By Rickety Knees -
November 24th 2009 @ 3:02am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
It’s time to ask the ARU some hard questions
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.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(88)
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.
Peter West said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Rickety – it seems to me that the biggest challenge is to get every bugger in the Australian Rugby community to work together for the common good – providing talent for the Wallabies.
This is probably Mission Impossible!
Rickety Knees said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Interesting times for the ARU and JON:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/articles/2009/11/24/1258824702153.html
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Rickety whatever the case that will cost the ARU a lot of money.
Perhaps O’Neill was thinking there was enough money to get Vickerman back and was dialling his number..when the news of this came in..and goes the phone on the receiver.
Rickety Knees said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
KPM – as I have posted in other threads – we need Vcikerman back to teach these young Metro’s some good old fashioned steel and take charge of the lineout.
kingplaymaker said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Rickety I think the ‘old’ brigade in Australia have been misunderstood. Normally an old brigade in rugby signifies a group of almost retired senior players who contribute some experience and authority to the team but are no longer any good at all on the pitch, like Lawrence Dallaglio and Mike Catt for England in the last World Cup.
However the Wallabies ‘old’ or senior players do not conform to this: granted they have been around a long time, but the likes of Vickerman, Giteau, even Waugh and Tuqiri are firstly not that old in years but more importantly are still perfectly good AS PLAYERS. Choosing young players and retiring old ones makes sense largely when the young ones are better, which in this case is largely untrue (with exceptions e.g. Al Baxter).
Pete said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Good timing knuckles… just what Rugby in Australia needs… distraction!
I guess he is going for an out of court settlement…
Rickety Knees said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Like him or not – Knuckles in his hey day produced some great results and Australian Rugby was the better for it
Pete said | November 24th 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
I don’t know him, but he seemed a nice enough bloke. Love to know what the beef is between him and JON.
Just think his timing to sue is quite poor, but perhaps thats the plan.
also “According to the court claim, Mr O’Neill urged ARU high-performance manager Pat Howard, Wallabies team manager Phil Thompson, Wallabies assistant coach Michael Foley and the ARU management committee to “reconsider” whether it was in their career interests to have any further contact with Mr Connolly.”
This email was obviously leaked to Knuckles, doesn’t do anyhting for the credibility of those who received the email… people are going to think twice about corresponding with them. Even if they had gripe with JON that’s very unprofessional. Knuckles has unintentionally damaged their reputations…
I hope the email wasn’t written by the Fed. Treasury Dept..
Hansie said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
An excellent post from Hammer. There isn’t much to add. Accountability seems to be a one-way street where John O’Neill is involved. As for the poaching of league players, that was a policy heavily driven by John O’Neill.
Pete said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
The ARU are actually using smart PR by coming out and mentioning the tour review in the shadow of the Scotland debacle.
1) They would have a post tour review, regardless of the tour results (its good business).
2) ARU detractors would have been demanding a full review after the poor results, the ARU beat them to the punch – now it looks like their idea and that they are in control.
3) Speculation about whose job is on the line would be rife and media would be frothing at the mouth if there was no public HO support for Deans. By saying Deans is safe, it allows him to concentrate on coaching the final games (and deflects some of the heat away from the ARU). The players’ jobs are on the line, but Deans will be the constant. If they (the players) are smart they will bury the hatchet and start to work with Deans.
4) Backs against the wall stuff is what lifts players to perform (aka the ABs in Wellington). I wouldn’t be surprised if the Wallabies beat the Welsh – many are expecting the opposite. If a win happens, the heat won’t be as severe.
I agree with everyone, I hope the review is a thorough one and brings about positive change (if change is required or possible). I hope the review isn’t lip service to appease the crowd and real outcomes are implemented…
Westy said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
The reality is we do not have a very good team. It has happened before and I am afraid sometimes for more a few seasons.The problem is that some of the past weaker sides may have played with a little more passion.
This is the norm for Australian rugby historically. Our somewhat more consistent high level success between 1990’s to early noughties was an unusually long period of relative success historically.
To put it in perspective we have lost 7 times straight to a mediocre All Blacks side. That is not my judgement but the judgement of most rugby commentators in NZ. If they are mediocre where the hell does that put us . Part of the reason the All Blacks hang in there is competitive pressure for positions generated by their third tier
I agee any proposals that will enhance rebuilding skill development and depth is worthwhile otherwise we wait as we have always done for a better crop of players to pop up together.
What bites at your core is the ARU spends 27 million on player’s wages this season. The idea that Giteau was once lauded as the highest paid player of any code does come back to haunt you. I would love to have four young skilled No 10s vying for Giteau’s position on $250000 looking for the plumb job. He knows he is in the team whether as No 10 or 12. Even paying a player of real potential o’Connor $600000 per season to play super 14 and sit on the bench is over the mark. Where did they honestly think he was going before the next World Cup.
this top down stuff contributes to the cyclical nature of Australian rugby
The other 20 players for melbourne are not going to come from Victorian club rugby they will come from the best players in Sydney and brisbane club rugby. melbourne will work but in the interim do not look to closely at the quality of club rugby in Sydney and brisbane. You pull 3 players out of the best 7 teams there is no way you will not reduce the overall quality.
Remember it will also be a longer super 15 season.
We either start the long haul now on the third tier of rugby or we put up with more periods of sharp cyclical decline .
Rickety Knees said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
Westy – I am for the long haul!
Australian Rugby at the moment is a house of cards with a wonky (cyclical) foundation. Let’s build a model that is sustainable and deliver a production line of talented players.
Ben said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
How about playing a bit more and training a bit less ? These guys have no skills compared to pre-professional Union or current league players.
Campbell Watts said | November 24th 2009 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Here’s a huge idea!!!
Let’s hear John come out and declare:
“We’re not performing up to scratch, none of us – players, coaches, board and support staff. We’re in finacial strife. As of next season we are all taking a 25% pay cut”
That’d help improve the financial situation, make the public believe they are all sacrificing something, and provide the money to get the ARC up and running!
Chances of it happening???
Jack Petro said | November 24th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Campbell … although the sentiments may be well meaning … they’re off the mark as well. The Wallabies aren’t playing well – they’re not the best playing on the world stage but they seem to be the best we have. How do we stop it? I don’t know! Westy’s point is valid and we may just have to wait out the “bad” days.
BUT … pay cuts? The players are paid out of a separate pool of money – this has been stated over and over again. As if RUPA is going to let their slice of the pie go. And then why should employees a company take a pay cut because we don’t like getting up at 4am on a Sunday morning and going to bed at 6.30am feeling worse than we did when we woke up?
Get a reality check all of you … I have stated on this blog time and time again … have faith and wait for the next World Cup, because this squad WILL pay good rugby and be very close to winning the Cup … or maybe ‘they’ll bring back Bill’!
Hammer said | November 24th 2009 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Jack P, are you in la la land? Wait and see what happens in the WC? Why would RUPA? As far as a reality check goes how much more real do you need than the game against scotland?
Sam said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
Please tell me you don’t want Australia to be the England of SH rugby – doing enough come RWC time but between cups playing so poorly they get booed by their own fans? Australian supporters don’t want to become like some in Europe who are almost happy to lose, celebrating losses and saying how proud a team should be for leading a team at half-time. If Australia wants to fund player development maybe a 25% pay-cut isn’t a bad idea.
Chris said | November 24th 2009 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
So I just heard that the players of Wigan Atheletic offered a refund to all their travelling fans after losing 9-1 to Tottenham in the English Premier League.
I wish the wallabies had the same attitude
MarkH said | November 24th 2009 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
I know were all a bit pissed at the moment about the performance of our side. No doubt at all. But just have a look at where the current world champs are. They are in the hurt locker. We are in struggle town but it will build. Angry players are good players.
Look the loss to Scotland was going to happen at some point. Yeah we were the better side we know that and it was ours to loose. Its done and dusted. Id rather we cop some real hard times now in lead up the the next WC. Players are hurting, its never good to loose.
Blaming the ARU, O.Neil, Robbie and players is a cop out. It achieves nothing and gives less. The boys will be ok, you never know Wales could be on the end of a flogging of which we many never have seen before. Who knows either way, there will be a bunch of lads running out angry. We can hope.
Campbell Watts said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
Mark,
So we should just suck it up? Come to expect and accept failure?
Blame has to be aportioned somewhere – and where else do you think it should go?? Is it our faults??
I think not! It must be squarly put at the doorstep of those in charge at the ARU, the coaches for not getting it right game-plan wise, and the players for not fronting up!
These ARE good players generally – who have played well in the past. Stating our players just aren’t good enough isn’t correct either – they have performed well in the past but aren’t doing it now!! Why is the question that needs to be asked!
Rickety Knees said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
Mate I hope that you are right – though I can’t see that happening if Giteau continues at 10.
In my heart of hearts I hope that Scotland was the lowest kick in the guts that Australian Rugby had to have so that it could honestly review where we are at and then set a course that would make sure that we don’t have endure this crap again.
Campbell Watts said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
Rickety,
Funny thing recently…
My partner recieved a letter from John O’Neill a week or 2 back, hand signed, saying thanks for the support through the year (she booked a few corporate events through her work). It was accompanied by a nice bottle of red that went down a whole lot easier than watching the Scotland game I can tell you!!
Perhaps I should reply to his nice letter with a few of your queries above!!
sheek said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Many of you want an immediate return of a national comp. As you know, I’ve been trumpeting this for years, no, make that decades. Anyway, here are some sobering thoughts offered without too much emotion, & hopefully lots of practical common sense.
1. It won’t happen for some years. Realistically, it would have to be after the next TV agreement, due for 2016? However, I would like to see a caveat where the national comp could be restarted within the 5 year cycle (2011-15), if all the parameters were in place.
2. Even so, there is a problem with running a national comp con-current with the proposed S15. The S15 is actually a good leap forward, IMHO. The 5 Aussie sides will play each other twice for 8 games; plus 4 NZ & 4 SA sides, for a grand total of 18 home & away matches. A final 6 finals series will follow. All up, 18-21 games over 23 weekends (I think).
3. This is a massive departure from the current S14 14-16 week competition. An increase by a half of its elapsed time, from 16 weeks to 23 weeks. Consequently, how & where do you fit in a national comp on top of this?
4. Increasing Aussie super teams from 4 to 5 will stretch player availability to the limit, even allowing for overseas players. I hope we don’t go crazy here. While i welcome foreign players in our teams, they must still remain predominantly Australian.
5. Another problem with a national comp, apart from its own cost structures, is the doubling up of head coaches, assistant coaches, player managers, etc, not to mention players. This will add further to cost burdens.
6. Envisage a time when the S15 or whatever, let’s say S16, with Argentine participation, is styled in a Heineken Cup format. The top 4 teams from each country’s national comp qualifies for the S16. Irrespective of whether the Aussie national comp is provincial or club, you would have 8-10 stand alone entities that don’t morph into other entities.
7. This way, you can have say 10 separate head coaches, 10 assistant coaches, 10 team managers, 10 CEOs, etc, & each team with its own distinct playing roster.
8. It has occurred to me that having a national comp is no guarantee to consistent international success. England & France both have excellent domestic structures, I think, & many quality players to choose from. Yet their international record is erratic to say the least.
9. On the other hand, NZ & SA also have a well-structured domestic national comp that ensures most obviously, when they hit a low, they don’t stay there for too long.
10. I guess a national comp is like insurance. You wonder if you really need it when everything is going along swimmingly. However, when you hit the lows, that’s when you appreciate its value. Any country not evolving a solid national comp platform might not always be top dog. But without a national comp, countries will eventually get left behind.
11. I am now convinced, a national comp can only happen with the S15, or whatever, changing its structure to a Heineken Cup structure. I have no doubt NZ & SA would support such a move. It would allow the S15/16 to continue, but also bring prominence back to NZ’s NPC & SA’s Currie Cup.
Well, my mind is turning to mush, so I’ll leave it for the moment……….
Rickety Knees said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
Excellent post Sheek – your clarity on national championships/S14 is admired.
Sam said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
One of the advantages of NZ’s system is that the best club players play provincial and the best provincial play Super 14 – and the best of them play for the All Blacks. The French and English don’t have a system like that. The best French and English players are not necessarily playing in the Heineken Cup for one thing. The tiered approach leads to depth because there is a pathway from every amateur club in NZ to the All Blacks. You can’t say that about England or France. Australia almost has a half and half system. Good club players get noticed and recruited to Super 14 teams, but many might be playing outside of Super 14 territories and struggle to find a chance to impress – unless they move to a good club in one of the main centres. I do think Australia needs another tier – but it’s a difficult situation. Many people in NZ were absolutely against expanding the Super 14 because they feel it will have a negative impact on the provincial game – NZers are well aware of how important it is for the All Blacks that provincial rugby is strong. The South Africans are the same – they really struggled to rationalise a Super rugby expansion.
I think every effort needs to be made to find national competition in Australia – it needs to be only semi-professional though – run on the smell of an oily rag. It probably needs to be very short, with as little travel as possible.
AndyS said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
1. In all likelihood, it won’t happen at all. JO’N has been pretty plain on this one – he thinks the expanded S15 has done the job and they will be turning their attention to S18.
2. In my opinion, the expansion is not much of a step forward at all. It will simply be a slightly expanded pool of players playing more matches and still monopolising the development opportunities. It might be a financial improvement, but rather than widening the base it simply makes the top heavier. Structures like that risk eventual collapse, like any overloaded table.
3. Probably the same way SA and NZ fit in their respective competitions.
4. Agreed. So what will happen is that they will look for the best of what lies beneath, spend several years bringing club players up to scratch. Hopefully they will make the grade, but also they hopefully won’t see their path as blocked and head overseas themselves a la Beau Robinson.
5. Obviously, but then they need development too. It is not just the players.
6. OK, so there comes a time when the ARU goes to the private equity S16 clubs and says “So, we are planning to restructure the competition next year and some of you might miss out.” Care to estimate the cost of litigation? Even more so when the resources of each PE contributor would probably exceed that of the ARU, given they can afford to splash around a few million a year on a rugby team. Imagine pissing them all off at the same time – how long before you have an owners association negotiating directly with SARU, NZRU and (their mate) Rupert?
8. So perhaps that says something about how well a Heineken Cup structure supports the national team…?
I personally think a HC structure would be a disaster, if only on a historical basis. Super rugby came about because the domestic competitions couldn’t generate the money to support a professional game. The NPC at the time was hardly moribund – it probably couldn’t have been better supported. But it wasn’t enough, and I don’t see why it would suddenly be enough in the future. Somewhat different driver in SA – they already get a big chunk of separate money for the CC so unless the four teams playing HC were going to make a lot more money than six teams playing Super whatever, why would they take the cut and have to subsidise the teams that fell short with parachute payments (~£2M in the HC)? As for Aus – well, look back just a couple of years to when the Reds and Waratahs finished bottom two. If that were to happen again and the Southern HC didn’t include a team from either NSW or Q’ld…..?
AndyS said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
So, rather than pay cuts and in the absence of an ARC program, how about some of the player payment pool be used to pay a number of semi-professional players outside the normal academy/professional programs? Basically a program to allow the late bloomers and overlooked to dedicate extra time to their development to bridge the gap from amateur rugby.
sheek said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
AndyS,
I would imagine the introduction of Victoria will open up opportunities. The present 4 Aussie sides were carrying a bit of fat (4 x 33 = 132 players). There was a suggestion, with the introduction of Victoria, to reduce each franchise to 28 players (5 x 28 = 140 players).
This is a net gain of only 8 players, all of whom would probably be overseas players. However, by maintaining the 33 players per franchise, this is a net increase of the whole 33 players. I think they should keep the player roster at 33. Especially since each province may be able to call up to 10 overseas players (I think).
The opportunity you mention of mature age players being recognised, I would hope, would be by a seconds comp, played concurrently with the premier side. The academy system needs to be totally overhauled. The academy guys must start playing matches (which they would personally prefer) rather than being warehoused for most of the season.
Young men learn best by playing, through practical experience. There’s a saying along the lines of, “one year of practical experience is worth 10 years of theory”. Or something like that.
In the old amateur days, guys were happy to keep playing into their 30s for the social aspect of the game. Professionalism has changed some things for the worst. If a guy can see by mid-20s he has no professional opportunities in front of him, he will retire, which is a real shame.
Not only do we seem to be losing quality coaches out of the system, but also quality players. We need to get them back & keep them longer.
AndyS said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Wouldn’t a seconds comp just be an ARC running at the same time as Super rugby? If we thought that would work, surely a separate ARC not competing for viewers would have been a doddle.
But that wasn’t really the point I was making. At the moment we have a player payment system that pours a large proportion of the monies generated into the pockets of a small number of players. If the new Super structure makes more money, the player payment pool will swell. As you note, if there are only 8 more players, everyone is going to get a good pay rise. Maybe better if they widen the base of players being paid to spend time on their training and skills, perhaps using the extra money to allow fringe players the opportunity to train a bit more professionally. Given they would only be semi-pro, you could probably pay quite a few and maybe highlight a few gems for further development in the Super teams.
sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:27am | Report comment
The seconds would only play against other Aussie sides as a curtain-raiser. Therefore, 8 games only, travel, accommodation & transfers on same days as premier sides.
Actually I just threw the idea in at the last minute, to be honest, as a suggestion to your query.
Eventually, hopefully, the player pool will widen with better, more aggressive recruitment. By that I mean, more players will create more teams at the professional level. But that’s a long way off.
AndyS said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
But what does better, more aggressive recruitment mean, and what pool of players would it be targetting? One of the big advantages of S15 was supposed to be that, seeing as the players are paid for the year, they might as well be playing i.e. player salaries wouldn’t necessarily rise with the additional games, just some incremental match payments. But as someone noted, the player payment pool will swell in direct proportion to any increase in TV revenue.
So say it increases 20% – does that mean that all the professional players just get a pay rise and we continue to sift through the same pool of amateurs and schoolboys hoping to find a gem? Or is there an opportunity to widen the number of players accessing that money? If we are not going to have an ARC, perhaps we could look at having a program of advanced training and development for the best players outside of the Super teams and academies. They would still play club rugby, but would receive money out of the expanded payment pool to, say, allow them to work part time and train semi-professionally. It would improve the standard of club rugby, give a much better insight into the potential of the players selected, and would significantly accelerate the development of those players if they show enough to attract a professional contract. Say the player payment pool swelled by $1M a year – what might be the effect of paying 50 of the most promising prospects outside the academies $20k each to train?
sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
I guess by aggressive recruitment, I mean successful recruitment that builds our player participation levels quickly at the junior end that will eventually allow us to expand at the professional end.
We need to grow the game, & quickly!
AndyS said | November 26th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Ah, OK, and yeah – there is simply no way we could ever have too many juniors or grassroots. But I am not sure that one would necessarily lead to the other. The disconnect between the amateur and professional games is structured such that, even if we had twice the grass roots, the limited number of opportunities would remain. Those that show early (and visible) promise would still get those chances, and the vastly increased pool of others would remain to simply provide rich poaching grounds for other codes with a more inclusive professional and semi-pro structure. It is two clifftops connected by a rope bridge – it doesn’t matter how many are waiting to cross, the pathway sets the pace.
Jack Petro said | November 24th 2009 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
RK and MH – too right! There is one certainty is sport – loosing streaks come to end and, therefore, so do the winning streaks. We are at the bottom of the trough – let’s hope, as RK stated, “In my heart of hearts I hope that Scotland was the lowest kick in the guts that Australian Rugby had to have ..”.
Even maybe Sheek has it with his Stalinist 5-Year Plans – it worked for the USSR, so why can’t it work for the ARU
– they’re very similar aren’t they! … just kidding Sheek … your not that full of it 
mattamkII said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:36pm | Report comment
This post is a classic.
Pay packets, metros, ‘84 grand slam, ARC, league players, JON and his arrogance, Robbie Deans and his NZ blood….it has everything from the armchair experts.
I am with Jack Pedro…relax, let it happen! this team will come good with some small changes and time.
sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:33am | Report comment
MattamkII,
“Relax, let it happen! This team will come good with some small changes and time”.
I guess if you said this same thing in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 & 2009, & next year, & the year after, you are eventually going to be proven right!
Jack Petro,
The 5 year cycles aren’t my idea, they’re usually the life of the TV deals. (And I wasn’t aware 5 year cycles actually worked for the USSR).
jus de couchon said | November 25th 2009 @ 12:07am | Report comment
From an England point of view it would be churlish of me to revel in Australian rugbys problems, so I wont.
Harry said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
England are the one country that can’t laugh at Australia matey. You blokes are worse. Yes we are crap, but even in a rubbish season like this one we still rolled the world champions.
Rickety Knees said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
The Dirt Trackers just beat Cardiff 31-3. Hopefully they can carry this into Wales match.
Sheek I am with you, I am over the boom and bust nature of Australian Rugby – we need to develop a producton line of talent and start to produce consistant results. This should be the ARU’s primary focus.
sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Thanks Rickety,
That was the point of my reply. I want the ‘booms’ to last longer, & the ‘busts’ to be shorter. To achieve that we need to be proactive, & change our structures.
The old “she’ll be right,mate” attitude is clearly counterproductive & unhelpful.
Bay35Pablo said | November 25th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
2 points come to me out of this:
* The Wallabies are the be all and end all of Australian rugby. If they aren’t performing, what do people watch? Super rugby? To a certain degree, if they have Foxtel. However, this year it wasn’t attractive, so what could a real rugby fanatic watch? Club rugby. Not much to hang your hat on.
For SAF and NZ, even if their national or Super sides aren’t doing well, they still have the NPC or CC to live off.
In league, the Roos might lose, the Blues might lose, but I can still watch my Tiges. In rugby, all I had to fall back on was the Woodies, which wasn’t a real substitute ….
Bay35Pablo said | November 25th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
* As sheek said, “In the old amateur days, guys were happy to keep playing into their 30s for the social aspect of the game. Professionalism has changed some things for the worst. If a guy can see by mid-20s he has no professional opportunities in front of him, he will retire, which is a real shame.”
Herein lies the problem with the lack of a national comp. The Wallabies and Super teams seem to be getting increasingly younger. If players don’t get a gig in Super rugby, and then the Wallabies, they look at going overseas. For players in club land, they either ease off or go overseas.
In league, you can still miss out on Origin and Kangaroos and have a well paid an fulfilling career. Look at a bloke like El Masri, who only got a few caps but is still considered a legend and great player.
In union, without a wider professional base, blokes who might not come good until in their 20s can be left behind, or give up. No wonder league is more attractive. There, the guys dropping out are those in their mid 20s playing Jim Beam Cup, who realise they aren’t going to get an NRL contract. Here, its club land which is the guts of the sport.”
Bay35Pablo said | November 25th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Sorry, technical problems with posting the rest of my comments …
mattamkII said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Sheek, sorry chief I didnt know this site was a ground for proving anything…
All I am suggesting is that the Wallabies team has had a massive clean out over the last 12 months and are playing they youngest line up of the pro era. 2004 – 2007 were pretty bad for very different reasons.
While I admire yours and others passion, so of the comments made here are amazingly laughable.
sheek said | November 25th 2009 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Matta,
It’s a free world, for sure (for us, anyway, mostly). Just trying to add to everyone’s knowledge, all the while acknowledging there is so much for me to learn as well.
The other thing is, we’re all entitled to behave stupidly, just as surely as some of us will abuse the privilege!
MickM said | November 25th 2009 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Absolutely agree that the problem starts with the ARU recruitment policies and O’Neill’s poor and tough decisions. The fish stinks from the head and O’Neill has some relationships to rebuild, as if that will ever happen. He is reaping what he has sown, disresspect to past players has fed into the confidence within the current group, making the coach’s position most difficult. For John not so easy the second time around, the crash through, tough guy approach just hasn’t worked and blown up in his face. Its not the coah who shoud go, its the top dog. Maybe the ARU got it right the first time around after the World Cup when O’Neill wasn’t reappointed
westy said | November 25th 2009 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Just one question to JON You did not really send that email about Connolly did you? He was a caretaker coach fighting for his existence. Connolly had got the message loud and clear JON wanted him out of the wallabies job but also anything to do with australian rugby. If JON did send the email it was indeed nasty. No wonder Connolly sues for 1.1 million. Another ARU success story squandering limited funds on a payout to Flowers and possible defamation moneys to connolly.
stuff happens said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Westy yes I think he did and I seem to remember reading some of the quoted bits in the Sydney Sun Herald.
Internally the ARU will be tearing itself apart over this. Connolly is part of the Qld rugby establishment who have paid out in the press about the ARU’s performance recently.As always rugby seems to attract a political cauldron.
Whatever Connolly’s coaching abilities he seems to be regarded as an all round good bloke whom people like.It’ll be interesting to read some of the journos on this when it winds up.
‘Bad moon rising.’
westy said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
The ARU has announced a review of the Wallabies performance. JON has already said Deans position is safe. the review will be conducted by guess who Deans himself/ JON/ Nucifora/ and two other directors (3 to 2 majority). Which assistant will go? Williams the poorly performed backline coach or the better performed scrummaging and forwards coaches? Remember Nucifora will be waiting in the wings.
transparency transparency. great way to conduct a review. JON is tied to Deans and the guy he thinks should have the job after the WC also sits in judgement.
AndyS said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
“JON has already said Deans position is safe”
Perhaps, but then isn’t that the same bloke who also said “I have been advocate of an intermediate competition between club rugby and Super Rugby for a long time” and “…we will review it at the end of the year. That does not mean it will be dismantled…”?
I’d be wearing my flak jacket backward if I were Robbie.
stuff happens said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
Westy,
Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister: “But Minister what on earth is the point of a public enquiry unless you know what the outcome will be?”
Justin said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
westy said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Stuff happens its even better when its announced before the the tour has even ended. Sir Humphrey would have already advised JON ( Hacker) to sack Deans would be a very very “brave” decision .
mattamkII said | November 26th 2009 @ 12:37am | Report comment
Deans wont go..no way. If he did that would be a truly stupid decision.
To give a coach a mandate to rebuild but get rid of him after 20ish games is crazy. People often forget that at test level, a union coach doesnt have players all year like Soccer, NRL or AFL. I would also argue that Unions technical and position specific nature means even slower player development.
Again, I appreciate and respect everyones passion but just get off their cases. Yes its been a long time between drinks for us but I say again, I live OS and everyone from all over the world are shit scared of what this squad could turn into….Sadly the only person people seem not to rate highly is Gits at 10..but they are not Robinson Caruso there.
I think if we all just took a deep breath, have a nice warm milo and look through both eyes we would all see a great young side with loads of potential sloooooowly heading in the right direction.
Remember the poms in ‘98 ? you all know the story. We smashed a young side 78-0… shit they didnt win a game all tour and were even beaten by NZ A, Maori and Academy. It didnt take them long to get up to speed….and our current guys are as bad as Sir Clives 98 squad.
mattamkII said | November 26th 2009 @ 12:46am | Report comment
arent as bad…..
mattamkII said | November 26th 2009 @ 1:09am | Report comment
Sorry this got all messed up.
Deans wont go..no way. If he did that would be a truly stupid decision.
To give a coach a mandate to rebuild but get rid of him after 20ish games is crazy. People often forget that at test level, a union coach doesnt have players all year like Soccer, NRL or AFL. I would also argue that Unions technical and position specific nature means even slower player development.
Again, I appreciate and respect everyones passion but just get off their cases. Yes its been a long time between drinks for us but I say again, I live OS and everyone from all over the world are s*&^ scared of what this squad could turn into….Sadly the only person people seem not to rate highly is Gits at 10..but they are not Robinson Caruso there.
I think if we all just took a deep breath, have a nice warm milo and look through both eyes we would all see a great young side with loads of potential sloooooowly heading in the right direction.
Remember the old dart in ‘98 ? you all know the story. We smashed a young side 78-0… s*%^ they didnt win a game all tour and were even beaten by NZ A, Maori and Academy. It didnt take them long to get up to speed….and our current guys arent as bad as Sir Clives 98 squad.
sheek said | November 26th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Matta,
Yes, the Wallabies will come good………. eventually. That’s the cyclical nature of sport.
But there are some, deep underlying questions that need to be addressed.
1. Whatever the natural talent, there’s been a falloff in basic skills….. why?
And what are we going to do to address this?
2. What are we going to do tokeep the ‘lows’ to a minimum & ‘highs to a maximum?
How do we manage our structures to maximise our highs & minimise our lows?
I’m sorry, Matta, but you’re only scratching the surface. The “she’ll be right mate” attitude is not good enough. I’m sure most rugby fans don’t want to go through another 6-7 years of this again. So what lessons have we learnt to ensure the next low is minimised to about 2-3 years???
The England scenario of 1998 is not really relevant. England left most,indeed virtually their entire best senior side at home, so it wasn’t as if the talent wasn’t there. They just didn’t bother coming!
With the Wallabies in 2009, bar Barnes, Mortlock, Sharpe & Waugh, this was the best of the best of the touring team. Besides, apart from Barnes, the other 3 mentioned are at the end of their careers.
Like I said Matta, you’re only scratching the surface……….
Besides, the milo is costing me a fortune!
mattamkII said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Sheek mate, I’d buy another bulk size tin cos I reckon we are going to get done by Wales…
The ’she’ll be right attitude’ can be mistaken for many other things…I am not a religious man by any stretch on the imagination (The Christian Brothers belted that out of me years ago) but I just have a bit of faith with this mob…
Rickety Knees said | November 27th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Mattamkill – we have something in common – the Christian Brothers did the same to me. Mate I hope we go well against Wales and the tour finishes on a high note. But regardless of the result, Australian Rugby is desparately short of players and something needs to be done about that and now. Over to the ARU …..
mattamkII said | November 27th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
We have more than just that in common…I also this Gits and Co. hair cuts are fing ridiculous and my knees arent the best either.
As for the Christian Brothers, was some good eggs but some pretty sour ones too. Mind you the job description is likely to attract a few freaks. For all the annoyance I came out of the school ready for a tougher world.
Rickety Knees said | November 27th 2009 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
Mate, on a personal note I have found that swimming has made all the difference to my knees. As for the Christian Brothers and a certain Catholic Priest may they all rot in hell …….