Former Wallaby and cricket administrator Pat Howard is part of a three-person panel who will review the Wallabies’ 2019 season following their World Cup flop.
He will be joined by four-time Olympic rower Bo Hanson and 116-Test Wallabies forward Nathan Sharpe.
Rugby Australia director Scott Johnson will also work alongside the group to deliver the review over the next month, which will be run separately to the process of appointing a new Wallabies coach.
The review will involve interviewing all Test players and staff and encompass the World Cup campaign as well as other internationals.
It will consider coaching, planning, athletic performance, campaign preparation, team cohesion and selection processes.
A former Wallabies playmaker with 20 Test caps, Howard led Rugby Australia’s High Performance Unit before joining Cricket Australia in 2011.
His most recent position there was as executive general manager of team performance, responsible for the Australian team’s high-performance unit.
He was asked to step down late last year following critical review into Cricket Australia and the ball-tampering affair among a purge of senior administrators.
Hanson, who won three Olympic medals from his four campaigns between 1996 and 2004, is a director of an international business called Athlete Assessments.
He describes himself as an “international coaching consultant” and has worked previously with the Queensland Reds and Australian Sevens teams.
Sharpe, a former Wallabies captain and dual John Eales-medallist, remains connected to the game following his retirement in 2012 and has worked as a television commentator.
RA chief executive Raelene Castle says the panel “will offer significant expertise and experience from both within and outside the sport and from both an on and off-field perspective”.
“Having these three individuals leading the process will provide a well-rounded perspective on the Wallabies program and enable us to take forward any key learnings for delivery into the major tournament preparations of all of our national teams over the next four-year cycle.”
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
What are the specific skills that McKenzie lacks that are necessary to review the: coaching, planning, athletic performance, campaign preparation, team cohesion and selection processes ...of the wallabies? How is coaching experience less relevant than ‘good business procedure’ experience? What are the skills or experience that Howard, Sharpe or the rower guy have that are more on point than being a former international rugby coach?
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
Yes but they are not going to be doing any of that. They are employed to review the processes, structures and systems that are in place/being used. They are not going to be actually carrying out those tasks themselves. They are different skill sets required
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Well he was re-signed at the same time as Cheika actually. Mid 2016 with over a year to go.
Phantom
Roar Rookie
Hansen was only initially appointed for 2 years and was expected to be replaced by foster.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Why would the CEO be discussed in a review of the Wallaby set up?
piru
Roar Rookie
Cheika doesn’t have to answer tough questions does he? He quit, he doesn't have to do anything
piru
Roar Rookie
Twice winner of the John Eales medal, some here believe that to be the ultimate indication of a great Wallaby.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
True they will do anything to avoid making a decision with any perceived risk associated with it. Saw this in the mid 80's when a CEO and senior management wouldn't/couldn't make a decision, so they got a lowly accountant who was retiring that day to sign the contract!
stillmissit
Roar Guru
GH: That's why it's called an opinion site. You have yours and I have mine. Let's read the report and see what comes out? It must be better than the report about the drought out yesterday!
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
The panel: ...will consider coaching, planning, athletic performance, campaign preparation, team cohesion and selection processes. So basically, everything within the area of expertise of a professional rugby coach.
Onside
Guest
Thanks TWAS, for your indepth response .
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
The important thing here is the terms of reference and the scope of the review.... and I can't imagine that will be very wide. Scott J is working along side the three guys so there will be nothing negative found there. The CEO has appointed the panel... so nothing negative there. Who will be responsible for the poor performance?... I'm betting something to do regarding player fatigue, training techniques, a crowded schedule, not enough recovery time... But my biggest prediction.....Pat H could get himself a new job here!
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
This panel isn't employed to coach...
Wise Old Elf
Guest
What a complete waste of money and typically gutless move from modern management. How much money does the 'actual management' already get? And they do not know what move to make now? Really, it is time to go Castle and co you have no effing idea what you are doing and need to employ smoke and mirrors to justify yourselves. Get OUT GOTH!
Geno
Guest
YYYAAAAWWWWWNNNNNN..... did someone say something?
Doctordbx
Roar Rookie
Cheika doesn't have to answer tough questions does he?
GhostFacePilfer
Guest
Fair enough you can have your views in relation to Pat Howard's resume. But your comment "He’s CEO of his Daddy’s company" destroys your credibility. Pat Howard is the CEO of MPower MSL which literally has no connection to his father Jake Howard who was a great man both on and off the rugby field. Before you open your ignorant mouth do some research. https://web.archive.org/web/20151222074403/http://aru.rugby.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/1699/ArticleID/17177/Vale-Jake-Howard.aspx
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Rugby has been in decline here for close to two decades and you're pinning a lot of it on 2 people who have been around for 6 and 18 months?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Well Castle never appointed Cheika as one. She inherited him. So that's pretty arm's length. At least 3 more of the 9 board members commenced after he was re-signed also. So they inherited him too. As for the remainder of the board. They need to be accountable to the following types of questions: - Was Cheika the best available candidate at the time? Given he had just coached Australia to a RWC final, and most international coaches were already appointed to the RWC, then pretty close. Only Jake White was a good quality alternative. In the same period he certainly fell out at Montpellier though. - Was a 4 year contract tenure unusual? At the same time Hansen was appointed for four years. Warren Gatland was signed to the end of 2019 in December 2013. Joe Scmidt was signed to the end of 2019 in October 2016. England appointed Jones to a 4 year deal in 2015. - Was the salary reasonable? We can’t comment for certain. Reports suggest Jones is on 750,000 GBP, Gatland 450,000 GBP. Joe Schmidt is on a package worth up to 850,000 EU a year with all potential bonuses. So the market for tier 1 international coaches is high. - Where there good alternatives? It’s a pretty competitive market. When Cheika was first appointed, Jake White was available. However when he was re-signed White was at Montpellier for at least another year. He also then left on bad terms. - Was Cheika the best available candidate at the time? Given he had just coached Australia to a RWC final, and most international coaches were already appointed to the RWC, then pretty close. Only Jake White was a good quality alternative. In the same period he certainly fell out at Montpellier though. Vern Cotter is also apparently on 3M EU at Montpellier now. Aus Rugby could not afford to pay that for a coach that has achieved less than Cheika though. - Should they have included KPI’s or Options? Sure. But if I am Michael Cheika, why do I want to sign a contract that locks me in for 4 years, but can see me sacked in 2? I’m no better off than a 2 year contract. Worse off in fact. If I do well, in 2 I’ll be worth more but I’m locked in for less. If I don’t i’m out on my behind anyway. All downside. Which is why we don't hear too much of pro coaches being signed up to these. The fact is some decisions don't work out and plenty who want to criticise this for not working out were yelling to throw the chequebook at him at the time. Had Cheika been a disaster and they looked to change nothing that's surely a management failure. But they've looked to try and change the structure of the set up to bring in some accountability (by having to report/justify to somebody rather than being a law unto themself). I can only hope Johnson is to have more control over ensuring there are quality assistants, not yes men too.
WayneS
Roar Rookie
Whilst Johnson is involved, the review is worthless and until Castle, Clyne and the Board are replaced Rugby is a dead duck.