Wallabies vs England: Spring Tour rugby live scores, blog

Hi Mick, My apologies when you used the term subordinate coaches I had taken that to mean the coach's subordinates. Whereas apparently you mean everyone but. You may not realise this about Tzu but his work is still cited and used today, even in settings off the battlefield. And the quote is apt to the situation as you have described it. As to liking Micheal Cheika, I've never met him, I don't have the personal depth to the relationship that you do. I'm judging him without the benefit of his friendship and as I said before - the results are on the paddock. If this is the best he can do then it’s time to look elsewhere.

I've summarised clearly enough in my initial post - for clarity though: On "subordinate coaches" you are barking madly up the wrong tree. "subordinate coaches" means junior, junior rep, senior, senior rep, schoolboy, schoolboy rep, club colts and club higher grades during the years of development. Good players pass through many hands en route to legitimate claims for selection. Sun Tzu? The scrum half from Sanyo Wild Knights? I don't know if he ever encountered the unique independent stance of the foot soldier plying his trade in Australian rugby, who often knows much better than the coach and picks and chooses which parts of his plan suits and those parts which don't ... and gets paid the same fine bounty regardless. You clearly do not like Michael Cheika and I do - as a player and captain in the most demanding pack in Australian club rugby at the time, as an achiever with wide vision in business, as a coach here and overseas and as an outstanding figure in an outstanding family. He is much more important to a disheveled Australian rugby than he is given credit for.

"“skill level” is the task of subordinate coaches and the players." Ahh so it's not the fault of the head coach it's the failure of the subordinates. Rightio I'm with you on that one. Gee whiz I do wonder who appoints those subordinate coaches ? And o course it wouldn't be in the remit of a head coach to actually identify any skill deficiencies and develop some form of remediation for said deficiencies. AND when you have players like Beale and Toomua playing well in the UK for their respective teams but making fundamental mistakes for the Wallabies you'd have to be concerned that skill levels appear to be going backwards. But again I suppose the head coach is just supposed to shrug and mutter "funny ol game that, pity I can't do anything about it" " If the players are too dim to pay attention, and mediocre to boot, how is that Cheika’s fault? " “If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. But, if orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.” ― Sun Tzu "Michael Cheika has had to forge his own way on developing new players from scratch." And?? " the efforts of a coach who gives a buggar." Mate they can appoint me coach too and I'll give a bugger, I'll give my heart out. Would it matter then that the team doesn't actually win much ? And for all your plaudits to Cheika the results are on the paddock. If this is the best he can do then it's time to look elsewhere.

I say you are not paying attention Ruckin Oaf. "skill level" is the task of subordinate coaches and the players. Cheika is there to top it up but you still insist he is centrally responsible, and that his topping up is not evident. What do you say about the players' indolence and apathy? "strategy, tactics, gameplan" is the coach's job. If the players are too dim to pay attention, and mediocre to boot, how is that Cheika's fault? He has given plenty of newcomers the opportunity - did his strategy demand a minimum 7 spectators to Daly's try? Did Cheika irresponsibly omit from his game plan an instruction to tackle down that side of the field? The Haylett-Perry no look kick on his own line - was that a mandated Cheika tactic do you think? "system, the structures, the pathways" Michael Cheika took the role in October 2014. He has introduced 36 additional players to the Wallabies since then, using the development pathway favoured by the ARU Board from time to time - Dr Brett Robinson, Paul McLean, Phil Waugh, John Eales, Hayden Rorke, John Wilson, Prince George, Cameron Clyne, Geoff Stooke, Liz Broderick. John Eales, Brett Robinson, Pip Marlow and Ann Sherry - some of whom have been and gone without making a ripple. The Board's expectation was dutifully followed up by CEO Goth Castle, her predecessor Wee Billie Pushover CEO and his predecessor John O'Neill - all three did nothing because the Board did not communicate (or notice) the need for player development and these fabulous CEOs all have not had the wit to craft it themselves. Michael Cheika has had to forge his own way on developing new players from scratch Ruckin Oaf, are you with me there lad? Try appreciating the efforts of a coach who gives a buggar. Some US baseball or NFL coach observed a long time ago "If you listen too closely to what they say in the stands you soon end up sitting there with them."

Won’t change a thing. Who’s going to do better with what’s on offer in these players. There’s maybe only a third of this team that belong in international rugby. The rest are barely super rugby players. You can’t have such bad results in super rugby then expect a miracle when the wallabies come together

Anyone who thinks we have a chance at the World Cup is fooling themselves. How many data points do you need to see our world ranking is exactly right. WE are the 2nd tier now.

Hey Sheek, "The head coach should only be topping up the skill level of the players." Ok so you'd expect to see some improvement in the skill level of the players - that's not happening right now. "The head coach’s primary job is to lay out the overall strategy & game to game tactics, & pick they players to execute his gameplay." Well that also appears to be an issue right now and has been for a little while I thinks. " system, the structures, the pathways, the philosophy" It surely couldn't hurt to have the best possible in place. BUT when your coach is failing in the above criteria that you set out I kinda wonder how much difference it would make to the onfield results. ESPECIALLY considering the coach is also the selector. A better system / structure / pathway could have developed 10 world class number sevens and they would all be overseas while Hooper is continually picked ;)

Well said. It’s been the same decline under each coach which proves the point. As someone who’s seen/experienced rep rugby in Sydney I have to say there’s no cohesive skill development program in place. It hasn’t changed since amateur days so players are not being prepared for top level rugby. I compare this to soccers SAP system and rugby’s a joke.

It is the coaches fault if he selects the wrong players in the wrong position; sacks the player who has a good good for the following game; continually switches the position the player is in (e.g. Folau has player winger, centre and fullback in the past few weeks); switches the 10-12 every two to three games; switches How can attack or defence get continuity? ....and that is not even considering the players like Banks - one of our best in the super rugby season being ignored and forwards like Fardy leaving Oz due to Cheika's inconsistent and poor selections. yes he should resign.

Size and strength they have JuniorSenior, to me what they lack are skills and technique.

And there I was opening up The Roar, expecting to see the headline 'Cheika Resigns'. But no, disappointment once more. More chance of seeing 'Cheika Re-Signs', given the gutless, useless people that 'run' RA. The farce goes on.

What's his percentage for carrys that break the advantage line as well

Ruckin oaf, This is indeed why the Wallabies are so parlous. The head coach should only be topping up the skill level of the players. They should already have the fundamentals down pat by the time they reach the national teams. The head coach's primary job is to lay out the overall strategy & game to game tactics, & pick they players to execute his gameplay. That's it. If the players don't possess the requisite skills or smarts by the time they make the national team, the problem is within the system. We can sack Cheika, sure. But his successor will face precisely the same problems as Cheika, McKenzie, Deans, Connolly & Jones. It's the system, the structures, the pathways, the philosophy, they have to be fixed.

"These are matters of individual fundamental skill" Up until now I would have thought that improving the player's skill levels was one of the core functions of a coach.

Yeah it was the ref apparently !

Cheika must resign if not axed. Hooper must step down as captain. Has Australian rugby no pride? Do what’s best for team and country. Enough platitudes. Enough blaming poor calls. If we’re reliant on refs being 100% correct to win, we shouldn’t be playing.

Just tried to sleep off the disappointment SG. Bugger. Woke up and the score hadn't changed. That rules out nightmare dream. Bracing myself for well meaning arm-around-the-shoulder pity from my Saffa and Kiwi mates.

Coaching staff back to grade footy...good players lacking direction. England played well but weren’t great either...Cheika, IMO needs to move on. Fall in his sword as he isn’t getting results. Same game plan, same blokes, same routine....