The Wallabies Thread

[wamberal]

What Wamb really means is that the Brumbies should be playing Pocock at No 8 so that there will no longer be the argument that we don't play our best No 7 in the 7 spot for the Wallabies.

I don't have an opinion one way or another as to where Pocock should play. He can play anywhere, he has learnt all he has to learn But I do think that a player like Tui, who is at the very start of his pro career, should be guided into the best position for his development and the national team's best interests.

Short term thinking, and parochialism, are okay when you are a very strong code. When you are us, you need to be a lot smarter.

 

[amirite]

I don't have an opinion one way or another as to where Pocock should play. He can play anywhere, he has learnt all he has to learn But I do think that a player like Tui, who is at the very start of his pro career, should be guided into the best position for his development and the national team's best interests.

Short term thinking, and parochialism, are okay when you are a very strong code. When you are us, you need to be a lot smarter.

There aren't really any options.

Given the Wallabies need a very good jumper at 6, and ideally a big bruising ball carrier, to make up for a badly balanced 7/8 they probably need to pick. So you can't really pick Timu or Samu, and people scream bloody murder when you pick Hanigan (who has the skillset, but not the form).

The only candidates are probably Haylett-Petty #2, Wells or Holloway, but none probably have the form. Even McMahon if hypothetically available would leave us in a bind at lineout time.

 

[Derpus]

There aren't really any options.

Given the Wallabies need a very good jumper at 6, and ideally a big bruising ball carrier, to make up for a badly balanced 7/8 they probably need to pick. So you can't really pick Timu or Samu, and people scream bloody murder when you pick Hanigan (who has the skillset, but not the form).

The only candidates are probably Haylett-Petty #2, Wells or Holloway, but none probably have the form. Even McMahon if hypothetically available would leave us in a bind at lineout time.

Stick with Tui with Hanigan on the bench (if 6-2 split). I don't really see the point in 5-3 splits bar hedging your bets and anticipating a lot of injuries.

 

[SouthernX]

I am getting pretty sick and tired of hearing people defend Cheika saying we got nobody else.

The team has gone backwards, the playing group is not held accountable for their poor performances.

I think it’s time to get rid of him and give a unknown commodity in the international arena (like Cheika was when he got the job) and get the best coaching candidate up to scratch to implement fresh ideas for our World Cup which is 12 months away.

 

[amirite]

I am getting pretty sick and tired of hearing people defend Cheika saying we got nobody else.

The team has gone backwards, the playing group is not held accountable for their poor performances.

I think it’s time to get rid of him and give a unknown commodity in the international arena (like Cheika was when he got the job) and get the best coaching candidate up to scratch to implement fresh ideas for our World Cup which is 12 months away.

But Chieka had just won Super Rugby after a successful Euro stint. There's not really anybody to give it to.

I like Wessels and I'm intrigued by Thorn, but they're not there yet. Only non-left field candidate is Larkham and that's probably more continuity than anything.

 

[RugbyReg]

I am getting pretty sick and tired of hearing people defend Cheika saying we got nobody else.

The team has gone backwards, the playing group is not held accountable for their poor performances.

I think it’s time to get rid of him and give a unknown commodity in the international arena (like Cheika was when he got the job) and get the best coaching candidate up to scratch to implement fresh ideas for our World Cup which is 12 months away.

1) I’m of the increasing belief Cheika is not the problem. A new coach may get some short term results ala Chek himself, but the results will soon return to normal. The system is fooked and in need of a change more than the coach.

2) RA is broke. We can’t afford to pay Chek out let alone paying a new coach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derpus]

1) I’m of the increasing belief Cheika is not the problem. A new coach may get some short term results ala Chek himself, but the results will soon return to normal. The system is fooked and in need of a change more than the coach.

2) RA is broke. We can’t afford to pay Chek out let alone paying a new coach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do we stop being broke?

Not a fan of twiggy but i'd probably take one for the team and give myself to him for some of that coin we/ RA proudly refused.

 

[amirite]

Still a short term form boost from a coach sacking 1 year out from a WC is not so bad.

That being said, I agree sacking Chieka will probably not drive long term benefit, especially with no obvious candidate.

 

[Lorenzo]

I am getting pretty sick and tired of hearing people defend Cheika saying we got nobody else.

The team has gone backwards, the playing group is not held accountable for their poor performances.

I think it’s time to get rid of him and give a unknown commodity in the international arena (like Cheika was when he got the job) and get the best coaching candidate up to scratch to implement fresh ideas for our World Cup which is 12 months away.

It's constant and I agree it's really irritating. They should do what they should have done when Deans was fired and call Jake White. Yeah, he's coaching Toyota and they might or might not let him go.

Proven at a)winning test rugby b) getting the most out of a team of competent but unknown players.

Why:

1. He won't take any shit. Constantly miss tackles playing in the centres? Ride the bench, regardless of how flashy you are playing against Japan.

2. No jobs for the boys. Got a demonstrated track record of successful coaching? Please apply.

3. No shoehorning in players because they are well paid or well liked, or part of RA's marketing program.

4. He'll play our footy at the right end of the paddock.

Hell, wait until the Top league season finishes in December, then bring him in. The Top league season doesn't start until Jan2020 anyway, and we'd only have to pay MC for one year of not working.

 

[Derpus]

It's constant and I agree it's really irritating. They should do what they should have done when Deans was fired and call Jake White. Yeah, he's coaching Toyota and they might or might not let him go.

Proven at a)winning test rugby b) getting the most out of a team of competent but unknown players.

Why:

1. He won't take any shit. Constantly miss tackles playing in the centres? Ride the bench, regardless of how flashy you are playing against Japan.

2. No jobs for the boys. Got a demonstrated track record of successful coaching? Please apply.

3. No shoehorning in players because they are well paid or well liked, or part of RA's marketing program.

4. He'll play our footy at the right end of the paddock.

Hell, wait until the Top league season finishes in December, then bring him in. The Top league season doesn't start until Jan2020 anyway, and we'd only have to pay MC for one year of not working.

Maybe after RWC.

 

[Gnostic]

But Chieka had just won Super Rugby after a successful Euro stint. There's not really anybody to give it to.



I like Wessels and I'm intrigued by Thorn, but they're not there yet. Only non-left field candidate is Larkham and that's probably more continuity than anything.

How are these blokes genuine candidates. The Rebels were pretty average this year in a very average Australian Conference. Thorn was very heavily criticised and rightly so and would have to be on thin ice with the Reds. As for Larkham, even Thorn has more coaching trophies in his cabinet.

 

[Gnostic]

1) I’m of the increasing belief Cheika is not the problem. A new coach may get some short term results ala Chek himself, but the results will soon return to normal. The system is fooked and in need of a change more than the coach.

2) RA is broke. We can’t afford to pay Chek out let alone paying a new coach.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On point 1 it is essentially what I have been saying for 8 years here and elsewhere, as far back as when I questioned why regardless of who was coaching the Tahs the results were shit. Chieka came in and in 18 months won the title but then it again turned to shit, for various reasons which were again predictable.

I have become of the firm belief that Chieka is a brilliant change operative, just look at his results with various sides and you will see he achieves peak results in that 18 month window, after that we see a plateau and then a rapid decline in actual performance and commensurate results. The Wallabies outperformed at the 2015 RWC, within that window, and we have seen the same selection issues and performance decline since then as we saw at the Tahs in 2015.

One of the biggest problems is that there is nobody of any proven coaching ability excepting Byrne in the whole group and it shows in the attack and defence systems.

On point 2 - nobody, ever should be signed to a 5 year contract. that is silly. Form and fitness over that period are just impossible to judge and the shear cash locked up prevents any significant investment being made in newer players that may well be deserving of a shot on genuine form and actual performance. That is before we consider the genuinely debatable point on whether he is even worth that price. So when we consider if RA can even afford to sack this band of under achievers we have to also consider if RA has the ability to run the game in itself as well. They have not proven at any time they are fiscally prudent and Hooper's contract reinforces my view on that.

I agree RA cannot afford to sack Chieka. I do think however they must stop the rot and rescind Hoopers contract or at least revisit it and put in some circuit breakers, (and if he goes he goes - IMHO he is not the best 7 available to Australia in any event) and then terminate the contracts of Larkham and Grey immediately after the RC, regardless of any further results. Chieka can then do his motivation shit, and some real coaching can be done by some proven assistants, who may then be able to take over after the RWC, or when Chieka resigns at the end of this year as I think could well be likely if the results continue as they are, which is on comparative performances the most likely outcome.

 

[amirite]

How are these blokes genuine candidates. The Rebels were pretty average this year in a very average Australian Conference. Thorn was very heavily criticised and rightly so and would have to be on thin ice with the Reds. As for Larkham, even Thorn has more coaching trophies in his cabinet.

In all fairness, you should probably actually read the post where I say "Only non-left field candidate is Larkham and that's probably more continuity than anything" before you take a counter stance.


I think we agree, but you're creatively trying not to.

 

[Tigs Man]

To'omua and Taf arriving in England today.

 

[Up the Guts]

Cron looks to be the coach with the most potential, shame he’s a number of years away from being international ready. I’d hope we’d try and keep him in Australia but can foresee us losing him overseas and then losing to whatever team he coaches.

 

[Gnostic]

In all fairness, you should probably actually read the post where I say "Only non-left field candidate is Larkham and that's probably more continuity than anything" before you take a counter stance.





I think we agree, but you're creatively trying not to.

No. I don't we agree at all. I'm not be creatively obtuse. Larkham should not be considered a candidate under any circumstances. There is nothing that this coaching panel has achieved in the last three years that remotely qualifies any of them for consideration. ​

Continuity would only be a factor if there had been some sort of success or a systemic improvement that could be demonstrated if that success was bloke by externals such as simply better performances from teams like the ABs significantly improving. I don't think there is any debate now that this is the case, I think it has been accepted by most that the Wallabies have not improved on any metric and in significant aspects have regressed.​

​

 

[RugbyReg]

Eddie Jones won titles with the Brumbies and then took over the Wallabies. He had some success in the first 18 months but it declined after that. He then helped the Boks to a RWC win, coached the Japs to their best RWC performance and took England on a record undefeated run.

John Connolly took over following titles won with the Reds (and OS coaching experience). He did some ok things in his 2 years but never beat the ABs and crashed out of the RWC in the quarters.

Robbie Deans won more super titles than anyone. He battled for about 6 years. A few wins v NZ, a good record v SAF (particularly away from home), a 3rd at the RWC and a close lions series loss. Still his win - loss record is barely about 50%. He’s actually still winning in Japan.

Ewen turned the Reds around and one a title. His tenure at the wallabies was dire despite a strong UK / Europe tour.

Chek has had much success, at home and abroad. Despite that early positive at the RWC, his win loss no rivals Link.

It’s not as if we haven’t had good or successful coaches over the last 17 years. Clearly the major issue is not the coach.

 

[Slim 293]

Reg - Connolly did get one win against the All Blacks in Melbourne in 2007......... prime Mortlock.

 

[Lorenzo]

I don't care much who it is, but I think we need someone offshore and not a New Zealander.

Offshore, because I want someone entirely free of infection by the running rugby myth and the gameplan cancers that are fed by it. Also, there's no one here remotely qualified. I think this relates to Reg's point a little bit - everyone (all the coaches we've had, that is) has had to deal with the supposed need to entertain (to compete with the other codes) whilst also trying to win. I want a coach to come in and not give a rat's ass about the Wallaby way, or ball-in-hand, or running rugby, or whatever you want to call that stuff. People are changing the fucking channel now anyway, so all of the focus on entertainment has been for nought. There's nothing entertaining - at least to the marginal fan that we are trying to attract / are worried about losing - about 40 points to 12 (when you are the 12, anyway). Just win. Bill Pulver used to speak publicly about the need to play running rugby. No thanks, let's just win 4 or 5 in a row and then we can worry about the style in which we do it if the fans are so sick of winning that they need it to be sexy (spoiler: you start winning tests again on the regular and no one will complain about style for quite some time).

Not a New Zealander, because I don't think NZ coaches are at all well drilled at getting the best out of a bunch of ramshackle scrubs, purely because they've never had cause to learn that craft. I mean, I think we all know that the AB setup now pretty much runs itself, and I'm left wondering if Robbie Deans wasn't a fish out of water when he landed in a setup that didn't have an effectively unlimited supply of stud footballers. There are guys in the wallaby setup that don't possess the basic skills required by their positions, but need to be picked because we are paying them $1m a year. I'm not wild about that, either, but it's not something a pro kiwi coach is going to be good at fixing.

 

[Bullrush]

Wayne Smith.

I think it is widely recognised that he was the coach who set-up the Crusaders framework and culture which is still largely in place today. I think the Chiefs won their titles while he was an assistant there. Head coach of the ABs but also assistant to both Henry and Hansen.

The Blues should be stalking him incessantly actually.....LOL