The Wallabies Thread

[Brumby Runner]

I assume the clean-out will be of any Tah affiliated players or staff eh? what a load.

Both Cheika and Grey should go. Both were associated with the Tahs in the past but are now exclusively Wallabies coaches. Players who should go are Simmons (ex-Reds player who should never have been selected in those days as well), Hanigan (not yet a Super Rugby standard player) and Phipps (haywire, inconsistent and not a test player imo). Foley has to make way at least on a shared basis with someone else in the 10 spot, most likely Lealiifano until Paia'aua or someone else comes through. So yes, all have some sort of Tahs affiliation but not current in the case of the coaches and not yet consummated in the case of Simmons. More evidence of the existence of Tahs bias in recent test selections though.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Except your post is full of speculation.

Facts Derpus. Beale sent the offensive text message or tweet. Hooper publicly supported Beale and excused his behaviour. The ARU made it clear they wanted to sack Beale from the team. Innuendo about Link and Di Patston started circulating. Most posters spreading this gossip also cast doubt on Link's suitability as head coach for appointing Patston to the job and started blaming her for the message initiated by Beale. Patston was eventually awarded a large sum of damages from the ARU over the whole episode. Rugby fandom split at the time over the decision to fine Beale but retain him in the Wallabies, and that schism is still evident today in the pro and anti Tahs' comments on this site. There really hasn't been such a schism between followers of the other franchises until the sacking of the Force where we can now see a bit of anti-Rebels creeping in due to their apparent role along with the ARU to engineer the Force sacking. Do you in all honesty dispute these are the facts?

 

[Micheal]

Old coals and lots of raking over them, but it's laughable how some (not all Cyclopath) Tahs supporters here are rewriting the events that led to Links' demise as Wallaby coach. Whether it was culture or whatever, Beale really stepped over the mark with his tweet about Di Patston and many of the then Tahs' contingent in the team rallied around him - some of whom apparently even retweeted the Beale message even further. The situation was regarded as so serious that the ARU was intent on sacking Beale on the spot, but bowed to pressure (from where?) to hold an inquiry. The inuendo then surfaced about an improper relationship between Link and Patston, for which I for one have never seen any supporting evidence. The outcome represented a compromise, on the face of it to appease the Beale supporters within the team. Link, as a man of honour, couldn't live with the outcome, and resigned. Cheika/Grey then came to the fore and a Tahs bias in selections commenced.

As someone said above, this was the genesis of our poor performances and questionable coaching involvements since. There is a now schism at least among the fans of the Wallabies which largely centres around the support or non-support for the Tahs in this country. Whether that schism also exists in the coaching and players levels, I don't know, but there is some evidence of favouritism in selections being present.

A few things:

(1) Tweet about Di Patston? It absolutely, concretely, 100% wasn't a tweet. It was a text. You can't "retweet" texts. I think you made that bit up.

It was a pretty rude text about Di that he accidentally sent to Di herself. I can't defend Beale on this, but they agreed to let it go and that was that (for a while).

Beale then got in an argument with Di on a plane about his attire. He seemed to think she was overstepping her role. I think the fact that Beale was sending rude texts to others about her, and that others defended him in the aftermath, indicates that he wasn't alone in that belief.

Either way, this indicates a cultural problem. Whether it stemmed from Beale or Di Patston, it was Link's responsibility to deal with as the coach. He didn't do so adequately.

(2) The ARU didn't sack Beale on the spot due to pressure from a little thing called "Australian Employment Law" which is a pretty handy institution for any developed nation.

Pulver begrudgingly hired an independent panel of lawyers to assemble a Code of Conduct tribunal and the ARU's official recommendation to this panel was that Beale should be sacked. It was proved that he sent one (not two, as alleged by Patston) texts.

It has been alleged, but not proven, that a third party, not Beale, is responsible for the most offensive text that was sent. This is perhaps the "retweet" that you were talking about. No where is it mentioned that it was a fellow Waratah.

It was decided that it was a "moderate breach" of team protocols and he was fined $45,000.

You can read more here: http://www.ntnews.com.au/sport/rugb...n/news-story/5aae9be63e1eb03448f803b83b6ee0cb

And from the ARU’s official timeline here: http://resources.news.com.au/files/2014/10/31/1227108/212170-aru-documents.PDF

(3) The sentence: “Link, as a man of honour, couldn’t live with the outcome and resigned” is a horrible presumptive reading of a very murky situation. It lies on a bed of about 20 assumptions.

Neither Patston nor McKenzie attended Beale’s disciplinary hearing, despite being requested to attend. What assumptions can we drag from that?

Patston refused to submit her phone for forensic examination. What assumptions can we draw from that?

Allegations exist around Patston’s credentials, her suitability for the role that Ewen placed her in and the due diligence he underwent in hiring her. What assumptions can we draw from that?

Personally, the answer is that we should avoid doing so altogether. We don’t have the full facts and making any conclusions is unfair for all involved.

I think it was pretty weak of Ewen to jump ship the second it was inferred that he had lost the locker room, but the media did drag him through plague, war and hellfire so perhaps he had simply had enough.

Falling on one’s sword is not something I’d class as honourable, but I’m more than happy for others to disagree there.

(4) You suggest that Link’s sacking was the genesis of our poor performances and questionable coaching involvements since. What a load of absolute rubbish that is.

In 2013, Link’s first year we: lost the Bledisloe 3-0 to the All Blacks with 18, 9 and 8 points margins respectively.

We lost to the Springbok’s by 26 and 20 points respectively.

We beat the Argentinian’s by 1 point and 37 points respectively.

We beat Italy by 30, Ireland by 17, Scotland by 6, Wales by 4 and we lost to England by 7.

Thus far, 6 losses and 6 victories for a 50% win ratio and a +5 points differential (312 vs. 307).

In 2014, we beat France 3-0 with some pretty handy victories (26 point win) and a pretty lousy victory (a 6 point, try-less win).

We drew with the All Blacks 12-all before we suffered a 31 point loss to the All Blacks in the second Bledisloe test.

We beat the Springboks 24-23 in our first game, before losing 28-10 away from home.

We beat the Argentinians 32-25 in our first game, before losing 21-17 away from home.

In Ewen’s final game as coach, we lost to the All Blacks 29-28.

Therefore, in 2014, we had a 5 wins, 4 losses and a draw for a 50% win ratio and a +13 points differential (238-225).

Overall, he had a +18 points differential and a 50% win record.

Hardly world-beating stats are they? Are they really that different to Cheikas? Or Deans?

Although, I must admit, comparisons between eras are quite hard. The Boks were very strong around then, and the Northern Hemisphere was woeful. That's changed a bit.

I have always been a stickler for accuracy KOB.

Leave the dogma for elsewhere. It's not inconceivable that people with the same information as you may draw a different conclusion.

 

[gel]

<wow - so much forum skills fail by me. Sorry everyone, totally wrong thread. I've moved it over to the right one now>

And yeah, BR is right in the above post.

 

[fatprop]

It will be up to the board, they can choose

1/ someone that "understands" the Aus rugby community
2/ a professional sports administrator from outside the community
3/ a change agent to shake things up

Each has their own issues and positives, I would prefer 2, but I think we will get 1

 

[swingpass]

^^^^^^ i agree, 2 is the best option, but this board seems heavily influenced by what the CEO and Chair propose, which seems more likely to give us option 1.
wrong thread

 

[Inside Shoulder]

A few things:

(1) Tweet about Di Patston? It absolutely, concretely, 100% wasn't a tweet. It was a text. You can't "retweet" texts. I think you made that bit up.

It was a WhatsApp post

 

[KOB1987]

It was a WhatsApp post

Message, not post. A post implies it was for all to see (like here) but it was intended as a message directed at selected recipients, inadvertently sent to her instead.

 

[Derpus]

It will be up to the board, they can choose

1/ someone that "understands" the Aus rugby community
2/ a professional sports administrator from outside the community
3/ a change agent to shake things up

Each has their own issues and positives, I would prefer 2, but I think we will get 1

Two would make the most sense in my opinion. At the very least they would not be burdened by any provincial biases which would be fantastic. A proven and experienced foreigner would be even better.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Message, not post. A post implies it was for all to see (like here) but it was intended as a message directed at selected recipients, inadvertently sent to her instead.

OK - not a format im familiar with: I gather this was the preferred method of communication within the wobblies at the time

 

[swingpass]

<wow - so much forum skills fail by me. Sorry everyone, totally wrong thread. I've moved it over to the right one now>

And yeah, BR is right in the above post.

and as a result both Fatprop and myself have replied on the wrong thread as well

 

[dru]

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.

 

[Derpus]

Wish we stopped raking coals. It's painful. Stop.

Stop being reasonable. This is the internet!

 

[dru]

In the mean time on Cheika:

His selections are unfathomable.
His (in)consistency in strategy is unfathomable.
He has no D that is worth talking about at international level.
Worse than that the barn dance remains excessive and provides chaotic results.
His coaching choices are unfathomable - from no scrum coach in Europe, to his D coach choice, and who he keeps beside him in the box (yes man).
His public volatility, petulance, aggresssion is unacceptable.

The clown cartoon seems increasingly apt, but it isnt the cartoonist who disses the WB jumper - it is Cheika.

His approach that any test result is fine, as long as he thinks he is building to the RWC - to me is an anathema. It provides a chaotic, ugly progression.

He has two things in his favour:
1. it might be ugly, but it is progress (damned with a faint praise)
2. he has little opposition for his job

We don't need the tin hat conspiracies to judge this bloke and find him wanting.

 

[Derpus]

That's more like it!

His strategy is certainly consistent. The Wobblies play or attempt to play exactly the same every match. It either works or they get flogged. Edit: However, strategic thinking is almost certianly Cheika's biggest failing. We have a one size fits all strategy that definitely doesn't fit all playing conditions and opposition teams. Our lack of an in-play kicking game at this point is criminal. It's been shown time an again to be instrumental in both AB and England success.

There's barely any barn dance. Certainly less so than under previous coaches. We've had a consistent front row all year, fairly consistent back-row and the second row has been largely consistent with some forced changes. (although, consistently picking Simmons is questionable).

His coaching choices, besides bloody Grey, are fine. Our scrum held up fine in Europe. It was probably the only thing that did.

 

[fatprop]

Two would make the most sense in my opinion. At the very least they would not be burdened by any provincial biases which would be fantastic. A proven and experienced foreigner would be even better.

I think the position is highly political and a "two" may not be able to get through change we need To me, there needs to be board changes and that means the stakeholders have to cede power, I don't know if a "two" or "three" could get that done

 

[Derpus]

I think the position is highly political and a "two" may not be able to get through change we need To me, there needs to be board changes and that means the stakeholders have to cede power, I don't know if a "two" or "three" could get that done

1 followed by a 2?

 

[fatprop]

1 followed by a 2?

i dunno, whoever is chosen won't be able to do everything that is needed

 

[MonkeyBoy]

That's more like it!
There's barely any barn dance. Certainly less so than under previous coaches. We've had a consistent front row all year, fairly consistent back-row and the second row has been largely consistent with some forced changes. (although, consistently picking Simmons is questionable).

I think the barn referred to is the defensive barn dance, not the selection barn dance

 

[Derpus]

I think the barn referred to is the defensive barn dance, not the selection barn dance

Ah, true.