JON sets Wallabies the target of becoming No1 by end 2012

[aussie1st]

Took him this long to realize this?

 

[Blob]

It's professional sport - is there a team in the world who doesn't want to be number one?

It lost it's lustre for the ABs about 5 years ago and it's been a bit of a grind since then.

 

[Dan54]

My issue with the ranking system is simply that the Wallabies have been beaten this year by Samoa and Ireland and over the last few years by Scotland and others who remain very significantly below them on the rankings. For a full breakdown of the flaws in the system I would refer you to the thread on the subject in the forum from pre-RWC this year.

I don't think these reasons make the rankings wrong, how many times have we seen for instance a number 50 beat a top 10 player in tennis or golf, if it happened that Samoa or scotland etc beat Wallabies a number of times each I think you could have a point, but the nature of sport is that teams of lesser ability can and will beat better teams because of mental attitude etc on a particular day.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You see less 50th ranked players beat the #1 in tennis than golf, and golf is a special case because you dont even need to win a tournament to be #1. Exhibit A: Norman, G (Aus).
The cricket test rankings seem to be less contentious (or is that a reflection of my lack of interest in cricket) so presumably the algorithm they use is better.

 

[redstragic]

I think we have set ourselves up to fail here. In management circles the communication that comes down to my lowly position is full of the word "agile". It inspires me to such high level of awesome. So much so we no longer say something is awesome at work we say it is agile.
JON has not used this. The word is not to be seen in this communique. I believe him to be behind the times and not not setting an inspirational positive tone. At the end of 2012 when we are ranked 2 or 3 we will be able to directly trace it back to this moment and this moment only.

Grow up JON and use big boys words!! Agile, agileness, agility. Get it!!

 

[Schadenfreude]

I think we have set ourselves up to fail here. In management circles the communication that comes down to my lowly position is full of the word "agile". It inspires me to such high level of awesome. So much so we no longer say something is awesome at work we say it is agile.
JON has not used this. The word is not to be seen in this communique. I believe him to be behind the times and not not setting an inspirational positive tone. At the end of 2012 when we are ranked 2 or 3 we will be able to directly trace it back to this moment and this moment only.

Grow up JON and use big boys words!! Agile, agileness, agility. Get it!!

 

[cyclopath]

You see less 50th ranked players beat the #1 in tennis than golf, and golf is a special case because you dont even need to win a tournament to be #1. Exhibit A: Norman, G (Aus).The cricket test rankings seem to be less contentious (or is that a reflection of my lack of interest in cricket) so presumably the algorithm they use is better.

Silly comment. He won 88 professional tournaments, 20 on the US PGA Tour. He may not have won many majors, but placed very highly in lots, and was very consistent. But I understand snide swipes at Greg is an Australian pastime.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I don't think that was a swipe at Norman. I think it was to point out that you can be deservedly highly ranked even if you don't win all the time.

 

[cyclopath]

"I don't think you even need to win a tournament to be No 1".
Can't imagine how I thought that was implying he didn't win tournaments. Must be too clever for me.

 

[pete88]

The cricket test rankings seem to be less contentious (or is that a reflection of my lack of interest in cricket) so presumably the algorithm they use is better.

India's reign as number 1 was dogged by lots of non-Indians saying they didn't deserve it. Interestingly, the same isn't true of England as far as I can see. Overall I think the rugby ranking system works fairly well tbh, Wales will feel annoyed at their rank, but losing to every team ranked above them that they played at the RWC is never going to improve your ranking. The ABs are clearly the best and spots 2-8 are pretty contentious, sounds about right to me.

I am generally speaking a little surprised how deep the anti-JON sentiment runs here. I like the goal of world number 1, maybe I've written off the reappointment and subsequent shielding of Deans a bit more than most posters here. It's done, his position is therefore safe pretty much till the Lions tour barring a wooden spoon in the 4N and a winless EOYT. He's been set an attainable but fairly immediate and challenging goal that we all want to see. I'm hoping for the best.

And yes I'm being overly optimistic and passive regarding some mismangaement, but I'd prefer to somewhat blindly look forward as it's less depressing, and I think having get to number 1 ASAP is a much better goal than win in 2013/2015.

 

[Gnostic]

"Yes up until now no one has dared say it. And plenty of people in this country and on this forum have justified there arguments by stating we are #2 in the world we can't be that bad. I've had enough of settling for second best but it looks like quite a few on here are happy with it. Just like you they would rather be pedantic than go for the gold.

My objection with the whole release by JON is that it has come hard on the heals of his reappointment of a failed coach with no review. Now we have a review which as I stated pretty much has to find some support for Deans as the ARU cannot afford to break the contract (unless they have an out clause). So they have to put a good face on it. So from a managers point of view it comes down to managing the perceptions of the various stake holders to give the appearance of a real review and some far reaching goals. This is where the board members who rubber stamped JONs decision to reappoint Deans are compromised. The decision to include Nucifora in the review team just makes the situation worse and the whole process becomes impossible to manage in the light of what I said above. No review can be staffed by people with a vested interest in the outcome and maintain any sliver of integrity.

The problem with the declaration of being number 1 isn't anything to do with the ideal of always aiming to win and be the best. Anybody in competition does this. The problem is purely from a management perspective. As I have said previously with the IRB ranking process this is a very hard ask, and from my very rough calculations neigh on impossible given the likely test matches remaining this and and next to achieve the gain. Is the new stated KPI a hollow statement then? What are the consequences for failing to achieve this? Is this KPI written into Deans contract? Is it really fair to require a manager to achieve results that are neigh on impossible?

I don't like Deans as a coach of the Wallabies, IMO his tenure has been and abject failure, but setting goals like this whilst we should fully expect such aims from a player perspective, purely from a management POV is simply unfair and setting somebody up to fail (unless of course the goal is just PR bullshit to divert flak and is never intended to be enforced as has happened a few times with Deans already).

 

[Swat]

(unless of course the goal is just PR bullshit to divert flak and is never intended to be enforced as has happened a few times with Deans already).

I've got a feeling this is the truth of the matter....

 

[RedsHappy]

Yikes. When did G&GR become the one stop shop for your daily dose of cynicism?

I take exception to this jibe at Gnostic. And who are you to so judge and sneer?

Whether you like his commentary or not, the fact of the matter is that if you trace the majority of Gnostic's commentary on matters Wallabies, Deans etc, Gnostic's assessments and predictions from (say) mid-2010, it has proven remarkably accurate and foretelling given where our national team and coaching elite has ended up after the 2011 RWC.

And he's far from 'daily dose' cynical - he'll routinely praise fine play, players, smart game plans and coaches who deliver on fans' reasonable expectations. He loves the game, and has great knowledge about its history in Australia. Just the type of poster this type of site should relish.

The parties that have had a (often cheap-shots) go at him are typically those possessing a kind of blissful, boyhood-like uber-faith in our country's rugby elite and, until recently when the poor results and mediocrity and failed promises became overwhelming obvious, in The Master Coach whose avowed job it was to restore Wallaby glory at the 2011 RWC. So many were seduced into the deposits in belief, they wanted the emperor to have the best of clothes. Gnostic, and some others, saw rags then and still see them now.

 

[DPK]

Welcome to the party, RH. I was waiting.

Firstly, I should point out that my original post in this thread was not directed solely at Gnostic; it was a comment on this thread and the darkening tone of predictions on G&GR of late.

Secondly, I refute the assertion that what I said was a "cheap shot"; Gnostic et al were, in my opinion, being cynical, so I shared my opinion with them and the other members of the forum. I then provided evidence of cynicism in what Gnostic wrote. Who am I to judge and sneer? A member of an open, public forum. The internet is no place to wear your heart on your sleeve.


I reject your rather ad hominem characterisation of my perspective. Here's three reasons:

1) It's rarely "blissful" to be a Wallabies fan. More often than not, like everyone else, I'm grinding my teeth over selections or analysing where we went wrong.

2) Taking an optimistic approach to watching and supporting your team is not immature. I don't think I'll be able to convince you of this, but I suspect this is because we view the build up to games differently. I see a lot of negatively geared analysis: people who bemoan the weaknesses of our team, and often come close to deriding the very group of individuals they support. This wouldn't be a problem, but it seems to be the underlying tone of a section of posters that they cannot break.

3) The Wallabies are not failures. I see myself as a individual who gives credit where it is due. We won the Tri Nations, and finished 3rd at the RWC. For me, that is success to a point; while we haven't ticked all the boxes so to speak, we have not regressed in our strides towards our ultimate goal.

 

[louie]

DPK, besides winning a try nations what else is there to be happy about?

What other nation would rewards failure with two year more years in the job?

 

[fatprop]

How about winning in SA & beating the ABs a couple of times, most countries would see that as a step forward
Sent from my LG-E900 using Board Express

 

[DPK]

What other nation would rewards failure with two year more years in the job?

Define failure; complete failure or the absence of complete success?

DPK, besides winning a try nations what else is there to be happy about?

3rd place in the RWC, positional progression and a better set of goals to work towards.

 

[fatprop]

The parties that have had a (often cheap-shots) go at him are typically those possessing a kind of blissful, boyhood-like uber-faith in our country's rugby elite and, until recently when the poor results and mediocrity and failed promises became overwhelming obvious, in The Master Coach whose avowed job it was to restore Wallaby glory at the 2011 RWC. So many were seduced into the deposits in belief, they wanted the emperor to have the best of clothes. Gnostic, and some others, saw rags then and still see them now.

:yay

yep that's me, I'm a fan. doesn't matter what Aus does I will still sit down and support them every time they play, get disappointed when they lose - absolutely, then brush myself off and get excited about the next game.

The roller coaster ride is part of the fun and being positive (and realistic) is simply the way I would prefer to live my life as a fan.

 

[cyclopath]

DPK, besides winning a try nations what else is there to be happy about?

What other nation would rewards failure with two year more years in the job?

Most of them, actually. Who, besides NZ, achieves the kind of success some seem to feel we must expect? You can sit here and expect us to win 70-80% of Tests, but I suspect that is unrealistic, especially given the number of Tests we play against top 3 opposition. I'd be stoked if we did, but I'm more of a realist. If the coaches of Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England beat SA and NZ in one season, they'd get a raise!
That does not mean I am totally happy with where we are, not at all. We should be more consistent, and the Samoa type aberrations need to be done away with.

 

[Gagger]

We didn't achieve our objective, had no perceivable game plans, played horrific footy by and large, and failed at regular failings (set piece)

If JO'N pokes up with it, he's lost his edge

I don't see the problem with the rankings system. It says the All Blacks are number 1 and lo.... It's usually right on that point too.

I see you don't disappoint with the petty trolling