• 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.

Michael Cheika

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
An interesting visual record Reg. As you say, the 1976-80 period was a turning point. To go from a 30% success rate to 60% in one period is remarkable and I would think really must be attributed to a, or some, specific changes being made around those times. And the improvement was really almost overnight. The win rate in 1071 - 75 was bang on the long term average of 30% while the rate in the very next period rose to almost 60%, the long term rate since then.

The disappointing aspect is that the trend since 1995 has been downwards and now sits below 50%. If that can't be arrested quickly, the long term average will take a hit too.
 

TSR

Andrew Slack (58)
What the article says is that wallabies had already committed to sending the entire squad. It was Castle that offered the compromise of 4 players.

It sounds like she DID go to him directly.

"Castle had offered a compromise that the team send four players and some other Australian rugby dignitaries."

MC was unreasonable about it:

"Cheika continued to push back, unwilling to send any players, a scenario that would have been a major embarrassment for RA"

So she dealt with the problem herself which, as CEO, she is rather entitled to do.

Of course, we know Cheika's resistance was totally logical because he ended up changing his mind. :rolleyes:

Honestly, if your boss / the CEO asks you for something and you say no, ought you be surprised when they get it from someone else?

Isn't Cheika supposed to be a really thick-skinned no-bullshit not-a-drama-queen kinda guy? If so, should he have gotten so terribly wounded from learning that the guys he was gonna send to a function had already been told they were going?

To be clear - I’m not rejecting your criticism of Cheika. But if Castle was going to overrule him she should have told him point blank (and I agree she was certainly entitled to do so). In not doing that she weakened her own position (IMO at least).

In answer to your question, if my boss was going to overrule me I’ve no doubt he’d tell me himself.

They’ve both acted poorly IMO, and then doubled down by having a verbal stoush at an inappropriate time & place.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
If you look at the last decade and a bit we've seen a steady decline from Deans to McKenzie to Cheika in terms of the overall results.

The question will be whether the next coach(es) can achieve a greater than 60% win record over their tenures or whether we continue to hover around that 50% mark or slide further. If the next couple of coaches can't crack that 60% mark like most coaches did prior to Deans, then Darwin's Theory of Devolution (Trademark registered, patent pending) starts to make sense.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
Reg, that really is an excellent piece above post #97, well done. See, we can agree about something in Australian rugby about every 5 years or so ;).

Just as aside: I always note that assessments of the Darwin-like bent where it's all some grand macro story like 'the Wallabies have been in decline, doesn't matter who's coaching, etc, it's a kind of permanent inexorable down-trend pretty much in the nature of things as they've been for all this long period, kind of no one's responsibility really, etc', these assessment totally miss a very, very different interpretation of why things are the way they are and what can be done to make it not so.

And that counter interpretation is simple: namely, the supposed 'permanent cosmically-driven decline' is really just a trace line through a period where _the actual quality of management of the code [or whatever] as a systemic whole declined_ and this explains why the symptom and not the cause is that of a playing group(s) under that management also declining as a result. Relatedly it can be so that the calibre of a sporting code's [or whatever's] competitive management system in the same period increased and enhanced itself, so the relative decline of one to the other is doubly magnified.

The inference being: fix the system's management competencies and its core flaws that sit over any defined system and you may well fix the derived results vs some kind of deathly, gloomy fatalism that 'it will always be downhill forever now no matter what anyone does from now on or has done hitherto'.

Take some examples: in the 1960s/1970s the macroeconomic trend lines for the British economy were horrendous and the universal view was they were negatively inexorably downwards, it was just so and could never be reversed, the modern British economic system was (as seen then) doomed to become a tiny fraction of, say, France's and Italy's and so on. Well, OK, but a woman called M Thatcher took charge in 1979, threw out lots of crap business leaders and civil servants, halved union power, changed the tax system, and in the space of ~ one decade the the British economy was transformed and reborn and this day is one of the best performing in Europe and the 5th largest in the world.

In Communist China all Western observers had it from 1949 to ~ 1990 that this economy would forever feed nothing but a peasant lifestyle with poverty if anything increasing with no hope ever in sight. Then the light went on for China's economic masters that they could drastically alter the governance model of the Chinese economy and induce a vibrant, liberated capitalist sub-system under a communist political control system. The rest is history and now we have a booming Chinese middle class dominating economic demand in Asia and fuelling global macro economic demand for decades now.

The point is this: look deep, find the real causes, the way you manage things may well be the reason your plants won't grow and everyone's getting more and more lost and unhappier. There is very little that is manmade that is truly inevitable and unalterable for the better.

Fix the system, fix the management, fix the model and, so often, what you thought was dying and going down forever, can likely be revived, reborn and made prosperous once more.
 

chasmac

Alex Ross (28)
My feeling is the structure of Australian Rugby needs to be fixed.
Also that we have a legacy from JON II where he chased NRL players and jagged a big salary for himself.
Tight budgets have forced our hand at management level.
Payouts to Di Patinson plus a coaching void left us with Cheika and his mandate.
To date Castle has being playing with the cards she was dealt, although she did fail to get Izzy the sign to Code of Conduct form.
Going forward things are delicate. This is where management needs to earn their salaries.
This is a crossroads that will be marked in history.

BTW thanks Cheika, you put in 110% and your team obviously loved you.
Thankyou for your service and good luck in your next venture.
Aim for Eddie Jones like growth and we might see you back out there in 2031.
 

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
There can be no doubt that the period from the end of Deans to now has shown a decline, but if history is any guide when you get the right people doing the right things you can turn this around. Michael was a proud an passionate coach of the Wallabies and I never had any doubt that he badly wanted the boys to be successful. The problem was that his strategy was found out at the top level. Test footy is more conservative and his game was able to be nullified by canny teams who pinned us down in our 22. Our good teams knew when to use the boot to get us out of trouble.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
There can be no doubt that the period from the end of Deans to now has shown a decline, but if history is any guide when you get the right people doing the right things you can turn this around. Michael was a proud an passionate coach of the Wallabies and I never had any doubt that he badly wanted the boys to be successful. The problem was that his strategy was found out at the top level. Test footy is more conservative and his game was able to be nullified by canny teams who pinned us down in our 22. Our good teams knew when to use the boot to get us out of trouble.

I have absolutely no doubt that Aust rugby can be fixed and turned around. No doubt whatsoever.

Honestly the problem is simply this: either (a) no one has found a way to blow up the current entrenched and in-denial governance system and revolutionise it, and sadly there's no sign as yet that they will, and/or (b) the crisis building within that holistic system has not yet become big enough - as really big crises can and do - to induce the requirements of (a).
 

chasmac

Alex Ross (28)
I have absolutely no doubt that Aust rugby can be fixed and turned around. No doubt whatsoever.

Honestly the problem is simply this: either (a) no one has found a way to blow up the current entrenched and in-denial governance system and revolutionise it, and sadly there's no sign as yet that they will, and/or (b) the crisis building within that holistic system has not yet become big enough - as really big crises can and do - to induce the requirements of (a).

RH
Do you have an opinion on how the voting is done at board level?
It is my understanding that QLD and NSW have multiple votes, enough to block the interests of ACT, VIC, NT, WA rugby bodies.
Is it time to address the voting distribution at board level?
Does the traditional model of QLD/NSW controlling RA fit with the current environment?
I'm sure the NZ structure would be different.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Castle had over-riding authority to direct player movements, recovery sessions, and use of rest periods?
Nah.
Boss yes but authority in the above areas no.


I think you're reaching a bit too far............

It was a regular RWC official engagement organised well in advance that all of the players were initially all supposed to attend.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
I think you're reaching a bit too far....

It was a regular RWC official engagement organised well in advance that all of the players were initially all supposed to attend.

Yeah. An illogical comment and an argument for argument's sake.
Based on pure frustration that our rugby head honchos were tearing at each other in public. To me, symptomatic of a very deep malaise that won't be fixed with an internal review, Clyne staying on to his own timetable, and the current board organising the way forward.
 

Aurelius

Ted Thorn (20)
There can be no doubt that the period from the end of Deans to now has shown a decline, but if history is any guide when you get the right people doing the right things you can turn this around. Michael was a proud an passionate coach of the Wallabies and I never had any doubt that he badly wanted the boys to be successful. The problem was that his strategy was found out at the top level. Test footy is more conservative and his game was able to be nullified by canny teams who pinned us down in our 22. Our good teams knew when to use the boot to get us out of trouble.

Maybe, but the most striking moment to me about the England game was that when we were 16-27 down, with 24 minutes on the clock and a dead-cert three points on offer, neither of the commentators who played in the Wallabies' golden years advocated taking the points.
 

molman

Jim Lenehan (48)
Ok so I've done a nice pretty graph. I'm no statistician but I think it tells a story.

Reg, out of curiosity what was the rationale for the year groupings? You have some odd patterns like periods where you have two RWC's and others with just one. Just not sure why you choose 5 years or those particular bracket of years?

I'd also be interested in Super Rugby success overlaid against Wallaby success. Be interesting to see if there is any correlation. It'd be further interesting to see if Junior Wallaby results correlates with future wallaby results at all.

I think it's hard to argue that in the pro era (95 onwards) that the Wallabies are on a downward trend overall. I'm not sure that trends over what really were very different periods of the sport are particularly meaningful or informative towards our current situation, nor that this graph really rebukes Darwins theory of performance trends.

I agree with the various comments about the 'Australian Way' of rugby being a bit of a misnomer. To be honest I've something wondered if the idea of Australian running rugby was more a by-product of our climate compared to the NH teams than anything else.
 

molman

Jim Lenehan (48)
It is absolutely normal . . .

I think the article that a lot of you are extrapolating from contains a lot of ‘It is understood..' language and some quotes from a particular board member, such that it is hard to say what the full truth of the situation and what agendas people who have obviously shared this story might have. Neither of the two people who would know have provided comments, so we really can't tell more than they had an argument in public and Morgan Turinui was involved in intervening in some way.

I know you paint a picture of this being a normal event (Embassy function), but when I think about Eddie Jones being asked for his team to go to an Embassy the Wednesday before a important match (say this weekends one against the All Blacks), I can equally see him telling his bosses no if he felt it wasn't in his teams best interest towards their preparations. I can also see him becoming equally enraged if they went around him.

I mean, Cheika could also be exercising a power play to make Castle look a fool when he cancels etc.. who knows. I guess what I'm saying is I think some of you might be painting some very unsubstantiated conclusions based on limited information.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Reg, out of curiosity what was the rationale for the year groupings? You have some odd patterns like periods where you have two RWC's and others with just one. Just not sure why you choose 5 years or those particular bracket of years?

.

here you go. I've broken it into 4 year cycles up to and including RWCs.

Our overall record across this time remains around 60%. The Alan Jones era probably improves (on the back of the Grand Slam of 84 and Bledisloe of 86), but in the end Cheika's stats are still dramatically less than others.


WObs 2.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Lorenzo

Colin Windon (37)
We probably ought to be thankful for some of the shittier losses (Scotland at home, England at home 3 in a row, whatever other fiascos we've suffered through over the last 68 tests) , since 7 more wins and cheika would have been at 60%, and probably in a decent position to argue for an extension.
 
Top