CAMPO: NSW Rugby needs a complete clean out. And quickly!
By David Campese, 18 Jul 2012 David Campese is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs
The woeful Waratahs have the Wallabies staring down the barrel (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
Related coverage
I really didn’t expect the Waratahs to play as badly as they did against the Reds on the weekend. It used to be a proud rugby state, but now they need to clean out the whole place. No more excuses.
They have coaches that shouldn’t be there and players that can’t step up to the plate. No more jobs for the boys please!
Kurtly Beale came out of schoolboy rugby as a superstar and straight into NSW number 10 position. Yet, it seems they neglected to mentor and guide him.
It’s short-sighted to expect a schoolboy to immediately perform under the pressure of professional rugby. What happened to nurturing players for the long term and having their best interests at heart?
And that’s only one example.
And now we have lost him to The Rebels. Not surprising. Use ex-players to help.
Part of the responsibility of the older players is to look after and mentor younger players. However, I have an inkling that the administration doesn’t encourage this as the older guys have power and respect and this scares the administrators.
They need to sweep a broom through the joint and bring in people who are prepared to get the side back to that counter-attacking style that NSW rugby was once synonymous with (funny, the Reds are playing like NSW used to).
Incredibly, despite a terrible year with the Waratahs, there are whispers that the coach and manager have been approached for jobs at the Force.
It seems that once you’re in the system, you are made.
Even coaches who don’t perform are looked after and remain employed.
Coaching is like politics. Say the right things and tell them what you what to hear and you’re in.
For example, Michael Cheika, who had considerable success as a player at Randwick and coach, then coached at Leinster, with great success, can’t get a start at a Super Rugby team in Australia?
Why?
One club – Sydney University – has dominated NSW rugby for far too long now. The anti-Randwick bias of administrators and selectors is obvious.
Cheika, apparently, just doesn’t fit the mould of what the ARU are looking for, whatever that is, just because he made it on his own!
I don’t get it.
Once again, the sorry state of Australian rugby was exposed for all to see in the final preliminary round when teams needing to win went further into their shells and played defensive rugby.
The Brumbies were, without doubt, the best Australian side all season, right up until the last game (their most important moment of the tournament) when they simply lost it by putting their attacking instincts in the rack and throwing their season out the window.
As for the Reds, well, a lot of people are asking how they can finish 6th and still get a home semi-final.
Remember, when these decisions are made, it’s not about rugby. It’s about politics.
Unfortunately, as Jake White has said, the Australian conference is the weakest of the three. John O’Neill knew that, so he worked hard behind the scenes to ensure that the top ranked team from each country would make it into the semis – regardless of where they finished up on the ladder proper.
So the Reds are in, the Brumbies are out.
Success has come to those who have played attacking rugby. Those teams who are now heading into the semis are evidence of this.
Unfortunately, it may not matter. The outcomes of the upcoming semis could just as easily be determined by a bad referee or TMO call.
It amazes me how often they get it wrong. Are they watching the same game as the rest of us?
And why are we speaking about them, anyway?
In addition, there are inherent problems with the laws of rugby which makes the administration of them – human errors and all – even more difficult.
I think the laws should be determined by the current players, not by those who sit in the grandstands and watch matches from afar.
Get the captains of the international teams to revise the laws.
In this modern era, everyone needs to be professional. But at the moment, there are simply too many people on the gravy train who don’t deserve to be.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
![]()
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs


July 18th 2012 @ 2:20am
biltongbek said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:20am | Report comment
It seems politics is ruining rugby not only in SA, but even Australian rugby suffers because of it.
Just one thing , there seems to be conflicting information about who wanted every conference to have a semi finalist.
Where can this be confirmed?
July 18th 2012 @ 6:27am
Charging Rhino said | July 18th 2012 @ 6:27am | Report comment
Yeh I always thought it was John O’Neil and Aus administrators who wanted the Conference system and to ensure that each Conference winner has a home playoff game. As Campo suggests above. That’s the news I got at the time in 2010.
But Brett and the other Roarers always say it was the SA administrators so I don’t know who is right?
As far as I remember the SA administrators didn’t want to change the Super rugby setup of “everybody plays everybody once” and rather just push for an extra team or two. They certainly didn’t want Super rugby to run for a long time in the year too as didn’t want it to affect the Currie Cup as O’Neil was pushing for a later start and drawn out competition to cover for Australia’s lack of their own domestic competition. This is when O’Neil ridiculously claimed that maybe SA should move on and do away with the Currie Cup. What an idiot… The Currie is over 120 years old, the oldest rugby tournament in the work. South Africans would rather have the Currie Cup than Super rugby because of the history involved. But best is to have both which is what we currently have. South Africa have given the most up though in terms of financial cuts (they have majority of TV veiwers and ticket sales yet money is split by a third/third/third, before it was split according to these stats as they produce most of the income in Super rugby) and time digging into the Currie Cup with a longer Super season. I’m not too familiar with how it’s affected New Zealand’s NPC.
I’m still not sold on this conference system though. I don’t think it’s fair to each team playing, regardless of which country they come from. The fairest way surely is round robin where each team plays each other once? And also base it primarily on number of games won.
July 18th 2012 @ 8:52am
Brett McKay said | July 18th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Rhino, Bek, my understanding fo this goes right back to the last couple of seasons of Super 14, where after similarly tight runs into the finals teams missed out on a final four spot by bonus points only (in some cases, teams with more wins were missing out).
Discusions then began about moving to a top six, which was acceptable to all three, but it was during these discussions that SA first raised the notion of a guaranteed home semi for a South African side. AUS and NZ couldn’t see how that could possibly work with a non-conferenced top six, and so the top four remained throughout Super 14.
When S14 became Super Rugby with 15 teams and three conferences, then it made sense to guarantee a home final in each conference.
This is how I’ve always understood it, that it was always a South African push for guaranteed home finals, based partly on them supplying the larger % of the broadcast deals. That said, I don’t have anything I can point you to, to support my understanding, but I’m sure it would be out there.
David’s suggestion here today is the first time I’ve seen this move put at the feet of the ARU..
July 18th 2012 @ 9:10am
Red Kev said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:10am | Report comment
If I recall correctly one of Sam Taulelei’s posts alluded to the fact that the conference system was pushed by the ARU. He also put in the same post that the guaranteed home final came from the South Africans.
That’s the only thing I can point to (Sam is usually pretty reliable when it comes to that sort of thing).
July 18th 2012 @ 9:46am
soapit said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:46am | Report comment
i think it may just be an assumption due to aus conference being the obvious candidate for weakest (one that would surely be made if you had no information to the contrary).
regardless of who raised it pretty sure all three nations would be very keen on the idea.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:40pm
Sam Taulelei said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Hi all
Here is a quick chronological breakdown of discussions between SANZAR about expanding Super rugby
July 2008 – SANZAR meeting in Perth agree to first draft of expanded Super rugby competition. First round will be a full round robin competition, second round will be home and away local derbies only. Finals series expanded to six teams based on final standings. Initially agree to begin expanded finals series in 2010 competition. http://www.aru.rugby.com.au/news/super_14_set_for_six-team_final_series,97518.html/news/archive/section/40074
Note the year 2008, at the time there was only one SA team that had won the competition. Still no agreement on location of 15th franchise.
Nov 2008 – First meeting at Sandton Hotel in Johannesburg (hence the reference as the Sandton decision) SA propose changes to the competition that were agreed to in Perth. Main points are. Suspend Super rugby during June tests. Perth decision was that tests would be played midweek and Super rugby would continue in the weekend a la State of Origin. Expanded finals series to start instead in 2011 and each conference winnner automatically qualify for playoffs.
They agree to starting expanded finals series in 2011 but not to anything else.
April 2009 – SA return to the bargaining table in Sandton Hotel proposing a staggered start to the competition for Aus and NZ who prefer the competition to run from March to August.
SA would start their derby games earlier and then suspend Super rugby in June for SA teams allowing Aus/NZ teams to catch up as their proposal is to stage the June tests midweek and continue Super rugby in the weekend a la State of Origin.
Understandably SA had a lot to lose if the expanded competition encroaches on the Currie Cup as they were already negotiating a separate broadcasting deal for that competition and it hinged upon Springbok players being available for Currie Cup rugby.
May 2009 – Threats from Aus/NZ that they are considering forming a transtasman competition if they can’t resolve the impasse with SA. SA return fire via Andy Marinos that SARU are exploring the options to play in NH competitions. May 14 set as deadline for all parties to agree before submitting their proposal to prospective broadcasters on June 30.
June 2009 – Parties reach agreement on format, length of season, suspension of competition for inbound June tests, and location of 15th franchise and submit proposal to broadcasters.
At the time all parties reached agreement there had only been one SA team to have won Super rugby. There have been posters arguing why would SA push for a guaranteed spot for each conference winner since they have won three titles since 2007? They weren’t to know at the time.
Sorry forgot to include links:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/sanzars-d-day-super-summit/story-e6frg7o6-1225706297868
http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/viewarticle.asp?id=19843
http://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=21624
http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/news/article/-/5515183/official-saru-looks-exit-sanzar/
Don’t have the link to this article in the Australian published in 2009 but here is a link to an excerpt of it:
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/sanzar-super-rugby-future-format.3602/page-8
July 18th 2012 @ 2:47pm
biltongbek said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Thanks for all the info gents, just woke up, will read all the links later.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:55pm
Red Kev said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Thanks Sam, I knew if I spoke your name (and sacrificed a goat) you’d appear with the facts!
July 18th 2012 @ 3:03pm
Sam Taulelei said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Here is a link about the delay to Super 14 playoff expansion to six teams and a link to a Roar article discussing the same topic.
Great comment from Greg Russell who explains the SA position in more depth.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-10-30/sanzar-delays-super-14-play-off-expansion/187486
http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/10/30/super-14-finals-expansion-delayed/
July 18th 2012 @ 3:07pm
Sam Taulelei said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Ha ha ha Red Kev,
No need to sacrifice a goat, a simple pig on a spit will suffice.
July 18th 2012 @ 3:12pm
Red Kev said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
That Roar article is very interesting stuff.
Greg Russell’s comment about the Phillies winning the World Series of baseball and “Is there anyone today writing in America that they are undeserving champions because of this?” cracks me up.
Who would have thought that the general US public would be more sensible and mature than the New Zealand and South African public?
July 18th 2012 @ 3:28pm
Sam Taulelei said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
I knew I’d find this article eventually:
Highlights the position of the ARU pushing for a conference system in the Super 14 and SA pushing for guaranteed finals spot from each country.
http://rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=16433
July 18th 2012 @ 3:29pm
Brett McKay said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Good on you Sam, I’m just as thankful that my understanding was pretty close to what happened!!
Thanks also Reds Fan below..
July 18th 2012 @ 3:39pm
Sam Taulelei said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
No worries Brett. Also apologies, I was wrong with my date for the proposed finals expansion. It was originally proposed to be introduced for the 2009 Super 14 season and not 2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/kiwi-coaches-blast-playoff-partypoopers-20091124-jczw.html
I think my work here is done today.
July 18th 2012 @ 3:53pm
biltongbek said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Well after reading all that there are two points that I don’t like, the guarantee for every conference and the 6 team play offs.
Keep it to the best 4 I say.
You miss out, tough luck.
July 19th 2012 @ 8:32am
Red Kev said | July 19th 2012 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Interesting quote from Ewen McKenzie regarding the so-called conference problem that highlights an important fact that I had not considered:
“Fans wanting equality in the competition will never find it. Each country has its own rules around squad sizes, salary caps and foreign players.
Since Australia plays under a handicap already I now don’t have even the slightest bit of empathy for the whinging posters from NZ and SA regarding how “unfair” the conference system is.
July 18th 2012 @ 11:36am
reds fan said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:36am | Report comment
here are a few links.
this one covers the reaosn why we have the shortened format where all teams dont meet.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/basketball/5800160/sanzar-reaches-super-rugby-agreement/
this one shows who it was in NZ that was pushing for more local derbies
http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/113836.html
this one shows that SARU blocked a push to 6 team format in the super 14 because they couldn’t get a guarantee that the two top SA teams would be included.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/archive/5408842/saru-super-rugby-dead-buried/
I think it was this thinking that led to them pushing for conference winners being guranteed a spot.
July 18th 2012 @ 5:27am
Damo said | July 18th 2012 @ 5:27am | Report comment
Biltong with respect it does. It matter who pushed for home finals for each conference. The important fact is that the contract has at least 3 signatures, one from each nation.
And you never know if the Tahs admin and the ARU start reading the roar and listen to all us geniuses on the subject of ‘How to fix Aust rugby’ – then the ‘weakest’ conference may pop up in NZ or SA in future years?
July 18th 2012 @ 5:52am
biltongbek said | July 18th 2012 @ 5:52am | Report comment
Damo, to me it isn’t of grave importance but being relatively new to Roar, I see this being discussed often, and as yet have only heard allegations between SA and OZ.
As far as weakest conference, there will always be a weaker conference, no matter where, however I believe it is important to find a way where the inequalities can be remedied for the sake of credibility.
I doubt any of us want to see our countries’ teams being touted to only be there because of luck, or any other questionable reason.
July 18th 2012 @ 5:56am
mania said | July 18th 2012 @ 5:56am | Report comment
i note this with a lot of coaches that they dont have 1 on 1 coaching for certain players. when i coach i watch the game with a pad and paper and note down who needs to work on what. eg prop – catching high ball drills, winger – tackle practice, fullback – rucking etc. its different with me as i’m coaching age grade and these are real basic skills that every kid needs to be taken through because it shouldnt be assumed they’ve been taught anything.
at the higher grades its still dangerous to assume but also the player needs to take responsibility to put their hand up and say i’m weak in a certain area and need to be shown some basics
with the tah’s i definately dont see this happening. from the outside looking in foley’s lost touch with teaching the basics and the simple coaching role of talking to individuals or a small group of players at a time. foleys looks lost in the higher level stuff of appeasing the board and getting reports ready.
July 18th 2012 @ 6:30am
Damo said | July 18th 2012 @ 6:30am | Report comment
Sorry I meant to write – ‘it does not matter’ who pushed for this conference system.
July 18th 2012 @ 6:43am
biltongbek said | July 18th 2012 @ 6:43am | Report comment
No worries, I thought that was what you meant.
July 18th 2012 @ 6:30am
schuey said | July 18th 2012 @ 6:30am | Report comment
Matt Burke and John Eales have had plenty of excuses for the Tahs in recent articles they have written. I am with you Campo, Tahs need a clear out.
The Tahs are not about being successful on the pitch, they are not about the Fans, entertaining rugby, or even the players whose careers get chewed up and spat out before they inevitably go on to success elsewhere.
The old boys club at the Tahs are about keeping themselves in power, hence the subservient coach who wont challenge the status quo when it is obvious the culture needs changing from the top down.
The Directors are the problem, they know it and we know it.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:41pm
Dexter William said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Matt Burke should be out of the Tahs now. He was similar to Phil Waugh when he was playing – too much power as a player. Now he is “one of the boys” at Harratah.
John Eales probably has his heart at the right place, but as a columnist, he needs to separate friendship from Foley or he should stop himself commenting on Foley.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:17pm
jeznez said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Good article Campo and good comment Schuey.
I just don’t understand why our biggest state is buying established players from other teams? Surely investing in development officers and scouts couldn’t cost as much as it has to bring Berrick Barnes, Adam Ashley-Cooper, Drew Mitchell and Michael Hooper into the squad?
Look at prior years where they have gone out and purchased Dan Vickerman, Justin Harrison, Jason Little, Brendan Cannon, Pato Noriega, Tian Strauss, Lote Tuqiri, Timana Tahu and the list goes on and on and on.
Signing players generally occurs at the request of the coach but only happens under the approval of the board. It is just madness that guys who are established stars get bought into the team rather than spotting and developing the young talent that is in their catchement area.
July 18th 2012 @ 6:36am
p.Tah said | July 18th 2012 @ 6:36am | Report comment
‘Get the captains of the international teams to revise the laws.’
Could you imagine what McCaw’s suggestions would be:
- there is no offside at the breakdown
- You don’t have to enter the ruck through the gate
- hands are permitted in the ruck (Pockock will vote for this)
- obstructing or holding an opposition player who attempts to leave the ruck is permitted
July 18th 2012 @ 7:12am
Thurl said | July 18th 2012 @ 7:12am | Report comment
And if Genia gets to capt the Wallabies he’ll add one about being able to use refs to avoid tacklers
July 18th 2012 @ 8:18am
rl said | July 18th 2012 @ 8:18am | Report comment
oh please, using the referee to run obstruction has only been used since the first game of rugby broke out. Your preferred team’s scrumhalf isn’t smart enough to do it?
July 18th 2012 @ 8:10pm
sheek said | July 18th 2012 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
rl – wonderful reposte……….
July 18th 2012 @ 2:17pm
SamClench said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Wallabies should add an amendment saying that All Black tries are only worth three points.
July 18th 2012 @ 7:14am
kingplaymaker said | July 18th 2012 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Gospel truth, what a disgraceful insiders network the whole of Australian rugby is, run by figures only concerned with keeping their jobs and helping old buddies out: no thought of growing the game, making the franchises effective, let’s just let the NRL and AFL take over and rugby in Australia fail.
Whoever thought of appointing Michael Foley to the Waratahs job? Why wasn’t there open competition for it? Why didn’t they seek out Michael Cheika? What exactly did Michael Foley do to win the Waratahs job? This was a man who had never held an elite professional HEAD coaching post. Presumably Michael Chieka’s Heineken Cup win counts for less than Foley’s success in getting a table at El Bulli for the Waratahs board and whatever murky powerbrokers lie behind the scenes, or some such high level networking.
In Europe Michael Cheika, Brian Smith and Steve Meehan have all been Premiership or Irish franchise head coaches to praise from different quarters. Smith even became an assistant England coach, though was marginalised by Johnson for advocating a running rugby style and equivalent selections.
How on earth with three candidates such as these, all Australians too, were Michael Foley, Chris Hickey and Damien Hill ever appointed?
To the position of a critical expansion franchise in Melbourne, on which must of the growth of the game in future depends, the decision to appoint Hill, who had never been a head coach either, was insanity.
It’s funny that the Australian conference can be accused of weakness when there are only 2 good (or even competent) coaches. How strong would it be with 5 good coaches?
Isn’t it obvious that if you have only five teams you need five superb coaches who should have proved a lot to win these, supposedly much sought-after jobs? Given how few teams there are, it should be more like a national coaching position in difficulty to win one of these positions.
Is it a wild and crazy coincidence that the three franchises that are talked of as the worst are the three with the bad coaches and the two successful ones the two with good ones??!!
And what is it that prevents consideration of the likes of Cheika and Smith because they have gone abroad? Is it because it’s a terrible betrayal to leave Australia and prove yourself where you can get a chance? Better, clearly, to stay in Sydney in the right parties buttering up to the relevant figures.
The ARU should bully these boards into appointing decent coaches and fire them if they don’t: the ARU must intervene more in failings organisations. JON’s statement recently that it wasn’t up to them to run a franchise is only partially correct: it isn’t up to them to run it, but is it up to them to come in and fire those who fail.
Somehow though the ARU must find a way to make sure that 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 5 of the franchises have good coaches, and not the bumbling gallery currently on show (excepting Mckenzie and White).
July 19th 2012 @ 12:08am
Crockycrocky said | July 19th 2012 @ 12:08am | Report comment
I forgot that Foley also had previous overseas UK Head Coach experience – was Head Coach at Bath in English Premiership prior to returning to Tahs. Does this now make him ok?
July 18th 2012 @ 8:51am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | July 18th 2012 @ 8:51am | Report comment
“How strong would it be with 5 good coaches?” Mate, this is THE very question I constantly ask myself.
I just don’t get how, considering the importance to Australian Rugby (next level to the Wallabies), those who select the coaches are so casual about it and never held to account. Instead of getting the absolute best, our provinces seem to act like it’s a training ground to develop coaches rather than appoint a proven heavyweight starter. This would never happen in the business world where results rule.
Surely Jake White has demonstrated loud and clear – to anyone with eyes, ears and 1/2 a brain – just what a difference a real coach can make to a team.
My question is will our provinces ever learn?
July 18th 2012 @ 9:24am
kingplaymaker said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
BBB it’s outrageous, plunging the whole existence of three franchises into the balance through preposterous appointments.
Jake White had two advantages: 1) He had been a very successful head coach before. 2) He had been a head coach before.
It’s striking they don’t appoint 1), but quite incredible they don’t at least appoint 2).
July 18th 2012 @ 10:17am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:17am | Report comment
If I may I’d also like to make the point that since we don’t have that level between Shute & Super, it’s imperative that we get our 5 provinces firing properly.
IMHO top coaches are the answer and the ARU, who is unable or unwilling to have an ARC, needs to focus on getting the 5 provinces firing on all cylinders.
July 18th 2012 @ 10:24am
kingplaymaker said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:24am | Report comment
BBB agree absolutely: if youre going to do it with only 5 teams and put them up against the much larger number of the NRL and AFL you have to do it properly.
July 18th 2012 @ 12:03pm
Crockycrocky said | July 18th 2012 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
KPM – Completely agree that having an internationally recognised coach is a huge advantage for a team but think that a lot of Australian Super Rugby appointments have actually been successful Head Coaches before. Whether they were the right people or not is obviously debatable however they have not been learning to coach in the super rugby competition (only referring to direct Head Coach appointments here as quite a few retiring players do seem to skip the coach learning curve and go straight from retiring as a player then to an assistant coach and then takeover as HC)
Damien Hill at Rebels had come from being a successful Head Coach at Sydney University and had a stint Head Coaching in Japan. Laurie Fisher was successfully head coaching at ACT club level prior to his first 4 yr stint as Head Coach of ACT Brumbies (and his 2007 Super rugby win stats were higher than Jakes 2012 stats – 69.5% v 62.5%), Andy Friend was also previously a successful Head Coach in UK and had a stint Head Coaching in Japan (his 2009/2010 at Brumbies win stats were 61.5%). Tony Rea was also previously a successful Head Coach in UK (in Rugby League though) and his stats for 2011 granted were poor (3 wins from 14 games – 21.4%).
July 18th 2012 @ 12:28pm
kingplaymaker said | July 18th 2012 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Crockycrocky out of those I mentioned none had been a head coach at a real top pro franchise. I don’t count the Japanese teams or Sydney club teams.
You have introduced other coaches who I didn’t mention who have better credentials: there’s nothing wrong with hiring them if they have done what I suggested.
July 18th 2012 @ 12:56pm
Crockycrocky said | July 18th 2012 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Sorry but I thought you were generally suggesting we have appointed coaches without Head Coach experience. Don’t we develop players and coaches at Australian club level prior to the next level (Super Rugby/pro franchise). Through also not counting Japanese teams, then did Eddie Jones count as having no experience prior to Head Coaching Brumbies, then Wallabies and now Japan National Team.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:04pm
Crockycrocky said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Also though the extra ones that I mentioned are now pretty much considered dud appointments by most on here yet they tick the boxes you suggested. So what is right? Is there a simple right?
July 18th 2012 @ 1:26pm
kingplaymaker said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
There is certainly a simpler right that the appointments of Hickey, Hill and Foley all recently. They all fail to meet the requirements of having been head coach at an elite professional club first: meeting that requirement doens’t guarantee a coach success, but it makes it a much better bet.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:56pm
Crockycrocky said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Foley I agree with as I can see as he fits into the ex-player gets a coaching job because he was a good player. Hickey and Hill however both successfully coached at Sydney Club level. Hickey had great success at Eastwood and Hill successfully ran University for a few years. Australia does not have an elite professional club level below Super Rugby so the obvious place for coaches to get Head Coach Experience is clubland. That is the development pathway in place with ARU. Does not mean that out of Australia coaches shouldn’t be considered, maybe even first, but there is always the issue of timing and who is available when positions become available.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:21pm
jeznez said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
Crocky – the call is to send coaches from Aussie clubland out to the elite professional comps and then bring them back to Aussie Super level if they prove succesful.
The leap from club to Super in Oz is terrifically hard for players, it seems to be equally hard for coaches.
July 18th 2012 @ 3:54pm
Crockycrocky said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Sounds good but the reality of that happening would be tough. Limited ‘foreign’ coaches get appointed as Head Coach of professional teams overseas where they would also have local coaches wanting the jobs. Mckenzie got Stade Francais but had minimal success, Cheika also Stade Francais but again minimal success, Brian Smith with London Irish going good, but he doesn’t seem to want to come back to Australias rugby environment, Fisher with Munster went well but then Friend with Harlequins went well too. Didn’t mean that the jump to Super Rugby went well though even with success overseas.
July 18th 2012 @ 6:06pm
snowman said | July 18th 2012 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
Sorry to spoil the fun -
Eddie Jones took the Wallabies to a world cup final and only lost it in extra time to Jonny W’s boot – surely a successful head coach – he then was a disaster for the Reds. Then there was also the bloke who coached the 1991 winning Wallabies but then was nothing special with the Waratahs particularly that loss to the crusaders in 2001 I think 98 nil or something – the reason I won’t speak his name.
July 18th 2012 @ 7:02pm
Crockycrocky said | July 18th 2012 @ 7:02pm | Report comment
Didn’t spoil fun at all snowman! Showed very clear examples that ‘good, experienced’ Head coaches don’t work in every environment. BD is supposed to have been a great coach … But even he had some abyssmal results. It’s a team game – the ‘team’ needs to be a good match (players, coaches, CEO, medical support). At the moment Waratahs are not a good ‘team’ and need a complete overhaul – not just the coach!