John O'Neil Must Have Been Misquoted

[Scott Allen]

In the Courier Mail this morning Mike Colman interviewed John O'Neil after the Wallabies loss against Ireland. Unfortunately I can't find a link for the interview to share with you.

When asked about the reappointment of Robbie Deans in light of the result, one of O'Neil's justifications was "Back in April, 1999, we reappointed Rod Macqueen for two years and the World Cup wasn't until October and he had achieved at that time pretty much what Robbie had achieved"

Does John O'Neil have that much disregard for Wallabies fans that he thinks he can just throw this rubbish out there and we'll believe it?

In April 1999 Rod Maqueen had been in charge of the Wallabies for 16 tests. His record? 13 wins (81.25%), 1 draw and 2 losses. The 2 losses were in the first two tests he coached - against Argentina and then South Africa. In those 16 tests the Wallabies had played the All Blacks three times and won all of those games. They played three games against England for two wins and a draw.

John O'Neil - you are full of it - or you've been misquoted and I apologise in advance!

 

[Antony]

Maybe he just meant they'd each won one tri-nations...

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

[Aussie D]

Macqueen didn't win the tri-nations until 2000. Think he was the first (and from memory the only) Australian coach to achieve the Bledisloe whitewash. Can anyone remind me what Robbie had achieved with the Wallabies when he was reappointed earlier this year?

 

[antipodean]

Macqueen didn't win the tri-nations until 2000. Think he was the first (and from memory the only) Australian coach to achieve the Bledisloe whitewash. Can anyone remind me what Robbie had achieved with the Wallabies when he was reappointed earlier this year?

A record loss to South Africa, a record run of losses to New Zealand and Australia's first loss to Samoa?

 

[Duncher]

A record loss to South Africa, a record run of losses to New Zealand and Australia's first loss to Samoa?

You forgot to mention he has the worst winning record for an Aussie coach since rugby turned professional... In fact even Greg Smith had a better winning percentage...

 

[antipodean]

Although I was being somewhat facetious; Deans' tenure has been characterised by bipolar results. It is true that he has had to oversee a generational change among a great deal of players, losing a lot of experience as a result. Although the form players in Australia are subsequently picked for the squad, the flip side of that of course is having to work out which of these players possess the Test mentality and temperament. Not all of them can make the step up.

The difference between good sides and great sides is the latter will win matches it should lose. This comes from an unerring belief that they can come out on top after 80 minutes; that they have the skill, experience, nous and attitude that will provide them with not only the opportunity, but the ability to take advantage when it presents itself.

The Wallabies have the skill to win more matches than it does. As an All Blacks supporter, I shake my head watching the Wobblies bumble their way to a loss against Scotland or Samoa. That would never be acceptable in New Zealand. We don't lose to minnows and I can't help but feel this isn't a coaching issue; ultimately the players don't care enough. It's not like they're stupid; Wallaby teams have a well deserved reputation for playing intelligent rugby. So it must be attitude. It's the only card left in the deck.

One last thought; any failing of a player skill wise should have been re-mediated long before they walk into a Wallaby squad...

 

[RedsHappy]

A record loss to South Africa, a record run of losses to New Zealand and Australia's first loss to Samoa?

More could be added to that unfortunate list of 'embarrassing firsts'. But can I note here that I see the ARU media machine going guns blazing over the 'we've won the tri-nations for the first time in 10 years' line. Indeed, a nice piece of silverware but at best it's a clear case of 'Tri Nations (very) Lite' as (a) the number of games was materially cut back and (b) SA multiple times fielded knowingly second string teams against both Aus and NZ, as did, to a lesser but still significant degree, the ABs v SA when it suited them.

The 2011 Wallaby wins away v SA and a first good win v ABs at Suncorp, these were achievements, but I for one can't get too excited about the 2011 version of the 3N. Sadly too, that was something of a false dawn for Aus as we yet again 'forgot to take our intensity and composure pills' v Ireland last Saturday.

 

[Duncher]

Although I was being somewhat facetious; Deans' tenure has been characterised by bipolar results. It is true that he has had to oversee a generational change among a great deal of players, losing a lot of experience as a result. Although the form players in Australia are subsequently picked for the squad, the flip side of that of course is having to work out which of these players possess the Test mentality and temperament. Not all of them can make the step up.

The difference between good sides and great sides is the latter will win matches it should lose. This comes from an unerring belief that they can come out on top after 80 minutes; that they have the skill, experience, nous and attitude that will provide them with not only the opportunity, but the ability to take advantage when it presents itself.

The Wallabies have the skill to win more matches than it does. As an All Blacks supporter, I shake my head watching the Wobblies bumble their way to a loss against Scotland or Samoa. That would never be acceptable in New Zealand. We don't lose to minnows and I can't help but feel this isn't a coaching issue; ultimately the players don't care enough. It's not like they're stupid; Wallaby teams have a well deserved reputation for playing intelligent rugby. So it must be attitude. It's the only card left in the deck.

One last thought; any failing of a player skill wise should have been re-mediated long before they walk into a Wallaby squad...

Well put Antipodean, it wouldn't be tolerated in NZ and nor should it be tolerated here. I just feel if I shake my head any more it will fall off...

 

[RedsHappy]

In the Courier Mail this morning Mike Colman interviewed John O'Neil after the Wallabies loss against Ireland. Unfortunately I can't find a link for the interview to share with you.

When asked about the reappointment of Robbie Deans in light of the result, one of O'Neil's justifications was "Back in April, 1999, we reappointed Rod Macqueen for two years and the World Cup wasn't until October and he had achieved at that time pretty much what Robbie had achieved"

Does John O'Neil have that much disregard for Wallabies fans that he thinks he can just throw this rubbish out there and we'll believe it?

In April 1999 Rod Maqueen had been in charge of the Wallabies for 16 tests. His record? 13 wins (81.25%), 1 draw and 2 losses. The 2 losses were in the first two tests he coached - against Argentina and then South Africa. In those 16 tests the Wallabies had played the All Blacks three times and won all of those games. They'd played three games against England for two wins and a draw.

John O'Neil - you are full of it - or you've been misquoted and I apologise in advance!

Scott, I doubt it's a misquote, he's said very similar things (re the Macqueen background in 1999) before to justify this extraordinary re-signing of Deans before he had delivered anything of objective substance after nearly 4 years in charge of the Wallabies.

The current turn of events re Ireland and the ominous signs of poor coaching sitting within will be deeply unsettling for JO'N in terms of the politics of his own position and the ARU's Board's external credibility, and triply so as Deans has been re-signed until 2013 with scant objective justification. And, as of today, the same could be said of JO'N's convenient re-signing - he's been ARU CEO for approx 12-13 years of the last 16, and that's simply way off best practice for any sporting or business organisation where 5-7 years service should be the outer limit for any CEO, including good ones.

You'll recall that the ARU conveniently and disingenuously in late 2009/2010 shifted all the Deans-related Wallaby KPIs from 'routinely winning multiple BCs and 3Ns' to 'now it's all about the RWC 2011', and Deans himself directly repeated this as 'the real ARU goal has always been the RWC' in Christchurch last year before the BC game there. If Aus goes through to the RWC QF v SA and loses: essentially, against all the metrics that matter, namely w-l%, BCs, 3Ns won, RWC out-of, Wallaby home crowd declines, etc, the whole period will only be able to be described (in honest not gushing PR forms) as an extended debacle of systemic non-achievement for the Wallaby brand. Yet we will then have Deans through 2013 (barring a forced resignation in November). And, what has not been discussed in this context, a new coach coming in from early 2014 will have way less than 2 years to prepare for the 2015 RWC in England (gulp), so he'll be in a very similar position to Connolly's position in 2006-7, that is to say, a far from optimal position to plan and develop his own imprinted squad to win that next RWC.

This latter issue being yet reason #33 as to why the pre-emptive re-signing of Deans through 2013 was far more an act of irresponsible individual and corporate hubris and ego-defending than it ever was one of wisdom and sound strategic judgement (and I'll say the same thing btw in the unlikely event we win the 2011 RWC).

 

[Athilnaur]

It's a fair question, other than observing the Wallabies have perhaps also won matches on days of brilliance that they didn't merit.

It's character to win in the last 20 I consider a sign of a great team. Certainly something the ABs have done many times. The patience and determination to win.

I dared hope the Wallabies were building to this, but while I did see determination last weekend I didn't see patience.

Another lesson? Maybe, but I fear that lesson is learnt over years not games.

At the end of the day tho, I believe in this team. 2011 may be to early, but they're still our team, and a good one.

They aren't the ABs and I don't ever want them to be. Aussie has always liked to have a tilt, and long may it remain so.

 

[Scarfman]

... It is true that he has had to oversee a generational change among a great deal of players, losing a lot of experience as a result ...

I won't go on about it, but I vigorously contest the need for generational change. In my opinion, (1) it is always unjustifiable - just pick the man for the next match; (2) ridiculously over-focused on one random tournament which can be won or lost by a ref or a bad bounce; (3) it has manifestly not paid off for Robbie, with a team that looks significantly underdone compared to the team he started with.

Scarf out.

 

[antipodean]

I won't go on about it, but I vigorously contest the need for generational change. In my opinion, (1) it is always unjustifiable - just pick the man for the next match; (2) ridiculously over-focused on one random tournament which can be won or lost by a ref or a bad bounce; (3) it has manifestly not paid off for Robbie, with a team that looks significantly underdone compared to the team he started with.

Scarf out.

Pocock, Genia, Kepu, O'Connor, Alexander, Cooper - all forced on Deans through either retirement or form.

 

[waratahjesus]

Pocock, Genia, Kepu, O'Connor, Alexander, Cooper - all forced on Deans through either retirement or form.

There not forced, there selected. All chosen at his hand as incumbents and next best things.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I won't go on about it, but I vigorously contest the need for generational change. In my opinion, (1) it is always unjustifiable - just pick the man for the next match; (2) ridiculously over-focused on one random tournament which can be won or lost by a ref or a bad bounce; (3) it has manifestly not paid off for Robbie, with a team that looks significantly underdone compared to the team he started with.

Scarf out.

Thats how we sell it..to ourselves.

 

[Bowside]

Pocock, Genia, Kepu, O'Connor, Alexander, Cooper - all forced on Deans through either retirement or form.

Tahu, Ma'afu, Cowan, Edmonds, Cross, Mumm, Brown, McCalman. Go figure.

Although I was being somewhat facetious; Deans' tenure has been characterised by bipolar results. It is true that he has had to oversee a generational change among a great deal of players, losing a lot of experience as a result. Although the form players in Australia are subsequently picked for the squad, the flip side of that of course is having to work out which of these players possess the Test mentality and temperament. Not all of them can make the step up.

The difference between good sides and great sides is the latter will win matches it should lose. This comes from an unerring belief that they can come out on top after 80 minutes; that they have the skill, experience, nous and attitude that will provide them with not only the opportunity, but the ability to take advantage when it presents itself.

The Wallabies have the skill to win more matches than it does. As an All Blacks supporter, I shake my head watching the Wobblies bumble their way to a loss against Scotland or Samoa. That would never be acceptable in New Zealand. We don't lose to minnows and I can't help but feel this isn't a coaching issue; ultimately the players don't care enough. It's not like they're stupid; Wallaby teams have a well deserved reputation for playing intelligent rugby. So it must be attitude. It's the only card left in the deck.

One last thought; any failing of a player skill wise should have been re-mediated long before they walk into a Wallaby squad...

I totally agree with this, couldn't of put it better myself. There has been something like 8 or 9 tests under deans that should have been won and weren't, I think its pretty evident that winning them would have done more for the team psyche than losing and writing it off as building towards something more.

 

[Gnostic]

Pocock, Genia, Kepu, O'Connor, Alexander, Cooper - all forced on Deans through either retirement or form.

Rubbish. Pocock demanded his place on form and Smith retired a year later after sharing the duties. Genia simply the best 9 in Oz and Gregan was gone long before he came on the seen. Kepu demanded slection in 2010 but Deans refused taking the injured Alexander in his usual teachers pet way. Alexander is still at best the fourth best THP in Oz when one considers the core duties of the THP. O'Connor would and should have been selected on form, just not at 15 or on the wing. He is neither of those. Cooper likewise is really the only real choice at 10, espeically with Barnes semi-crocked and deserves the spot on form. He has also consistantly refused to select players on proven form, Dennis and Sharpe spring to mind.

Where does Vickerman fit in the Generational change?

Deans spurring generational change is bullshit, but saying these players were forced on him is also crap. There is true depth in Oz Rugby just many decline to see it.

 

[antipodean]

There not forced, there selected. All chosen at his hand as incumbents and next best things.

So after Gregan retired, and players like Brett Sheehan, Josh Valentine and Luke Burgess were tried, Will Genia didn't demand selection? That as Smith's form (and interest) dropped, Pocock wasn't emerging as better than Phil Waugh? Ok...

Rubbish. Pocock demanded his place on form and Smith retired a year later after sharing the duties. Genia simply the best 9 in Oz and Gregan was gone long before he came on the seen.

/sigh What did I write ffs?

 

[Bowside]

Genia almost demanded selection. The first two scrummys you listed aren't upto the standard and burgess while strong in some areas, cant pass to the right.

 

[Scarfman]

Damn, said "Scarf out" then still here.

Just like Sharpe vs Simmons, Deans will always pick the younger player. As I've said before, he has a greater youth fetish than Alan Jones. The whole point of all that "development" and "learning" is that by the time the RWC comes around we're supposed to have a super-drilled, battle-hardened troupe. Manifestly, we don't. What was it all for? Some tomorrow that is yet to come, like a few posters are saying. "Steady as she goes, we're getting there. We're building depth, we're learning". Give me a break!

Scarf so out.

 

[da_grubster]

They aren't the ABs and I don't ever want them to be. Aussie has always liked to have a tilt, and long may it remain so.

what do you mean by that?