Ex-Wallabies and high-performance expert named to review World Cup shocker

the outcomes of which are likely to make for some uncomfortable reading and controversy That is probably what Australian Rugby requires right now ..That the uncomfortable issues should and desparately need to be be raised ..Yes it happens here mostly from the usual crop of rugby tragics but doubt that would be taken seriously by RA who also incidentally have such a credibility crisis that any RA appointed review panel are already facing scepticism before they have even begun . A credibility crisis that had its origins in the handling of the Folau saga and just seemed to get even worse after that..Already some and I’m one of them suspicious that its a PR exercize ..A whitewash …we may of course be wrong but thats more a reflection of where RA stands with not just Australian fans but rugby supporters everywhere who have an interest in Aus Rugby ..So good luck with your endeavours…

“I’ll do it in just 10 minutes for free if you want” – maybe not joke Nuisance. In the background, I’ve been speaking with some of my corporate and consulting mates, all rugby tragics, on how a truly independent ‘performance’ review could be conducted. We believe that we have identified an innovative approach which is increasingly been adopted by expensive consulting firms and corporate executives alike, and which I am now ‘road testing’. As our approach excludes any input from RA we are free to ensure that the objective and scope of our “Stakeholder Review” (that’s us, the wider rugby community who unlike the players’ are without a say in this matter) reflects what is actually required – “warts and all”. With the obvious caveat that we would not have access to RA staff or players, there is no sound reason why our approach to this proposed Stakeholder Review should depart from what is standard practice across Government and Public Sector organizations after a major program / project has been completed – particularly one where the ‘program / project’ that has been such a disaster as the whole 2023 season has been for RA. In that context, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the approach adopted by RA does not appear to be consistent with standard practice. From what we do know, the objective of the review would seem to be limited and the detailed scope of the review is unknown, but given the limited objective, the scope would also seem likely to be limited to what would be expected. It would seem inexplicable that the Board of RA – an organization experiencing deep financial stress, who admit to the World Cup campaign budget being significantly overspent and who are apparently at war with its own key stakeholders (understood to have a specific focus on the Brumbies right now) would exclude detailed examination of their own performance or contribution to the entire 2023 season train wreck. We are currently ‘road-testing’ our approach to ensure / confirm that the findings and recommendations made by such a review would be supportable by objective evidence or data which would in turn be included in the review report. If that is proven, we would have confidence to initiate the Stakeholder Review – the outcomes of which are likely to make for some uncomfortable reading and controversy!

The Wales v Barbarians game was a disappointment. By convention, the Barbarians are supposed to play entertaining rugby. But Eddie Jones made the Barbarians play a scrappy game. The Wales gave a better performance. The Barbarians were not supposed to play for the scoreboard, OK to lose and a bonus if it is a win, if we are given a performance that can be described as “ entertaining”. No it wasn’t at all. The way the Barbarians played reminiscent of how the Wallabies played during the RWC, and the score line reflected that. The same losing style with Eddie Jone’s markings on it. It is evident Eddie Jones as coach for the Barbarians still want to prove that possession rugby is dead. He is wrong again. The Barbarians’ game became scrappy because it would appear Eddie Jones wanted to have a win n extremely badly after his disastrous performance with the Wallabies and he wanted to use this game if he gets a win to give the middle finger at his critics. Instead his middle finger pointed back at him. He lost. And also this referee does not understand the spirit of this game. This yellow card for minor offences ( might be relevant in a Test game ) is way overboard. He should just call a penalty kick offence instead of a yellow card, unless it is dangerous play. Wasn’t the referee being told before the game what the intent of this game is all about? It is for fans and supporters to watch entertaining rugby after the high tension games during RWC. Eddie Jones as coach of the Barbarians and having this referee overseeing this game really spoilt the spirit of the game. One has a personal agenda and the other clueless.

Ta.

Thanks Mike. Can you see my response to Lucky Phil’s comment. Roff has a ceremonial role only, a throwback acknowledgement to the previous ARU amateur structure. I have not heard anything sensible come out of Waugh’s mouth and doubt that he or Herbert make much effective contribution. Their presence also enables the board to keep all of their high performance rugby ruminations within their four walls, even though I would not think they are the finest rugby brains in the country. Having said that Herbert has spent a lot of time in the Brisbane club system and he might well hold views counter to the majority of the board, so we would not hear much from him. Eddie is irrelevant, he took responsibility for failing to turn the team around, and resigned. He also blamed structural failure in the game, but it does not matter whether any of us think the contributing factor was 70%, 80% or 90%, it is the obstacle that must be fixed. I agree nobody understands grass roots (except Herbert, maybe) but everyone is overlooking that RA legal obligation is to look after the entire game, from grassroots to elite. The Constitutional changes ensure that RA cannot be held to account and the only path is liquidation and a new and better structured governing body set up. I wrote an aricle on this about who controls Australian rugby under the account Allan Eskdale. It discusses the issues but there are quite a few different structures proposed in the reader comments. It is also worth skimming through Arbib’s report if you want to see how external consultants can be used by management. Slack and Harrison’s lives are intertwined with rugby and its people, their reputations and integrity are on the line with this review. That is an important point about rugby people. Most want to leave the game in a better place and will feel real pain when it fails. Even if not legally accountable, they are accountable to all of their friends in rugby. These independent directors might not possibly care about the game, or even be solely concerned that their status and reputation is enhanced by their association with it. Like Hamish, they won’t be going down without a fight.

Great and clear response. Thank you.

All of the above LP. Whether ex professional players qualify probably depends on the amount of exposure spent outside the elite bubble. Bear in mind my own view that the designers of the Constitution only intended the provision for the appearance of rugby knowledge. I feel JON coordinated the entire process to deliver a board which would have to rely extensively on him and management for 'rugby knowledge'. Also the 'rugby directors' face the same barriers as any other prospective director. You only get on the board if the other directors want you. Catalysts and boat rockers need not apply.

Morsie, some cultures put respect for others above telling outsiders harsh facts about senior people. It's not about .not. getting truthful answers; it's about getting more complete answers by knowing how to build trust and respect with the people your working with. This isn't that unusual in non-European cultures. E.g. Try asking Eddie's Japanese players and sub-ordinate coaches to tell you all the things they think he got wrong when they we under him and you would have a short and fruitless conversation, despite the fact that they would know some stuff he tried and got wrong along with the successful things he did with them. Indeed, even in the more 'Anglo' part of Australian culture, people are usually less than forthcoming with criticisms of their bosses in formal settings where the answers are getting recorded and might possibly come back to bite them one day. So, while we don't have the same taboos around speaking ill of our leaders, we often refrain from it for our own benefit. This is especially prevalent where people have very limited options for alternative employment - e.g. junior doctors being trained in a specialty by senior doctors, or perhaps elite rugby players hoping to play more matches for their country. . I was actually encouraged that someone at RA had the brains to understand that while Slack and Harrison undoubtedly have extensive rugby knowledge and the outside expert no doubt has knowledge and experience of how high-performance sports management should look, they might need some assistance in getting some of the PI background players to open up about some issues. Given the age differences involved, they may even need some help with the Anglo/Irish background players, too. . Another factor that may have weighed in the appointment of a PI advisor for the committee is that one of the issues that should be broached is what the players thought of Dave Rennie's coaching and his sacking by the RA board, and how they felt about his denigration by RA's Chairman. I wonder whether that may have affected how some players felt about Eddie Jones's appointment and leadership. Answers to those queries would be interesting indeed.

if he didn't support the decisions he could have resigned like Marinos did.

Exactly my point or at least one I'm trying to engage. A review carried out by Justin Harrison for God's sake! The board has Roff, Waugh and Herbert on it. Time to show their worth. But in real terms, looking at our board and I suggest everyone does, I wonder where the diversity is with our directors that understands the failures at grassroots level. Where the grassroots experience is? In rugby league (and AFL) they have absolutely linked with the indigenous communities, with many other cultures and make them showcase of rounds. We still have so few such a ridiculously underrepresented few indigenous players. So yes, I think reviews by former players and friends of a coach is stupid. I don't doubt people will talk tough now Eddie's gone. I don't trust our board to get the grassroots right. I do think a split amateur and professional administration would work best with the amateur CEO having a seat at the professional board too.

Surely you just respond truthfully? Or are there different truths?

The really big question is will they have the guts to report that the appointment of Eddie Jones by the board was ill advised? Following on from that will they have the guts to criticize Jones selection of players and coaches and jones game plans? Will they have the guts to evaluate Rennies tenure and what worked and didn’t? Will they point out the lack of due process in Jones appointment? I doubt it. So my guess is they will focus on the structural issues - retention of school boy talent, path ways, 3rd tier - all of which is important but the elephant in the room will be ignored.

All Australian for sure but some Australians come from different cultures where speaking openly about failures of one's seniors ('higher ups') is not the done thing. Having an advisor to assist the committee on how to appropriately go about asking the hard questions in ways that get to the real issues is a sensible move. For reference, I can tell you that doctors in Queensland are given specific training on how to appropriately interact with indigenous patients because despite our common language there are cultural differences that affect how people respond to questions. This issue seems analogous.

What is the definition of a rugby person? Is it ex-players that have been in the Wallabies or the very least Super Rugby, coaches that have spent the last 30 years training juniors, a mum that has been involved at club level for the 15 years her kids spent growing up, someone that played schoolboy rugby but has followed the game their whole adult life? This then begs the question of do ex-professional players know what is right for grassroots rugby?

Good call. Love him or hate him as a player, Harrison is extremely astute & this is a good move.

Reeks of you know what but in reverse. It shows there is a distinct disconnect among players !

The “performance environment”? Does that mean coaching and selection?

But we don't know what his position was.......... Maybe he supported Rennie.

Why a Pasifika advisor? Surely they're all just Australian..............

He was in the frame though and he had a hand in some other nasties going back to his playing days