Next Wallabies Coach.

[Viking]

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.

People break contracts all the bloody time. White's reasons were valid. Get over it.

White left the Brumbies in a good place. Their was little negatives from his departure. All this negative attitude towards him is pointless.

You say "What's to say it wouldn't have launched him into another international role?" That's pretty stupid mate, obviously coaching in Aus would help his chances coach the wallabies, if he was going after another international team, then coaching at the Sharks would give the same chances at coaching at the Brumbies - yet he is close to family.

 

[Lorenzo]

Much of the perception about what several countries have done successfully style-wise is indeed myth.

My concern is the priorities. Winning needs to be at the top.

If you decide that the best path to winning is that you never kick, then fine.

But deciding how much you will kick before you figure out how to win is just stupid, and that's what it seems like happens in this country.

 

[TahDan]

That's a major cop out....

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

How is that a cop out? World Cups are a series of one-off tests effectively, and one-off tests can produce unpredictable results that aren't always reflective of a team's ability.

The All Blacks in '07 were a splendid team, and copped a massive upset through a dubious decision in their game against France, who then went on to choke against their rivals England.

The boks fell over the line through luck of the draw - they played Fiji, a then weak Argentina and England in the Final. Are you seriously telling me their draw didn't favour them? I mean FFS they came last in that year's Tri Nations!

 

[No4918]

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.

I would describe the Brumbies as an average team in his first season. Plenty of no names that beat better credentialed and better sides. Only missed the finals by 1 point to I believe.

 

[Slim 293]

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

You spoke to Bernie today?

 

[Jets]

Larkham is very early on in his coaching career and it makes sense to me that he wants to stay at the Ponies. They have just lost Fisher and would suffer without their head coach.

The one thing I will add to the debate over White is he left the Brumbies in a good position with good coaches in place to take over. I understand why he left but his legacy continues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lorenzo]

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.

I haven't suggested anything of the sort. Could you quote that?

 

[oztimmay]

 

[Slim 293]

How is that a cop out? World Cups are a series of one-off tests effectively, and one-off tests can produce unpredictable results that aren't always reflective of a team's ability.

The All Blacks in '07 were a splendid team, and copped a massive upset through a dubious decision in their game against France, who then went on to choke against their rivals England.

The boks fell over the line through luck of the draw - they played Fiji, a then weak Argentina and England in the Final. Are you seriously telling me their draw didn't favour them? I mean FFS they came last in that year's Tri Nations!

A weak Argentina? Who topped the pool of death, finished 3rd overall, and beat France twice, who in turn beat New Zealand in the QF?

England, who knocked out Australia, and then France......... who beat New Zealand............

You're downplaying South Africa's achievement because they didn't beat teams who......... didn't make it out of the quarter finals?

That's dumb.

 

[Train Without a Station]

People break contracts all the bloody time. White's reasons were valid. Get over it.

White left the Brumbies in a good place. Their was little negatives from his departure. All this negative attitude towards him is pointless.

You say "What's to say it wouldn't have launched him into another international role?" That's pretty stupid mate, obviously coaching in Aus would help his chances coach the wallabies, if he was going after another international team, then coaching at the Sharks would give the same chances at coaching at the Brumbies - yet he is close to family.

How's it stupid? Don't say he just wanted to coach the Wallabies. He came within a whisker of leaving before his first season even started when talk of the England offer came through.

White's reasons were that he was passed over for another role, which he had no guarantee of. I don't get how that reason is valid. If he wanted to be closer to his family, why was he happy to come here for 3 years to begin with, and then considerably more if he became the Wallabies coach?

 

[Train Without a Station]

I would describe the Brumbies as an average team in his first season. Plenty of no names that beat better credentialed and better sides. Only missed the finals by 1 point to I believe.

The Brubmies Achilles heel at times has been defeating teams better than them though. That's why they missed the finals in the first year after all.

 

[Ulrich]

How's it stupid? Don't say he just wanted to coach the Wallabies. He came within a whisker of leaving before his first season even started when talk of the England offer came through.

White's reasons were that he was passed over for another role, which he had no guarantee of. I don't get how that reason is valid. If he wanted to be closer to his family, why was he happy to come here for 3 years to begin with, and then considerably more if he became the Wallabies coach?

I think a case can be made both for and against White for leaving. There won't be a resolution.

The point being made is that White would be a good coach for Australia, regardless of him leaving before his contracts ended.

 

[Braveheart81]

I would describe the Brumbies as an average team in his first season. Plenty of no names that beat better credentialed and better sides. Only missed the finals by 1 point to I believe.

Yes. They improved dramatically from the year before.

They still only finished 7th though.

My take on it would be that Jakeball became less successful as 2014 wore on, particularly at the Sharks. Teams began to work it out and counteract it quite effectively.

I just don't get the thinking that this style would be more successful for the Wallabies where our biggest weaknesses are our kicking in general play and the inconsistency of our forwards in being able to win the physical battle.

It would be exactly the sort of style I'd bring to Argentina or Italy to improve their results. They have the sort of teams that it suits in my opinion. I really don't think we do.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think a case can be made both for and against White for leaving. There won't be a resolution.

The point being made is that White would be a good coach for Australia, regardless of him leaving before his contracts ended.

Your second point I agree with. I think the point against is what the best playing talent we have are suited to.

On the first point, I don't think he is a horrible person for doing it. People leave jobs all the time. They don't have contracts but they are employed on the basis they will be there for a significant period of time. They leave because it's best for them. I've done it myself after all. Just don't try and tell me White's motives weren't selfish.

 

[TahDan]

A weak Argentina? Who topped the pool of death, and beat France twice, who in turn beat New Zealand in the QF?

England, who knocked out Australia, and then France... who beat New Zealand....

You're downplaying South Africa's achievement because they didn't beat teams who... didn't make it out of the quarter finals?

That's dumb.

How is it dumb? Are you seriously telling me there's no element of luck in a World Cup? Or do you think every match is a perfectly scientific measurement of a team's ability.

We all know that they had to beat the teams that beat the teams etc, but are you honestly telling me that they had a harder time than Australia who played a Springboks side on a record streak in '99? The Argies got a couple upsets, but lets face it, their forte was a basic power game with up and unders - a tactic the boks were just frankly better at.

Of course the Boks were lucky! Sure, they were a good team, but they still came last in the Tri Nations that year, and came last again the next year. Is that a ringing endorsement of their achievement? I don't really think it is.

Your problem is you think rugby is a mathematical equation; that if team A beats B, and B has beaten C, then A is definitely going to beat C too.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yes. They improved dramatically from the year before.[/SIZE]
They still only finished 7th though.

Was it dramatically? 12th to 7th wasn't it. It was an improvement certainly.

White's success has mainly come from a World Cup win. A good performance at the right time. Had the team been challenging the All Blacks for 1st place in the rankings over the 4 years he coached? No.

Would winning a World Cup after 4 years be worth having no real change to our success in the 3 years prior?

 

[gel]

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.

Or maybe, Larkham actually understands the definition of "conflict of interest".

"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, I'm passionate about Australian rugby and I want the Wallabies to do well, but I also want the Brumbies to do exceptionally well. I want to make sure I'm doing the best job for the Brumbies first. I'd certainly like to help the Wallabies, but that's not my role at the moment."

Yep. I am pretty sure he does.

 

[Ulrich]

Your second point I agree with. I think the point against is what the best playing talent we have are suited to.

On the first point, I don't think he is a horrible person for doing it. People leave jobs all the time. They don't have contracts but they are employed on the basis they will be there for a significant period of time. They leave because it's best for them. I've done it myself after all. Just don't try and tell me White's motives weren't selfish.

They were selfish as are we when we move for something better.

Anyway, besides that, as I have said before Australia have the right personnel to play White's game. He has an uncanny ability to bring out the best of players. He did it with a no-name Brumbies side and they didn't lack in grunt for it.

He is defense and kicking oriented I agree but few here seem to remember a significant moment that resulted in Springbok glory at the 2007 showpiece.

He appointed Eddie Jones in the build-up to the tournament and he has admitted to learning deficiencies he was not aware of that a former opponent made him aware of. Eddie Jones also ignited something in that Bok backline as they used power and precision to cut through defenses with relative ease.

The appointment was so good that many in SA still regard Eddie Jones as the real reason the Boks won the tournament.

Personally I think Jake's template was great but it just lacked that little bit of extra which Jones brought to the party.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Urlich I disagree on the talent.

If this was England, or Ireland, that would be different. They are physically stronger, but lack the speed and athleticism of some of our players.

Players who have been some of our best kickers at provincial level have been shown to be lacking in execution at test level (To'omua and White). Our next best option has had the worst season of his career (Mogg). Folau is clearly our best fullback and is a superior running option than kicking. Cooper is our best 10 and is a better running player than kicker. He can astutely kick for territory but lacks the booming boot of To'omua. We have lacked a consistent class goal kicker at international level since Flatley retired.

To play a Jake-ball style would mean playing closer to our weaknesses than strengths.

 

[Lorenzo]

TWAS, You'd never admit that a jakeball style was the superior option even if we had the players for it and didn't have the players for ball-in-hand.