Amirite,
Yes Cheika has been in 2 successful environments. He can't be a bad coach that says.
........
As for the Wallabies coaching. Clearly it's time for a change.
With regards to the Head Coach clearly there is not candidate who appears to be close to, let alone better than Cheika. So the change in the Head Coach needs to be a change in Cheika.
........
In regards to the coaching group I think we all agree the real change needs to come with the assistants.
Nathan Grey surely must be under scrutiny. From my count the Wallabies have let in an average of 3 tries per game. That is surely unacceptable defensively and the defensive coach has to own a lot of this.
Likewise with Larkham. The Wallabies attack simply has not been capable of attacking to the level required. With 65% possession and 68% territory the Wallabies managed to score 2 tries (Giving credit for the disallowed try because that was not a fault of the attack's ability).
We have scored 2.2 tries per game across the test season and that stat is boosted up by 4 games.
Right now there needs to be consideration of alternatives and at the end of the EOYT there should be a decision made going forward based on how these two and their areas of responsibility have performed in 2016.
What a really excellent post TWAS.
You'll likely know from my pervious posts on this Wallaby-related topic through 2015 and 2016 that FWIW the vast majority of your analysis has my endorsement.
I would add a couple of additional observations:
Half if not more of the core problem rests with an ARU that has flunked the 'how to build a top-class, fully and properly resourced national coaching group all of a calibre the equal of other leading rugby nations' test for at least a decade if not more.
Just like they have flunked a similar challenge in building an increased depth and quality of rugby coaching skills throughout the whole Australian rugby pyramid in parallel with their quantitative expansion of rugby played via new franchises in WA and VIC, and more recently the NRC. (This crucial gap - an increasing quantity of rugby to gain media income not being matched with increasing quality of rugby being shown to the public - is at the heart of the code's crisis in 2016.)
Given the messy and failed history of (just for example) Deans' support coaches and even before that time, unlike the NZRU the ARU has shown no capability in this area, or even more importantly the initial comprehension regarding how central is the
whole calibre of the national coaching group vs the easy mythology that one seemingly marvellous HC will do the trick with a few part-timers in support.
That era of the purely dominant, generalist master is totally over, nowadays mental skills, specialist skills (like the offload under pressure), set pieces, S&C, are all required for the focussed competencies essential in order to map the holistic talent and skills sets required to achieve, or get near, the very best levels of rugby team attainment against the very best competition.
Just the facts that it's taken years to belatedly recognise how critical an M Byrne-type of coach is to the national squad, that today we have no national forwards and line out coach, that we have no elite mental skills coaching (and not by contrast the major, long-term investment the NZRU has put into that key area of player development via Gilbert Enoka and others), no S&C Super and national program that's at least up there with NZ's, all this points the same way.
Either we don't understand at all, or we are 'saving' money in totally the wrong places (or both). If the Wallabies die away as a source of big crowd-pulling national pride - and let's face it Test crowd levels show that is what is slowly but inexorably occurring - the code will risk collapse in this country as its national income falls to non-viable levels.
Then we have the ridiculous notion that top national support coaches like Larkham and Grey can be part-time and happily zip back to Super positions for January-June/July. This is madness, the core national coaching group should be full-time and dedicating themselves 11 months a year to the task of rebuilding the Wallabies. Let alone the conflicts of interest and focus that wearing both Super and national hats can create, or be seen to create.
Consider all the above and then look carefully at the implied skills and background preferences of the ARU's board appointments in recent years. It's all ex-Wallabies, 'big' businessmen and women, corporate lawyers and such like. All 'good rugby people' no doubt who enjoy the VIP boxes and prestige networking but totally lacking in experience in, say, elite sports management, athletic and elite team performance skills, coaching technique and capability and so forth. Essentially, it's a board of enthusiastic amateurs wondering aimlessly why the Wallabies and our Super teams are in strife. How would this board begin to appreciate what building a genuine high performance national sports capability is really all about?
The above status has all come from years of corrosive complacency and implicit arrogance that the GPS schools would always be the undying factory for a Wallaby system fuelled by naturally gifted athletes needing only limited professional support and coaching.
Unfortunately, Cheika, unmentored and unguided by a relatively clueless ARU, has shown little interest in building a really first class and complete national coaching team ready to, in capability terms, rival that England has now created and the NZRU has created over the last decade or longer. I predict that this quiet dereliction could well yet prove the core of his undoing (or will severely cap his own potential as HC) and is the present key to his terrible 2016 30% (so far) w-l% ratio.
How on earth do we think with our national coaching MO as it is today that we may credibly and consistently defeat an England now staffed with a bevy of wide-span specialist coaches and with EJ (Eddie Jones) wisely bringing in more part-time for detailed advice (as he did here in Australia) and further get up near the ABs (whereby the NZRU has shown it fully understands the quality and quantity of a national full-time coaching team able to deliver 80%+ w-l ration year after year)? Do we think the NZRU invested in the Byrne's and Enoka's out of a desire to fill the team bus up; fuck no, they came to appreciate the depth and variety of skills essential to gaining
sustainable peak player and team performance.
Perhaps the most enlightening moment in
Chasing Great is when McCaw reached out to a forensic psychiatrist no less when he knew he needed to manage the mental aspects of big game pressure and get better mind control than he possessed during the RWC 2007 QF.
The attention to detail, the willingness to use highly specialist advice and listen to it, the support from his superiors to do this and to have the humility to open up oneself that way and then use that advice, these are the hallmarks of the best of the best in modern sporting skills and player development. And by best of the best, I purposefully mean both in terms of individuals and their surrounding and supporting institutions.
This type of depth and a relentlessly analytic, improvement-driven elite culture is mirrored in many modern Australian sporting organisations; indeed, vis the AIS et al we pioneered a huge amount of applied modern sport science, so much so and so well that the world copied us. To this deep vein of national quality in sports skills professionalism and ambition through earned insight, our modern rugby system is the self-omitting exception and now, as was inevitable, the chickens are fast coming home.