Scott Wisemantel’s announcement as Wallabies attack coach is expected to be little more than a formality, and it’s now emerged that another one of the men Rugby Australia are eyeing off to work under Dave Rennie, Matt Taylor, is close to joining the new set-up.
Rugby AU director of rugby Scott Johnson admitted last week he was looking at Taylor, as well as Wisemantel, as a potential assistant to bring on for 2020. That’s now looking more and more likely to happen, with reports emerging on Wednesday that the former Queensland defence coach is closing in on a return to Australia as national defence coach.
Taylor has been coaching in Scotland since 2012, with the Glasgow Warriors up until 2017 – when Dave Rennie joined the side as head coach – and the national team as a defence/assistant coach for the entire stint.
Another former Reds assistant, Nick Stiles, is also firmly in the mix to join Rennie’s new staff as forwards coach.
Stiles, who unlike Taylor had a stint as Queensland head coach, appears likely to return home from his current position in charge of the Kintetsu Liners – the Japanese club with the likes of Quade Cooper and Will Genia on their roster.
However, the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting Rennie may opt to bring in a fellow New Zealander as forwards coach rather than Stiles, and instead have the Queenslander come back to Australia in a different role.
The Herald is also reporting Chris Webb, who worked with Jamie Joseph in the Japanese high performance unit prior to the recent World Cup, could be a part of the new Wallabies set-up.
With the new faces set to link up with Rennie, Nathan Grey (defence), Shaun Berne (attack/backs) and Simon Raiwalui (forwards) – the Australian assistants in place when Michael Cheika announced his resignation – as well as team manager Pat Molihan, are all headed for the Wallabies exit, although some may remain involved in Australian rugby in different roles.
Gigs20
Guest
They are already permitted to select force players for the wallabies. In my opinion, they don't for fear they will look comfortable at that level, thus making it harder to say the force are a low quality side playing in an inferior competition. It's good to see a whole slew of measures in place to improve high performance before any findings are released from the review of the wallabies season. It shows the absolute commitment to consistency in solutions by management. (ie convene an expensive and pointless review panel as a smoke screen whilst doing whatever the hell you want without investigation)
Malo
Guest
Have to get Twiggy to pay for it all, RA is going bust.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
When the Reds won the title they had one of the worst scrums. Last game of the year in 2014 Reds tore apart the Waratahs scrum and line out. Waratahs went on to win the title.
Gilbert
Roar Rookie
Set piece and scoreboard go hand in hand. I must’ve watched a different reds team under Stiles.
Tooly
Roar Rookie
As an attack coach watch Peter Hewat at the Brumbies this year, and Brad Thorne with the Reds forwards.
Tooly
Roar Rookie
I must have missed something with Stiles .
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12288351&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utmc_campaign=nzh_fb People in NZ now calling the NZRU process a sham. Can’t wait for all those criticising RA saying they should have followed a transparent process like NZ, to admit how wrong they were...
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Actually a decent pack is not necessary. Stiles record as head coach is irrelevant. We are talking about specialist coaching. Also they were known for excellent set piece under him.
Gilbert
Roar Rookie
A decent fwd pack can win super rugby comp. Stiles had a dismal record at the reds. They were not known for their fwd play under his coaching.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
You’re just obfuscating now though. The fact you make an initial claim that you’re unwilling to back up by stating you’d ever take a prop off says basically all we need to know. You think a prop is so integral to a match that you’d never choose to take one off.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
No my claim is flankers have. A prop can. They just haven’t. Hard to have the attributes to be as rounded and good at core roles. A bad prop can definitely be more of a liability.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
So in theory a particular flanker could have more influence than a particular prop. That’s different to your initial claim of a flanker being able to have more influence on a game than a prop. Because anything than a flanker does can be done by another player. I’d add that in this particular instance, Hooper is not as well rounded in his game than the best 7s in the world. Too short to jump in the line out the way that even a Warburton did, not the threat at the breakdown that a McCaw or a Smith was either. So, would you ever take a tight head off? If it’s true that they can’t influence a game as much surely it’s an easy answer.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
You’ve never been able to go to soft scrums with a prop available on the bench. A tight head may be able to have great influence on a game. But in reality the best back towers have had more of an influence because many have been good line out jumpers, high work rate defenders and great attacking players, and not many tightness props have been as rounded.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
As I understand it, that hasn’t always been the rule. I think you’re being flippant because your set piece justification for a lock applies equally to a prop. So, if you were a coach and had to take a player off and go down to 14 men with significant time left on the clock. Would you ever choose to take off a prop? Because the old adage that your tight head and reserve tight head are the two most important players on the field may not be true, but I don’t many would agree with you that a tight head has less influence on a game than a flanker based purely on the general characteristics of their position.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
How am I? You aren’t allowed to play down a prop if you make a change due to a card though. That’s the rule. It’s not flippant to say it’s not a choice. You are only allowed to make it for safety reasons. So a prop has to replace a non front row position. It’s unlikely to be a lock because with your set piece down a man, you are unlikely to replace a more integral part.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
I think you’re being a bit flippant - I’ve never seen a lock taken off either. Flankers are often taken off before backs even (eg Kaino in the second Lions test). As a hooker, if you were allowed to, would you choose to play down a prop if you were a coach that had to take off a player and if you had significant minutes left on the clock?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
That’s because you can’t play a prop or hooker down...
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
But going back to cost being a factor when determining the wisdom of long contracts. How much is Petaia on? I can’t imagine it is very much, relatively speaking.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
Yet weirdly flankers are often the forwards that come off when someone is replaced after a card. I’ve never seen a prop replaced mid game. Also, anything that a flanker does can be done by anyone else in the team. Not so with props. Seems a weird claim that props have less influence on a game than a 7 due to the inherent na to re of their position. Partially also due to the fact that the Waratahs have had a few talented players, but no one vaguely in Hooper’s class. Was harder for Carter and McCaw to be the best player in the Crusaders than for Hooper to be the best in the Tahs because both of them were there.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Thanks for doing the leg work Pete, exactly what I was hoping to hear.