Michael Cheika

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Those are some striking stats Reg. Just goes to show how good the times were under Jones, Dwyer (Mk II) and MacQueen.

 

[Lost]

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.


View attachment 11164

Would be interested to see the NZ only data for the same periods? Sense is in recent years we have played them more and that feeds into the results strongly.

 

[molman]

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.

This is the Wallaby Success in the pro-era (hopefully this doesn't contain errors as I typed it up rather fast). Looks rather downward to me?

 

[gel]

not quite the important part...

the important part of that graph is that the lead ins to the world cup show upward trends, except for the lead ins to 2015 and 2019 which are the complete reverse

 

[fatprop]

Those are some striking stats Reg. Just goes to show how good the times were under Jones, Dwyer (Mk II) and MacQueen.

The question is were those "good times" the outliers or not?

The challenge for many is that they are too young to remember the really shit years, they grew up in the "good times" and think that is the norm

 

[John S]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...n-australian-rugby-jones-20191024-p5341y.html

EJ (Eddie Jones) has stuck up for Cheik, now that the dust has settled from the QF.

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

The state unions don't really vote very often though. They vote at general meetings of Rugby Australia (which there would normally only be one, the AGM). The main vote is electing and re-electing board members.

After the Arbib report, the voting power of NSW and Qld was decreased slightly. They no longer have a controlling vote between the two of them.

NZRU is pretty similar. Their members are the provincial unions and the number of votes they receive is directly proportional to their size so the bigger unions can collectively exercise much more control (like in Australia). They just have more members because the provinces are smaller and more numerous.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

This is the Wallaby Success in the pro-era (hopefully this doesn't contain errors as I typed it up rather fast). Looks rather downward to me?


View attachment 11165

For the most part, the best years for results are the world cup years.

The W/L ratio gets a pretty good boost when we play games against minnows/2nd tier nations, like we do in world cup years.

This year for example: 6 wins/4 losses - 60% but, four of those wins were against Fiji, Uruguay, Georgia, and Samoa.

Results against other "tier one" nations, not so good. IMHO, that is where the Wallaby success/failure should be measured - against our peers.

 

[liquor box]

The question is were those "good times" the outliers or not?

The challenge for many is that they are too young to remember the really shit years, they grew up in the "good times" and think that is the norm

Were the good times because of coaching or a special group of players? I think that the Wallabies could have been slightly better for the last few years, and a better coach may have improved us a little bit but given the players we can select from I think we are about where we should be performance wise.

Until we luck out and get truly world class players in important positions who have all of the required skills to play rugby, we cant expect much more.

For a long time (when NRL players switched???) we have accepted players in the Wallabies who have great flaws to their games and that are lacking fundamentals because they excel at one area of the game. An example would be not being able to kick or pass versus being able to jump high and catch a ball or having a great passing game versus not being able to tackle.

No coach can win on a regular basis (upsets can happen) without having at least a few better players than your opponent (in important positions).

 

[barbarian]

Not defending Cheika, but I'd also argue that the global standard of rugby is far higher now than it used to be.

Even in the 2000s we had half-baked Northern Hemisphere teams coming out here to tour, and we'd generally put them away without too much trouble. And at World Cup time we'd drum up big scores against even 2nd tier sides.

Now it seems like there's just no easy games. You can't turn up against Fiji and expect to win by 40. Scotland come down here to tour and they are fit, well-drilled and will beat you if you don't show up. And when we go over there it's harder, especially against nations like Italy and Argentina that just used to be walk-up wins.

And we go to a World Cup and play teams like Georgia and Uruguay - in the past you just worried about injuries, but now you actually have a game on your hands. They are so much better than what they were even eight years ago.

So instead of 2-3 easily winnable games each year, now we don't even get one. Which can turn a 60% season to a 40% season pretty quickly if things don't go your way. And thanks to lean player stocks, poor coaching and development....... they haven't.
.

 

[fatprop]

Were the good times because of coaching or a special group of players? I think that the Wallabies could have been slightly better for the last few years, and a better coach may have improved us a little bit but given the players we can select from I think we are about where we should be performance wise.

Until we luck out and get truly world class players in important positions who have all of the required skills to play rugby, we cant expect much more.

For a long time (when NRL players switched???) we have accepted players in the Wallabies who have great flaws to their games and that are lacking fundamentals because they excel at one area of the game. An example would be not being able to kick or pass versus being able to jump high and catch a ball or having a great passing game versus not being able to tackle.

No coach can win on a regular basis (upsets can happen) without having at least a few better players than your opponent (in important positions).

It is always both, the challenge for Aus currently is that very few (if any) players that would make a world 15 or second 15 or even the Eng, Bok or Ab starting sides

Then you have the best 10 we have out of form and the other options not really grasping the opportunity

You then ad to that a flawed playing style for the players we have and we see what we get

 

[Mr Wobbly]

Were the good times because of coaching or a special group of players? I think that the Wallabies could have been slightly better for the last few years, and a better coach may have improved us a little bit but given the players we can select from I think we are about where we should be performance wise.

Until we luck out and get truly world class players in important positions who have all of the required skills to play rugby, we cant expect much more.

For a long time (when NRL players switched???) we have accepted players in the Wallabies who have great flaws to their games and that are lacking fundamentals because they excel at one area of the game. An example would be not being able to kick or pass versus being able to jump high and catch a ball or having a great passing game versus not being able to tackle.

No coach can win on a regular basis (upsets can happen) without having at least a few better players than your opponent (in important positions).

I would say that a good coach would have the group of players at their disposal playing to their potential.

A great coach would have the team playing better than the sum of their parts.

Look at Jamie Joseph and Japan as an example. How many of the Japanese team would get a game in the current Wallaby side? I'd say maybe one of the backrow, probably Nagare at 9, and probably one of their back three. They played, as a team, much better than their on-paper side.

I think the Wallabies played well below their potential best at the RWC and have done for a few years now.

 

[Brumby Runner]

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.

In that regard, he seems to have learnt something from Michael Cheika.

 

[Brumby Runner]

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.

OK, Super Rugby titles in 2001, 2004, 2011 and 2014. All years in periods when the overall Wallaby win rate was lower than periods preceding them.

 

[barbarian]

In that regard, he seems to have learnt something from Michael Cheika.

At least Cheika had the good grace to get the hell out when it was clear he'd failed.

Clyne's time was up at least two years ago, but he's staying on to 'mentor his replacement'. We should all be so glad the bloke who bungled pretty much everything during his time as Chair is now imparting his immense wisdom on his replacement.
.

 

[dru]

not quite the important part.

the important part of that graph is that the lead ins to the world cup show upward trends, except for the lead ins to 2015 and 2019 which are the complete reverse

That is interesting.

 

[fatprop]

I would say that a good coach would have the group of players at their disposal playing to their potential.

A great coach would have the team playing better than the sum of their parts.

Look at Jamie Joseph and Japan as an example. How many of the Japanese team would get a game in the current Wallaby side? I'd say maybe one of the backrow, probably Nagare at 9, and probably one of their back three. They played, as a team, much better than their on-paper side.

I think the Wallabies played well below their potential best at the RWC and have done for a few years now.

They had about 230 days(?) in camp and a culture of drilling structures

 

[Brumby Runner]

At least Cheika had the good grace to get the hell out when it was clear he'd failed.

Clyne's time was up at least two years ago, but he's staying on to 'mentor his replacement'. We should all be so glad the bloke who bungled pretty much everything during his time as Chair is now imparting his immense wisdom on his replacement.
.

No, I just don't accept that Barbs. Cheika's time was up at least two years ago (imo four years ago and I said as much at the time). I have no time for Clyne and see no justification in him staying on one day more no matter his reasoning. But at least to me Cheika was in precisely the same boat and should have had the good grace to go a couple of years ago at the latest.

 

[Lorenzo]

Were the good times because of coaching or a special group of players? I think that the Wallabies could have been slightly better for the last few years, and a better coach may have improved us a little bit but given the players we can select from I think we are about where we should be performance wise.

Until we luck out and get truly world class players in important positions who have all of the required skills to play rugby, we cant expect much more.

For a long time (when NRL players switched???) we have accepted players in the Wallabies who have great flaws to their games and that are lacking fundamentals because they excel at one area of the game. An example would be not being able to kick or pass versus being able to jump high and catch a ball or having a great passing game versus not being able to tackle.

No coach can win on a regular basis (upsets can happen) without having at least a few better players than your opponent (in important positions).

It seems to me that you are trivializing the role of the coaching staff. like, there's no real point in having elite coaches because the quality of the players available is basically fixed and Largely attributable to circumstances well beyond the control of the coaching stuff.

This doesn't seem that logical to me. In the last decade we've seen five 'big 10' teams improve their winning percentages by at least 10 percentage points from one HC to the next. England, South Africa, France, Wales and Ireland are all doing a LOT better than they were under their previous head coach. There is obviously japan, too.


It just doesn't seem that likely to me that all five of those teams have suddenly lucked into materially superior players at the same time that they happened to change coaches. I accept that Euro rugby has risen generally, but don't accept that this explains the variances fully.

I fully believe that with a competent coaching staff, this could be a 60-65% side, and that would put us in top 3 or 4 discussion, which feels like an achievable goal. I don't think we'll be winning half against the ABs any time soon but i think 35 to 40% against them is feasible.

 

[Braveheart81]

Pretty different positions though. One is the person's career and livelihood. The other is essentially a passion project for someone of Clyne's wealth and career stage relative to what he was being paid.

Cheika had an employer who could replace him when they decided it was time. Clyne was in the position until his tenure ended or he decided to leave.

No one in Cheika's position resigns on their own accord when they still want to be doing that job.