Wallabies reward Cheika with gold

I don't understand why you keep bring Henry into this. He last coached in 2011. Hansen is not Henry. Which part of that dont you get? Who won the 3 RC's prior to this? Hansen- not Henry. Who had a `100% record in 2013? Hansen, not Henry. Who has won the IRB coach of the year the last three years- Hansen- not Henry. What evidence do you have that matches any of that in terms of Hansens abilities? the word of Justin Marshall? woohoo...fair enough. Stop being weird. It doesnt make sense.

Cant help it if you dont get my point. This was one test. So was Sydney last year. So was eden park. One test does not make a great team. They need to back rhe result up.

From June 2000 to February 2004 Clive Woodward's England Played 41 games and won 38 lost 3 (none against SH opponents). One of the losses was a RWC warm-up game in France when an England second XV lost by one point to the French first team. That spell also, of course, included a RWC win in 2003. Hansen needs to win the RWC in 2015 to be considered a 'great' coach. All coaches in the modern era must have a RWC win on their cv if they want the word 'great' bandied about.

Fred Allen is generally regarded as the greatest All Black coach of all-time. I don't think Hansen will supplant him. I still prefer Henry. Our '05-06 and '10 sides played better rugby than anything we've seen under Hansen.

DIdn't we use a lineout drive against Argentina? Not sure what Marshall is on about there. The Australian attack wasn't particularly good either, so basically the Wallabies were well organised in defence and had a solid scrum. The Wallabies are generally always well organised in defence and their scrum is mostly solid against the All Blacks. I'm not seeing a bit tactical win here.

The All Blacks have been going wide too early for years. It's not the first time it's happened and it won't be the last. Sometimes they make the adjustment at half time and sometimes they don't. They struggle against rush defence as well. Always have. In this particular game neither Smith nor Carter nor SBW had any sort of inclination to straighten the attack and the All Blacks didn't use any decoy runners. Their passing was extremely poor and their were no loop passes or cut out passes to create space. It wasn't the worst game they've played in years as they were also poor in Sydney last year as well a couple of other tests. They really only play to their full potential once or twice a year. The rest of the time they perform at about 70% or less.

How about this, T: If Hansen wins the 2015 as head coach, without Henry, I will say that he is the greatest ab coach of all time? I'll buy you a beer or beverage of choice. Hard to compare Hansen to other coaches as over history abs have always had the most depth. That's one of the reasons why the Irish coach should have been nominated the best coach in the world last year. And I'm not being contrary, but didn't Hansen coach Wales?

C'mon, T. Look at what you said: "Most of both sides that played on the weekend played for the Ab’s and Wallabies last year." I really don't know what you mean by this? Are you saying that some of Australia's best players last year were playing this, Saturday? Are you saying that; Pocock Moore Giteau Mumm Mitchell ...were playing last year. This is a third of the starting team. Before we continue on this one, I think I need the above questions confirmed? Once confirmed, can you please rank your top 5 players? And also the effect they would have on the team' leadership if they did not play. We're talking quality, not quantity. But a third of a starting teams starts beeping into quantity.

And Hansens record by the way, is 46 tests played, 41 won, 3 lost and 2 drawn. For that number of tests that is by far the best coaching record in the history of the game, including any All Black coach- and remember, they had All Blacks in their sides too. He has never lost two in a row and has the only 100% record in any professional coaching year. You need more than a quote from Fitzy and Marshall to convince anyone that he's not a good coach. Like anyone, coaches have their off days, so do teams. Its fair to say that Hansen has had by far the least of those. Just think you are reading way too much into a couple of results.

I'm not talking about history in the sense that you are. None of your examples are playing on the weekend, nor are the coaches coaching here. Most of both sides that played on the weekend played for the Ab's and Wallabies last year. And the coach you are criticising now was also coach when England won then never won again, when Oz drew last year then got hammered and when SA won and hasnt since. McCaw was also captain and many of those players are still there. There might be an argument for them being too old but thats not your point here. Hansen has turned adversity around in a week 'several times' so although you and others might not give him credit, his results speak for themselves.

Fair point: "Oz beat NZ in 2011 in this same match, and haven’t won until the weekend, and last year the draw in Sydney promised, until Eden Park stopped that thinking." I presume you're talking about the WC semi after we had just given our all against the Boks the week before. But If we're going to use history as a benchmark--and you called me out on Fitzpatrick playing in 87 well yesterday--we need to look at history a little more deeply (and at two levels): 1. In 1991, 1999 and 2007: Australia beat New Zealand in at least one match before the WC. The 1990 Athletic Park win could also be lumped in with 1991. When Australia won it gave the team the confidence to go onwards to win at least two WCs, and at the same time put enough questions marks in the minds of raging WC favorites (being NZ in 2007). Will 1991, 1999 and 2007 unfold in 2015, or will 2015 reflect 2011? Who knows? All we do know is that 2011 is not all one way. 2. Like '91, Austrlia really needed to win on the weekend--arguably more so than any other year. Hansen, McCaw and co all knew this because it would have kept the foot on the throats of a team that they know can win WCs. We had not beaten the abs for 4 years. In 2011, we had the year before in HK. The win for Australia, though, takes that foot somewhat out of the picture. Eden Park could possibly bring it back into play with a 20 point win, but Cheika now has breathing room. Had the proverbial footstayed there, the press could have canabalized Cheika's twin coaching role and probably killed off any chance of getting out of the group of death. That didn't happen. Now the press is behind Cheika after beating of three of the strongest teams going into the WC because while beating the abs was important, the other two were significant as well as Argentina's win proved yesterday. So rugby is great. It's history is rich, and no doubt we'll be looking to see what spontaneity is served up starting next month!

Connor, what you are choosing to do here is get carried away with what others are saying and taking it as gospel. The process is: 1 Spawn a view 2 Go find someone of stature that supports it 3 Respawn your original view as 'the truth' Thats your choice. Fitzy and Marshall have never coached, so what qualifies them to be 'right', be 'the source of truth? Rattue has come out with the same condemnation of the old boys as well. Do you know what his headline after Sydney was last year and before the mauling of the Wallabies? Chris Rattue: "All Blacks are on the brink of crisis" Yeah sure... Start following these guys around as your source of the truth and you lose your ability to have an original thought. How about we park your thoughts on Hansen, and let the game speak for itself this weekend. Are you going to eat your words if the Abs come out and thrash the Wallabies-- I would hope, for the sake of consistency, you will?

T - the chorus of criticism of Hansen continues. Not only has Sean Fitzpatrick said that: "Hansen was out-coached" by Cheika, but one of NZ's great halfbacks said much the same thing. Did you read what Justin Marshall had to say. For ease of reference: the headline speaks volumes, but here's the link-http://m.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11494472 You'll see that his "boring" quote is already coming back to bite him exactly as I predicted several weeks ago (and where you thought, I didn't know what I was talking about). Funny, Justin Marshall and Sean Fitzpatrick do -- let alone the infamous Rattue. While these are NZ sources, I have not even read Cully's article, but I'll get to it, shortly.

Don't know about the micro or macro nor am I any good at poker, not bad at Chess but at the moment there may be a truth to what you are saying, and that all depends on the ability to back the win up. England won in 2012 more convincingly than Oz did here, then the ABs never lost another test for two nearly years to anyone, and have beaten England all 5 times since. South Africa beat us last year but haven't since and have not used the level of form to beat other sides. Oz beat NZ in 2011 in this same match, and haven't won until the weekend, and last year the draw in Sydney promised, until Eden Park stopped that thinking. Here there are more signs than last year, but no more than England and SA, who were on a 10 or so match winning streak when they beat the ABs. So history is certainly against a repeat, and Eden park doesnt help the W's, but once again, the AB's have been made to look weak, vulnerable, and need to improve big time to beat this very good Oz side. As fans we just have to hope this is another one off. Isnt rugby great! :-)

I'm a big fan of CLL as well. The Brumbies produce really good to great test players. CLL is no exception. Larkham will push and if Foley goes, my bet is that CLL will come into the team. His efforts against NZ in Bled 3 last year were excellent. He brings out the best in TK -- and I think over the next 4 years Toomua and CLL should rotate the 12 jersey to preserve both their careers, as I doubt no position is more susceptible to concussions or injury: Flately, Barnesand McCabe. Both CLL and Toomua are near like for like, and when on song CLL has a handy boot.

Great article. Cheika is excellent. The key is that he's not only passionate about AU rugby, but he's very secure in himself and puts in place excellent Lieutenants who do things extremely well at the micro level: Larkham, Grey and our adopted argentine and then has the smarts to implement at a macro level with: a broader strategy, selections, substitutions (sorry he calls them finishers, not reserves). Everyone in the team have bought chips into his thinking. Those chips were all on display when deciding to go with the Hooper-Pocock dual 7 roles. Such is the class of these these players, he also had the confidence that they could jointly at the role he once did at 8. With the exception of the lineout both did just that, perhaps more so with Pocock than Hooper, but the point is that he has taken Pocock's running game to a whole new level. Had Pocock seen-heard Phipps on his should after he first set play lineout charge of 20, Oz would have had a try within the first 15 minutes of the game through a set play move that cut the strong ab defensive line in half. And that brings me back to not only the micro skills, but the skill at a macro level to best outsmart an opposite using ALL your available resources. And he continues to learn. Dare I say, he learnt a lot from the Highlander win. Playing smart rugby is what we do, and his selections must have taken Hansen by complete surprise when neither Skelton or Palu were playing. He knows how to play chess and poker at the same time. He has both IQ and EQ, while never getting too cocky. As you say, the Wallabies rewarded Cheika's confidence in them with Gold. But there's so much more to improve on following the nightmare behind the scenes the team has been put preceding this year.

Until the ABs are beaten two games in a row and at home they've earned the right for losses to be put down to an "off night". I would never predict a win in Auckland but, should it happen, would expect Kiwi fans to accept a team can dictate performance against NZ. It's not simply that they're good or bad; there's an opponent who contributes to the outcome too. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.

I agree. I re-watched the game and thought that the poor play by all the halves was more a function of the intense defense. So much pressure was exerted on all of them that we saw fumbled passes, etc. but there were high tackles and knock ons from Smith who I rate as the bet 7 in the world. But it's amazing what pressure can do. While I'm a big fan of Toomua, I'm not going to go ballistic if Foley remains at 10. I think we need to get it to the point where we have a few players that can play 10-12 and we just interchange and adapt. If Hansen keeps DC after his poor performance, half of NZ is going to explode. The Highlander 10 is by far their best, but will they have the guts to give him a crack in their biggest game since the 2011 WC.

They allude to that but in the end it's about what the players say to themselves rather than eachother. There's a difference.

Didn't see anything in that game to suggest the ABs weren't up for it, or lacked passion. I thought there were some poor individual performances and strangely dumb tactics. I hope Hansen shares your analysis, TM through to the RWC. I suspect, though, that the coaches are having rather deeper conversations than 'up and at 'em boys'.