Where to for quality Rugby journalism???

[RugbyReg]

Out of interest where have you seen this? Surprised that I haven’t picked it up.

sources.

 

[dru]

sources.

So not in the published media. Interesting.

 

[Dan54]

My random thoughts on a few things being tossed around here;
On Cheika having a say on who 3rd selector is, well he has to, like him or not,if he the head coach then he needs both a selection committee and assistant coaches that he works with to pick teams that play the style he wants.
I not a Cheika fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I suspect if ARU can't afford to sack him, and many on here think he should be ,the only thing I would say as I recall after Wallabies made final of WC in 2015, I seem to recall a vast majority, if not all posters in here were lording him as the second coming etc and were wanting him tied up until after this year. I am quite happy to proven wrong on this, but I suspect the ARU were doing what everyone in rugby in the country wanted them to do, without the benefit of hindsight of course!

 

[I like to watch]

There was a small window, when most people thought Cheika should go,and there was still time to do it, in terms of the RWC.

Then word got out that Jake was going to have a phone chat with Castle, and she ran a mile.

If it was to be done,that was the only opportunity.

No decision will always be her default position.

 

[fatprop]

Not true, they were actively looking for Head Coaches as late as November last year.

Makes sense, a shit season and going onto a review process.

You need to at least look at what other options are out there if it turns to shit, Cheika could have walked away as well

 

[Strewthcobber]

Firing your national coach less than a year our from a world cup is a board decision, not a ceo decision.

Finding potential alternatives and giving the board her opinion would be in her remit. But it's the board who makes that call

 

[wamberal]

It would all depend on what the constitution of RA says, wouldn't it? Not to mention the job description of the CEO?

 

[Brumby Runner]

No rugby nation in the world would have sacked their head coach within a year of making the RWC Final against the odds in their first year since taking the job.

Suggesting that Cheika should have been sacked in 2016 is ridiculous. You might hate the guy but that would have been an insane decision. You would have also had four years of a contract to pay out.

You might have "seen it from the beginning" because you were tipping him to fail at the RWC. If you're wrong at that point you can't claim in hindsight to have been right from the beginning because it happened later.

I think the only realistic time Cheika could have been sacked was during 2018 and that left them very little option of an alternative that could potentially achieve a better outcome at the RWC. Certainly at that point their only real option is looking for a caretaker who has little to gain. The only way to attract a better candidate is to offer then tenure beyond the RWC which means you have selected your new coach with very few of the best options available at the time of appointment which is just likely to prolong the problem.

What they have done is try and improve the situation through to the RWC by having Johnson and a selector in the frame and make some changes to the assistants. They are then in a better position to make a good appointment after the RWC.

I don't think anyone accepts the head coach role a year out from the RWC without being offered longer than just coaching to the RWC.

BH, I have never been a Cheika fan, but had no real beef about his inityial appointment after his time with the Tahs. It didn't take long for me to lose all faith in him, though, as his very poor team selections came to the fore. And they were poor, it is not just bias that leads me to say that.

However, without getting into fruitless debate about it, I will make the comment that I hope RA learns a real lesson or two from the shambles. One is that whomever is appointed should be only for the two years following a RWC (with an option to extend if both parties agree) so that there is a capability of moving them on painlessly if they don't work out. The other is that the contract must have an enforceable accountability clause in it so that an obviously poor appointee can be terminated at a time of RA's choosing rather than waiting for the end of the contract period, if necessary.

 

[Braveheart81]

However, without getting into fruitless debate about it, I will make the comment that I hope RA learns a real lesson or two from the shambles. One is that whomever is appointed should be only for the two years following a RWC (with an option to extend if both parties agree) so that there is a capability of moving them on painlessly if they don't work out. The other is that the contract must have an enforceable accountability clause in it so that an obviously poor appointee can be terminated at a time of RA's choosing rather than waiting for the end of the contract period, if necessary.

Cheika was originally contracted to the end of 2016. In early 2016 he extended his contract to the 2019 RWC as would anyone in his position after success at the 2015 RWC.

RA would have been crazy not to sign him up to that and the same situation would happen again with any coach.

No contract is going to have that sort of clause in it unless they hire someone who is hopeless and just thankful someone is offering them a job. This suggestion that somehow RA or any employer can dictate the terms of their contracts for coaches and players to say exactly what they want them to say has no basis in reality. That is not how the world works.

RA can terminate the contract. They just have to pay for it.

 

[sunnyboys]

“New” bloke writing at the SMH has an interesting topic tonight regarding suspected match fixing by wallabies.

The game that kind of matches his hints had a this as part of its match review on GAGR:

“I struggle to think of an occasion when I’ve seen a side with so much possession and so many attacking opportunities, against an opponent with no meaningful attack, lose with a miserly 8 points to show for their effort. The Wallabies even managed to actually fall over the try-line twice more, but on their backs. That’s innovation! If you planned to throw a match as part of a betting scandal, this would have been far too elaborate a route.”

 

[dru]

“New” bloke writing at the SMH has an interesting topic tonight regarding suspected match fixing by wallabies.

The game that kind of matches his hints had a this as part of its match review on GAGR:

“I struggle to think of an occasion when I’ve seen a side with so much possession and so many attacking opportunities, against an opponent with no meaningful attack, lose with a miserly 8 points to show for their effort. The Wallabies even managed to actually fall over the try-line twice more, but on their backs. That’s innovation! If you planned to throw a match as part of a betting scandal, this would have been far too elaborate a route.”

Note that this topic has been locked in another thread.

 

[Samson]

Note that this topic has been locked in another thread.

instead f locking out comments by genuine rugby followers it may be better to block comments by Greg Crowden on a permanent basis. I have been involved with and loved rugby for close on SIXTY years and CROWDEN is the most negative correspondent I can think of in that time.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ next-best option is not to read his columns: presumably someone somewhere is counting how many clicks he gets & if that number stays low enough for long enough he'll get put out to pasture.

John Reason was a fairly negative cnut, esp where NZ rugby in general & AB in particular were concerned & his boy Mark is doing his best to uphold the family tradition.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

Alan jones’ Articles are just getting worse and worse. Barely comprehensible in terms of logic and flow and so utterly biased.

 

[liquor box]

https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/04/28/red-carding-waratah-jed-holloway-was-rubbish-rugby/
by David Lord, he should know better and is the only journalist more biased than Phil Kearns.

Australian referee Nic Berry red carded Holloway and yellow-carded du Toit in the 47th minute when exactly the opposite should have happened.
In effect, du Toit got off virtually scot-free as the one who illegally started the ruckus, and at worst Holloway should have been yellowed for retaliating.
But seeing his back was turned to du Toit at all times, Holloway should have been left alone in this play.