Wallaby Coaching Staff

[Brumby Runner]

Taking a line through Gregor Townsend at Scotland, as far as I can ascertain he started coaching in 2012 at Glasgow Warriors and moved to head coach of Scotland with good success this year.

Dave Wessels started coaching at the Brumbies in 2012, coached the Perth Spirit in 2014 and took the Force to second spot in Aus Super Rugby this year, quite clearly on an upward trend.

Not a world of difference between them in experience or success rate I would think. Why would he not be an option for the Wallabies in 2018?

 

[Slim 293]

Wessels is on an upward trajectory, but has yet to achieve the same level of success as Cheika or even Larkham as a Super Rugby coach...........

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Nothing the ARU could offer McMahon would have come close to the Japan money.

You kind of miss the point: the whole shooting match of elite rugby from top to bottom is a clusterfuck - there is no plan, there's no consistency and the results at all levels reflect it

 

[Gnostic]

My views on the coaching issues are much the same as those on management level antics.


Get the process right and the right people and results will follow.

Cheika was handed the job on the back of Link's resignation, and a single title at the Tahs. As QH has said ideally he should have had a few more years at the Tahs, but then I don't think it would have made a difference, as I've said before it is very possible that Cheika is a motivator type and that achieves rapid results in a short time, which is what we saw at the Tahs and the Walabies. But there has proved no depth to either of the "structure" that he ran and both have fallen in a heap after that initial success and can realistically be said to have worse results now that at the start of his tenure.


No a big factor in this I think is the key fact that where ever he has gone he has surrounded himself with inexperienced coaches (much like Robbie Deans in fact) with the only outlier being Byrne. Is it any wonder that the results achieved at the very pinnacle of the sport against very well coached sides is so erratic at best? Out of all the coaches "specialty" areas the only successful individual was Mario Ladesma. The scrum was very poor to shambolic under Deans (and those before him) and this has largely been fixed with some blips on the radar attributable to selection, long term injury/rehab issues (to the likes of Slipper) and IMO the loss of Holmes as back-up or even first choice THP with Kepu. That is a pretty damning result from the coaching team. The fact that the attack is still pretty poor, direct big runners League style into defenders with only occasional play in depth. Defence systems since the RWC have been a complete mess.

So the lack of systems depth is being played out, we have novice coaches in most positions, all in fact excepting Byrne, now with Palmer on board, and the motivator is less motivating and more ranting and raving like a child.


It is not about belief as much as Cheika and Co like to sprout, it is in fact about lack of skill execution and that comes directly from lack of effective coaching and I've no doubt player coachablity in some cases.

 

[dru]

I wonder if in Cheik we may be seeing another Eddie Jones. IE a coach remembered with mixed response for his time at the helm of the Wallabies, but reappearing in the future better rounded as a possible world best.

Somewhere else.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I wonder if in Cheik we may be seeing another Eddie Jones. IE a coach remembered with mixed response for his time at the helm of the Wallabies, but reappearing in the future better rounded as a possible world best.

Somewhere else.

What similarities do you see in their approaches?

 

[fatprop]

What similarities do you see in their approaches?

Approaches are different, but the outcomes are somewhat the same in the Wobs chair. The key difference is that with all the Aus Super Rugby sides being the pants, and rolling out newby coaches, there isn't that successful Super Rugby coach in waiting. And if there is a change I think they will really benefit from Cheika's blooding of new players There are some really promising units coming through

 

[Jagman]

What similarities do you see in their approaches?

Dual open side flankers?

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[Gnostic]

I wonder if in Cheik we may be seeing another Eddie Jones. IE a coach remembered with mixed response for his time at the helm of the Wallabies, but reappearing in the future better rounded as a possible world best.

Somewhere else.

Big difference is that EJ (Eddie Jones) at his time at the Wobs was an innovator. He got it disastrously wrong in a couple of key aspects namely the play by numbers/field zones or what ever you want to call it and the depowering/lowering of important of the scrum. Both of these approaches were well grounded philosophies with a lot of statistical analysis supporting them. Doesn't change the fact that they were totally wrong and were easily reached apexes performance wise. EJ (Eddie Jones) got some things spot on and was in front of the curve in some areas. Jones has always been a deep thinker of the game, though very difficult personality. What changed for his was his complete and utter failure at the Reds followed by his medical crisis in Japan. He re-assessed and there is no doubt he changed his approach a lot and he also saw the need to bring in very skilled support coaches which he didn't really have before in depth. The achievement of those coaches like Marc dal Maso had in the Japan set up was very significant. I just don't see any parallels with Cheika at this point, and I wonder if he could reassess and remodel like Jones or even has the skills in coaching himself to do it. Looking back at the performance stats and the circumstances of appointment and dismissal the man I feel most for and a lost opportunity for Australian rugby is John Connolly.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Dual open side flankers?

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

Only when not job sharing!

 

[dru]

I just don't see any parallels with Cheika at this point, and I wonder if he could reassess and remodel like Jones or even has the skills in coaching himself to do it.

I think both EJ (Eddie Jones) and Cheika were willing (while at the WBs) to test their ideas by implementing them at great extreme.

I keep hearing from fans here that "Cheika is an intelligent guy", but I suspect, like you Gnostic, that he possibly takes his own opinion sometimes without a lot of supporting data or statistics. He could still be right of course. Testing things out at great extreme is a fantastic way to build knowledge, but it isn't complete knowledge and lacks subtlety and nuance that we probably are entitled to expect in the role. For me, Cheika "learns" best by getting a bloody nose.

Which is fine, but it is happening at the expense of those games. It is undoubtedly progress, but I dont see him getting to a point that there will be no bloody nose during the next RWC. And satisfaction in his performance presupposes that we are happy with the periodic bloody noses that we get in the mean time. Which I am not.

But it does seem possible that the experience leads to a possible future great, when there has been enough learning for some subtlety. I remember a quote by a boxer along the lines of "the best block is not having your head in the road of that on-coming fist". Cheika seems to need to get sufficiently punch drunk to learn that one. And that does, kind of, feel a bit like Eddie Jones.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Thing is, Jones has come through the tunnel and is seeing light, The other bloke is still in the tunnel and everyone HOPES he gets to see the light.

There are no guarantees at all and the journey so far in his tenure does not fill me with optimism
Particularly with 2 record losses and allowing the Japs to score 30+

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think both EJ (Eddie Jones) and Cheika were willing (while at the WBs) to test their ideas by implementing them at great extreme.

I keep hearing from fans here that "Cheika is an intelligent guy", but I suspect, like you Gnostic, that he possibly takes his own opinion sometimes without a lot of supporting data or statistics. He could still be right of course. Testing things out at great extreme is a fantastic way to build knowledge, but it isn't complete knowledge and lacks subtlety and nuance that we probably are entitled to expect in the role. For me, Cheika "learns" best by getting a bloody nose.

Which is fine, but it is happening at the expense of those games. It is undoubtedly progress, but I dont see him getting to a point that there will be no bloody nose during the next RWC. And satisfaction in his performance presupposes that we are happy with the periodic bloody noses that we get in the mean time. Which I am not.

But it does seem possible that the experience leads to a possible future great, when there has been enough learning for some subtlety. I remember a quote by a boxer along the lines of "the best block is not having your head in the road of that on-coming fist". Cheika seems to need to get sufficiently punch drunk to learn that one. And that does, kind of, feel a bit like Eddie Jones.

What are these extreme ideas that Cheika has been trying out

 

[dru]

What are these extreme ideas that Cheika has been trying out

Not extreme ideas IS, trying ideas in extremis. It's not quite the same thing.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not extreme ideas IS, trying ideas in extremis. It's not quite the same thing.

Ok.
I can’t say I have discerned a common theme reflecting an organising theory or idea.