Next Wallabies Coach.

[Ulrich]

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.

I think he expected Robbie to last longer and that he'd get the job if it presented itself. To my mind that's the reason for going to Australia in the first place.

Walking out on the Brumbies and the Sharks were not the classiest moves though.

 

[It is what it is]

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

Dave Harvey, you must find a spot for Dave, plus it will be another kit for him to collect.

 

[TahDan]

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

Jake White.

Is that right? Because last time I checked, of the two - both who were coaching Super Rugby teams the past two years - only one has a Super Rugby title to his name. Something I consider tougher than a World Cup win in which a team avoids playing both Australia and NZ.

I'd also point out that the Crusaders certainly didn't seem to bothered by his "win first" territory game in the semi final. In fact they downright destroyed them.

 

[Ulrich]

Is that right? Because last time I checked, of the two - both who were coaching Super Rugby teams the past two years - only one has a Super Rugby title to his name. Something I consider tougher than a World Cup win in which a team avoids playing both Australia and NZ.

I'd also point out that the Crusaders certainly didn't seem to bothered by his "win first" territory game in the semi final. In fact they downright destroyed them.

Ewen also had a Super Rugby title.

I think Robbie Deans had about a handful.

Super Rugby success does not guarantee anything.

 

[TahDan]

I think he expected Robbie to last longer and that he'd get the job if it presented itself. To my mind that's the reason for going to Australia in the first place.

Walking out on the Brumbies and the Sharks were not the classiest moves though.

Wasn't he forced out at the Sharks? I'd heard his departure there wasn't quite voluntary...

 

[Slim 293]

Something I consider tougher than a World Cup win.

 

[Train Without a Station]

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.

Because he didn't get the Australian job?

That was always a risk when he took the job, but he signed up for 3 years anyway. When he didn't get what he wanted, which there was no guarantee of he spat it and left. What's to say it wouldn't have launched him into another international role?

The Australian job was unexpectedly available at the time and had Deans finished his contract, White would have needed to break his contract in order to take it if Deans wasn't renewed.

 

[TahDan]

Ewen also had a Super Rugby title.

I think Robbie Deans had about a handful.

Super Rugby success does not guarantee anything.

It doesn't, but Cheika also has Two Euro Championships. So he's been successful in a couple pretty tough settings. He's up against it, but he's definitely a good candidate.

 

[Ulrich]

Because he didn't get the Australian job?

That was always a risk when he took the job, but he signed up for 3 years anyway. When he didn't get what he wanted, which there was no guarantee of he spat it and left. What's to say it wouldn't have launched him into another international role?

The Australian job was unexpectedly available at the time and had Deans finished his contract, White would have needed to break his contract in order to take it if Deans wasn't renewed.

As Cheika has to either break his contract or remain in a dual-role?

 

[Viking]

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.

Gee I don't know. He would be in an assistance coaching role not a head coaching role so he couldnt be marked down that much. Being an assistant would enable him to learn what works at international level and also he would be able to learn from Chieka's mistakes without having to make the mistakes and take responsibility for them himself.

If anything having international experience should help his chances. Personally 5 years at the same province isn't as good as 3 years with a province and 2 years with international exposure.

Having said that, I applaud Larkham's decision and the comments he made regarding why he turned it down.
"I would be open to helping [if I was asked], but my focus is purely on Brumbies rugby. Anything that distracts me or detracts from that role or the program, I would be dead against it," Larkham said"
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...l-cheikas-wallabies-team-20141021-1197em.html

His focus is clear and anything that distracts him he pushes aside. This is great mentality of successful people.

 

[Muglair]

One of the SA posters actually posed the question; what is the Aussie obsession with running rugby.

Here is my understanding, I am not that old that I have personally witnessed these things so stand to be corrected. Or press the I think this Crap button.

It is a bit of a myth I think. The Kiwis believe they have a century hold tradition of playing attacking rugby with an emphasis on the ball in hand. It would appear to me to be winning rugby.

The South Africans have a long history of being bigger than anyone else but modern diet and training methods etc has eroded this advantage and we are seeing some variation there.

Rugby almost disappeared down a black hole in Australia during the 20s, especially in Queensland. My understanding is that the NSW Waratahs toured the UK eschewing kicking the ball. This tradition has been followed by Randwick and notably by some of the famous schoolboy sides. Not really by anyone else so the Australian fixation with running rugby per se is really more one of emphasis of ball in hand and use of the backline over kicking for position and forward dominance.

Winning rugby is really just being able to have a game plan that best utilises the talents of a playing group. Queensland were dominant for quite some time with an excellent forward pack, big backs and a very good kicking 10. Ably coached and success seemed to breed more of the same players. Mostly I think this failed internationally because we could not repeat forward domination at a test level.

It seems to work best for us when we can field a forward pack that gets parity or better. Sorry so long winded.

The crux for me is that I think on balance we will always be better off aiming for parity up front and keeping the ball in hand. You can get parity by being technically strong and very fit. All of that can be brought within the control of the current systems. Finding the players to compete internationally based on a positional and forward dominated game is not controllable, especially if the NRL keep contracting them from a young age.

 

[TahDan]

Don't cut the context out. The 2007 RWC was the easiest path a victor has had in the tournaments history. They played Fiji in the knockouts FFS and had an England side they had obliterated in the pools as their final. They didn't have to play either NZ or Aus, or even France. An RC is tougher than that.

 

[No4918]

Gee I don't know. He would be in an assistance coaching role not a head coaching role so he couldnt be marked down that much. Being an assistant would enable him to learn what works at international level and also he would be able to learn from Chieka's mistakes without having to make the mistakes and take responsibility for them himself.

If anything having international experience should help his chances. Personally 5 years at the same province isn't as good as 3 years with a province and 2 years with international exposure.

Having said that, I applaud Larkham's decision and the comments he made regarding why he turned it down.
"I would be open to helping [if I was asked], but my focus is purely on Brumbies rugby. Anything that distracts me or detracts from that role or the program, I would be dead against it," Larkham said"
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...l-cheikas-wallabies-team-20141021-1197em.html

His focus is clear and anything that distracts him he pushes aside. This is great mentality of successful people.

Maybe.

His comments are very interesting aren't they. If I were to put on my tin foil hat I'd say they are a comment on coaching two teams at once. Which someone else wants to do. Clearly Larkham doesn't think it is a good idea.

 

[Parse]

Is anyone just a little worried over this idea of having Cheika as both the Wallabies and Waratahs coach? There is already a perception with the Australian public that the ARU (and also the NSWRU/Waratah's) are run by a private school old boy's club who's only interest is really their own agenda and don't really care about the rest of Australia in general.

I can see this idea being promoted if the above comes to pass - people will just think; Wallabies=Waratah's, same thing, both run by the same private boys club...... And also what happens if Cheika doesn't pick players from the Waratah's in the Wallabies? Heaven forbid if he picks someone from another province to play a position in the Wallabies, that wouldn't be very loyal to the club he coaches (Waratah's) now would it?

There might even be a player revolt, or some strange tales being leaked to the Sydney media or worse!

 

[Lorenzo]

"Parity up front" is by some margin the hardest thing to achieve.

If you want to win test matches v the benchmark sides as much as all other variables will permit, you have to play the game in the opposition half. Sometimes, this will result in kickathons that some viewers don't enjoy.

But again, it depends on what is important to you.

 

[Slim 293]

Don't cut the context out. The 2007 RWC was the easiest path a victor has had in the tournaments history. They played Fiji in the knockouts FFS and had an England side they had obliterated in the pools as their final. They didn't have to play either NZ or Aus, or even France. An RC is tougher than that.

That's a major cop out..........

They still had to beat the teams that knocked out Aus, NZ and France............ no?

 

[Braveheart81]

It seemed like White was told the Wallabies coaching gig was his before minds were changed and the job was offered to McKenzie.

It's understandable that White was fed up in that situation and that he decided to go back to South Africa.

That doesn't really change the fact that he walked out on the Brumbies coaching gig a year before his contract finished which adversely affected the Brumbies.

I don't get the desire to sugar coat it as if White's decision had no impact on anyone and shouldn't be viewed in an unfavourable light.

 

[Ulrich]

One of the SA posters actually posed the question; what is the Aussie obsession with running rugby.

Here is my understanding, I am not that old that I have personally witnessed these things so stand to be corrected. Or press the I think this Crap button.

It is a bit of a myth I think. The Kiwis believe they have a century hold tradition of playing attacking rugby with an emphasis on the ball in hand. It would appear to me to be winning rugby.

The South Africans have a long history of being bigger than anyone else but modern diet and training methods etc has eroded this advantage and we are seeing some variation there.

Rugby almost disappeared down a black hole in Australia during the 20s, especially in Queensland. My understanding is that the NSW Waratahs toured the UK eschewing kicking the ball. This tradition has been followed by Randwick and notably by some of the famous schoolboy sides. Not really by anyone else so the Australian fixation with running rugby per se is really more one of emphasis of ball in hand and use of the backline over kicking for position and forward dominance.

Winning rugby is really just being able to have a game plan that best utilises the talents of a playing group. Queensland were dominant for quite some time with an excellent forward pack, big backs and a very good kicking 10. Ably coached and success seemed to breed more of the same players. Mostly I think this failed internationally because we could not repeat forward domination at a test level.

It seems to work best for us when we can field a forward pack that gets parity or better. Sorry so long winded.

The crux for me is that I think on balance we will always be better off aiming for parity up front and keeping the ball in hand. You can get parity by being technically strong and very fit. All of that can be brought within the control of the current systems. Finding the players to compete internationally based on a positional and forward dominated game is not controllable, especially if the NRL keep contracting them from a young age.

There's a video on Youtube of Springbok tries from 1937 to 1955.

What you'll find there are some surprisingly sublime handling from the Springboks. So, despite the notion that we are about kicking and strong forward power only (or size) we do vary our game.

Heyneke has also admitted that we can't rely on power alone but neither can we of running alone. In the modern game it takes a combination of set pieces, physicality, kicking and decision making.

The decision making comes into play in playing what is in front of you and making a call if kicking, bashing or running will return better results than the basic template the coaching team gives you. With the focus on turnover ball and counter-attacking decision making has a huge influence.

It is here that Naas Botha made a name for himself because he could put the ball where it caused the most trouble for the opposition. It was not based on any tactic but on what he saw in front of him. Fourie du Preez has a similar attribute to a lesser degree but he is a general of the backline otherwise.

 

[Braveheart81]

"Parity up front" is by some margin the hardest thing to achieve.

If you want to win test matches v the benchmark sides as much as all other variables will permit, you have to play the game in the opposition half. Sometimes, this will result in kickathons that some viewers don't enjoy.

But again, it depends on what is important to you.

Jakeball also relies on having a dominant forward pack.

You seem to be suggesting that Jakeball has allowed average teams to beat sides much better than them on a regular basis. I fail to see where this has happened.

 

[Muglair]

Really sorry to hear Larkham won't be joining the Wallabies. Foley must be equally doubtful.

How fucking dumb are we? Yes I understand that they have responsibilities to the Brumbies and the Force. Who are the Brumbies and Force responsible to?

Who picks up the tab when they run out of money? The Force do not have any, the Brumbies are running out of dough soon and the ARU picks up a big chunk of both teams' running costs anyway. Same goes for the Rebels and for the Waratahs and Reds in the last decade at one time or another, and even when they are profitable the ARU is paying the best players.

As usual petty provincialism is alive and well. While we are all guilty (and that makes any sport what it is), the power to ensure it is not a negative force on the game unfortunately rests with those with the most to gain from perpetuating it.

This is not Larkham's decision, it is that of his employers.