Next Wallabies Coach.

[Ulrich]

Good point about Blades Aussie D, apparently a well regarded scrum coach. Too my point about doing things differently. What does he do when not on tour with the Wallabies?

Just say you decided that potential Australian loose forwards with the capability to smash the opposition play in the NRL as do the best tactical kickers because that is an important part of the game (say 1/6) from under age teams up. You might then decide that Australia should pursue a ball in hand strategy across all provinces.

Really the next step is absolute technical proficiency at the set piece. This seems to have waxed and waned over the years with the interest of the Head Coach then driving the style of forwards coach. Blades, McKenzie and Foley all have done well in that role and the national team performance improved.

The ARU needs to invest urgently here as well and AB would be a good starting point.

Tomikin, the Tahs do not always finish in front (even after claiming they will each season). If you look at SA and NZ this principle actually holds true. The Bulls and Crusaders dominated selections and as far as I can see their game plans broadly adopted (although as far as I can see NZ teams largely play with a similar approach anyway). Yes, different coaches but as noted previously they have plenty of good ones to spare (no PdV jibes please)

One of the pleasing things that arise from respectable national coaches is that sometimes the provinces adopt the approach.

The Stormers in the latter part of their Super Rugby campaign and now the WP have played more to the Bok style employed currently which focuses on the breakdown, turnovers and counter-attacking while still maintaining a respectable defense.

 

[Slim 293]

10 Not Cooper, not Foley, both run too much

Cooper actually kicks a fair bit...........

 

[Scrubber2050]

Least it was at the end of a season not the start of a tour.

If your upset with White leaving teams, you must hate Link.

Oh wait he had his reasons.. So did White.

White made the Brumbies a force again. And I bet we wouldn't be seeing him quit less then a year out from a world cup.

Really he went for a job missed out and moved on, his moving for family is much better then. Losing the changeroom (although he did that at the sharks and left.. Like Link)

White just spat out the dummy. He was not under any pressure at the Brums. Gave bullshit reasons.

Mckenzie had reasons - personal and professional

 

[Dumbledore]

OK

for fun select a Wobs side for Jakeball

A kicking 9, 10, 15, a massive pack, a defensive crash balling backline

so

1 Sio
2 Moore
3 Kepu
4 Skelton
5 Coleman
6 Fardy
7 Butler
8 Auelua
9 White
10 Debreczeni
11 Folau
12 Kerevi
13 Kudrani
14 Spieght
15 Hunt

 

[Tomikin]

White just spat out the dummy. He was not under any pressure at the Brums. Gave bullshit reasons.

Mckenzie had reasons - personal and professional

Did he what were those? White had reason he wants to coach international and decided he couldn't here and so decided to move closer to home.

He didn't hide that either. Pretty professional and personal reasons there.

Same boat just you like Link. I do too, but you can't say Jake would jump and defend Link who already has.

 

[Ulrich]

White just spat out the dummy. He was not under any pressure at the Brums. Gave bullshit reasons.

Mckenzie had reasons - personal and professional

To be honest leaving a franchise and a national team are two different things.

White always wanted to coach a national side and he missed out, so he moved home and took up a position closer to his family waiting for a national opportunity somewhere.

Both had their reasons.

 

[Muglair]

Intriguing selection Dumbledore.

I don't like to sound like a thrashwanker and say I would rather play running rugby and lose.

So instead I will say that I may get bored watching and rugby will definitely lose the appeal of being a game for all shapes and sizes.

 

[Scrubber2050]

White is zero chance unless Chek hit by a bus. Even then he would be behind Phil Mooney and Richard Graham

 

[Lorenzo]

Part of the the reason we aren't winners against teams that we can beat is the dual focus (and for some, the primary focus) on entertainment rather than winning. Pulver is clearly more interested in "entertainment" (running rugby) than winning and there are members of this board that is the same. Hell, some even come out and say it.

I'm not saying its wrong, you can value style over result if you like.

But to sit around wondering why we don't win whilst not making winning you number 1 priority seems to me to be madness.

The South Africans and the English and the ABs don't worry about style - they just want to win. We will never consistently beat the those (at least the ABs and SA) whilst we are as worried about running rugby/keeping the ball in hand as we are winning.

Cheika is going to be mckenzie rinsed and repeated. The administration is worried about playing a style of rugby. We're going to go down focusing too much on possession, not enough on position, and when we give up a deciding penalty deep in our own half because we didn't have anyone capable of clearing the ball downfield, we'll all be scratching our heads wondering what happened.

The ABs and Boks don't devote any energy to style - they devote it to winning. Sometimes the result is that the rugby is "attractive" and sometimes it isn't. Until we do the same we're not going to match them as well as we should.

 

[Braveheart81]

Larkham has reportedly turned down the offer to be one of the assistant coaches.

 

[Viking]

Part of the the reason we aren't winners against teams that we can beat is the dual focus (and for some, the primary focus) on entertainment rather than winning. Pulver is clearly more interested in "entertainment" (running rugby) than winning and there are members of this board that is the same. Hell, some even come out and say it.

I'm not saying its wrong, you can value style over result if you like.

But to sit around wondering why we don't win whilst not making winning you number 1 priority seems to me to be madness.

The South Africans and the English and the ABs don't worry about style - they just want to win. We will never consistently beat the those (at least the ABs and SA) whilst we are as worried about running rugby/keeping the ball in hand as we are winning.

Cheika is going to be mckenzie rinsed and repeated. The administration is worried about playing a style of rugby. We're going to go down focusing too much on possession, not enough on position, and when we give up a deciding penalty deep in our own half because we didn't have anyone capable of clearing the ball downfield, we'll all be scratching our heads wondering what happened.

The ABs and Boks don't devote any energy to style - they devote it to winning. Sometimes the result is that the rugby is "attractive" and sometimes it isn't. Until we do the same we're not going to match them as well as we should.

And which coach do you think is better at implementing "winning rugby" as opposed to "attractive rugby"?

Jake White.

 

[Viking]

Larkham has reportedly turned down the offer to be one of the assistant coaches.

Strange decision from Larkham. I thought some international coaching experience would do wonders for his personal career as a coach.

 

[No4918]

White just spat out the dummy. He was not under any pressure at the Brums. Gave bullshit reasons.

Mckenzie had reasons - personal and professional

He was disappointed not to get the job butWhite left to spend more time with his children didn't he. Mowen was lauded for leaving for the same reason.

 

[Train Without a Station]

White had reason he wants to coach international

Well certainly seems like an odd decision to sign a 3 year deal as a provincial coach. Then after leaving that early, signing another deal as a provincial coach.

 

[Lorenzo]

I think White gives us the best chance of winning next year. Personally I think it's by far the best choice. If he succeeds (making the RWC final is probably succeeding), you reevaluate. If he doesn't you fire him and hire cheika.

I don't really care that he left the brumbies early because I don't have the emotional development of a jilted teenager. There's zero chance he gets a better offer to coach than the wallabies gig between now and the RWC so he's no greater a chance at bailing than anyone else.

They could back-load his pay if they are really worried about it.

 

[fatprop]

Strange decision from Larkham. I thought some international coaching experience would do wonders for his personal career as a coach.

He needs a few more years head coaching, I would be amazed if Foley will go back to as assistant role either

 

[Ulrich]

Part of the the reason we aren't winners against teams that we can beat is the dual focus (and for some, the primary focus) on entertainment rather than winning. Pulver is clearly more interested in "entertainment" (running rugby) than winning and there are members of this board that is the same. Hell, some even come out and say it.

I'm not saying its wrong, you can value style over result if you like.

But to sit around wondering why we don't win whilst not making winning you number 1 priority seems to me to be madness.

The South Africans and the English and the ABs don't worry about style - they just want to win. We will never consistently beat the those (at least the ABs and SA) whilst we are as worried about running rugby/keeping the ball in hand as we are winning.

Cheika is going to be mckenzie rinsed and repeated. The administration is worried about playing a style of rugby. We're going to go down focusing too much on possession, not enough on position, and when we give up a deciding penalty deep in our own half because we didn't have anyone capable of clearing the ball downfield, we'll all be scratching our heads wondering what happened.

The ABs and Boks don't devote any energy to style - they devote it to winning. Sometimes the result is that the rugby is "attractive" and sometimes it isn't. Until we do the same we're not going to match them as well as we should.

The irony is that the so-called "style" employed by the number 1 and 2 teams at the moment is extremely balanced and involves a good bit of running on most occasions.

Turnover ball and breakdown supremacy seems to be the trend currently.

When the ABs lost they blamed it on their inability to prevent turnovers which made it hard to defend.

 

[Train Without a Station]

OK

for fun select a Wobs side for Jakeball

A kicking 9, 10, 15, a massive pack, a defensive crash balling backline

so

1 Sio
2 Moore
3 Kepu
4
5
6
7
8
9 White
10 Not Cooper, not Foley, both run too much
11
12
13 Kudrani
14 Spieght
15

Come on Daz. Mitch Inman! You know you wanna say it!

 

[No4918]

Strange decision from Larkham. I thought some international coaching experience would do wonders for his personal career as a coach.

Smart move. In 3 years time he is probably in a position to take over. Definitely will be in 5 years. If he took the job now and things didn't work out it is possible he would be marked hard when going for the head coach position in the future.

 

[Viking]

Well certainly seems like an odd decision to sign a 3 year deal as a provincial coach. Then after leaving that early, signing another deal as a provincial coach.

This is ridiculous. He stated their is no point being away from family if it is not helping him become an international coach. Might as well coach locally and be closer to family. Not sure why that is hard to understand.