LOCKED: Time to Sack Deans?

[I like to watch]

I recall reading an article about the late great mungo coach Jack Gibson, where it attributed a lot of his success to the fact that he was in a position to pick & choose his clubs. he only ever went to a club where he identified that they had depth & a lot of untapped potential coming through the grades.
Had RD applied this logic I doubt he would have taken the job

 

[cyclopath]

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.

One of my all time fave games I've attended. Didn't hurt having a seat near half-way about 15 rows back!!

 

[naza]

Deans is a bullshit artist.

“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).

“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.”

This guy is a Matt '4 year plan' Williams clone.

 

[Richo]

Rugby players aren't Olympic athletes. Every four years just doesn't cut it.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Even Olympic athletes have to perform outside of the games. It's how they get there in the first place.

 

[Richo]

Yeah, my point was more that the public only pays attention every four years so that's all that "matters" in our minds.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah, my point was more that the public only pays attention every four years so that's all that "matters" in our minds.

It's OK, I was actually agreeing with you

 

[RedsHappy]

Rugby players aren't Olympic athletes. Every four years just doesn't cut it.

Yes. The notion of 'what we're _really_ all about is the RWC and what matters most is winning/peaking then, not necessarily now' is surely one of the most spurious, irrational, arrogant, and reckless strategies any major football code could ever pursue. My blood has started reboiling re Deans/ARU elite when he has 'revealed the real focus is the RWC' this week in Christchurch.

Such an approach:

- is a patronising insult to the fans and TV viewers who pay to support the Wallabies week in, week out over each year of the 4 years hoping for players (and highly paid coaches) that are totally focussed on winning now and wanting to see those wins;

- can subtly let Wallabies of 'weak mind' (and let's face it, many have that virus) off the hook in terms of immediate performance vs 'developing for a late 2011 peak';

- less focus on 'excellence and victory right now' will mean more losses or poorer play than should be tolerated and such will, over time, lessen gate income/fan base for the ARU (which is exactly what's been happening post 2003);

- is the perfect excuse for poor coaching outcomes in the here and now: 'it's all a subtle strategy to have a peaking team later';

- there is little evidence that, overall, a top RWC outcome (preceded by years of poor outcomes before the RWC) prepares or in any way guarantees the game for multiple years of glorious rugby thereafter;

- such a singular focus is reckless in that: what if we lose at the RWC? We've sort of bet the whole Wallabies' enterprise on a small set of games that occur over a 6 week period only every 4 years. (One of the reasons Connolly took so few new player/depth-building development risks in late 2005->late 2007 was this central obsession with the RWC, and look at the outcome.)

This is not to say that the RWC is of no interest or that we shouldn't have winning there as a legitimate goal. But it must be constructed as a later stage of potential outcome for the Wallabies that is preceded by consistent, obsessive excellence of performance and delivery for the fans in all prior years and matches.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Every test is important. I want the Wallabies to win absolutely everything there is to win in this sport. Simple as that.

 

[RedsHappy]

Every test is important. I want the Wallabies to win absolutely everything there is to win in this sport. Simple as that.

And, may I say, fucking good on you mate!

 

[disco]

I'm convinced that after this game (Bled 2 2010) that Deans has the players confused, there is nothing wrong with the cattle it's the coaching staff that don't make the grade.

After the 1st phase they just go to one out hit ups, even the 1st phase is shit all they seem to do is put it threw the hands to AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) or a winger.

They have nothing happening that is going to put a defender in two minds.

It's easy to say just play what's in front of you but it's hard when there is a big black bick wall waiting to smash you back.

Deans has totally lost me the bloke talks in riddles.

 

[disco]

Another thing, why did Stephen Moore not get on for the last 25 minutes & why was Sharpe benched?

He is really really bizarre.

 

[Red Rooster]

I must admit all the pyschobabble stuff makes me turn off mentally - hope its not doing the same to the players. I fail to understand it half the time. Cant he just say "we were ordinary and if the boys don't improve I will find someone else" etc etc

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'm with you on that RR. I had a boss who talked a similar kind of dribble and I just stopped listening to him after a while and did my own thing. Perhaps the players are doing the same.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Another thing, why did Stephen Moore not get on for the last 25 minutes & why was Sharpe benched?

He is really really bizarre.

Sharpe was benched because he was rooted. He was involved in everything, had a mighty game.

 

[aussie1st]

Happy to lay of the criticizing of Deans until he has a full strength lineup. We could be looking at:
1. Robinson
2. TPN
3. Alexander
4. Horwill
5. Sharpe
6. Elsom
7. Podock
8. Palu
9. Genia
10. Cooper
11. Davies
12. Giteau
13. Ioane
14. Mitchell
15. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)

Outside of the brain explosion, Mitchell is one of our better wingers. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) seems more effective from fullback so Beale will have to bide his time. But that lineup offers a lot more in attack and more go forward with Alexander.

 

[Ruggo]

AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) will benifit at 13 from having Cooper at 10. What AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) needs to do is work on distribution and peripheral vision.

 

[da_grubster]

Happy to lay of the criticizing of Deans until he has a full strength lineup. We could be looking at:
1. Robinson
2. TPN
3. Alexander
4. Horwill
5. Sharpe
6. Elsom
7. Podock
8. Palu
9. Genia
10. Cooper
11. Davies
12. Giteau
13. Ioane
14. Mitchell
15. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)

Outside of the brain explosion, Mitchell is one of our better wingers. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) seems more effective from fullback so Beale will have to bide his time. But that lineup offers a lot more in attack and more go forward with Alexander.

will be interesting when the ABS get their full strength team back on the park as well ;-0

 

[RedsHappy]

will be interesting when the ABS get their full strength team back on the park as well ;-0

Indeed da_g, a good point. Unfortunately, rugby is an injurious game, and what so many posters forget when they talk relentlessly about the revival we will have when 'the missing stars' come back is that, sadly, there will be more injuries between now and then and other good players will likely drop away to the scan machine. Horne departing just recently makes the point.

The key metric is the 'net' of good players we have at any one time, you can't build a viewpoint on a 'gross' assessment that we'll have every single top player to draw upon (one future day). And it's more complicated still in that if, say, we lost Pocock to injury (increasingly likely given his phenomenal work rate/intensity-for-80 and the fact he has to 'cover' for second-raters like Brown and Mumm that should not be selected) but got, say, Horwill and Palu back, I am still not sure our 'net' position would necessarily then be better, it may in fact be net worse in terms of total team effectiveness.

 

[RedsHappy]

Re this thread. The following tit-bit just goes into my huge folder re Deans:

From today's The Australian, Wayne Smith:

"....while his (Deans') unequivocal support of James O'Connor suggests Giteau won't be occupying the Wallabies' right-wing position any time soon.

"Personally, I think he's found his spot," said Deans of O'Connor. "He enjoys it, he's proactive, he defends well from there."

How on earth can this be assessed so conclusively re JO'C on the wing? His awkwardness on the wing surely is clear for all to see and it was I think down that very channel that the ABs have been consistently scoring their winning tries.

These oddities from Deans confirms my worst suspicion that Deans' coach's ego gets badly caught up in his so-called 'experimental' selections, and this turns into a fatal stubbornness regarding them. The direct consequences are opposition points that should never have occurred had selection mistakes been quickly admitted and rectified vs persisted with in an uncritical manner.