• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Wallaby Coach Conga Line

fatprop

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
TSR said:
By all accounts Laurie Fisher would be an outstanding forwards and/or breakdown coach for the Wallabies.

However I am not convinced he should remain an ACT coach at the same time. For mine the Wallabies coaching staff needs to be working with all of the super rugby franchises to help share best practice as well as working with all the development programs. He clearly couldn’t do that if still on staff with ACT.
Click to expand...


I tend to disagree, I think there is room for Super Rugby assistants to do both

What I would like to see is more agreement about a consistent approach as to how the Super Rugby sides, scrummage, do breakdowns & lineouts. etc
 
Finsbury Girl

Finsbury Girl

Trevor Allan (34)
Sully said:
Wallabies coaches heading out to the provinces and tweaking their programs is a pipedream at the moment. They all think their way is best and ignore them.
Click to expand...


So they should. We should run our rugby programs how we like in order to benefit QLD rugby. We have our own KPIs and in no way shape or form should they be contingent upon another unrelated teams success or lack thereof.
 
Finsbury Girl

Finsbury Girl

Trevor Allan (34)
Nope. The QRU is there to ensure the game is being run properly in QLD.

The ARU should stick to their brief & do their job and not try to sub delegate their responsibilities to the QRU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Finsbury Girl said:
Nope. The QRU is there to ensure the game is being run properly in QLD.

The ARU should stick to their brief & do their job and not try to sub delegate their responsibilities to the QRU.
Click to expand...

Is sub-delegating just delegating? Either way, it's not delegating, it's sharing.
Anyway, this sort of proposed structure with regards to coaching is one of the big reasons the Kiwis are streets ahead of us. Continuity. At all levels, both age-wise and different pro-levels. Players slot from one to the next more easily as the systems etc are similar.
 
TSR

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
Finsbury Girl said:
Nope. The QRU is there to ensure the game is being run properly in QLD.

The ARU should stick to their brief & do their job and not try to sub delegate their responsibilities to the QRU.
Click to expand...

I just don’t think that they are doing that by trying to provide a national framework for game development, sharing best practice and providing some commonality in coaching methods - in particular relating to set piece. There will always still be plenty of room for each of the states to adapt the framework to suit themselves. It’ll never be truly homogeneous.

Of course the issue with having a national framework or strategy is if it is a poor one. I will admit that I am generally supportive of a more streamlined approach from the States to the national team I would have been horrified if we had have all adopted Cheika’s game plan. There was too much dumb/lazy/ill disciplined rugby played as it was.

Rennie is a smart coach. I generally love some of his principals/philosophies. I am quietly optimistic he will be a very positive influence on our style of play (we could hardly be worse) and I’d personally love to see his game strategies being employed by the QRU.
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Hopefully we'll bag Lord Laurie next.........

The pieces of Dave Rennie’s Wallabies coaching puzzle appear to be slowly coming together, with Scott Wisemantel preparing to leave his role with England and take on the job of Australia's attack coach in what would be a major coup for the national side.

A high-ranking source told the Herald on Monday Wisemantel had agreed to join Rennie’s coaching team as its attack coach.
Click to expand...

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...w-wallabies-attack-coach-20191125-p53dzr.html
 
The_Brown_Hornet

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Based on the comments from Scott Johnson we look likely to get our wish for a, an Australian assistants group and b, the punters we've been asking for.
 
Tex

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
From where I sit it's all coming up roses re. the coaching set up.

Rennie comes highly regarded with personal endorsements (vs. Deans' Crusaders cv), he has a good relationship with the Director of Rugby, and is building a team of preferred assistants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
Finsbury Girl

Finsbury Girl

Trevor Allan (34)
TSR said:
I just don’t think that they are doing that by trying to provide a national framework for game development, sharing best practice and providing some commonality in coaching methods - in particular relating to set piece. There will always still be plenty of room for each of the states to adapt the framework to suit themselves. It’ll never be truly homogeneous.



Of course the issue with having a national framework or strategy is if it is a poor one. I will admit that I am generally supportive of a more streamlined approach from the States to the national team I would have been horrified if we had have all adopted Cheika’s game plan. There was too much dumb/lazy/ill disciplined rugby played as it was.



Rennie is a smart coach. I generally love some of his principals/philosophies. I am quietly optimistic he will be a very positive influence on our style of play (we could hardly be worse) and I’d personally love to see his game strategies being employed by the QRU.
Click to expand...


Rennie is not the QLD coach. I'd rather not see any influence from him in any way shape or form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
Adam84

Adam84

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
In terms of style or coaching and game plans, I don't think there is anything wrong with clubs taking their own approach to how they are going to execute the game. Reds, Brumbies, Waratahs and Rebels aren't all going to have the same playing stock, depth, experience or skill to execute the game the way the Wallabies intend to do. Variety and diversity also ensures different teams are bringing different trains and skills which can then be pieced together at the test level.

Look at the Brumbies in 2018/2019 and their use of the rolling maul, that was eventually adopted at test level but was broadly detested by teams at Super Rugby level. Thats entirely down to the coaching decision of McKellar and where he believed his teams strengths were.

Where there needs to be collaboration probably comes down to fitness and conditioning, and ensuring that all the teams are performing or training to a similar level/best practice. Potentially it comes down to requesting players shift positions, but again that's a fairly subjective request which needs to be measured against the best interest of both teams. Moving player 'x' to another position might benefit his exposure, but if it negatively impacts on the teams performance then is it really a positive move?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top