Michael Cheika

[Lee Grant]

You are all class, Bruce. All class.

Indeed, all crass.

 

[Nusadan]

Indeed, all crass.

An example of 'the pen is mightier than a walking stick' in this case!

 

[Riptide]

The other question is of course: is he truly a good enough coach in 2012 for 2013+ SH S15 conditions?

The vast majority of posters here seem to believe the answer is: automagically, yes he is (based on the HC), no doubt about that.

Why do we automatically conclude that based upon NH results? The players, conditions, styles of play, etc. are all very different to those in today's SH S15. If we look at the steeped-in-NH-conditions-for-long-periods Aus coaches we have recently brought back to Australia, e.g. Williams, Graham, Gaffney, the omens are not exactly highly positive are they?

Just think it's worth raising the question.

It's a good question but Cheika dramatically adjusted Leinster's playing style and approach from when he started off with David Knox. In the early going they were throwing the ball all over the place (see here

), but then got crushed by Munster on their way to a HEC win.

Cheika learned from that and adapted; he adjusted the way Leinster played, made sure that they couldn't be managed out of a game in a way Munster could then do to any team, committed more players to the breakdown, played a more hard-nosed game and Knox was gone.

Cheika is a quality coach with the ego that goes with it. A great rugby read is Bernard Jackman's book "Blue Blood" about his time at Leinster and he has some choice comments aimed at Cheika, who can be a massive dick apparently.

Cheika will shake things up; he will put his systems in. You cannot coach in France with adjusting to the culture of the game there, so he is not inflexible. He is just hard.

 

[wamberal]

Cheika was a thug on the field. I still remember him getting sent off in a semi-final against Eastwood for smashing Travis Hall, who was about half his size.

The Wicks still won, unfortunately.

 

[Lee Grant]

They did that a lot the bastards.

 

[BPC]

They did that a lot the bastards.

Win, smash opponents or both?

 

[Lee Grant]

Win

 

[BPC]

Win

How ungentlemenly.

 

[wamberal]

How ungentlemenly.

Fortunately those days are pretty much history now. That said, I admired Randwick enormously when I first started to get interested in the game - many more years ago than I care to remember. And I had some dealings with Peter Johnson and Ken Catchpole, two gentlemen if ever there were any.


Plus my optometrist is Gavin Boneham. Great guy, and a very good footballer, who probably should have enjoyed higher honours.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Michael Cheika's name invariably gets mentioned in connection with any potential vacancy at an Australian franchise and also from time to time in relation to the Wallabies' top job. The general consensus seems to be that if he applied anywhere he would be automatically appointed and that he would necessarily be outstandingly successful. However at any party there is usually some grump spoiling everybody's fun, and so in this case we have G&GR's resident curmudgeon putting a damper on the euphoria:

is he truly a good enough coach in 2012 for 2013+ SH S15 conditions?
The vast majority of posters here seem to believe the answer is: automagically, yes he is (based on the HC), no doubt about that.
Why do we automatically conclude that based upon NH results?

As RH points out, much is made of the fact that he coached Leinster to victory in the Heineken Cup in season 2008-09. Hooray! How good is that? But if we look a little closer we find that Irish teams have won 5 of the last 7 Heineken Cups. Leinster themselves have won 3 of the last 4, only one of which with Cheika coaching. Since taking charge at Leinster in May 2005 his Heineken Cup record read:

2005-06 beaten in semi-final
2006-07 beaten in quarter-final
2007-08 failed to advance from qualifying pool
2008-09 won
2009-10 beaten in semi-final

Let's ponder why Irish teams have been so successful in the Heineken Cup in recent years. English and French teams each have 6 places and qualify each year by their performances in the Aviva Premiership/Anglo-Welsh Cup and Top 14 Championship respectively. These are high standard and fiercely contested competitions. By contrast the other 4 nations involved earn qualification by their performances in the Pro 12, previously known as the Celtic League and then the Celtic and Mariners League. Ireland has 3 spots, Wales 3, Scotland 2 and Italy 2. So 10 of the Top 12 teams automatically qualify.

The Top 12 is a relatively low standard competition usually dominated by the 3 top Irish sides. The fourth Irish team, Connacht, had a stadium capacity of 5,500 in Cheika's time and regularly finishes at the bottom end of the table. Let's look at the top 3 placings in the League from 2005-06 to 2008-09 when the winner was first past the post, and the top 4 placings from 2009-10 to 2011-12 when a finals series was played:

2005-06 Ulster, Leinster, Munster
2006-07 Ospreys, Cardiff, Leinster
2007-08 Leinster, Cardiff, Munster
2008-09 Munster, Edinburgh, Leinster
2009-10 Leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Munster
2010-11 Munster, Leinster, Ulster, Ospreys
2011-12 Leinster, Ospreys, Munster, Glasgow

So we have the 3 top Irish teams playing in a very soft primary competition with automatic entry into the Heineken Cup.

And what of Michael Cheika's performance at Stade Francais. Let's look at the Club's standing in the Top 14 at the end of each of the last 4 seasons:

2008-09 coach - Ewen McKenzie 4th
2009-10 coaches - Jacques Delmas & Didier Faugeron 8th
2010-11 coach - Michael Cheika 11th
2011-12 coach - Michael Cheika 7th

Michael Cheika has undoubtedly been a successful coach in Europe but he's not the Messiah.
.

 

[SuperGrover]

Why is it that whenever the English team(s) is strong it is attributed to the tough fiercely contested competition that is the Aviva premiership churning out hardened and street-wise players used to pressure filled situations, yet whenever the English team(s) is less than dominant it's attributed to the toll the same tough fiercely contested competition. Either way there's whinging.

You don't often hear the Irish, Welsh or Scottish complaining that they don't have enough tough pressure-filled games to adequately prepare them for the Heineken Cup.

 

[It is what it is]

Michael Cheika's name invariably gets mentioned in connection with any potential vacancy at an Australian franchise and also from time to time in relation to the Wallabies' top job. The general consensus seems to be that if he applied anywhere he would be automatically appointed and that he would necessarily be outstandingly successful. However at any party there is usually some grump spoiling everybody's fun, and so in this case we have G&GR's resident curmudgeon putting a damper on the euphoria:

As RH points out, much is made of the fact that he coached Leinster to victory in the Heineken Cup in season 2008-09. Hooray! How good is that? But if we look a little closer we find that Irish teams have won 5 of the last 7 Heineken Cups. Leinster themselves have won 3 of the last 4, only one of which with Cheika coaching. Since taking charge at Leinster in May 2005 his Heineken Cup record read:

2005-06 beaten in semi-final
2006-07 beaten in quarter-final
2007-08 failed to advance from qualifying pool
2008-09 won
2009-10 beaten in semi-final

Let's ponder why Irish teams have been so successful in the Heineken Cup in recent years. English and French teams each have 6 places and qualify each year by their performances in the Aviva Premiership/Anglo-Welsh Cup and Top 14 Championship respectively. These are high standard and fiercely contested competitions. By contrast the other 4 nations involved earn qualification by their performances in the Pro 12, previously known as the Celtic League and then the Celtic and Mariners League. Ireland has 3 spots, Wales 3, Scotland 2 and Italy 2. So 10 of the Top 12 teams automatically qualify.

The Top 12 is a relatively low standard competition usually dominated by the 3 top Irish sides. The fourth Irish team, Connacht, had a stadium capacity of 5,500 in Cheika's time and regularly finishes at the bottom end of the table. Let's look at the top 3 placings in the League from 2005-06 to 2008-09 when the winner was first past the post, and the top 4 placings from 2009-10 to 2011-12 when a finals series was played:

2005-06 Ulster, Leinster, Munster
2006-07 Ospreys, Cardiff, Leinster
2007-08 Leinster, Cardiff, Munster
2008-09 Munster, Edinburgh, Leinster
2009-10 Leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Munster
2010-11 Munster, Leinster, Ulster, Ospreys
2011-12 Leinster, Ospreys, Munster, Glasgow

So we have the 3 top Irish teams playing in a very soft primary competition with automatic entry into the Heineken Cup.

And what of Michael Cheika's performance at Stade Francais. Let's look at the Club's standing in the Top 14 at the end of each of the last 4 seasons:

2008-09 coach - Ewen McKenzie 4th
2009-10 coaches - Jacques Delmas & Didier Faugeron 8th
2010-11 coach - Michael Cheika 11th
2011-12 coach - Michael Cheika 7th

Michael Cheika has undoubtedly been a successful coach in Europe but he's not the Messiah.
.

Good piece and well researched.
I note some cynicism however about his winning of the Heineken Cup. I don't care which club or country you represent, winning the HC is HUGE and should never be taken lightly.

When Cheika arrived at Leinster he inherited a team that had consistently done 3 things;
- fallen short at the final hurdle in big games
- been bullied by their friends from Munster
- melted in the heat of battle in the forwards

He fixed all 3 major issues, introduced a serious academy, won the HC and most importantly, left the joint in a better place than he found it.
Let's give him some credit for the sustained success Leinster are still experiencing based on his systems, recruitment and player development efforts.

At Stade Francais he took over a club in turmoil. Stade had an eccentric and irrational owner who took the club to within 24 hours of being thrown out of the French Top 14. In addition poisonous player power was rampant within the club and his recruitment efforts were curtailed by severe budgetary limitations and the related decision delays these caused. Unbelievable as it may sound, SF did not even have a gym available when he first arrived.

Cheika is definitely different.
He is not;
- one of the boys
- a drinker or big social mixer
- dependent on his livelihood from coaching
- one to tolerate fools or imposters
- politically correct, if the blazer brigade expect him to be subserviant

The question that clubs seeking his services need to ask themselves BEFORE he arrives and asks them is.........Is our club ready for the tough decisions that he'll make and are we willing to support them and him through the fall out?
There will be;
- players receiving real, honest and constructive feedback for perhaps the 1st time in their rugby careers.....reputations don't matter either.
- players running off to their managers, officials, the media, their mummies and daddies, and to fellow players whinging about what he's doing
- players, coaches and most probably officials leaving the organisation and others joining

He will however;
- bring a steely resolve and confidence to the team he coaches
- take respect in front of popularity every time.
- actually teach players how to play and make them better players
- speak the blunt and honest truth and expect the same in return
- set and expect extremely high standards of himself and ALL involved
- strive for his teams to play an aggressive and expansive style of rugby
- leave the joint in a better place than he found it

If you can't handle these characteristics then don't go near him.
Otherwise, embrace the change he'll bring to deliver the results you want.

You ask any honest successful coach and they'll tell you how much it helps to have really good players, playing well.
Our Super Rugby teams are full of good players BUT how many could become really good players and play well if the right coach was hired?
You are right, Cheika isn't the Messiah, but what you see is what you get and you won't die wondering with him.

 

[BPC]

Michael Cheika has undoubtedly been a successful coach in Europe but he's not the Messiah.
.

 

[ChargerWA]

Cheika is definitely different.
He is not;
- one of the boys
- a drinker or big social mixer
- dependent on his livelihood from coaching
- one to tolerate fools or imposters
- politically correct, if the blazer brigade expect him to be subserviant

The question that clubs seeking his services need to ask themselves BEFORE he arrives and asks them is.........Is our club ready for the tough decisions that he'll make and are we willing to support them and him through the fall out?
There will be;
- players receiving real, honest and constructive feedback for perhaps the 1st time in their rugby careers.....reputations don't matter either.
- players running off to their managers, officials, the media, their mummies and daddies, and to fellow players whinging about what he's doing
- players, coaches and most probably officials leaving the organisation and others joining

He will however;
- bring a steely resolve and confidence to the team he coaches
- take respect in front of popularity every time.
- actually teach players how to play and make them better players
- speak the blunt and honest truth and expect the same in return
- set and expect extremely high standards of himself and ALL involved
- strive for his teams to play an aggressive and expansive style of rugby
- leave the joint in a better place than he found it

If you can't handle these characteristics then don't go near him.
Otherwise, embrace the change he'll bring to deliver the results you want.

You ask any honest successful coach and they'll tell you how much it helps to have really good players, playing well.
Our Super Rugby teams are full of good players BUT how many could become really good players and play well if the right coach was hired?
You are right, Cheika isn't the Messiah, but what you see is what you get and you won't die wondering with him.

WANT.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

In comparison to all the coaches who have come before at the Force, Cheika would be the best credentialed. He hasn't coached at international level like John Mitchell, but ask most Kiwis and they'd say the Mitchell years weren't fantastic for the All Blacks. Winning a HEC title is no mean feat and it's more than I can say for some other coaches being bandied about. There was an article in the West last week with Eddie O'Sullivan being in the mix and I think he'd also be a sound choice.

I'm with Charger in that the things that IIWII outlined above are qualities I'd like to see in a coach at the Force. If Cheika has those, then bring it. Things need to change at the club and he might just be the guy to bring it about.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

In light of recent circumstances, I thought it pertinent to bump this thread, so the valuable IP contained therein isn't lost in the Gaggerland Archives.

For one, I am excited about the prospects of next year for Mr Cheika.

 

[en_force_er]

In light of recent circumstances, I thought it pertinent to bump this thread, so the valuable IP contained therein isn't lost in the Gaggerland Archives.

For one, I am excited about the prospects of next year for Mr Cheika.

The things he could do with a roster captained by David Pocock are astounding. Great prospect.

 

[wamberal]

Worth a bump, I reckon.

 

[swingpass]

i hope some of the Cheika boosters from 2012, come back to look at what they wrote then and compare to what they are saying now.

these are particularly prescient

"Michael Cheika has undoubtedly been a successful coach in Europe but he's not the Messiah"
Bruce Ross


"Cheika is definitely different.
He is not;
- one of the boys
- a drinker or big social mixer
- dependent on his livelihood from coaching
- one to tolerate fools or imposters
- politically correct, if the blazer brigade expect him to be subserviant

The question that clubs seeking his services need to ask themselves BEFORE he arrives and asks them is...Is our club ready for the tough decisions that he'll make and are we willing to support them and him through the fall out?
There will be;
- players receiving real, honest and constructive feedback for perhaps the 1st time in their rugby careers...reputations don't matter either.
- players running off to their managers, officials, the media, their mummies and daddies, and to fellow players whinging about what he's doing
- players, coaches and most probably officials leaving the organisation and others joining

He will however;
- bring a steely resolve and confidence to the team he coaches
- take respect in front of popularity every time.
- actually teach players how to play and make them better players
- speak the blunt and honest truth and expect the same in return
- set and expect extremely high standards of himself and ALL involved
- strive for his teams to play an aggressive and expansive style of rugby
- leave the joint in a better place than he found it

If you can't handle these characteristics then don't go near him.
Otherwise, embrace the change he'll bring to deliver the results you want."
It is what it is

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I stand by my comments