Cheika survives the axe as Rugby AU bring in Scott Johnson as director of rugby

Sheek , It`s because their are better players that should be in that 40 odd Cheika selects playing overseas. He continually picks his favourites or project players who are just not up to the job.They are his mates and they still can`t get the job done for him, That shows you how bad they really are.They probably hate him and wont play for him. Who knows.

This is totally what I can’t understand. Do coaching jobs never have KPI’s built into them? Things like world ranking/win percentage whatever you want to pick. If the team falls below that, the coach can then be sacked with no further payment. In literally any other job outside of politics, if you performed as poorly as the WB’s have you would be gone well before your term was up. If there’s nothing in Cheika’s contract that allows them to sack him without further compensation after the worst season in 50 years then I’m sorry, the next person to get the sack is Castle.

I tend to agree with Aaron more Hannibal. I don’t hold great hope for the 2019 Wallabies. The cliff is still fast approaching. When we take the fall it will hurt. But the pain will be conscious because many stakeholders have had ample time to design the Phoenix that will take flight from the ashes. And there will be ashes. The current set up is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem? OZ rugby culture. Ocassionally we do the right thing but often for the wrong reasons. But Johnson and another selector threatens to be an improvement over the selection dictatorship that we have suffered under since 2015. Go Wallabies.

Hoy, I know we don't agree on the quality of Wallaby cattle. But think about this for a moment. Cast your mind back to 1984, 1991, 1999, or even 2003. How can anyone possibly say the current roster of best 40-odd Wallabies is anywhere near those of the years above I mentioned? Today's Wallabies just don't have the talent, the skills or the smarts of yesteryear's players from 1984, 1991, 1999 & 2003. I wouldn't even put the 2015 finalists above 2003. There's a distinct gap. Maybe there's some good talent coming through. But it's not evident in the current lot. It's pretty obvious Cheika's coaching has become woeful. But I'm not sure someone else could get significant improvement, like a winning world cup team, out of this roster. Besides, it would be an insult to the much better talented & organised teams from other countries. I just don't think these guys have it in them. Especially when you compare them to history.

There's a thing called the 'Peter Principle' whereby some people are promoted to the point of failure. That is, they eventually get promoted to a level beyond their competence. I imagine a helluva lot of people fall into this category without getting caught out soon enough. Those saying Fisher is a good forwards coach, but a poor head coach might well be right. If Fisher is smart, he might also have worked out where he can be most effective. Which is as an assistant coach.

Sometimes, this all reminds me of the Japanese 8 rowing boat scenario of many years ago. The management brought in consultants to find out why the boat was performing poorly. The consultants decreed that there were too many rowers & not enough managers. Of course, the consultants were paid handsomely for their idiotic advice. So progressively, a rower was replaced with a manager until there was only one rower remaining. Results were so continuously disastrous the remaining rower was sacked, the boat sold off & the managers given generous severance packages. RA looks a little bit like the Japanese 8 rowing boat scenario. Whenever there's a problem, they employ more managers. Is this a genuine future-proof plan, or simply a "being seen to be doing something" exercise? At the moment, almost everyone at head office has some glorious title. How meaningful is their job? How about less people in head office & more player participants? There's a radical idea!

just check again why you want Ceika removed. lost to whom by how much? Be careful not to overstate your case.

Who says White is more interested in fitting in all of the best players into his starting XV rather than constructing the most complete, balanced and capability-proficient pack possible? Pure speculation & “2 7’s in the 23” in no way supports your assertion. In fact, it is precisely what most purporting an end to the disasterous Pooper alignment are hoping for.

From a skills and capabilities perspective, Hooper has about as much alignment with Auelua, Vaea, Kimlin as my perspective has with yours. They’re all predominantly backrowers. This aside, polar.

"White would do X, or White would do Y is just not founded" Pot. Meet Kettle.

Wales have beaten SA 4 out of the last 5 games

Not really. Even when he didn't have 2 top international players he played 2 7s in the 23. When both are better than every other back rower, there's a good chance he would consider playing them in the starting side.

Yes they do. The issue with dual opensides is the qualities you lose. Much like fitting 2 non-jumping back rowers into a back row.

"He selected 2 7s in the 23" I think we're arguing the same point.

Attempting to equate patently dissimilar backrowers at provincial level as justification for purporting Jake White would maintain the continuously flawed Pooper alignment at test level against tier 1 test quality packs is spurious. Seriously? Fotu Auelua, Vaea, Kimlin bare zero relationship to fitting Michael Hooper into the Wallabies starting pack with Pocock obviously installed as first choice. It is a statement borne of preference not evidence. The single reason for running dual opensides for any future Wallabies coach is political pressure from an embarrassed and embarrassing RA who naively agreed to a ridiculous multi-year, multi-million dollar contract for Michael Cheika’s ringfenced, protected and accommodated 7.

And he's never had a real opportunity to use two test quality 7s in the XV. The fact that on many occasions he selected 2 7s in the 23 shows his willingness to use 2 7s.

And given Smith had actually fulfilled both 6 and 8 roles at first class provincial and international level, White would have been far more justified in doing so. But then vintage George Smith is a far more complete backrower than either Pocock or particularly Hooper. Then again, this line of argument is simply a distraction. There is nothing in this or any example to indicate that Jake White would sacrifice a complimentary 6 and 8 backrow combination to accommodate a second openside flanker in addition to Australia’s clear best 7, and clear best player.

You might note the very first scene of this clip (great compilation of GS’s masterful 2013 season if anyone has a moment to spare) showing Pocock being helped off the field having just incurred his injury, with Smith coming on to replace him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E_WFAqi_vE Ironically, the team the Brumbies are playing in that keystone match in 2013 when Poey exits/Smith enters is the Waratahs. George Smith put on an almost omnipotent openside flanking masterclass this game; and Hooper got absolutely schooled. All in front of Jake White. Separately, how many teams lose their best player for the season, only to have him replaced instantly by Australia’s greatest ever backrower – then, to be taken all the way to the final?

But again, considering that White had often selected a back row of Hooper and Fotu the year prior and often 3 in the 23, I don't think he had any qualms about 2 jumping back rowers.

What does Wallabies selection have to do with White's selection tenancies? Some games for example White selected Hooper, and Fotu in the same XV. That would severely compromise the line out in the same way as dual openside. Often then with Ita Vaea as the bench loose forward. And when Kimlin was used at 6, White would choose Fainga'a and Fotu on the bench. Your assertion that White would do X, or White would do Y is just not founded. What it seems is White real compromise traditions to achieve what he considers the best outcome and isn't completely fixated on anything.