The Wrap: Good coach, bad coach; the winning (and losing) of the World Cup

By Geoff Parkes / Expert

Following their narrow 20-19 World Cup quarter-final win against France, Wales coach Warren Gatland admitted to spending time during the second half framing comments for what he believed was going to be a losing post-match interview.

It wasn’t that he had lost faith in his players, but more reflected one of those days at the office when you have a feeling that this isn’t going to be your day.

Gatland’s revelation revealed how he was in touch with what was happening around him – an unfavoured opponent who had played some inspired rugby to open up a lead, and his own side hit by injury to key personnel before and during the match, struggling to chase it down.

It also showed how even the best prepared and organised coaches can lose control of outcomes once the players take the field.

As it happened, France – because they are France – imploded, the match officials tipped a 50-50 call Wales’ way, and Gatland and Wales got to stay alive for at least another week.

If body language is any measure, the Wallabies’ Michael Cheika has never appealed as someone in control of what happens once a match begins. And as was painfully obvious, as the 24-point loss to England played out, too often without the strategic and organisational skills to control outcomes before the match as well.

SPIRO: Cheika’s failure is Rugby Australia’s too

As if to tease long-suffering fans, for a fleeting moment in Oita we had a contest. After falling behind 17-6, then 17-9, in the 43rd minute Reece Hodge swept a delightful pass wide to the left, where Jordan Petaia sent Marika Koroibete on a course to embarrass Eliot Daly, and edge the Wallabies to within a point of England, at 16-17.

But rather like Cheika’s five-year tenure as Wallabies coach, it proved to be nothing more than a false dawn.

Not three minutes later, Tolu Latu and Christian Lealiifano lost contact in the defensive line, Owen Farrell hit Kyle Sinckler with the money ball, and the Wallabies World Cup was done – save for 35 more minutes of headless agony.

This quarter-final was a microcosm of the Wallabies over this World Cup cycle. Periods of crisp phase play stretching the English defence without ever threatening to break it. Tactical naivety blended with skills deficiencies – none more overt than a first-half chip kick by Kurtley Beale that beggared belief.

It’s not a crime to try to put on some skill to catch the opposition napping, and the kick-pass has proved to be a popular and successful option at this tournament. But not right there and then, without defenders rushing up to create space in behind, and not with such abject execution.

Curiously, for a side supposedly playing with desperation, the Wallabies were too often indirect. David Pocock popped a meek intercept pass when he could have tucked the ball under his wing and driven ahead, and too many forward runners were caught out tracking too wide when coming around the corner – easy pickings for a talented English loose forward unit.

How do the Wallabies rebuild? (Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

The Wallabies lineout too, was surprisingly passive, Courtney Lawes twice given a free jump without a marker in the first half.

Will Genia’s final act as a Wallaby was a limp knock-on at the base of a ruck. It was a cruel sign-off for a distinguished 110-Test Wallaby who, after Nic White’s commanding performance in the Wallabies’ best match under Cheika, should not have been starting.

In Perth, White bouncing out of the base with the ball committed defenders and put them in two minds. Here, Genia picking up the ball and stepping out committed nobody – he never deceived the defence into believing he was a running option – the defenders simply allowed an extra second or two to advance and pick out the Wallabies’ receivers.

That Cheika, through constant tinkering with selection and tactical naivety, wasn’t able to launch forward from Perth, but in fact regressed, was the ultimate cruelty for the many thousands of Wallabies fans who made their way to Japan.

Whether one takes perverse pleasure in or cringes at the flurry of excuses, attempts to re-write history, finger pointing and blame shifting that now washes over Australian rugby, none of that really matters. Rugby Australia undertaking not to appoint future coaches on long-term contracts, allowing them unfettered power and control is a given. Beyond that, any kind of detailed post-mortem would be moot.

Will Genia. (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

Cheika’s ascent to the position of head coach was transparent, in the way that his heart was always on his sleeve throughout his reign, and in the painful moments immediately after the loss in Oita.

He would have been forced out this time last year, if only Rugby Australia had more money, had been further advanced with a succession plan, and more top line coaches weren’t already tied up until after the World Cup.

Two additional selectors were added, but too late for them to make a difference or, more tellingly, to want to make a difference. Given the established culture around Cheika’s team, his reluctance to work collegially, and the short time frame until the World Cup and the end of Cheika’s contract, what would have been the point?

Right to the end Cheika remained his own man – just as he would have taken sole credit for success, this failure was all his.

Scott Johnson will start anew, with his own fresh canvas. A new coach will be announced, almost certain to be Dave Rennie, the Bledisloe Cup will be targeted as an achievable and necessary goal, and fans will once again be drawn into a new cycle of hope and cautious optimism.

Interviewed pitch-side, Cheika’s disappointment was palpable. It was impossible not to feel sadness for him, the players, and for the travelling supporters.

But the real sadness perhaps lies less with this result, and the lost opportunity of the last four years, but with Cheika still believing that he was much closer to success than what he ever actually was.

Another coach at the end of his career, Joe Schmidt, will be remembered much more kindly, despite Ireland’s elimination, 46-14, at the hands of a switched-on New Zealand.

At his post-match press conference, he was afforded a high level of respect for his achievement in dragging Ireland up to the top echelon of rugby nations, and while his two World Cup quarter-final exits will rankle him forever, Six Nations success and two victories against New Zealand will be his true legacy.

Schmidt provides an interesting contrast to Cheika – very similar in terms of their undying passion for rugby and for the coaching role, but far superior in his ability to get people at all levels working for and with him, and better able to construct a straightforward tactical template, suitable for the types of players at his disposal.

Steve Hansen is another coach coming to the end of his career, although not having a bar of discussing that until this World Cup campaign is over. One concession is to take every opportunity to spruik the claims of his assistant Ian Foster, to take over as head coach next year.

(Phil Walter/Getty Images)

If the All Blacks continue to play as they did against Ireland – with such impressive intensity and clarity – and they go on to win this tournament, then it will surely be very difficult to deny Foster his day in the sun.

That said, both Hansen and Foster know full well that there are three other coaches determined to have a say on that outcome over the next fortnight.

Their focus will be on delivering more of the same – Joe Moody and Kieran Read leading the midfield carry, Brodie Retallick controlling the point of attack, and every player from 1 to 23 assertive and accurate on the ruck clean out.

Over Hansen’s tenure we have seen the All Blacks happy to concede possession, pressure the opposition into error and feed off those mistakes. This is a different tactical approach – halfback Aaron Smith did not kick the ball until the second quarter of this match – with the All Blacks seizing the initiative and, as Schmidt so colourfully put it afterwards, “not giving us room to breathe.”

Underfoot conditions in Tokyo are conducive to fast ball movement and the All Blacks, more than any other side, have recognised this and have committed to using this to their advantage.

The match featured one curious moment, with replacement flanker Matt Todd entering the history books as the first player to give away a penalty try, and receive a yellow card, for laying down and blocking the goalpost padding with his body.

It was a confounding event, players and audience not really sure what referee Nigel Owens was up to, particularly when he insisted that Todd was offside, despite replays showing that Todd had retreated to an onside position behind his goal-line.

But even if he got the method wrong, Owens in fact got the decision right; a check of the law book afterwards revealing law 13.3.a which states:

“A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball”

By falling down and blocking the goalpost, thus preventing an opponent playing the ball against the post for a try, Todd was clearly in contravention of this law, and will now, like the rest of us, move on somewhat wiser.

France’s Jacques Brunel is another coach who will leave his post with plenty to reflect upon, not the least how it might be possible for any coach to withstand such stupidity as demonstrated by his lock Sebastien Vahaamahina.

Sebastien Vahaamahina of France walks off (Photo by David Ramos – World Rugby/World Rugby via Getty Images)

Despite many people in the game pushing for a red carded player to be allowed to be replaced after a period of time, Vahaamahina’s dismissal was a perfect example of why this should never happen.

His team was ahead by nine points, hot on attack, in possession, and with the destiny of the game in their hands.

Something so stupid – throwing an elbow into an opponent’s jaw – deserves the ultimate sanction for player and team. Players must always know that irresponsible acts carry the highest consequences, and that severe deterrent helps ensure both the safety of players and the integrity of the game.

Whatever the outcome of the final semi-final between Japan and South Africa, Japan coach Jamie Joseph was already a bona-fide World Cup hero. He will enjoy some time in the sun, but also face the challenge of ensuring that Japan does not slip from this level – a task that will be made more difficult when the Sunwolves exit Super Rugby after next season.

Win or lose South Africa’s Rassie Erasmus always has a smile on his face. If there was any disappointment at his side being unable to score more than three tries against Japan, despite dominating the set piece and maul so conclusively, this would have been tempered by his side’s superb defensive effort.

The Japanese threw everything at the Boks, at full speed and with remarkable surety of handling. Nevertheless, the South African big men bossed the midfield, and on the rare occasion when a half chance did present itself, their little men scrambled with impressive speed to shut the threat down.

Since their opening weekend loss, the draw has fallen nicely for them and they remain a winning threat.

The last of the four coaches left standing is Cheika’s nemesis, Eddie Jones. Away from the worst of the UK press, and in familiar territory for him in Japan, Jones has remained relaxed throughout, convinced that his impeccable preparation will carry his side right through.

His side is well balanced, and it is evident that England and New Zealand are the two best prepared sides here.

It is not being disrespectful to Wales or South Africa to say that the New Zealand versus England semi-final feels like it should be the final – certainly whoever wins it will carry favouritism into the final week.

Hansen, Jones, Gatland and Erasmus. One winner and three other men who will still walk away from this tournament with their heads held high.

If we’re being completely honest, Cheika’s name never ever belonged in that company.

The Crowd Says:

2019-10-25T01:14:43+00:00

Perthstayer

Roar Rookie


:laughing: I hadn't seen this but someone just liked my comment. Look earlier in this thread and you'll recall you, not me, said there were many options, but didn't name any.

2019-10-24T02:32:22+00:00

RobC

Roar Guru


Thanks GP. Would have been more fun for SB to play the Frogs, instead of the Whales Looking forward to what's next for Aus Rugby. Specifically a coaching academy! Better be the top priority for Raylene, or else...

2019-10-23T21:13:37+00:00

Colvin Brown


Excellent wrap Geoff and I pretty near agree with everything you said particularly with your humane analysis of the Cheika regime. But for decades I've been against red cards in the way the are currently applied. I agree completely that acts like those of the French lock deserve the hashest sanction but in the end rugby is not a game where 14 men can play 15. Punish the player severely and the team for a period but don't destroy the game. Even in the worst case like in some respects this was (although it was by no means life threatening) send him off. But there needs to be some other way to complete the sanction while keeping the game as a reasonably competitive exercise. What is worse is that many red cards are nowhere near as clear cut as this one was and the game can often be ruined by an over zealous referee. Or in the case of two yellows it can become farcical. In big matches this can have a negative impact on supporters of whole countries, paying spectators, sponsors, TV audiences and all the rest of those emotionally impacted by the result. And rugby doesn't need to turn off large blocks of potentisl supporters. Usually when a red is issued I switch off. While I realise there are those who absolutely swear by the need for red cards as they are currently applied I believe the overly dramatic impact of them on a rugby match potentially damages the game as a whole. I remember how disappointing the Warburton send off was. And recently Scott Barrett. Remember Drew Mitchell? Anyway, that's my rant. I love your writing. Go All Blacks.

2019-10-23T11:25:10+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


Todd didn't even dive at the post Lindsay. He attempted to block Stander and the impact took them to that point. It's not really a grey area. The laws cover it off by stating that the goal posts (including pads) are in goal and in goal includes the goal line.

2019-10-23T11:01:55+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


Not much of a bit though Geoff. He's melting into the 'goal post' which is the 'goal line' which is 'in goal'. Stander might have scored a try by placing the ball at the base of Todd's back. :silly: :silly:

2019-10-23T10:32:33+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


Referee Owens apparently just set one Carlos. If Geoff is correct and in fact Todd was penalised for not moving away - (in the blink of an eye which is approximately how long it would have taken Stander to promote the ball to the goal line ) thus putting his body between the ball carrier and the goal post then any time a tackler - or any other defender - finds themselves in the same situation anywhere across the entire goal line then he is subjecting his team to a penalty try and the automatic yellow card.

2019-10-23T10:11:45+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


I don't believe he was penalised for it Geoff. Todd was told he was offside (which he clearly wasn't) and thereby prevented a probable try.

2019-10-23T10:11:23+00:00


:stoked:

2019-10-23T10:02:00+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


He didn't dive Carlos...he lowered himself in an attempt - (clumsy as it was very probably owing to the injury he had clearly incurred shortly before) to block Stander from scoring under the posts...which he most probably would have if Todd was not there. I think the goal post is only a point of discussion because that's where they ended up after the impact of the two players. It could have just as easily been any other part of the goal line.

2019-10-23T08:55:41+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


This lifting of legs to clear opponents from the ruck has to stop.

2019-10-23T08:52:20+00:00

zhenry

Guest


Geoff: You cant see the difference between foul play and player mistake point scoring play? 'Nobody' explains that very well. I will add that foul play is more from the individual history where point scoring mistake play is dependemt on past and present team plays. You argue as if rugby laws are absolute, but we agree on one thing; 'us guys' are about keeping 15v15. The basic integrity of any team game is equal numbers on each side. If the teams are not well matched re skill then you could argue uneven numbers, but for international to club rugby 15v15. Therefore the law is changed and replacements for foul play allowed, for those injured and for the foul perpetrator. That is of course if you retain the red card. I would keep yellow cards at 10 min. The main purpose being to keep the integrity of the team game for the money paying crowd. Head high tackles probably wont be completely eliminated so no replacements will have a drastic effect on crowd and TV numbers. You will have a hard job arguing that replacements make for a greater number of hht. I am sure your aware of all the things written here, however the way you write does not indicate that. I have to agree with 'Nobody': 'I cannot see why you choose to ignore it, let alone defend it."

2019-10-23T08:52:09+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


"they should have just let the Irish score without defending at all" ....well it is becoming harder to defend and what you suggest is not as silly as it sounds... When the ABs earned their 2nd YC in the Namibian match I was sending messages (yelling) via the TV screen to stop tackling them for the last 5-10 minutes.

2019-10-23T08:29:18+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


Yes Geoff but you also see referees rule a scrum when a player can’t get out. I would have thought a player cast against the goal post would be such a situation. However that’s not what the penalty try was awarded for. It was clearly explained to Todd that he was penalised for being offside and thus preventing a probable try. P.S An ugly draw for Te Akau Shark

2019-10-23T08:10:50+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


The game just gets harder and harder to play by the week particularly for the defender.

2019-10-23T08:04:39+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


However that's not the explanation he gave to Todd. He never mentioned Todd's actions in his reasoning other than being apparently offside and thus preventing a probable try.

2019-10-23T08:00:07+00:00

ClarkeG

Roar Guru


"Owens was looking for an excuse there" ...not sure what he was looking at or looking for but I thought it belonged on one of those Emirates adverts he is currently fronting. I thought it was bizarre. He explained to Todd that he was offside and thus prevented a probable try which would probably have been fair enough if in fact Todd was offside. Even after asking for the TMO to check they still come to the conclusion Todd was offside. Unless I'm missing something Todd appeared on side.

2019-10-23T06:22:45+00:00

zhenry

Guest


Yes soapit I should have addressed it. So you were replying to Geoff, yes that makes more sense, I presume your mentioning alternatives to red card?

2019-10-23T06:02:33+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


100% Geoff- but I’d say losing series you should win at home is equally or even more damaging than not winning the Bledisloe.

AUTHOR

2019-10-23T05:18:31+00:00

Geoff Parkes

Expert


Thanks for posting, peter. I think you can say both things at the same time. It's definitely not Cheika's fault that the professional player base is smaller in Aus than in other countries, and that many in this generation of players lack the skills and commitment to the game and that exists in other countries. Not necessarily talking about everyone in the Wallabies squad, but speaking to the depth of the professional player base. But it's also become increasingly apparent over his tenure that Cheika lacked the strategic and tactical ability of other leading coaches, and employed a victim mentality that did himself nor his players any credit. There have been improvements certainly, as you identify, and I agree that the new coach will have a better base to start from than what many people realise. But that still doesn't deny the fact that Cheika had important deficiencies, and that these were exposed in this World Cup.

2019-10-23T04:34:50+00:00

Nobody

Roar Rookie


Some extra points. I expect that if the rule changed so that a replacement could be brought on after 20 minutes, that it would usually (nine times out of ten) not stop the red-carded side from losing. 20 minutes a man down is still brutal. But it would keep the game worth watching. Comparatively, 50 minutes a man down is the death of all hope. To address an issue I recall someone else making, if the real concern is that an enforcer might be instructed to sacrifice themselves in order to take out an opponent (I'm not really convinced, but to lay minds at rest), maybe the 20 minute buffer could be amended to 20 minutes plus any time that the opponent spends off the pitch as a result of the foul play (ie. HIA, blood bin etc.), and if they don't return to the game, no replacement for the offender comes on. Better?

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar