Wallaby Coaching Staff

[RedsHappy]

I've posted at length re the criticality (to outcomes) today of a broad and deep enough team of specialist coaches at rugby's highest levels. And how EJ (Eddie Jones) has been at work since late 2015 in recognising this pre-requisite, and how he, to good effect it would seem, brought in an additional number of part-time specialists during England's period here.

Noting today that he has just brought over to the UK the Storm's forwards specialist to aid England's defensive skills pre the forthcoming internationals:

Melbourne Storm defensive coach Jason Ryles aids Eddie Jones' England rugby team

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...jones-england-rugby-team-20161101-gsf7dt.html

EJ (Eddie Jones)'s approach contrasts markedly with that of our ARU, namely that 'a few part-timers in attack and defence plus one or two others will do fine'.

 

[Braveheart81]

What do you think their respective budgets are?

 

[Gnostic]

I've posted at length re the criticality (to outcomes) today of a broad and deep enough team of specialist coaches at rugby's highest levels. And how EJ (Eddie Jones) has been at work since late 2015 in recognising this pre-requisite, and how he, to good effect it would seem, brought in an additional number of part-time specialists during England's period here.



Noting today that he has just brought over to the UK the Storm's forwards specialist to aid England's defensive skills pre the forthcoming internationals:



Melbourne Storm defensive coach Jason Ryles aids Eddie Jones' England rugby team



http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/melbourne-storm-defensive-coach-jason-ryles-aids-eddie-jones-england-rugby-team-20161101-gsf7dt.html



EJ (Eddie Jones)'s approach contrasts markedly with that of our ARU, namely that 'a few part-timers in attack and defence plus one or two others will do fine'.

Eddie is a good example of a bloke who has learnt from the very hard lessons he was taught at Wallaby and Reds levels. Remember in 2003 he disregarded the scrum (with some pretty logical reasoning if flawed). Move forward to his time with SA and Japan and it is easy to see his has learnt big time what his blind spots are and has specialists to cover most significant areas.

AND key for me is that his specialists and assistants have proven results.

 

[fatprop]

So England will be taught how to chicken wing units

 

[Gnostic]

As an intellegent man you'd know that data is questionable because it's affected by so many different factors. Plus, having coached only 2 teams, it's not of an adequate sample size.



As sport because more and more obsessed with data (for good reason), we have to realise there's a reason the scientific community requires certain things to consider data 'valid'.

Indeed, and as my initial post schooling profession was in the sciences I retain that fondness for data and analysis of it.

As you say the sample size is too small to make a reliable judgement, but that is just another reason why he shouldn't be in any position at the highest level at this stage, there simply is nothing to support it. Much the same as Richard Graham being "assistant" coach under Deans, though at the time everyone accepted it because "The Master Coach" said it was good. Cheika is rightfully facing some scrutiny and selection of a complete and balanced coaching group is one of those components that should be under question.

 

[RedsHappy]

What do you think their respective budgets are?

I think someone who's got 17,014 Likes can do better than that in addressing the issues I have canvassed.

 

[RugbyReg]

I think someone who's got 17,014 Likes can do better than that in addressing the issues I have canvassed.

It's a fair point though. As Hugh Cavill has demonstrated on another thread, England Rugby are currently rolling in cash following the RWC and are using it so damn effectively that it reminds us all of the almost criminal way our surplus was flittered away in 2003.

As BH points out. They have the cash to spend. We don't.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Eddie used to get in these consultants back in his Wallaby stint too IIRC, but things were a bit more flush in Aussie rugby then

 

[fatprop]

I remember listening to Les Kiss talk about his time as Ireland's defensive coach and how little time these guys actually get to slotted in to the weeks program between team runs, scrummaging, lineout, video analysis, re-hab, promotional duties.

Will Jason Ryles be a point of difference? Not sure that say 1 or 2 hours drills a week over a month will make that much difference

 

[Gnostic]

I remember listening to Les Kiss talk about his time as Ireland's defensive coach and how little time these guys actually get to slotted in to the weeks program between team runs, scrummaging, lineout, video analysis, re-hab, promotional duties.



Will Jason Ryles be a point of difference? Not sure that say 1 or 2 hours drills a week over a month will make that much difference

Don't disregard coaching development as a major role. His input may be with the other coaches as much as the players. A critique and different viewpoint is always a good thing.

 

[Gnostic]

It's a fair point though. As Hugh Cavill has demonstrated on another thread, England Rugby are currently rolling in cash following the RWC and are using it so damn effectively that it reminds us all of the almost criminal way our surplus was flittered away in 2003.



As BH points out. They have the cash to spend. We don't.

That is the thing, we have a top down model with insufficient investment in key points to make the model even a possibly viable. I'd also say that if the ARU wants to run a top down model they have to be much wiser with the spend, bailing out teams, paying out coaches and staff, all these things have squandered cash that could have been used to fund such coaching.

 

[Braveheart81]

Who exactly doesn't run a top down model?

The RFU is flush with money because they just hosted the most successful RWC ever.

We are all in furious agreement that the ARU squandered the profits from our RWC in 2003.

Criticism of the top-down model makes it sound like there is an alternative where lower level competitions drive revenue.

 

[USARugger]

Australian rugby lives and dies with the Wallabies product in today's age.

Everything else is ancillary to the Wallabies because the Wallabies are what puts food on the table.

How that food is distributed is definitely something that needs to be worked on. To extend the metaphor - the right mouths need to be fed, so to say.

 

[Gnostic]

Who exactly doesn't run a top down model?



The RFU is flush with money because they just hosted the most successful RWC ever.



We are all in furious agreement that the ARU squandered the profits from our RWC in 2003.



Criticism of the top-down model makes it sound like there is an alternative where lower level competitions drive revenue.

The RFU was flush beforehand because they have a thriving domestic competition with a lot of support that translates into huge viewer numbers for their top end "product", hence their revenue stream. You could say they are top down only in that they generate their revenue at the top, but their strategy has been significantly different in terms of where they invested in the game.

They do have an very huge advantage in geography and sheer population density that allows even small % gains in viewership to mean massive $.

The ARU put all its eggs in the Super and Test success basket. Just a stupid proposition in a competitive sport where success of the kind needed to realise ROI is just not likely to happen, and the KPIs used drove coaches like Hickey/Foley and Link (at his time at the Tahs) to play an ever more conservative game to try and achieve finals results as a measure of success. The dire game did more to kill the support base than the lack of titles. So here we are 20 years after the game went professional, the NH has a thriving domestic and professional competition, Australia's domestic competitions have stagnated or declined, Super Rugby has declined in viewship/game but I'm sure they maintain their figures overall as they cram in more matches, and test rugby viewership and attendances have also declined.

Even taking into account the massive advantages the RFU has the differences in outcomes are pretty stark, considering that the English sides has been pretty poor for most of the professional era excepting the brilliant side of 2002-2003.

 

[USARugger]

They also have far less competition from other winter sports for that chunk of their much larger, and quite affluent population.

Revenue is always going to come from the top and will always need to be invested at various levels of the game from Test all the way down to U-7's Flag Rugby in a manner which suits the unique needs of the national union.

Australia's biggest problem is that the money just isn't there right now.

It's a shithouse chicken-and-egg situation and investment at grass roots level is hardly a guarantee that the top-level product (Wallabies) is going to be successful when you're competing with several other codes of football for athletic talent and from a much smaller population pool - and if the Wallabies fail, Australian rugby fails.

 

[fatprop]

Don't disregard coaching development as a major role. His input may be with the other coaches as much as the players. A critique and different viewpoint is always a good thing.

And it happens all the time, the difference is it usually put down as a "fact finding mission" where some coach goes on a world tour and gets to go to the Dallas Cowboys etc. sharing his knowledge and gaining incites/viewpoints

Or a coach calls in some unit for a couple sessions.

Actually last time Jones did it, it was Judo sessions and he put a few players in hospital.

 

[Gnostic]

USARugger hence my comment on their advantages of geography and population. I'd say that the FA Cup, Euro Cup etc are as big a competition for winter sporting dollars as is possible. The only difference is that they have no other full contact winter sport, but I take your point, I would argue that population again provides enough scope to provide viewers enough that don't like soccer/football.

 

[Gnostic]

And it happens all the time, the difference is it usually put down as a "fact finding mission" where some coach goes on a world tour and gets to go to the Dallas Cowboys etc. sharing his knowledge and gaining incites/viewpoints



Or a coach calls in some unit for a couple sessions.



Actually last time Jones did it, it was Judo sessions and he put a few players in hospital.

I would be looking at the execution of that session and the coaching control of it, not the idea. The ABs have had wrestling coaches and they have been a feature in NRL teams as well IIRC.

There is no more inherent danger in a Judo session than a weights session, if properly coached and supervised, and that supervision is heeded by the players.

 

[USARugger]

I edited my post to match that aspect of yours.

The lack of other contact sports is an enormous difference.

Right now Australian rugby and the Wallabies are on life support and there are merits to both a top-end injection to try and resuscitate that top-end product for long enough that it can provide a desperately needed revenue injection to the other levels of the game as well as the strategy of focusing investment at lower levels and hoping that this will strengthen the top-end product in the longer run.

I don't think Australian rugby has the means to do both right now, which would be the ideal situation.

In one case you risk the top-level investment not providing a return and the potentially disastrous outcome this would have for the rest of the game when the cash doesn't come through. On the other hand you run the risk of the investment in lower levels of the game not providing the type of return you hoped it would at the top-level (and when there's so many external variables at play and layers to filter this through it's very hard to guarantee anything) and the top-level product then capitulating, drying up the investment stream into the lower levels of the game.

Personally I'm not exactly convinced that time is on the side of Australian rugby and it's seeming more and more each year that our best bet actually is the all-in hail mary play with the Wallabies to get the heart of Australian rugby beating again before we worry whether or not the patient can wiggle all their toes. Give them everything and anything they need/can be afforded and hope that they can make something of the rest of this RWC cycle and the RWC itself - and pray that this is enough to rejuvenate the Australian public's interest in the sport, even if this means neglecting the lower levels of the game for a period of time.

It's a very unfortunate truth.

 

[Gnostic]

I edited my post to match that aspect of yours.



The lack of other contact sports is an enormous difference.



Right now Australian rugby and the Wallabies are on life support and there are merits to both a top-end injection to try and resuscitate that top-end product for long enough that it can provide a desperately needed revenue injection to the other levels of the game as well as the strategy of focusing investment at lower levels and hoping that this will strengthen the top-end product in the longer run.



I don't think Australian rugby has the means to do both right now, which would be the ideal situation.



In one case you risk the top-level investment not providing a return and the potentially disastrous outcome this would have for the rest of the game when the cash doesn't come through. On the other hand you run the risk of either the investment in lower levels of the game not providing the type of return you hoped it would at the top-level (and when there's so many external variables at play and layers to filter this through it's very hard to guarantee anything) and the top-level product than capitulating, drying up the investment stream into the lower levels of the game.



Personally I'm not exactly convinced that time is on the side of Australian rugby and it's seeming more and more each year that our best bet actually is the all-in hail mary play with the Wallabies to get the heart of Australian rugby beating again before we worry whether or not the patient can wiggle all their toes. Give them everything and anything they need/can be afforded and hope that they can make something of the rest of this RWC cycle and the RWC itself - and pray that this is enough to rejuvenate the Australian public's interest in the sport, even if this means neglecting the lower levels of the game for a period of time.



It's a very unfortunate truth.

Great post mate. My ire is roused when I consider how much money the ARU have "pissed up the Wall" (Bill Pulver, yes, Pissed up the wall), in fundamental mismanagement issues over the past few years. Even if I immediately accept the ARU's current funding imperatives and systems they wasted enough money to fund the specialist coaches that started this conversation.