Australian Rugby / RA

[Rugbynutter39]

Comparing an experienced former Springboks coach in Jake White to a rookie coach like Larkham…...chalk and cheese....and what would anyone expect. But I regress my point is as a rookie coach he was probably doing alright but yes the fact he was still a work in progress I do agree that taking the attack coach role for the wallabies was perhaps too early as captain hindsight would say.

Anyhow, for me I wish Bernie well and hope he develops his coaching credentials as still think better he stays in coaching and develop then leaves it all together. Time to close this subject for me as feel it is getting a bit circular as I think most of the views on the subject been expressed here.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The NH innovation comes from being a far more open shop than here. Also, the owners of the clubs don't tolerate excuses, so what you get is talented and ACCOUNTABLE coaching. While not being privy to the full coaching set up across Australia it seems a remarkable coincidence that the defence coach, forwards coach and head of athletic preparation (just resigned) all played for Manly.

I'm not suggesting anything regarding the quality or competence of any coach. It's more a matter of how wide are they casting the recruitment net when 3 of the positions in the RA coaching set up come from a single Shute Shield Club where they all played in the early to mid-90's. I get the connections back in the days of amateurism but with an entire world of coaches to recruit from?

Makes the Ballymore car park look like casting a very wide net indeed.

 

[KOB1987]

Are we sure Larkham is the only casualty of this? Or is he just the only one who's going to be retained?

Anyway..not playing devil's advocate here but just thinking through the logic. We all know that the defence has been a bigger issue than the attack in particular the shuffling around, and Grey has deservedly copped a heap for it. But suppose the backline is selected on attack and he's given the task of coming up with the defensive pattern based on that? Sure, Cheika needs to be held accountable for letting it get to that, but perhaps that explains where he and Larkham haven't been on the same page?

You could argue that Grey has a history of it from the 2014 Tahs, but in fairness it was really only one switch there and one that made sense - Horne (who's an actual centre and a great defender) switching with Beale in defence to give a second kicking option up the back.

Anyway, throw rotten tomatoes at me, I'm not trying to make a defence, as I say I'm trying to think through the logic.

 

[Quick Hands]

Comparing an experienced former Springboks coach in Jake White to a rookie coach like Larkham….chalk and cheese..and what would anyone expect. But I regress my point is as a rookie coach he was probably doing alright but yes the fact he was still a work in progress I do agree that taking the attack coach role for the wallabies was perhaps too early as captain hindsight would say.

Anyhow, for me I wish Bernie well and hope he develops his coaching credentials as still think better he stays in coaching and develop then leaves it all together. Time to close this subject for me as feel it is getting a bit circular as I think most of the views on the subject been expressed here.

The larger question would by why would a "rookie coach" be put in charge of a elite professional rugby team? As far as I can discover, his only coaching experience has been as assistant coach at the Brumbies 2011-13, head coach of the Brumbies in 2014-17 and assistant coach of the Wallabies. So prior to his appointment as HC at the Brumbies he appears to have had no experience as a head coach whatsoever at any level. And people wonder why he's now floundering. More than any other position in a rugby game, coaching is the one which really needs prior experience at lower levels before advancement. It's not just a simple as having a good knowledge of the game, it's about man management, thinking on the run and constantly adapting and tweaking things.

 

[Quick Hands]

Are we sure Larkham is the only casualty of this? Or is he just the only one who's going to be retained?

Anyway..not playing devil's advocate here but just thinking through the logic. We all know that the defence has been a bigger issue than the attack in particular the shuffling around, and Grey has deservedly copped a heap for it. But suppose the backline is selected on attack and he's given the task of coming up with the defensive pattern based on that? Sure, Cheika needs to be held accountable for letting it get to that, but perhaps that explains where he and Larkham haven't been on the same page?

You could argue that Grey has a history of it from the 2014 Tahs, but in fairness it was really only one switch there and one that made sense - Horne (who's an actual centre and a great defender) switching with Beale in defence to give a second kicking option up the back.

Anyway, throw rotten tomatoes at me, I'm not trying to make a defence, as I say I'm trying to think through the logic.

Your only mistake is to try to apply logical thinking to an organisation which has shown itself to be bereft of any logic or strategic decision making for many a long year.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Are we sure Larkham is the only casualty of this? Or is he just the only one who's going to be retained?

Anyway..not playing devil's advocate here but just thinking through the logic. We all know that the defence has been a bigger issue than the attack in particular the shuffling around, and Grey has deservedly copped a heap for it. But suppose the backline is selected on attack and he's given the task of coming up with the defensive pattern based on that? Sure, Cheika needs to be held accountable for letting it get to that, but perhaps that explains where he and Larkham haven't been on the same page?

You could argue that Grey has a history of it from the 2014 Tahs, but in fairness it was really only one switch there and one that made sense - Horne (who's an actual centre and a great defender) switching with Beale in defence to give a second kicking option up the back.

Anyway, throw rotten tomatoes at me, I'm not trying to make a defence, as I say I'm trying to think through the logic.

Logic seems to be in the eye of the beholder, KOB. It seems to me that Larkham would not logically have argued for the continued selection of Beale at 12 for the Wallabies, when his style of play is so disruptive to a structured game plan that we all think was the Larkham way. That looks like Cheika flexing his muscle over his Assistant any day of the week to me. It also seems logical to me that the apparent rejection of Kuridrani, Banks and Powell from the Wallabies early training squad could well have been the straw that forced Larkham and Cheika to call it a day. Powell has been one of Larkham's works in progress, while TK is back to arguably being the best No 13 in the land and Banks is the 15 in waiting. The reluctance to use Powell and Banks while they were in the squad and then the omission from the squad this year along with TK would likely bring any simmering issues between the coaches to a head.

In my logic, Larkham has been hamstrung all along by Cheika, just as I believe Grey is too. It looks like my way or the highway with Cheika. Cheika is the main problem with the Wallabies as he's not an effective coach over a longer period, and he plays his favourites to the detriment of the team as a whole.

 

[USARugger]

as captain hindsight would say

Hindsight hardly necessary. Plenty of folks on here were calling it an apalling apointment because even at the time, it very clearly was.

Why would a struggling provincial head coach, coaching one of the most insipid attacks in Super Rugby at the time, be promoted to Wallabies attack coach? It was almost like a precusor of the absolute madness that's seemed to grip the decision-making institutions of Western countries worldwide in the period since.

 

[KOB1987]

Logic seems to be in the eye of the beholder, KOB. It seems to me that Larkham would not logically have argued for the continued selection of Beale at 12 for the Wallabies, when his style of play is so disruptive to a structured game plan that we all think was the Larkham way. That looks like Cheika flexing his muscle over his Assistant any day of the week to me. It also seems logical to me that the apparent rejection of Kuridrani, Banks and Powell from the Wallabies early training squad could well have been the straw that forced Larkham and Cheika to call it a day. Powell has been one of Larkham's works in progress, while TK is back to arguably being the best No 13 in the land and Banks is the 15 in waiting. The reluctance to use Powell and Banks while they were in the squad and then the omission from the squad this year along with TK would likely bring any simmering issues between the coaches to a head.

In my logic, Larkham has been hamstrung all along by Cheika, just as I believe Grey is too. It looks like my way or the highway with Cheika. Cheika is the main problem with the Wallabies as he's not an effective coach over a longer period, and he plays his favourites to the detriment of the team as a whole.

You seem to making the assumption that Larkham would be pro-Brumbies players if he were the selector?

1) If a backline was being selected on attack only there aren't many coaches in the world who would leave Beale out
2) Powell and Banks are really 50/50 calls that are your opinion. For Powell you're arguing for a bench spot over either Phipps or Gordon, and for Banks it's one over several other options. Personally I don't think the latter cut it at the high intensity training sessions and that's why he was left out. Not that I'm advocating that as the primary selection tool, just one of them.
3) TK's 'apparent rejection' might have had something to do with his injury.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...s/news-story/f9f495684342afcf70ef9bc0160b02b8

 

[Slim 293]

You seem to making the assumption that Larkham would be pro-Brumbies players if he were the selector?

I think the error is assuming that Larkham has had any influence on selections, particularly the last 12 months.........

 

[RedsHappy]

I think the error is assuming that Larkham has had any influence on selections, particularly the last 12 months...

Given the laughable slack of substance in the RA announcement re the Larkham 'sacking', there can be no doubt that his removal - whatever its intrinsic objective merits - is in part a scapegoating, self-serving and diversionary ploy by Cheika who has long charmed and swarmed the RA board to his wishes.

And that board's record shows it is stupid and timid and insight-less enough to be so charmed and influenced.

 

[RedsHappy]

Hindsight hardly necessary. Plenty of folks on here were calling it an apalling apointment because even at the time, it very clearly was.

Why would a struggling provincial head coach, coaching one of the most insipid attacks in Super Rugby at the time, be promoted to Wallabies attack coach? It was almost like a precusor of the absolute madness that's seemed to grip the decision-making institutions of Western countries worldwide in the period since.

USAR - I have looooooong said here that, remarkable though it is to say it, RA knows nothing substantial or of quality regarding a strategy or process for the selection, training and technical development of elite rugby coaching resources in Australia. (Many posters here keep on assuming this damning observation cannot be so and thus attribute all manner of positive post hoc interpretations of RA coach-related thinking ....... until the next coaching-related debacle unfolds through either omission or commission.)

There is simply no other conclusion or theory than the above that supports the active data we have seen arising from the ARU/RA in this utterly crucial area of code development over the last decade and more.

 

[Quick Hands]

Logic seems to be in the eye of the beholder, KOB. It seems to me that Larkham would not logically have argued for the continued selection of Beale at 12 for the Wallabies, when his style of play is so disruptive to a structured game plan that we all think was the Larkham way. That looks like Cheika flexing his muscle over his Assistant any day of the week to me. It also seems logical to me that the apparent rejection of Kuridrani, Banks and Powell from the Wallabies early training squad could well have been the straw that forced Larkham and Cheika to call it a day. Powell has been one of Larkham's works in progress, while TK is back to arguably being the best No 13 in the land and Banks is the 15 in waiting. The reluctance to use Powell and Banks while they were in the squad and then the omission from the squad this year along with TK would likely bring any simmering issues between the coaches to a head.

In my logic, Larkham has been hamstrung all along by Cheika, just as I believe Grey is too. It looks like my way or the highway with Cheika. Cheika is the main problem with the Wallabies as he's not an effective coach over a longer period, and he plays his favourites to the detriment of the team as a whole.

It begs the question as to why RA would appoint an assistant coach who has a different philosophy to the HC?

I don't think it's remarkable though that the HC has the final say (whether it's Cheika or anyone else) as the HC is (or should be) ultimately responsible for the training, coaching and performance of the team.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

It begs the question as to why RA would appoint an assistant coach who has a different philosophy to the HC?

I don't think it's remarkable though that the HC has the final say (whether it's Cheika or anyone else) as the HC is (or should be) ultimately responsible for the training, coaching and performance of the team.

I'd suggest they did initially however over the last four years rugby has changed/developed and now that have different ideas on how the game should be played in the future.

Completely agree on your second point. HC is the boss. They take input from the staff but at the end of the day they make the call and that is the direction the business takes.

 

[formerflanker]

I'd suggest they did initially however over the last four years rugby has changed/developed and now that have different ideas on how the game should be played in the future.

Completely agree on your second point. HC is the boss. They take input from the staff but at the end of the day they make the call and that is the direction the business takes.

Yep.
The assistant coaches take general direction from the HC and turn it into specific tactical plans.
As the great Billy Birmingham used to say "It's a team and we'll do it my way".

 

[Braveheart81]

It begs the question as to why RA would appoint an assistant coach who has a different philosophy to the HC?

I don't think it's remarkable though that the HC has the final say (whether it's Cheika or anyone else) as the HC is (or should be) ultimately responsible for the training, coaching and performance of the team.

They've been together for four years.

I'm guessing things started off fine and have drifted apart as things have gone south particularly in the last year and they have had different thoughts on how to fix things.

 

[Derpus]

Hindsight hardly necessary. Plenty of folks on here were calling it an apalling apointment because even at the time, it very clearly was.

Why would a struggling provincial head coach, coaching one of the most insipid attacks in Super Rugby at the time, be promoted to Wallabies attack coach? It was almost like a precusor of the absolute madness that's seemed to grip the decision-making institutions of Western countries worldwide in the period since.

He also left his only weapon, the rolling maul (fuck i hate rolling mauls) at the Brumbies. 'straya just about the worst top 10 nation at mauling.

 

[USARugger]

USAR - I have looooooong said here that, remarkable though it is to say it, RA knows nothing substantial or of quality regarding a strategy or process for the selection, training and technical development of elite rugby coaching resources in Australia. (Many posters here keep on assuming this damning observation cannot be so and thus attribute all manner of positive post hoc interpretations of RA coach-related thinking ... until the next coaching-related debacle unfolds through either omission or commission.)

There is simply no other conclusion or theory than the above that supports the active data we have seen arising from the ARU/RA in this utterly crucial area of code development over the last decade and more.

The way that the game has been ridden into the ground throughout Australia in the period of time since I visited in 2013 is nothing short of spectacular, in the worst way.

 

[Brumby Runner]

You seem to making the assumption that Larkham would be pro-Brumbies players if he were the selector?

1) If a backline was being selected on attack only there aren't many coaches in the world who would leave Beale out
2) Powell and Banks are really 50/50 calls that are your opinion. For Powell you're arguing for a bench spot over either Phipps or Gordon, and for Banks it's one over several other options. Personally I don't think the latter cut it at the high intensity training sessions and that's why he was left out. Not that I'm advocating that as the primary selection tool, just one of them.
3) TK's 'apparent rejection' might have had something to do with his injury.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...s/news-story/f9f495684342afcf70ef9bc0160b02b8

I think I gave my reasoning for thinking Larkham would not necessarily have stuck with Beale because he doesn't fit the structured play that Larkham is/was known for.

I agree that Powell is a 50/50 call, but he had very strong support from Larkham when he was first brought into the Wallabies squad. If I remember correctly, Larkham then labelled him as a future starting Wallaby No 9. It is not far fetched to believe that Cheika's continued treatment of not playing Powell off the bench would have been a point of contention between the two.

You might think that Banks didn't cut it at high intensity training, but where's the evidence? I've never seen a mention of that anywhere outside speculation in your post. Nevertheless, his form should have dictated his inclusion in a training squad early this year.

How many other players have been or were brought back into Cheika's squad after serious injury without much game time to show they were ready. In recent times, I can think of Hooper and Dempsey, but they have an obvious advantage in the colour of their Super Rugby jersey of course. TK's form at the end of last year was at his best and world class, His form in the trial match against the Rebels was first class again. He is our only world class No 13 and omitting him from the squad was probably just one more issue between Cheika and Larkham.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It begs the question as to why RA would appoint an assistant coach who has a different philosophy to the HC?

I don't think it's remarkable though that the HC has the final say (whether it's Cheika or anyone else) as the HC is (or should be) ultimately responsible for the training, coaching and performance of the team.

And accountable QH. If that accountability had been evident over the past 3 - 4 years, we would never be in the abysmal situation that has been the Wallabies in that time.

 

[Slim 293]

TK's form at the end of last year was at his best and world class, His form in the trial match against the Rebels was first class again. He is our only world class No 13 and omitting him from the squad was probably just one more issue between Cheika and Larkham.

When was TK omitted from the Wallabies squad?