Michael Cheika must resign after a poor end of year tour

As coach of the Waratahs, that is.

Not because I believe that Michael Cheika has any conflict of interest in coaching both teams – purely because the Wallabies need him more than the Waratahs do right now.

Getting the Wallabies to where they need to be – competitive at the Rugby World Cup next year – is such a mammoth task that Cheika needs to be working on it full-time.

He needs to devote every waking hour he’s got to getting out to each of the five Super Rugby teams and working with the players that are the likely candidates to make up his squad next year and their state coaches.

Cheika was thrown in at the deep end after Ewen McKenzie resigned. I’ve written that I don’t agree with some of the things he’s trying to do with the Wallabies but he was the right appointment.

I support him as the Wallabies coach until at least the end of the Rugby World Cup next year, no matter the results next year. Any suggestion that he shouldn’t continue as Wallaby coach in 2015 is wrong as far as I’m concerned.

But he needs as much time as possible to implement his plan. Unfortunately, Cheika only has four Tests next year to turn around a poor performance on the end of year tour. He must start tomorrow and that means he hasn’t got time to coach the Waratahs.

Yes, I know that would be a disaster for the Waratahs but like it or not Australian rugby stands on a precipice at the moment. The Wallabies failing badly next year would be an even bigger disaster for the game in this country than the Waratahs having to find a new head coach in a hurry.

The first thing Cheika needs to do with the Wallabies is to change his attitude on scrummaging, but I’ll come back to that in more detail shortly.

The second thing he needs to do is to appoint a new forwards coach who can start immediately as Andrew Blades has shown over a number of years that he can’t get the best out of the forwards.

Blades is a good scrum technician when it comes to the front row. He really knows his stuff in that area and is a good communicator. But I have my doubts about his capability with the back five in a scrum and his lineout coaching.

Regardless of his capabilities, whatever he’s doing with the Wallaby forwards just isn’t working so it’s time for a change.

The new forwards coach also needs to be out with all five Super Rugby teams as soon as possible, working with potential forwards who can help dig the Wallabies out of the hole they are in.

That hole exists because of the lack of performance with the Wallaby forwards and the way they are being used. It’s not so much the players available but their technique, their lack of nous and their alarming lack of scrummaging capability.

Commenting after the match against England, Wallaby great Michael Lynagh said, “Australia is not in a great place… the forward pack was the worst I have seen it this year”.

There are a range of things that can be done to rectify the weakness of our forwards but all of them take time.

With all the players now back with their Super Rugby teams, that time doesn’t exist unless the Super Rugby sides allow Cheika and his new forwards coach to work with the forwards in the pre-season and through the Super Rugby season. They won’t do that if he’s the Waratahs coach and nor should they.

Just as I would be asking New South Wales to make a huge sacrifice by releasing Cheika, I’d be asking every Super Rugby team in Australia to make a sacrifice by allowing the Wallaby coaches more input into their forward coaching and more time with the potential Wallaby forwards, even if it means less time is available with the players for the Super Rugby coaches.

At the end of the day any improvement in forward play will also benefit each Super Rugby team anyway.

I could write a long article about each of the areas the Wallaby forwards are failing in – mauling, rucking and attacking play.

The lineout could be better but it and defence are the only forward areas that are not very poor. I’m going to focus on just one area today – the scrum.

Performances at scrum time can dictate game plans and determine which team is going to dominate a match physically and mentally.

The scrum problems that Cheika has to deal with now are of course not new and not of his making. Ever since Eddie Jones determined that the set pieces were less important than being able to play more expansive rugby the scrum has not been paid due attention by the Wallabies.

When Ewen McKenzie was appointed I expected attitudes and performance to change, given his long and successful career as a tighthead prop. However, the same players kept getting selected with no change in technique and not surprisingly, we got the same results.

Who should Cheika’s new forwards coach be? Laurie Fisher would have been fantastic but he’s just signed a contract overseas. Michael Foley is without doubt the best technician for set pieces in Australia and Nick Stiles is also very good with set pieces.

There are any number of good set piece technicians from overseas but finding someone who’s not on contract and available to start immediately is harder.

Now, back to the reason I say that the first thing Cheika needs to do is to change his attitude about scrummaging. His attitude to scrummaging will of course impact on his choice of a new forwards coach so I hope it’s changed since the England match.

Cheika said before the match against England that, “I’m sure they’re expecting they’re going to dominate us and all that talk they carry on about with trying to milk penalties, it’s irrelevant at the end of the day”.

How irrelevant was the scrum and all the penalties against the Wallabies scrum in the match against England? Far from being irrelevant, it played a very large part in determining the outcome of the match.

Cheika went on to say, “Our goal at the scrum is to get the ball so we can attack”.

This view on the scrum makes no sense to me. The goal from a scrum in sevens Rugby should be to get the ball out of the scrum so you can attack, but that shouldn’t be the goal in Test matches.

The attitude of the English was completely different with Stuart Lancaster saying after the match, “If your set piece is dominant you don’t get width on the ball … we could have moved the ball and tried to score with our wingers, but why would you do that?”

Which team in the match against England had the greater share of possession (66 per cent), and which team played the more attractive rugby? Which team made the most metres running with the ball, which team made the most line breaks?

The answer to each of those questions is the Wallabies. But who won the match?

I thought England were pretty ordinary themselves and made the Wallabies look better than they were but they still comfortably accounted for the Wallabies.

New Zealand, South Africa and England are all capable of playing a forward dominated game and it’s that type of game that is most successful at the moment. Each of those teams can use their scrum to dominate other teams in world rugby, apart from Argentina and sometimes France.

Ireland is the only team in the top four that doesn’t have a strong scrum. I said last week that people shouldn’t get too carried away that the Wallabies managed to compete reasonably well against Ireland in the scrum because just two weeks earlier the Springboks had monstered the Ireland scrum and the best the Wallabies could do against Ireland was to achieve parity at times.

The naivety of the Wallabies regarding scrummaging is also incredible with Michael Hooper saying after the England match, “Teams over here want to get a pushover try, another penalty; they want to pressure you in the scrum. A big learn for us is how much importance is placed upon the scrum”.

Welcome to the world of Test rugby – it’s different to Super Rugby. Is it really only just becoming apparent to the current Wallabies regime that the other teams in international rugby place a lot of importance on scrums!

Cheika and the Wallabies have to stop viewing scrums as a way to restart the game and get the ball back and start viewing scrums as an attacking weapon.

You can score tries with a dominant scrum (the Wallabies have been on the receiving end of that this tour) – you can drain the opposition physically and mentally with a dominant scrum or even by denying them a dominant scrum and you can make a team change their game plan with a dominant scrum.

But you can’t have a dominant scrum if you think that achieving parity is good enough and that you just need to get the ball out of the scrum as quickly as possible and then fling it wide.

You have to aim for a dominant scrum and if you don’t succeed you may end up with a competitive scrum. But if you aim for parity, you’ll end up with what we’ve got now.

The other thing that Cheika needs to change is his attitude with regard to technique and illegalities in scrums. Teams and individual players have always used techniques that are not strictly legal in scrums and they always will.

The best scrummagers use those techniques themselves so they know how to counter them. They definitely don’t go around talking about how they were bettered by a scrum that may or may not have pushed straight or angled in. They don’t rely on referees – they fix it themselves with their own techniques and tricks, illegally if required.

If any scrum coach is training their forwards at international level not to use any and all means necessary that they can get away with to achieve scrum dominance, they’re not doing their job.

Yet Cheika was whingeing about opposition scrums before and after the match against England and even confirmed he’d been talking to the IRB about trying to get a fair go for the Wallabies.

After the match Cheika said, “There is a certain stigma about our scrum. I tried to liaise with the IRB referees boss, I probably didn’t get the answers I was looking for”.

What answers did he expect? ‘Sorry Michael, we’ll instruct the referee to ignore your scrum going backwards and ask the opposition to play nicely when they play your team!’

He went on to question whether the Wallaby scrum against England was really as bad as the referee thought saying, “You know England are a strong scrum and they’ve got a good reputation. Some scrums weren’t good enough, out and out, but some scrums were definitely open to interpretation”.

Rubbish, the Wallabies were simply dominated at scrum time by England. Although our captain obviously also thought that we had something to crow about when he was yelling at the English forwards after being on the receiving end of a pushover try.

Once Cheika gets the right attitude about scrums and a better forwards coach, the next thing he needs to do is select forwards first and foremost for the set pieces.

It’s not about the forwards the Wallabies had out injured against England who must all at least be in the squad next year – Stephen Moore, Scott Fardy, David Pocock, Wycliff Palu, Scott Higginbotham, Tatafu Polota-Nau and Scott Sio.

The English had just as many key forwards out who will be in their squad next year – Alex Corbisiero, Dan Coles, Geoff Parling, Billy Vunipola, Mako Vunipola, Tom Youngs and maybe even Sam Burgess.

With the exception of the tighthead prop position I don’t believe the Wallabies’ issue at scrum time is a lack of capable players.

It’s not about size either. When it comes to locks the Wallabies don’t need Kane Douglas as he was average at the set pieces. They don’t need Sitaleki Timani as he was dreadful at the set pieces and they definitely don’t need Will Skelton because he is woefully inadequate at the set pieces and looks like it will take a good deal of work to improve him. None of those players have improved the Wallabies scrum when they’ve played for their country.

Looking at the locks the Wallabies don’t even need new blood, although if it comes along or can be developed, great. Rob Simmons, Sam Carter, James Horwill and Luke Jones can all get the job done as locks, with the right technique being coached.

The back row stocks based on set piece capabilities are fine – they just need to be better coached on what their role is at the set piece and their adherence to those requirements must be non-negotiable.

When it comes to the front row we do have some issues.

At hooker there are good options with Stephen Moore and Tatafu Polota-Nau both due back from injury next year to combine with Saia Fainga’a.

At loosehead prop there are good options with James Slipper in very good form and Scott Sio returning from injury. Benn Robinson is no longer a good option but Pek Cowan and Toby Smith are.

The problem lies at tighthead prop. Sekope Kepu has been solid this year and will likely be the first choice for next year but then there is a massive hole. Ben Alexander is really not an option anymore. Tetera Faulkner and Laurie Weeks appear our next best options.

Greg Holmes is another option but will miss a good portion of the Super Rugby season with injury. I am not as impressed with Paul Alo-Emile as many of you but he’s off overseas anyway, which is a shame as he does have potential.

The problems are more the attitudes towards the scrum and the lack of adherence to key techniques being insisted upon.

These key techniques would not take long to implement but they will take a long time to practice. In training, less time needs to be spent by the forwards chasing a ball that has been flung wide and more time needs to be devoted to set piece practice.

Only a head coach who has the right attitude towards the set pieces will be prepared to make that change.

After the match against England Cheika said, ?We need to change some things, technique and strategy. Perhaps a bit more wheeling [the scrum around] or something because that seems to be accepted”.

“Maybe we are just a little bit too honest in the scrum … there are some personnel we are going to look at as well.”

Is Cheika really suggesting that the Wallabies have been coached to follow the laws at scrum time and not use tactics, even if questionable, to get on top of or counter the tactics of other teams? If so, there’s another reason Blades must be sacked immediately.

Cheika came into this job under trying circumstances and he’s struggled to come to grips with what’s required for Test rugby.

He should continue to coach the Wallabies at least through until the end of the Rugby World Cup. But if he doesn’t resign as Waratahs coach and dedicate the time required to the Wallabies, then next year any excuse such as ‘he hasn’t had enough time to build his team’ will be null and void.

For the good of Australian rugby I hope Cheika has a long hard think on the plane back from England and recognises the enormity of the task in front of him, then steps up to the plate for Australian rugby by dedicating his time wholly and solely to the Wallabies job in 2015.

Today’s article could have been about the Wallabies taking steps backwards again, which they did against England, but I think a lot more of you can see that now than you did earlier in the tour, so I’ve left that topic alone today.

Tomorrow I’ve got a special one-off article for you that I’ve been writing for the last few weeks. I hope you can find the time to come back tomorrow and read it.