Barry – look forward to your next article!

jeznez – no arguments from me on your thoughts – however until and unless arrangements such as those you propose are actually in place, I would suggest that we can at least start with my proposed competition as it would seem to me that all that is required to implement is within the control of RA and its stakeholders.

Rocky
Your comments about #5 and #13 is correct – my error, must do better next time.
Your question as to what I propose to do about it is comments about fans needing to “become an irresistible team of change agents” is simple – I have not focused on that issue (as yet) because the focus of my article was on performance issues.
That said I do believe that the proposed series provides an opportunity for some creative ideas to be introduced / trialed. For example some ideas surrounding “Crowdsourced Tactics and Strategies:
1) RA to establish an online platform where fans can contribute their tactical insights, strategies, and game plans. While not every suggestion may be practical, this approach harnesses the collective wisdom of the fan-base and could offer fresh perspectives that traditional coaching staff might overlook.
2) RA to establish an online platform where fans can lodge predictions covering game results and player stats. To enable this participation, the platform which is populated with the key team and player stats immediately after each game. The fans(s) with the closest prediction receive free family passes to Super and / or Wallaby games and / or spend a day with the Wallabies or Super team of their choosing.
Reference your comment about the Brumbies. I understand the sentiment but whether it be the Brumbies or any other team, such an approach does not / cannot provide the benefits of each Super team in turn playing against the composite team selected by the Wallaby coach.
More specifically, with very few exceptions, each Super team understands the game management and tactical approach of each other team. This would not apply to playing against a composite team coached by the incoming Wallaby coach who can reasonably be expected to bring a whole lot of different thinking to such matters.
These considerations will in and of themselves assist in addressing the lack of adaptability to different opposition game plans and playing styles and provide real-time necessity for players to improve their situational awareness – especially under the pressure plating for or against the Wallaby coach would bring to the table!
Finally, it would be reasonable to conclude that because it will comprise the ‘best players’ from the other 4 Super teams the composite team should have the firepower to dispatch any of the individual Super teams they play – the question is more likely will they!

ScottD

For what it is worth, I couldn’t agree more with the sentiments expressed

LuckyPhil – thanks for the contribution.
Referring to your last sentence, the numbers quoted are around the mark – it is possible that some players maybe selected 4 times and will of course play for the own Super team.
I would suggest it would be reasonable to expect these games to be more likely address the issues identified in my article as the 5 game series where each of the Super Rugby teams in turn would play against a team comprising the best players from the other 4 teams – all who have extra motivation to perform as they have been selected and are playing fro the Wallaby coach – and possibly for a Wallaby selection!
In theory, the composite team should defeat every the Super team – but will they in practice!
I would also add that such a competition would enable the incoming Head coach to familiarize himself with strengths and weaknesses of the wider elite player group and how they cope under pressure against settled teams with established match strategies.

Harry -IMO you just wrote the definite guide for the future coaching pathway, and effectively put a full stop under the Eddie / Hamish period: enough is enough, everything that has been said about this micro period of our rugby history has now been said.

I would submit that your bullet point summary is indeed an effective template for the decision makers tasked with selection of the future Director of Rugby and coaching team. In that context, thoughtful articles such as this one clearly demonstrate that RA would be well advised to give positive consideration to the expressed knowledge provided from the wider rugby community.

That said, I would suggest that now is the time to move on confident in the fact that the disease has been excised but recognizing that the patient now needs a time of rehabilitation to fully recover from the impact of experience.

I believe that the patient will emerge from rehab stronger from the experience and as a rugby community, we should embrace the opportunity presented from the ‘near death’ experience.

I would raise a caveat however, a positive future cannot be assured if the actions and behaviors of the ‘new’ RA leadership have failed to learn the lessons and apply the SMART principle (Specific, Measurable, Agreed (or Achievable), Realistic, and Time Bound (or timely) to potential solutions and actions.

The SMART principle is a widely accepted international principle when establishing a program of change and as such, RA would be well advised to consider such an approach to manage and implement the range of changes they will, by necessity have to introduce going forward.

As a left field observation, in the corporate world one of the most powerful executives is often the executive with corporate responsibility for capturing and leveraging corporate knowledge – sometimes such a person has a title such as Chief Knowledge Officer.

I wonder who within RA has such a responsibility? I raise this point as we seem to have lost rugby administrative and player development knowledge over time.

The adults in the room have spoken – IMO their words resonate with the vast majority of rugby fans, but does so in a clear, professional and considered manner!

Well done to those behind this action.

Thanks Christie – it would be remiss not to state an obvious and major problem with RA’s current approach.
In my experience, no organization who have experienced the performance shortcoming that RA have been responsible for would unilaterally decide on what measures are required to turn the performance around without first having the benefit of considering the findings and associated recommendations from a dedicated, appropriately scoped performance review conducted by a team of independent, suitably qualified and experienced individuals.
I would acknowledge that RA have indeed commissioned a form of such a review and I believe the RA appointed individuals are good people who will do their best notwithstanding being hamstrung by a flawed scope for the review. That said, I sincerely hope the team appointed produce a sound report supported by objective evidence and / or good analysis.
From what we know of RAs future strategies (centralization and structure), the underpinning details do not appear to have been worked out yet – if true, this would then lead to the conclusion that RA is operating in panic mode and in the false premise that action, any action, represents the correct approach.
As former mentor said to me when the exec team questioned him why he was delaying making a business critical decision: “I will wait as long as is necessary for me in order to gain as much information as possible such that the decision I make is informed by as much knowledge as is possible”

Outstanding assessment of the game in Australia Geoff – perhaps next time, don’t hold back………..
Reference the Chair, Board and Wallaby coach – some food for thought:
1 – The Chair can only be appointed to a single 4 year period aligned with the World Cup cycle.
2 – 50% of RA Directors are to step down at the completion of a World Cup cycle leaving 50% for ‘continuity’.
3 – All Directors are limited to serve 8 years or 2 World Cup cycles.
4 – The Wallaby coach be engaged for a single World Cup cycle and can be re-appointed for a further World Cup cycle(s) if his performance justifies it.
Thanks for your ongoing contribution which is much appreciated

“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!

Jim – The simple proposal set out by Nothipwell about a 5 round series for each Super Club playing a game against a team selected by the incoming Wallaby coach’s team selected from all the other 4 Super Clubs would have resonate with those who love rugby.
This proposal would tick a lot of boxes for all stakeholders – RA (extra revenue), STAN (extra content – perhaps a mid week scheduling), the incoming Wallaby coach (has opportunity to mix&match elite players in a structured way), the Super coaches and players (they get to showcase the skills to the Wallaby coach) and us the fans (as the matches will provide additional elite level competition, interest and viewing).
That said, I would think that the Roar experts and commentators would have access to Justin………..
would seem to be totally within RA ball park with no connection to Super Rugby – so it is doable in short timefram.
I would think that Justine Harrison is the conduit for this 5 game series to be put before the decision makers at RA, STAN, Players and club Administrators.
I say that as Justin has just been appointed to the Independent Review Panel by RA, is in charge of the players union, is a broadcaster with STAN and has just witnessed 1st hand the depths that the Wallabies have sunk.