Ashley-Cooper says the Wallabies needed tough love

I think there is a lot of people missing the point. Coaches can only focus on preparing their own team and improving their own team. Are the Waratahs in a better place than when Chieka arrived? Yes they are. They just missed the semis first year, champions the next and were 3rd/4th this year. He was a huge success and to state otherwise is ridiculous. The Wallabies are a work in progress. A poor start (abliet a very handicapped start for Cheika) but they have won 4 from 5 including beating the AB's, SA and Argentina by a record score. So lets see what the next 2 months has in store. Oh and not to forget other teams are also out there preparing and training as well.

Results say otherwise that he has made a lot poor selections. Lets say he picked all the players you wanted that he picked jay edwins team and they lost to the boks and ab's twice would you admit the wrong players were chosen?

No aussie coach has won 2 super titles in a row. Except for the golden age when brumbies had the majority of the stars 98-2002 the teams just do not have enough top players to win more titles.

I hate it when my sister hacks my account.... ;-)

I think there are plenty of controversial selections but those howlers were so bad it took the limelight of other areas that could/should be debated.

Diminishing returns based on a sample of 1? Always looking to criticise. After spring tour he was blamed as a crap coach, after dual roles he was blamed for not being focused. Now he's full time and with a 4/5 record for the year, you're complaining it won't last. I can see it now if we win the world cup. All you'll have to offer will be "Yeah, but we didn't win the Bledisloe!"

What you're saying is exactly my point, he got them to a certain level in a very short space of time, but the method he used has diminishing returns (in my opinion) and that is why they've since regressed somewhat instead of finding a new peak....

I think you'd struggle to find many others who were impressed with Mumm's performance in Sydney. 9 runs for 13 meters. Not exactly meter eating. 7 tackles 1 missed. Compare that to Horwill's defensive load, he made 10 in 58 minutes. He had 32 ruck involvements also. When you consider the context of the game, I can't agree it was anything above reasonable. Fardy had 40 ruck involvements, Pocock 44, whilst Horwill had 28 in 22 less minutes and was considerably more aggressive in his involvements at rucks. For 3 10 minute periods he was involved in 3 or less rucks. The only period Horwill was, was the one that he did not complete as he was substituted. Mumm was at about 75% for ruck involvement when compared to the other loose forwards who played 80. Was he making impact? If he was making good runs, dominant tackles and big clean outs they would be great stats. I personally don't think he was at all though. The fact he mate less than 1.5m per run implies they weren't big dominant runs. GAGR rated him as a 5 out of 10. Their summation below. He was unimpressive for mine. Seemed to lumber around the field and may be adjusting to the faster paced game. Showed glimpses of this apparent newly developed physicality but was overall uninspiring

Mumm played well against the AB's in Sydney. Only Folau and Fardy played well in Auckland.

Very hard to use NZ coaches as the benchmark. With the players they have and the production line they are always going to do well regardless of who the coach is. Most coaches have a 4 year cycle coinciding with the RWC.

@ The Twins Que` usted comprende senor... sea enculada !

Time will tell.

and your point is?

Douglas performed against the USA and Mumm likewise off the bench against Argentina and the USA so they have worked? Neither justified their selection with their actions in either All Blacks test.

Sure they all do (have a used by date) but some coaches are suited to a longer term than others... think Graham Henry and I'd say even Shag is the same. Others (Cheika) are more suited to quick results, achieving quite a lot in a short period of time that I don't think others (Graham/Shag) could replicate. The intensity of this, in my opinion, makes them less effective a lot quicker compared to the Graham's who get more effective over time...

agree Cheika is a deeper thinker than the previous coaches back to steddy eddy. Eddy Jones was obsessive in his analysis and thinking about the game. It did lead to harming the wlabbalies long term though. Eddie worked out scrums only took up 5% of the game so only 5% of the time should be spent on them. (I am guessing the percentage). Cheika is a broader thinker than jones but as deep in the technical aspects of rugby. He relies on picking assistants better than him in these areas. He reminds me of McQueen and Clive Woodwood in his approach. Just that the players available to him are no where close to the wallabies 1999 or england 2003 teams.

People are always going to comment along the way Machooka. Otherwise how do I get to throw out my oh so satisfying "I told you so"?

@ Jack Mallick It's a tough gig being the Wallaby coach, eh ? And like who'd be a coach with all the continual sniping that comes with that gig ??

@ TWAS I hear what you saying but as to the Wallaby at mo isn't it is a bit premature? At least give the coach the opportunity to do it his way... and if he fails then he's open to all manner of criticism. And I'm pretty sure Cheika is very aware of that. Your comment... 'A single peak does nothing really.' Hmmm... I'm quiet happy when I achieve one of those, and so is my wife when it suits her. :)

A single peak does nothing really. Look at Argentina. Jumped up to the top 4 due to a 2007 RWC Semi Final berth before slowly slinking back to 8+ and never looking like returning. What changes winning one tournament if the team is mediocre before and mediocre after?