Fix the Wallabies

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="611417" data-time="1472770332">
Yeah it certainly didn't appear that O'Neill was fully committed to the cause the 2nd time round. Seemed more interested in his other business interests.</blockquote> 
I reckon he just lucked out the first time. He had the best coach and best players and that made him look like some kind of genius. He didn't have that the 2nd time round and it's pretty clear that alot of the problems with Aus rugby are due to lack of action or poor decisions on his watch. Remember the local series involving the Pac islands that the IRC would pay for or getting Aus sides in the NPC? He was great at promoting the shit out of a winning Aus team and organized a great RWC, but didn't appear to do a great deal else.

KiwiMurph

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="611392" data-time="1472759100">
<div>
It doesn't help that the Bledisloe series has been such low stakes since 2003. It only went to a deciding game three times and each time it was at Eden Park and the game was over by half time. Compare that to the years we were in the wilderness years when 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003 all went to a decider - two of which were decided after the siren. The only series that didn't in 2001 also went to the wire with Eales' retirement on the line. Epic games like that are the best way to build a rivalry.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Pedantic - not entirely true - I think it was 2008 Wallabies won game 1 in Sydney (Deans first game, McCaw didn't play) and then All Blacks creamed Aus a week later in Game 2 at Eden Park. Game 3 was at Suncorp and I believe was also the Tri Nations decider. From memory Sivi and Piri carved up in the second half to secure the win - with DC also playing a blinder. 
 
Completely agree with the point though.

ACT Crusader

I don't agree Rancid. He was seen as pretty innovative in his business dealings that set the ARU up for the professional era from 96.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="611430" data-time="1472772421">
<div>
I reckon he just lucked out the first time. He had the best coach and best players and that made him look like some kind of genius. He didn't have that the 2nd time round and it's pretty clear that alot of the problems with Aus rugby are due to lack of action or poor decisions on his watch. Remember the local series involving the Pac islands that the IRC would pay for or getting Aus sides in the NPC? He was great at promoting the shit out of a winning Aus team and organized a great RWC, but didn't appear to do a great deal else.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Exactly - right players, right coach, right back office. All came together to produce a good stew.
 
Now there is something a little off about each part, and its bland eating.
 
JON was good at focusing on the immediate needs, and had a good wicket to bat on. But, like a lot of modern corporate types, he wasn't actually interested in what happened after he left.
 
I see heaps of them at work: Mr Big Decision is usually Mr Pisses Off Before The Shit Hits A Year Or Two Later

ACT Crusader

When JON came in at 95, OZ rugby was in a transition phase - 91 WC success didn't materialise in growth of game, NSW v QLD stuff, the verge of professionalism, the relationship with South Africa etc. I've spoken to a few people that were close to the action from that period - players and behind the scenes folk, and they were amazed at how JON was able to sell his business ideas on behalf of the ARU to veritable non-believers. This was independent of who was coaching, playing etc. Of course the onfield stuff was very important but from what I could see the ARU was set up with the right people behind the scenes and structures in place for the professional age.
 
They certainly capitalised on it in those early years with sponsorships and increased coverage. The rebuilding of the side between 95 to 99 on field helped no doubt.

rotated

When in 1995 was O'Neill appointed? Because he was MIA for the WRC and Super League raids. If it weren't for Hobbs and co conceiving Super Rugby and 3N with News he would have been back having Wallabies games at Concord Oval. 
If he was appointed later in the year fair enough, but the News money, Super Rugby format, Jonah and other factors very much set the table for him and he had little to do with any of that.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="611461" data-time="1472778197">
<div>
When in 1995 was O'Neill appointed? Because he was MIA for the WRC and Super League raids. If it weren't for Hobbs and co conceiving Super Rugby and 3N with News he would have been back having Wallabies games at Concord Oval. 
If he was appointed later in the year fair enough, but the News money, Super Rugby format, Jonah and other factors very much set the table for him and he had little to do with any of that.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
If it wasn't for a few people putting the rebel bid together it might not have happened either. FitzSimons wrote a good book on that.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="611462" data-time="1472778479">
If it wasn't for a few people putting the rebel bid together it might not have happened either. FitzSimons wrote a good book on that.</blockquote>
 
The Rugby War - I've read it, but many moons ago. The $555 million deal makes everyone smarter and everything that happened possible. Compared to that what Moffat or Hobbs or O'Neill or Luyt did is just window dressing.

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="611438" data-time="1472774095">
I don't agree Rancid. He was seen as pretty innovative in his business dealings that set the ARU up for the professional era from 96.</blockquote>
 
I totally agree he handled the transition well and was brilliant at promoting the Wallabies. He also did a Sterling job with the 2003 RWC. But he didn't do much to ensure that success continued and achieved zip when he didn't have an awesome team and a world cup to manage. 
To me his biggest failing was not being able (or willing) to set up a proper domestic comp despite having the cash and success of the Wallabies/RWC. He wanted to do it on the cheap with a bunch of crap half measures. In other words he was great at marketing his product, but had no idea how to sustain or reinvigorate that product. Immediately resigning Deans for 4 years was pretty odd too.

NTA

Actually, JON didn't want the domestic comp because he considered it a drain on the coffers. They had fully pro rugby to develop players, and that had won them another RWC. Ain't broke, right?

NTA

AAC has headed back to French Rugby after the mandated Window ended. Probably for good this time as I reckon his best years (and clearly, his best position) are behind him.
 
AAC gone. Giteau gone. Mitchell still "building fitness" after groin surgery. Genia here and doing well.
 
Not looking good for the Giteau Law/Rule eh what? Fuck French rugby.
 
Luke Morahan might come into the squad, which has approximately one winger listed - Mitchell - and three fullbacks (Folau, DHP, Hodge).
 
I say put Hodge on the wing, and let him have long-kicking practice against the Boks

booboo

Fark. Imagine Hodge at altitude !@!!

ACT Crusader

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="611481" data-time="1472782211">
<div>
I totally agree he handled the transition well and was brilliant at promoting the Wallabies. He also did a Sterling job with the 2003 RWC. But he didn't do much to ensure that success continued and achieved zip when he didn't have an awesome team and a world cup to manage. 
To me his biggest failing was not being able (or willing) to set up a proper domestic comp despite having the cash and success of the Wallabies/RWC. He wanted to do it on the cheap with a bunch of crap half measures. In other words he was great at marketing his product, but had no idea how to sustain or reinvigorate that product. Immediately resigning Deans for 4 years was pretty odd too.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Don't disagree with the failures of the a domestic comp. But I don't ever think JON believed it would work and wanted to leverage off Super rugby and grow that as a proven economic model.

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="611520" data-time="1472790792">
<div>
Fark. Imagine Hodge at altitude !@!!
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
He knocked over a 75m wind-assisted kick at Manly Oval one day apparently - sure it was a 40km/h wind, and not a match situation, but fucking thing was straight as:
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.sportingnews.com/au/rugby/news/video-hodges-ridiculous-long-range-kick/1ghqolvvf5d7w1dolh3ja10so3'>http://www.sportingnews.com/au/rugby/news/video-hodges-ridiculous-long-range-kick/1ghqolvvf5d7w1dolh3ja10so3</a>
</div>

pakman

Extraordinary. Wonder what Don Clarke could have done with today's balls. Meads claims that when down in Te Kuiti fooling around DC put one over from the middle of the 25. Wind factor not recorded.

reprobate

i can't remember if i posted something along these lines already, because i drink too much, but fuck he's got a massive boot. can he kick long range droppies too? the boks getting some of their own medicine on that front would be some sweet watching.

Milk

I think with Hodge's boot, Folau's skill under the high ball (incl attacking kicks) and Pocock's ability over the ball, there a few real key areas of difference the Wallabies have that others don't. It they can get closer to parity with the other areas of the game and tighten up on defense they should get some mileage if they can cater a game plan around those 3 players.
 
I can understand ongoing issues with attack and lineout... sometimes those just come down to the cattle available. But defense? Questions need to be asked about leaking that many linebreaks game after game. That should be a strength of theirs considering the exposure to rugby league in that country and their relatively mobile forward pack.

pakman

Wobblies seem to do just that. On Saturday were pretty good much of time, but at a few critical junctures D dissolved. Not sure 20 point margin was true reflection. 
I expect them to give Bokke a run for their money.

kiwiinmelb

Wallabies Boks should be interesting , 
 
Wallabies have been copping plenty ,
 
but the Boks arent exactly setting the world on fire either , which has gone under the radar a bit in this part of the world.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="KiwiMurph" data-cid="611436" data-time="1472773917">
<div>
Pedantic - not entirely true - I think it was 2008 Wallabies won game 1 in Sydney (Deans first game, McCaw didn't play) and then All Blacks creamed Aus a week later in Game 2 at Eden Park. Game 3 was at Suncorp and I believe was also the Tri Nations decider. From memory Sivi and Piri carved up in the second half to secure the win - with DC also playing a blinder. 
 
Completely agree with the point though. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Actually - I think we both got this one wrong, Hong Kong was shoehorned at the end of that year so in 4 match series the Cup wasn't in jeopardy after the Sydney loss.
 
So all up they've had two games where the Cup was on the line last year where it was over in the first 20 and 2007 which was a dire fixture that NZ won 26-12.

The Silver Fern

Fix the Wallabies