Whether it is Cheika or Foley or anyone else, I can’t accept the argument that is better to keep an under performer in a position until a better option comes along. If it is clear that a player or coach hasn’t got what it takes you need to make a call on them and make room to find the right answer. Maybe we need to burn through 3 or 4 more flyhalves a 2 more coaches before we land on a long term answer but better to do that than plod on with something that will never be more than mediocre. You do need to take care not to ruin a young prospect by exposing him prematurely but we do need to take a few risks and roll the dice.
Australia v England
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
- Status
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
England won because their players are better at executing the core skills of the game than the Wallabies are. Early in the game, the Wallabies tried a passing play and the ball went astray and the commentators simply said words to the effect, they just don't have the skill to do that.
IMO we're left with the following:
A the players don't possess the skill level or mental approach needed for the game Cheika wants them to play, or
B Cheika can't effectively teach them the core skills or mental approach for the game he wants them to play, or
C the game Cheika wants them to play (running the ball at all costs in every situation) isn't going to work at test level, or
D all of the above
IMO we're left with the following:
A the players don't possess the skill level or mental approach needed for the game Cheika wants them to play, or
B Cheika can't effectively teach them the core skills or mental approach for the game he wants them to play, or
C the game Cheika wants them to play (running the ball at all costs in every situation) isn't going to work at test level, or
D all of the above
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
No idea, but if that's the 1950's ethos it sounds alright.How is,life back in the 1950s?
dru
David Wilson (68)
With the unlikely but possible exception of Gibson they are unproven at Super and not ready for international. It would be a repeat of the Larkham call.
It does nothing for Aus rugby imo to fluff with the Waa is by under-valuing Super (or preferably a true Aussie pro second tier).
Cron is not ready.
Maybe Laurie HC, Mackay assistant (had for the Reds) and hang on to Bernie? The skills bloke - hold. Where is Stiles? Scrum coach?
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
Great post. We can't wait until we have a coach that is certain to succeed. We we will never hire one. We can't stick with the current coach as he has had 3 full years to prepare a team that should be fine tuning for the RWC, rather than gradually getting worse. We need to take a punt and hire the coaches available that give us the best chance to start winning test footy as soon as possible. If that means we abandon the Australian style (whatever that is) then so fucking be it. If it means some of the fan favourites are dropped from the squad for players that are more reliable or have the actual skills required to play their positions, then so be it.
If it means next year is worse than this year, then that is fine because at least we TRIED.
Pro sports is about rinsing and repeating until you succeed. You don't hang on to your 4 and 9 coach becuase there's a chance the next coach might go 3 and 10.
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Saw this interesting piece on the ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11...-rugby-struggling-ahead-of-world-cup/10552682
Most notably this:
So we all are critical and continue to be (rightly so) at our players and coaches for being substandard, but when almost all of them are, is it really all on the players and coaches?
(I'm not excusing poor performances from the players and coaches - I'm just trying to find why they're so poor)
Most notably this:
Eddie Jones said:
So we all are critical and continue to be (rightly so) at our players and coaches for being substandard, but when almost all of them are, is it really all on the players and coaches?
(I'm not excusing poor performances from the players and coaches - I'm just trying to find why they're so poor)
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Only trouble with Eddie's comments is that all the provinces are virtually bankrupt, so who is left to run the game!
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
The article is a realistic appraisal and accords with what many of us have been saying for quite a while.
Because it comes from EJ (Eddie Jones), the powers that be will dismiss it entirely.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Capable rugby people who aren't from a narrow clique of Sydney and Brisbane GPS old boys
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Not many of those, lets be honest. Hardest part of getting rid of the old boys is finding someone else interested.
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
Think you’re selling some people a bit short there, sure there’s plenty of people from gps heritage who would do an amazing job transforming Australian rugby given the chance
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
It’s always been a struggle for rugby in Oz. Nothing’s changed in that regard and in fact the Sydney and Brisbane comps are having a bit of a resurgence at the moment.
Super rugby is dead and will soon be gone. Hopefully we will have a trans Tasman comp in place alongside the ARC.
Ultimately we will probably have to relax our eligibility requirements to allow OS players to represent if we want to stay in the top tier or thereabouts.
The game has changed and RA need to adjust as it does.
That does not mean Cheika is off the hook. His coaching philosophy has failed over time.
Super rugby is dead and will soon be gone. Hopefully we will have a trans Tasman comp in place alongside the ARC.
Ultimately we will probably have to relax our eligibility requirements to allow OS players to represent if we want to stay in the top tier or thereabouts.
The game has changed and RA need to adjust as it does.
That does not mean Cheika is off the hook. His coaching philosophy has failed over time.
notapatrioticboneinme
Sydney Middleton (9)
and fortuitous timing (rodda off balance)
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
wessells and thorn still have their L plates on...to think otherwise given how long they have been head coaches of professional rugby outfits would be foolhardy. Gibson was close to getting the boot at the Tahs so equally not suitable. Cron - yep again not ready and too early. For Me Laurie, yes, Stiles as forwards coach definitely yes. Mackay - don't know so well....
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
History would suggest not.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
1) Owen "No Arms" Farrell has walked free of sanction for shoulder charges in his last three tests. The Rodda "tackle" was a penalty and a yellow card and there a penalty try. No ifs or buts. Three of said tackles in three weeks, he should now be suspended. Apart from this glaring error I thought Peyper (and over three weeks he is not alone in this) had a good game.
2) The Wallabies attack is beyond woeful :-
a) Kicking is an essential part of Rugby, the headless chook running game that has been employed last year and earlier this year is stupid and easily beaten by a stout organised defence. The Wallabies kicking though rarely is well executed even when it is the right time to kick. To start with the wrong players continue to be in the position to kick and no second option is in position to make the opposition guess who is going to kick, allowing easy charge downs like got DHP. The second part of attacking kicks, be they chips, box kicks or a contesting high kick is that they must be accurate to allow a genuine contest. Against England I do not care to count how many of these types of kicks were made but there was only a single kick that was truly contestable. Second part of attacking kicks is for territory, the Wallabies rarely kick for territory, possibly because their lineout is unable to pressure the opposition enough to make it worthwhile, but surely there has to be something better than just thumping as far as one can down the middle of the pitch. Was it one or two tries this led to in this game?
b) The attack structure with ball in hand is very poor and without a couple of bits of individual running brilliance DHP in the 2nd half and Folau in the first ball in hand metres in real terms would be negative as on every phase they go backwards as they execute 5 metres behind the gain line on each pass, even with their switches and "dummy" runners which surely offer no surprise because they are executed so deep. Then the big looped pass out to the wing, which due to the depth of the play may actually get back to the advantage line of the initial ruck. if the pass is received well, because I didn't see one well executed, and often the player is tackled behind the gain line, forced out or the pass is missed altogether thereby conceding possession. Larkham as an attack coach has shown noting at any level to justify his position as a test coach and the Wallabies attack is the most toothless of any international team.
3) Defence - I do not think the structure has improved, not at all, we have an improved application by some players, but the system itself sets them up to fail as they must burn everything running around doing nothing just shuffling positions trying to keep the system working. Its rubbish.
4) Set piece - the scrum is a shambles again. The second row got popped out of the scrum before the front row stood up . How does this happen, if they are tight and under their props? IMO it looked like they were playing games and not scrumming with power but trying to wheel and play silly buggers from the second row. Kepu, AAA and SIO are very good props, Latu and TPN excellent scrummagers, to see this crap again is very disheartening. If a couple of scrums can turn a game, having a dysfunctional lineout makes it impossible to compete in the game effectively. I counted three complete over throws in this game alone, and while they won most of their own ball they were never a threat to the opposition.
The Wallabies were never in this game and even the drawn score at half time and taking into account the probably penalty try for the Farrell shoulder charge, the Wallabies were flattered. There can be no doubting their endeavour and effort, the players are trying, but the systems mean the sum of the parts is less than its potential by far.
2) The Wallabies attack is beyond woeful :-
a) Kicking is an essential part of Rugby, the headless chook running game that has been employed last year and earlier this year is stupid and easily beaten by a stout organised defence. The Wallabies kicking though rarely is well executed even when it is the right time to kick. To start with the wrong players continue to be in the position to kick and no second option is in position to make the opposition guess who is going to kick, allowing easy charge downs like got DHP. The second part of attacking kicks, be they chips, box kicks or a contesting high kick is that they must be accurate to allow a genuine contest. Against England I do not care to count how many of these types of kicks were made but there was only a single kick that was truly contestable. Second part of attacking kicks is for territory, the Wallabies rarely kick for territory, possibly because their lineout is unable to pressure the opposition enough to make it worthwhile, but surely there has to be something better than just thumping as far as one can down the middle of the pitch. Was it one or two tries this led to in this game?
b) The attack structure with ball in hand is very poor and without a couple of bits of individual running brilliance DHP in the 2nd half and Folau in the first ball in hand metres in real terms would be negative as on every phase they go backwards as they execute 5 metres behind the gain line on each pass, even with their switches and "dummy" runners which surely offer no surprise because they are executed so deep. Then the big looped pass out to the wing, which due to the depth of the play may actually get back to the advantage line of the initial ruck. if the pass is received well, because I didn't see one well executed, and often the player is tackled behind the gain line, forced out or the pass is missed altogether thereby conceding possession. Larkham as an attack coach has shown noting at any level to justify his position as a test coach and the Wallabies attack is the most toothless of any international team.
3) Defence - I do not think the structure has improved, not at all, we have an improved application by some players, but the system itself sets them up to fail as they must burn everything running around doing nothing just shuffling positions trying to keep the system working. Its rubbish.
4) Set piece - the scrum is a shambles again. The second row got popped out of the scrum before the front row stood up . How does this happen, if they are tight and under their props? IMO it looked like they were playing games and not scrumming with power but trying to wheel and play silly buggers from the second row. Kepu, AAA and SIO are very good props, Latu and TPN excellent scrummagers, to see this crap again is very disheartening. If a couple of scrums can turn a game, having a dysfunctional lineout makes it impossible to compete in the game effectively. I counted three complete over throws in this game alone, and while they won most of their own ball they were never a threat to the opposition.
The Wallabies were never in this game and even the drawn score at half time and taking into account the probably penalty try for the Farrell shoulder charge, the Wallabies were flattered. There can be no doubting their endeavour and effort, the players are trying, but the systems mean the sum of the parts is less than its potential by far.
- Status