Deans' warning to Wallabies

[Scarfman]

Just trying to figure out what Robbie is saying. Please let me know if I've got something wrong.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/deans-warning-to-wallabies-20110812-1ipa2.html

This Springboks side that's gathered is one that has a lot of history.

They have a lot of test caps.

They understand the meaning of it, they understand the importance of it and this is their first outing and it's a very short stretch before the World Cup, so they'll want to start well.

They will try to play well because it's not long until the Rugby World Cup.

They'll want to make a statement. So if we're in any way underdone in terms of expectation, we'll get smacked. It's that simple.

They'll try to win. If we don't expect to win, we'll lose. It's that simple.

Obviously the Boks are a totally different team profile from the one we encountered in Sydney and, as a result of that, the way they approach the game will be different.

They've picked a totally different side and therefore they will play differently.

We understand that. We've got to do our best to defuse that and then earn the right to play ourselves.

We comprehend that they will play differently, and try to win. We will try to, er, stop them playing well (?), and if we do that we will be able to execute our attacking game plan (?).

(Little help?)

 

[Gnostic]

Just trying to figure out what Robbie is saying. Please let me know if I've got something wrong.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/deans-warning-to-wallabies-20110812-1ipa2.html



They have a lot of test caps.



They will try to play well because it's not long until the Rugby World Cup.



They'll try to win. If we don't expect to win, we'll lose. It's that simple.



They've picked a totally different side and therefore they will play differently.



We comprehend that they will play differently, and try to win. We will try to, er, stop them playing well (?), and if we do that we will be able to execute our attacking game plan (?).

(Little help?)

Surely he doesn't suggest he has one? I would interpret that a bit different, "We will try to play what is in front of us and hopefully that will be a gap between some defenders." or something similar

 

[cyclopath]

1. They're old
2. They're good at Sudoku and crosswords, and read Dan Brown novels.
3. They talk a good game, and are into S&M type role-play
4. Sideways, they look different to other Bokke players
5. Robbie thinks if they catch Francois' first bomb, they get to play by themselves for a bit???

 

[terry j]

Quoting Mad Robbie
We understand that. We've got to do our best to defuse that and then earn the right to play ourselves.



(Little help?)

If we win we play our B team?

best help I can give, dunno if it's any good tho

 

[ChargerWA]

"I don't actually have much of a clue, but by speaking gibberish I hope you won't catch on until I have fucked your national team for 6 years".

 

[Athilnaur]

Here's my take;

"This Springboks side that's gathered is one that has a lot of history," Deans said ahead of the Wallabies' last chance to notch a meaningful away win before challenging for the Webb Ellis Cup in New Zealand.

"They understand the meaning of it, they understand the importance of it and this is their first outing (together for the year) and it's a very short stretch before the World Cup, so they'll want to start well.

"They'll want to make a statement. So if we're in any way underdone in terms of expectation, we'll get smacked. It's that simple."

Christ I have been asked another dumbass question by the media, of course this team is tougher than the last Bok team. They're gonna be sorer than a wild pig that has had it's balls bitten. Of course they are gonna play hard, FFS.

Thank god for that wackybacky hippy mediaspeak guy from Nelson who taught me to speak in code or I'd be telling these dumbasses to f..k off.

"Obviously the Boks are a totally different team profile from the one we encountered in Sydney and, as a result of that, the way they approach the game will be different," Deans said.

"We understand that. We've got to do our best to defuse that and then earn the right to play ourselves."

See point one. Dumbass. Except that pet journo at Foxsports, nice diversion about Sonny Bill /wink.

 

[Hardtackle]

I can imagine the board after they interviewed him 3.5 years ago saying amoungst themselves, "no wonder we're getting flogged, the game must have a new language because i couldn't understand WTF he was on about. Fuck it, give him the job we'll get the players to fill us in later."

Ever since he started the players must be having a meeting of their own after the game plan meeting to work out what he said. Clearly they can't figure it out either because they often play like they haven't been coached.

 

[Thomond78]

At least Snor has the excuse that English isn't his first language.

 

[Cutter]

This is one of the funnier threads on G&GR for some time.

 

[Scarfman]

I can imagine the board after they interviewed him 3.5 years ago saying amoungst themselves, "no wonder we're getting flogged, the game must have a new language because i couldn't understand WTF he was on about. Fuck it, give him the job we'll get the players to fill us in later."

Ever since he started the players must be having a meeting of their own after the game plan meeting to work out what he said. Clearly they can't figure it out either because they often play like they haven't been coached.

I'm going to take up this point semi-seriously. The Australian speechwriter Don Watson has written a couple of books about weasel words in politics. It's language that's deliberately obfuscating (e.g., collatoral damage, extraordinary rendition) in order to avoid responsibility.

What happens to a group of sportsmen when they are given instructions in this kind of weasel language? Can they handle abstract instuctions like "enhance attacking windows"? Or does this actually explain why they don't seem to know the game plan?

Link McKenzie is able to talk to the press without using language from a 1980s management textbook.

 

[Reddy!]

Haha I agree completely. Some of the stuff he comes out with honestly rivals PdV. He should be more like the great Wayne Bennett and simply not say anything.

 

[Bruce Ross]

What happens to a group of sportsmen when they are given instructions in this kind of weasel language? Can they handle abstract instructions like "enhance attacking windows"? Or does this actually explain why they don't seem to know the game plan?

It worked for Brock, Scarfie. Admittedly not "enhance attacking windows" but how about "crowbars through the Opera House windows"?

Come to think of it that's what Australian rugby needs right now, a reincarnation of the great man to revive the spirit of "The Battle of Brisbane". "Step forward" makes a lot more sense than "dance around them".

 

[RedsHappy]

I know it's not 100% on topic, but what appalls me is the repetitive obfuscation of responsibility as a leader I see in Deans (as distinct from, but perhaps linked with, obfuscation of language in communication as so well highlighted here).

By which I mean, solely by way of example, this: "Deans pulls Wallabies back into line":

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...line-as-810cap-boks-await-20110812-1iqsj.html

Every time the Wallabies deliver another bungled game with manifest evidence of poor preparation and coaching deficiency on a panoramic scale, Deans grabs Growden and a piece appears immediately afterwards (as per today and the last few days) that basically lays fault with the players for doing something inadequate that (a) the coach is not happy with and (b) is the fault of the players not somehow complying with the coach's implicit plans or wishes. And, accordingly, Deans is having to now issue 'tough new instructions', 'demand more or better from his players', and 'spots in the team are now on the line', and so forth. Growden proves the perfect mouthpiece and acts as though he is listening to an oracle of ultimate rugby wisdom, he offers no critique or assessment, just a full recycling in probably Australia's most read rugby journal.

There _never_ appears a piece where Deans (or any of the oddly constructed and oddly titled support coaching group) takes any responsibility for the mediocrity and losses. There is _never_ a '...gee, I am the Head Coach, what we're doing is not working well, and I take a big share of the responsibility and I'm going to work harder on getting my own plans and the team right, don't blame the team, they respond to what we ask and set down...' IMO, in all my experience of leading teams and people, this is what a genuinely self-confident leader does, he or she absolves the group under them to relieve the pressure somewhat and to how show enervating fortitude and an obligation for leadership to deliver, not just the soldiers in battle. This is called 'character' and genuine nobility under fire, where you lead by example, not subtle blame shifting and critique-avoidance so the focus is moved away from you.

In this, I am not suggesting that players are not 'at fault' etc, and should not be critiqued as such. Far from it. But I am suggesting that we have a national coach that does not actually, when the chips are down, take responsibility for anything and for results, the core of his media management ploys are always to imply that his charges are in some ways deficient and have not quite yet learnt to play in the mode set forth by their master. And this is not sound leadership, and it will not build true trust, excellence of winners' culture and deeper morale with those in the charge of the national rugby coach.

 

[Hardtackle]

Maybe Deans has a deep seated insecurity complex which manifests itself in smashed speech and the reluctance to try different selection options.

Don't people speak like this in an attempt to make themselves appear smarter? The problem is he's not a good orator. If the listeners are in the top 5% of the population for verbal reasoning skills they can (almost) figure out what he's on about. Whilst there are undoubtedly some wits in the team, most are better footballers than wordsmiths - thank fuck. No need for cunning linguists at the top of Australian rugby.

Surely a tough as teak forward pack and slick back line coached by a straight talking leader of men would get the job done. I believe that the WB's are underperforming given the quality of players we have. To me that's a leadership problem.

 

[Ruggo]

G&GR needs to make up a poster with the translation on it. It would be a hit.

 

[Hardtackle]

G&GR needs to make up a poster with the translation on it. It would be a hit.

Mate, the ARU should make the poster. They hired him.

 

[Henry]

There _never_ appears a piece where Deans (or any of the oddly constructed and oddly titled support coaching group) takes any responsibility for the mediocrity and losses. There is _never_ a '...gee, I am the Head Coach, what we're doing is not working well, and I take a big share of the responsibility and I'm going to work harder on getting my own plans and the team right, don't blame the team, they respond to what we ask and set down...' IMO, in all my experience of leading teams and people, this is what a genuinely self-confident leader does, he or she absolves the group under them to relieve the pressure somewhat and to how show enervating fortitude and an obligation for leadership to deliver, not just the soldiers in battle. This is called 'character' and genuine nobility under fire, where you lead by example, not subtle blame shifting and critique-avoidance so the focus is moved away from you.

Pretty much what Link did after the 2 bad losses at the start of the Super season with the Reds. IIRC he admitted his game plan had failed, took responsibility of that and strove to formulate a better one. The rest is history.

 

[Stickybeak]

I know it's not 100% on topic, but what appalls me is the repetitive obfuscation of responsibility as a leader I see in Deans (as distinct from, but perhaps linked with, obfuscation of language in communication as so well highlighted here).

By which I mean, solely by way of example, this: "Deans pulls Wallabies back into line":

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...line-as-810cap-boks-await-20110812-1iqsj.html

Every time the Wallabies deliver another bungled game with manifest evidence of poor preparation and coaching deficiency on a panoramic scale, Deans grabs Growden and a piece appears immediately afterwards (as per today and the last few days) that basically lays fault with the players for doing something inadequate that (a) the coach is not happy with and (b) is the fault of the players not somehow complying with the coach's implicit plans or wishes. And, accordingly, Deans is having to now issue 'tough new instructions', 'demand more or better from his players', and 'spots in the team are now on the line', and so forth. Growden proves the perfect mouthpiece and acts as though he is listening to an oracle of ultimate rugby wisdom, he offers no critique or assessment, just a full recycling in probably Australia's most read rugby journal.

There _never_ appears a piece where Deans (or any of the oddly constructed and oddly titled support coaching group) takes any responsibility for the mediocrity and losses. There is _never_ a '...gee, I am the Head Coach, what we're doing is not working well, and I take a big share of the responsibility and I'm going to work harder on getting my own plans and the team right, don't blame the team, they respond to what we ask and set down...' IMO, in all my experience of leading teams and people, this is what a genuinely self-confident leader does, he or she absolves the group under them to relieve the pressure somewhat and to how show enervating fortitude and an obligation for leadership to deliver, not just the soldiers in battle. This is called 'character' and genuine nobility under fire, where you lead by example, not subtle blame shifting and critique-avoidance so the focus is moved away from you.

In this, I am not suggesting that players are not 'at fault' etc, and should not be critiqued as such. Far from it. But I am suggesting that we have a national coach that does not actually, when the chips are down, take responsibility for anything and for results, the core of his media management ploys are always to imply that his charges are in some ways deficient and have not quite yet learnt to play in the mode set forth by their master. And this is not sound leadership, and it will not build true trust, excellence of winners' culture and deeper morale with those in the charge of the national rugby coach.

We should be thankful for a small mercy in that Growden does not analyse, criticise or assess because on the occasions in the past when he has done so he has shown absolutely no understanding of the game. Rupert Guinness is a far more professional, knowledgeable and balanced journo but I assume Growden won't give up the top gig - who would?

The only way to get any insight is to look at the NZ Herald and see what they are saying about us.

 

[Stickybeak]

It worked for Brock, Scarfie. Admittedly not "enhance attacking windows" but how about "crowbars through the Opera House windows"?

Come to think of it that's what Australian rugby needs right now, a reincarnation of the great man to revive the spirit of "The Battle of Brisbane". "Step forward" makes a lot more sense than "dance around them".

Step forward gets you 10 in the bin these days
Is there reliable evidence that he talks this rubbish to the players as opposed to the press - in particular Growden?
I think if you dig deeper you'll find there is a serious problem with the number of specialist coaches and the possible absence of a real role for the head coach in other than man management issues (to use weasel words). When Brok coached it would have been him and the manager - they weren't allowed to assemble for domestic tests prior to the Wednesday before the test and the coach had the job only until the next season, or test, if he was lucky and could afford it. also the coach was not allowed to speak to the players at half time..... which might be something the Tahs could reintroduce.

 

[Langthorne]

'positions are now on the line' really shits me - positions should always be on the line.