It’s time to ask the ARU some hard questions
Roar Guru
By Rickety Knees, 24 Nov 2009 Rickety Knees is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- John ONeill, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies
John O’Neill recently stated ”leading ARU officials would meet Deans to conduct a review of the season to work out what improvements had to be made to ensure the Wallabies end their slide well before the next World Cup”.
Given that the Wallabies are sadly lacking in playing talent in general, and specifically in world class locks, I would like to ask John O’Neill:
1. Was it the right decision to scrap the ARC?
2. Was it the right decision to drive Dan Vickerman and Hugh McMeniman offshore through cost cutting contracts negotiations?
3. What return on investment has $10M+ spent on Rugby League players provided and where are they now?
The buck has to stop with the ARU.
It has to take responsibility for its decisions that have now directly contributed to the lack of quality of players available to represent the Wallabies.
There is no argument that Robbie Deans is the best coach the Wallabies could have got. But he is no miracle worker.
He can only work with the players that are available.
And let’s be honest, many of those that represented the Wallabies against Scotland were not up to international standard. No ARU review can change that fact.
The only option that Deans has is to promote young players in the hope that they can quickly make the transition to international rugby and this, unfortunately, has not worked, witnessed by the lack of maturity and composure displayed against Scotland.
It is time for the ARU to fix up what it has done.
It needs to show strategic leadership to create a production line that can provide a pool of players so that Australian Rugby never confronts this situation again.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (33)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (45)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (25)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (199)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- John ONeill, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
Too true Rickety. It occurred to me watching Ryan Cross: how many centres in the NRL are better than him? 50-odd? If you include wings and forwards converted to centre perhaps 100!
How did the ARU end up with him?!
As the over-boss the ARU are never really blamed for the national team’s failure. They seem so far away, and are invisible while the players are only too visible on the pitch, as is the coach on the side.
But they are ultimately responsible for what happens there.
Perhaps after every match and especially when the national team loses the ARU should be interviewed by the press instead of the coach and players?
LT80 said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
100? Do you realise there are only 16 clubs in the NRL? You’re way off there mate!
But I do agree with you that Cross is the perfect example of the lack of depth in Australian rugby union. There’s no way he would be playing rep footy if he was still playing rugby league. He would probably be a solid first grade player.
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
LT80 100 may be an exaggeration, but considering that lots of forwards, half-backs and wings would probably move to the centres if they converted, is it going too far to say there are 50 better players there than him?
My point is that as the ARU could have chosen any of 50-odd superior players to Cross, how did they wind up by choosing him?! How is it possible?
Jay said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Cross is okay, but they are definatley missing Mortlock.
What the ARU should be doing is examining their treatment of Tahu. That guy could have been anything in rah-rah…
cookee said | November 25th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
NO NOT TRUE DEANS DOES NOT GET THE BEST OUT OF HIS TEAM;HIS ONE BROOM APPROACH IS FLAWED AND DOESNT SUIT THE CULTURE.HOW DOES THE TEAM COME SO CLOSE WITHOUT DEANS GETTING THEM OVER THE LINE OCCASIONALLY.CANT EVEN GET THE DROP KICK MESSAGE ACROSS IT WOULD SEEM.
Bay35Pablo said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
The way the “review” will probably proceed:
ARU: What went wrong Robbie? Why did you and the boys fail?
The way the review should go:
ARU: Where did we go wrong at our end Robbie? How can we fix it?
It seems to me that the ARU never takes ownership of the problem. They fall into the old trap – when things are good, they take credit. When things go bad, it was nothing to do with them. Always a sign of bad management.
sheek said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Rickety,
Re your questions:
1. As you know, I’m a great believer in a national comp. However, in this instance, I agree with O’Neill scrapping the ARC, which hopefully will be temporary. It’s better to scrap the ARC, than for Australian rugby to go broke (again).
It’s obvious the game is in deep trouble. We need to contract & stabilise before we can expand again. This is the unpalatable reality. It’s too late for recriminations as to how Australian rugby ended up in this mess. Hopefully, we will learn the lessons, & start rebuilding immediately.
I like the new S15 concept, I think this will help. However, as I’ve suggested many times before, when we do bring back an ARC, it must be accompanied by a change in the super format, it becoming like a Heineken Cup style comp. At present, no-one in authority wants to explore this future avenue.
2. I don’t really know the ins & outs of the arrangements with Vickerman & McMenamin. In any case, that’s just two players (albeit highly capable players). There are so many problems on so many fronts that you can’t argue with conviction, that just two players would somehow change the current situation.
With respect to players’ salaries being linked to success, I would note caution here. Like everyone else, I want the Wallabies accountable. But we also need to keep them in the game, since this lot is the best we have! The solution, I think, is to build ‘competition in depth’ for every national position.
3. My reading of the ‘league experiment’ is this. Apart from the obvious marketing benefits, those league players were brought across because they were perceived to have specific talents that would be beneficial to both the Wallabies & Provinces.
However, their union coaches then tried to change them (specifically Sailor, Rogers, Tuqiri & Tahu) into players they weren’t. I’m not a business savvy person, but I would consider it business suicide that you bought say a particular plant machinery for a particular purpose, but then try to use it in another way.
The ARU is faced with many problems, which it must prioritize in order to manage those problems. Most critically is the need to develop the player participation base, get more people, especially young kids, playing rugby.
Ironically, while playing numbers appear to be up in WA & Victoria, which is precisely the purpose of nationalisation, the numbers have nose-dived in the heartland of NSW. Why, I don’t know, but the recruiters & development officers had better hop to it!
Aligned to this, we need to get better coaching in place, at all levels from juniors to seniors. Those many, wonderful, highly competent, volunteer coaches (teachers, parents, relations, ex-players) seem to have walked away. They need to be enticed back!
Of course, we need to rearrange our structures, & especially also need a provincial comp (ARC) to provide more opportunities at the professional level for players & coaches. But unfortunately, this part of the operation must wait a few years (NOTE – I said a few years, only a few years!!!). The priority is getting more players into the game – immediately!
There are of course, a host of other problems – a need for clear separation between professional, semi-professional & amateur levels of the game; provinces becoming more integrated with their grassroots communities, & so on, & so on. But this will have to do for now.
O’Neill, Carroll, Robinson, Nucifora & the rest of the ARU had better start earning their money – pronto!!!
Rickety Knees said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Great post Sheek – all valid points. The point of my article is summarised eloquently by Bay – the ARU are great at taking the credit in the good times but it is always somebody else’s fault in the bad times. Just reviewing the tour will serve nothing. The ARU needs to come up with a strategic plan that will produce a production line of talented players – this is the most fundamental of all problems – we just don’t have the talent.
As Deans recently stated – “the best players are here on tour” and they have been found wanting.
Hammer said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Sheek
1. I understand that all of the ARU board, ARU exec, ARU managers and a significant “other ARU” staff as well as a huge support staff were on tour for most of the games. All flying Business or First and staying in 5 stars. Cut this type of junket out and we are half way to an ARC. I also know that because the ARU do not run “Best Practice ” business principles they miss out on Millions from the Aust Sports commission. Aust Sports Commission support ALL major sports in Australia and the ARU are the only major that misses out?
2. Players come players go. Our problem is the WAY we coach at the elite level. From Schools to Test
3. Great point. I would ad that player managers are the used car salesmen of yesteryear. They live off the hard working of young and talented sports people. they will package players and sell them to any sports they can to drive their commissions and turnover up. As a result they convince amateur administrators not only the athletic ability but the spin and marketing benefits of the players. I don’t care if they are great blokes and spend time with kids and fans. I don’t care if they are icon of their native sport. I want real pathways for all contributors in rugby, Athletes, managers, coaches, refs, medical, volunteers ETC. Who would Australia brought through if we had not recruited ANY of the recent Rugby League wallabies?
Coaching reform is desperately needed.. Have a look at Dwyer’s page at..
http://www.bobdwyerrugby.com/english/default.asp
And get a copy of Duncan Halls new Rugby Passport Book. The ARU should use it as their level 2 standard.
sheek said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Hammer,
Thanks for the link – in my faves now!
fred said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
sheek agreed.however deans clearly had all the backgound music at crusaders taking over a 2 year winning team which is still performing well 2 years after his departure that says a lot doesnt it. imo he hasnt adjusted to the culture and his approach should have been a tad more pragmatic if what youre suggesting is correct and i think youre right.some of his tactical decisions have been average and man management skills below par evidenced by not getting best out of the players.if the cattle are good enough to get close in test matches then the coaching factor must engender faith in their ability to win;this clearly is not the case and imo a prerequisite for the successful coach.we can blame the assistants and the ARU but ultimately the buck has always stopped at the coachs door.the wallabies have a proud record at rwcs so deans is not setting a precedent .
Sam said | November 24th 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
I do look at the League converts in Australia and wonder whether or not it has been worth the money. From a marketing perspective it has been successful, but from a rugby perspective I don’t believe so. None of them have ever lived up to the hype, or the pay packets. The English have made the same mistake, although only with Andy Farrell.
I think the problem is that nearly all of the players changed codes because of the money. The two most successful converts (globally) have been Jason Robinson, and Brad Thorn (the only convert to successfully play in the forwards). I don’t know much about the Robinson situation, but I do know that Brad Thorn took a massive pay-cut, and risked a lot, to convert. He signed to play provincial rugby – not even Super 12 level – for the Canterbury. He was never constrained by some massive multi-year contract, and when he ended up playing for the All Blacks no-body thought it was because the NZRU had promised him so.
The Link said | November 24th 2009 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Tiquiri and Rogers were successful converts. I’d even argue Big Dell went better than he is given credit for.
One thing that is striking is that most actually have their best years early after the switch and seem to get worse the longer they are in Rugby. I think all the creativity and expansiveness is beaten out of them, particularly in Australian Rugby.
Sam said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
They weren’t as successful as their pay-packets would suggest. Tiquiri was the highest paid player in Australia which was a joke – he would never have made a World XV – there are wingers all around the world that perform just as well but get paid less. Rogers was not a failure – I suppose I’d wouldn’t judge him to be outstanding in rugby. I always thought Latham was much better, he was a player Australia should never have let go of. I don’t know if what you say is true about expansiveness getting beaten out of them – it hasn’t stopped other players trying to play some rugby. I just wonder what their motivation was, whether they were just there to go through the motions.
Joh4Canberra said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Surely there’s a difference between a rugby league player like Thorn who moves across to rugby union “off his own bat” so to speak because he wanted to play the game and not for a whopping big salary and those who are actively pursued by rugby union administrators waving a big wad of cash. I’m fine with the former, but not with the latter. If rugby league players really want to come and play union that’s fine. But I don’t think the ARU should be spending its money trying to lure them across. If these players are genuinely interested then let them make the moves. Let them approach rugby union and demonstrate a genuine interest and aptitude for the game before offering them an expensive professional contract. Ideally you could have them play a couple of trial matches in amateur club rugby before offering them a professional contract. I wonder how the NRL would react to this? Would it try to stop them? And if rugby league players don’t like the idea of having to prove themselves first before being offered big money then tough. There’s always France, Italy and Japan for them.
I honestly don’t have a problem with Stade Français or RC Toulon gambling big big money to lure leaguies like Gasnier and SBW who have never shown any aptitude in the union game before signing a contract. And if players such as these succeed then power to them. If Gasnier makes a go of it in union and after his contract expires in France wants to come back to Australia and play Super 15 and earn a spot with the Wallabies then good luck to him I say. Or if he wants to keep playing in France that’s fine by me as well. But I just don’t think the ARU should be gambling big money to sign up league players who have never played a game of rugby union in their life and may or may not succeed in the 15 man game.
Hammer said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
I’m sure we have had a love in like the one proposed very recently?
Maybe the questions should be.. Why are you still picking up your pay? Under australian law if an organisation does not deliver the good and services its paid for you get your money back!
Brett McKay said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Rickety, Pablo, if the review does indeed start as we expect with “why are we failing?”, I hope the answer quickly fired back is “becuase you killed off the development path”.
“How can we fix it?” Bite the bullet, admit the ARC was a good idea, and cop the loss for a few years. In the end, the benefits will be delivered…
Rickety Knees said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Spot on, Brett
Brett McKay said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Rickety, Sheek’s post wasn’t up when I started mine – he can go on
– but I actually agree with him. As of 2011, we’ll have 20 matches (give or take) between 5 Australian teams, and for now, this is our APC/ARC, and should be marketed as such. Bring back the Templeton Cup if need be, and add some meaning to the Australian leg of the S15.
The ARC can only be a long-term plan now, and again, Sheek’s Heineken Cup model is a good fit. For now, we need Victoria to be competitve, for Qld to bounce back, and for the Wallaby squads to have no elements of “he’s only there becuase there’s no-one else” about any selections..
sheek said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Brett….. bugger off!!!
But thanks all the same (how do you do those smiley faces?)!
PS – Can’t decide if i prefer your laid-back country boy photo (for the blue column) or your slick metro boy photo (for the red column).
Brett McKay said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Sheek, that’s gold, love it!!
Because you’re a nice bloke, who I’m determined to meet one day over a beer, you can check out http://codex.wordpress.org/Using_Smilies, which is a guide to all the smilies for WordPress blogs (which is what The Roar is based on).
As for the photos, well, where do I start?!? I have had a lot of “how did you get a Roar t-shirt?” comments!!
Harry said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
I’m afraid O’Neill’s arrogance and lack of accountability means we won’t get any reasoanble response.
He will say he has setup Australian rugby’s future and addressed these problems with the inclusion of a Victorian team and a round of domestic matches in the S15, and we have to be patient …. so effectively, write the Wallabies off for the next few years and don’t do anything about the very real grass roots problems identified by Sheek and RK’s.
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Harry that’s a terrifying summary if true.
I’m not sure how the extra team and a few domestic matches is the holy grail for rugby’s development in Australia.
Hammer said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Gents All great points but NOTHING will change at any level if we can’t get coaches to COACH RUGBY UNION. We can have all the competitions at every level and nothing will change while we play “rugby union league”. Outside shoulder attack, around the corner support, no depth, no running support lines, dive on the ground at the slightest contact, cut pass, fall over, can’t jump, can’t kick rubbish.
The form and shape of the game we play today is nothing like rugby union, there is almost no contest for possession, no ability to retain possession in contact, a complete inability to maintain our feet on and on and on… The way we play looks more like a bastardised game of league then Rugby.
Campo has been right all along.
Hammer said | November 24th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
JOHN O’NEILL’S RESPONSE TO THE SCOTLAND GAME CONFIRMS A LOT THAT SOME KNEW AND OTHERS SUSPECTED. THE FOLLOWING IS THE GUTS OF WHAT HE SAID:
Australian Rugby Union chief executive John O’Neill said that while the Wallabies’ loss to Scotland was ”devastating”, their coach Robbie Deans still had the full support of the ARU board.
O’Neill, who travelled with the Wallabies before returning to Sydney last week, said that while he was devastated by the loss, he stressed that Deans was under no threat of losing his job.
”We have every confidence in Robbie Deans being the right coach for us,” O’Neill said yesterday. However, O’Neill added that after the northern hemisphere tour, leading ARU officials would meet Deans to conduct a review of the season to work out what improvements had to be made to ensure the Wallabies end their slide well before the next World Cup.
It would not be surprising if this review leads to changes in the Wallabies’ team management below Deans. The erratic performances of numerous leading Wallabies players on this tour will also be closely scrutinised and the careers of some might suddenly be under threat.
O’Neill said the review would be headed by the ARU’s high-performance manager David Nucifora, who has been travelling with the team, and would involve Deans and ARU board members.
”The results are clearly disappointing and not acceptable,” O’Neill said yesterday. ”We have two more games to go on the tour and rest assured we will be reviewing every aspect of this tour. David Nucifora, myself, Robbie Deans and the ARU board will have a good, hard look at what is going wrong.
”It will be an objective, balanced assessment of the pros and cons of this entire season. It will take in all of the Test matches starting from June and finish off with this tour.
”It is crucial that we are really confrontational with every aspect of ‘Team Wallaby’.”
O’Neill said some of the outcomes might not be to the liking of the Wallabies’ player and management group.
”Everyone has to front up – the player group, the management group and the ARU administration – because I’m not sure what more we can do in terms of providing any more support,” O’Neill said.
”There is nothing we are skimping on. Still, how can a team in a course of a season go so close to beating the All Blacks, beat the Springboks in one game, beat the French, then lose to Scotland? We are devastated.”
**********************
I suppose the first thing that hits you is that JON has never heard of or doesn’t believe in Harry S Truman’s famous saying, “THE BUCK STOPS HERE.”
Robbie Deans is in no way to blame! (”We have every confidence in Robbie Deans being the right coach for us,”) and neither is the administration (“I’m not sure what more we can do in terms of providing any more support.”)
JON however knows that he has to be seen to be doing something so he lines up the poor old support team to be the sacrificial lambs – people like Jim Williams I suppose. He also foreshadows that the careers of some players might be under threat.
He is going to have a review but who is doing the review? “David Nucifora, Dick Marks, Robbie Deans and the ARU board will have a good, hard look at what is going wrong.” Is not that a classic case of Caesar judging Caesar? Two of these three are extremely highly paid technical people who should be as highly accountable in this area and one is the so-called million dollar El Supremo (so like the original from C.S. Forester’s Horatio Hornblower) but they want only to judge, not to be judged.
I don’t mind being branded a skite but I could fix things with three strokes of the pen:
1. Restore the national competition
2. Set up a sophisticated Skills Development Unit (mechanical and positional skills)
3. Bring back a technical committee in charge of our technical policies. If we have any now, can anyone tell me what they are
Even though Robbie agrees with one (a domestic third tier competition), he’ll be outvoted and the other two issues won’t even be considered.
While recognising that all players’ performances fluctuate a bit I can’t say that any one player has played badly so I’d like to know who JON has in mind for the chop. There has been some poor kicking, some poor throwing, some poorly angled running, some costly decisions and some disorganised defence but all those are very “fixable” and isn’t it the job of the coach to sort out those things. The art of coaching is to get the players to do as the coach wants so is it that Robbie has not defined this in his own mind, is it that the players don’t understand it or is it that they just don’t take any notice?
Collectively the players have been more disappointing than the individuals but again isn’t that the main job of the coach and captain – to develop the team skill?: they should have learnt by now that it doesn’t come through the gimmickry of growing moustaches. (In test matches by all means wear a black armband as a mark of respect for a deceased rugby great, but it is not the appropriate arena for charity promotion.)
JON can’t understand why the team continues to slide to the low point of being beaten by Scotland. Could it be that the coach has a poor connection with the players who become more and more turned off the longer he is in charge of them?
Greg Growden has again taken the JON line of trying to tear down the player pay structure and to shore up the Robbie Dean position, forgetting of course that the existing pay structure was of JON’s own making as was the Deans appointment which is not turning out to be the panacea that we were led to believe.
Greg’s words:
The problem is not with the head coach, it is with the players.
And what else can coach Robbie Deans do? He’s tried everything. He’s given so many players so many chances and they continue to waste their opportunities. Not even Vince Lombardi could get this mob up.
What Greg should have said is that he’s tried everything that he knows. I suppose one could then say, “Well if that’s the case, give someone else a go that might have some better things to try.”
As for Vince Lombardi, one thing that he would never do would be to publicly accuse his team of “dogging it or lying down or whatever the expression was” (I refer to Auckland). In fact I think Vince Lombardi would have been too smart to even do that behind closed doors.
The interesting thing about Greg’s first quote is that he is right about it all starting and almost ending with the players but his mistake is:
With the failure of the team he will blame the players and absolve the coach but with the success of the team he doesn’t credit the players, only extols the coach. On the basis of his having such a talented core of All Blacks in his provincial team, I have always doubted the true ability of Deans, particularly when he was found wanting as the backs’ coach in the 2003 World Cup. Australia’s going for the foreign option was not only a cop-out but also it sent a dreadful message to Australian coaches and put off the much needed permanent coaching solution.
I know that Wales and Ireland have been sucked in by this Kiwi coaching aura and with some success but what they don’t “get” is that the Kiwi coach is blest with a very different playing culture; his local players are ingrained with innate rugby instincts in early boyhood that don’t exist in many other teams and adaptation to a different mind and skills set is not automatic.
The other thing about the appointment that gnawed at the back of my mind was the Australian claim that the Kiwis had been dumb in rejecting “the best coach in the world”. I knew the Kiwis were not dumb and I’m surprised that the media did not bother pursuing the story.
In terms of the player/coaching link the 1984 Grand slam tour was a bit different as the right new blood was introduced and the lessons of the 1981 “no line-out ball” had been learned with the selection of lots of “tall timber”. A champion team wasn’t taken over; a group of suitably equipped players was developed into a champion team.
Had we had a National Technical Committee I think the Wallabies could have won the Grand Slam on this tour because the ongoing policy would no doubt have stipulated that a reliable lineout was essential and under that guidance the team would have had a thrower and better jumpers.
I hope the press puts the pressure on for this review and calls not only for some open-endedness but also for some independence and outside objectivity. I won’t hold my breath, not about the press pressure but about a good review process.
cookee said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
HAMMER,FRED;
you guys are on the money some of the most lucid comments ive read about the wallabies non performance,
vince lombardi said to win the players heads you must win their hearts first .but deans knows best.
be nice to see you guys on the panel with objective criticism ,cos JON wont want another coaching spat this week.
sacrificial lambs a certainty////
Rickety Knees said | November 24th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Thanks for a great and stalwart contribution Hammer – your keyboard must be at meltdown point!
Like you, I too believe that this review will have its outcome determined before they conduct it. It will be Ceasar reviewing Ceasar with a pre determined sacraficial lamb and then onto S15 and all will be well.