• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Ewen McKenzie: Wallaby Coach

Status
Not open for further replies.

Richo

John Thornett (49)
I agree we have to give him some time, and be patient, but I do not agree that hard questions should not be asked.
I really want to see some true progress in core forward play - physicality at breakdowns, scrums and mauling skills, then lineouts. So far, we seem to be fudging around these areas with no demonstrable improvement.
They can start on the backs too, but seriously, get the pigs right, and our backs might look less ordinary.
The idea of assistant coaching change appeals, but do we really know who is truly available currently?

Totally agree.

I reckon Link was told that he could pick new assistants at the end of the year, when contracts were up. Hopefully at that time we'll see some new blood.

As for questions -- yes, of course, hard questions should be asked. But -- as I'm sure you'd agree -- there's no need to declare Link's coaching career at the Wallabies DOA.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
There is some serious panic merchanting on this thread.

Link is the coach until the RWC in 2015 at the very earliest. He's only had the team for a little while, and not much of that has allowed much time for planning. The results are torrid, but I think a bit of patience is required.
I agree but the podcast alarmed me: to suggest that there was some conceptual breakthrough in having 2 playmakers at 10 and 12 - when they have played like that in NZ for most of my life (Nonu being the exception) and when they call 12 "second five" is odd.
At the moment that is all it is.
 

Muglair

Alfred Walker (16)
Really?
Big call.
I am furiously and stridently giving him the benefit of the doubt: I fear we're going backwards at the moment.

Absolutely giving time but EOYT 2014 will be the last chance for a change if the slide is not reversed. I absolutely hope for his success, otherwise we will have seen a generation of players not reach their potential.

However Caravan McKenzie has been rolling for sometime asking much the same questions of the Deans regime, we are now entitled to ask why he appears not to have the answers to those questions himself.

There really has been two political campaigns running concurrently in the last two years designed to remove the incumbent. Increasingly it looks like neither had a plan to execute post takeover. Although admittedly McKenzie always claimed he was not lobbying for the job, maybe he wasn't after all.

While it sounds logical to keep on the assistants for contract reasons, given that the ARU was happy to pay out Deans why not the others. Super 15 is over so assistants based in the southern hemisphere were available. Will anyone in the Nthn hemisphere be available in December (mid season there)? Although maybe he has assistants in mind who will become available at the end of the Northern season.
 

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
There really has been two political campaigns running concurrently in the last two years designed to remove the incumbent. Increasingly it looks like neither had a plan to execute post takeover.
What was the other campaign? ..... Repeal O'Neill??

I'm glad JON is gone; his 2nd term was bad news with a golden parachute. Whatever Pulver's failings, he gets the benefit of doubt from me for now.

Same with McKenzie. Time was well and truly up on Deans and I would not want him back. We move on.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
What was the other campaign? ... Repeal O'Neill??

I'm glad JON is gone; his 2nd term was bad news with a golden parachute. Whatever Pulver's failings, he gets the benefit of doubt from me for now.

I think he was referring to Federal politics.
 

Ash

Michael Lynagh (62)
I can recall Link making quite a few mistakes in Super Rugby. In 2011, he read the breakdown changes completely wrong at the start of the year and got steam rolled by the Waratahs, including getting completely wrong selections like Quirk at 7 and Horwill at 6.

The thing is, most of the things Link got wrong in hindsight he fixed after a while. I'm willing to give him some time to learn and adapt. I gave Deans much, much longer than Link has had before going the other way.

I'd like to see some changes on the EOYT, not necessarily large or wholesale changes in personal but rather in how the team plays together. We are losing the collisions, getting blown out of the tackle area, and these are something I don't normally see in McKenzie teams.

I do see some improvements, I'd rate our second game vs the Boks as better than the first one, although we were out of the game sooner so that might be a false dawn.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
I think this is a difficult one at this point.

When Link was appointed there wasn't really much time to look at other appointments. The Rugby Championship was only a few weeks away and the Reds were still alive in Super Rugby.

Whether the ARU gave him that option at that time is also unknown. Those coaches would have been contracted until the end of the year and it is unknown whether the ARU would have allowed the appointment of new coaches knowing that they've had to continue paying the old ones.

Given the lack of time I think sacking the coaches and appointing new ones would have also been a bad move. In that sort of time frame you'd have seen him appoint the coaching staff he already knows because that is the only real option you have in that situation. Link wouldn't have known if the coaches already at the Wallabies were any good or not so making a decision to get rid of them without working with them would have been entirely arbitrary.

There needs to be a thorough review of all the Wallabies assistant coaches (including the ones they don't have!) at the end of the year so we can start next test season with a settled coaching team. There just isn't time to do any of this prior to the EOYT.

Bh81: a number of others have also advanced these perfectly legitimate arguments - somewhat counter to my own above - so I'll try and address them here.

Link said upon his appointment as Wallaby coach, and with much bravado re taking on the ABs as his Test No 1, something like: '.........I've had years to think about how we can beat the ABs.........what a perfect challenge........' etc.

Now any good Head Coach at national level (or any major level) will or should know that his support staff are of simply fundamental importance to his own fortunes of ultimate success, or otherwise. White moved very quickly to get his support team in place for the start of the Brumbies season in 2012, Link did similarly in early 2010, Henry in his autobiography highlights the utterly crucial role his support coaches played his AB periods, Gatland heaped massive praise upon his total 2013 BIL support team and so on. Running an elite national sports team is a truly serious enterprise in 2013 - it requires deep excellence in many management and technical positions, the Head Coach is just one important part of many.

Link had obviously been contemplating his (then potential) new job for years - if so, would he not be also contemplating the optimal support team make-up, and assessing the global availability of alternatives talents for these positions? And, just as much, carefully observing and listening to qualified opinion wrt the post-RWC Wallaby support coaches' capabilities? I'd be staggered if these contemplations were not embedded in his bedtime reflections.

And was there much distinct evidence that these current Wallaby support coaches had really advanced the calibre of their particular designated aspects of Wallaby play since their installation in early 2012? - I would argue not. Link has exceptional contacts deep into the global talent pools of rugby coaches - he's been operating at elite level in a Tier 1 rugby nation for well over a decade.

My point is that to effectively argue Link had few or no choices other than to grant the status quo Wallaby support team the absolute benefit of the doubt right through to the end of his crucial honeymoon period, I find that thesis highly debatable. And btw: what a massive waste of time and opportunity if Link and we all arrive at a death valley end-point of Wallaby disasters at the end of the 2013 EOYT cycle and the whole enterprise has to almost start afresh with new assistant coaches from June 2014, only 15 months out from RWC '15.

Now, if the other conjecture is correct that the ARU in all its stupidity and short-sightedness forced Link to keep the existing pre-Link support coaches on for contractual or financial reasons, that, given their endless, proven capacity for poor decisions, is way more credible, even though the grand folly of it would be obvious to any astute follower of the game. In that way, Link is thus granted potential legitimate excuses for poor Wallaby performance or, much worse, that performance is highly compromised in the quest to revive fan engagement for the team at a very important juncture for Australian rugby. Can we or the ARU really afford to say that the whole of the 2013-dated Wallaby Test period can be considered some kind of experiment in the virtue of lowering the immediate cash cost of the Wallaby coaching and support team? Does this sound like good strategic management of our code?

Finally, indeed, we here broadly don't know what precise support coaches are available and from where and from when. How could we, that's not our job. The ARU and related bodies are meant to be top grade at that, and do so full-time for a living.

But surely we can credibly speculate that - just as one example - a man of L Fisher's obvious skills as forwards and forwards attack coach might have been motivated to immediately join the national team in a quest to - let's get real - save the national game from a potential 'tipping point' into very serious commercial and fan-based decline if the Wallabies continue to test the depths of mediocrity and indefensibly poor execution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPC

louie

Desmond Connor (43)
I reckon Link was told that he could pick new assistants at the end of the year, when contracts were up. Hopefully at that time we'll see some new blood.

I really hope this is the true. He seemed a bit dismissive of it in the podcast
 

Athilnaur

Arch Winning (36)
Can't say Link's efforts have impressed me so far but to be fair I don't think his selections are that bad, and certainly they are surprisingly close to Deans, possibly too conservative.

In hindsight the one set of rugby where I saw Link's vision and felt it had merit was the first half of bled one. I could see the combinations and approach and saw the potential. But we were too loose and ran out of gas so fast we got stomped in the second. Since then we are reacting and scampering.

I like the idea of running rugby, seriously. It is definitely our strength. But, like the Tahs and Rebels, we must find a way to choke the opposition while unlocking our attack. I fear none of us have the patience for it.

Which means the more measured approach of Deans. Who, er, got fired.

Either way Link is our man and we need to support him. I think he needs to cut loose Simmons and Alexander, and start factoring for Beale and Mogg at fb but I can definitely see Slipper, I think he has shown why Link put him there.

And the sooner Palu and Higgers are back, the better.

Oh, and I agree with McAlman at 8 for now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

twenty seven

Tom Lawton (22)
I have to agree with Ash - link is one of the very few Australian coaches who acknowledges when he gets it wrong and works at rectifying it. Wish the same can be said for others- they keep going with same plays or players and will not acknowledge if they get it wrong. The same goes for non-selection of certain players for reasons one cannot fathom at times.
Plus it takes time to turn mental attitudes of players....Link will get there.
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Give the bloke a fair go.

Anyway, axe Link and get ????? - Dingo is still in town and probably on the payroll until December 31. :)
 

RoffsChoice

Jim Lenehan (48)
The reason I didn't want Deans kicked out is I wanted a coach who was there from the end of the last world cup until the end of the next one.

We have Link now and my argument remains the same - don't mess with how the team is being lead. Keep Link until after RWC2015.
 

BPC

Phil Hardcastle (33)
There is some serious panic merchanting on this thread.

Link is the coach until the RWC in 2015 at the very earliest. He's only had the team for a little while, and not much of that has allowed much time for planning. The results are torrid, but I think a bit of patience is required.

I believe what you are saying is generally true and I would like to give Link the benefit of the doubt but the lack of improvement, and in many cases regression, in all facets of the worries me. As Froggy noted, when Cheika took over, there were some poor results but also glimpses of a new plan and a new structure being imposed. I don't have the same impression watching the Wallabies at the moment.
 

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
I don't get all the 'it's too soon' noise.

1. It's not like McKenzie was surprised by a call up to the Wallabies. This is a role he positioned himself for for months - even in getting a new coach at the Reds as a succession plan. He's had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to do and how he wanted to do it for a long time now.

2. He's had a while now. It's not like he was called in last week. He's 2 months in. Probably closer to 10 weeks and yet there is little if any improvement.

3. I'd actually say they are worse. They are worse now than they were 12 months ago when Deans had about 40 guys injured. Individuals are playing worse and as a team they are playing worse. When you have your own fans expecting you to lose to the Puma - no disrespect to the Argies - then you're in trouble. I'm not talking about 'This will be a tight one' or 'It's always a tough game' but fans with little to zero expectation of winning that game. . . . c'mon - you're in trouble.

I'm not saying that McKenzie is a bad coach but as someone earlier said, I think he's beginning to understand how hard Deans' job was. You guys can poo-poo it all you like but Deans got this team up to 2nd in the world...maybe he wasn't the biggest thing wrong with the team.
 

BPC

Phil Hardcastle (33)
However Caravan McKenzie has been rolling for sometime asking much the same questions of the Deans regime, we are now entitled to ask why he appears not to have the answers to those questions himself.

Shortly after Link appointed himself Director of Rugby and brought in Richard Graham as Head Coach at the Reds, my boss attended a fundraiser where Link gave a talk and answered some questions. Aside from discussing the changes at the Reds, he explicitly stated he was aiming for the Wallabies job when Deans tenure expired. That he has now got to that position yet seems underprepared and casting around for answers (the revolutionary second playmaker selection?) is a cause for concern.
 
D

daz

Guest
As much as I am (like many of you) in deep depression at the state of Wallaby rugby at the moment, I must say that anyone calling for Link's head right now needs to have a cold shower and administer a self-delivered uppercut.

I'm sure there was a general hope that Link would come in, flick the magical switch that eluded RD and resurrect Oz rugby overnight. Clearly that didn't and couldn't happen.

Forget 2013 to a certain extent. After 5 years of Deans, this is a true transitional period and we need to give the man a bit of time to communicate his gameplan, identify his core squad and bring in his assistants before we pick at his carcass. We gave the same consideration (albeit begrudgingly) to both Foley and Cheika when they came in at the 11th hour at the Force and Tahs respectively.

As much as I hate seeing the boys get rolled week after week, I hope you agree we can't fault the effort.

My opinion is that if we are in the same position this time next year, by all means sharpen the knives.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Link had obviously been contemplating his (then potential) new job for years - if so, would he not be also contemplating the optimal support team make-up, and assessing the global availability of alternatives talents for these positions? And, just as much, carefully observing and listening to qualified opinion wrt the post-RWC Wallaby support coaches' capabilities? I'd be staggered if these contemplations were not embedded in his bedtime reflections.

And was there much distinct evidence that these current Wallaby support coaches had really advanced the calibre of their particular designated aspects of Wallaby play since their installation in early 2012? - I would argue not. Link has exceptional contacts deep into the global talent pools of rugby coaches - he's been operating at elite level in a Tier 1 rugby nation for well over a decade.

My point is that to effectively argue Link had few or no choices other than to grant the status quo Wallaby support team the absolute benefit of the doubt right through to the end of his crucial honeymoon period, I find that thesis highly debatable. And btw: what a massive waste of time and opportunity if Link and we all arrive at a death valley end-point of Wallaby disasters at the end of the 2013 EOYT cycle and the whole enterprise has to almost start afresh with new assistant coaches from June 2014, only 15 months out from RWC '15.

But surely we can credibly speculate that - just as one example - a man of L Fisher's obvious skills as forwards and forwards attack coach might have been motivated to immediately join the national team in a quest to - let's get real - save the national game from a potential 'tipping point' into very serious commercial and fan-based decline if the Wallabies continue to test the depths of mediocrity and indefensibly poor execution?

How does a guy who either hasn't been given the job yet or knows he is going to get it but is sworn to secrecy employ new assistant coaches (particularly when some of those candidates (i.e. Laurie Fisher) might be working directly for the guy competing for him for the Wallaby coaching job?

Link could have had many ideas in his head regarding coaches he'd like to work with and could have potentially sounded some out in very general terms (if I become Wallaby coach at some point in the future, would you like to come and work with me?) but doing much more than that would be difficult.

I also think that the process needs to be more transparent and official. Otherwise you risk the coach appointing the people he already knows and likes who could easily not be the best people for the job.

The biggest problem to me was the timing with which Link was appointed. There just wasn't enough lead time to make changes to the assistant coaches in an effective way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top