Wallaby Coaching Staff

[Highlander35]

Not many Nations can truly afford to do it. And a lot of nations just have a historical trend of players going elsewhere. The 3 Exiles sides, Newcastle with the Scottish Borders, Bristol and Bath with Wales, the Italians and France etc.

Heck, even the French selected Picamoles from Northampton.

It's about finding that balance between need, ability, and not "encouraging" players to head overseas.

Genia was a good pick. With Cubelli and Mattheson starting at two of the Super Sides, and Stirzaker struggling with injury that's only 2 scrummies playing a whole lot. Genia had also missed a lot through injury, but was fit and an established international.

Mitchell was dumb. Mitchell was both not fit, and unfit.

AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) was dumb because he only wanted Bledisloes.

Gits was fine. Beale injured, To'omua leaving, Lilo has his cancer issues, Hodge was in his first season, Quade/Foley aren't 12s and the Kerevi/Kuridrani combo hadn't worked in June. Plus that left footed option.

Horwill was probably worth a shot, but it quickly became clear that investing in Coleman and Arnold was the way forward.

I'm not a Cheika fan, but at this stage, he's clearly the best option. Mostly due to the lack of domestic options, the cash needed for a payout and the cash needed to bring in a high quality option from elsewhere, but regardless.

 

[Quick Hands]

If you are comparing the fate of the Wallabies and England this year, perhaps the below average performances of the Australian Super Rugby sides compared with Saracens winning the European Champions Cup (first English team to do so since 2007) are a better indication of why the national sides fortunes have shifted substantially.

No doubt in part because of the exodus of players overseas. Allowing players to be picked for Australia without being a current super rugby player will continue these below average performances.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm not a Cheika fan, but at this stage, he's clearly the best option. Mostly due to the lack of domestic options, the cash needed for a payout and the cash needed to bring in a high quality option from elsewhere, but regardless.

Absolutely he's the best option - but that doesn't mean that every decision that he takes is correct, nor does it mean that he should be above criticism.

 

[fatprop]

No doubt in part because of the exodus of players overseas. Allowing players to be picked for Australia without being a current super rugby player will continue these below average performances.

I disagree, if a player meets the criteria (60 tests) and can add value to the team, I see no issue with it. It isn't like they were holding back

I think the correlation between Aus's performance this year and having Gits, Genia, Mitchell et al around the squad is simply bullocks. We can either get something back from these guys or right them off, I would prefer the former

A 60 test player is not rubbish and can add valuable experience and insight.

If it wasn't for injury Gits would have been doing his thing at 12 with Hodge (a guy in his first season) learning pro footie from a great player

 

[dru]

Absolutely he's the best option - but that doesn't mean that every decision that he takes is correct, nor does it mean that he should be above criticism.

My thoughts exactly.

The coaching team need to do some serious cogitation over the break. They are simply not taking us to a place where we want to be. Their development of the squad, strategy and systems, has been impressive, but it should be obvious now that those intentions, which while they can be improved, even once improved still can not take us to where we want to be.

No doubt we are somewhat constrained in our halves options. This might mean any one of many things:
1. specific skills development - particularly around tactical kicking and general kicking in play.
2. developing alternative players - some success with Coleman, Arnold, Timani, Hodge, DH-P but nothing apparent in the halves. Frisby plus another need to be considered on a broader plan. Lance, Morahan, who knows. [I'm not sure that Larkham is the bloke for that development role though. He seems good for developing plays to create opportunity, but not in developing - or working with - players who create opportunity.]
3. Changes (or additions) to the game plan. At the RWC Cheika's "finishers" seemed worthwhile. It's gone out the window in 2016. If they are not developing players who can lead a change in style and strategy based on how the game is playing out, then they need to develop a game that changes when instructed to adapt to what is going on.

Recalling Link when he was at the Reds - the game plan was a multi facetted group of opportunities, every opposition was considered and the game plan adjusted from the set of systems to that opposition. A rugby "language" that was smart and adaptive. Possibly too much. From the subime to the ridiculous: Cheika and Larkham have provided in 2016 what I have called a rugby-monoglot. An impressive determination to perfect a game plan but an inability to think beyond the one game plan.

Whatever your thoughts on Link, this "stuck in a rut" system needs development and the WB coaching group need to start looking more broadly at new opportunities in taking the WBs forward.

Much work to be done, nearly all of it starts with strategy. Comments similar to "the fans should be happy that we have stayed with the 'Australian way' " suggests that they think the philosophy and style discussion is dead.

That would indeed be disappointing.

 

[BD75]

Good points Dru. Lots of chat in the media about attacking the 'Australian Way' etc..etc..but didn't we win one or two world cups on the back of our defence ?- we aint going to win much when we leak on average 27 points per test match for 15 tests this year, out attack needs to be bloody fantastic to win regularly on those numbers. Cheika is seen as a motivator type coach but this reflects poorly in defence and discipline. I'd like to think we can also defend the 'Australian Way', despite the spin about attack. Our tackling and in particular discipline really needs sorting out.

 

[dru]

I guess that I should add:

I like our 1-3-3-1 structure in attack. A lot. Nothing to change here. I like the second line of attack in the back line fading behind the wider pod. Slipper made a very nice link man as an occasional second receiver giving space to Foley. I don't mind that hand skills in that second pod are not as good since Slipper has been out of form and Holmes gone. I see development and I like it.

I like that Larkham has built plays through the backline, using the forward structure that open holes. and i like that Foley is completely "dialed in" to those patterns. So I also understand that Foley is preferred over Quade (even if my personal choice might differ).

I dont mind Phipps working within this system, nor Genia.

I like that we are able to protect 9 and 10 in defence, and I like that Folau is able to shift between FB (defence) and IC (attack). All that shifting between modes is a weak point, that has been covered very well. I like it.

I don't mind that our D open the tram tracks to the opposition "if you think you are good enough, go for it". Of course NZ, England and Ireland did just that. I don't mind at all. It's a plan with robustness. I like that our back three generally did a very good job there covering that invitation.

So that's possibly 50-60 mins of the game that for me, in 2016 is 10/10.

Then we get tired - this isn't simply fitness, it's due to those coached systems. Once behind on the score board those predictable systems get pushed and sloppy. It inevitably leads to less perfection against the rush D, or the fish hook D, and others. Intercepts, dropped ball, failure to respond to a territory kicking game - all predictable.

We have nothing right now, that puts the rush in two minds, no way of engaging our wide backs as the pod system tires.

Something must step in at this point. Or perhaps much earlier to keep the opposition wondering. Either way there is a need to get out of the rut and build variation, not just variation within the system (Larkham seems OK at that) but variation TO the system.

A thinking 10 with freedom to improvise might help (wonder where we find one of them?). Or planned in change designed by the coaches. Out of the box not in it.

2016 did produce some strength it also produced an unacceptable W/L result. No-one should be happy.

 

[Quick Hands]

I disagree, if a player meets the criteria (60 tests) and can add value to the team, I see no issue with it. It isn't like they were holding back

I think the correlation between Aus's performance this year and having Gits, Genia, Mitchell et al around the squad is simply bullocks. We can either get something back from these guys or right them off, I would prefer the former

A 60 test player is not rubbish and can add valuable experience and insight.

If it wasn't for injury Gits would have been doing his thing at 12 with Hodge (a guy in his first season) learning pro footie from a great player

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

EDIT: And I'd add that I never said that any of the players were rubbish - just that they need to be playing for an Aussie super side to be selected.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Just read Pulver's soft comments / spin on Chek and the results on the GAGR front page.

Bloke is starting to sound and perform like Malcolm T.

Looked good and showed plenty of promise at the start of his term ( as did the formerly mentioned chappie), but can now be considered just about in the same light - bland.

 

[I like to watch]

What's he supposed to say?
The coach is shit,but we're stuck with him?

Fortunately fir Cheika, the board is not saying he has their full support

 

[Scrubber2050]

What's he supposed to say?
The coach is shit,but we're stuck with him?

Fortunately fir Cheika, the board is not saying he has their full support

ILTW - true

Bit like pollies in general:
The Prime Minister has my full support (even though that former young prop named Tony is sharpening the stiletto before he stabs the other former young prop)

 

[A mutterer]

What's he supposed to say?
The coach is shit,but we're stuck with him?

Fortunately fir Cheika, the board is not saying he has their full support

Yet

 

[Slim 293]

There were some very unhappy and incredulous coaches in Canberra when they let him go

RE: Lomax, let's clear something up:

He was offered a fulltime contract with the Brumbies after being on a development contract in Canberra but chose to go to the Rebels because he thought there would be more opportunities.

“They’ve got a lot of quality props at the Brumbies and they are really quite young,” the 20-year-old said at the RUPA induction camp in Sydney yesterday. “I knew it would have been pretty tough for me to stay there and get any opportunity.

“I thought I would have a better opportunity at the Rebels. The Rebels are a young squad. I’d like to spend my playing career with them and come up together.”

Paywall: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...e/news-story/c66dbe258fb11b379b4ee8455c485f23

 

[fatprop]

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

EDIT: And I'd add that I never said that any of the players were rubbish - just that they need to be playing for an Aussie super side to be selected.

I found this bit in a Drew Mitchell article

“We’re here as much for the off-field stuff as the on-field,” Mitchell said at the time. “We want to help the younger guys and Cheika has wanted that.
“We’re not going to be handed jerseys for free. If we don’t get a jersey, we will still around to hand out knowledge and support.
“If we can give the boys clarity or ease nerves, that’s a big part of the reason we’re back.”

 

[Brumby Runner]

“We’re here as much for the off-field stuff as the on-field,” Mitchell said at the time. “We want to help the younger guys and Cheika has wanted that.
“We’re not going to be handed jerseys for free. If we don’t get a jersey, we will still around to hand out knowledge and support.
“If we can give the boys clarity or ease nerves, that’s a big part of the reason we’re back.”

Plenty of experienced Wallabies in and around the squad, including Moore, Kepu, Sio, Simmons, Hooper, Fardy, Pocock, Genia, Foley, Kuridrani, Folau etc, who could have and should have been performing that task. No need to go to the expense of bringing yesterday's heroes back for such a trivial purpose, if that was indeed the actual purpose at all.

 

[dru]

“We’re here as much for the off-field stuff as the on-field,” Mitchell said at the time. “We want to help the younger guys and Cheika has wanted that.
“We’re not going to be handed jerseys for free. If we don’t get a jersey, we will still around to hand out knowledge and support.
“If we can give the boys clarity or ease nerves, that’s a big part of the reason we’re back.”

Plenty of experienced Wallabies in and around the squad, including Moore, Kepu, Sio, Simmons, Hooper, Fardy, Pocock, Genia, Foley, Kuridrani, Folau etc, who could have and should have been performing that task. No need to go to the expense of bringing yesterday's heroes back for such a trivial purpose, if that was indeed the actual purpose at all.

Seems a tad cynical BR.

In my mind Cheika has been constantly keeping Euroworld on their toes over Australian players. I'd keep the bloody Giteau clause, and keep Cheika rubbing their noses in it, even if we decided to leave them over there. There is something of a wider strategy going on.

There is just plenty in the Cheika arsenal that I no longer trust, bordering objecting to some of it. But when it comes to fronting the European clubs, I''m for creating a new role when his current is done.

How does "European Club Liaison Officer" sound. Pretty bloody good, eh? Comes with cricket bat in the right hand and knuckle duster on the left.

 

[fatprop]

”

Plenty of experienced Wallabies in and around the squad, including Moore, Kepu, Sio, Simmons, Hooper, Fardy, Pocock, Genia, Foley, Kuridrani, Folau etc, who could have and should have been performing that task. No need to go to the expense of bringing yesterday's heroes back for such a trivial purpose, if that was indeed the actual purpose at all.

Really?, I think you have demonstrated why they were called back

 

[Joe Blow]

There is no harm in it and if we have a ridiculous injury toll at some point we have those tried and true veterans to call on.
However, in Genias case we need to get him back in Oz.
AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Giteau can offer a lot to the young backs that the Australian based players cannot. There is a huge gap in experience and I would suggest knowledge.

 

[Scrubber2050]

There is no harm in it and if we have a ridiculous injury toll at some point we have those tried and true veterans to call on.
However, in Genias case we need to get him back in Oz.
AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Giteau can offer a lot to the young backs that the Australian based players cannot. There is a huge gap in experience and I would suggest knowledge.

Forgive me for thinking that would be a part of Larkham's job

 

[Strewthcobber]

Forgive me for thinking that would be a part of Larkham's job

Big difference between a colleague and a boss