McKenzie cracks the discipline whip

No sorry, Ireland finished 5th and France 6th, Ireland were ten times better than Scotland but only results count, France should have won the last World Cup except for the referree

Nice try Sage. If you don't know that "on the spot" in reference to Robinson means that he was there on this particular occasion, then you aren't coping with basic English. Harry and Davis are spectators like the rest of us.

"you think culture is measured by wins and losses." No I don't. I responded to Jiggles' comment about a habit of losing not being for the Wallabies.

I did answer your question soapit, but you apparently lack the comprehension to understand it. And I will add another answer - since it is not clear that McKenzie "said to be in by a certain time", why are you wasting my time with hypotheticals?

Exactly Red Kev. Have you actually read what you cut and pasted? Even McKenzie isn't specific about there being a curfew. Its pretty clear than none was laid down. And as you have already admitted on another thread, your constant assertions that the players received their punishments before the Irish test were pure bs.

Nothing funny about it. I am responding to the peculiarly inept argument being put forward by several people on the Roar, that this episode somehow shows that they were right all along about how terrible Deans was. And they do that right at the time when McKenzie has the worst record of any Wallabies coach in his first six months that I can remember. Talk about picking the poorest possible ground on which to fight! If they truly believe McKenzie is going to turn this around, then *smart* people would have waited until he did, and then made the comparisons with Deans. Instead, these wallies bang on about how Deans was poor at discipline, right at the time when his replacement (who according to them has brought the discipline that the Wallabies lacked) has failed to:take a game off the ABs or Bokke for the first time since 2005. Where the supposedly undisciplined Wallabies under Deans scored 5 or 6 tries against the Boks, the newly disciplined team scored 1, etc etc. Perhaps they don't really believe that McKenzie is going to turn it around and they feel they have to get in now - who knows?

'Maybe when I hit 60 I’ll understand. ;)'. I doubt that very much.

Team management facilitated them going out for a beer. There was no was no alcohol ban in place. So maybe take up your abstinence arguement with EM.

I agree. How can you be officially sanctioned for a 'non-official' rule? A direction instruction from the coach is an official rule, and since EM said he did give direct instructions, in what way was that not official? The opportunity for confusion among the players is high. Is it believable that EM is so incapable of earning the players respect (see Mickey Arthur), that he gives a direct order to the team and half of them say get stuffed? There is a real communication issue going on if a strict curfew with the ban hammer attached is described to the players as non-official.

I've figured out your problem Mike - you think culture is measured by wins and losses. It isn't. Glad to be of service.

Still an improvement on Deans

Underlying point remains the same – they were told of impending punishments. I was also exactly correct about the curfew.

Underlying point remains the same - they were told of impending punishments.

He [Mckenzie] said there was no chance players had misunderstood the expectations on them. ''I can tell you there's no ambiguity because I talked about it the week before,'' McKenzie said. ''There isn't any ambiguity from me and I'll defy anyone to argue otherwise.'' pwned - back in your box Mike.

Harry and Davis weren't ever on the spot ? And their comments don't "appear" to have any relationship to their achievements on the field. What selective rubbish. I expect you cover the mirrors at your place so you don't fall into nonsensical and pedantic rants with yourself every time you walk by.

your correct points werent questions and require no answer. some of us can accept reality even if it is only part of the whole. so you arent brave enough to answer my question but prefer to quibble over the wording? change ignore to forget or whatever word you think happened in this case and then see if you can come up with an answer. as always with you i will say dont bother posting distracting comments if you arent willing or able to give an answer to this specific question.

funny how you have to compare it to someone whos only had the job for 6 months in order to define it as a winning culture

Can someone tell me what money they're on has anything to do with this? And how this decision will improve team culture. A understand that curfew of 12 was not obeyed and consequences had to follow but I don't think that this banning measure will have a positive effect. Few points: - a team member has ratted them out now because of these bans some bad blood between the team will persist. - what they get paid has nothing to do with why they should be banned or not banned. Fact is that rugby lives are very short and contrary to popular beliefs players are not on a great deal of money. Take Ben mowen for example. - running sporting teams like companies does not work. There are different psychological aspects to sport. - having players mentally relaxed and refreshed before games is key and having them held up on hotel rooms won't assist with this. - people that are jeleous or for whatever reason will mention they're pay and say they are a disgrace etc. Reminds me of those kids at school who would dob on others any chance they got. - the team went well against Ireland because of good team comeraderie and bonding which has been documented. Being able to let your hair down 3.5 days before the test is part of this. Maximum hydration can be reached within 3 days. It is for these reasons that I think this is not a good disciplinary measure to go with. I would have handed out fines only and kept it in house.

“You cannot judge anyone, including McKenzie, on a few games, especially when they picked up the team mid-season.” Then stop doing it – that’s easy. The assertion that McKenzie’s approach to discipline is an improvement on Deans has no objective basis, so I don't know why people bother with it. “I can already see a lift in our attack compared to how we played under Deans. Surely, anyone can.” We have managed to score three tries in the process of losing a dead rubber against the ABs, and that is about it against top tier teams. Our try rates seem to have gone down against Boks and English. We are good at scoring heaps of tries against lesser teams – not quite the same as our 5 try and 6 try efforts to beat the Boks in 2010 or 2011, is it? “We have players in supprt running hard and we’re scoring tries.” Yes - what do you think we were doing in 2010 and 2011? And generally against much better opposition. I have no problem with giving McKenzie more of a chance, but let’s not try to pretend this year has been better than it really was.

Because Robinson was there, on the spot. Harry and Davis have come up with some by-lines that don't appear to have any relationship to their achievements on the field all those years ago.