Bizarre remarks. Want to talk about prioritizing winning? How about Cheik literally saying in his final presser that he would actually prefer to lose than to play a more defensive gameplan?
How can anyone even begin to defend that? This guy was so pigheaded that he wouldn't even consider modifying his approach EVEN IF DOING SO WOULD IMPROVE OUR CHANCES OF WINNING.
Am I the only one that sees him as endlessly selfish? That sees all the comments about his passion to he a bit stomach churning, in light of his extreme abstinence even in the face of constant failure?
Also, you're saying the players aren't motivated..didnt we supposedly hire the master motivator? If the players weren't suitably focused on delivering, what was the master motivator doing for the last 5years?
My take is that a decent number of wallabies had the best parts of their career pinched from them, at least as far as winning trophies goes, by someone on a personal crusade to prove he was smarter than everyone else. I actually feel for the wallabies that won't get another shot.
Yeah, as someone mentioned above. Great three year coach.I may agree with some of the comments re Cheika, but the idea that these guys had the best parts of their career pinched from them is way over the top IMO.
I mean, these are guys who had a 27% winning record in Super rugby, compared to which their Wallaby record under Cheika of 43% is absolutely stunning.
So who pinched the best of their careers, the Super coaches? Their junior coaches who didn't equip them with enough skills? Possibly their parents who weren't able to produce enough natural ability in their genetics. Look, as I said, I think Cheika had well and truly passed his 'use by' date, but the 23 guys in the team have to share a big part of the responsibility, the coach can't throw the passes, make the tackles or clean out the rucks.
Australian Super Rugby teams win % for 4 years leading up to RWC against non Australian teams (excluding Sunwolves), in season only.
1999 - 58%
2003 - 62%
2007 - 48%
2011 - 51%
2015 - 43%
2019 - 27%
Bizarre remarks. Want to talk about prioritizing winning? How about Cheik literally saying in his final presser that he would actually prefer to lose than to play a more defensive gameplan?
How can anyone even begin to defend that? This guy was so pigheaded that he wouldn't even consider modifying his approach EVEN IF DOING SO WOULD IMPROVE OUR CHANCES OF WINNING.
Am I the only one that sees him as endlessly selfish? That sees all the comments about his passion to he a bit stomach churning, in light of his extreme abstinence even in the face of constant failure?
Also, you're saying the players aren't motivated..didnt we supposedly hire the master motivator? If the players weren't suitably focused on delivering, what was the master motivator doing for the last 5years?
My take is that a decent number of wallabies had the best parts of their career pinched from them, at least as far as winning trophies goes, by someone on a personal crusade to prove he was smarter than everyone else. I actually feel for the wallabies that won't get another shot.
It was three nights before the game, and they just needed a few players to make an appearance...
The three players who attended weren't playing that weekend.
Do you have the dataset or a link to get an easy copy? I was curious to do the same but look at it year by year compared to the year by year Wallabies win/loss ratio. What is very apparent is that for whatever reason Cheika was drawing his player pool from some rather poorly performing Super Rugby teams which mirrors my hunch from watching games over the last couple of decades.
Whilst I agree you can critque Cheika on many things, what I am struggling with a little is people casting singular blame when I think there many elements to our current situation and this myopic discussion is ignoring the fact that there are other issues beyond just the head coaches game plan.
Circling back to earlier conversations about players going abroad and changing the Giteau Law, it would be interesting to map the number of Australian players competing in overseas comps to see what impact this could potentially be having on the Super Rugby franchises. I think some people are a little dismissive of the impact. There may be nothing there or it could be telling. Either way it'd be interesting.
I don’t really have any strong views about the argument either way (except it would have been preferable to keep it out of public) but this is a good point. Getting told you’re dropped or didn’t make the cut is terrible. Nor can imagine it being a great experience for the coach.Been thinking, why was Cheika so irate?
He loves the competition for selection.
And they announce the team as late as possible.
So Castle asks for some players not playing in the match.
Cheika wants the whole 31 to think they are in the frame for selection for match day 23.
Then he is told he needs to provide dinner guests.
So that unbalances everything.
Hardest job he has is telling a player he is not in the 23.
Castle forces this early, to get dinner guests.
Hence Cheika mental snap.
I don’t really have any strong views about the argument either way (except it would have been preferable to keep it out of public) but this is a good point. Getting told you’re dropped or didn’t make the cut is terrible. Nor can imagine it being a great experience for the coach.
I put the data together myself going back through the super rugby history according to wikipedia. I made a slight mistake, 1999 should be 56% not 58%.
Here are the year by year % excluding sunwolves and finals.
1996 - 66.7
97 - 48.1
98 - 51.9
99 - 56.0
2000 - 66.7
01 - 59.3
02 - 70.4
03 - 51.9
04 - 55.6
05 - 53.8
06 - 45.9
07 - 37.5
08 - 50.0
09 - 53.8
2010 - 57.5
11 - 41.0
12 - 35.0
13 - 48.7
14 - 50.0
15 - 37.5
16 - 28.2
17 - 13.6
18 - 35.5
19 - 32.3
Been thinking, why was Cheika so irate?
He loves the competition for selection.
And they announce the team as late as possible.
So Castle asks for some players not playing in the match.
Cheika wants the whole 31 to think they are in the frame for selection for match day 23.
Then he is told he needs to provide dinner guests.
So that unbalances everything.
Hardest job he has is telling a player he is not in the 23.
Castle forces this early, to get dinner guests.
Hence Cheika mental snap.
Lorenzo, I hear the passion in your posts for the Wallabies to be successful, but I feel like you have a very specific axe to grind with Cheika. I'd be curious if you have ever met Cheika, spent time with him, worked with him? because if you are just someone looking in from the outside I'm not sure some of your assertions are fair with a rather limited snapshot.
I will say that for many players (who have been under a number of well known coaches), they have expressed that Cheika was the best coach they have had. You can take that for what you want, but I think there is a much more balanced view to be taken of a passionate coach who undeniably had his flaws.
It always seemed very odd to me that he showed so little humility, given that he couldn't get the boat out of the marina. I felt like there was the implication of a grand plan that mere mortals couldnt see but would carry us to the promised land.
Notably, this is the Cheika thread, so the specific axe I grind in this thread will be about Cheika, yes.
I haven't met him, or probably even met anyone who has met him....
Would be huge if the wallabies can get Rennie as the replacement as per what the current chat is, no coach has changed the game more
Now Jamie Joseph as head coach, Rennie as the backs coach and Thorn as the forwards coach. And well well well wallabies you might need to get that trophy cabinet out of storage.
It doesn't necessarily need to be one or the other.
Could be that the coach was deluded *and* that the players have not been fully professional in their approach to the game.
(And it doesn't need to be all the players, either)
Look everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I just think sometimes it's worth taking a second to reflect on what you really know and what you are saying about someone. I just feel some of the discussion has been rather focused on making assertions on his character without really even knowing him or seeing him operate beyond those small snapshots.
I mean you seems to even equate Cheika to someone who might be the type of individual to cheat on his wife but would be good to have a beer with and postulate that players have only said he was a coach they loved because he let them get away with things. I just think this characterisation is a bit much.
I'll be clear, some players have said he was the best coach they have had (not just the one they loved) and no it wasn't just Beale. I just thought it was worth having some balance.
I just compare the discourse around Chieka and Australia to Schmidt and Ireland and it stands in such stark contrast, when really Ireland underperformed by so much more and had so many similar issues in the end - stubbornly sticking to a failed gameplan, selecting underperforming players, blaming the referees, a coach who has been criticised as a control freak. Heck, Schmidt is still not wholly owning the failure, eluding to the cancelled pool games as giving those teams (BZ etc..) the advantage. Yet, the way the Irish seem to be able to discuss the situation with a degree of respect and were still able to celebrate some of their parting players just leaves me a little sad about where some of our discussion has sunk to.