemisphere for big money.



Eddie does have the advantage of pretty good self-control, and he also seems to be able to put a lot of time into analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. Unlike Chubby, who seems to believe that he can win solely because of his sheer willpower.

 

[Tex]

Having John Mitchell as a defence coach is a pretty good indicator of depth and budget hey

 

[Joe Blow]

This thread has digressed somewhat from the Cheika topic, just so i can understand where the sentiment is heading, is the retention of Cheika as Wallaby coach last year considered a significant failure by Castle?

Yes, and the rest of the RA board.

 

[Dan54]

This thread has digressed somewhat from the Cheika topic, just so i can understand where the sentiment is heading, is the retention of Cheika as Wallaby coach last year considered a significant failure by Castle?

Well no I don't think so, unless there were better alternatives that Aussie could a; afford and b; attract to coach them

 

[RedsHappy]

This forum is full of Monday morning quarterbacks.

.........and there are also here, thankfully, thoughtful posters who didn’t agree with many of Cheika’s (and/or RA’s) policies, decisions, selections, way of behaving in public, in the first place and said so here well before various mediocrities and later disasters unfolded. In fact, they often predicted them.

 

[Derpus]

Well no I don't think so, unless there were better alternatives that Aussie could a; afford and b; attract to coach them

Yeah there was no one available - at best you could say he was given a contract that was far too long.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah there were no alternatives. Who else was available and out of contract AND was suitable?

 

[Sully]

Castle's appointment is one issue. She wasn't the safe, uncontroversial choice I thought she was. It matters because the question goes to the core of the board of RA and their ability to administer our game.
Additionally, her performance in the role has hurt Australian rugby.
She was instrumental in sacking our highest Super try scorer and shoe-in for RWC selection. (Can you imagine Folau's ability to gather the Reece Hodge re-starts and earn possession for Australia; or his ability under the high ball so evident in this WC; let alone his try scoring ability.) Raelene failed to negotiate an outcome between Folau and Qantas that kept him in the game.
She also failed to take decisive action to sack Cheika and created an unworkable coaching structure instead.
To summarise - I'm not happy with either the selection process (now ancient history) or her performance on the job.

Their handling of the Folau issue was spot on.

 

[barbarian]

OK guys we're well off track now.

Please take this discussion over to the Rugby Australia thread. I'll move some of the most recent posts over to get things started there.

 

[Adam84]

I don't believe I said that or anything approaching that, in fact Cheika's name wasn't even mentioned or alluded to. Strange construction you've decided to put on something.

The thread is about Cheika.
The question wasn’t directed at you.

 

[Joe Blow]

Yeah there was no one available - at best you could say he was given a contract that was far too long.

Surely there are always alternatives, particularly short term. For one they could have retained Larkham and brought in Laurie Fischer, who for some reason seems to be permanently on the outer despite always making himself available for the Wallabies. Maybe not ideal but certainly a better option than retaining Cheika.
A short term contract for the likes of Jake White would at least of had us playing competitive rugby for the RWC.

 

[Braveheart81]

Surely there are always alternatives, particularly short term. For one they could have retained Larkham and brought in Laurie Fischer, who for some reason seems to be permanently on the outer despite always making himself available for the Wallabies. Maybe not ideal but certainly a better option than retaining Cheika.
A short term contract for the likes of Jake White would at least of had us playing competitive rugby for the RWC.

Why would it have been better though?

If the starting point is spending an extra million dollars to get rid of the coach under contract then you'd want to see a fair bit of improvement for that money? It's pretty hard to suggest that an inexperienced head coach would have improved things substantially in a short period of time.

What would Larkham have been offered to take up the role as a caretaker coach for a year or so to the end of the RWC. This isn't a great position as you're very unlikely to get the role long term afterwards and more likely, you've had your chance as head coach of the team and it's been short lived with little chance of success.

Unless you're going to offer someone like Jake White a vast amount more money than you should, they're never going to take the job as a short term contract. You'd be far more likely to be agreeing to a contract that extends well into the next cycle so you've effectively closed your window of being able to appoint a new head coach when there are more desirable names available.

I just don't see what real upside there was for RA to fire Cheika a year ago.

 

[Derpus]

Yeah. Short term pain for, hopefully, long term gain. I don't think the next coach should get a guaranteed RWC contract, though.

I think if Cheika would have had to justify his position midway through the 4 year cycle we would have had a different coach this RWC.

Maybe a two year contract with performance criteria for a 2 year extension.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think if Cheika would have had to justify his position midway through the 4 year cycle we would have had a different coach this RWC.

Maybe a two year contract with performance criteria for a 2 year extension.

When Cheika became coach in 2014 he had a contract through to the end of 2017. This is essentially what I'm talking about in the previous post. There was no situation where he just accepts the role with no guarantee beyond the 2015 RWC.

We have a really successful RWC and halfway through the next year Cheika is negotiating his extension to the end of 2019. This is certainly pretty early in the piece because he still had 18 months left on his contract. He's in a strong position to make those demands though and on what basis would RA say no?

I don't think there's any situation where you can wait until the end of 2017 to review. The coach needs certainty (because otherwise they need to have lined up a new job) and likewise, which candidates are going to be available at that time with no real notice of the job being available (but also needing to fill it pretty quickly).

So maybe RA has a window where they could have held Cheika off until early 2017 and done their review then. Would they really fire him after an average but not shocking 2016? I really can't see it happening.

A lot of people seem to take the view that the employer holds all the cards in these negotiations but it really isn't the case.

 

[Derpus]

Are you suggesting they have no choice but to appoint a coach in four year increments? That seems........ undesirable.

 

[Braveheart81]

Are you suggesting they have no choice but to appoint a coach in four year increments? That seems.... undesirable.

No, I'm not but in Cheika's situation he was always going to get an extension after making the RWC Final.

If the Wallabies had been poor in the 2015 RWC he wouldn't have been getting an extension and RA would have been looking to find a replacement to take over at the end of 2017 (or earlier) with plenty of notice that they needed to hire someone.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Why would it have been better though?

If the starting point is spending an extra million dollars to get rid of the coach under contract then you'd want to see a fair bit of improvement for that money? It's pretty hard to suggest that an inexperienced head coach would have improved things substantially in a short period of time.

What would Larkham have been offered to take up the role as a caretaker coach for a year or so to the end of the RWC. This isn't a great position as you're very unlikely to get the role long term afterwards and more likely, you've had your chance as head coach of the team and it's been short lived with little chance of success.

Unless you're going to offer someone like Jake White a vast amount more money than you should, they're never going to take the job as a short term contract. You'd be far more likely to be agreeing to a contract that extends well into the next cycle so you've effectively closed your window of being able to appoint a new head coach when there are more desirable names available.

I just don't see what real upside there was for RA to fire Cheika a year ago.

Maybe right BH but not unheard of. Have a look at Rassie after only 16 months with the Bokke.

 

[Braveheart81]

Maybe right BH but not unheard of. Have a look at Rassie after only 16 months with the Bokke.

Look at the timeline of Erasmus coming in though.

Coetzee's position was being reviewed in early 2017 after their disastrous 2016.

Erasmus became DoR of the Springboks in June 2017 and then head coach at the start of 2018 when Coetzee was fired.

Essentially Erasmus has had two test seasons in the job now. This is certainly the minimum time frame that makes sense to bring in a new coach. He also had pretty substantial experience as a provincial head coach before taking the Sprinboks role (mostly in South Africa but also a successful stint at Munster immediately before moving back to the Springboks).

Also look at the fact that South Africa offered Erasmus a 6 year contract to get him into the head coach role. This is a key consideration and the price SARU had to pay to get their man.

 

[Viking]

Yeah. Short term pain for, hopefully, long term gain. I don't think the next coach should get a guaranteed RWC contract, though.

I think if Cheika would have had to justify his position midway through the 4 year cycle we would have had a different coach this RWC.

Maybe a two year contract with performance criteria for a 2 year extension.

I'd prefer a 4 year contract - but stricter performances reviews and ability to terminate if those KPI's / win ratio isn't met.

I prefer the coach has a long-term strategy rather then short-term winning mentality. Such a good chance to develop young players without trying to rush things.

Just because it is a 4 year contract - doesn't mean it can't be terminated if those performance measures aren't met half way through, but you do want to give your coach some job security, and players knowing the coach is sticking around - otherwise more chance for players to revolt and wait for a new coach.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'd prefer a 4 year contract - but stricter performances reviews and ability to terminate if those KPI's / win ratio isn't met.

I prefer the coach has a long-term strategy rather then short-term winning mentality. Such a good chance to develop young players without trying to rush things.

Just because it is a 4 year contract - doesn't mean it can't be terminated if those performance measures aren't met half way through, but you do want to give your coach some job security, and players knowing the coach is sticking around - otherwise more chance for players to revolt and wait for a new coach.

If there are KPIs that give the employer an opportunity to terminate the contract earlier, how does that interact with a long-term strategy? Surely it pushes a short-term winning mentality because otherwise the coach might lose their job.

I'd also suggest that putting these KPIs in a contract would either cost the employer a huge amount to add them (because they greatly reduce security for the employee) or they'd be too easy to meet to be worthwhile (because otherwise, why would you accept them).

I think it is unrealistic to think that contract clauses to make it easier to fire a coach mid contract at no cost can easily be added to a contract. Why would any coach who is a desirable hire for the employer acquiesce to that?