The Wallabies Thread

[Viking]

Cheika's "considerable abilities"?


He is obviously an effective man manager, he certainly got the Waratahs fit, he somehow managed to get us into the RWC Final.


But I am a bit worried that he might just be a bit narrow in his approach to the game. The days of teams having a set style are long over. The challenge these days is to be adaptable. By all means we must play to our strengths but to get to the top, or to stay in the top echelon, demands a much more flexible approach than we have seen - especially against the Dodgers.

I agree. Cheika is probably a master of team culture but tactics and strategy aren't his strong suits. He prefers to choose or mould players into his style of play instead of creating a style/strategy that best suits the current strengths and weaknesses of the current squad.

Adaptability doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the current team.

 

[Gnostic]

Isn't a short competition better then no competition at all? Surely playing 5 weeks of rugby (or however long it is) against opposition filled with professional rugby players is better then no competition at all.?



Players like Ita Vaea benefited from the game time last year.



What's your solution then Gnostic?

Actual development of the club game where players play week in week out and actually learn the skills. The non test players can go back and what is wrong with expanding on the original State of the Union series with a Heineken Cup style club comp. to give the competition a longer run with the returning players in the fold.

The fact is the NRC does f^%$# all in terms of development, it exposes a few already professional players to some minor game time, eg. Vaea benefitted from simple game time, nothing in terms of development. That is something the base of the game could have done.

All the NRC is IMO, wresting control further from the amateur clubs and centralising all power with the ARU, because they have done so much for the game in Oz.

 

[RedsHappy]

Cheika's "considerable abilities"?

He is obviously an effective man manager, he certainly got the Waratahs fit, he somehow managed to get us into the RWC Final.


But I am a bit worried that he might just be a bit narrow in his approach to the game. The days of teams having a set style are long over. The challenge these days is to be adaptable. By all means we must play to our strengths but to get to the top, or to stay in the top echelon, demands a much more flexible approach than we have seen - especially against the Dodgers.

Of course he has considerable abilities. He's demonstrated them.

Quite a successful coaching career in Europe. The first ever Super title for the Waratahs. To a RWC Final within 12 months of being appointed and when the Wallabies were struggling badly when he assumed the HC role there.

That is not just about 'man management' skills, let's not be silly or churlish. These are exceptional achievements.

In my opinion, what has gone wrong for Cheika is that he's only just realising - partly as a result of his own ego-driven stubbornness and inexperience at national level - is that a full-strength, high calibre coaching group based around men who are far from yes-men is simply essential to creating a national team that can compete against other good teams that have such a group.

Just read the autobiography of the greatest rugby coach the modern game has known, G Henry. Even with the resources of the NZRU, Henry makes abundantly clear how crucial were his (and the NZRU's) choices in building a complete national coaching group. And that's also where the M Byrnes and G Enokas came in, let alone the W Smiths and Hansens.

The entire NZRU system is centred upon the criticality of coach and coaching skill development, period. The ARU is just left in the dust in this area of deep competency and now, in 2016, we finally see the systemic consequences of its institutional blind spots and analytical backwardness.

The ARU has effectively wasted the last decade in an obsessive and profoundly mistaken ideology that what Aus rugby required was more quantity, not more, and faster developing, quality.

EJ (Eddie Jones) has learnt this same hard truth re coaching support resources from years of varied national coaching experiences. That's just one reason why he purged every single England support coach he inherited and brought in an entirely new (and far better) coaching group as well as seeking out the Ellas, Johns, Fowlers, Wilkinsons, and so on.

What do we have? One full time coach in Ledesma. A wholly unproven part-time attack coach in Larkham. An unproven part-time sort-of kicking coach in Malone (now recently dismissed fortunately). And so on. Half the problem is that the ARU has no one in its own organisation capable of mentoring and guiding Chieka in building out the coaching group he needs - one only has to assess the hopeless job they did with Deans' support coaches to see how incapable they are in such crucial areas of elite coach resourcing.

If a national HC does not have a rich array of advisory skills within his direct support group and loads of varied elite coaching experience that such a group should provide, then he will inevitably fall back on 'my patterns of past success' and that is partly what Cheika has done with his Wallaby replication of the Tahs' Chiekaball 'constant possession, constant running' model.

The core problem with that model is that you need exceptionally fine skills, and all consistently applied, at national level in order to make it a winning one. We don't possess enough of those skills against the best coached teams.

The hope we have today is to thoughtfully vary the model and still, for every model we may ever invent, improve our total coaching ingenuity and player skill levels. That's why M Byrne's retention reflects very good - and impressively humble - judgement on Chieka's part. He has come to realise he needs far more capability and experience around him than he ever did in Europe or at the Tahs.

It's to his considerable credit that he has done so, in a way the hapless Deans never did. Let's now hope he makes more essential changes and by doing so we will re-enliven a rational basis for hope that our national team can excel more consistently than it's been able to for the last 10 years and more.

 

[dru]

@Gnostic honest mate, I love your enthusiasm and depth of opinion. But "the NRC does fuck all in terms of development"? Honest. It has proven many levels of difference between Premier Rugby and Super Rugby. It offers a real chance for rugby players to breach the gap.

Imo the SRU does precious little for the grass roots, it diverts funds from the grass root, and surely annoying to its supporters, it does fuck all to get them to professional level.

Get the SRU out of the road, let the Waratahs ltd (as NSWRU professional responibility) get onto the NRC clubs.

Sydney is behind the rest of Aus, by a long shot, in using the comps that are available (as opposed to imagined) to work Premier division players through to professional.

Only have themselves to blame.

 

[mst]

Of course he has considerable abilities. He's demonstrated them.

Most coaches who coach at the top flight of any domestic competition, or European competition (or similar) and even at some other levels have considerable abilities so that just a generalisation. The statement could apply to most coaches even the like of Foley and Graham a few years ago. Either way, all coaches are judge on the results at the time not previous reputation, otherwise the likes of Deans would still be considered a God!

What do we have? One full time coach in Ledesma. A wholly unproven part-time attack coach in Larkham. An unproven part-time sort-of kicking coach in Malone (now recently dismissed fortunately). And so on.

Cheika has selected these people to assist him, like any HC would and is expected to. Before we go on about Ledesma, just remember the only reason he ended up where he is was that no one in Europe or Argentina (or anywhere else) was interested in him as a scrum coach after he was sacked. Also remember, Cheika is also a wholley unproven international coach, as is Gray and Larkham.

Half the problem is that the ARU has no one in its own organisation capable of mentoring and guiding Chieka in building out the coaching group he needs - one only has to assess the hopeless job they did with Deans' support coaches to see how incapable they are in such crucial areas of elite coach resourcing.

Sorry, do you mean we need a coach to coach the coach? I do not know of any tier 1 international coach that is being coached or mentored. So is he suitable for a tier 1 job or should we have gone with a coach that has been developed and work their way up via a tier 2 nation or assistant in an tier 1 international team? Maybe we should ask Graham Henry to came and help Cheika? The mitigating factor here is if the ARU have imposed there will in relation to who can be appointed.

If a national HC does not have a rich array of advisory skills within his direct support group and loads of varied elite coaching experience that such a group should provide, then he will inevitably fall back on 'my patterns of past success' and that is partly what Cheika has done with his Wallaby replication of the Tahs' Chiekaball 'constant possession, constant running' model.

The reality is that player picked for the Wallabies should have the skill already. By the time players are picked for the Wallabies, if they don't have the requisite skills then they should not be there. The Wallabies are the elite players, who merely need some small tweaks and guidance to suit a international level game plan. The Kiwis worked this out a long time ago, thus why their skills and All Black player development is primarily done the Super Rugby teams. The role of an international HC is to lead the and drive the the game across the higher echelon of the game, not be advised by junior coaches from his support group.

If Cheika is falling in to old habits then you have to question your very first statements about his demonstrated capabilities and suitability to international coaching. I have to say, based on your comments Cheika seems like he needs a lot of support from, his "support group", assistants, mentors etc which is really disconcerting and begs the question is he a good option?

 

[Gnostic]

@Gnostic honest mate, I love your enthusiasm and depth of opinion. But "the NRC does fuck all in terms of development"? Honest. It has proven many levels of difference between Premier Rugby and Super Rugby. It offers a real chance for rugby players to breach the gap.



Imo the SRU does precious little for the grass roots, it diverts funds from the grass root, and surely annoying to its supporters, it does fuck all to get them to professional level.



Get the SRU out of the road, let the Waratahs ltd (as NSWRU professional responibility) get onto the NRC clubs.



Sydney is behind the rest of Aus, by a long shot, in using the comps that are available (as opposed to imagined) to work Premier division players through to professional.



Only have themselves to blame.

Thanks for the compliment. I just stated my views on why the NRC is a nothing comp. in terms of developing players in terms of skills and application of said skills.

I don't see the youth coming through in Qld any better than NSW. Indeed without some old heads retiring the youngsters still wouldn't be getting any game time. The young-uns this year getting game time have developed at a pretty standard (Australian) rate equal to the long term trend. Those coming in have huge potential, do not get me wrong I am not being hypercritical of the players as individuals, but there is not one Australian Rookie this year anywhere near the match of those who took places in the NZ sides, of similar ages and similar progression through the youth competitions.

If its about development I don't see it be able to deliver in a five week comp and maybe 7 or 8 weeks training (don't forget IMO its skills training I think is needed and then execution of those skills in a game with a plan needing kicking, passing and support running skills). From what I've seen of the NRC it just doesn't fulfil that KPI and more than inclusion in an EPS does.

 

[Gnostic]

1. Most coaches who coach at the top flight of any domestic competition, or European competition (or similar) and even at some other levels have considerable abilities so that just a generalisation. The statement could apply to most coaches even the like of Foley and Graham a few years ago. Either way, all coaches are judge on the results at the time not previous reputation, otherwise the likes of Deans would still be considered a God!





2 Cheika has selected these people to assist him, like any HC would and is expected to. Before we go on about Ledesma, just remember the only reason he ended up where he is was that no one in Europe or Argentina (or anywhere else) was interested in him as a scrum coach after he was sacked. Also remember, Cheika is also a wholley unproven international coach, as is Gray and Larkham.





3 Sorry, do you mean we need a coach to coach the coach? I do not know of any tier 1 international coach that is being coached or mentored. So is he suitable for a tier 1 job or should we have gone with a coach that has been developed and work their way up via a tier 2 nation or assistant in an tier 1 international team? Maybe we should ask Graham Henry to came and help Cheika? The mitigating factor here is if the ARU have imposed there will in relation to who can be appointed.







4. The reality is that player picked for the Wallabies should have the skill already. By the time players are picked for the Wallabies, if they don't have the requisite skills then they should not be there. The Wallabies are the elite players, who merely need some small tweaks and guidance to suit a international level game plan. The Kiwis worked this out a long time ago, thus why their skills and All Black player development is primarily done the Super Rugby teams. The role of an international HC is to lead the and drive the the game across the higher echelon of the game, not be advised by junior coaches from his support group.



5 If Cheika is falling in to old habits then you have to question your very first statements about his demonstrated capabilities and suitability to international coaching. I have to say, based on your comments Cheika seems like he needs a lot of support from, his "support group", assistants, mentors etc which is really disconcerting and begs the question is he a good option?

1. Coaches like Foley and Graham even more so never achieved any results as head coaches. Deans is a funny one to assess - I was very happy when he was signed, but I rapidly came to understand that he was largely a myth supported by a Canterbury system that is second to none. I have no doubt he is a deep rugby thinker, but like many very intelligent people is unable to teach what he knows to others in language and systems they understand and are able to put into action. That is where Chieka is proven, He has won titles where ever he has coached, with different skill sets at his disposal and in different environments.
2. Ladesma wasn't just the Scrum coach as he is now he was full time forwards coach IIRC. he was brought into the Wallabies to fix the set piece because he certainly and provably knew that aspect in depth. There can be no doubt he got results at both Wallaby and Tah level. Grey is a proven Assistant at Super level. Larkham is the one that is unproven (though I am thinking he is a proven failure ATM and needs to stop at Super level and gets some real results and ability to coach a workable game plan that is not totally predictable and easily countered and impart some actual skill improvements.
3. All professionals in every profession need critical feedback to improve. The feedback has to be informed and delivered from a respected source. Having somebody giving feedback who has no knowledge of the subject or limited knowledge is useless and maybe worse than useless if it ends up closing the mind of the recipient.
4. Ideally yes, but I would refer you to our discussion on other threads and even your own 5 points Blog piece. The reality is most players entering the Super sides and Wallabies do not have these skills in depth. Remember AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) played over 100 tests with limited passing skills and there are plenty of other examples, such as Phipps passing, any Australian back's kicking......... Kiwi skills and development isn't done at Super Rugby level. It is down at their clubs. It is where players like Nadolo and English rounded out their skills in ways that years in Australian EPS units did not. (Maybe they needed to play NRC )
5. I am left wondering if Chieka looked at what he had in terms of skills base at the Tahs and came up with the best game plan he could that would get some results without destroying what was left of the fan base after the % based game plans of McKenzie/Foley/Hickey. Then with the same skill sets didn't have much choice but to continue with largely the same plan at test level. As you say though how is he going to upskill the players in test camp? Given the relative low skill levels of the Australian players yes he does need a hell of a lot of help, and top level specialist help in ways that the other Tier 1 nations do not. That said the ABs/NZRU system has had people like Byrne, Gilbert Enoka and Mike Cron in place for years regardless of who has been Head Coach.

 

[Hawko]

The reality is that player picked for the Wallabies should have the skill already. By the time players are picked for the Wallabies, if they don't have the requisite skills then they should not be there. The Wallabies are the elite players, who merely need some small tweaks and guidance to suit a international level game plan. The Kiwis worked this out a long time ago, thus why their skills and All Black player development is primarily done the Super Rugby teams. The role of an international HC is to lead the and drive the the game across the higher echelon of the game, not be advised by junior coaches from his support group.

If Cheika is falling in to old habits then you have to question your very first statements about his demonstrated capabilities and suitability to international coaching. I have to say, based on your comments Cheika seems like he needs a lot of support from, his "support group", assistants, mentors etc which is really disconcerting and begs the question is he a good option?

If what you say is correct, what does this say about the All Black coaching team. They've got about nine people in that team so by your analysis Hanson has to be a worse coach than anyone else in the world because he needs nine assistants to tell him what to do. That's bollocks.

Some of your comments I agree with, but not this one. Cheika would be a better coach if he had a better team around him. Right now he doesn't because we think we can't afford that much on our coaching team. Keeping costs down as a path to success is not the way forward in any business.

Right now our international players, by and large, do not have the skills that NZ have. Its not an answer to say they should - how can we be competitive NOW, given the skills we have? We have to concentrate on skills coaching at elite levels till we have NZ-level skills across the board. Then we have to drive those skills down the levels. Hopefully MB has been employed to do that.

The reason why Cheika won world coach of the year last year and not Hanson is because Cheika achieved what he did despite having such a retarded talent pool. Hansen beat him in the final because he had better bits to work with. He had front rowers who averaged over thirty ruck involvements per game. Ours think they've done well if they get over twenty. He had Dane Coles who is an order of magnitude better than TPN or Moore. He had McCaw, who was by far and away the best backrower on the field in the final. Our best lock got injured early and all our locks were average compared to Whitelock and Lurch. Being second best is not OK and we can't accept it. But neither can we afford to discard second best because their replacement will only be 3rd, 4th or 5th best.

 

[Gnostic]

^^^^ Good post Hawko, I would add that prior to Chieka coming on board I fully expected the Wallabies to be knocked out at the Pool stages. Even after he was appointed I thought it a very hard ask to make it past the pool, let alone anything else. I likened it to the ill-fated appointment of John Connolly prior to the 2007 RWC. He had a very short window to try and restore the scrum after E. Jones modern rugby assumptions failed to come to fruition. As we know Knuckles couldn't overcome the fundamental skill issue legacy he was left with, which continued to haunt Oz for nearly 6 more years.

To my assessment Chieka outperformed and managed to get the side to play some outstanding rugby doing it. This year the chickens have come home to roost and more. The appointment of Larkham always smacked a bit of political expediency, just like the approach to Foley to be forwards assistant was. There can be no doubt at all the Australian Super Rugby system has failed totally to provide the skill development our top players need to be competitive with the Tier 1 sides consistently. The only Super Rugby coach I would give more time to in this regard is Daryl Gibson, as he has had less than 12 months to get results and the Tahs certainly improved a bit through the year. Next year will be his real test and a more accurate assessment made. Evry other side and players have at best remained static, with the everyone I speak to thinking Brumbies regressed in terms of play and skills, that is unless your name is Tim Horan.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Retospectively, that (very fortunate) one point win over Scotland is a very interesting point in recent Australian Rugby history isn't it....

The ref makes a different call, or a place kick is pushed slightly wide and Cheika's and many other's reputation are very different today.

 

[dru]

I don't see the youth coming through in Qld any better than NSW.

Seriously? No I'm not just being a dickhed, seriously? Pretty much right now, two things nudge expectation of the Reds. 1 is purchases that look good bit god knows how they work with the new HC. 2. The youngsters coming through from NRC.

If you look at guys like Matwijow we're happy with NRC experience wherever it comes from.

Mark my words: NSW disses this avenue at it's own peril.

 

[Gnostic]

Seriously? No I'm not just being a dickhed, seriously? Pretty much right now, two things nudge expectation of the Reds. 1 is purchases that look good bit god knows how they work with the new HC. 2. The youngsters coming through from NRC.



If you look at guys like Matwijow we're happy with NRC experience wherever it comes from.



Mark my words: NSW disses this avenue at it's own peril.

Yes seriously. No I don't think you are being a dickhead, you obviously sincerely believe that the NRC offers development opportunity and has value. I don't believe it does, and see no evidence of it. Those coming from the NRC IMO are no better, certainly not worse either, that coming from Clubland. The key is development and a five week competition with every game a must win doesn't lead to that development of in depth skills gained through repetition.

NSW dissing the NRC? I don't know about them, I certainly am. Nobody I know in the local country club teams I know have any interest at all in the NRC. Many still follow the Shute Shield and a few Super Rugby. None I know watch the NRC.

My argument to this point has been about the failure of the NRC to develop players. I have other arguments against it as well, which haven't changed since I last posted on the NRC thread two years ago.

 

[Slim 293]

Nobody I know in the local country club teams I know have any interest at all in the NRC. Many still follow the Shute Shield and a few Super Rugby. None I know watch the NRC.

How's life inside the bubble?

 

[dru]

@Gnostic man, you are being let down by the shite around you. But, obviously, you love rugby, and it is hard to see a broader picture when you are in the thick of it.

I can only offer my thoughts, that the KEY indicator that the shute sheild has lost the plot is that they completely fail to connect with the NRC.

And of course primary responsibility for this complete fuck up is not the players. Its with the disconnect. At the moment I'm placing it at the SRU.

Or maybe a disconnect between the SRU and the NSWRU. Hmm, maybe close?

The Shute Shield wishes to run outside of the rest of rugby. I can cope with that disconnect. But then they get miffed because, hey, there is all this stuff happening, and it's not us!

NRC is bringing PLENTY of players into professional rugby.

Choose not to be part of it. Your issue really.

 

[Froggy]

I'm fascinated by the questions that are raised by so many around Cheika's quality as a coach, by many of the same people who saw him as the mesiah 6 months ago.
Cheika has coached Randwick, Leinster and The Tahs to premierships in their respective competitions, and the Wallabies to a WC final when many didn't think they'd make it out of the pool stages. He hasn't suddenly lost that ability in 6 months after losing the England series. In fact, we scored more tries than England in two of the three tests, and if our backs had basic kicking skills (the lack of which is hardly Cheika's fault) we may well have won that series.
He's not the messiah, and can only play the cards he's dealt, but he has a better track record than any other Australian coach in the game at the moment (including Jones, if you take his entire record into account, and not just the last eighteen months).

 

[mst]

If what you say is correct, what does this say about the All Black coaching team. They've got about nine people in that team so by your analysis Hanson has to be a worse coach than anyone else in the world because he needs nine assistants to tell him what to do. That's bollocks. /quote]

Chalk and cheese comparison. The discussions around assistants for Cheika is exclusively for the Wallabies and not for any other part of the game in Australia. So it is loading up coaches that have minimal contact with players during a year with a high cost financially.

The 9 you say (I would love to know the specifics as I though there were less) are for NZRU across the All Blacks, Super Rugby and NPC levels at least and I believe go lower than that.

The signing of Mick Byrne is a the first clear step to a ARU holistic coaching set up.

 

[Gnostic]

@Gnostic man, you are being let down by the shite around you. But, obviously, you love rugby, and it is hard to see a broader picture when you are in the thick of it.



I can only offer my thoughts, that the KEY indicator that the shute sheild has lost the plot is that they completely fail to connect with the NRC.



And of course primary responsibility for this complete fuck up is not the players. Its with the disconnect. At the moment I'm placing it at the SRU.



Or maybe a disconnect between the SRU and the NSWRU. Hmm, maybe close?



The Shute Shield wishes to run outside of the rest of rugby. I can cope with that disconnect. But then they get miffed because, hey, there is all this stuff happening, and it's not us!



NRC is bringing PLENTY of players into professional rugby.



Choose not to be part of it. Your issue really.

Just to be clear, I'm not directly associated with any club. I haven't lived in Sydney since the early 90s. I know a lot of the local Rugby blokes through business and other associations as country people do being in a small pond.

I understand your points, I just don't agree. Whether they (the Sydney clubs) have lost the plot as you put it will be proved in the near future I think. Interesting that the Club scene in Sydney seems to be undergoing something of a renaissance with the televised games seeming to have large crowds at the games.

Again you say that the NRC bring PLENTY of player into professional rugby. If the KPI for that means they get some sort of payment well I suppose yes that is the case. If it means they get professional skills development I argue it doesn't.

Anyway enough of this, I don't think without significant evidence to the contrary my mind will be changed.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Anyway enough of this, I don't think without significant evidence to the contrary my mind will be changed.

What sort of evidence?

 

[TOCC]

The fact is the NRC does f^%$# all in terms of development, .

That's an opinion, not a fact

 

[Braveheart81]

So far about 45 players have gone from the NRC to Super Rugby.

Whether or not that competition is directly improving the players involved can only ever be based on opinion but it is clear that it is improving the pathway for club players around the country to play at a higher level with more of the Super Rugby players and show how they fare in that environment.

It is impossible to say how many of those same players would have got Super Rugby contracts regardless but it does seem to open up the opportunities for older players who might have missed the boat through the traditional pathways (such as Ben Matwijow) as well as giving younger guys the chance to show that they are ready to move to the next level (e.g. Andrew Kellaway or Junior Laloifi).