Deans confirmed until 2013

[antipodean]

They needed to get in touch first. Scoring two tries after that relied upon 1. Gits kicking it 2. Samoa not scoring another point 3. Gits converting two tries if we got them. And as ruggo said it was a bad signal to the Samoans.

Sense? He turned down 2 or 3 easy kicks at nil all and takes the one from 45m out when we are 16 points down? How does that make sense?

Because opting to continue applying pressure in the belief you will score tries against a rugby minnow at the beginning of a Test match is one thing. Being pragmatic in a Test where you are behind on the score board by more than two converted tries with 23 minutes remaining means you take the opportunities that are offered and then work towards the next opportunity. That's how Tests are played.

 

[Red Rooster]

Arguing about whether or not we should have sacked Deans *12 months ago* is utterly academic. It didn't happen and he's the coach going into the RWC. That is the reality, no matter how much any one of us might want it to be another way. The fact is, when he was hired, there were very few quality candidates for the job. Knuckles didn't want it, Link was in France and Scott Johnson was about the only other guy who might have been good enough. Deans was the best man for the job, even though I have my complaints about how he got it.

The real test is how he and the squad rebound from this. The world hasn't come to an end, but it could well do if we don't give a much better account of ourselves this weekend.

You have a very short memory - When Deans got given the job by JON in Nov 2007 the people who wanted it had already been through a 3 month interview process that was very public and included the likes of Alan Jones, Nucifora, Mckenzie, Muggleton, Johnson to name a few - The process was run by Pat Howard - JON arose from his sick bed after a neck op and pronounced that Deans was his man (no interview process involved) - he finished off with the Crusaders some 7 months later in 2008 and started with the wallabies. the rest is a matter of public record

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

OK, so let's look at those candidates:

Alan Jones -- don't make me laugh AJ, you were never serious. Hadn't coached for 20 years and had a player mutiny at RWC 1987
Nucifora -- two separate player mutinies at different franchises. Next....
Link -- was he even in the frame? I don't recall him applying.
Muggleton -- a possible, but all we know about him was that he was a great defence coach. No other head coaching experience.
Johnson -- the only credible candidate in my view and the bloke I wanted to get the job.

I am aware of how Deans got the job and I did also say that I disagreed with it. Overall, looking at all the candidates, I still think he was the best of the lot. That is, making the assumption that Link wasn't in the frame. But let's not also forget that Link was let go by the Tahs and then by Stade.

 

[FairWeatherAussie]

He shouldn't have his contracted extended until after the world cup

I don't understand the logic of extending Deans now. If he brings home the Trinations or World Cups, or at least makes a good fist of it, then yes, he deserves to be rewarded with an extension of his contract. But if not, we have, to my mind definitely, a superior coach in Link who could and should take the reigns. Now, I'm glad the dark old days of Eddie Jones and Knuckles are behind us, especially Knuckles, I've never known a coach who didn't realize 9&10 were specialist positions and thought he could try experimenting by putting a 12 (Giteau) into 9 and fullback (Gerrard) into 10. I think those were the low points of Australian rugby coaching.

Robbie is without doubt a proficient and world class coach. But link has shown himself capable of doing the one thing that Robbie has not, and that is make a team greater than the sum of it's parts. He took a team that had nowhere near the number of stars of some of the other franchises. He took doddering old semi-retirees (Samo), unwanted barmen (Robinson), midget sprinters (Davies). He took a scrum that was not dominant and regularly pushed back.

And he turned them into superstars.

 

[Sully]

Link is unavailable till 2013. And we're not releasing him! It's not the first time the ARU have done it. McQueen was reaffirmed before a world cup.

 

[terry j]

My bigger gripe, and on re-watching I believe lost us the game, was the decision making in the first 30 mins when we turned down at least 9 points or more.

dunno about this one.

I mean, did you not cheer when they decided to push for a try instead of the easy (and usual) option of taking an easy kick?

I know the crowd there did, I heard them (over my own I might add!)

I guess a decision like that is only examined in hindsight? Don't we bag the NH teams for turning a match into a kickfest? How often are there calls to reduce a penalty to two points etc etc, all of that stems from a desire to see tries rather than kicks.

He would have been hailed a hero if it had come off no?

 

[TOCC]

Link is unavailable till 2013. And we're not releasing him! It's not the first time the ARU have done it. McQueen was reaffirmed before a world cup.

Also, the players seem to love him and the ARU has been able to retain the bulk of the squad this year, you have to wonder what sort of persuaiveness he has in this department.

 

[DPK]

Also, the players seem to love him and the ARU has been able to retain the bulk of the squad this year, you have to wonder what sort of persuaiveness he has in this department.

Or a good camera.

 

[Gagger]

dunno about this one.

I mean, did you not cheer when they decided to push for a try instead of the easy (and usual) option of taking an easy kick?

I know the crowd there did, I heard them (over my own I might add!)

I guess a decision like that is only examined in hindsight? Don't we bag the NH teams for turning a match into a kickfest? How often are there calls to reduce a penalty to two points etc etc, all of that stems from a desire to see tries rather than kicks.

He would have been hailed a hero if it had come off no?

You kick for touch when either you've got the game nailed, or are chasing one that's got away and a penalty won't make the diff. I'd feel disappointed otherwise in those two situations

However, Not in the first 30 when you're 3 or 10 points down. That's asking for trouble.

 

[DPK]

I disagree, Gagger. You kick for touch to show intent. It shows confidence and determination.

Of course, you've got to score the points to make a kick for touch worth anything...

 

[terry j]

hi gagger

(where is the mud isle BTW??)

Maybe, maybe not. Still feel hindsight has a lot to do with it. WHO even predicted samoa would come close? Sure, lip service 'we will treat them with respect' blah blah (guess they wish they did tho eh?)

IIRC when they first went for the line, it was three nil only? What were the stats at that point, pretty sure the territory and possession were heavily in our favour?

And we did some pretty good hit ups about then, till someone got hammered big time, spilled the ball and samoa scored a runaway try against the flow of the game. (think that was how it went)

And, even then, you could metaphorically shrug your shoulders and say oh well, shit happens sometimes. In other words, there was nothing at that stage to suggest the game was not really going to plan.

Afterwards it gets called 'overconfident', and not treating the opposition with respect. Sure, and in different circumstances you get called 'under confident'.

I guess my main thoughts on it tho are that that fact does nothing to change how the game actually went??? It does not change the fact we were out enthused, out muscled and out played. I don't see the connection between not going for a few goals and how we played?

Even the commentary did not start stressing 'we passed up twelve possible points' till we were way behind, until then it was 'bravo brave sir!'

 

[Gagger]

Look at the Cru - kick poles every time in that position, regardless of oppo. You want to win the game, or entertain?

The point exactly is that at the beginning of the game you DON'T know what's gonna happen, so you take the smartest move - the points on offer. Keep the scoreboard ticking over, like a clever batsman takes 1s and 2s.

Take advantage of sitting in their half by taking the points - don't let them sit there unscathed through good D, waiting for a breakaway try. Make them chase the game and make mistakes.

A few boos from the crowd at the beginning - who cares? You get the scoreboard wearing them down and applying pressure to them mentally, not you. Then you can pile on the tries later in the match.

TBH - I think this is top flight footy 101, but we Aussies don't seem to get it. Seem to think we're playing in the HK sevens the whole time or making up for the underarm bowling incident or something....

PS - The Mud Isle is pommyland

 

[terry j]

pommyland eh? an expat obviously.

I do see your point.

So hypothetical time, and an honest one, who thinks kicking the goals (and let's assume they got them all etc) would have changed the WAY we played? I mean forget that samoa would not have scored the try, and that 12 points was enough top snatch it, but the way we played.

If we think they would have ridden a wave of confidence and played better, well that still does not inspire me with comfort, I mean they are that mentally fragile that they fall to pieces that quickly?

And strangely enough, your crusaders argument (I think) rather backs up MY point rather than yours. The last thing we'd ever ascribe to the crusaders is lack of guts and a tendency to fold with the slightest bit of pressure.

Look at the before the game predictions, we SHOULD have been able to give them a twenty point head start, or so we thought. Man, we folded with far less than that.

I understand your point, take the points when on offer. I am looking at something more than that..at least I think I am haha.

 

[Gagger]

So hypothetical time, and an honest one, who thinks kicking the goals (and let's assume they got them all etc) would have changed the WAY we played?

Most probably, yes. And would also have changed the way Samoa played.

Mental pressure is one of the strongest weapons in any sport - ask Greg Norman. When there's no pressure the passes stick, the bombs are taken, the lineout throws go straight etc etc.

On top of that, people make different decisions depending on whether they're chasing the game, within a handful of points, or out in front, so the scoreboard makes a massive difference to the outcomes of any game as it progresses (not just the winner at the end!)

This is a real bugbear of mine actually. You read comments like "team A just didn't show up" or "Credit to team B but team A made so many mistakes that..."
What these usually ignore is that it's due to the physical and mental pressure that Team B has put on that team A couldn't play their game. Perfect examples being the S15 final and HK Bled.

 

[terry j]

cool, thanks gagger!

 

[Gagger]

Sorry Terry, you found me on my high horse with this one. I do see where you're coming from!

 

[chief]

I've finally muscled up to see what some of the Rugby websites are saying about this loss, and quite frankly I'm surprised there haven't been many enquiring about Deans position as coach. I will continue my relentless negativism towards Deans until he is long gone from Australian Rugby. Even if we win, I want him gone. This is a loss which should damn well haunt everyone playing in that team but especially Robbie Deans. I've read the interviews, and for Deans to show no emotion and be so stubborn about this game is simply a damning indictment on his position. I would like a coach that treats the Wallabies with some sort of respect but also oppositions, quite frankly we as fans deserved better than what Robbie and those fellow misfits of players concocted up last Sunday afternoon.

I think JON position should also be reviewed. An official coaching review of Robbie Deans was needed after the 2009 season and it needed to be conducted by some quality coaches like Link or Laurie Fisher. Now as TBH said it's all "academic" and I have a feeling we will pay because of the complacency and optimism shown by ARU members.

 

[terry j]

Sorry Terry, you found me on my high horse with this one. I do see where you're coming from!

hey. hope it didn't come across as a fob off! I was thanking you for being honest, which is what I asked for.

anyway yeah, cheers!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Chief, I'd be interested to hear your arguments as to why you'd like Deans gone, even if we win the RWC. You're normally a very rational fair minded guy, so I'm surprised to read such a passionate stance. I'm not being being a smart arse, I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Ash]

Gagger; only game I disagree with is with the Baabaas (or exhibition games). Otherwise show respect, take the 3.