Australian Rugby / RA

[KOB1987]

Wasn't that announced a couple of months back? Also, central contracting is only the first relative minor step we need to take. There's a whole lot more on the admin side of the equation that is needed to be centralised. This would help answer the where in regards to money for the future fund plus more.

Agreed, Clyne did make reference to our outdated federated model so at least they recognise that, I think it would be virtually impossible to change the structure at that level in one fell swoop.

 

[Derpus]

Yes, and what about the Position Description of this new role - RA's announcement today (see www.rugby.com.au) says this new role is principally re 'off field' Wallaby matters - WTF?

How does this role interface with Kafer's national coaching and coach development role?

Why in a financially tight RA environment is a Wallaby HC and a 'Director of Rugby' above him needed? What really is the intended and definable value-add of the latter role? How will confusion re team direction etc not result with two head-strong bosses one way or another over-sighting the Wallabies? Will a new, post-RWC Wallaby HC of good calibre (don't laugh please) accept that role duality?

Are you just posing these questions as a thought experiment? I don't really think RA have an obligation to answer any of these questions, nor will they.

I don't see why other head coaches would have a problem working with a selection panel and director of rugby. Shag uses a panel, European countries use directors. Seems to work fine for everyone else.

RA seem to be making a lot of gradual, structural changes. They are trying to centralize more, they are trying to secure future talent, the implementation of a selection panel is certainly progress. This all seems far more productive to me than a knee jerk sacking.

None of it helps us next year though. RWC is not looking promising.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

Not necessarily, they just haven't announced what they're going to do yet.

Would really like to hear where the thinking is on the success (or lack thereof) in the 20s program. All the focus appears to be on the top jobs yet once again we appear to be ignoring the pathways.
Great time to clear the cupboard and get some serious skills in this critical area. You only need to look at the academy models set up in europe and the success that is being achieved.
What we have here is nothing short of a joke..

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Agreed, Clyne did make reference to our outdated federated model so at least they recognise that, I think it would be virtually impossible to change the structure at that level in one fell swoop.

As much as I would like to see a broom taken to the entire structure in one motion I tend to agree. The one fell swoop approach would absolutely lead to significant push back. So central contracting and decision-making power over talent would be a good first step. But ultimately everything needs to be centralised with the respective teams operating out of HP centres in each respective location. How best to do this? Well, wait for them to fail financially.

 

[Tomikin]

Yes, and what about the Position Description of this new role - RA's announcement today (see www.rugby.com.au) says this new role is principally re 'off field' Wallaby matters - WTF?

How does this role interface with Kafer's national coaching and coach development role?

Why in a financially tight RA environment is a Wallaby HC and a 'Director of Rugby' above him needed? What really is the intended and definable value-add of the latter role? How will confusion re team direction etc not result with two head-strong bosses one way or another over-sighting the Wallabies? Will a new, post-RWC Wallaby HC of good calibre (don't laugh please) accept that role duality?

Hahaha can you see it now Jake White, being 'Managed' by Johnson..

 

[wamberal]

Hahaha can you see it now Jake White, being 'Managed' by Johnson..

Johnson used to kick a lot when he played SS. They would get on like a house on fire.

 

[Rebels3]

Wasn't that announced a couple of months back? Also, central contracting is only the first relative minor step we need to take. There's a whole lot more on the admin side of the equation that is needed to be centralised. This would help answer the where in regards to money for the future fund plus more.

Think it's no coincidence that they announced the signing of Pasitoa to the Brumbies from 2020 after saying something about it today.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2018/12/12/pasitoa-signs-with-brumbies-for-2020

I'm interested and happy to hear that the fund appears to be privately funded.

 

[Set piece magic]

I back the Director of Rugby position. I've made earlier comments about moderating the autocratic nature of Head Coach with institutional checks and balances, and this is the right move.

A good analogy is a director/producer relationship in a movie. The director of the movie wants to get the best product, the beauty and the film. The producer tells him the constraints, the resources, the profit motive for the company.

They bicker and argue, before coming to the best decision which gives the best film for the best price and use of resources.

This is the type of HC/DoR relationship I want at Rugby AU - in an analogous sense obviously, because it is not a hollywood studio

 

[dru]

Are we really getting happy (or less discontented) with a more centralised model - - - under CLYNE?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Think it's no coincidence that they announced the signing of Pasitoa to the Brumbies from 2020 after saying something about it today.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2018/12/12/pasitoa-signs-with-brumbies-for-2020

I'm interested and happy to hear that the fund appears to be privately funded.

I'd be interested to find out exactly how much this private donor had to donate in order to sign the kid. In fact, I'd like to find how many of these boosters exist and if significant enough what would be the best strategy to employ in regards to building the fund up in order to retain more and more talent.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Are we really getting happy (or less discontented) with a more centralised model - - - under CLYNE?

I admit I am still rather sceptical as to the ability of anyone within the current administration to actually pull it off to the exact degree we need in order to right the ship. In terms of dollars and cents being a banker Clyne would understand the need to cut back on costs etc. but how to translate into functional alternatives that can then be initiated in order to take advantage of the efficiencies and cost savings. That's a whole other question.

 

[barbarian]

I'd be interested to find out exactly how much this private donor had to donate in order to sign the kid. In fact, I'd like to find how many of these boosters exist and if significant enough what would be the best strategy to employ in regards to building the fund up in order to retain more and more talent.

The Australian Rugby Foundation is that, WCR. Basically a big donation slush fund that is put towards various causes - women's rugby, schoolboy rugby (they are funding the current O/S tour I believe), few other things.

Chipped in more than $1m this year, I believe.
.

 

[KOB1987]

I agree with that but as I've stated in the absence of someone of suitably high standard we may as well stick with Cheika till after the RWC as he's always referred back to 'the plan'. I suspect we will see 'the plan' unfold as we head into the RWC campaign and a lot of the last 3 years' head scratches will make more sense. Said suitably high standard candidates aren't going to appear until after the RWC.

There was a murmer from someone on Twitter about an independent selector also being appointed, but I can't find it now to acetone it's relevance.

Never did find that Tweet again, whoever put it up might have got a rap on the knuckles to pull it!

EDIT: this was Friday morning

 

[RugbyReg]

Never did find that Tweet again, whoever put it up might have got a rap on the knuckles to pull it!

EDIT: this was Friday morning

it's in the press release:

Johnson and Cheika will be joined by a third, independent selector to make up a new National Selection Panel that will oversee Qantas Wallabies squad and team selection. The independent selector will be appointed in early 2019.

 

[KOB1987]

I know that, I was trying to find the tweet again that someone put up on Friday morning. Anyway, no matter, it was just the only time I saw it spruiked before the actual announcement.

 

[RedsHappy]

Are you just posing these questions as a thought experiment? I don't really think RA have an obligation to answer any of these questions, nor will they.

I don't see why other head coaches would have a problem working with a selection panel and director of rugby. Shag uses a panel, European countries use directors. Seems to work fine for everyone else.

RA seem to be making a lot of gradual, structural changes. They are trying to centralize more, they are trying to secure future talent, the implementation of a selection panel is certainly progress. This all seems far more productive to me than a knee jerk sacking.

None of it helps us next year though. RWC is not looking promising.

Thanks for doing RA's pre-emptive work for them in this forum and 'correcting' me. How silly and impertinent of me to pose questions of RA that they 'have no obligation to answer.' Hell, I actually haven't sat on the RA board so I would have no ability to comment or assess such moves as they are making.

I pose these questions as:

(a) history shows that trusting RA to make strategically sound decisions re elite coaching matters - either in terms of supervisory infrastructure or spot decisions - is foolish and irrational and so their policies and decisions in such areas should be heavily questioned and scrutinised as to how well they are made and/or how well they will work and

(b) my deep suspicion re the new 'director of rugby' role over-sighting the Wallaby HC et al is that it is a masked proxy for the deeper fact that the RA board itself does not have the competence or courage or both to know how to properly re-do the Wallaby coaching capability as a whole and so it is adding another (no doubt $$ expensive) management layer to do what it should actually be capable of doing today and with its avowed 'High Performance Manager' and his support resources in place today.

***
Re your point re the relatively low productivity of a 'knee jerk sacking (of Cheika)'.

Cheika's now last 3-year-long track record as HC of the Wallabies is nothing short of appalling, by year, by titles, by home series, whatever. Many fans are totally sick (me included) of paying large $s for Wallaby tickets only to see such endlessly skill-less, mediocre performances. Sacking Cheika would not under any circumstances have been a 'knee jerk' reaction given his long and poor record. He would never have survived in, say, NZ or England with this type of relative record (relative to those country's history and w-l national team records).

 

[Derpus]

(b) my deep suspicion re the new 'director of rugby' role over-sighting the Wallaby HC et al is that it is a masked proxy for the deeper fact that the RA board itself does not have the competence or courage or both to know how to properly re-do the Wallaby coaching capability as a whole and so it is adding another (no doubt $$ expensive) management layer to do what it should actually be capable of doing today and with its avowed 'High Performance Manager' and his support resources in place today.

I didn't correct you bro. I just pointed out that no one is going to answer your questions.

And i gave my opinion on whether future coaches would have a problem working with a director of rugby and selection panel.

As regards (b). Surely if the RA board know they don't have the necessary knowledge or experience to do the job required then it makes absolutely perfect sense to get someone in who has a proven track record of implementing the exact system they want to emulate? Seems rational to me.

Look, i love knocking RA as much as the next man but they seem to have made a fairly calm and measured move here. Hard to tell if it will turn out to be a 'good' one. But it was certainly better than sacking Cheika and getting in another spud like Jake White and ending up in the exact same position a year or two down the track. Everyone knows structural change is whats needed, not bandaids.

 

[Quick Hands]

Thanks for doing RA's pre-emptive work for them in this forum and 'correcting' me. How silly and impertinent of me to pose questions of RA that they 'have no obligation to answer.' Hell, I actually haven't sat on the RA board so I would have no ability to comment or assess such moves as they are making.

I pose these questions as:

(a) history shows that trusting RA to make strategically sound decisions re elite coaching matters - either in terms of supervisory infrastructure or spot decisions - is foolish and irrational and so their policies and decisions in such areas should be heavily questioned and scrutinised as to how well they are made and/or how well they will work and

(b) my deep suspicion re the new 'director of rugby' role over-sighting the Wallaby HC et al is that it is a masked proxy for the deeper fact that the RA board itself does not have the competence or courage or both to know how to properly re-do the Wallaby coaching capability as a whole and so it is adding another (no doubt $$ expensive) management layer to do what it should actually be capable of doing today and with its avowed 'High Performance Manager' and his support resources in place today.

***
Re your point re the relatively low productivity of a 'knee jerk sacking (of Cheika)'.

Cheika's now last 3-year-long track record as HC of the Wallabies is nothing short of appalling, by year, by titles, by home series, whatever. Many fans are totally sick (me included) of paying large $s for Wallaby tickets only to see such endlessly skill-less, mediocre performances. Sacking Cheika would not under any circumstances have been a 'knee jerk' reaction given his long and poor record. He would never have survived in, say, NZ or England with this type of relative record (relative to those country's history and w-l national team records).

Noting also: no job description, no application process, no selection process, no public disclosure that the job even existed. Everything just done in secret by those who presume to know more than the rest of us and then presented as a fait acompli.

 

[Juan Cote]

At a time when Aust rugby needs strong and decisive leadership, this soft-shoe announcement does not provide it. Either back Cheika or sack him. Not try and do both.

 

[formerflanker]

re the DoR job description - I heard The Goth say in a radio interview that Johnson would be responsible for off-field aspects of Wallaby development such as Sports Science and Sports Psychology. Cheika would be responsible for all on-field preparation and games.

If correct, I am filled with an even larger sense of foreboding than before the announcement.