RWC 2019 1/4 Final England vs Australia

[Brumby Runner]

There'll be a bounce, there nearly always is. And we can hardly get worse. I hope.
If we want to see a sustained improvement, a LOT more needs to happen besides getting a new coach. Sure, we can look at the U-20s and Schoolboys beating NZ this year, but looking closer at what is happening in the de facto development pathways at school and junior level, there is a looming problem. Club rugby is enjoying good following, but the next tier is a bit lost.
England have a depth of resources (financial and human) that we just don't. We need therefore to be smarter, not just at the Wallabies level but all the way down. The current RA board probably won't fix this. They're as much a disaster as Cheika. But the whole pathway development, mainly in coaching structures (S&C, skills, tactics, kicking, leadership), has to evolve.
Historically, a winning Wallaby team can initiate some top down interest. I hope the next coach gets this bit right. I hope the admin gets the rest right.

While I agree, especially in regard to pathways, I would not like to see the failings on the administrative side dilute the responsibility of Michael Cheika for the exceptionally poor results of the Wallabies during his time at the helm.

On the pathways, I am encouraged by the changes that have been made to the Schoolboys/U18s combination and the new tournament structures in place for the U19/U20s. With the likes of players like McReight, Wilson, Lucas, Harris, Lolesio, et al coming through the U20s this year following others like Wright, ASY (Angus Scott-Young), Hockings, Blyth, Swain, Vui, HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) etc a year or so older, I think there is a lot of hope that the fruits of these efforts will be realised in one or two years most.

 

[cyclopath]

While I agree, especially in regard to pathways, I would not like to see the failings on the administrative side dilute the responsibility of Michael Cheika for the exceptionally poor results of the Wallabies during his time at the helm.

On the pathways, I am encouraged by the changes that have been made to the Schoolboys/U18s combination and the new tournament structures in place for the U19/U20s. With the likes of players like McReight, Wilson, Lucas, Harris, Lolesio, et al coming through the U20s this year following others like Wright, ASY (Angus Scott-Young), Hockings, Blyth, Swain, Vui, HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) etc a year or so older, I think there is a lot of hope that the fruits of these efforts will be realised in one or two years most.

I'm not diluting anything, I'm looking at a broader picture. It's a mistake to think a new coach, or a bunch of U-20s are all we need. Where is the depth of quality inside backs amongst all those (mostly) forwards you named? Participation levels at schools are falling. Rapidly. Never mind we had a rich vein at the pointy end this year. Look at the U-20s' results for several years prior. We never seem to have more than 1 Super Rugby team at a time that is halfway decent or better. The base of rugby in Australia is shrinking in quantity and quality and if it is not addressed, we will ultimately not go far.

 

[Tomikin]

I'm a vocal as everyone with my criticism of Michael Cheika (well maybe not BR lol) but I would just like to say Thank you for your passion commitment and taking over a were Link basically left us in tatters, there's a lot to say about tactic's etc but one thing Cheika had was passion and wanting to win, he just came up short, But least he stuck it out and didn't quit on Australian Rugby.

Good luck for the future Michael, hope all goes well, and to all our players who have given there all to Australian Rugby, I say thank you.

Now to the future, lets put on our big boy pants, stop crying into our beers man up and start winning again. 2020 the year the Brumbies win Super Rugby and the Wallabies bring back the Bledisloe cup onwards and upwards

 

[gel]

Can't agree. The coaching at the Brumbies since the middle of 2018 has been as good as, and better than most of, any of the Super coaches from SA and NZ. Witness their excellent form at the end of 2018 and during the whole of this year. Finished third on their merit this year and was the only Aus conference team to be consistently competitive with the best. And how did Cheika treat the players who had excelled during the year. Ignored Pete Samu and Rob Valetini almost completely, had Tom Banks and Joe Powell in the squad but under utilised them all year, played Folau Fainga'a and Tevita Kuridrani during the mid-year tests but ignored them during the RWC, picked a brace of slow lumbering players as wingers and ignored the claims of real wingers.

I am not saying he had a pro-Tahs bias as there were few Tahs also in the final selections, though a couple too many in AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Beale, but he really did seem to favour quite a few Rebels players at the expense of some better performers from other teams. Had he selected more in accordance with "how the super teams have also been performing" he would have had a different looking side turning out for the Wallabies. His results are in no way fair to the way the Brumbies players, for example, have performed over the past 18 months.

I sort of get your point, but it is weakened by the bit I highlighted.

There is no merit while the conferences are in place and the finishing position of the Brumbies was a result of that conference system. Their results were not "consistently competitive" with the best; they got pantsed by the Hurricanes and the Crusaders and twice by the Jaguares - one of which was an arse-whopping. They got trounced by the reds too - which is just embarrassing.

The Brumbies setup is better than the rest of the Australian teams, but in comparison to foreign countries it is difficult to accurately assess.

The rest I don't necessarily disagree with, but I just think it's not necessarily as strong an argument as you make out.

 

[Tomikin]

I sort of get your point, but it is weakened by the bit I highlighted.

There is no merit while the conferences are in place and the finishing position of the Brumbies was a result of that conference system. Their results were not "consistently competitive" with the best; they got pantsed by the Hurricanes and the Crusaders and twice by the Jaguares - one of which was an arse-whopping. They got trounced by the reds too - which is just embarrassing.

The Brumbies setup is better than the rest of the Australian teams, but in comparison to foreign countries it is difficult to accurately assess.

The rest I don't necessarily disagree with, but I just think it's not necessarily as strong an argument as you make out.

I would like to know your thoughts, I think there's alot to be said for the Brumbies success for the closeness and size of Canberra that really makes the team gel a little better then teams that have a bigger city to live in, Im sure its much harder to get a bond with say a city as big as Sydney where say Hooper lives in Manly and some of the others live in Western Sydney.

We tend to think that the Brumbies just have a bit better development or somthing different, but I think some times its the closeness that add's that little 2 - 3 percent that's the difference in professional sports from top 3 and bottom 3.

Im probably a little to reflective and calm after our exit, I mean to me it sucks, but I feel for the guys who went out there to win it and came up short.

I now just Hope Japan win the whole thing, would help my sad heart.

 

[RedsHappy]

I'm not diluting anything, I'm looking at a broader picture. It's a mistake to think a new coach, or a bunch of U-20s are all we need. Where is the depth of quality inside backs amongst all those (mostly) forwards you named? Participation levels at schools are falling. Rapidly. Never mind we had a rich vein at the pointy end this year. Look at the U-20s' results for several years prior. We never seem to have more than 1 Super Rugby team at a time that is halfway decent or better. The base of rugby in Australia is shrinking in quantity and quality and if it is not addressed, we will ultimately not go far.

Cyclo, you know my views and along with others here I have argued since ~ 2011/12 that Australian rugby is in a slow but inexorable death spiral for the essential reason that is incompetently and negligently governed from the very top, and that 'top' is rooted in a set of introverted, inbred, self-serving and self-perpetuating values that are responsible for this condition.

(This dying-slowly condition is not 'intrinsic to the Australian winter sports market' and such like excuses and defeatist analyses. Ireland and Wales for example have tiny populations and less-good climatic and sporting infrastructures compared to ours, and just as difficult winter sports markets, yet somehow they can survive and, relatively, prosper in their rugby code strategies.)

And it is not just the hapless RA board - the NSWRU and QRU boards and senior leadership are as bad as they are coupled into and part of the same deep institutional sickness.

No entity, no institution, over time is ever better than its uppermost leadership's capability, self-honesty and internal culture. Expecting lower levels of a total system to better the uppermost somehow is a demonstrated illusion, a fantasy.

I have no doubt this core condition within Australian rugby will not self-correct on the basis of 'oh, now we get what we've done and are doing wrong'. The essential change will only come as the death spiral reaches a serious crisis of undeniable proportions, probably of a financial or commercial character. Then and only then may things change for the better and I suspect that change will involve some form of rescue led by World Rugby supported by the NZRU.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I sort of get your point, but it is weakened by the bit I highlighted.

There is no merit while the conferences are in place and the finishing position of the Brumbies was a result of that conference system. Their results were not "consistently competitive" with the best; they got pantsed by the Hurricanes and the Crusaders and twice by the Jaguares - one of which was an arse-whopping. They got trounced by the reds too - which is just embarrassing.

The Brumbies setup is better than the rest of the Australian teams, but in comparison to foreign countries it is difficult to accurately assess.

The rest I don't necessarily disagree with, but I just think it's not necessarily as strong an argument as you make out.

Gel, they were well beaten by both the Hurricanes and the Crusaders, and by the Jaguares in Argentina. Just where did those three teams finish the season?

Sure, they went down to the Reds early on but atoned for that later on. Over the whole of the season, (Reds apart) they beat every SA team they played and only lost to the other teams who finished in the top four. In my book that puts them fairly and squarely up with the best. There really doesn't seem to be any excuse other than pig headedness for Cheika to have ignored so many of the side clearly the best in the conference.

 

[Slim 293]

I sort of get your point, but it is weakened by the bit I highlighted.

There is no merit while the conferences are in place and the finishing position of the Brumbies was a result of that conference system. Their results were not "consistently competitive" with the best; they got pantsed by the Hurricanes and the Crusaders and twice by the Jaguares - one of which was an arse-whopping. They got trounced by the reds too - which is just embarrassing.

The Brumbies setup is better than the rest of the Australian teams, but in comparison to foreign countries it is difficult to accurately assess.

The rest I don't necessarily disagree with, but I just think it's not necessarily as strong an argument as you make out.

Nah, that's simply not true.............

Regardless of being the Australian conference champs, they were in the top four on competition points alone........... two more wins, and seven points clear of the Bulls who finished in 5th place.

They beat every single South African team, and won against the NZ teams that didn't finish above them.

I'm not sure how that's not on merit?

 

[RedsHappy]

Gel, they were well beaten by both the Hurricanes and the Crusaders, and by the Jaguares in Argentina. Just where did those three teams finish the season?

Sure, they went down to the Reds early on but atoned for that later on. Over the whole of the season, (Reds apart) they beat every SA team they played and only lost to the other teams who finished in the top four. In my book that puts them fairly and squarely up with the best. There really doesn't seem to be any excuse other than pig headedness for Cheika to have ignored so many of the side clearly the best in the conference.

The serious danger signs that 2015's RWC relative Cheika coaching 'success' was but a combination of fortuitous circumstances unlikely to be ever repeated came swiftly enough with the pathetic and clueless Wallabies performances re England in mid-2016 when we came not close to winning a single home Test vs an England we had beaten at home on many prior occasions. That's about as bad as it can get in Wallaby-land. But no one really seemed to care because we had Michael Cheika at the helm, he would surely sort the problems out!

Any competent RA board who knew a thing about elite rugby coaching would have seen that winter 2016 Tests outcome as a seriously concerning inflection point requiring, at the very least, major alterations to Cheika's coaching team and tactical policies. In NZ such an outcome would have resulted in a range of sackings and deep, studious reassessments of what was self-evidently wrong.

But, essentially, nothing happened in any reforming manner and Cheika's arrogance and bravado that he knew better than all around him and would continue to win over the RA board with his 'my way or the highway' coaching model was strengthened. The RA board, in all its typical supine incompetence took no action and the Cheika roller coaster sped up and on. We fans, and the code as a whole, paid the price of this ego-driven monolith repetitively in the 2016-19 periods.

That neither Cheika nor anything else much was ever fixed or altered, attitudinally or otherwise, was on a kind of tragic (for Australian rugby and its fans) display when Cheika in his final Wallaby media conference last night berated a journalist for not considering his feelings and emotional state in simply asking if he Cheika would now depart the scene as he had previously, and loudly, affirmed without provocation.

His response was the epitome of arrogant vanity and crass self-centredness, no team was ever likely to genuinely develop well under that climate, with that style of leadership. But the warning signs were there for many years and from many outcomes, this was to be a chronicle of failure and mediocrity well foretold.

 

[Dan54]

Have to say does anyone else think Nic White looks like he should be playing for England, with that mo he sporting I keep thinking he flies a spitfire and is Cpt Biggles!!!

 

[gel]

I would like to know your thoughts, I think there's alot to be said for the Brumbies success for the closeness and size of Canberra that really makes the team gel a little better then teams that have a bigger city to live in, Im sure its much harder to get a bond with say a city as big as Sydney where say Hooper lives in Manly and some of the others live in Western Sydney.

We tend to think that the Brumbies just have a bit better development or somthing different, but I think some times its the closeness that add's that little 2 - 3 percent that's the difference in professional sports from top 3 and bottom 3.

Im probably a little to reflective and calm after our exit, I mean to me it sucks, but I feel for the guys who went out there to win it and came up short.

I now just Hope Japan win the whole thing, would help my sad heart.

They actually do have a better set up. That is a proven fact by numerous years of results - but that does not mean that they are immune to criticism.

I think their proximity to the AIS has something to do with it, but also their remoteness from the absolute incompetence of institutions like the QRU.

The issue I am raising is one of "best in Australia" when that is clearly not good enough. We have to be best in the world and that is what should be the goal.

Cheika was so far from that, it wasn't funny. Good change merchant, but should have been cast aside seasons ago.

 

[gel]

Gel, they were well beaten by both the Hurricanes and the Crusaders, and by the Jaguares in Argentina. Just where did those three teams finish the season?

Sure, they went down to the Reds early on but atoned for that later on. Over the whole of the season, (Reds apart) they beat every SA team they played and only lost to the other teams who finished in the top four. In my book that puts them fairly and squarely up with the best. There really doesn't seem to be any excuse other than pig headedness for Cheika to have ignored so many of the side clearly the best in the conference.

Not disagreeing on the pigheaded part - I would have picked more of them too.

But I just disagree with your comments about the brumbies being up there with the best.

Their results clearly showed they were a sizeable step down from the best. The conference system does not help us here - it is giving a false sense of ourselves.

 

[KOB1987]

Gel, they were well beaten by both the Hurricanes and the Crusaders, and by the Jaguares in Argentina. Just where did those three teams finish the season?

Sure, they went down to the Reds early on but atoned for that later on. Over the whole of the season, (Reds apart) they beat every SA team they played and only lost to the other teams who finished in the top four. In my book that puts them fairly and squarely up with the best. There really doesn't seem to be any excuse other than pig headedness for Cheika to have ignored so many of the side clearly the best in the conference.

That's right I forgot - it was Cheika's poor selection to not pick enough Brumbies, but great selecting by the 3 person selection panel to not pick many Tahs.

 

[Derpus]

I'm not diluting anything, I'm looking at a broader picture. It's a mistake to think a new coach, or a bunch of U-20s are all we need. Where is the depth of quality inside backs amongst all those (mostly) forwards you named? Participation levels at schools are falling. Rapidly. Never mind we had a rich vein at the pointy end this year. Look at the U-20s' results for several years prior. We never seem to have more than 1 Super Rugby team at a time that is halfway decent or better. The base of rugby in Australia is shrinking in quantity and quality and if it is not addressed, we will ultimately not go far.

what do tho?

 

[molman]

Can't agree. The coaching at the Brumbies since the middle of 2018 has been as good as, and better than most of, any of the Super coaches from SA and NZ. Witness their excellent form at the end of 2018 and during the whole of this year. Finished third on their merit this year and was the only Aus conference team to be consistently competitive with the best. And how did Cheika treat the players who had excelled during the year. Ignored Pete Samu and Rob Valetini almost completely, had Tom Banks and Joe Powell in the squad but under utilised them all year, played Folau Fainga'a and Tevita Kuridrani during the mid-year tests but ignored them during the RWC, picked a brace of slow lumbering players as wingers and ignored the claims of real wingers.

I am not saying he had a pro-Tahs bias as there were few Tahs also in the final selections, though a couple too many in AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Beale, but he really did seem to favour quite a few Rebels players at the expense of some better performers from other teams. Had he selected more in accordance with "how the super teams have also been performing" he would have had a different looking side turning out for the Wallabies. His results are in no way fair to the way the Brumbies players, for example, have performed over the past 18 months.

You're welcome to disagree, but the facts are that in;

2017 based on points (conference system aside), the Brumbies came 9th, Western Force 12th, Reds 14th, Waratahs 16th and Rebels 18th out of 18 teams
2018 based on points (conference system aside), the Waratahs came 5th (on points diff vs Highlanders), Rebels 9th, Brumbies 10th, Reds 13th out of 15 teams
2019 based on points (conference system aside), the Brumbies came 4th, Rebels 11th, Waratahs 12th and Reds 14th out of 15 teams

I think it's hard to argue that our teams and players are achieving great success at the the provincial level. For comparison I provided Saracens as an example for where a collection of the English players are coming from who have won the English Premiership in 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19 & the European Champions Cup 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, the later being against the best of the TOP14, Pro14 & Premiership comps.

They have very well coached players, who consistently and systematically perform for their clubs, where as many of our players and teams do not show anywhere near the same level of success which is either a reflection of our coaching or players ability.

This is not an individual criticism of any particular franchise like the Brumbies, who I agree have shown a upward trend over the period you mention, but they are still no Crusaders or Lions or Saracens, or even Brumbies of old. We just haven't been competing at the same level for awhile, yet people seem to think the International coach is going to be the one to suddenly fix all the shortcomings.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing Cheika, I was just mearly pointing out that from a coaching point of view, Cheika's and Eddie Jones' positions were very different with regards to what they had going into their respective international teams and whilst you can congratulate him on his coaching I think you need to acknowledge the raw material he started with in many cases.

 

[molman]

I'm a vocal as everyone with my criticism of Michael Cheika (well maybe not BR lol) but I would just like to say Thank you for your passion commitment and taking over a were Link basically left us in tatters, there's a lot to say about tactic's etc but one thing Cheika had was passion and wanting to win, he just came up short, But least he stuck it out and didn't quit on Australian Rugby.

Good luck for the future Michael, hope all goes well, and to all our players who have given there all to Australian Rugby, I say thank you.

I concur. You can't disagree that the guy was passionate and I have no doubt really did give it his all. I look at the emotion he was feeling with the Wallabies result vs. Schmidt with the Ireland result and you know what, I want the guy who is truely distraught at having let people down. As you say, good luck Cheika where ever things take you.

 

[Bobby Sands]

Can't agree. The coaching at the Brumbies since the middle of 2018 has been as good as, and better than most of, any of the Super coaches from SA and NZ. Witness their excellent form at the end of 2018 and during the whole of this year. Finished third on their merit this year and was the only Aus conference team to be consistently competitive with the best. And how did Cheika treat the players who had excelled during the year. Ignored Pete Samu and Rob Valetini almost completely, had Tom Banks and Joe Powell in the squad but under utilised them all year, played Folau Fainga'a and Tevita Kuridrani during the mid-year tests but ignored them during the RWC, picked a brace of slow lumbering players as wingers and ignored the claims of real wingers.

I am not saying he had a pro-Tahs bias as there were few Tahs also in the final selections, though a couple too many in AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Beale, but he really did seem to favour quite a few Rebels players at the expense of some better performers from other teams. Had he selected more in accordance with "how the super teams have also been performing" he would have had a different looking side turning out for the Wallabies. His results are in no way fair to the way the Brumbies players, for example, have performed over the past 18 months.

I actually agree with this.

Why is it that the Brumbies are better at mauling than the Wallabies?

Pete Samu is a much better 6 than David, and David is a better 7 than Michael, but I am happy to with either.

We just did not adapt, the players looked lost, our 10s have lost all confidence, our "defense patterns" are a joke.

The upside is most of this stuff can be turned around quite quickly, but I do think we need to clean house and build a new culture and game plan.

Cheik seems very old school, club footy coach to me - he speaks poorly, and lacks attention to detail. When he talks about not developing a kicking game because running rugby is "what we do" and how "Australian's want us to play" what an absolute load of garbage.

Australians want the Wallabies to adapt and be at the bleeding edge of rugby development, playing enterprising but more importantly winning rugby.

Cheik is a good man, but not the right man and he hasn't been for a while.

The Wallabies need an identity transplant, and I am completely fine if it requires overseas brain power to do so.

God knows the game is not travelling well enough to dictate that we should not be embracing new ideas.

Bringing Scott Johnson home for this exact reason is a very good idea from Raelene, and I think as much as people bag her she gets more things right then she gets wrong.

Will be very interesting to hear his review, and recommendations from that very bumpy campaign. Even though he has been very involved with Scotland, he would have also been very exposed to clubs like Saracens. I hope we brings some of these learnings home, and applies them here.

 

[Namerican]

As others have noted Australia's tactics were antiquated and don't equate to winning rugby in 2019. You can't endlessly push the ball wide against rush defenses filled with extremely fit players, or run out of your own 22.

Even the French played more intelligently today. They ran the ball frequently, but when the situation called for it they kicked intelligently and played the field position game. Cheika seemed to think you could either kick or run, not kick and run where appropriate.

Aside from the emphasis on running they often ran without any structure, support or purpose. Just pushing the ball around.

Some of this falls on the players, but the coaches put them in this situation and persisted in trying to win that way. An intercept try per game is not acceptable!!

I'm hoping the Wallabies select a northern hemisphere coach who can instill a clinical edge, play the numbers game and still harness the attacking flair of Australian rugby.

I still think the Wallabies would lose to England, but it could have been closer.

 

[boyo]

Would that be the Cote Room?

No, the Narnia Room.

 

[boyo]

Would that be the Cote Room?

Whose Cote is that jacket?