SPIRO: Anatomy of the ARU-Beale crisis 2: Michael Cheika next Wallabies coach

Ewen McKenzie’s resignation is the most dramatic departure from Australian rugby since the great Trevor Allan left the Wallabies captaincy to play rugby league in England in 1949.

The first hint of what was going to happen with McKenzie came during a media conference after a thrilling Test, in which the Wallabies lost the lead and the match with two seconds of play on the clock.

A notice appeared on the Fox Sports screens: “Major ARU announcement coming up.”

Viewers were then taken to a media conference. McKenzie and Michael Hooper came in and took their seats at the head table. The body language of the two was terrible. Neither acknowledged each other’s presence.

McKenzie was intent on making two points. First, the Wallabies showed no intelligence in the last 10 minutes of play in getting the ball down into All Blacks territory. Second, the tactics he devised of using the short side and then having big runners, Tevita Kuridrani and Israel Folau, smashing through on the open side were brilliant and should have won the Test.

Then Hooper got up awkwardly and left. He knew surely that McKenzie was going to resign. But there was no hand shake or an acknowledgment of the importance of the moment. No gesture of thanks, well done, and so on.

McKenzie spoke without notes. He said he had put “a bunch of reasons in writing” for his resignation. He did not explain any of them. If the journalists wanted to know about these reasons, “take it up with Bill”.

For his part, he said, “the easiest thing was to exit stage left… I’ll write a chapter in my book, and you’ll know all about it.”

With that he left, taking a left exit and was filmed making a slow, measured, solitary walk down a corridor. The last sighting of him as the Wallaby coach was his back disappearing around a far corner. There was something very Australian about all of this, rooster one day and feather duster the next.

Bill Pulver, the chief executive officer of the ARU, then appeared.

Once again, as so often has happened throughout this sorry Kurtley Beale saga, Pulver showed a tin ear to providing a proper explanation of what was happening.

Making this even worse was his continuing inability to understand that the ARU has intensified what should have been a local difficulty of a slanging match between a player and an official into the most serious crisis faced by Australian rugby for decades.

The escalating local difficulty has already seen the resignations of Di Patston (the former business manager of the Wallabies) and Ewen McKenzie (the coach of the Wallabies).

Beale is almost certainly going to be lost to rugby when all the hearings are concluded. That is, if there are hearings. There is a possibility that Patston and McKenzie will not appear. If this happens, how can Beale’s version of the text messaging saga be properly tested?

The text messages sent during the June incident have been published by various media outlets. But has the complete list of messages been published? There are claims that messages more favourable to Beale were not published.

One valid criticism of Pulver is that he has allowed these trial-by-media leaks to flow on without ensuring that the inevitable discussion is actually fuelled by the release of all the relevant information.

In view of this inept handling of all the issues involved with the crisis, including how the dysfunction within the Wallaby squad was allowed to develop, we should have Pulver’s resignation in due course.

The chairman of the board, Michael Hawker, has shown an abject lack of leadership throughout the crisis.

The ARU’s Rugby Committee, with four Wallabies supposedly on the job, should face the same criticism as Pulver. How could they allow a ‘me first’ culture take hold of the Wallabies?

Following the departure of McKenzie from the media conference, Pulver opened his comments by saying, “Ewen said that he felt he was going to struggle to retain the level of respect he needed from the playing group and his support staff in the Australian squad.”

This confirmed the media speculation that McKenzie had lost the locker room. The body language between McKenzie and Hooper indicated this too.

For days there has been media speculation that the Wallabies were factionalised between a senior leadership group (captain Hooper, vice-captains James Slipper and Adam Ashley-Cooper) that supported Beale, and another group, including James Horwill and Christian Lealiifano, who supported McKenzie and Patston.

Pulver seemingly confirmed this media speculation.

The most interesting aspect of Pulver’s comment was the acknowledgment that the “support staff” (whoever they are, the other coaches or officials in the Wallabies camp perhaps?) did not support McKenzie.

Pulver went to accuse the media of an “extraordinary character assassination” of McKenzie.

The full quote is remarkable for its lack of insight into the making of this crisis:

“I’m talking about the media primarily, what I have seen over the last two weeks of character assassination of Ewen McKenzie and all the commentary around Di Patston I think has been extremely disappointing. Unfounded, unwanted and unfair is how I would describe it.”

On Sunday Pulver pulled back a bit from this comment. But you can’t take back what was said, especially as it was at variance with the official ARU media release, which was published at 10.36 on Saturday night.

There is nothing in this release about character assassination. Nor was there any reference to the ARU-Beale saga.

McKenzie was wished well “for the future professionally and personally”. The hope was expressed that a new head coach will be in place before the Spring tour starts on Friday.

The coach must be someone “who can lead us to victory in next year’s Rugby World Cup; represents Rugby’s core values; has the support of the playing group; and is available”.

Is this the statement Pulver was supposed to have given? Was the attack on the media just his own spontaneous reaction to having to announce the resignation of a coach who he promoted as a saviour in terms of results and culture of the Wallabies?

At the media conference on Saturday night and a second conference on Sunday, this one with Michael Hooper, Pulver continued with his policy of talking and not saying anything remotely relevant.

The fact stands out like Everest that Pulver’s total unwillingness to be open with the rugby public about any aspect of the ARU-Beale crisis is the essential dynamic that has created the issue.

Here are a few questions that need to be answered.

Why hasn’t Pulver released McKenzie’s letter of resignation?
McKenzie indicated in his last media conference that Pulver could do this. Surely what McKenzie says about the reasons for his resignation is information that rugby public should have?

Will McKenzie and Patston give evidence?
We still do not have any details about the code of conduct inquiry that Kurtley Beale has to face. Will Beale have to appear before the tribunal? Will any of the players?

What about Di Patston’s qualifications?
This matter goes to the heart of the crisis. Patston’s qualifications were put up on LinkedIn and subsequently taken down because, presumably, they were not accurate. Who put them up? Who took them down? What are the correct qualifications?

The ARU says it is no longer necessary to publish them because Patston is no longer part of the ARU. This is nonsense. This is a governance issue.

Reading the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, I noticed that St Ignatius’ College, Riverview are advertising for a head geography teacher.

“Applicants should provide a full CV, certified copies of university transcripts, a statement of Educational Philosophy and contact details of three referees.”

This is management practice 101. When Riverview are questioned at a later date about the qualifications of their head geography teacher they will be able to go immediately to the files and present the documents.

Why won’t the ARU publish Patston’s full CV that was presented to them when she applied for her job with the organisation? Any journalist worthy of the name would want to know why this information isn’t publicly available for scrutiny.

It is journalism 101 too, that when an organisation like the ARU refuses to be open in its dealings with its stakeholders, the rugby public, and journalists, it can expect some tough probing.

The point about the whole sorry saga is that this elementary truth about the role of the media (to keep the bastards honest) and the role of an organisation like the ARU (to run rugby in the best interests of all the stakeholders) are both totally misunderstood by Pulver.

The next test for him and the ARU board is to find a new coach.

There will be an uproar in Australian rugby if Jake White is appointed. And rightly so – Jakeball rugby is despised here.

Moreover, White’s career at various organisations does not give much comfort that he is the answer to the problems facing Australian rugby. Why, for instance, has he resigned from the head coaching job at the Sharks?

Michael Cheika has been put forward by Rod Kafer and others as the obvious and only choice. Readers of The Roar will know how enthusiastic I have been about Cheika’s coaching performance with the Wararahs this season. So this is an appointment devoutly to be wished.

Sundry sources have suggested to me that Pulver is insistent that the next Wallaby coach will be an Australian. So no White. Good. The sundry sources are also insistent that Cheika’s name as the next Wallaby coach will be put to the board.

Pulver wants, and here he is right, a long-term rather than a band-aid solution. Cheika is clearly the long-term solution.

Apparently there were a couple of meetings last week to hammer out the details of the appointment. Cheika has two basic requirements: first, he wants a five-year appointment to take him through to Rugby World Cup 2019, and second, he wants to coach the Waratahs in 2015.

He has to be careful, apparently, not to make too many further requirements that could compromise his chances of being appointed.

Both these essential requirements, though, are sensible from Cheika’s and the ARU’s point of view and should be accepted.

It make sense for Cheika to be appointed for a term that covers two Rugby World Cup tournaments, and both Eddie Jones and Robbie Deans coached their Super Rugby franchises in their first season as the coach of the Wallabies.

It is clear from Saturday night’s effort against the All Blacks that the Wallabies, at their best, are a good team with potential to grow stronger.

The ball-in-hand game they played at Suncorp Stadium was world class. Few teams in the world, aside from the All Blacks, could have resisted their challenge and the momentum they generated, especially in the first half.

There is a lot for Cheika to work with here, as well as an obvious need to get the fitness of the squad up to the standard set by the Waratahs this season.

I should say this, too, because it needs to be said. Rugby, as it was played by the Wallabies and the All Blacks at Suncorp Stadium, is just about the most beautiful and appealing spectacle sports lovers can be presented with it.

It was chess with muscles – mental and physical. The way the All Blacks worked their way through the challenges the Wallabies threw at them revealed themselves to be the Grand Masters of Rugby. It was thrilling, with the result settled after the final whistle.

This raises the final question: how much better would the Wallabies be with better management from the ARU and a coaching set-up that puts the team first and the officials and players lower in the list of priorities?