Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Man, I wish we could not rake the coals of Patston/Link. The whole saga remains a fresh wound for me. So from my perspective, trying to leave it alone, and as a clear critic of Cheika:
A coach is going to bring personality and preferences with him into the job. If he can't do that then I don't want him. You can expect some consistency in those preferences and personality. So things Cheika wanted in a player in at the Waratahs, are generally going to be things he wants from a player as he goes to the Wallabies.
It should not be surprising that he finds many of those attributes from the team he just left, and that he had built. Calling that favouritism to me is a stretch.
In the time that follows he has tested some of my favourites, guys like Quade who would be a first pick in a team that I coached. But Cheika did not refuse to give the guy a go. He gave him a shot at 10. In the system with a wider playmaker, he gave him a shot at 12. Now while the decission leaves me flumoxed, Cheika tried the bloke and found him wanting. It isnt hard to understand, even if I personally disagree.
This year Cheika has trialled Rodda, Tui, Korzcyk, Paiaua, Kerevi, Hunt, Toupo. He is not a bloke who is playing an anti-Reds preference card.
WRT Beale, I have said before that Beale has many things to answer for, being a first pick in this Wallabies team is not one of them. Both sides of that coin I am serious about. Wish we stopped raking coals. It's painful. Stop.
Dru you know my views from my long posting on here, being both a Mackenzie supporter during his time with the Reds and the Wallabies (and Brumbies) and not at the Tahs. Being initially a Chieka supporter etc. You will also know my view on ethical administration and practices in business. The fact is that any organisation that starts with or condones unethical behaviour in any manner is doomed to failure. It is why even though I thought Deans the most qualified person for the Wallaby job when he was appointed the manner of that appointment was so seriously flawed it compromised his standing from the start. Why I opposed the deals done with Elsom and Vickerman to return them directly to the test side. The Force saga, the Brumbies property deals...... the list is just astoundingly long for a decade in an sports organisation. Its only bettered by FIFA really. What happened with Beale is another brilliant example in a long long list of ethically compromised decisions and processes from the ARU. Unless the systems are fixed and that includes an acknowledgment of the utter failing of what went before (no specifics are needed but an acknowledgment of failing in areas is) the very foundations that the future endeavours are built on is compromised. SO the coals have to be raked and stoked on all these issues and those that allowed it to occur, and they all remain in place largely, must be removed. That includes the players. The explanation that Michael gives of why Beale was not immediately sacked is spot and, and is in itself an example of their utterly negligent management, what business can run without such policies? No here we have Pulver, Clyne and the other wasted spaces of the ARU/RA taking money for work they fail to do diligently and to the bare standard of a small business. While the systems remain shit, and the disasters of the past unacknowledged expect yet another Force moment, another player behaving badly and getting a free walk (so Beale paid $45K - the ARU paid far far more than that over the affair) franchises possibly being involved in multi million dollar frauds, the collapse of teams, loss of sponsors and fans walking away.