LOCKED: Time to Sack Deans?

[Red Rooster]

You are an easy get Louie - This is a story written by a fan with a typewriter - if you read theroar.com.au you would know that Spiro loves everything Deans. Let me summarise this effort - everything good in the players is a result of Deans, everything bad is a result of the Super 14 coaches - If Deans can single handedly improve Genia and Cooper, why has he not improved Brown, Mitchell and Barnes - they have actually been part of the Deans program for an extra year

 

[RedsHappy]

You are an easy get Louie - This is a story written by a fan with a typewriter - if you read theroar.com.au you would know that Spiro loves everything Deans. Let me summarise this effort - everything good in the players is a result of Deans, everything bad is a result of the Super 14 coaches - If Deans can single handedly improve Genia and Cooper, why has he not improved Brown, Mitchell and Barnes - they have actually been part of the Deans program for an extra year

Yes, RR, yes. SZ can give us the (very) occasional piece of insight, but it's a long wait between drinks. The rest is, best case, hilariously inconsistent, bizarre even, the worst, highly inaccurate and shamefully so for a paid journalist. Just this last week I saw a piece wherein he was advocating Anthony Fainga'a be returned to run on hooker from the bench.

Like you, I just loved the 'Deans coached QC (Quade Cooper) and WG brilliantly, the others came and remained highly flawed'. So many of the examples he quotes of 'major faults coming up from poor S14 coaches' are indeed items that, should a Wallabies coach detect them (as he quickly would), he should either reject the player, or absolutely put in place remedial training or educational strategies to fix them at the very earliest point, and all of them. SZ refers to both Giteau and Mitchell, whom have been Wallabies for many years. That's what good coaches do, over time. Just like RD and his team should be helping Rocky with a refs management skill set (straight out of the book of HRH McCaw, whom RD knows quite well), from day one of Rocky's first Test in that role.

There's quite a few 'Deans the Crusaders genius' media-love pieces around the Australian rugby mainstream media these last few days. Bret Harris has a beauty where apparently the ABs principal game elements last Saturday were 'stolen' by the ABs directly from RD's Crusader years. I hope the Cartel have already copyrighted these extraordinary innovations so as to avoid paying royalties to the Crusaders. A week or so back Harris branded Rocky one of the very great Wallaby Captains in the making (a bit premature, don't you think, based upon what we are seeing so far?)

 

[Richo]

Giteau might have had the raw talents of Horan, but he's never done the work necessary to build his game the way he should have. To be fair, though, he's also suffered from being jerked around positionally far too much. Horan had the heart of a champion and Giteau has the heart of a whiner.

 

[Ruggo]

Giteau might have had the raw talents of Horan, but he's never done the work necessary to build his game the way he should have. To be fair, though, he's also suffered from being jerked around positionally far too much. Horan had the heart of a champion and Giteau has the heart of a whiner.

Horan spent a bit of time being jerked around during the Greg Smith (RIP) days.

 

[Richo]

I defer to your superior knowledge on that subject as I must admit to having drifted from the game for a bit back then.

 

[RugbyReg]

yep Horan played more positions in the backline than Gits. Gits has played 9, 10 and 12.

Timmy played everywhere from 10 out.

 

[Richo]

More power to Timmy, then.

 

[Scotty]

yep Horan played more positions in the backline than Gits. Gits has played 9, 10 and 12.

Timmy played everywhere from 10 out.

Not often though. I'm sure that Gits would have played more test matches in a position other than 12 than Horan did.

 

[Gnostic]

Interesting that RD has been reported to have said he isn't that concerned about the 3N as his aim has always been the RWC.

Wallabies coach Robbie Deans says that he is focused more on 2011 Rugby World Cup glory than TriNations success and that losses along the way will only help.

Deans has come under fire after his team again fell to the All Blacks but he says that losses before the cup will strengthen his under-fire side.

Deans revealed that his four-year brief was to build a team to peak at next year's Rugby World Cup in New Zealand.

He also says that even if it meant that he would risk losing his job he was committed to achieving his objective.

"Regardless of the outcome at the weekend, there's no doubt that this time will serve this group well," he said.

"I can tell you that in 14 months, they'll be there (peaking)." he told AAP.

"Whether I'm there or not is other people's decisions, it doesn't matter. I'm tasked with getting this group into the optimum state at that point."

After suffering one of their biggest defeats to the All Blacks Deans was asked if his charges had what it takes to win the world cup and Deans was even more confident.

"Yes, absolutely."

Deans did however admit that ending their losing streak against the All Blacks would be important psychologically.

"Off the back of last week's result, we're a long way away," he said and adds that he and the players were feeling pressure from rugby bosses and the general rugby public in Australia.

"Is there pressure? Yes there is, it's just one of the realities."

"We don't like losing any games. We don't like losing moments in games, let alone whole games... it's never going to be easy against the All Blacks.

"Ultimately, pressure is internal. It's something that the team has to master, in terms of mastering their own emotions."

The Wallabies are now training at Deans's old school in Christchurch where he used to coach the Crusaders and Christchurch including All Blacks captain Richie McCaw.

Given that the really successful Oz RWC sides dominated before the RWC I don't have any real confidence in his assertions. He cannot use the injuries etc as those players were there last year and they didn't play any better. It can't be a fitness/conditioning thing as you cannot condition for a tournament more than 12 months away.

Source : http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=26607

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Actually, I would say the really good Aussie RWC sides dominated *after* the World Cup, as was the case for most of the other winners. In 1992 we won a series against the AB's and beat South Africa on their return. We were bloody good after winning in 1991. The same goes for the 1999 team: won the 3N two years running and beat the Lions. Going back further, the 1988 - 1990 AB team swept all before them after winning the RWC and from memory so did the Bokke post 1995 (and more recently too).

 

[Scotty]

Actually, I would say the really good Aussie RWC sides dominated *after* the World Cup, as was the case for most of the other winners. In 1992 we won a series against the AB's and beat South Africa on their return. We were bloody good after winning in 1991. The same goes for the 1999 team: won the 3N two years running and beat the Lions. Going back further, the 1988 - 1990 AB team swept all before them after winning the RWC and from memory so did the Bokke post 1995 (and more recently too).

I think I am right in saying that we beat the ABs 3-0 in 1998 though.

 

[Gnostic]

Actually, I would say the really good Aussie RWC sides dominated *after* the World Cup, as was the case for most of the other winners. In 1992 we won a series against the AB's and beat South Africa on their return. We were bloody good after winning in 1991. The same goes for the 1999 team: won the 3N two years running and beat the Lions. Going back further, the 1988 - 1990 AB team swept all before them after winning the RWC and from memory so did the Bokke post 1995 (and more recently too).

My point is the Wallabies dominance and game really started coming to the fore in the year before each of our RWC wins. Split Bled series in 1990 and in 1998 the team really started to show the potential after an extensive rebuilding post the 1995 failure. The 1999 situation has some very interesting parallels with now, in 1995 we took and old team with old tactics, with some key players carrying injuries. After the succession of Coaches until Macqueen the team and tactics were in flux with no real improvement. Now since Macqueen we had Jones maintaining tactics and riding on the success of Macqueen's team and a total negl;ect of the scrum and breakdown work (left totally to Smith and Waugh), then Connolly and now we have Deans who I thought would resurect our firtunes in the manner Macqueen did.

Two things made me think this - 1) I thought Deans was as good a coach and strategist as Macqueen.
2) I thought the players available were potentially as good in key positions as what Macqueen had.

Obviously wrong on both counts.

 

[Scarfman]

So, RWC11 is the focus of his appointment.

Is this just Deans's opinion, or also JON's? Whoever is responsible for it has made a very poor decision, in my opinion. The ABs were obsessed with RWC07 and look where it got them. If they learnt one thing is was not to over-prepare.

 

[Scorz]

Total bullshit from Robert, he was hired to beat SA, NZ, Eng, Fra regularly, I remember it in the papers when he took the job. Can't be arsed to look it up, but am positive. One of the things that propelled the "traitor" calls.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

My point is the Wallabies dominance and game really started coming to the fore in the year before each of our RWC wins. Split Bled series in 1990 and in 1998 the team really started to show the potential after an extensive rebuilding post the 1995 failure. The 1999 situation has some very interesting parallels with now, in 1995 we took and old team with old tactics, with some key players carrying injuries. After the succession of Coaches until Macqueen the team and tactics were in flux with no real improvement. Now since Macqueen we had Jones maintaining tactics and riding on the success of Macqueen's team and a total negl;ect of the scrum and breakdown work (left totally to Smith and Waugh), then Connolly and now we have Deans who I thought would resurect our firtunes in the manner Macqueen did.

Two things made me think this - 1) I thought Deans was as good a coach and strategist as Macqueen.
2) I thought the players available were potentially as good in key positions as what Macqueen had.

Obviously wrong on both counts.

In 1990 we got a bit of touch up by the Blacks until that third test. We did have a couple of good wins against France though (including one of the best games I've ever seen, the 48-31 at Ballymore). The 1991 series was split and we also flogged England, to really show we were on the rise. You are right about the parallels with 1995-1999 though. That is the spot we are in now and I also thought that Deans had that Macqueen like air about him. Guess I was wrong about that too.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think I am right in saying that we beat the ABs 3-0 in 1998 though.

You are, yep. Forgot about that. We also flogged England 76-0, but that game was barely a test match IMHO. Still, we didn't win the 3N or dominate in the 1998-99 time frame like we did after winning the RWC.

 

[Gnostic]

In 1990 we got a bit of touch up by the Blacks until that third test. We did have a couple of good wins against France though (including one of the best games I've ever seen, the 48-31 at Ballymore). The 1991 series was split and we also flogged England, to really show we were on the rise. You are right about the parallels with 1995-1999 though. That is the spot we are in now and I also thought that Deans had that Macqueen like air about him. Guess I was wrong about that too.

The 1991 game against England in Sydney was a classic. England were at their peak then and that win was as comprehensive as you would see. I think all the bullshit about England changing their tactics in the 1991 RWC final because Campo was at his mouthy best is just that bullshit. They rightly looked back at their tactics of forward dominance they tried in sydney and saw it got them a 40 point loss. So they tried to match it with Oz in the backs and it almost came off. Totally off topic but that I loved that game, Tim Gavin never played as well again IMO when he came back from the knee injury.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It was indeed a cracker. A very good England team at full strength and we just played the total game to knock them off. It was one of those days when everything clicked, rather like the Sydney test against the AB's.

 

[Ruggo]

My point is the Wallabies dominance and game really started coming to the fore in the year before each of our RWC wins. Split Bled series in 1990 and in 1998 the team really started to show the potential after an extensive rebuilding post the 1995 failure. The 1999 situation has some very interesting parallels with now, in 1995 we took and old team with old tactics, with some key players carrying injuries. After the succession of Coaches until Macqueen the team and tactics were in flux with no real improvement. Now since Macqueen we had Jones maintaining tactics and riding on the success of Macqueen's team and a total negl;ect of the scrum and breakdown work (left totally to Smith and Waugh), then Connolly and now we have Deans who I thought would resurect our firtunes in the manner Macqueen did.


Two things made me think this - 1) I thought Deans was as good a coach and strategist as Macqueen.
2) I thought the players available were potentially as good in key positions as what Macqueen had.

Obviously wrong on both counts.

Don't forget Macqueen had the benifit of hindsight of some of Greg Smith's (RIP) experiments, A blooded captain as Smith also wore the brunt of that. Macqueen also had a deep knowledge on key players from his Brumby experience. Macqueen had the building blocks but Deans has started from scratch. The most important thing is that Deans story does not have an ending yet.

Lets not forget one thing about Macqueen. He resigned half way through a season, bathed in the glory of the Lions series and left. The fact he did not see the season through to the end stinks of selfishness in my view.

Macqueen is a good coach don't get me wrong but he was not the sole creator of the success in those days.

 

[Gnostic]

Smith was a great coach and I feel is remembered unfairly as his last months in the job was tarnished with some strange behaviour and increasingly antagonistic relationship with many players. What a lot forget was as we found out later the tumour was already having a massive impact on his personality and performance.

I prefer to remember Smith for his time at the Tahs, he was a very good coach and by all accounts a great bloke.

Macqueen's resignation was always going to take place after the Lions series. It was planned and not a spur of the moment thing. I dispute anything was settled about Macqueen's start, especially after the debacle of the 97 3N. The only thing Macqueen had was truly World Class players in Eales, Gregan and Horan. Remember he didn't have a 10 apart from the always injured Flatley or Bowen.

Brilliant coach and tactics were developed and executed perfectly. I do have to say I always hated the constant recycle tactic though, just win by never letting the opposition have the ball and brick wall defence. There wasn't a lot of fluid attack. It will be interesting to see what he style has planned for the Rebels.