No, he has two years left in his contract
Wallaby Coach Conga Line
- Thread starter barbarian
- Start date
No, he has two years left in his contract
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Both John Connolly and Bob Dwyer have questioned on Foxsport the sense of offering a four year coaching deal to the next Wallaby coach, citing issues with the Cheika reign as evidence that 4 years is too long.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...t/news-story/4a622a2fc15ac0718c42280b44ce5620
The article comments about the difficulty to replace the coach a couple of years out from RWC if he, the coach, proves to be deficient like Cheika was. But I think that's a bit of a fallacious argument given that a two year appointment would run into the same problem if there was a move at the end of the two years to remove the coach. This was really the furphy argument that dogged the later years of Cheika's appointment. The real problem, and one that is avoided by offering only a two year contract, is the need to buy out the poorly performing coach's contract mid-stream if he is not up to the job.
I think RA (then ARU) probably thought Steve Larkham was ready to step in if Cheika failed to make the grade. In effect, he was the contingency. But appointing him to assist Cheika was a fatal mistake as proved when arguably he, Larkham, was made the fall guy for Cheika's failings and was removed mid-stream himself. Then, there was no contingency.
My contention is that, in the absence of a proven coach being available at the time, one or two of the emerging Aussie Super coaches should be kept in mind to come in as an emergency after two years of a failing national coach, but should be kept away from that coach for fear of a similar situation arising where the incumbent coach is willing to undermine his likely, or anointed, successor in order to survive himself. It would not be difficult imo to get one of Wessels, McKellar, Thorn or Sampson to step in a year or two out from the next RWC if needed, and with a couple more years of Super (GRR) experience under their belts, any one of them just might make a good fist of the task.
The important issue is for RA to avoid being caught in a situation where they would have to dig deep into the pockets to pay out an under-performing coach after two years into the RWC cycle. If that lesson has not been learnt after the Cheika complete FU, then there really is no hope for the administration of rugby in this country.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...t/news-story/4a622a2fc15ac0718c42280b44ce5620
The article comments about the difficulty to replace the coach a couple of years out from RWC if he, the coach, proves to be deficient like Cheika was. But I think that's a bit of a fallacious argument given that a two year appointment would run into the same problem if there was a move at the end of the two years to remove the coach. This was really the furphy argument that dogged the later years of Cheika's appointment. The real problem, and one that is avoided by offering only a two year contract, is the need to buy out the poorly performing coach's contract mid-stream if he is not up to the job.
I think RA (then ARU) probably thought Steve Larkham was ready to step in if Cheika failed to make the grade. In effect, he was the contingency. But appointing him to assist Cheika was a fatal mistake as proved when arguably he, Larkham, was made the fall guy for Cheika's failings and was removed mid-stream himself. Then, there was no contingency.
My contention is that, in the absence of a proven coach being available at the time, one or two of the emerging Aussie Super coaches should be kept in mind to come in as an emergency after two years of a failing national coach, but should be kept away from that coach for fear of a similar situation arising where the incumbent coach is willing to undermine his likely, or anointed, successor in order to survive himself. It would not be difficult imo to get one of Wessels, McKellar, Thorn or Sampson to step in a year or two out from the next RWC if needed, and with a couple more years of Super (GRR) experience under their belts, any one of them just might make a good fist of the task.
The important issue is for RA to avoid being caught in a situation where they would have to dig deep into the pockets to pay out an under-performing coach after two years into the RWC cycle. If that lesson has not been learnt after the Cheika complete FU, then there really is no hope for the administration of rugby in this country.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Sully, I would think a contract issued in 2016 to finish in 2019 is a four year deal. That's what is reported in the article and is also my recollection.
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
God. Seriously?
Signing up from may 16 til December 19 is a 4 year deal (not many tests or even organised squad activities prior to May), whether he had 18 months to run on his existing deal or not.
The truly bizarre thing is that Pulver felt the need to re-sign him with 18months to go. Assume we won everything in sight in 16 and 17: where was he gonna go that was a better deal? Surely he would have taken another 2 year deal at the point given that he was shaping up as a serious RWC contender?
The opportunity to represent the wallabies as a player is consider3d attractive enough that we use it as a serious bargaining chip in our player retention process. But we were worried that a successful coach, one whose only evident attribute is passion for the jersey, was going to pass up an opportunity at winning the RWC in 2 years?
It's too silly for words.
Eddie talks about being sack from the Wallabies job.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby...g/news-story/6dad634879672e970cf0b540d581c6e7
I remember being glad to see the back of him. I may have been wrong, Who knows what would have happened if he'd been retained.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby...g/news-story/6dad634879672e970cf0b540d581c6e7
I remember being glad to see the back of him. I may have been wrong, Who knows what would have happened if he'd been retained.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
He deserved to get sacked at the time and he went off and got better at his job.
I don't think keeping him on would have been particularly good for either Australia or EJ (Eddie Jones).
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Yep, the ARU were right to sack him at the time.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
Failure and rejection are critical to anyone being successful IMO, it’s where we learn our hardest and most valuable lessons.
I’m sure Eddie is a better coach as a result
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
So we just get whoever NZ doesn’t want, Rennie, Joseph or Robertson..
Not a bad play to be.
Many will bemoan is getting “the scraps” but the pressure is on NZ to get it right. All of them are good coaches, so in a way it makes our decision easier.
Not to mention the coach that is snubbed will be driven to prove it was the wrong decision.
Not a bad play to be.
Many will bemoan is getting “the scraps” but the pressure is on NZ to get it right. All of them are good coaches, so in a way it makes our decision easier.
Not to mention the coach that is snubbed will be driven to prove it was the wrong decision.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
To be fair to Eddie, he was sacked after only one poor season underlined by the embarrassing scrum shambles on the EOYT.............
The Wallabies had some decent results under him prior to that.
Cheika and Deans both certainly had more leeway to continue in the job longer.
The Wallabies had some decent results under him prior to that.
Cheika and Deans both certainly had more leeway to continue in the job longer.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
I don’t want Robertson, like Robbie Deans he has only ever coached in an environment where he has had an enviable level of player depth to call on. Good coach undoubtedly, just not suited for Australian Rugby IMO.
I would prefer Jamie Joseph out of all them, he has now successfully coached two teams with comparatively limited playing depth and resources in their respective comps, what he did with the Highlanders was impressive, and what he did with Japan was even more impressive. It’s like he is perfectly suited to adjust the teams game plan to the resources he has to call on.
I would prefer Jamie Joseph out of all them, he has now successfully coached two teams with comparatively limited playing depth and resources in their respective comps, what he did with the Highlanders was impressive, and what he did with Japan was even more impressive. It’s like he is perfectly suited to adjust the teams game plan to the resources he has to call on.
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
I think it's important to keep things in perspective.
He was given an almost bottomless sum of money with England (and he's not going to have that in australia), a huge player base to draw from (and he's not going to have that in australia), and players that historically seem to have responded well to coaches of his ilk (and he's not going to get that in australia).
We can all lament about how our players should just suck it up, but tbh that's just not the way we are culturally in any aspect of life.
Any coach that leads the reds to give up 90 odd points deserves to have their passport stripped and never be allowed to set foot on these shores ever again.
I for one don't see any change in his behaviour at all - his post match conferences for the two Japan matches against the French barbarians were a fucking disgrace.
Michael Cheika would have done unbelievable things given 233 million dollars over two years and specialist coaches for everything from sprinting, tackling passing, hair cuts and moisturisers.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Couldn't best Scotland. Like Eddie
