Cheerio Deans

[Swat]

New plan: White as Tactical coach, Link as Motivational and Interpersonal Coach, Cheika as Master of Discipline.

 

[Boomer]

Fair enough. Like I said, Links approach is different to Whites. I don't think you will successfully beat sense into these guys overnight and turn them into model students within a few weeks at wallabies camp, they have to be ongoing projects that the coach works on improving during the time he has with them. Again, I think that if the approach is to try and discipline them into the ground, they won't be as effective on the footy field and that is why you might see Ewen's approach as indulgent but it is quite clear that there have been significant improvements in Quades behaviour over the years. It was never going to be a quick turnaround but it at least appears that he now understands the professionalism required in the sport.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for Digby.. but hes the 2 million dollar man! I guess if we are expecting some massive turn around to the days of old where no one ever heard of the run ins our pro sportsmen have at the bar or early morning snacks then we are being unrealistic. The media will pick up on anything. What we need to be looking for is a coach that instills RESPECT into those blokes. Makes them realise how lucky they are to be making such large amounts of money at a young age and playing in the Green and Gold. That is what is missing in JOC (James O'Connor) and Beale in my opinion and both White and Link will produce results in that facet regardless of who is coach.

This is all just my personal view and yes, thank you for pointing out my extremely biased reds view that only Queenslanders could ever agree with Boomer.

No, Jake doesn't have to feel aggrieved because he's only been here for 2 years and for all his success, hasn't won a super rugby title, yet. He has had his chance with his home nation's team and won a Rugby World Cup. It is not as though there is spades of difference between these guys like we were experiencing when we brought Deans in (who at the time was clearly the best option with his Super Rugby Record).I would actually hope, that in this situation, they do have a bias towards the Australian coach because bloody oath, we should be patriotic! The same would occur in NZ and SA.

No beef, Lewie.

Clearly it's all wrong and needs to be fixed. The issue is actually fixing it. Re-thinking the whole thing - structures, pathways, funding, governance - while we have the chance - and moving away from "Mosman did this", "St Leonards did that", "Ballymore did this" tit-for-tat pettiness.

Those old ways have fractured the sport and the fans know it because the end result is in the way the national team plays.

Ewen's patriotism can't hold that shitfight together. Put a broom through the lot.

 

[The Red Baron]

For the love of all that's holy, please pull your head in McGrath:

Warren Gatland and former Australian Rugby Union chairman Peter McGrath have rallied around under-siege Wallabies coach Robbie Deans as speculation he will soon be out of a job increases.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/supporters-try-to-blunt-any-move-to-axe-deans-20130707-2pkev.html#ixzz2YPGe2IXg

McGrath seems to be fighting a rearguard action, defending decisions made on his watch. But he also seems to be so far out of touch that he doesn't know up from down. Gatland just seems to be stirring the pot.

 

[Braveheart81]

One issue the ARU has is that it's a difficult time to make a change given that the two likely candidates will both be involved in Super Rugby finals.

Whilst the Reds will need to win away games to advance, the Brumbies will have a home final in the first or second week and have a good chance of going a long way.

If the Brumbies made it to the final it would be difficult for White to be Wallabies coach with only two weeks between the final and the first Bledisloe.

Presumably the ARU will be announcing the new coach well before they know how the Super Rugby finals are progressing though.

 

[I like to watch]

I don't see it that way.
I think the ARU will decide who they want to be the next coach until the next RWC. Then they will decide when it can be announced.
They may well keep RD for the RC, then let him go.

 

[boyo]

An import can be head coach/DOR, but IMO an Aussie one is preferable.

To think otherwise smacks of xenophobia.

 

[Macca Smith]

We are in the professional era of always blaming the coach. When will players be held to account? The truth is our guys did not turn up for eighty minutes. All that hard work in recent years undone in terms of the ability to produce good set piece ball at scrum time.

 

[Gurz]

New plan: White as Tactical coach, Link as Motivational and Interpersonal Coach, Cheika as Master of Discipline.

PDV for comic relief

 

[Bardon]

A lot of the arguments here seem to have a political slant to them in that they are aimed at showing how the "other guy" would be a bad choice. To me this indicates two evenly matched candidates, the difference is that in politics you're trying to pick between two worthless asshole, while for the Wobs job there are 2 outstanding candidates.

I think Aus rugby is in a great position to have 2 such excellent candidates to chose from. Yes style will differ immensely depending on the man picked. But both have shown they have the capacity to do very well with the Wallabies.

I think the tough task will be getting the overlooked candidate to stay in the Aus system. There are likely to be attractive international posts that become available before Aus are again looking for a coach. Post RWC 2015 there should be 1-2 tier 1 jobs up for grabs that will look very tempting.

 

[BPC]

PDV for comic relief

PDV for media liasion. Sadly, he may make more sense than some of the garbage churned out by the ARU interns.

 

[RedsHappy]

McGrath seems to be fighting a rearguard action, defending decisions made on his watch. But he also seems to be so far out of touch that he doesn't know up from down. Gatland just seems to be stirring the pot.

TRB, indeed. But truth be told, McGrath in this case is just mirroring the very unhealthy and entrenched micro-culture inside the ARU board that has taken Australian rugby downhill since 2003, namely:

- institutionalised arrogance
- continuous insularity
- poor to no accountability to the Australian rugby community
- not holding elite members - e.g. Deans and JO'N Mk II - to any form of announced KPI, then rewarding them with fat new contracts
- incapacity to admit error, no matter how large
- directors appointed through a highly narrow 'rugby networkers' elite' vs having been objectively assessed for business and strategic managerial competence or proven records in elite sports administration
- gross extravagance in indulging their own (e.g. an inexcusably massive financial payoff to JO'N after appalling performance outcomes and large ARU $ losses whilst he performed two jobs, one outside the ARU)
- poor transparency (e.g., no release of promised RWC 2011 review, systematic attempt to hide JON's salary from the ARU Annual Report)
- -poor strategic control over appointed franchises (e.g., idly observing the 2005-2009 QRU train-wreck to near-bankruptcy, total inactivity re the Force's decline, casually watching over the Tahs massive crowd declines, etc.)

.......other than the above, the ARU does admirable work for our code.

 

[The Red Baron]

I was just mulling over Deans' tenure as the Wallaby coach, and a few things struck me about him. Deans was terrified of failure. Whether that is a result of his personality, or there was some sort of background process, it manifested itself in his coaching style. I can't really comment on his tenure at the Crusaders, apart from the fact that he was pretty successful. There is the argument that the players at his disposal and the structure of Canterbury rugby were the main factors, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter as far as this post goes.

He came to the Wallabies with great expectations - the ARU couldn't believe their luck. Robbie was the guy the Wallabies needed to beat the All Blacks, and take Australian rugby to the next step. However, he never could. It is often said on this website that International rugby is a different beast to provincial rugby. The statement is generally quite true, as the intensity and pressure is often much higher in International spheres. The logic is to then follow a conservative, risk averse gameplan, in opposition to a more free-flowing version of rugby. Good coaches will impose their style of play however. While there is the element of fear; fear of failure, fear of losing, fear of god knows what, a good coach will embrace that fear. A good coach will dictate how they want to play, and not let fear get in the damn way.

With Robbie, the opposite occurred. He thought (and probably still thinks) that the only way to win on the international stage is to adopt a conservative, risk averse, territory based game. He was terrified of trying something different because it could lead to failure. The problem is that there was not really the personnel to play that style the way Robbie thought it should be played. He tried to play a direct game - that resulted in Pat McCabe having ongoing neck problems; he tried to play territory - and picked kickers such as O'Connor, Barnes and Beale, guys erratic with the boot at best. He tried to play a risk averse game - forgetting that our boys are better than most at making mistakes. All the while he kept struggling along, all the while becoming more and more conservative. He wouldn't allow himself to take any risks, but the players he picked to execute his gameplan didn't seem to be working on the skills required to effectively play to this style. The Wallabies were effectively going nowhere.

By the time the Lions tour rolled around this year, I don't think Deans really remembered how to play any other way than his muddled, confused territory and narrow game. He picked Lilo at 12 because he couldn't ignore the form - this indicated a more expansive game. He nullified it with O'Connor at 10. All the while he had his bash and barge fallback in McCabe, until he got injured.

Ultimately, I think Robbie is unable to handle pressure well at all. Hence the guarded, unintelligible 'Robbiespeak' when interviewed. Catch him when he is relaxed, and I bet he speaks much clearer. He was also paralyzed by fear. Robbie fell into the trap of assuming that international rugby is played in only one way. He did so because he was terrified of failing. The problem for Robbie is, as the guy who didn't want to fail, he will ultimately be judged as having failed.

 

[Gurz]

TRB, indeed. But truth be told, McGrath in this case is just mirroring the very unhealthy and entrenched micro-culture inside the ARU board that has taken Australian rugby downhill since 2003, namely:

- institutionalised arrogance
- continuous insularity
- poor to no accountability to the Australian rugby community
- not holding elite members - e.g. Deans and JO'N Mk II - to any form of announced KPI, then rewarding them with fat new contracts
- incapacity to admit error, no matter how large
- directors appointed through a highly narrow 'rugby networkers' elite' vs having been objectively assessed for business and strategic managerial competence or proven records in elite sports administration
- gross extravagance in indulging their own (e.g. an inexcusably massive financial payoff to JO'N after appalling performance outcomes and large ARU $ losses whilst he performed two jobs, one outside the ARU)
- poor transparency (e.g., no release of promised RWC 2011 review, systematic attempt to hide JON's salary from the ARU Annual Report)
- -poor strategic control over appointed franchises (e.g., idly observing the 2005-2009 QRU train-wreck to near-bankruptcy, total inactivity re the Force's decline, casually watching over the Tahs massive crowd declines, etc.)

...other than the above, the ARU does admirable work for our code.

For a very real application of this - Look at the deal ARU did regarding Beldisloe Cup Game 1... In Syndey.... 10 year dela or some such????

I would have no issues with the commercial side of this deal IF the wallabies didn't have such a horrendous record @ this venue. AND for game one of Bledisloe...???? There are generally MORE kiwis there than aussies and once again another blown chance to win it back.... The kiwis have Eden park as their fotress and Clearly Suncorp is Australia's best ground.... WHY then do we keep repeating the same idiotic mistakes in this sense...

Because of A, B, C, D, E etc above....................................

I think Australian rugby is on the verge of 'generational thought' change... now time to make a few final clean outs and get down to the business of beating the ABs..........!!

Bring on Link!

 

[Loki74]

For the love of all that's holy, please pull your head in McGrath:

Warren Gatland and former Australian Rugby Union chairman Peter McGrath have rallied around under-siege Wallabies coach Robbie Deans as speculation he will soon be out of a job increases.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/supporters-try-to-blunt-any-move-to-axe-deans-20130707-2pkev.html#ixzz2YPGe2IXg

What I don't get about this is his focus on the rankings as if that is something to be proud of. We were ranked 5, then got to 2 (briefly) and now we are 3rd. To me that says we have gone nowhere in the last 6 years. For some time now, the All Blacks have been well clear of the rest of world rugby and there is then a second tier of nations who pretty much can beat any of the others on their day, depending on who is on or off their games. Wallabies, Boks, England, Wales and to a lesser degree France are all at about the same level. So basically, we have moved from being the bottom of this pack to maybe somewhere in the middle (although it only takes a couple of penalty shots the other way for Wales to have pushed us quickly back). What seems clear is we have made no inroads on bridging the gap to the All Blacks, which should be our goal. Not because we just want to beat the All Blacks (although clearly we do), but because we must aspire to be the best.

 

[Ignoto]

The truth is our guys did not turn up for eighty minutes.

Dean isn't being called to be sacked based on one 80 minute game but a combination of things such as; The World Cup Failures (losing to Ireland, getting dusted up by the Kiwis, not taking a back up 7), having a rugby style of playing not to lose, gamble selections that never pay off, a failure to win the Bledisloe, having lost to Samoa, Scotland and England all at home, having a rugby team that's only consistency is their inconsistency.

I could go on, but my lunch is getting cold. Hopefully you get the jist of it though, if Deans is sacked, there's been an outcry for it since 2011.

 

[Loki74]

Really?
I have always thought Link was too indulgent with him.
QC (Quade Cooper)'s behavioral problems only stopped when he was ass whipped by the ARU over the toxic crap.
Link has many strengths,but strong discipline with the petulant members of the squad,is not one of them.
Yet.

He does seem to have forged a good working relationship with Quade though, where Quade is engaged and involved in the Reds game plan and taking some responsibility for developing and implementing it.

And since his "toxic" comment, I have been pretty impressed by how QC (Quade Cooper) has handled himself. Not sure if he was put up to that comment or was just brain explosion on his part, but he has accepted the fine, got on with playing for the Reds, sat through a load of bad press, with Deans taking potshots at him on a range of areas (some of which were, in my opinion, unnecessary and in very poor form, like blaming Cooper for Tapuai's bad form - even if you thought that, there is absolutely no reason to make that public) and generally handled his absence from the team with a fair amount of good grace.

 

[Gnostic]

The logic is to then follow a conservative, risk averse gameplan, in opposition to a more free-flowing version of rugby.

.....

He thought (and probably still thinks) that the only way to win on the international stage is to adopt a conservative, risk averse, territory based game. He was terrified of trying something different because it could lead to failure. The problem is that there was not really the personnel to play that style the way Robbie thought it should be played. He tried to play a direct game - that resulted in Pat McCabe having ongoing neck problems; he tried to play territory - and picked kickers such as O'Connor, Barnes and Beale, guys erratic with the boot at best. He tried to play a risk averse game - forgetting that our boys are better than most at making mistakes. All the while he kept struggling along, all the while becoming more and more conservative. He wouldn't allow himself to take any risks, but the players he picked to execute his gameplan didn't seem to be working on the skills required to effectively play to this style. The Wallabies were effectively going nowhere.

.

I agree with much of what you have said Baron, but one major point is IMO incorrect. The Wallabies have never played a conservative territory based game plan. They have played the risk averse plan to be sure but that didn't involve any kicking for territory, it was kick and defend.

I do believe and have posted for some time that Deans panicked pre-RWC and went from the reasonably attack based plan that he had been coaching since 2008 to the risk averse style seen in the RWC. That massive change in a very short time smelt even then of panic to me.

The biggest issue with the various plans we have seen from Deans over the years always comes back to two things for me:-
1) Selection of the players to execute the plan. Deans just seems to have his favourites and he selects them regardless of form or how relevant their skill set if for the task at hand and the tactics. For instance I never understood if the Wallabies were to play a kicking game why he selected players with at best an average boot at 15, whilst in the RWC Gerrard didn't make the squad and this year Mogg was overlooked.
2) Completeness - the plans as executed by the team just never seemed to be a complete plan. They went through the motions on so many occasions and never really imposed a coherent pattern of play on any game that they played. It all appeared that the plan revolved around holding the opposition back at all phases and then being able to attack through individual brilliance rather than any team creation. There just seems to be a lack of team detail.

With no reference to the Crusaders can anybody really state that Deans is a good coach, on the evidence of not only win:loss results but on the basis of development of talent (ie improvement in individual skills and application), team discipline and on the implementation of game plans and tactics.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Deans does know how to win the Bledisloe, he did a fantastic job as attack/backs coach in 2003

It wasn't risk averse, conservative or kick dominated. I'd say it was more high risk that centred on limited numbers to the breakdown Spencer and Mauger operating from either side of the ruck with loads of width to use Umaga, Rok, Howlett and Mils.

But that's neither here not there in this current debate. IMO he needs to go at the very least for the sanity of this place....

 

[Bullrush]

So which players should be gooooone?

 

[Loki74]

So which players should be gooooone?

All of them. We invade NZ (last I heard, they have almost no armed forces) and pick the new AGs (All Golds). Maybe keep Genia.