Australian Rugby / RA

[Joe Blow]

Yes, little will change between now and the RWC, even if a couple of support coaches are replaced. The most important aspect of our game that has degenerated has been the forward play in general, including set piece.

The three person selection panel will be good and I hope the third selector chosen brings something very different to the table. We will go to the RWC on a hope and a prayer and rebuild a decent coaching team post Japan.

 

[Dave Beat]

Poor performance with most employers a staff member gets managed out, not paid out.

Having to payout some one who has achieved - what have we come to?

 

[Dave Beat]

The more I read the more I'm convinced that it's not about money, it's the fact that they can't find a suitable alternative to replace Cheika.

The word is they have offered the job around, but it appears they haven't found anyone to take it - understandable given we're only 6-7 months from a World Cup and all good coaches are under contract.

So they change the only thing they can - the assistants. Which is something. A fresh set of eyes can only be a good thing, but I'm not sure if it's enough.

Amazed Grey has survived the chop. He'd be first out the door if I was in the chair.
.

Maybe candidates don't get or are frustrated with the ARU boys club as well.

 

[Quick Hands]

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.

I suspect that when Johnson asked what the postion was, that the response would have been something like "Just do what you're doing at Scotland"

 

[Brumby Runner]

I have heard a couple of news reports now where it has been stated that it will be up to Johnson and Cheika together to determine the future of the Assistant Coaches. Indeed, I think I heard Clyne say precisely that in one interview.

It would seem to me that Johnson has absolutely no first hand knowledge of the respective skills, or lack thereof, of the Assistants. Just how he would have any inkling of their real strengths and weaknesses is beyond me. The test schedule for 2019 will have the Wallabies facing South Africa, Argentina and New Zealand (twice) in July/August before the RWC kicks off one month later. Where and when will Johnson get the intimate knowledge of the Assistants to be able to contribute in any meaningful way to a discussion of their worth and futures?

Apart from the RA Board, only Cheika has the exposure to and understanding of his Assistants to make a judgement on their abilities, and given his continued support of Larkham and Grey over the past three years of declining performances by the team, any change on his part now smacks of scape-goating and excusing his own short comings. The failure of the Board to take responsibility for the shambles that the Wallabies are now, is spineless in the extreme.

Johnson's appointment, to me, looks to be all about putting in another layer of management to deflect accountability away from the Board, or at least from the Chairman and the CEO.

Like Redshappy above, I think this set up will lead to even more issues in coming months as divisions between Cheika and Johnson become evident, and I cannot see any positive aspects at all leading to the RWC.

 

[KOB1987]

Some of the criticism seems a bit exuberant to me, I think a lot of punters on here aren't going to be happy unless the organisation is shaken up and looks perfect in their world. It ain't going to happen folks. No-one is claiming it's an instant fix but I haven't seen one person who knows what they're talking about who doesn't think this is a positive first step in the process.

Firstly, it's not a band aid to get us through to the RWC. It's a permanent structural change, Johnson's contract runs until 2021 (3 years). The DOR position is not a new concept, it's a component of the model of most successful rugby nations currently. The position - held by Nucifora - was axed by Pulver as a cost saving measure who incorrectly assumed that Cheika could perform all of the functions in between the head coach and the board. This essentially removes the administrative/executive decision making from Cheika and allows him to concentrate purely on coaching, as I said in an earlier post I think he would have actually been on board with the decision, perhaps even involved in it.

BR you are never going to be happy are you? RA have now essentially halved Cheika's input into the structure of the coaching setup, and removed added another 2 people equivalent to him for selections but you still aren't happy because the appointee 'has no first hand knowledge of the skills of the assistants'. Who do you think would outside the current coaching setup?

Finally, as has been pointed out by several, there are no suitable candidates for the head coach position to get us through to the RWC and Cheika is leaving then anyway. There are arguments for an against an instantaneous sacking but those against outweigh those for at this particular point in time, I won't go over them again.

You lot are welcome to live in you glass half empty world, I'm going to continue in my glass half full one and get behind this.

As a footnote, the Rugby Ruckus have done a 20 minute special podcast on this, it's worth a listen.

 

[Derpus]

BR you are never going to be happy are you? RA have now essentially halved Cheika's input into the structure of the coaching structure, and removed added another 2 people equivalent to him for selections but you still aren't happy because the appointee 'has no first hand knowledge of the skills of the assistants'. Who do you think would outside the current coaching setup?

 

[Rugrat]

Yes we need a Director of Rugby on the payroll. Yes they should be mandated to run the HP dept. They should be in charge of coaching development programs, Player contracting issues and elite program development. Good the role should never have been axed. 3 person selection panel is only as good as the members of the panel. Yet to be determined so yet to be judged on. At least a coach can maintain a relationship with players dropped and or promoted. No down side to this really and absolutely necessary if you are broadening your selection base to include more players overseas. The board has decided to stick with the coach and Johnson not in the position to sack him as yet so we have Cheika till the WC. I don't like it but at least decision made time to get on the supporter bus till WC. Clearly a few changes coming at support coach roles. Overall a much better presentation from Clyne and Castle. Hopefully now Clyne will never be heard from again and after he swans around the world cup he will quit the board role, as will others.

 

[Derpus]

Yes we need a Director of Rugby on the payroll. Yes they should be mandated to run the HP dept. They should be in charge of coaching development programs, Player contracting issues and elite program development. Good the role should never have been axed. 3 person selection panel is only as good as the members of the panel. Yet to be determined so yet to be judged on. At least a coach can maintain a relationship with players dropped and or promoted. No down side to this really and absolutely necessary if you are broadening your selection base to include more players overseas. The board has decided to stick with the coach and Johnson not in the position to sack him as yet so we have Cheika till the WC. I don't like it but at least decision made time to get on the supporter bus till WC. Clearly a few changes coming at support coach roles. Overall a much better presentation from Clyne and Castle. Hopefully now Clyne will never be heard from again and after he swans around the world cup he will quit the board role, as will others.

2/3 are Cheika and Johnson.

 

[barbarian]

There's a tactic that you use in politics when you want to announce new policy or infrastructure - create the problem, and then solve it.

Basically you want the public to know something needs to change before you actually do it. You let them come to the decision that a new policy/train station/whatever is needed. And then when you announce it, you are merely responding to the will of the people, even if you made the decision months ago. If you don't create the problem, the policy becomes harder to sell because people didn't know they needed it in the first place.

Putting the decision itself to one side for just a second, I think RA could do well to follow the above rule.

Today the move was painted as a much-needed reliever for Cheika, so he could 'get back to coaching'. To which I thought: was that a problem? Was he so distracted by the off-field requirements that he didn't have time to coach?

Now if RA had planted a few stories about how Cheika was overwhelmed with the current set-up, and was spending his time booking hotel transfers instead of packing scrums (or whatever) then this move is perceived in a very different way. RA is merely making a logical step to free up Cheika to do what he does best.

But now they are open to the criticism they have received here. It's change for change's sake. There is no evidence that this was ever needed, and now of course it's a crucial change. Of course you have a segment of the rugby public who will never respond to anything you do (like in politics), but there is a wider mass in the middle who are always open to change.
.

 

[wamberal]

Nothing anybody does will suddenly conjure up a new world class fly-half for us. Ditto nothing will suddenly turn Izzy into a decent kicker.


I could go on. But it is too depressing.

 

[Bandar]

On another front there is positive news for the first time in several years men's XV's playing numbers are up.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2018/12/17/participation-selby-xvs-growth

"I think that's really helped where we might have lost people because of barriers, we've removed some of those barriers.

RA have given themselves credit for removing barriers by highlighting casual registration.

Those "barriers" were only put in place a couple of years ago, and RA were told by clubs that they would result in a decline in playing numbers.

If they returned to team registrations player numbers would jump across the country, but they couldn't charge each individual a fee...

 

[Derpus]

But now they are open to the criticism they have received here. It's change for change's sake. There is no evidence that this was ever needed, and now of course it's a crucial change. Of course you have a segment of the rugby public who will never respond to anything you do (like in politics), but there is a wider mass in the middle who are always open to change.
.

You lost me here barb. There was/is buckets of evidence that structural change was needed.

In fact, the changes that have come in have been called for on these very forums for ages. Poor development pathways, lack of centralization, loss of talent blah blah blah. It's all been evident for yonks and these changes are clearly moves to address the cause of many of our issues, rather than a bandaid to fix the symptom short term (i.e. new coach).

 

[barbarian]

You lost me here barb. There was/is buckets of evidence that structural change was needed.
.

Yes, but this position specifically? I suppose that observation was made in light of my above paragraphs.

There wasn't much evidence, to my eyes, that we needed another set of hands in the set-up to deal with 'off-field' things. We've got Ben Whittaker at the moment doing High Performance, so it's not like that role was going unfilled.

I'm not necessarily against it. It makes a bit of sense and replicates what is being done elsewhere. But my point remains that RA could have done a better job laying the groundwork for this announcement.
.

 

[RedsHappy]

Yes, but this position specifically? I suppose that observation was made in light of my above paragraphs.

There wasn't much evidence, to my eyes, that we needed another set of hands in the set-up to deal with 'off-field' things. We've got Ben Whittaker at the moment doing High Performance, so it's not like that role was going unfilled.

I'm not necessarily against it. It makes a bit of sense and replicates what is being done elsewhere. But my point remains that RA could have done a better job laying the groundwork for this announcement.
.

Yes. Let's recall:

1. RA has cried loud and clear that its financial circumstances are extremely tight; hence most particularly the 'financially essential' culling of the Force​

​

2. Leaks to the media by RA re 'the difficulty we would have paying out coaches' contracts' and so on​

​

3. We have a CEO who is _meant_ to know at least something regarding the assessment and appointment of elite coaching resources​

​

4. We have an established RA High Performance Manager and a High Performance support team at RA HQ (all of which is being kept on)​

​

5. We have now in Kafer a 'National Head of Coaching' (or such like title)​

​

So, in the light of all above, we now require a 'Director of Rugby' who will primarily (according to RA) deal with off-field matters and sort of over-sight Cheika's performance and management from mid-March 2019.

 

[RedsHappy]

You lost me here barb. There was/is buckets of evidence that structural change was needed.

In fact, the changes that have come in have been called for on these very forums for ages. Poor development pathways, lack of centralization, loss of talent blah blah blah. It's all been evident for yonks and these changes are clearly moves to address the cause of many of our issues, rather than a bandaid to fix the symptom short term (i.e. new coach).

Where are the genuinely structural changes in the administration and control and leadership of the code in Australia? I missed these.

 

[Derpus]

Where are the genuinely structural changes in the administration and control and leadership of the code in Australia? I missed these.

Selection panel, DoR, New youth pathways, increased participation/co-operation between national and Super Rugby teams.

I'm not passing judgment on their effectiveness. I'm just saying, plenty of people here have been saying 'look at Scotland and Ireland, we need to emulate them and their methods'. Which is true, they have a lot of parallels with us. They have limited resources, a limited playing pool, are by no means the most popular sport in their country etc. They also both had Australians involved in their recent successes.

So we make moves to put in place a similar structure (or whatever you want to call it) and everyone explodes, mostly because they want Cheika gone despite there being no good replacement till post RWC. It's silly. Even if they are fucking useless and have cocked up constantly in the past, these attempts at meaningful long term change are better than just sacking this person or that and getting in someone else despite doing nothing to address the real underlying issues.

 

[fatprop]

Yes. Let's recall:

3. We have a CEO who is _meant_ to know at least something regarding the assessment and appointment of elite coaching resources​

​

​

​

​

Really? That is a stretch.​

​

I thought a CEO took advice from experts in that area (and the best of them have a extremely good bullshit meter)​

​

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Selection panel, DoR, New youth pathways, increased participation/co-operation between national and Super Rugby teams.

I'm not passing judgment on their effectiveness. I'm just saying, plenty of people here have been saying 'look at Scotland and Ireland, we need to emulate them and their methods'. Which is true, they have a lot of parallels with us. They have limited resources, a limited playing pool, are by no means the most popular sport in their country etc. They also both had Australians involved in their recent successes.

So we make moves to put in place a similar structure (or whatever you want to call it) and everyone explodes, mostly because they want Cheika gone despite there being no good replacement till post RWC. It's silly. Even if they are fucking useless and have cocked up constantly in the past, these attempts at meaningful long term change are better than just sacking this person or that and getting in someone else despite doing nothing to address the real underlying issues.

Removing Cheika pre-RWC is unlikely to actually change much going into the tournament. I've come to grips with the fact that we're going to either perform below what we all consider an acceptable level or manage to put a run together. Either way, sacking the coaches this close to the event isn't going to change much.

But what can begin to is the way the game is run. The issue people seem to be having is that all this move has done is add another cook to the kitchen. How will this DoR position be functionally different than the HP position? There's a strong likelihood that there's going to be a fair degree of overlap and duplication here. Something we don't need.

The increased co-operation between Super Rugby and RA sounds great but we have to see how this actually works out in a practical sense. Nothing so far actually appears to be legitimate change. Just more layers and bureaucracy.

 

[Derpus]

The increased co-operation between Super Rugby and RA sounds great but we have to see how this actually works out in a practical sense. Nothing so far actually appears to be legitimate change. Just more layers and bureaucracy.

I agree. Who knows if anything they've done is actually effective. We'll have to wait and see. But prima facie they seem to be moves in the right direction.