An open letter to the Wallabies' captains

I am sure you can appreciate that the timing of your letter asking the current RA administration to stand aside will arouse cynicism in some sections of the rugby community.

There are at least five reasons for this. First, you talk about RA having lost its way in recent times. Do you mean since 2003 when the Australian Rugby Union as it was then was in a great financial position?

Do you mean the Bill Pulver reign, notable for its head-scratching decision to adopt the neglect of grassroots rugby as an affirmative policy? Did you propose coups during those periods?

Second, you might have also noticed that News Corp via Fox has not taken kindly to Raelene Castle having the temerity to open up the bidding process as part of an attempt to broaden rugby union’s audience? News and Fox have responded with a not-so-subtle attempt to remove Castle.

Third, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, people have lost or are losing their jobs. In that context, don’t you think it’s a bit tone deaf to be playing out boardroom battles in public? If you really are altruistic, why publicise the coup?

The perception will be that rugby’s blazer brigade wants one last jolly in the form of a good old boardroom takeover.

Fourth, you all played to the whistle on the field, why not off the field too? Elections for the CEO role have been held in which your presumptive nominee Phil Kearns and Raelene Castle were both candidates.

(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)

The board considered their experience and their visions and awarded the role to Castle. I’m just a rugby tragic, I know nothing about sports administration, but the board were the ones who actually eyeballed Kearns and Castle. Why should your judgment be substituted for the judgment of the board that actually heard the evidence?

If you set this precedent, what’s to stop the next coup? Doesn’t everyone need to take a deep breath and pull their heads in?

Fifth, and finally, it looks as though Rugby Australia will receive some interim financial support. In the context of the lengthy campaign to remove Castle that has been carried out by News and Fox, is it just a coincidence that your letter is being leaked after the likelihood of funding emerged?

Assuming that your call for the current administration to stand aside is purely altruistic, which is appropriate since there are 11 of you and because of who you are, then please enlighten us as to how it is in the best interests of Australian rugby to replace the current administration right now, or indeed, at any time before Dave Rennie is bedded in and a new media deal is negotiated?

You might have heard that RA is in a financial hole. You might also have heard that the highly respected coach Dave Rennie has indicated that he would have second thoughts about joining the Wallabies if Castle was removed because he was impressed by her and the diligence with which she set about securing his appointment.

So who among you is going to pay out the contracts of Castle and the rest of the board? I am sure you agree that whatever funding is secured from World Rugby or government must be ring-fenced for the future of the game.

That being the case, which one of you, or which combination, or which third-party is going to indemnify RA against the costs associated with the removal of the current board. You’re not seriously suggesting that they forfeit their contractual entitlements, are you?

While you’re at it, who is going to pay for the new world-class coaching group? As I am sure you appreciate, rugby union in Australia doesn’t have the luxury of playing a long game. In order to survive, it needs short-term success at the Wallabies level.

For the first time in a long time, the Wallabies have the makings of a world-class coaching team. Castle should be given credit for that and it is one of the few management actions that she did not inherit. Given the need for short-term success, why would you do anything to jeopardise that set-up?

(Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)

And if you proceed, who are the world-calibre coaches that you have lined up to replace the incumbent group? Is it Alan Jones? Sorry, that was a joke.

The constant sniping in Australian rugby union – the seeming death wish that it has – amuses a lot of rugby folk around the world. Putting Alan Jones with the current Wallabies squad would elevate rugby politics in Australia from being embarrassing to vaudeville.

But seriously, in the interests of transparency and altruism, are you prepared to put your money where your keyboards and mouths are and guarantee a fund that would cover all the costs associated with your coup, without using a cent of any future loans from World Rugby? And to identify the coach or coaches who would replace the current team in they event that they decide that rugby in Australia is just too much of a basket case, and the fund that would pay for the new coach and coaches? And to identify the fund that will pay for the new incoming board? Who exactly are the current board standing aside for?

You have asked RA to make its finances publicly available. To what end? Are you in any doubt that the financial position is horrible? Does the AFL and NRL open up their books to the public? We can understand why public disclosure would suit Fox’s agenda but if this is a competition about ideas for the vision of the game, how is the historical financial position relevant to your future vision?

Stephen Moore was one of 11 ex-Wallabies captains to sign the controversial letter. (AAP Image/Joel Carrett)

On the subject of transparency, and so that we can be sure of your altruism, can you disclose the previous occasions in which you have approached the current administration with practical suggestions on how to improve the game? Because if that were the case, and if it were the case that your attempts were rebuffed, then that might explain why you have resorted to airing dirty linen in public. But if it’s not the case, then why shouldn’t the five timing issues raised at the outset stick to all 11 of you?

Continuing on with the transparency theme, what are the practical ideas that you have to improve the game? Tim Horan has a five-point plan. The campaign to undermine Castle has been playing out for a while giving you plenty of time to formulate plans: what are they?

Here are a few ideas to get things started.

It’s all about the Wallabies, stupid!
The state teams don’t get invited to the World Cup. Or the Olympics. They are not the drawcards for visiting teams and they don’t get invited to tour the northern hemisphere.

For the big sporting occasions, the only brand that matters is the Wallabies. Everything in the game, from the schools and grassroots rugby all the way to the Wallabies, needs to be developed with the single overriding goal of optimising the performance of the Wallabies.

It’s better than it was in the sense that there seems be a more centralised and coordinated approach to rugby IP but rugby’s federal structure still leaves a lot to be desired. How is it in the Wallabies’ best interests that the Reds have four talented locks and the Waratahs have one?

In a country where previous embarrassments should mean that the two most important positions in any squad are tighthead and reserve tighthead, how is it even possible that the Waratahs were allowed to start the season without at least one adequate tighthead (not a knock on Rob Penney, who has inherited a mess)?

Is all the rugby IP, including tactics and athletic performance, available to the Wallabies being disseminated to the provinces? Are all the coaches at Wallabies plus provincial and under-23s stakeholders in the vision for Australian rugby? Are they working on breaking down the desired game plan into its constituent elements and brainstorming around creating the most challenging game simulations to test those elements under pressure?

Is there a process for ensuring that the best coaching talent is retained in Australia, such as club and NRC success leading to involvement in under-23s leading to involvement in the provinces leading to involvement in the Wallabies? A focus on using Super Rugby to get the best out of New Zealand’s playing stocks for the overriding goal of giving the All Blacks the best available squad hasn’t impeded New Zealand’s provinces. So what are we waiting for?

Speaking of the Crusaders, the Reds should be the blueprint for reviving rugby’s fortunes
Brad Thorn and the Reds have cracked it. It doesn’t surprise me that the provincial coach most steeped in the culture of humility that the Crusaders personify has the best community outreach and hence the best crowd numbers.

Did you follow all the community outreach work that the Reds did in the pre-season? It also inculcates a great culture because spending time in the community makes the players appreciate what a privilege it is to represent their state.

I have no doubt that the Reds will be the best performed province over the next two or three years, assuming the in-fighting hasn’t killed off rugby before then. What Brad Thorn has done needs to be plagiarised by the other provinces.

(AAP Image/Darren England)

Reviving fortunes should also be based on instilling adequate skills
I remember thinking that Simon Cron was a great acquisition to the coaching ranks. But there was one instance when he defended Nick Phipps where he lost me. He defended the criticism aimed at Nick Phipps’ wayward passing on the basis that Phipps was a good bloke. I thought that defence missed the point.

When the rugby-supporting public go to a game they are giving up their hard-earned money and their time. Of course, they want success. Everyone likes seeing their team win. But they would be prepared to forgive a lack of success if they weren’t confronted with a litany of skill errors.

Picture this. Punter sits down for kick-off. Five-eighth kicks out on the full. No pressure, no fatigue: just a stone-cold skill error. For someone who has just paid good money and given up time to watch professional sportsmen on great money, that kind of skill error is a slap in the face.

Designated broken-field kicker can’t find touch. Whack! Designated goal-kicker can’t get it between the posts. Thwack! Hooker misses his targets. Bam! You get the idea.

Going to a game is like watching black-and-white Batman, where the punter gets smacked around. Bottom line: find guys that can perform the core skills under pressure and focus all your rugby intellect on creating scenarios that test such skills under pressure, and the rugby public might forgive a lack of success. Of course, if you improve skills and the fitness necessary to ensure the reproduction of skills under pressure, then the success will surely follow.

Preserving some form of the NRC
Tribalism is important. Having an intermediate level between club and Super Rugby is even more important. Combining the two is not easy, but how about this.

Each year there is a televised free-to-air tournament involving a team from Fiji, a team from Canberra, a team from Melbourne, and the top three teams in the Sydney and Brisbane competitions. In the case of the top three teams, they get to draft players from the rest of the Sydney or Brisbane competition in a way that is designed to ensure that the best rugby talent in the country not occupied with Wallabies duties is playing in the NRC. Tribalism is preserved, but its appeal is broadened.

(Photo by James Worsfold/Getty Images)

Tribalism is just a means to an end – as an end, it is destructive
We get that the NSW versus Queensland hatred is good for attendances and tribalism, but sometimes it goes too far and loses sight of its relevance. It’s great that you bleed blue but NSW doesn’t get invited to the Rugby World Cup. The Reds don’t get invited to the Olympic Sevens.

I don’t know Michael Cheika. I’ve never met the man. I guarantee you that he did not pick his Wallabies’ teams based on a Waratahs bias. You don’t get to achieve the success that he has in business and in rugby coaching without being smart and driven. Do you really think that he comprised his desire to win because of a bias?

Or do you think he did whatever it took to win, not caring at all about the postcodes of his players? These guys are absolutely single-minded in their quest for success. I thought Cheika’s World Cup tactics were hopelessly naive, but the idea that he was influenced in his selections by postcodes is just a projection of parochialism by all of us, not a reflection of reality. Parochialism needs to be put in perspective. It’s all about the Wallabies, stupid.

If it weren’t so serious – the very viability of the game is at stake – this latest outbreak of infighting would be Python-esque funny. Rugby is on its financial knees. It appears to have secured a financial life-line.

Finances aside, it is not without prospects. It has assembled a great coaching group, potentially the best it has ever had. It has a head coach able to combine strong man-management skills – also a skill of Cheika’s – with tactical smarts – not a skill of Cheika’s – and most importantly of all he has a reputation for building great team cultures and community outreach.

He has good existing relationships with the other coaches: Scott Wisemantel, Matt Taylor and Scott Johnson. I can’t think of a group better suited to getting immediate results out of the Wallabies.

And I can’t remember a time when the Wallabies had a more promising bunch of juniors coming through. Seriously, when was the last time we had a balance of potential in the pack across all three rows and four or five promising young five-eighths?

Why would you jeopardise that potential success when the future of the game depends on Wallabies performances over the next 12 months? And why, when the financial life-line is modest, would you insist on a potentially expensive coup?

In all of those circumstances, in order to be taken seriously, don’t you need to set out what your vision for the game is, why the previous board was wrong when it selected Castle over Kearns, the make-up of the replacement administration, how it is that your plans for securing broadcasting rights differ from the current approach, and the funding you have in place to ensure that any and all consequences of your coup do not take up any of the future financial life-line?