Sack Michael Cheika? No way, he's the best man for the job

I'm with you, Lordy!! Why? 'Cause I'm an All Black supporter!!!

Ok now I've read that you're a fellow kiwi, this is getting confusing, all good.

“most of the worst things done in history have been done by people with one faith or another..” Try educating yourself. The worst "cleansings"have all been done by atheists actually - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler. Unless you consider rabid political philosophies like Fascism and Communism to be religious (and i'm sympathetic to that view - to a point) then religion (as in organised religion) has little to do with the worst excesses.

indeed. And worse than that some of the vulgar invective was clearly to the ref. How do you think that will pan out ?

Zack - 'Seriously thought, of the 6 losses, only the 3 to the All Blacks can be viewed as one-sidedly convincing. The losses to England should be viewed in perspective.' Your insecurity, while amusing, is noted but unnecessary. There is currently daylight between the AB's and the 2nd ranked team in WR. Furthermore, a confident England (off the back of a 6N Grand Slam) went into the WB's backyard at the end of their season and were seemingly told by every pundit and fan in the SH (whether in gold, black, or green) that they were inferior, not fit enough, not skillful enough, not smart enough. They won 3 zip. Seems pretty convincing to me. 'the Wallabies and the English RosePetals both scored 9 tries each over the 3 Tests, so it follows that but for the odd bounce and strange decision-making by the captain and referees, the Wallabies could easily have won the series.' No. It REALLY doesn't follow at all! In order to to have won just one of those games the WB's needed... a) a viable game plan (with a plan B) b) consistency of selection (including selecting players in their correct position) c) an effective kicking game c) Lock forwards who are all capable of running, carrying, clearing rucks AND jumping as part of their skill-set. As far as MC's responsibilities, a,b and c were clearly within his realm of influence but were absent... and even after the 1st test, in Sydney, these remained absent throughout the series. Furthermore, these deficiences were still evident in Bledisoe 1 and 2. So, no, it was neither the odd bounce of the ball, or the refereeing that was the difference but if it makes you feel better (for whatever reason) to believe so, then go for it. England had the WB's measure (and more) in every game of that series. So let me propose an alternative narrative to the one you have suggested. England arrive in Oz for a 3 test series having last played the WB's during the RWC, in their own backyard, and were spanked, in every facet of play. Very few suggested that they were capable of winning even one test. What followed instead, was an unprecedented 3-0 whitewash, last experienced on these shores in 1971. Shell-shocked and with their confidence severely knocked, the WB's adopted a siege mentality in order to cope with the criticism and vilification from their fans and press alike. In the first game of the RC, they encountered an AB team who too, were having to negotiate a transitional phase. The major difference was that the AB's have players who are confident, technically proficient and playing in their correct positions... and most crucially, they had a viable GAME PLAN! It didn't take long before this produced the necessary pressure and subsequent holes in the WB's defence. The WB's (who were low on confidence before the game following their 3-0 loss) capitulate, aided in part by the the coaching deficiences a,b and c, listed above. The moral of this story (or 'alternative' narrative) is...? The AB's owe the margin of their recent victories over the WB's, PARTLY to England - who both exposed the WB deficiences and rocked their confidence back in June!

'A couple of good examples are when the Wallabies were beaten in the Final by a drop kick by Jonny Wilkinson, the Aussies played the rugby but didn’t win the World Cup!' You're examples aren't very good. nor is your reading of past world cups. The Aussies didn't play all the rugby in the 2003 RWC final. There was one try apiece. The Aussie try was an up and under booted in the general direction of the winger who out-jumped the England full-back. The England try was a slick passing move involving forward and backs that put Robinson over in the corner. The Aussies never looked like adding to their try total; England had a number of chances including one thy dropped going over. In terms of the number 1 side going into RWCs, NZ have a case that they've been number 1, 5 times. I think the Aussies were the best side in the world in 1991 and 1999 and England was certainly ranked number 1 going into the 2003 RWC.

McKenzie, White, Jones, McGahan and even Deans.

I think they have a good chance at Loftus after seeing the boks struggle this year. I have my tickets ready to go. Love the Rand. Cheapest test match tickets I have bought in a long time. Usually in Perth at a Force match if I buy a beer for me and a wine for the wife I am getting change back from a $20 note.

Kirk, interested to know who else, apart from NZ, that you consider a top tier nation? NZ stand out and then after that it it hit and miss.

Hemi? Maori are 15% of our pop for the record. I agree with what you're saying above about RWC's and luck though. A couple of key injuries then a genius plan, turns to custard. The problem with success is everyone wants to emulate it, so we copy past success formula's even when all the other variables have changed. Nothing is guaranteed, all you can do is increase your odds of good luck really.

"most of the worst things done in history have been done by people with one faith or another.." Yeah, like; Mao Zedung (famous Anglican) - 15 - 45 million killed Stalin (known to be a closet Hindi) - 20 - 60 million killed Pol Pot (suspected Catholic Nun) - 2 - 3 million killed Adolf Hitler (seen at Methodist prohibition rallies) - 24 million + killed Hard to be sure about the exact numbers of course because religious people don't know how to count.

Thanks for the clip, Rugger.

You are in your element, Kirky, and gold!

Is this the makings of a novel, Don? Very good and a funny way of looking at the problems facing Oz rugby.

SBW has said that his faith/religion has made him a better person, McCwon and samalavich. Doing a bit of research might help avoid ignorance.

Seems to me that you're full of self importance MWO rubbishing everyone's opinions. Just relax and get over yourself

Australia has never been a consistent top tier rugby playing Nation and I like a hell of a lot of others have never been able to fathom as to how Australia ever gets above fourth possie' as their quality and consistency of play doesn't indicate or justify 2nd place in any World ranking table. The only reason that I can see for the inflated Wallaby rankings is the fact they play the top ranked side in the World more than any other International side and although getting beaten as a rule. it inflates the ranking points system massively because they "did at least get beaten by the top team" that's how it happens. As for the Wallaby World Cup record, it isn't that shabby but if you take your eye patch off mate you'll notice that all bar one game played you were very LUCKY to win or get into any final ending up as runner up! Take the most recent World Cup, the Wallabies did very well to get out of their Division but got very, very, lucky from then on in. They should never have beaten Wales as the Welsh played the rugby with a side decimated by injury and Foley kicked all the points to win, then of course there was the Scotland game which the Wallabies should never have won, we all know about that episode, Then of course they got cleaned out big time by the Number 1 side going into the Tournament in the Final, a game the All Blacks were never ever going to lose! I could go on and on about the World Cup and the quality of the Tournament proper but, all it does is give the winner ''bragging rights'' as all except three wins by the Number 1 side going in namely the All Blacks were, won and justifiably so because they were had the ranking of Number 1, ~ they got the "bragging rights" and retained their best in the World ranking, the Australians have won a few, lost most which in any sporting language means inconsistency! Therefore it could three times indicate by the points on the board that they were the best team there! Luck, luck, and more luck is the name of the game in the winning of the World Cup, you need it in spades and ability does not necessarily guarantee a win, that's the name of the game.

World in Union, so what if the game isn't as popular here ? What has that actually got to do with any reasonable criticism at the way Cheika is currently going. Interestingly, we always feel we need to point out the status of the game in this country when things are not going so well. Seems like the typical inferiority complex response to make sure our rivals are aware of this. How can the performance of Cheika in the post match be defended ? It was so pathetic and embarrassing, it was almost beyond grief. And what are these unrealistic expectations exactly ? Doesn't seem to much to ask- win or lose- for something even remotely resembling an improved performance. It's not losing that's the issue anyway, it's the way it keeps happening lately. I'm sorry but the test arena is too rare and too important to be anything short of scrutinising.

As I said we've been regularly in the top 3 nations since the 80s. That doesn't happen by winning one or two games here and there. If any team can win the World Cup how come only four have ever won it?

Well, the way all the self proclaimed experts are opining on this post, sacking Cheika is the best bet, however, I disagree completely. However, blaming the coach for this rugby team's failures against the best international opposition is an old chestnut that gets recycled every couple of years. If it's not Cheika then previously it was McKenzie and prior to that the vitriol was directed at Deans who did a sterling job in my opinion. Prior to that the experts panned Eddie Jones and before him John 'Knuckles' Connolly ... on and on it goes. Give us all a break! The simple truth is this: the Wallabies are not at the same standard of the All Blacks. Rugby is much more popular in NZ, SA, UK than it is in Aust. That's not an excuse just the truth. Therefore, stop expecting our Wallabies to reach such heights that are currently unattainable. Cheika over-achieved in taking Aust to No. 2 at last year's world cup. His coaching ability and his coaching record is very good - the results are proof of that - winning both Super rugby and European rugby's best domestic comps. Runner-up at RWC '15. As for his voicing his displeasure at the ref - he's entitled to do so and quite frankly he's right ! Poite was terrible and disrespected the captain Moore and at times appeared to be refereeing 1 team only. Rugby refs are so inconsistent that it makes a mockery of the laws of the game - various interpretations are poles apart and for a fan watching it becomes extremely frustrating, especially scrum and breakdown interpretations. This is rugby union's big problem. Someone complained that Cheika was seen to be swearing in the coach's box - oh please, get over it - that's his domain and he can do & say whatever he likes and it's the fault of Fox Sports to focus their camera on him at such a time. So that's it - we are not as passionate about rugby here as they are in a lot of other countries; our professional playing ranks are thin; the sport of rugby union struggles to get much attention in Australia compared to AFL, NRL, A-League, Cricket - why do you self proclaimed experts complain so bitterly after every loss ? We should all be supporting the coach and the players and giving these incompetent refs a piece of our minds rather than whining about coach Cheika - I think he's the best man for the job and has done very well indeed after less than 2 yrs in the job. Experts - pfff