Following numerous stupid decisions by Rugby Australia over the last couple of years, an officious bystander is virtually forced to believe that the organisation cannot run a bath.
Now we have the matter of Stephen Larkham being dropped from the Wallabies coaching staff.
What the rugby public and media is being told about the Larkham matter defies a rational understanding.
He has been dropped from the Wallabies responsibilities, right. But, “his expertise” (CEO Raelene Castle’s words) will enable him to link up the Sevens teams, the under-20 state academies and a program intended to integrate Sevens and XVs programs.
Wait, though, there is more!
Castle has promised that Larkham will be considered for head coach of the Wallabies after Rugby World Cup 2019.
Let us throw some facts into this discussion.
Here is Wayne Smith in The Australian: “Since 2016, Australia has played 42 Tests for only 17 wins. The Wallabies have lost 11 of their last 15 internationals and Cheika’s winning record has slumped to 48.3 per cent, the lowest of any coach in the professional era.”
These statistics do not include the years from October 2014 and the whole of 2015, a Rugby World Cup year when the Wallabies reached the final for the fourth time. When these years are included Cheika’s record stands at 28 wins, 28 losses and two draws.
There is a strong argument to be made that these statistics indicate that the Wallabies were successful when Cheika’s team was essentially the side that he inherited from Ewen McKenzie.
By the time McKenzie’s relatively successful Wallabies had become Cheika’s Wallabies last year, a year out from the Rugby World Cup tournament in Japan, the side had degenerated to such an extent that 2018 was one of the worst in the history of the national side.
This is the point that should have been understood by Rugby Australia. The Wallabies have got worse in every indicator under Cheika’s regime. And the longer he has been in charge, the worse the results in terms of winning and losing have become.
So faced with these facts, Rugby Australia has sacked the attack coach of the Wallabies. The defence coach, Nathan Grey, and the forwards coach Simon Raiwalui, have been kept on despite the fact that the Wallabies defensive record has been appalling and the forward play not on a par with its top tier opponents.
Where is the logic here?
According to a perceptive commentary by Bret Harris in The Guardian: “When Cheika replaced Ewen McKenzie as Wallabies coach at the end of 2014 the team’s style was modelled on the NSW Waratahs’ Super Rugby title-winning team. Looking for something extra, Cheika turned to Larkham, who brought with him the Brumbies’ playbook and a treasure trove of set-piece moves… Time and again the Wallabies’ attack broke down, more often than not behind the advantage line, after a series of complicated handling manoeuvres went wrong… During the course of last season you could hear Cheika talk more and more about the need to simplify the Wallabies’ attack.”
So the poor performance of the Wallabies last year on attack, scoring on average 19.2 points a Test, according to coach Cheika, was due to Larkham’s input into the game plans of the Wallabies.
What about the porous defence?
What about the lack of power and authority in the forwards?
What about Michael Cheika himself as head coach?
Apparently, the buck stopped with Stephen Larkham.
In the real world of international rugby coaching, or any other major sports, if a team is failing the way the Wallabies have been, the governing body sacks the head coach.
(AAP Image/Lukas Coch)
The head coach has the responsibility and big salary that goes with this responsibility to produce the goods from his team. If the team, he fails.
If Larkham had to go, then Cheika should have led the way for both of them out of the door.
Rugby Australia has always been scared of Cheika ever since they grovelled to his demands when a replacement was sort when Ewen McKenzie resigned from the Wallabies a year out from Rugby World Cup 2015.
I use the word “scared” in the sense that Cheika was seen at the time as the only possible saviour of the Wallabies and that because of this Rugby Australia believed his every demand for more and more control had to be satisfied.
His unacceptable behaviour towards referees and in the coaches box was accepted.
And now, Cheika’s terrible record as a Wallabies coach is glossed over by Raelene Castle accepting Cheika’s excuse that Larkham was the problem, not himself: “You don’t want everyone to agree all the time. You need challenges and differences of opinion. but ultimately they didn’t feel the core elements of the Wallabies were aligned and that’s why… Michael believed… it was the right thing for Stephen to move on.”
Cheika-mate against Rugby Australia by the coach of the Wallabies.
We needn’t feel sorry for Larkham, though. His sacking from the Wallabies has, bizarrely, given him the front running to succeed Cheika after the Rugby World Cup tournament in Japan.
The best articulation of this theory comes from Neil Breen, an experienced print and television reporter, who now writes for The Sun-Herald thanks to Channel Nine’s takeover of Fairfax Media.
On Sunday Breen wrote an article for The Sun-Herald titled: “Larkham will have the last laugh in the stoush with Cheika.”
Breen pointed out that there was “affection for Larkham in the Rugby Australia hierarchy.” They allowed him to dump on Cheika, “We have difference in attacking strategies and over game philosophy… I am pleased to be able to continue coaching and contributing to Australia rugby.”
Breen’s gloss on this revealing: “The Wallabies won’t be winning the 2019 World Cup, so Cheika won’t be coaching in 2020. That man will be Stephen Larkham, who’s been kept inside the tent, and when he’s in charge he can stop the chopping and changing of back line personnel that stagnated the attack.”
I think that Breen is right on this conclusion.
Rugby Australia is clearly setting up Larkham to be the next head coach of the Wallabies.
But is Rugby Australia right to take this approach? I would argue that it is not. Larkham has taken the Brumbies, historically the best of Australia’s Super Rugby sides, to the Super Rugby finals.
Unlike Cheika, though, Larkham has no trophies to show for his coaching stints.
He was, admittedly, one of greatest players in the history of rugby. But great players, in most sports, rarely make great coaches.
The fact is that there is nothing in Larkham’s career that suggests he can be a successful coach of the Wallabies.
There was nothing in his coaching record that suggested he could even be a successful assistant. In his time with the Brumbies, as an assistant coach and then a head coach, the Brumbies were noted for their lack of flair and adventure in their back play.
This failure by Larkham to coach effective, fluent, attractive and high-scoring attacking play was carried through to the Wallabies, according to Michael Cheika.
My main takeout from all of this is that Rugby Australia and the Super Rugby franchises have promoted too many favourite sons to positions of coaching authority. Favouritism has trumped accomplishments.
Good coaches have been denied higher positions. Favourites, without any real records of success, have been promoted to jobs they should not have been appointed to.
The end result of this selection by favouritism method is that there is no one coaching within the Wallabies or the Super Rugby franchises who has the record of achievement a Wallabies coach should have.
(Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)
This is why, it seems, that when Michael Cheika goes Stephen Larkham somehow becomes his inevitable successor.
And it seems to me that this system of selection by favouritism is still at work.
Can anyone inside the NSW Waratahs organisation explain to the rugby public how Chris Whitaker, the newly-appointed defence coach of the Waratahs and clearly in line to take over as head coach when Daryl Gibson goes, got the job?
There are very many Australian coaches, here in Australia and overseas, who have better credentials than Whitaker.
Were any of these coaches considered for what is one of the more important coaching jobs in Australian rugby? If not, why not.
Offside
Guest
Player power is poison. It needs to be removed like a cancer. The game is bigger than any coach or player. If the likes of Hooper, Beale and AAC (all players I think are part of the Wallabies problems) weren't happy if Chekia was sacked, they would have been welcome to go and play in France for $12.50 a week (about all they are worth).
Offside
Guest
RE: D. Wasn't Chekia supposed to be doing this for the love of Australian Rugby? Wasn't he so rich he didn't need the money and therefore wasn't motivated by it? D shouldn't be a problem if that was the case. If Chekia was really doing it for the love of Australian Rugby, he would fall on his sword. Chekia isn't about what's best for Australian Rugby. Chekia is all about what's good for him and what's good for Chekia, is bad for Australian Rugby.
Offside
Guest
If we want to take in the 214/2015 record of Chekia, then we should consider a few things. The man was full of luck. His 2015 RC trophy was virtually handed too him. The Wallabies played South Africa and the All Blacks at home. The RC decider against the All Blacks was won against a team that had just flown in from South Africa and had their RWC team announced a few days before the RC decider. They played like a team with their heads elsewhere (either thinking about their selection or non selection). In the 2015 RWC, Australia should have been knocked out by Scotland but for a referee performance so bad, he had to be escorted from the field. In the final, Ben Smith was sent off just as the AB's had obtained dominance and were about to unleash while Kefu was given a licence to try and kill Dan Carter (Austalia's great mate Nigel Owens was the ref). The result was a very flattering scoreline that should have been closer to a 50 point margin. I have always maintained Chekia is about the worst coach in the world and his results show it. Australia would be better off with John Kirwan or Tana Umaga as their head coach. Chekia and his cheerleaders have always maintained that he is doing it for the love of Australian rugby. They claim he doesn't need the money. Yet the reality is, his exit clause will near bankrupt Australian rugby. Because he refuses to fall on his sword, Larkham was sacked instead. If Chekia REALLY was there for Australian rugby. If he REALLY did want what's best for Australian rugby. If he REALLY didn't want the money, he would fall on his sword and let someone else do the job. How about Kerry Packer? Yeah, I know he's dead. I know he's a Cricket nut, not rugby. But Chekia is sooo bad, Packer would still do a better job.
Rugby First
Roar Rookie
Maybe your close to the truth he has a young family at School in Canberra. From memory he didn't appear to join the Australian Coaching panel without persistence from Checker & above! Maybe his initial thoughts where, yes I would like too but not just at this point in time? Only he & his family would know? I admire his inner strength, it would be tough to walk away, Shouldn't be shot for having a go!
Rugby First
Roar Rookie
Hi Spiro Has Foxtel Rugby Kick & Chase on Wednesday been axed for 2019?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I'm meaning exactly what I said. Everybody complains. It's hardly some objective measure on whether it's possible that RA could do better in the current world, that people complain. Everybody complains how every sport is run. If everybody is bad, in context nobody is bad.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, ''The vast majority of genuine people for every sport are concerned about their sport’s decline'' So are meaning that FOSUFC are genuine Rugby people, doubt it, they care only for SU.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, I know that you reside in Melbourne, so here is a recent article 2018 in relation to Rugby in Sydney's west. 'Parramatta Rugby Club has today announced that from 2019, the club will be known as the Western Sydney Two Blues. This change comes after the axing of the Penrith Emus and the need for a stronger presence in the wider Western Sydney community. The club is using today’s ‘How The West Was Won’ luncheon to announce this change. Parramatta General Manager Craig Morgan spoke exclusively to Club Rugby TV ahead of the announcement, stressing that the change is not just cosmetic, and the entire club including Grade, Colt, Women’s and Junior teams will all be re-branded. Two Blues General Manager, Craig Morgan “The club has embraced the need for change. The West generally feels neglected and we believe under the current climate someone needed to stand up for Western Sydney,” said Morgan, who appreciates the gravity of this decision. “We are respectful of the past and our people who have contributed to the club, however, we must have the vision to look ahead to secure its long-term viability,” continued Morgan who as hopeful that the Club faithful would jump on board. The brand-new Two Blues will work closely with local schools and the community, while also ensuring the talent that gets bled out to other clubs remains in the west. “We need rugby to be strong in the West, it is a talent-rich area but under-resourced. People from the West are proud to represent their home, and there is a chance of sending a powerful message throughout the game; that Western Sydney is a competitive force”. “We want to be a club of choice who uphold high standards, and which provides an opportunity for growth both as a rugby player and also in life outside of rugby. We want to position ourselves as a real family focused club, where people enjoy their experience through inclusion, opportunity and learning in a positive environment,” said Morgan. Morgan admits it won’t be an easy transition, but implored the Club’s members to get behind the move. “The more support and engagement we get, the better we will become,” concluded Morgan. The game desperately needs a strong presence in Western Sydney. All eyes will be on the newly-rebadged club next year, as they hope to ensure rugby remains strong in the region.''
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
So you agree the RA Chairman should have absolutely nothing to do with the matter of what teams compete in the Shute Shield? Geez you've waffled on a long way to agree with what I said from the start...
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, you said, ''The NSWRU and SRU choose not to. Blame them'' TWAS you are right.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
On what metric is AFL improving? The vibe? Disregard GWS. It's irrelevant as you cannot point to any increase in anything other than on-field results which are the result of AFL distributions. How many more participants or local clubs are there now compared to 10 years ago? Unless you know this it's a baseless statement without any support. The vast majority of genuine people for every sport are concerned about their sport's decline. Perhaps it's just a very tough market if we are all losing.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, ''Notice that you have side stepped my statement on the roaring success of AFL (GWS) in Sydney’s west in the past few years as compared to the savage decline of Rugby in that area during that time. Rugby Administration incompetence again.'' Wrong again, I am simply comparing AFL v Rugby in Sydney's West, in particular, their administrations. AFL improving each year, Rugby declining each year.Maybe not you TWAS, and your FOSUFC cohorts but I think that the vast majority of genuine Rugby people are concerned about Rugby's decline.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Why do you keep comparing AFL level teams to Shute Shield teams. They aren't the same. What are the AFL doing to keep NEAFL teams in Western Sydney? Very little. The only reason there's an NEAFL team there is because the Giants choose to have a reserves team. The NSWRU and SRU choose not to. Blame them.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
How's it irrelevant that they can pay more? The point is that these people that you say are capable and would be happy to do it for $750k, would surely be even more interested in doing those jobs for more money. What's the success of GWS? Are they profitable? Do they have good crowds in the context of the AFL? Do you mean with a bunch of draft and salary cap concessions they were able to produce a competitive team? On that basis the Rebels are successful then. 2nd best Aus team last year.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, ''Even though the AFL CEO position pays triple that. The NRL double that. CA around triple that.'' Totally irrelevant to the ARU.The above organizations have been successful in lucrative Broadcasting Revenue Deals which make it possible. eg the NRL net AUD 360 Million a year, RA net AUD 57 million a year.One can do a lot with an extra AUD 303 Million a year don't you think? Notice that you have side stepped my statement on the roaring success of AFL (GWS) in Sydney's west in the past few years as compared to the savage decline of Rugby in that area during that time. Rugby Administration incompetence again.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, Further to your earlier comment. Was Jon O'Neill on a salary of AUD 2.250.000 pa + super + expenses. Seems hard to believe, but you might be right.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Really. You consider many outstanding people would have? Even though the AFL CEO position pays triple that. The NRL double that. CA around triple that. Andrew Fagan, Pulver's 2IC left in 2014 to take up the position of Adelaide Crows CEO, for reportedly a similar salary to what Pulver was on: https://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/rugby/payto-amp-panda-andrew-fagans-switch-to-adelaide-crows-a-massive-loss-for-australian-rugby/ Why would these outstanding people have been happy to take this position, when there are significantly higher paying positions in sports admin in Australia? Again, just because you say so?
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, now you've got it. ''Pulver is a rugby die hard that Hawker knows'' A golfing mate, worldwide search was complete spin, similar to many things emanating from Rugby Administration then and now. Pulvers starting salary was AUD 750k pa + super+ expenses etc. I consider that many outstanding people would have been happy to have taken the position.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
What has that got to do with this discussion? You keep getting proven wrong and then changing the topic. I personally believe that the ARU CEO role at the time wasn't very appealing. Reducing the salary to a third of what JON was even more so. Pulver is a rugby die hard that Hawker knows, so he was somebody with a decent CV that Hawker could get to consider the role. You are treating it as if great leaders are falling over themselves for the job. Every major sports CEO in Australia is being criticised. Who are the good ones?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You criticise him for being part of Friends of Sydney University... I have no idea what your point is. He went to school somewhere so should care about a rugby team there that he never played for? I went to Palm Beach Currumbin State High School. The closest team in Palm Beach Alleygators - guess what? I couldn't give a damn about Alleygators because I played for Bond Pirates. In fact I care more about Palm Beach Lions AFL Club than I do about Alleygators. Because that's where my emotional attachment lies. In Clyne's role he has no business acting in the interest of his personal experience. His role is Australia as a whole. In fact a hallmark of good governance as a whole is independence, not acting on behalf of special or personal interest. Clyne has no place making decisions for the benefit of Sydney Uni in his role as RA Chairman, and likewise for Penrith Emus. And rather than discussing from a moral, or ethical point of view, from a practical point Clyne has zero power to do anything. It's a SRU decision. RA doesn't control the SRU or even fund them. What's their mechanism to prevent it? Threaten to remove the rights for them to play rugby?