Dave Rennie new Wallabies coach

Now things will get interesting, finally someone at the helm that knows how to put a plan together

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/117562947/dave-rennie-expected-to-be-named-wallabies-coach-today-report

With Raelene Castle and now Dave Rennie in the two main rugby positions in Oz rugby, Kiwis once again steering the ship.

What a tough time to take this on. I guess it’s as they say...when the going gets tough...

Taylorman wrote:Now things will get interesting, finally someone at the helm that knows how to put a plan together

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/117562947/dave-rennie-expected-to-be-named-wallabies-coach-today-report

With Raelene Castle and now Dave Rennie in the two main rugby positions in Oz rugby, Kiwis once again steering the ship.

What a tough time to take this on. I guess it’s as they say...when the going gets tough...

The mercenaries make money?

Dunno, ask Robbie Deans. I’d say a lot of thoughts gone into this but it is interesting how many are dropping out of the AB race. I guess the money must be worthwhile. 26 invites might have been a put off perhaps...better grab a going position while it’s there.
Looks like it’s Foz or Razor for the ABs. Maybe Schmidt for a supporting role if he wants to take some pressure off. Never struck me as a strong enough head coach.
Not sure if Rennies named his support crew but he put forward a good case and now the poor old Ozzie fans need a kiwi to set the ship right again.
No more raunchy nights hopefully Dave

Brilliant appointment for the Wallabies, will be interested to know who his assistants will be. Would be amazing if he could help warriors to a second Pro 14 title before he goes.

Well, another one in the departure lounge early...just like Hansen, Gats, Schmidt...gotta wonder how much more time he’ll spend on the Oz thing before he gets there given it seems he’s been in talks for months.

It’ll be interesting to see if he does better than Deans who was in complete free fall by the end of his stint with the Aussies.

lostinwales wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Now things will get interesting, finally someone at the helm that knows how to put a plan together

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/117562947/dave-rennie-expected-to-be-named-wallabies-coach-today-report

With Raelene Castle and now Dave Rennie in the two main rugby positions in Oz rugby, Kiwis once again steering the ship.

What a tough time to take this on. I guess it’s as they say...when the going gets tough...

The mercenaries make money?

Nice to see T's a fan of the Irish after all...

Considering Australia's period in the doldrums of Union have resulted in a narrow QF loss in 07 to the finalists without a scrum; a third place finish; second place; and a quarter final, there's clearly scope to both improve them, but also it's not as if they're completely hopeless. Could be back at the top table in 12-18 months.

Yep, Australia is never far away from a top team. I think with Cheika things just got totally loose and out of control, almost like an inevitable avalanche.

Cheika had Australia playing a really exciting and unique form of rugby. Many of the attacking systems were unlike what any other Union side was producing. I think Deans played his part in that as well, as did the form of the Reds around 2011ish, which they never really translated to the test arena with any reglarity. When it worked - which was not all that frequent in latter years - it was really amazing to watch, and as we saw against NZ in August, they could still beat any side in the world. I do think Cheika gets more stick for his flaws than, say, Schmidt, because of the public personas rather than the actual merits of each man's approach, but he clearly was lacking something with the way they approached the England game in the QF. I think in that second half comeback v Wales we saw they were the second most potent tier 1 side in attack. Probably only Fiji pip them in to third place overall. It's just that you can't hang on a game on broken field and basic skills and instinct alone.

Taylorman wrote:...gotta wonder how much more time he’ll spend on the Oz thing before he gets there given it seems he’s been in talks for months.

It's only 3.5 years apparently - starting from next season here. May-June 2020. They'll just keep talking for the next 6 months I'd imagine.

(probably not the answer you were looking for, right?)

miaow wrote:Cheika had Australia playing a really exciting and unique form of rugby. Many of the attacking systems were unlike what any other Union side was producing. I think Deans played his part in that as well, as did the form of the Reds around 2011ish, which they never really translated to the test arena with any reglarity. When it worked - which was not all that frequent in latter years - it was really amazing to watch, and as we saw against NZ in August, they could still beat any side in the world. I do think Cheika gets more stick for his flaws than, say, Schmidt, because of the public personas rather than the actual merits of each man's approach, but he clearly was lacking something with the way they approached the England game in the QF. I think in that second half comeback v Wales we saw they were the second most potent tier 1 side in attack. Probably only Fiji pip them in to third place overall. It's just that you can't hang on a game on broken field and basic skills and instinct alone.

We have a saying in afrikaans “hulle hardloop rond soos af kop hoenders”

Headless chickens.

That is what Cheika reminded me of the last two years, it seemed there was no plan, no game management, and lets face it, Australia have very talented players, the mix and match selections from one test to the next had no continuity of selection and cohesion went out the window.

Old Man wrote:Yep, Australia is never far away from a top team. I think with Cheika things just got totally loose and out of control, almost like an inevitable avalanche.

Yeah Cheika was a victim of too much passion. He was already a self made multi millionaire from the fashion industry and didn’t take the role up for the paid position as most coaches do. He perhaps should have, cos then at least he would have had to earn his money.

He was media inept, playing the victim often, slow to learn from his mistakes...endlessly selecting Dean Mumm and Hannigan, pooper, Foley even when they had ‘several’ poor performances in a row. He didn’t adapt to the opposition in front of him enough and stuck to a simple all out ‘this is the Ozzie way’ style of play, banking everything on ‘getting it right, on the day’. On occasion that happened, but nowhere near often enough. Will go down as one of Ozzies worst ever coaches. After the 2015 honeymoon final, it went downhill, and generally stayed there.

There’s no way a Rennie lead side will be as consistently poor as Cheikas, if only because he’ll replace all that passion with good old planning, selection and good coaching.

miaow wrote:Cheika had Australia playing a really exciting and unique form of rugby. Many of the attacking systems were unlike what any other Union side was producing. I think Deans played his part in that as well, as did the form of the Reds around 2011ish, which they never really translated to the test arena with any reglarity. When it worked - which was not all that frequent in latter years - it was really amazing to watch, and as we saw against NZ in August, they could still beat any side in the world. I do think Cheika gets more stick for his flaws than, say, Schmidt, because of the public personas rather than the actual merits of each man's approach, but he clearly was lacking something with the way they approached the England game in the QF. I think in that second half comeback v Wales we saw they were the second most potent tier 1 side in attack. Probably only Fiji pip them in to third place overall. It's just that you can't hang on a game on broken field and basic skills and instinct alone.

Have to give it to you, Miaow. That was kind of positive and uplifting to read - your view on where we are. I agree generally that that is the popular perception of the Wallaby way but perhaps I'm just a little more pessimistic given the 'state of the union' here. It just seems to have evaporated.

I was reading your Wales regions thread and we have many similarities. The difference is the game is almost part of your blood there. Here it ebbs and flows. Far too many fair-weather fans (I was hanging by my fingertips at one stage) and plenty of other codes to mitigate the depressing rugby performances.

I'll be interested to hear what plans and directions Rennie wants to take us on. Hoping it will be firstly to clear the dead wood then fingers crossed they can develop some level headed big young kids. Must be some out there, yeah?

Pal Joey wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...gotta wonder how much more time he’ll spend on the Oz thing before he gets there given it seems he’s been in talks for months.

It's only 3.5 years apparently - starting from next season here. May-June 2020. They'll just keep talking for the next 6 months I'd imagine.

(probably not the answer you were looking for, right?)

Yes I was alluding to the time he has between now and June to focus on bsandos wish for a Glasgow title, when we’ve already seen coaches in the departure lounge have in part already moved on...perhaps...

Taylorman wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...gotta wonder how much more time he’ll spend on the Oz thing before he gets there given it seems he’s been in talks for months.

It's only 3.5 years apparently - starting from next season here. May-June 2020. They'll just keep talking for the next 6 months I'd imagine.

(probably not the answer you were looking for, right?)

Yes I was alluding to the time he has between now and June to focus on bsandos wish for a Glasgow title, when we’ve already seen coaches in the departure lounge have in part already moved on...perhaps...

Surely he can have his haggis and eat it too?  
Yeah, I think he will juggle both and enjoy doing it. Sydney is not too bad in winter so it will be a new, exciting and opportunistic time to settle in.

You'd know more than me, Taylorman but he seems a no-nonsense guy... pretty focused... but still able to smile when the boys "did good", yeah?

Old Man wrote:

miaow wrote:Cheika had Australia playing a really exciting and unique form of rugby. Many of the attacking systems were unlike what any other Union side was producing. I think Deans played his part in that as well, as did the form of the Reds around 2011ish, which they never really translated to the test arena with any reglarity. When it worked - which was not all that frequent in latter years - it was really amazing to watch, and as we saw against NZ in August, they could still beat any side in the world. I do think Cheika gets more stick for his flaws than, say, Schmidt, because of the public personas rather than the actual merits of each man's approach, but he clearly was lacking something with the way they approached the England game in the QF. I think in that second half comeback v Wales we saw they were the second most potent tier 1 side in attack. Probably only Fiji pip them in to third place overall. It's just that you can't hang on a game on broken field and basic skills and instinct alone.

We have a saying in afrikaans “hulle hardloop rond soos af kop hoenders”

Headless chickens.

That is what Cheika reminded me of the last two years, it seemed there was no plan, no game management, and lets face it, Australia have very talented players, the mix and match selections from one test to the next had no continuity of selection and cohesion went out the window.

Yep, last two years especially. He really closed up shop didn’t he. Reminded of Mitchell’s tenure end when he wouldn’t let anyone near the team, media, no one, for fear of losing control of what he believed was a tight knit group...in his own mind anyway. Cheika believed the team was performing to a level he wanted but seemed to explain it all away by ‘things getting in the way’. Refs, luck etc etc...’I don’t know this game any more, I give up...’ he grumbled after one loss in Japan.

Pal Joey wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...gotta wonder how much more time he’ll spend on the Oz thing before he gets there given it seems he’s been in talks for months.

It's only 3.5 years apparently - starting from next season here. May-June 2020. They'll just keep talking for the next 6 months I'd imagine.

(probably not the answer you were looking for, right?)

Yes I was alluding to the time he has between now and June to focus on bsandos wish for a Glasgow title, when we’ve already seen coaches in the departure lounge have in part already moved on...perhaps...

Surely he can have his haggis and eat it too?  
Yeah, I think he will juggle both and enjoy doing it. Sydney is not too bad in winter so it will be a new, exciting and opportunistic time to settle in.

You'd know more than me, Taylorman but he seems a no-nonsense guy... pretty focused... but still able to smile when the boys "did good", yeah?

He’s Rarotongan as well so will have an affinity with the PI players, and I think that’s a big plus for NZ and Oz sides today. He’s known for building a strong culture within a team in a way that brings their best out and I think that’s helped his cause.

He might have his haggis while the billabongs ebbing away in the background perhaps?

Old Man wrote:

miaow wrote:Cheika had Australia playing a really exciting and unique form of rugby. Many of the attacking systems were unlike what any other Union side was producing. I think Deans played his part in that as well, as did the form of the Reds around 2011ish, which they never really translated to the test arena with any reglarity. When it worked - which was not all that frequent in latter years - it was really amazing to watch, and as we saw against NZ in August, they could still beat any side in the world. I do think Cheika gets more stick for his flaws than, say, Schmidt, because of the public personas rather than the actual merits of each man's approach, but he clearly was lacking something with the way they approached the England game in the QF. I think in that second half comeback v Wales we saw they were the second most potent tier 1 side in attack. Probably only Fiji pip them in to third place overall. It's just that you can't hang on a game on broken field and basic skills and instinct alone.

We have a saying in afrikaans “hulle hardloop rond soos af kop hoenders”

Headless chickens.

That is what Cheika reminded me of the last two years, it seemed there was no plan, no game management, and lets face it, Australia have very talented players, the mix and match selections from one test to the next had no continuity of selection and cohesion went out the window.

That's exactly it, Biltong. Talent frittered away... like a circus party that doesn't know when or how to stop. There's no sense of long term cohesion or continuity with queues of players to back up all positions. Or if there are; they are changing them too often such that no traction is ever gained.


I'm not too keen on Raelene though.
It would have been good if they could have replaced her with someone else. Who? I have no idea but anyone else would do. I feel like puking every time she waddles around on the TV screen. But as long as she stays in the background. Personally; I'd sack the b.. I mean witch.

Pal Joey wrote:

Old Man wrote:

miaow wrote:Cheika had Australia playing a really exciting and unique form of rugby. Many of the attacking systems were unlike what any other Union side was producing. I think Deans played his part in that as well, as did the form of the Reds around 2011ish, which they never really translated to the test arena with any reglarity. When it worked - which was not all that frequent in latter years - it was really amazing to watch, and as we saw against NZ in August, they could still beat any side in the world. I do think Cheika gets more stick for his flaws than, say, Schmidt, because of the public personas rather than the actual merits of each man's approach, but he clearly was lacking something with the way they approached the England game in the QF. I think in that second half comeback v Wales we saw they were the second most potent tier 1 side in attack. Probably only Fiji pip them in to third place overall. It's just that you can't hang on a game on broken field and basic skills and instinct alone.

We have a saying in afrikaans “hulle hardloop rond soos af kop hoenders”

Headless chickens.

That is what Cheika reminded me of the last two years, it seemed there was no plan, no game management, and lets face it, Australia have very talented players, the mix and match selections from one test to the next had no continuity of selection and cohesion went out the window.

That's exactly it, Biltong. Talent frittered away... like a circus party that doesn't know when or how to stop. There's no sense of long term cohesion or continuity with queues of players to back up all positions. Or if there are; they are changing them too often such that no traction is ever gained.


I'm not too keen on Raelene though.
It would have been good if they could have replaced her with someone else. Who? I have no idea but anyone else would do. I feel like puking every time she waddles around on the TV screen. But as long as she stays in the background. Personally; I'd sack the b.. I mean witch.

I have often wondered why she was appointed in the first place? There were really nobody else?

Maybe players were just caught in a bizarre Catch 22 situation.  We all know at this stage about the notorious Cheika temper.  We knew about it here too in his Leinster days.
So ..... it actually can be a positive for an 'angry' coach to shake up a smug or complacent set-up.  But really, I presume the old hair-drier cliche stuff in the changing rooms or on the training field becomes very old very soon.  
In public, Cheika blamed all outside factors but you can be sure that in private players or perhaps even other staff got the bile directed at them.  There is only so much of that you can take.  After a few years, players want habitually furious motor-mouth coaches gone.
So I'm sure Aussie players were still proud to wear the shirt and wanted to win big competitions.  But if the sting of a coach's rants are still ringing in your ears as you play........; well, at a subliminal, subconscious level, if you will, you're in Catch 22 territory - give 100 percent and the coach you want rid of stays - give less than 100 percent and you risk losing big games but the day the coach leaves technically gets closer and closer.....
Like I say, wouldn't think that's a fully conscious dilemma.  But players undoubtedly get tired of being constantly abused and screamed at....

Old Man wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:

Old Man wrote:

miaow wrote:Cheika had Australia playing a really exciting and unique form of rugby. Many of the attacking systems were unlike what any other Union side was producing. I think Deans played his part in that as well, as did the form of the Reds around 2011ish, which they never really translated to the test arena with any reglarity. When it worked - which was not all that frequent in latter years - it was really amazing to watch, and as we saw against NZ in August, they could still beat any side in the world. I do think Cheika gets more stick for his flaws than, say, Schmidt, because of the public personas rather than the actual merits of each man's approach, but he clearly was lacking something with the way they approached the England game in the QF. I think in that second half comeback v Wales we saw they were the second most potent tier 1 side in attack. Probably only Fiji pip them in to third place overall. It's just that you can't hang on a game on broken field and basic skills and instinct alone.

We have a saying in afrikaans “hulle hardloop rond soos af kop hoenders”

Headless chickens.

That is what Cheika reminded me of the last two years, it seemed there was no plan, no game management, and lets face it, Australia have very talented players, the mix and match selections from one test to the next had no continuity of selection and cohesion went out the window.

That's exactly it, Biltong. Talent frittered away... like a circus party that doesn't know when or how to stop. There's no sense of long term cohesion or continuity with queues of players to back up all positions. Or if there are; they are changing them too often such that no traction is ever gained.


I'm not too keen on Raelene though.
It would have been good if they could have replaced her with someone else. Who? I have no idea but anyone else would do. I feel like puking every time she waddles around on the TV screen. But as long as she stays in the background. Personally; I'd sack the b.. I mean witch.

I have often wondered why she was appointed in the first place? There were really nobody else?

Honestly... there had to have been. What were they thinking? This is worse than the bloody rocky horror show, ffs. But for real... not a nightmare.

SecretFly wrote:Maybe players were just caught in a bizarre Catch 22 situation.  We all know at this stage about the notorious Cheika temper.  We knew about it here too in his Leinster days.
So ..... it actually can be a positive for an 'angry' coach to shake up a smug or complacent set-up.  But really, I presume the old hair-drier cliche stuff in the changing rooms or on the training field becomes very old very soon.  
In public, Cheika blamed all outside factors but you can be sure that in private players or perhaps even other staff got the bile directed at them.  There is only so much of that you can take.  After a few years, players want habitually furious motor-mouth coaches gone.
So I'm sure Aussie players were still proud to wear the shirt and wanted to win big competitions.  But if the sting of a coach's rants are still ringing in your ears as you play........; well, at a subliminal, subconscious level, if you will, you're in Catch 22 territory - give 100 percent and the coach you want rid of stays - give less than 100 percent and you risk losing big games but the day the coach leaves technically gets closer and closer.....
Like I say, wouldn't think that's a fully conscious dilemma.  But players undoubtedly get tired of being constantly abused and screamed at....

As my Mum said: "Why can't he shave that awful neck ?!!"
She was doing backflips of joy (and was almost half apologetic too) when he eventually wore a suit and tie one time... right near the end there.

Taylorman wrote:

Old Man wrote:Yep, Australia is never far away from a top team. I think with Cheika things just got totally loose and out of control, almost like an inevitable avalanche.

Yeah Cheika was a victim of too much passion. He was already a self made multi millionaire from the fashion industry and didn’t take the role up for the paid position as most coaches do. He perhaps should have, cos then at least he would have had to earn his money.

He was media inept, playing the victim often, slow to learn from his mistakes...endlessly selecting Dean Mumm and Hannigan, pooper, Foley even when they had ‘several’ poor performances in a row. He didn’t adapt to the opposition in front of him enough and stuck to a simple all out ‘this is the Ozzie way’ style of play, banking everything on ‘getting it right, on the day’. On occasion that happened, but nowhere near often enough. Will go down as one of Ozzies worst ever coaches. After the 2015 honeymoon final, it went downhill, and generally stayed there.

There’s no way a Rennie lead side will be as consistently poor as Cheikas, if only because he’ll replace all that passion with good old planning, selection and good coaching.

Totally agree!

One thing that really struck me about the Wallabies during England's 3-0 series down under was the use and abuse of Scott Fardy. He seemed to be expected to do almost all the traditional back row work on his own, did a decent job in the circumstances but still got blamed when he was predictably outnumbered and overwhelmed.

Giving a good guy an impossible job then blaming them for not doing it is not good management

Pooper was in the back row as well? That was common in Cheikas run. In undroppable 7s was Cheikas thinking, so put a shorty 7 at 8.
Fardy was the only 6 in Cheikas run that held his own there. The tried several others after he left. No wonder Fardy left.

Rennie has already said he wants a fast game with high skill levels. Cheika could only manage the former most of the time.

Rennie looks to have got his Glasgow side into a highly mobile unit but a bit like Scotland are a bit short on the skills and physical front when it comes to the more star studded sides.

His early challenge will be to work on the skill levels because across the board every player has about 70% of their positions skill levels, handling, tackling, kicking for one poor across the backs in comparison with the top two or three sides.

Good signing. I would say Larkham was in line for the job until his falling out with Cheika but i can see Larkham getting some international gig down the line. He is a top quality coach.

Anyway, interesting that yet again, another Pro14 coach ascends to a high profile International job. That's Townsend, Schmidt, Erasmus, Rennie, Cheika, Pivac in present and recent times.

Not bad for the worstest lickle League in Europe . Must be doing something right in training these ordinary fellas up to the standards required.

Very true Fly, I think thats why these guys take that well worn path. For our coaches a Super rugby win combined with an overseas club or country win or thereabouts seems to have them in line for higher honours. We certainly have a bit of a gluttony of coaches at the moment, and soon that's going to bite us...even more than it has already.

The Premiership and Top14 are dogfight leagues. Too many week in, week our bloodbaths. Presumably the Pro14 replicates the needs for a variety of opposition and cross-border competitiveness better than Super Rugby does, as Erasmus said, calling it the toughest league to coach in the world.

Rennie will be good for Australia. Chatted briefly with him about 18 months ago after a game. Impressive man, honest, up front. Has that quality (nearly...) all Kiwis have. Cotter had it as well. Just a real understanding of the game, no bull. If the Ozzies don't mutiny against him - like they did Mackenzie - he can get them back to the top.

Explains the frown on his face I guess.

I'm sure that made sense in your head.

It's quite a cerebral as well as a practical appointment. Helps us on two levels... which is good. He's probably exactly what we need.

Does any one think the Rennie will be a better coach than Checker?

And does changing the coach after a loss at the Rugby World Cup make a difference to the international squad?...Changing players may i suppose make a slight difference, but does it make a whole difference?

I think the question is does anyone think Rennie will be worse than Cheika who’s been diabolical. 50% wins, same as Link and far worse than any other OZ coach since 2000.

It’s not just that he lost, it’s the way he conducted himself in the role, how he selected, ran a game plan, managed the press, failed to bring new talent through. He had an unhealthy disregard for the establishment, media, refs you name it. But most of all, showed little ability to learn.

Rennie may not be Australian, but he’ll make more effort to get onside with Oz rugby and everything that that means, where Cheika kinda assumed he was accepted simply by ‘being Ozzie’, when the reality was Wallaby fans were pulling their hair out trying to get some sense of confidence in his ways.

So yes Cheika had to go, not just because of the World Cup. Most coaches fall on their swords but this round most leaving have just ‘had their time’.

Rennies a proven good coach to date, he’s got serious work to do with Oz but he took a consistently poor Chiefs side to the top for two years immediately in Super rugby and his experience walking into a ‘new world’ after NZ rugby at Glasgow will help him immensely.

NZ, and if they’re smart, every country will need to be wary of what Rennie can bring. His biggest hurdle is cattle, and he must work closely with all four of the Oz SR franchises to bring them through.

Wayne Smiths already giving us cause for regret, especially if coaching really is the missing element in Oz rugby.

”He's prepared to put himself in the gun sights of those above him to fight for what he thinks is right," Smith told the Sun-Herald.

Smith, an assistant to two of the All Blacks' World Cup winning coaches, expects Australia to become an attack orientated side under Rennie.

He described him as "relentless, unwavering, loyal."

"He'll take no prisoners, " Smith said.
"He will be relentless in his pursuit of excellence and expects all around him to be the same.

"Rens expects loyalty and trust then gives it back in spades.
"He is unwavering in his commitment to attack. Players will have to lose their conservative ideas and be open to myriad possibilities of how to use the ball in a positive and logical way.

"Even behind their own goal line, if opportunities present themselves, you'd better take them."