John S
Chilla Wilson (44)
Who? When? lol
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Sir Arthur Higgins
Dick Tooth (41)
Count me as one.
Honestly who does care. It was 40 years ago
I will hear no ill-talk of Slacky!
Besides he was a coach in the modern professional era, has had board positions etc with QRU and ARU, is still very much involved with the younger generation (probably not widely know but he is a pseudo mentor for a bunch of the young Reds backs - spends a lot of time with Jock, Jordy, Lynagh etc) and is just genuinely one of the good guys with no agendas and just wants the best for the game.
Besides he was a coach in the modern professional era, has had board positions etc with QRU and ARU, is still very much involved with the younger generation (probably not widely know but he is a pseudo mentor for a bunch of the young Reds backs - spends a lot of time with Jock, Jordy, Lynagh etc) and is just genuinely one of the good guys with no agendas and just wants the best for the game.
The Engine Room
Ward Prentice (10)
I would also be looking a little further than Slacky, Goog and Darlene to undertake this significant project. Would have thought the ARU might have looked a little further for the review panel to include people who have experienced sporting success internationally (Olympics, World Championships) from high performance programs. Peter Conde (sailing/AIS) is one the springs to mind immediately. All quality people at this stage but I think if the ARU want to be really thorough, the review panel should be at least 5-6 people or more (with defined scopes) and bring insights from other high performing/successful teams and programs (ie. David Nucifora - Ireland for example). A question to the forum - who else would you consider would add value to the review team??
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
I don't think they could've had Peter Conde as part of the review given he was the high performance director up until March this year (resigned November last year). That's much too involved to be an impartial voice.
SteveWA
Charlie Fox (21)
Does that disqualify him from the role?
The question is how much do you want to spend on the report that tells you that the RWC campaign was terrible?
If you bring in people from too far outside the picture how much access to people and information is there to be able to make an informed and worthwhile opinion? It's not like we're running a Royal Commission here with the power to subpoena witnesses and documents.
My view is that most of the people involved need to have a pretty strong understanding of the state of play already.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Having not looked into it - what's the point of the report? Are they analyzing the sporting outcomes or are they looking at the structure and it's deficiencies.
I think it would be really good to get the perspective of someone who has been a part of a large number of RWC campaigns, both good and bad, with multiple nations.
Eddie Jones is a name that springs to mind. I believe he's on the payroll for a few more weeks. Put him to work.
Eddie Jones is a name that springs to mind. I believe he's on the payroll for a few more weeks. Put him to work.
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
1. Were actually too obsessed with winning they didn't focus enough on playing rugby.
2. Didn't eat enough croissants. When you're burning a lot of calories playing sport, the mix of carbohydrates and fat is actually a pretty good source of energy.
Last edited:
John S
Chilla Wilson (44)
So, basically hiring EJ (Eddie Jones) was a shit idea.
shanky
Darby Loudon (17)
I actually like Goog and think his game analysis shows good insight and a fresh take on the usual "need to play in their half" stuff we get from certain ex-players
I'm hoping we get some of that thinking in this report.
However, with The Flubber pulling the strings, I'm certain what we'll get instead, is a list of recommendations, all of which say 'CENTRALISATION' but using more fancy words
I'm hoping we get some of that thinking in this report.
However, with The Flubber pulling the strings, I'm certain what we'll get instead, is a list of recommendations, all of which say 'CENTRALISATION' but using more fancy words
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
Is that not, in all likelihood, a presumably valid conclusion though?
given his propensity for cliches I can see the report already.
They looked out of synch. They made a lot of un-forced errors. They appeared to lack consistency. They weren't playing to win - they're playing not to lose. They didn't have their heads in the game. They went to the well once too often. When it rains it pours. The losses really took the wind out of their sails. The wheels just fell off.
They're going to have to make some adjustments. They've got to go back and re-group. They must maintain their composure. They have to get back on track. They have to circle the wagons.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Detail. Every analysis of his includes the word detail.
The Engine Room
Ward Prentice (10)
I still don't see what the terms of reference/scope for this review is/are with much clarity. The issues with the Wallabies goes far and wide and historical, so in my view this review needs to look into the schools, clubs, coaching programs, State bodies, Super 15 involvement, national and State high performance operations at a minimum. If I was involved, I would add the role/influence of player-managers. I'll wait for the call from Phil W.