Cheerio Deans

[Bruce Ross]

Robbie Deans just never came to terms with the fact that we are, basically, a long way behind New Zealand at all levels of the game. I think he assumed that he could coach Australians like he coached New Zealanders.

One major area where I think your comments are spot on, wamberal, was in physical preparation. Kiwis respect and practice heavy weight training. Too much of our strength and conditioning training is a carry over from Rugby League and Australian Football, both of which codes rely more on aerobic capacity than strength and power.

The Wallabies under Deans had an almost flawless record of losing the second half and consequently the game. For whatever reason the penny never dropped.
.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Interesting from the Dingo. Apparently he has an autobiography coming out on Thursday, "Red, Black and Gold".

Robbie Deans denies being too leniant on his young guns despite dipping player behavioural standards costing him his Wallabies coaching job.

Full story here:http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/01/sacked-wallabies-coach-has-no-regrets



Also:
Robbie Deans has broken his 15-month silence to reveal his disappointment at the ruthless manner of his axing as Wallabies coach.

full story here: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/01/deans-opens-about-wallabies-axing


Who's going to buy the book and do a Book Review for Green and Gold Rugby?

 

[Ruggo]

Yep, I will buy the book and read the man's side of the story.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Just what we need now the whole Deans saga has had time to blow over. Somebody to fan the flames and getting it burning hot again.

 

[Ruggo]

Just what we need now the whole Deans saga has had time to blow over. Somebody to fan the flames and getting it burning hot again.

Nah, the story from the horses mouth is generally a bit more credible than that from other sources. If I can read the writings of an arm chair internet critic, I certainly have no issue hearing the story from the Man himself.

Same reason I am currently reading Julia Gillard's book.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I just meant, people were starting to stop talking about Deans. Now they will all start again and compare Link to him again. Which is odd because people never compared Deans to Connolly and his 75% winning record in 2007.

 

[kiap]

the ruthless manner of his axing

Surely that's par for the course as a coach.

Coaches can axe players, blazers can axe coaches – and frequently do it.

 

[TahDan]

I just meant, people were starting to stop talking about Deans. Now they will all start again and compare Link to him again. Which is odd because people never compared Deans to Connolly and his 75% winning record in 2007.

A record helped by the fact that the Wallabies played in a world cup pool that included Fiji, Canada, Japan and a Wales side that was so disappointing it couldn't beat Fiji to make second in that pool...

I reckon the book should make very interesting reading. I've read excerpts and those already explain a fair bit about just how fractured the set-up is in Australian rugby - just nothing like the cohesion in NZ Rugby. All in all Link is now showing Australians that having a different accent doesn't change the fact that Australia is competing with pretty shallow resources...

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yeah actually you take out the minnows (Japan and Canada) we still won 70% of games that year (7/10).

People get caught up about Robbie "taking the team from 5th to 2nd" yet ignore the fact that we were ranked 2nd in September 2007.

Due to the results of the RWC being weighted so heavily, one poor, yet close (by 2 points) loss to the eventual runners up dropped us to 5th.

You can comment on the quality of the opposition all you like but we never lost at home that year, and we can only play the opposition in front of us.

Deans' Wallabies still played minnows or teams ranked outside the Top 6 every year and didn't manage to defeat them.

 

[TahDan]

Yeah actually you take out the minnows (Japan and Canada) we still won 70% of games that year (7/10).

Deans' Wallabies still played minnows or teams ranked outside the Top 6 every year and didn't manage to defeat them.

Add Fiji to that and it's 6/9... but whatever.

Deans also won a Tri Nations trophy and holds the longest ever winning streak for an Australian team against the Springboks (5 in a row - including 2 hoodoo breaking wins in South Africa itself).

Connolly wasn't in charge very long, so it's hard to compare really, but we do know is that his side were a massive disappointment in the World Cup and were widely criticized for playing boring 10 man rugby.

In any case, my point was that there's a reason people didn't compare Deans to Connolly and they're valid ones. Connolly was in charge for a short period of time and was barely around long enough for people to get used to him, whilst Deans was at the helm for 5 years, and was heavily undercut by the media and even other coaches during that time.

One of the coaches who undercut him was McKenzie, a man who openly said he knew how to beat Kiwi teams and leaked against Deans whilst he was in charge. Now McKenzie is in charge and guess what? The kiwis have belted the living shit out of us in almost every game he's been in charge and we're not doing all that much better against the Springboks (whatever hope we gained in Perth was obliterated in 8 minutes on Saturday).

So yes, people are going to compare McKenzie, because McKenzie set the scene perfectly for people to do just that.

 

[Train Without a Station]

If we take the Fiji wins out of Connolly's time then we need to take the Italy, Fiji and other teams outside the Top 4 out of Deans too.

 

[TahDan]

So you're responding only to the first 8 words of my post only then? That's kinda missing the point...

 

[Braveheart81]

The reality is that Deans' record as Wallaby coach is neither great nor terrible. In an era where between 35 and 40% of our test matches are against NZ and South Africa, the sort of winning record Deans produced is likely to be similar to coaches before and after him.

Where people feel most disappointed by Deans in my view is that firstly, we had a terrible habit of losing to lowly ranked teams and probably moreso, fans felt that the Wallabies had one of their more talented rosters in recent years and we never achieved anything great with it.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Exactly. Deans career was a Roller Coaster ride. We were never building towards anywhere. Oh Shit! We've just lost to Scotland! Oh Wow! We won the Tri-Nations. Oh shit! We've just lost to Samoa and Ireland!

Deans took 4 years to win the Tri-Nations and everybody is happy to say NZ and SA were more focused on the RWC that year. I think that comment is a cop out, but when it's the only major trophy we managed to win, it has some merit.

 

[Braveheart81]

I guess if you compare it to the first year and a bit of McKenzie's tenure, things are still very hit and miss.

We've got a perfect record against teams below us which is great but we've only managed to win one game from nine against NZ and SA which is poor and are yet to beat the All Blacks (with two draws).

 

[TahDan]

The point is Train, that you raised Connolly as a comparison and made the point people didn't compare Deans to him. I simply explained that there are very good reasons for that, none of which you have addressed. A lot of this is on the media and McKenzie in my view and has nothing to do with Deans.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Where did Link actually say that he knew how to beat NZ teams. There was a lot of media hype over it but was it his own doing or were they jumping on his Super Rugby results?

People talked up Robbie Deans as the master appointment, yet never compared him at all to his predecessor. People got all carried away with Deans winning his first game against the All Blacks. We also lost the next 3. In 2007 we were 1-1 with them so a home win wasn't some massive upset. Both teams had disappointingly exited the RWC in the QF's so it's not like there was huge disparity in their results.

The All Blacks are a better team now than they were in Deans first 4 years. That's not some subjective statement, that's a view of their results and their continued rankings points climb.

In 2014 the All Blacks currently are 7/8 with only a draw not a loss. (Take out the Aus Games and that's 6/6).
In 2013 the All Blacks were 14/14. (Take out the Aus Games and that's 11/11)

In 2012 they were 12/14. (Take out the Aus Games and that's 8/9)
In 2011 they were 10/12. (Take out the Aus Games and that's 8/9)
In 2010 they were 13/14. (Take out the Aus Games and that's 10/11)
In 2009 they were 10/15. (Take out the Aus Games and that's 6/11)
In 2008 they were 13/15. (Take out the Aus Games and that's 10/11)

Under McKenzie's tenure, the All Blacks have never not won a game to anybody, with the exception of Australia. In Deans time the All Blacks won 42/50 to every other team (84%).

Whilst it isn't a large sample size, the All Blacks used to drop games, generally at least 1 a season. Now it's none. It certainly appears they are stronger.

My point is that based on our record against all other teams, we appear stronger now, due to our consistent defeats of lower ranked teams. To compare due to our brief record against one team who are the strongest they have ever been is unfair.

I'm not at all saying we should just accept defeat. But I am saying if we purely measure against those results, we are applying a tougher criteria.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

I might write book: "Wallaby followers 'disappointed' at the ruthless manner of 10-straight defeats to All Blacks"...

 

[Ash]

Deans had some very staunch supporters in the media, and some detractors against him. It was pretty obvious who was in what camp. I always thought that the supporters outnumbers the detractors.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

I was a supporter - and actively so, but by the end, the whole Wallabies set-up had become somewhat Surreal...