Its funny that so many get sidetracked into arguments over the relative merits of middle management and the impact they have on the charges they are given. In 2003 the Wallaby pack was equal 2nd best in the world IMO. England were by far the strongest in terms of 1st 15 and depth. Then Wallabies and NZ. Jones and his team did a terrific number of the ABs that year yes they conceded one in poor fashion but they also worked out the tactics that would beat the ABs later in the year.
A couple of years on and the Jones game plan was very stale and the continuing League style Rugby he was playing contributed greatly to the performances of his assistants. Have a look at the squads selected and there is a frightening homogeny between the players in terms of physical stature and to a certain degree game play from the front row to the 15. There was a dicernable lack of any focus on the set piece, which was really an interuption of the unlimitted tackle League that we were seeing. It is ironic that one can trace the genisis of that game plan from Macqueen's steady recycling and grinding game plan that served him well until 2002 (when against the Lions the writing for that plan was plainly on the wall). So when blaming coaches for the dire forward play by the Wallabies from 2004 onwards many stones are cast at the assistants, but did they get to choose or even have a say in who they would get for the set pieces they would get derided for? Bill Young was far from the best LHP in Oz yet he got selected for a reason, as I would say Alexander does now.
Williams is now copping it sweet for the failure of his set pieces and general lack of efficiency from his forwards but I have to ask, in the last 4 years when have we seen a Wallabies pack composed of the best players in their positions selected to make a cohesive whole? I would say we have seen a pack with a few different faces selected purely for one thing, speed, agility and counter attack. The assistants are then told that they have to ensure that those players selected (in the positions that Deans et al specify) will ensure clean ball on their own set piece and ruck. Occassionally, very occassionally they will combine well enough to pressure the opposition at those phases but rarely given the pack is not formed to do that. Nobody should be surprised by that.
So look at the facts, no matter what the "review" finds somebody had to be sacrificed, hence Williams is gone, I would suggest that Noriega would also have been sacrificed if there was a high profile scrum coach available to take over, but I would suggest that Foley and Mackenzie have both indicated by their actions that they will not take the job. That leaves Nucifora and blind Freddie can see where his ambition lies and he will not want to be tainted by what bodes for the next two years under Deans, more of the same medicocrity dressed up as success.
For those who state that Williams contract was up and he was not sacked "his contract was not renewed", the ARU "renewed" the contract of his boss who has exactly the same success rate in this position. Williams was appointed by Deans after he "won" (I say that with much derision that the internet cannot convey) his position. A position he "won" without any real planning as to who would be his support team, as was the case when he applied and was declined the AB spot. When Henry and Co were reappointed in 2007 by the NZRU it was a unit proposition, all were reappointed as a group or all would have been replaced.
