Deans contract extended

[Langthorne]

A lot of initiatives the ARU set out prior and post Deans' appointment have already been realized. Namely, the development of younger players, building a competitive side to vie for the World Cup, and a new franchise to enter the Super tournament.

Wasn't there a 'win something' initiative? Something about trophies?

You can't judge Deans by results alone. We're playing the Boks and Blacks more regularly meaning our winning percentages have taken a hammering. I'd be interested to see Deans percentages split between Tri-nations and non Tri-nations opponents. He might compare more favourably to his predecessors on that basis.

If judged by results alone, he doesn't compare favourably to his predecessors. His winning percentage against the All Blacks is particularly poor.

Most of these arguments have of course been covered on the blog and in the forum....I think there have been positives and negatives in Australian rugby over the term of Robbie Deans' tenure, some of them relate to Deans and some are coincidental to it. Depending on which positives and negatives one attributes to him, the picture can be quite different. I still think he should be given free reign and all possible support from the ARU until the RWC, and then his contract should be reassessed.

 

[Cutter]

The follow-up comments highlight my point about us being "the most kind-hearted and easiest satisfied nation in world rugby." I was particularly taken by Cutter's observation that "the Wallabies, led by some of these younger players, played some very exciting, and even winning, rugby." Says it all really.

Bruce "and even winning" was inserted specifically for your benefit. I'm glad it wasn't wasted. Clearly the rest of my post was.

 

[Reddy!]

4) Link is going to choke on his cornflakes this morning....

No he won't. Link is only in his 2nd year at the Reds and is doing a good job so far there. He still has another few years now to prove with the Reds that he should be next in line for the Wallabies job. Come 2014 he will probably be the man for the job - I think 2012 would be too soon.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Bruce "and even winning" was inserted specifically for your benefit. I'm glad it wasn't wasted. Clearly the rest of my post was.

Sorry, Cutter, I was in mischievous mood.

 

[Red Rooster]

No he won't. Link is only in his 2nd year at the Reds and is doing a good job so far there. He still has another few years now to prove with the Reds that he should be next in line for the Wallabies job. Come 2014 he will probably be the man for the job - I think 2012 would be too soon.

What the 5 years at the Tahs and time at the Wallabies, when they last won the Bledisloe, Tri nations and British Lions does not count?

I think you will find that the players that have re-signed with the ARU will be more to do with the fact that they want to play in this RWC - Don't sign, don't play I suspect would be the mood - Why were they looking at o/s anyway. You will never hear a bad word about the wallabies coach from the players until he is gone - Human nature the players won't jepordize their chances to play

 

[fatprop]

I don't see anyone out there that would be an upgrade, so far enough.

More important to me is who is replacing Richard Graham?

 

[RugbyReg]

I don't see anyone out there that would be an upgrade, so far enough.

More important to me is who is replacing Richard Graham?

Harsh. Give him a chance. He's just coached one proper game? And only lost by a point.

 

[Slim 293]

Apparently Deans has lost his house in the quake... Will try to confirm...

 

[Brumbies Guy]

Apparently Deans has lost his house in the quake... Will try to confirm...

I thought this happened at last years quakes?

 

[Slim 293]

I thought this happened at last years quakes?

Hmmm... I just left work before I could confirm, but he just did a presser...

 

[Scotty]

Harsh. Give him a chance. He's just coached one proper game? And only lost by a point.

Ha ha.

 

[Scotty]

Bewildering isnt it...

There were only 2 teams in the world last year who can lay claim to defeating all the other top 5 nations... New Zealand and you guessed it, Australia!

You really think we deserve a number 2 ranking based on a few scratchy wins over a 6 month period?

I remember being beaten by NZ 3 times, by England twice. I remember struggling past Ireland, Italy and Wales. I particularly remember losing to Munster.

Has 59-16 clouded everyone's views?

 

[daz]

You really think we deserve a number 2 ranking based on a few scratchy wins over a 6 month period?

I think it fair to say that every team was ranked according to results with the exact same formula.

We accrued more ranking points than any other team, except the #1 ranked team, so yes....we deserve the #2 spot.

 

[Gagger]

And the team that really deserves to be #2 would be.......

 

[daz]

And the team that really deserves to be #2 would be.......

Geez Gagger. Talk about shit-stirring!

Anyone who says England should be permanently banned....

 

[matty_k]

You can't deny that they (England) are playing good rugby at the moment.

 

[waratahjesus]

And the team that really deserves to be #2 would be.......

i'll say England, they beat us here and at home. i would say SA as well really. we should be forth.

 

[daz]

i'll say England, they beat us here and at home. i would say SA as well really. we should be forth.

As in go forth, young man? Go forth and multiply? Go forth and win one for the gipper? I think that with Deans being re-appointed, we are certainly doing that...

I don't agree with your thinking here wj. Yes, the Poms beat us twice, and we probably don't look like a 2nd ranked team, but again, the fact is the IRB say we are. What is there to argue about?

 

[waratahjesus]

As in go forth, young man? Go forth and multiply? Go forth and win one for the gipper? I think that with Deans being re-appointed, we are certainly doing that...

I don't agree with your thinking here wj. Yes, the Poms beat us twice, and we probably don't look like a 2nd ranked team, but again, the fact is the IRB say we are. What is there to argue about?

i think there is plenty to argue about, if people within australia question it the rest of the world must be rolling there eyes.
i wish i had deans job, honestly, i thought last year was meant to be when results started, then we got one win out of four against the all blacks and were happy go lucky. but no, its this year, but then again even witht he world cup it doesnt matter cos he blooded young players, hip hip hooray, they have a bigger loosing percentage than the guys he shafted but there young so we rate them on a scale of "might get better" "will get better" "its possible even though it seems unlikely" and deans has no one to answer to

 

[daz]

You can't deny that they (England) are playing good rugby at the moment.

Indeed they are. (Shit, that hurts...). They are becoming the kind of team that fans enjoy watching play the game.