Search results

Maybe the last 12 years haven't really happened, it is 2006 and I've been in a horrible dream all this time meaning rugby in Australia isn't a shambolic mess.

Saw the headline, clicked on the story and then saw it was dated 2006. Le plus ça change, le plus le même chose: Scott Johnson to join new-look Wallaby Coaching structure http://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/_/id/15383996/scott-johnson-join-new-look-wallaby-coaching-structure

We have to stick with him unless, and only unless, there is an option who is (a) available, (b) affordable, and (c) with proven success at international level.

Strength and conditioning/fitness seems a perennial problem in Australian professional rugby. Super players we're told aren't properly prepared for test rugby and need to undertake extensive training to be where they should be. But once competition starts i.e. tests, the training should...

Robbie Deans would be a better choice.

I think that the players recognise that he is in it for them and he supports them in public. Pocock is also intelligent enough to realise that there are other long term factors responsible for the results such as the title of this thread.

The only scenario in which Cheika is sacked that would be an improvement would be the appointment of an experienced coach who has proven success at international level. To sack Cheika and appoint someone like Larkham does more long term damage than keeping Cheika, no matter what the results at...

Hmm, sacking the organ grinder and replacing him with the monkey. I don't see the point. I'm not convinced that Larkham is up to coaching at super level, let alone test level. Leaving that aside, and assuming that he has the potential to at some point in the future has the potential to coach...

To sack the assistants and keep Cheika, who as you rightly indicate were appointed by RA at the insistence of Cheika, would be bizarre even by RA standards. But as we saw with the Clyne 50 second press conference the other day, just when you think RA can't be any worse they come up with...

Eales should have been the right bloke as well. Both outstanding Wallabies, but Eales became an apologist for the status quo and Waugh looks like following the same path. We obviously want some corporate knowledge on the board, but as long as the whole board is made up of corporate networkers...

He's now in his post-rugby career and very much dependent on a network of people for advancement within that career path. It's a symptom of how people are appointed to these rugby boards. Like any appointment, RA board members need to impress those who appointed them and this doesn't include...

Yes indeed. Shore school and a bank executive - there's that diversity that RA are famous for.;)

They're all about process and not about outcomes. RA, NSWRU et al could go for Olympic gold at waffling on about processes, unfortunately they'd struggle to get out of the heats in the outcomes event.

Seats on the boards of major sports is now part of the corporate gravy train, like directorships of large companies. The same faces rotate around and most are just corporate hacks. There was a time when those who ran large companies had an interest in their staff and customers as well as...

I wouldn't say 'diverse' as rugby's lack of appeal to the diverse groups which now make up Australian society (or lack of real effort to appeal to non-traditional supporters) which is part of the problem. Splintered, absolutely yes at all levels and all geographic areas.

^^Fair points Froggy^^

Phil Waugh has an executive position at Westpac. He's part of the clique and therefore (unfortunately) part of the problem.

They won't sack Cheika - they've telegraphed this with strategic leaks over the past few weeks. They'll essentially do nothing, while appearing to do something such as: Come up with a range of KPIs Sack the assistants - which is what I think will happen. Standard big bank CEO thinking...

You play word games and then you seek to dismiss a view just because you don't agree to it. There are two views, you have one and I have a different one - neither are null and void. Using terms like that just discredits your argument. I notice you didn't address the resilience part.