Pushing half stories?

“We got battered in quarter finals in 2007 too.” We were beaten 12 v 10 by England in 2007. In the 2019 QF it was 40 v 16. A side packed full of experience and captained by Michael Hooper.

“To sell the agenda Eddie wasn’t the biggest failure the wallabies have had as the coach in the professional era”

I think Eddie’s second stint was equal biggest failure, (comparable with Greg Smith). Nowhere have I said he was a success.

What I have repeatedly done is cautioned against focussing on Eddie or pretending that everything was even above mediocre before he came along.

I think certain people have s real hard on for him because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling of comfort. Reinforces ideas that now he’s gone (with McLennan) the game will be ok.

I think that is simple minds stuff and it’s a recipe for disaster- one the Lions and RWC pass us by, that’s a generational opportunity to fix things. Come 2035-2040 the professional game won’t exist here unless it’s fixed now.

Suddenly worse under Eddie?

– no Bledisloe in 23 years.
– battered in the 2019 QF
– lost home seriesvEngland 22
– ranked 6th December 2022
– most penalised Tier 1 2022
– most carded Tier 1 2022
– no super title since 2015
– 3 super titles this century
– 5% super win rate v NZ

Numerous good coaches have been crucified on the alter of Aussie Rugby at both provincial and national level because administrators and fans find that easy to do.

It was the same on these pages when McKenzie, Deans and Cheika were roasted. Except people are just enjoying roasting Eddie a bit more because he is unlikeable.

Hallelujah.

A very big difference between ‘defending Eddie’ and pointing out that really nothing is solved even after he’s gone.

There’s a difference between ‘defending Eddie’ and pointing out that him leaving solves nothing. As someone said above, it’s just a short term kick for simple minds.

Agree with you on all of that. My point is that I don’t think Eddie Jones’ role was as crucial as people want to believe.
Australian Rugby is the 5th (maybe 6th) sport in the nation. The world has blown past us. The closest comparison market to us is Ireland where ironically the best Australian rugby minds have been running the show yet very few want to come home. Why?

Italy being a very significant moment is definitely a fair call.
Ironically, it was Donaldson who Jones rated so highly who Rennie threw to the wolves that day. But there were a lot of monumental blunders by Rennie on that tour – subbing Foley when he was on fire against the French for one.
We also had severe discipline issues under Rennie- there was the Raynalt fiasco against NZ, Swain’s brain snaps against both England and NZ, the card against Ireland that may well have crossed the game. Wallabies were the most penalised Tier 1 Nation in 2022.

Rennie was a good man, just like Deans and McKenzie. Eddie is a shit of a bloke. None of them are bad coaches, Australian rugby is miles behind the 8 ball in terms of streamlining and becoming lean and mean.

A crucial fraction…
Crucial to what. Genuinely, he could have started Foley or Cooper at 10 along with Michael Hooper at 7 and we probably would have beaten Fiji before getting pasted by England in a QF.
In 2007 we were out in a QF. In 2011 the Boks very nearly got us but we made a SF. In 2015, every Scotsman in the world will rightly talk about what was a wrong refereeing decision in the QF. In 2019, England obliterated us in the QF.
And that’s before 22 years of losing the Bledisloe, 3 super rugby titles since the turn of the century, none since 2015. The Kiwi provincial sides winning 95% of games against us.
So Jones was crucial to what exactly?

I think he understood it.
But I think McLennan and Waugh made promises that weren’t their’s to make regarding centralisation, private equity and access to funds.
People forget that Nucifora has ruled himself out of working in Australia again because he doesn’t think the problems can be fixed. Rob Kearney spent a season with the force and went back to Ireland telling everyone how poor coaching, training and resources were.
Again, knocked out in the QF in 2019, very lucky to not be in 2011 and 2015, lost a QF in 2007.
Everyone can see the problem. It’s how to fix it that divides people.

Go back 10 years and word for word almost, that’s what people said about Dingo Deans re selection and game plan (not a BS artist but couldn’t discipline JOC, Beale and Cooper).
Go back 5 years and that’s what people said about Cheika after the QF loss in 2019. Poor selections, naive game plan, arrogant etc.
Go back even 18 months, despite the revisionist history, people were even saying that about Rennie – poor selection, game plan that didn’t suit the cattle, too many young blokes getting opportunities they weren’t ready for etc.
If this was a simple ‘Eddie is gone, without him we’d have made the final 2 or 4 in the world cup’, why is it that we’ve won 2 Super Rugby titles in 15 years? Why is Marky Mark taking off to league? Why have the Wallabies not won a Bledisloe in 22 years? Why have players like Bell come out and spoken glowingly of him (they didn’t have to)?
Eddie was arrogant and punchy which is exactly who Eddie is. The opposite of McKenzie, Deans and Rennie who all have class and humility. Problem is, the results weren’t much different.

No but I think many are in denial about why it’s so popular and what needs to be done to address it.

The idea that we can go back to 3 Super sides, fed by a dozen private schools and compete on the world stage is madness in the extreme. The idea that we can do the same with 5 sides who all have different priorities and commercial strategies isn’t far behind.

Eddie is an easy target because he’s Eddie, arrogant and outspoken. An unpopular opinion but accurate.
Losing both Skelton and Tupou before that game was the number 1 reason they lost it. Yes, had say Cooper or Foley played they probably would have beaten Fiji and then been roundly defeated by England in a QF.
It would have been 2019 all over again and even less reason for the games administrators to pull their finger out.
Yeah he blew millions on support staff but England and South Africa do the same. Bottom line is that we don’t have the cattle to make it out of QFs. Was that way in 2019 and every Scotsman will tell you it should have been that way in 2015.

If Eddie wanted to go to Japan, why did he sign a 5 year deal?
Fact is he arrived and found a situation that was untenable and not consistent with what was outlined to him. If it’s true he interviewed with Japan before the RWC that is classless and arrogant but it is Eddie all over. That said, it’s best for everyone that he’s moved on quickly.
It is an absolute mistake that so much focus has been on Eddie after the debacle in France. He was 20% of the problem at best: 50% with the administrators at both state and national level.
Listen to Nawaqanitawase today! “To play for a club like the Roosters was an opportunity I couldn’t turn down.” There was no “a once in a generation opportunity to play in a lions series for my country” etc.
League has captured the hearts and minds of too many. It’s better run at state and national level, a better spectacle, easier to learn and most kids would rather play in an NRL GF or State of Origin than in a Bledisloe or Lions series. Sad facts that too many are in denial over.

It’s a simplistic comment though.

You might have a form 9 or 10 all through Super Rugby who aren’t as good at test level because they don’t have the experience.

Form players need opportunities. Depth has to be built. Experienced players have to be dropped when they’ve gone a whole season of Super Rugby being off the pace.

Complex set of considerations.

In all honesty I would put 20% on Eddie and McLennan for not keeping a steady ship. I think Foley or Cooper probably would have got us to a QF against England by beating Fiji but no further.

The remainder:
– 25% on the injuries to AAA, Tupou, Skelton and Ikitau.
– 50% on Australian rugby’s (including all the states) inability to grasp the nettle and deal with grass roots, pathways and elite performance structures.
– 5% the top 4 just miles better than we were regardless of who was head coach or chairman.

The thing is, it’s very easy to focus on Eddie. It’s much more difficult to deal with the major problem.

Doesn’t fit the narrative though does it?

Pretty revealing that several big name players have come out and said much more than they needed to in support of Eddie.

It’s sad that the post-mortem has so far been dominated by whether the RWC failure was 90% Eddie’s fault or 100%.

The players know there is much more to it and has been for a decade or more.

There’s a pattern there though isn’t there?

All our coaches, most of our 10s all need ‘an extra couple of years.’

Absolute failure in process stemming from a lack of cooperation between the states and national body.

Thinking out loud but I’d quite like to see Lolesio, Gordon, Ikitau at 10/12/13 for a few games.

Lolesio is an excellent place kicker. His main deficiency in my opinion is standing too deep and not attacking the line. Gordon stands flatter and they could alternate at first receiver.

With big ball carriers like say Nawaqanitawase and Sua’ali’i in the side with a quick winger like say Toole… some damage could be done.

A little like the Lynagh, Horan, Little access of yester year that unleashed players like Carozza, Campo, Burke, Latham, Roff and Tune

Your words:

“I think you might be grossly over reacting. If there is an increase on off loads in contact that is going to hugely benefit the spectacle. There are always gloom and doom merchants when the law changes. The majority tend to be unfounded.”

Not exactly conducive to opening up the conversation or respecting those with other well founded views….

There are always people who try to shut down conversations that are important with law changes.

Just in case you missed it a study undertaken by Bath University that highlights the danger to tacklers… not ‘unfounded’ at all…

Objectives Most concussions in rugby union occur during tackles. We investigated whether legislation to lower maximum tackle height would change tackle behaviour, and reduce concussion incidence rate.

Methods In an observational evaluation using a prospective cohort design, 12 elite men’s teams played in two competitions during the 2018/2019 season. The Championship (90 games) retained standard Laws of Rugby for the tackle; the Championship Cup (36 games) used revised laws—the maximum tackle height was lowered from the line of the shoulders on the ball carrier to the line of the armpits. Videos of tackles were analysed for ball carrier and tackler behaviour. Injury data were collected using standardised methods.

Results In the lowered tackle height setting, there was a significantly lower proportion of tackles; (1) in which ball carriers (rate ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86) and tacklers (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) were upright, (2) in which the tackler’s initial contact was to the ball carrier’s head or neck (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84) and (3) in which initial contact was above the line of the ball carrier’s armpit (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.88). Concussion incidence rate did not differ between conditions (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.01). Unexpectedly, compared with the standard tackle height setting, tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting were themselves concussed at a higher rate as measured by; (1) incidence (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.45) and (2) concussions per 1000 tackles (2.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.80).

Conclusions Legislating to lower the height of the tackle meant that tacklers made contact with the ball carrier’s head and neck 30% less often. This did not influence concussion incidence rates. Tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the standard tackle height setting.

Only study I’m aware of at the professional level established concussions decreased among the tackled and increased among the tacklers:

Objectives Most concussions in rugby union occur during tackles. We investigated whether legislation to lower maximum tackle height would change tackle behaviour, and reduce concussion incidence rate.

Methods In an observational evaluation using a prospective cohort design, 12 elite men’s teams played in two competitions during the 2018/2019 season. The Championship (90 games) retained standard Laws of Rugby for the tackle; the Championship Cup (36 games) used revised laws—the maximum tackle height was lowered from the line of the shoulders on the ball carrier to the line of the armpits. Videos of tackles were analysed for ball carrier and tackler behaviour. Injury data were collected using standardised methods.

Results In the lowered tackle height setting, there was a significantly lower proportion of tackles; (1) in which ball carriers (rate ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86) and tacklers (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) were upright, (2) in which the tackler’s initial contact was to the ball carrier’s head or neck (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84) and (3) in which initial contact was above the line of the ball carrier’s armpit (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.88). Concussion incidence rate did not differ between conditions (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.01). Unexpectedly, compared with the standard tackle height setting, tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting were themselves concussed at a higher rate as measured by; (1) incidence (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.45) and (2) concussions per 1000 tackles (2.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.80).

Conclusions Legislating to lower the height of the tackle meant that tacklers made contact with the ball carrier’s head and neck 30% less often. This did not influence concussion incidence rates. Tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the standard tackle height setting.

There is conflicting evidence such as this study undertaken in the English Championship which established the incidence of concussion among tacklers increased:

Objectives Most concussions in rugby union occur during tackles. We investigated whether legislation to lower maximum tackle height would change tackle behaviour, and reduce concussion incidence rate.

Methods In an observational evaluation using a prospective cohort design, 12 elite men’s teams played in two competitions during the 2018/2019 season. The Championship (90 games) retained standard Laws of Rugby for the tackle; the Championship Cup (36 games) used revised laws—the maximum tackle height was lowered from the line of the shoulders on the ball carrier to the line of the armpits. Videos of tackles were analysed for ball carrier and tackler behaviour. Injury data were collected using standardised methods.

Results In the lowered tackle height setting, there was a significantly lower proportion of tackles; (1) in which ball carriers (rate ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86) and tacklers (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) were upright, (2) in which the tackler’s initial contact was to the ball carrier’s head or neck (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84) and (3) in which initial contact was above the line of the ball carrier’s armpit (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.88). Concussion incidence rate did not differ between conditions (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.01). Unexpectedly, compared with the standard tackle height setting, tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting were themselves concussed at a higher rate as measured by; (1) incidence (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.45) and (2) concussions per 1000 tackles (2.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.80).

Conclusions Legislating to lower the height of the tackle meant that tacklers made contact with the ball carrier’s head and neck 30% less often. This did not influence concussion incidence rates. Tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the standard tackle height setting.

It’s pretty compelling circumstantial evidence. McKenzie seemed to only have issues with a certain demographic from a certain franchise…

I think Genia and Cooper as well as Moore were all pretty disappointed by what looked like a coup.

Maybe a book will be written one day.

Yes, that’s my understanding.

Jeff Miller was the common denominator over those 2001-2007 horror story years.

QLD rugby never recovered as it coincided with the Lions winning 3 premierships as well as the Roar and Titans entering the market.

Agree with you Savant- Back to basics.

Personally I think Nucifora and O’Gara but I’m just not sure it is realistic. And if that’s the case Nuci and McKellar or Schmidt and McKellar are possible alternatives.

The one thing I would say, I’m really not sure Australian rugby has the cattle right now to play that style.

Where are the uncompromising Loanes and McCalls, the grinders like Dave Wilson or Peter Slattery, blokes like Topo Rodriquez, McKenzie etc.

Whoever takes over is going to have to evaluate what’s available from u16s to u23s and find players talented enough to plug gaps.

I’m not suggesting he should come back! I think he had a very bad fall anyway and must be close to 80.

I am saying that the rot set in around the time he was pushed out of Australian Rugby and the ‘resignation’ of McKenzie was awful- he was pushed and white anted.