"A friend, but maybe not anymore": Cheika opens up on Larkham axing

A broom should have been put through the entire coaching staff! A fresh approach with a coaching team attitude. It's to late now!

Haha, yes. Rule 4 Hubby's nuts shall remain in the bedside drawer, unless or until required.

I think that talent is there, its just getting the right players working together.

Sounds simple and I think its not only Cheika ignoring large parts of the oppositions he plays. I think the more recent Hansen is also doing this and focussing more and more internally to hold onto key players, manage them tightly through Super rugby with a large part of the equation being, in the ABs case, the rest will 'look after itself'. For the ABs, thats more understandable, but still not ideal (I think we are missing Wayne Smith there) . But for Oz, who lose 'a lot' Cheika needs to find every advantage he can and to be sure of getting every one, he MUST know the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. Winning can be found, and I think Schmidt found that, in the opposition rather than in the team your managing.

Yes well even if its a very poor analogy the best Generals will be those that knew their enemy- how many there are, how well equipped they are, whether theyre good in weather (the Germans in Russia going into Winter thing) . The outcome of a rugby match is simply the pitting of two supposedly even sides on a limited area and time to reach one goal of scoring more points. The overall success of one side usually occurs when one has either greater strengths or weaknesses 'relative' to the other, the key being relative. To gain a better 'relative' position in those areas you must know both sides. I mean are there people still out there that dont know this perhaps?

Mate a 50% season would do me at this point if we played smart rugby throughout the year.

Sounds a lot like the rules my wife has for me;)

Content if we don't agree Terry - just consider this. Everybody has a learning and capability limit in sports. For most of us it doesn't matter how much we practice something we'll never get consistently great at it under pressure. It could be that most of these backs picked in WB squads past 5 years are just not particularly talented athletes. There's limits on what they can learn and do. Or maybe they just don't care enough to put in the extra hard yards to fix the weaknesses. Take Foley's short pop gun inaccurate punts for example. I'm sure he's been told x100 over past 7 yrs the cause of it is he doesn't follow through sufficiently. His leg pulls up short. Same issue with his short goal kicking. Easy to correct with practice but there's been no improvement there at all. With catching and passing obviously the players know they're supposed to catch the ball and then pass in front of the man to his chest. But under pressure they often fail to execute. Lastly, Foley has had many coaches during his 7s and 15s career. None of them (including Larkham) have been able to fix his obvious execution and technique errors. He's spent most of his time training/playing for the Tahs where Larkham was never present. Made no difference to him.

I would guess then, that after Cheika serenaded Cooper and enticed him to come back to Australia before throwing him under a bus (firstly by hamstringing him by playing Foley outside him when given a shot at #10 and secondly by punting him completely) you might have some empathy for said Cooper. Or doesn't your intellect extend that far?

I think the calibre of leadership demonstrated by Cheika in this interview is a really poor reflection on him, and it is incredibly embarrassing. To even partially unload on Larkham??? you wouldn't even go there, no matter what; if you had a shred of decency. Can anyone in the coaching ranks of the Wallabies look themselves in the mirror and justify their wages since the last world cup; and least of all Cheika? I am appalled that he was dumb enough to say anything. It's no wonder how and why the Wallabies have plummeted down the rankings. Leadership without integrity is the equivalent of a moron playing with a box of hand grenades.

I assume ‘master planner’ was written in heavy irony?

Yes it certainly explains a few things though. There are two teams in a rugby match. And the master planner is only concerned with one?

If Greg Growden is to be believed, the whole "pay out the rest of his contract" excuse has been widely overblown for many seasons now. Having apparently obtained a copy of Cheika's contract, Growden writes: "Under the section ending Cheika’s employment, there was a late change. It originally stated either Cheika or RA may end Cheika’s employment at any time by giving six months' written notice. Just before the agreement was signed, that was changed to nine months written notice." "Can end Cheika's employment at any time" AND "nine months notice". Cheika apparently failed to hit any "performance bonus" requirements since 2015. And, several seasons of abject dross leading to the worst in 60 years of Wallabies test seasons, achieved only the sacrifice one Outside the Tent Lieutenant, who was apparently a passive dissenter. If RA thinks the damage to their bank account would be too high to pay out 9-months of a salary, they have grossly underestimated the incalculable damage they have done to the brand, goodwill and customer engagement of a fractured, modest fanbase with infinite options in a saturated sporting market. Keystone Cops stuff.

Haha, yes, it means.... Rule 1. The boss has 100% absolute power and authority. Rule 2. Refer to Rule 1, because the boss is always right, doesn't need or seek your opinion, and doesn't permit dissent from his almighty word, which is punishable by death (figuratively speaking) (and just to get Rule 1 and 2 crystal clear.....) Rule 3. The word 'No' does not exist in relation to the boss's all knowing words and judgements found in every instance with Rule 1 and Rule 2.

Sorry Waxhead but we will have to agree to disagree. Professional rugby players at the international level should be able to catch, pass and run ..... it is the backs/attack coaches job to get them running and passing along the correct lines ..... that is the basic skill. Why could the Wallabies not do that? What was Larkham doing? Was he standing in a corner sulking for 3 years because Cheika didn't agree with him? I have said nothing about defence because that was not Larkham's job.

I believe Fionn and Brett McKay have repeatedly pointed out that since Larkham left, the Brumbies have performed nowhere near the level they were when he was at the helm. He may not have set the world on fire but he probably over-performed at the Brumbies. As attack coach at the Wallabies, it does appear he has had no ability to select players and Cheika's picks play regardless of the plan. The coaching dynamic means we will never relaly know who was to blame, but given every aspect of the team has been poor, I would start at the top and work my way down through the side when passing blame. I'd take Larkham over Cheika at this point because we desperately need a change of pace. We know exactly what we are going to get from Cheika and it won't be enough. Larkham might surprise us, or carry on like we have been for four years.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Qland are extending Brad Thorn's coaching contract.

I had no problem with Larkham going as i didnt believe he had done enough coaching wise to be a part of the wallabies coaching team. What he has gotten from the player's from his time at the brumbies then the wallabies shows he isnt the coach that we had hoped from such a player. Him having been previously earmarked as the successor for the head coach position was madness also a la richard graham at the reds. In saying this, both Grey and theforwards coach should have been let go also because the forward play deteriorated and the defense in general as well as the system in its totality is terrible. Cheika in that interview kept mentioning about having great tactics, saying it twice in the one sentence but i fail to understand how you can have great tactics if you dont review footage of your opponent to see their strengths and weaknesses and adjust yours to exploit such weakness or negate perceived strengths. How he survived the review based purely on performance has me beat. For all the reports that he would be too expensive to terminate due to needing to be paid out how could there not be a clause for the meeti bv of KPIs surely winning would be one

That's Mick Byrne's department isn't it?