Wallabies Assistant Coaches

[Bardon]

Every national head coach should be given the opportunity to choose his assistants. If the national union have enough faith to pick him then they should back the guy fully and let him bring in his own people.

Some head coaches wont mind working with whoever is there already or going with who the union think would be best for the job. But as long as they've been given the option of picking their own guys they can't turn around later and say I didn't pick them after turning down that option.

The idea of a super panel of coaches is a good one as long as the head coach is on board. Some guys like assistants who will question them and push them to improve or to consider other ideas/approaches. Others like their assistants to buy into their way of doing things and to be more like a disciple. Puting the wrong kind of people together can cause friction and ultimately be destructive.

I think where Henry came out well was that he had a mix of the two. He had Hansen who had worked under him before at Wales and Smith who challenged him.

Hansen will definitely give continuity and a smooth transition but rugby has a tendency to take forward leaps where the best way to do things is suddenly not the best way anymore and then a new and fresh approach is needed. A good coach can change and adapt but the guy insitu can take longer to change than someone who comes in fresh.

 

[daz]

I recall Deans saying at his first press conference something along the lines of "I think the Oz rugby public needs time to accept one Kiwi coach to start with".

So the ARU either hoisted the assistants on Deans or asked him to pick from a small pool of Oz assistants. Either way, it is fair to say Deans did not have an open range.

To my mind this is somewhat unfair; you hold a guy accountable but do not give him access to his choice of resources. I would understand this if there was an agreed process where Deans would take a hot up and coming Oz assistant and prep him to take over the senior role via a dedicated succession planning pathway, (see the Force/Rebels/All Blacks), but I defy anyone to tell me that Jim Williams was ever going to be the next Wallaby Coach.

Blind Freddy can see that all things being equal, Link has to be the raging favourite to take over. If so, whatever legacy Deans puts into place will be voided the moment Link walks in the door. No planning to prepare for a different viewpoint, culture, method over a period of time. It will be Deans out, bang, Link in.

At least with the AB's, the players and fans can see the same type of philosophy transitioning over between Grumpy and Hansen. Nice and smooth with a level of familiararity that allows for a clean handover, compared to the speedbump the Wallabies are going to hit in 3 years time. Change management is not achieved in the 5 minutes that matches the time Deans walks out to the moment Link (or whomever) walks in.

The Wallabies will lose a year or more by having a stop/start change that requires a re-learning period of adjustment. The AB's will not, and there lies the main reason they will be as difficult as ever to replace at the top of world rugby.

 

[mark_s]

I thought our fundamental issue was that we had spent so much on Deans we couldn't afford other international level coaches as assistants and so instead went for people ready to step up to being assistants at an international level.

 

[Riptide]

Australia are in no way a complete outfit but in 4 to 5 years time they will be. I see where Deans is going with his plans and its very clear to see he is building for the next world cup. So do not be hard on him just give him time as he is a very good coach.

And there I was mistaken in thinking he was so building toward the last World Cup. Silly me.

 

[spooony]

And there I was mistaken in thinking he was so building toward the last World Cup. Silly me.

Sarcasm does not fit your hair style

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Bardon, agree totally.

Daz, you make several good points, but I don't think there necessarily has to be a transition plan. It's ideal if there is, but sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise. Witness the Greg Smith to MacQueen and MacQueen to Jones changes. The move to MacQueen from Smith was pretty chaotic, but it was clear at the time that a change was required at the top. MacQueen was dropped right in it and did a great job. On the other hand, there was a much smoother transition to Jones being coach and I thought his reign coincided with one of our poorer eras since the late 1970's.

If the team is travelling well in about a year and Link is the man, then sure get him in there. If we are sputtering, I tend to think that the "new broom" approach would be better (i.e. no sense in continuing with a failed game plan, nothing to lose by a complete change). It's no different than any other business in that regard IMHO.

 

[daz]

Bardon, agree totally.

Daz, you make several good points, but I don't think there necessarily has to be a transition plan. It's ideal if there is, but sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise. Witness the Greg Smith to MacQueen and MacQueen to Jones changes. The move to MacQueen from Smith was pretty chaotic, but it was clear at the time that a change was required at the top. MacQueen was dropped right in it and did a great job. On the other hand, there was a much smoother transition to Jones being coach and I thought his reign coincided with one of our poorer eras since the late 1970's.

If the team is travelling well in about a year and Link is the man, then sure get him in there. If we are sputtering, I tend to think that the "new broom" approach would be better (i.e. no sense in continuing with a failed game plan, nothing to lose by a complete change). It's no different than any other business in that regard IMHO.

Firstly, good to have you back mi amigo.

Secondly, I think you will find that every point I make is a good one. Except the ones that aren't.

I take your point on the historical changes you mentioned, but my gut feel is that if we need to have a "clean broom" approach to the Wallabies post-Dingo then every single person associated with the Wallabies/ARU Management should be sacked, shot, fixed up and shot again. What that says to me is that the ARU allowed the Wallabies to spiral out of control.

If things get really bad, (and let's say Link isn't available), Deans will probably be sacked and a hunt for a new coach will take place; we are very likely to have a chaotic transfer leading to a complete overhaul. That takes time. As I said, we would lose at least a year getting our house in order.

It could so easily be avoided by identifying talent upfront and working through a succession plan. If Deans comes to the end of his contract or is sacked, the foundations for the new period is already in place and the new boy is not a new face with an unknown philosophy, if you get my drift. I keep banging on about the AB's but they did this so very well with Grumpy leaving.

If it is Link, then get him in there for the last year of Dingo's contract. If Link (or any new coach) comes in cold post-Deans, ipso facto there must be a (potentially chaotic) transition period. If he takes over slowly and it is planned and communicated effectively, it is not a transition so much as a handover.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Spot on, if Link is the man then that should be the plan.

 

[suckerforred]

I thought our fundamental issue was that we had spent so much on Deans we couldn't afford other international level coaches as assistants and so instead went for people ready to step up to being assistants at an international level.

That might be the reason for the drop in player contracts this year. So we can aford some coaches......

 

[spooony]

I dunno see what is the problem here. He know and has given the aussies a way to beat the AB's.
Aus won the Tri-Nations.
What more do you want from the guy?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I dunno see what is the problem here. He know and has given the aussies a way to beat the AB's.
Aus won the Tri-Nations.
What more do you want from the guy?

Win the Bleddie and the World Cup. That'll do.

 

[spooony]

Win the Bleddie and the World Cup. That'll do.

Beating the AB's is worth 2 WC alone!

 

[Slim 293]

Not losing matches to teams like Scotland and Samoa would be great...

 

[Linebacker_41]

If it is Link, then get him in there for the last year of Dingo's contract. If Link (or any new coach) comes in cold post-Deans, ipso facto there must be a (potentially chaotic) transition period. If he takes over slowly and it is planned and communicated effectively, it is not a transition so much as a handover.

Daz I think the problem here is that Link wont take an assistant coach role even if it is to transition to the Head Coach role. He has been pretty clear in the media over the last 6 months in that you cant take a step back or have 2 head coaches at once. Remember he has already been an assistant coach at Wallaby level before.

 

[Bowside]

But is the issue that Link wont take it at all, or that link wont take it because he has to work under Deans and O'Neil.

 

[Gagger]

You have to be careful about introducing the successor too early, because the incumbent loses his authority pretty quickly. If the successor were known to be actually in the coaching setup, who would actually listen to Robbie's gibberish any more?

 

[Hawko]

You have to be careful about introducing the successor too early, because the incumbent loses his authority pretty quickly. If the successor were known to be actually in the coaching setup, who would actually listen to Robbie's gibberish any more?

Who does now?

 

[Bardon]

Agree with Gagger.

Henry to Hansen worked so well because Henry wanted him on board so that he could hand over the reigns for Hansen to carry on his legacy. But that smooth transition still doesn't gaurantee Hansen an 82% win ratio or whatever Henry had with the ABs.

Deans and Link would be more like one of those reality shows where they get a bunch of people who they know will hate each other then force them to be in close proximity to each other and sit back and watch the sparks fly. That's not going to be a healthy environment for the players to be around or for Aus rugby in general.

There's nothing constructive in terms of continuity to be gained in having Link in there because as soon as Deans is out the door he'll just rip everything up and say now we do it my way. But he could do that more easily coming in with a defined break between the Deans era and his.

The only reason I would see for anyone wanting Link in there would be to gaurantee he's the guy who will take over but other than that I can't see anything beneficial of having two guys who will be working against each other within your national coaching setup.

 

[spooony]

Australia seriously need a forward pack. The forwards were shyt in the WC lets be honest and your set pieces dismal. That for me is the missing thing.

Michael Foley and Ewen Mckenzie were involved with Eddie Jones in 2003 and 2007 and your 99 inherited pack was not up to scratch either in both those years. Basically your forwards went from avg to shit in 7 years. That would be my concern.

 

[Gnostic]

There is nothing wrong with the pack, or the available players except selection and direction. True Test quality front row if the right players are selected in the correct positions. Same with the locks. same with the back row. The huge mistakes of Deans is in selecting injured and out of form players over uninjured in form ones.

Gagger is 100% right and I doubt that anybody with aspirations to the top job will want to hitch their wagon to the Deans train to no-where.