I wrote an article about it, but the 'we never do any homework' thing was also a huge factor, IMO.
In a long domestic season that approach makes a degree of sense. You are probably better off focussing on your own game rather than trying to change things up every week for 20 weeks. Opposition teams also don't have the time to analyse and adapt on a week to week basis.
But his steadfast refusal to alter this approach played a big role in his downfall. Playing a possession-based game is all well and good, but playing the SAME possession-based game every week is just madness.
The 'running it from your own 22' tactic became a bit of a lightning rod for criticism, not just because it's a high-risk tactic but because we did it every fkn time. Funnily enough we did exactly the same thing in the 2003 semi-final against NZ, but it worked because we had never before used that strategy. It caught NZ on the hop and we profited from that.
Maybe I'm repeating myself a bit, but I still can't quite get over how proud he was of not doing much opposition analysis or tactical work. Because he was such a good coach in many other aspects, and clearly an intelligent guy - how could he not see the flaws in this approach?
.
Because intelligence and 'passion' alone are not ever enough to lead well, he clearly suffered some crucial psychological flaws of a type that inhibit learning (internal and from others), constructive adaptation vs what you have previously done habitually, the acceptance of genuine responsibility, and the capacity to work without perceived threat with strong and able people above and below you. (Namely, on the positive flip side of these limits, what is commonly known as the attainment of psychological maturity.)
IMO, his personality - as we see it so vividly and it's been there for a good while on display - hides the deep insecurities and anxieties that create the counter-mask of arrogance, petulance, 'my way or the highway' type pig-headed unthinking dominance over others and over key decisions, the tendency to explosively and otherwise blame others for failure, and a general lack of emotional and intellectual flexibility.
There can be serious talent but when talent, deployed in senior, high-pressure leadership contexts, is distorted with certain key neuroses and self-destructive personality traits, the results obtained will never be optimal and the talent there is part-destroyed by the corrosive effects of the inner psychological limits and blockages.
This is often why seemingly very talented people that hide emotional damage can only rise to a certain level and no further. Their emotional (vs intellectual) constraints become overwhelmingly in the negative when pressure, exposure and larger stages arise.
Cheika's deep emotional flaws were sadly on display when, post QF loss Oita, he berated a perfectly polite media questioner for not considering his feelings, his emotional needs, his pain, his 'raw' state over other very reasonable lines of inquiry that Aust rugby stakeholders had a perfect right to ask over that result. This moment, in all its lonely and reality-distorting narcissism, was the final giveaway (not that we really needed it, the issues were all visibly there before).
