There is again so much hyperbole critical of Australian Front row stocks. There are plenty of very good props in Australia. Indeed there are some excellent Props. The problem is they are not getting developed properly. Robbie Deans, and before him (and before Connolly) Eddie Jones prescribed what they wanted from a front rower. They wanted mobility, tackling and work rate. We got Matt Dunning, Bill Young and more recently, S. Fainga'a, Ben Daley, Ben Alexander. Now these are all players who had and have potential to be good test front rowers. Perhaps not world best, but certainly not loci for derision that they have been the focus of. The problem is they have all been told what is required of them to be selected for the Wallabies and they train and practice accordingly. If a coach were to come in and say, to get selected a prop must have an acceptable technique at the scrum and be able to lift effectively at the lineout as the primary skill sets to be selected we would see a markedly different outcome. This has not happened.
Including the 2nd rowers in this and we have all seen that Robbie Deans cares little for the set piece in that he picked S. Timani for many tests even though he was a lineout liability because he was able to provide some debatable skills away from what most would regard as his core duties. Just as I say with the front row, if the second row cannot jump and compete effectively on both attacking and defensive lineouts and lock the scrum they do not fill the core requirements for selection.
Every position on the field has such selection criteria, and that is the main point that I take from the Deans era, too many of those selection criteria just don't get met because players are picked out of position, or to fill a role away from the core duties of the position.
IMHO many thinking Rugby people will look back on the Deans era and regard him and his coaching in the same light as the Eddie Jones era, that of a man with definite and strongly held views of how the game should and would be played under him, and he would brook no questioning or alterations to his model. When it failed it was obviously the fault of the tools and we saw a succession of players used for long periods, often with the skill set foibles described above and then they were discarded and obviously blamed for the failures. Think here, R. Brown, S. Timani, N. Sharpe (though Sharpie just wouldn't go away), Giteau, Cooper, Baxter.
I do not accept that there is any lack of depth in players, the lack is in the management and development of the magnificent talent that is actually on offer, and that for me is the great tragedy of the Deans era, the waste of so much talent and the lack of development of that base skill. For me it has made a mockery of the very reason for his signing and alleged strength that Deans was supposed to have.
