World Rugby has named Michael Cheika as Coach of the Year. The decision is provocative because it overlooks Steve Hansen, who just led his troops to consecutive World Cups.
It certainly is provocative, but only mildly so. There can be only one winner and Cheika has done enough with the Wallabies in 2015 to deserve this accolade.
What World Rugby is saying is that Cheika’s success in taking a disfunctional group of players who could hardly beat a carpet and turning them, in a year, into a team of mates who contested the final of the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament is a better coaching outcome than guiding the greatest rugby side in history to their second successive Webb Ellis trophy.
If you want to personalise this, look to Kurtley Beale. Beale’s behaviour during the Ewen McKenzie regime was totally obnoxious. It led to the downfall of McKenzie. It split the Wallabies. It brought disrepute to the Wallabies brand and to Australian rugby.
Cheika has helped to turn around Beale’s behaviour. And working to the mantra that “better people make better players” has revived the career of one of the most gifted footballers on the planet. What applies to Beale applies in differing degrees to all the other members of the Wallabies Rugby World Cup 2015 squad.
Beale and his teammates showed their esprit during that period when the Wallabies clawed back 14 points against the All Blacks and put the final in the balance. Beale ran amok against a defence that had seemed to be impregnable. His brilliant running and exceptional interceptions brought back memories of the youngster playing for Joeys all those years ago.
Seeing the confident and brave way the Wallabies fought back against the All Blacks in the Rugby World Cup 2015 final, from being down 21-3 to coming within four points of them with 20 minutes of play to go, was stimulating for Australian rugby supporters.
The Australian’s Wayne Smith captured this feeling of a new optimism about the possibilities in store for the Wallabies in an article that carried the positive headline: ‘The dawn of a new golden era’.
While the All Blacks might have won the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament with another head coach, the Wallabies could not have clambered their way out of the “pool of death” and defeated Scotland and the Argentine Pumas in the finals before playing in the best Rugby World Cup final in terms of the quality of play, on both sides, without Cheika as head coach.
As the ARU’s media release noted: “Cheika took over the Wallabies’ reins less than a year out from the World Cup, on the eve of the team’s 2014 Spring Tour, which they finished with one win from four matches.”
The media release did not mention that the team was divided into two factions, a split essentially between a Brumbies/Reds grouping and a NSW Waratahs grouping.
The behaviour of several of the Wallabies had lapsed into mungo territory. There was an arrogance and nastiness about the behaviour of some of the senior players, on and off the field, that was frankly disgusting for supporters to be confronted with.
A year later, Cheika presented a team that had defeated the All Blacks at Sydney, one of only three losses that team suffered since its triumph in Rugby World Cup 2011. The Wallabies won The Rugby Championship for the first time since 2011 and then played off against the All Blacks in the final of Rugby World Cup 2015.
These results were important for Australian rugby. Even more important, in my opinion, is the way these results were achieved. Cheika’s Wallabies played enterprising and attractive rugby based around the traditional Australian values of running with the ball and aggressive defence.
It was this defence that provided one of the highlights of Rugby World Cup 2015 that will go down in the folklore of Australian rugby. With 13 men against Wales, in a must-win match, the Wallabies did not concede a point in seven minutes of fearless and accurate tackling.
It was as if the Wallabies on the field, the 13 of them, all had their Gregan’s tackle moments.
Cheika’s take on the defeat in the final against the All Blacks was exemplary. He and the Wallabies captain Stephen Moore admitted that their team had been defeated “square and fair”. Cheika was adamant that a “no-excuse” mentality had to prevail.
He told his players, too, that “we’ve got to keep growing” and that “this is just the start.”
This hard-headed, pragmatic and optimistic approach can only be helpful for the Wallabies. As the saying goes, you learn more from your losses than your wins. This is only true, though, if you take a “no-excuses” attitude to the losses.
What is unhelpful for the Wallabies moving forward has been some of the Australian rugby media’s efforts, from the usual suspects, to somehow insinuate that Cheika’s men were cheated out of a victory by an incompetently biased Welsh referee, Nigel Owens. These usual suspects were adopting their usual “all-excuses” attitude to the loss of the Rugby World Cup 2015 final.
On The Roar this sentiment has flourished, too, rather like a noxious weed that strangles the growth that Cheika is looking for going into the Rugby World Cup 2019 campaign.
So we have had the usual suspect, for instance, insisting that “the All Blacks received every crucial decision, or non-decision, from referee Nigel Owens .. Owens, by virtue of his appointment, had just been hailed as the world’s best referee and rightly so. It’s just that there wasn’t a whole lot of evidence of that at Twickenham early yesterday morning.”
For me, this is just nonsense.
Admittedly, on the advice of the assistant referee Wayne Barnes, Owens missed an obvious forward pass by the All Blacks which was followed by a ruck that yielded them a penalty which Dan Carter booted over.
There was a head-high tackle by Jerome Kaino which was not missed, despite the ignorant call about it from the Fox Sports commentary team. The penalty was awarded and then the advantage was waived after the Wallabies made a break that resulted soon after in a try for them.
And Ben Smith was yellow-carded for a lift tackle that was, he explained to Owens, helped by Drew Mitchell jumping into the tackle.
Against this, Sekope Kepu was on a mission during the final to smash Carter off the field with high and late tackles. Owens warned the Wallabies prop that a “third time” and he would be in the sin bin. A third infringement, though, on Nehe Milner-Skudder was not even penalised.
In fact, the general disregard for the heads of the All Blacks, including David Pocock’s stomp on Richie McCaw which had him reeling, revealed a nasty side to the Wallabies game plan during the final.
Cheika’s success as a coach has a number of elements to it. He is, and this is fundamental to all great coaches, very good at handling his players. The great coaches understand that the players are individuals who require individual responses from their coach. But the esprit of the team trumps the needs of the individual.
Cheika understands that rugby needs to be played with intelligently and positively. He encourages his players to be passionate about their team and their own performances. Good.
He builds teams that become successful. He did this at Leinster, the Waratahs and now with the Wallabies.
The use of David Pocock as a number 8 but going in second in the tackle to make the pilfer was a bold concept and could re-define the role of the number 8 for teams like England that don’t like to play even one fetcher, let alone two.
Where Cheika, so far, is limited as a coach is that he does not seem to be flexible tactically or strategically. His teams seem to play one way and do not vary that one way very much from opponent to opponent.
He is inclined, too, to get agitated a lot. He got angry, for instance, at a media conference after the final about the publication of the Wallabies’ prepared notes about their tactics. But what does he expect when a coach holds the team notes in such a way that a photo of them reveals all?
What struck me about this storm in a teacup is that the notes, with their comments on how Carter steps to the side and how Kieran Read is shaky under the high ball, were correct in their analysis.
But they weren’t implemented during the final. Why? Read wasn’t tested under a high ball, nor was Milner-Skudder, even though both of them were shaky in this aspect of their play during the tournament.
The fact of the matter is that Cheika was out-coached in the final by Hansen and his team of experts.
The Wallabies, for instance, used a complicated defensive systems from defensive lineouts that took into account the formation of the lineout and what play they expected the All Blacks to run.
The All Blacks threw the ball in quickly before the Wallabies could get their defensive system properly set up. And the Wallabies could not cope with the tactic.
The first lineout of the game saw the Wallabies defenders trying to get into position while Ma’a Nonu burst through a gap to set up an early assault on the Wallabies try line.
That burst by Nonu and the confident, assertive All Blacks attack launched from it, in retrospective, was as crucial to the outcome of the final as Quade Cooper’s over-cooked kick-off in the semi-final of Rugby World Cup 2011.
There was no plan either, or seemingly no plan, to handle Nonu who seemed to be twice the size of Matt Giteau. As a consequence, Nonu ran amok. Why wouldn’t Cheika use Tevita Kuridrani, a monster like Nonu, as Nonu’s opposite in defence, and line up Giteau against the smaller Conrad Smith?
The Wallabies did not show anything new on attack, either. The All Blacks had Julian Savea and Milner-Skudder playing a lot in the middle of the field, often one-off the rucks and making life difficult for the props who were trying to tackle them.
I thought, too, that Cheika got sucked into the Pocock-McCaw contest when for a couple of years now McCaw has not really tried to be a fetcher. Big Brodie Retallick, for instance, got as many turnovers as McCaw. The doyens have been going on about Pocock’s great game but, in reality, the All Blacks and McCaw played away from him and exploited those gaps further out where he should have been.
My point here is that you could see the All Blacks playing to a series of patterns that they understood, which were new to the Wallabies and which worked. You did not see the same sort of clarity in the game plan of the Wallabies. They showed the All Blacks the same old stuff and the All Blacks defence, aside from a rolling maul and freakish bounce of the ball, was never really under pressure to work out what was happening.
I have said this before and will continue to say it until someone in the ARU gets the message: bring in Rod Macqueen to play the wise man role for the Wallabies that Wayne Smith (the New Zealand Smith) does for the All Blacks.
Smith organised the All Blacks defence which was virtually water-tight during the final. Macqueen introduced smart new defensive systems for the Brumbies that coaches from all over the world came to Canberra to study.
Smith also played a sort of devil’s advocate role in the All Blacks coaching system. He would tell Hansen how he would defeat the All Blacks if he were coaching against them and this expert information would be factored into the All Blacks game plan.
No wonder the All Blacks seemed to know what the Wallabies were going to do even before they did it.
Take the first Wallabies kick-off, for instance. Bernard Foley kicked it with precision to the best leaper and catcher in the All Blacks pack, Sam Whitelock. Coincidence? I don’t think so because Foley’s second kick-off had the same outcome.
Then there is the matter of how the Wallabies were totally out-thought when they threw the ball into the lineout.
The All Blacks knew that playing David Pocock and Michael Hooper in the same backrow meant they were one short of a lineout jumper. Where was the Wallabies plan to make their lineouts work under this difficulty?
There was none.
The All Blacks double-teamed the front of the lineout and forced the Wallabies to throw long where Whitelock, the best lineout jumper in world rugby, had a field day with steals. In the first half of the final, the All Blacks got three lineout steals and a couple of penalties which more than made up for Pocock’s theft of All Blacks ball at the rucks.
These lineout steals meant that the All Blacks had 80 per cent of possession in the first half, which explains, in turn, their 16-3 lead at half-time.
This brings me to a final point about Cheika as a coach. He is reluctant, or so it seems to me, to bring in new talent to an established side.
Knowing the weakness of the Wallabies lineout, something that is not new, why wasn’t the Brumbies giant Rory Arnold given a place in the squad rather than carrying Henry Speight or Joe Tomane?
The tone of this may seem a little pessimistic and hardly enthusiastic about Cheika’s qualities as a coach. This view is not my intention. I have written previously on The Roar about his Power of One impact on turning the fortunes of the Waratahs and the Wallabies.
What I am doing here is playing Devil’s Advocate, the role assigned to an expert investigator to look into the life of a potential saint from the point of view of opposition to this elevation.
The ARU’s media release on Cheika’s achievements made this strong case (which I agree with) for him winning the Coach of the Year title. “The World Rugby Coach of the Year award is further recognition of his success as a mentor, in a career that has seen him become the only coach to win top domestic awards in both the southern and northern hemisphere competition.”
I believe that Cheika is up to the challenges of turning the Wallabies into the number one team in the world rankings, and winning a Webb Ellis trophy in Rugby World Cup 2019.
But this is something that is easier said than done. That is my point.
The history of teams defeated in a Rugby World Cup final does not make pleasant reading for Wallabies supporters.
France, defeated finalist in Rugby World Cup 2011 by one point, were thrashed by a record score in the quarter-final of Rugby World Cup 2015 by the same opponents, the All Blacks.
England, the defeated finalist in Rugby World Cup 2007, were bundled out of the Rugby World Cup 2011 in the quarter-final.
Australia, the defeated finalist in Rugby World Cup 2003, were out of Rugby World Cup 2007 in the quarter-final.
France, the defeated finalist in Rugby World Cup 1999, were out of the Rugby World Cup 2003 in the semi-final.
New Zealand, the defeated finalist in Rugby World Cup 1995, were out of Rugby World Cup 1999 in the quarter-final.
England, the defeated finalist in Rugby World Cup 1991, were out of the Rugby World Cup 1995 in the semi-final.
France, the defeated finalist in Rugby World Cup 1987, were out of the Rugby World Cup 1991 in the quarter-final.
Cheika’s challenge with the Wallabies in Rugby World Cup 2019 is somehow to defeat the ‘Curse Of The Defeated Rugby World Cup Finalist’. No defeated finalist has even made the next final, let alone won it.
It is perhaps churlish to note, then, in the context of Coach of the Year that the first winner of a Rugby World Cup final to go on and win the next final were the 2015 All Blacks coached by Steve Hansen.
London Waratah
Guest
Totally agree with Redsback. Kepu was committed and that WAS a forward pass. ITV highlit these incidents after the game, as well as the raised leg under Mitchell, as being aspects of the game where The Wallabies could be considered 'not getting the rub of the green'. Add to that Spiro neglects to mention re: Pocock's headhigh, that such transgressions are brought back by the ref if the attacking team gains no benefit; not waived away as 'lost advantage', when the laws are applied correctly. Spiro mentions McCaw's incident with Pocock's foot as being penaliseable. Watch it in real time Spiro and there's no way Pocock could have known where McCaw's head was or that it even happened. Add the obstructions in the first 10 minutes by ABs' backline and you have many opportunities where The Wallabies could have benefited from calls the other way. They still would not have won I don't think, but the fight-back would have left them in the lead. The questions over Cheika's tactics and game plan are all very relevant though. I am a massive fan of Cheika but must ask why an injured Genia stayed on so long in additon to Spiro's points? Also the lack of line-out jumper and over-stock of wingers was odd. I don't buy into 'not questioning' the performance of refs in retrospect as that's part of the game. I was at the game and all the points I raise above were evident on the day...as was the general feeling that The ABs would win so well done there. Time for The Wallabies to employ a little more science in their shapes and patterns. Great year ahead!
lassitude
Guest
Pretty much everything you say is correct - but not necessarily relevant. The Laws of rugby don't have regard to the laws of Physics. There is nothing in them about direction of the hands or being forward within the passer's frame of reference. It's simply about whether the ball goes toward the opposition's dead ball line. By the laws many passes are forward and not called. What, in effect, has happened is that a case-law type variation to statutes has occurred but that isn't, necessarily, applied the same by different officials. More than that unless the officials are in the same frame of reference as the passer they aren't in a good position to make that judgement - and to do that they have to be running at the same speed; which in many situations is impossible given that they simply aren't as athletic as those they are adjudicating. There are constantly ex-players and commentators (most north of the equator) seeking officiating to the law and, therefore taking out the whole frame-or-reference argument. Given that there are lines on the field to use as arbitration that would be a reasonably easy thing to do.
Michael Scott
Guest
The most dangerous aspect of the tsunami of greatly misplaced popular acclaim for Nigel Owens’s style of refereeing is the argument that turning a blind eye even to visibly blatant breaking of the rules (such as metre-forward passes and line-out throws as bent as a drawn bow) is justified because “it allows the game to flow”. On the basis of that leniency, Genia’s slight knock-on early in the first half should in fairness also have been ignored “to let the game flow”. After all, knock-ons (especially those that are a simple fumble) are likely to be less unfair infringements than forward passes and crooked throws. Morally and logically, however, the “let the game flow” argument is unacceptable. The critical point is that rugby is a game governed by clear and largely simple rules that players and fans alike well know before a match begins. The true skill of rugby is to play a game that flows with success and quality while keeping within the rules. A move that succeeds when a team (regardless of which one) has failed in the skill and discipline required to carry it out without breaking the rules is not quality rugby. Worse, if the game “flows” when it should not have because the referee chooses to collude in a breaking of the rules he is paid to uphold, that is simply illegitimately sanctioned cheating. Except temporarily to allow the non-infringing side a reasonable opportunity to build on a call of “advantage” if it can, referees, in a sport subject to rules, have no basis to overlook infringements according to their personal notions of “letting the game flow”. Were that the case we would then have games of rugby governed not by rules but by the variable whim of the referee, which could differ wildly and arbitrarily from one referee to the next (rather like judicially-activist judges decide cases according their biases or personal views contrary to their sworn duty to uphold the law honestly and competently – but they have absolute immunity from accountability, which they shouldn’t, referees don’t). That would damage the credibility, repute and popularity of rugby and lead to more of the type of controversy that erupted after the Scotland-Australia Quarter-final. Unlike the obvious forward pass let go by Owens and Barnes in the Final, however, Joubert at least had reasonable grounds for missing the obscure infringement that upset the Scots. Nevertheless, Joubert was more culpable for overlooking the blatant obstruction of would-be French tacklers by McCaw and Read that allowed Tony Woodcock to score the All Blacks’ trick try in the 2011 Final. Although a New Zealander, I have rarely supported the All Blacks from when I was old enough to know what rugby was in the late1950s. This was due to the way in which the All Blacks dominated the international game with brutality, such as the leg wrenching and the jaw breaking king hits by Colin Meads and later the seriously dangerous coward assaults by Mark Shaw and Richard Loe. I was on the embankment at Lancaster Park, Christchurch during the 1965 Third Test between the Springboks and the All Blacks nearly opposite where Meads took a cheap shot at his opposite lock Tiny Naude in a lineout. The decent Ken Gray rescued Meads from rough retribution by the giant Naude, who later won the game for the Springboks with a long-range penalty goal. However, I supported Fred Allen’s 1967 All Blacks captained by Brian Lochore (one of the rare true gentlemen of the Kiwi game) which at last combined sophisticated back play with formidable forward power. To give another perspective on the unmitigated praise now heaped on the All Blacks after the 2015 Final, it’s worth noting that they were run very close by the Springboks in the first Semi-final. The result might have been different but for a critical moment at 27:31 in the first half when Fourie was stunned by a blow to the cheekbone after attempting an ill-advised stand-up tackle on the charging Kaino (much like Giteau ran upright into a braced Retallick in the Final – school children are taught that is a dangerous way to tackle). After that, Fourie played tentatively, including late in the game when, deep inside the Springbok half, he sent a near hospital-pass to his inside backs rather than taking the risk of going for his usual assured box kick. On the evidence of the Rugby Championship, it is more likely that the Wallabies would have won the 2015 Final against the deliberately tactically limited Springboks than the All Blacks – although had they played in the same muddled way as against the All Blacks they might have lost that hypothetical Final too. I supported the Wallabies in the 2015 Final but was immediately disappointed by their descent into All Black-style brutality, such as Kepu’s repeated assaults on Dan Carter. Carter is another true gentleman of the New Zealand game and probably the greatest worldwide rugby talent ever. The class of Carter’s character was demonstrated by his smiling congratulations late in the game to Drew Mitchell who had just made a clever kick and chase from behind the Wallabies’ 22 into the All Blacks’ half. That was a great display of good-natured camaraderie and bipartisanship in a game of enormous tension and national expectation approaching the absurd. It was a generous gesture that would likely be regarded as treasonous by the more rabid Kiwi fans. Of all people, Carter deserved to win a Rugby World Cup Final and he did that virtually singlehandedly in the sense that without his genius the All Blacks might have lost.
The Slow Eater
Roar Rookie
You're right. Regardless of the ref the ABs would've won. However, this is an opinion site and RB is entitled to his opinion. All he is saying is that Owens didn't have a good game - a point that I actually agree with. Regardless it wouldn't have change the outcome. But being an opinion site he is entitled and encouraged to make his opinion - one which you may or may not agree with.
lassitude
Guest
The third attempt did - on McCaw not Milner-Skudder. That was a dead-set yellow.
Mr.Media
Roar Rookie
The All Blacks and the Wallabies played THREE BIG MATCHES this year. One was for the Rugby Championship, the second was for the Bledisloe cup, and the third was for the World Cup. THE ALL BLACKS WON TWO OUT OF THREE OF THESE GAMES, yet someone says that the Aussie coach was better? STOP DREAMING MATE! THE PROBLEM IS US AUSSIES CAN'T COUNT PROPERLY!
Nashi
Guest
Absolutely, even a volcano has a vent every now and again! Sound and Fury? Signifying...... (word starting with n ending in g perhaps?) I like the idea of dedicated rule interpretation articles, a video snippet to mull over, identify the rule in question, the Roar to stump up for a Stig like Ref (PeterK under a pseudonym) in a former life for a ruling and a couple of voluntary QCs for a mock judiciary. I would add a voting button for each contentious decision to your idea. As in "I agree" (small button) or "I am completely flummoxed by such an unsustainable decision, which should have been reversed by the TMO once he had compared the replay to the World Rugby video rules examples" (big flashing button with subliminal message "pick me"). I think it's a grand idea, maybe Patrick can have it ready for S18 next year. It was a great tournament, deservedly won by the ABs, at which Wallaby pride was restored, Argentinian and Japanese enterprise rewarded and England's Team reputation trashed. I am still savouring the good bits!
Boris
Guest
God!! More sour grapes and poor LOSER syndrome yet again move on! Build a bridge and get over it, the better team won in fact a far better team guys.
Boris
Guest
What NO mention of the numerous Wallaby transgressions?? You gave a balanced viewpoint, you must have a chip on each shoulder mate! Well & truely flogged you lot were, the cheap shots on Carter, you should have had at least one player on the bin don't you think?
Highlander
Guest
Hika Elliot would probably top that list, Zac Guildford another although I think most players are given the opportunity to prove they have fixed their attitudes and to their credit most have
Highlander
Guest
To be fair Australia had the option after beating England to rest key players against Wales the only reason not to do that was the so called "easier path to the final" that everyone talked about the winner of pool A getting.
Highlander
Guest
Sorry lost me with it's not advantage unless you score points? Avantage in your own 22 should only end if you make it down the other end and score otherwise call it back 30-40-50-60m for the penalty?
skirttheissue
Guest
That Shrink, is true gold ! Take a bow ......... :)
Billy G
Guest
Absolutely agree. For a senior member and very experienced player to do that could have seriously jeopardised the outcome. If it was a Red then who knows? Part made up for it running and kicking ahead for Barret's try but the game was won at that point. All the more for WBs fans to question Kepu's thug tactics as he could've sunk the WBs totally. I like the aggressive-assertive approach under Cheika but there are signs of players taking things a bit too far.
Nobody
Guest
Read through the article a few times and I can't see any references to league. What am I missing?
zhenry
Guest
Hold on hold on Owens missed Wallaby fouls as well, has anyone done a comparison? I would not be bothered, it seemed he missed about as much for each side.
PB
Guest
A good post that Australia and fans will heed if they want to improve. I suggest Australia focus on winning the proper RC. They have never won a full version. Or they can live on denial and focus on the ref. Go for it. That'll only guarantee 8 more years of pain, instead of four.
zhenry
Guest
There is an unfortunate habit of OZ to ignore the full facts of what happened, rather they are selective from an OZ perspective. Surprised that Spiro has taken up this habit. OZ got back into the game after Smith was sent off, and to further make the point, when the ABs had 14 men. Smith is in my bad books, even though he appeared to lower gently, the tackled (know his name but can't recall it) when near the ground. Such a lack of concentration is unforgivable in such a final.
Nobody
Guest
Do let us know if you ever find a David Lord article worth reading. I believe in second chances but I haven't seen anything to tempt me since I began skipping his, a long time ago.
vic rugby
Guest
Award for best ref in rwc was the official report on owens