There’s been one theme right through Michael Cheika’s rugby and business life – my way or the highway.
In business, it’s been the huge success of his internationally acclaimed fashion house Live Fashion, which is a multi-million dollar concern.
Speaking fluent French, Italian, and Arabic gave him a flying start.
On the rugby field he won seven Shute Shields for Randwick in ten seasons as a player, and one as a coach.
He’s the only coach in history to win major rugby tournaments in both hemispheres, with Leinster taking out the Heineken Cup in 2009 and the Waratahs ending a 19-year drought to capture the 2014 Super Rugby crown.
Cheika took over as Wallabies coach in November 2014 following Ewen McKenzie’s shock resignation. He ended 2015 capturing the Rugby Championship by beating the All Blacks at his first attempt, reaching the Rugby World Cup final, and being awarded the World Rugby coach of the year.
At that stage, Cheika had taken charge of 16 Wallabies Tests for 11 wins, with a 68.75 per cent success rate. That stat was right up with the best coaching stats of all time.
But since the Rugby World Cup final, Cheika’s successes have taken a nose dive, and for the first time in his rugby and business life, he’s under the pump. From recording a 68.75 per cent success rate, Cheika’s had just nine wins from 22 Tests for a 40.90 per cent success since.
And whether Cheika wants to believe it or not, the crash is directly linked to Stephen Moore and Michael Hooper’s captaincy.
Both broke through as captain on McKenzie’s watch in 2014, but Moore’s about to retire, so the bulk of Hooper’s captaincy stats have been on Cheika’s watch, especially over the last 22 internationals.
Hooper has captained the Wallabies 18 times for just six wins – his success rate a mere 33.33 per cent. Why Cheika has overlooked that stark stat defies description.
(AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
It’s even worse if he’d concentrated on Hooper’s captaincy of the Waratahs, and the Rugby Championship just this year.
The Waratahs won only four from 15 in the Super Rugby, and just one from four in the Rugby Championship. That’s 19 games in 2017 for just five wins at 26.31 per cent.
Not good enough by any stretch of the imagination.
It’s no coincidence the three most successful Wallabies captains were coached by the three most successful coaches – or the three most successful coaches appointed the three most successful captains, take your pick.
The most successful coach has been Rod Macqueen, the most successful captain John Eales.
Macqueen’s record is superb with 32 wins from 40 for 80 per cent – Eales boasts 41 wins from 55 for 74.55 per cent.
Between them, they won the 1999 Rugby World Cup, four Bledisloes in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, two Tri-Nations in 2000 and 2001, and the historic 2001 series win over the British and Irish Lions.
They won the lot, the ARU trophy cabinet was never so chockers.
The second most successful Wallabies coach is Alan Jones, and the second most successful captain Andy Slack.
Jones won 21 of 30 Tests for 70 per cent, Slack had 14 of 19 for 73.67.
They combined to win Australia’s only Grand Slam in 1984, beating England 19-3, Ireland 16-9, Wales 28-9, and Scotland 37-12 – posting 100 points to just 33.
The Wallabies were not only a brilliant attacking unit in crossing for 12 tries – with the mercurial Mark Ella scoring in all four internationals – but the Wallabies were also a superb defensive side in allowing just one try by the Welsh.
The Jones-Slack combination also won the Bledisloe in 1986, but only reached the semis of the 1987 inaugural Rugby World Cup due to Jones embarking on his radio broadcasting career, when rugby was still amateur.
The third best duo was Bobby Dwyer and Nick Farr-Jones. They won the 1991 Rugby World Cup and the 1992 and 1994 Bledisloes.
Dwyer, in two stints, coached 73 times for 46 wins – 63 per cent – Farr-Jones captained 36 times for 23 wins at 63.89 per cent.
So Michael Cheika, while your way or the highway has been successful in other fields, if you want to finish your Wallabies coaching career among the elite, you simply can’t carry Michael Hooper as well.
MH01
Guest
Suddenly start winning? What....... one game!!
Fishboy
Guest
Would Hooper moving into the backs work? Undersized 7 to great 13? He seems fast enough.
Kirky
Roar Rookie
Lordy! I doubt there'd realistically be any player in Aussie who could or would really want the Wallaby job of Skipper of a Wallaby side right now, Hooper included!
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
He chooses his personnel, so that is his problem. If he hadn't chased away Fardy and Gill who are proving to be great leaders, he would still have options.
Hicksamunga
Guest
Gold!
Drongo
Guest
It is in the history books mate. Michael Cheika, 2015 Rugby World coach of the year. He deserved it too. My neighbours cat could coach the All Blacks.
John
Guest
I can not for the life of me get where you guys think battling for the ball had to do with the number on the players back Pocock wears 8. But still plays as a 7. Hooper wears 7, plays a bit like a wide ranging 8. Probem is Aus need a good support loosie. Maybe Hanigan will get there, and maybe when he does Pocock will be gone, because Pocock of 2016 was not the Pocock of 2011. 2018 he is anothet year on. Dont hod your breath thinking he will make a differance
waxhead
Guest
Yes but few argue that Hooper is a poor captain. Better options in 2017 Wallabies are Genia and Coleman imo. Come 2018 it should be POCOCK captain and No 7. Hooper on bench as a finisher imo.
sheek
Roar Guru
Just recently I bought a history bookazine. On Cook's exploits, Banks was given as an "enemy" of Cook because the good captain refused him an extra cabin on his 2nd voyage, so Banks threw a tantrum & withdrew, not wanting to "rough it" a second time. This is an inaccurate recording of history. Cook actually built an extra, quite sumptuous cabin on the main deck. But during sea trials, the cabin was found to impact unfavourably on the sailing quality of HMS Resolution. Consequently, the Admiralty ordered the removal of the cabin. Safety comes first. But in the bookazine, this story is inaccurately portrayed. It's scary to think these inaccuracies exist everywhere.
sheek
Roar Guru
A guy by the name of Lippy, well, that's how his name has translated down the ages, knew way back in the Roman times that: "We are hostage to our sources". interesting & scary, to read history as to how much is accurate & how much of it is away off the mark. Scary, when you think about it, that a lot of history we read could be bunkum. When you read history as told by say Churchill, Blamey & Macarthur, among others, is entirely different to the story told by people on the ground & in the front lines. Australian soldiers fought heroically along the Kokoda track despite the gross ignorance & ineptitude of their leaders, Macarthur & Blamey. But naturally, Macthur & co will give an entirely different account. And so it goes.....
Fionn
Guest
What happened happened. The act of researching and writing history—and the role of the historian—is to determine what actually happened, because very rarely is it known and understood by the people at the time. It isn't just an opinion on the topic. Or at least, proper history is not.
taylorman
Guest
There cant be good history or bad history in terms of what actually happened. What happened, happened. Good and bad are merely an interpretation based on someones perspective as are hot or cold, heavy or light, fat or thin, pretty or ugly, Smith or McCaw.
Fionn
Guest
Sheek, It is more to do with the media's coverage and reaction to the Ella's rather than their play themselves (although that of course has to come up in some ancillary function).
Fionn
Guest
Taylorman, that comment was meaningless. There is good history and there is bad history. However, just because there is poor history that is not based on reality (e.g. Chris Columbus discovered America) does not mean that revisionist history cannot dispel incorrect myths that need to be disproven. For example, it is now rare to hear that Captain Cook 'discovered' Australia or for people to deny the Frontier Wars in Australia or for people to support the myth of terra nullius. This is all down to history revising incorrect assertions that had been repeated again and again for years. Real history is not just someone 'opinion'. Seeing something is not more reliable. In 1914 and in the post-war era the British and French blamed the First World War entirely on German aggression and even put the war guilt clause in the Treaty of Versailles. This is how they saw it. However, their view was inaccurate due to their bias of experiencing things emotionally. More recent historians have created a much more nuanced explanation of why the war began, because they have the benefit of hindsight and the ability to look at things objectively (as well as more sources). I am not saying my opinion is worth more than Sheek's because I am looking back rather than experiencing it firsthand, but neither is it objectively inferior.
taylorman
Guest
Correct, there wouldnt, not if you think the information you find will somehow give you the impression that you are in a better position to determine who a better rugby player is for anyone other than yourself. And history is just someones account based on their own findings, not the source of the truth. Seeing something is more reliable. And the details usually always written to serve ones own purpose. The ones I like are: 'What year was America discovered'? 1492 is the general answer as Columbus rolled up to the wrong beach as local Indian Communites gazed on. I wonder if they teach that to the eskimo's. :-)
sheek
Roar Guru
Fionn, One more thing about George Smith. He was outrageously skilful & productive, but the one thing he lacked was physicality, a physical presence. McCaw had it, Poidevin had it, but Smith didn't have it. It's a common complaint with many Wallaby forwards, a lack of physical presence.
sheek
Roar Guru
Fionn, When you do your historical piece on the Ellas, remember this: What may appear commonplace today, especially in NZ rugby, was breathtakingly refreshing back in the 70s & 80s. The Ellas played a style that most dreamed of but few dared.
sheek
Roar Guru
Yeah Taylorman, QC is another guy who has matured & learnt from his mistakes, I believe.
Fionn
Guest
As someone who is looking to become a historian I really don't think I will be arguing in 20 years that people looking back on the past can't have an opinion more valid than those who lived through it. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much point in becoming a historian, would there?
Fionn
Guest
'No dont agree with that. A players impact on a person is at maximum when it is seen first hand.' I guess following that same logic the French and British, right after the devastating effect of years of war with the Germans and having been fed propaganda must have been much better at accurately determining the true cause of the First World War, and attributing blame accordingly, because they lived through it and saw it live. Very good logic. All you're talking about is emotional reactions to things you see. I think it is pretty universally acknowledged that people are least objective and accurate when they're having an emotional reaction to something immediately rather than with the benefit of looking back and being able to analyse it objectively. No, I wasn't been condescending at all you twit (and I apologised for it immediately). You've rightly pointed out that I am biased towards the Brumbies—and that wasn't condescending, it was true—but the fact of the matter is that Sheek is clearly biased towards the past players he loves (of which I think he would admit). I'm not saying that that means he is unable to have an accurate opinion, but it does colour it somewhat. The premise of your argument: that you have to witness something live and be emotionally invested in it at the time to most accurately interpret it is ridiculous. I guess that nationalist historians are the most accurate at writing their own nation's history, too, as opposed to objective outsiders? Don't you ever wonder why, whenever a questionable decision in a match occurs the majority of the fans of both teams involved tend to side with their own team? That's because their response is emotionally driven as opposed to analytically driven (Kiwi reaction to BOD in Lions 05, or Fekitoa in Dublin last year examples). The more accurate interpretation of such an incident is usually made by objective fans who do not support either team, and it is usually made clearer with replays, rather than someone's initial reaction live. Your comment of 'only people who have seen something live can talk about it with authority' on the other hand is condescending. Just as your comments towards NVFS about him having a lesser opinion because he is from Sweden and hasn't played the game as much as you are condescending.