long term coach?

[Sully]

We can agree to disagree on QC (Quade Cooper), the other is Digby.
Even your CEO is on record, about his poor attitude and unrealistic expectations.

I don't think Ioane's game has changed one bit under McKenzie's coaching. Or his attitude.

 

[Sully]

But back to my original sarcastic point. National coaches don't develop players! There is no time. They take the best they have and use it the best way they can. In my opinion Deans does neither and I'm not willing to accept a 60 per cent win record.

 

[I like to watch]

Then you need to change codes or country!
60% is about par,there will be generational flukes where we exceed that.
But by and large with the playing pool that exists,that's what we are going to get.
Regardless of who is the national coach.

 

[cyclopath]

Then you need to change codes or country!
60% is about par,there will be generational flukes where we exceed that.
But by and large with the playing pool that exists,that's what we are going to get.
Regardless of who is the national coach.

True, especially playing a significant percentage of our Tests against NZ and SA. I'd love to see us winning 75% of our Tests or better, but only the ABs do that.

 

[Sully]

Then you need to change codes or country!
60% is about par,there will be generational flukes where we exceed that.
But by and large with the playing pool that exists,that's what we are going to get.
Regardless of who is the national coach.

I simply don't agree with that. We can do better with the players we have now. In fact only three coaches since 1983 have records below 60 per cent. They just happen to be the last three coaches. The average before those three is closer to 70 per cent!
Were you happy with Eddie jones coaching? Or Connelly's? If not why are you happy with Deans'? There records are very similar.

 

[Sully]

True, especially playing a significant percentage of our Tests against NZ and SA. I'd love to see us winning 75% of our Tests or better, but only the ABs do that.

So you're happy to be a 60% team?

 

[Garryowen]

I simply don't agree with that. We can do better with the players we have now. In fact only three coaches since 1983 have records below 60 per cent. They just happen to be the last three coaches. The average before those three is closer to 70 per cent!
Were you happy with Eddie jones coaching? Or Connelly's? If not why are you happy with Deans'? There records are very similar.

Haven't the records deteriorated since we started playing NZ and SA more frequently?

 

[Sully]

The Tri Nations started in 1996 out win percentage started to go down in about 2003.

 

[The Red Baron]

Yeah, I too don't understand the willingness to accept 60%. It is as if people are consigned to 60% no matter what we do, so we may as well give up trying to improve. To me, that logic makes absolutely no sense. I want to see the national team constantly striving to improve on their results. I want to see the coach and players aiming to win every damn game they play, not say "oh it's the All-Blacks, lets just try and keep the score reasonable and aim for the odd win at home". What utter bullshit.

As a top tier nation, and ranked 3 in the world, I certainly hope and expect a higher win percentage than bloody 60 from our national team. ILTW, 60% is not par. It is well and truly below par. We can and should do better.

 

[cyclopath]

So you're happy to be a 60% team?

No, which was the point I was making. I temper expectations with a dose of reality. Overall, the Wallabies have won 52% of all Tests. Of course, since, say 1980,it is better, and is about 60% or a little more. Since 1995, a couple of points more maybe - don't have that breakdown at hand.
In the 3N we won one more game than SA from 1996-2011 (29 v 28), so the only team really going away is the ABs.
The notion of us winning 70% or more of our Tests, especially given we mostly play Tier one sides multiple times, is a rose-coloured view to an extent. Sure, I'd love to see it, but I doubt I will over a consistent period of years.
Saying this does not mean the same thing as being happy with any other coach, or unwilling to countenance other options, or mean I wouldn't like to see a Bledisloe.

 

[lewisr]

So we don't think we'll ever achieve the level of the All Blacks no matter what we do?? Far out you lot are negative...

The fact that the Reds run around beating every NZ team in Super Rugby just shows that the players are beatable with the right coach and gameplan. To just give in to the fact that we will never be as good as the All Blacks is really quite defeatist and shows that Dingo Deans is rubbing off on all of us!!

Where is our pride and desire to do better? Why are we all content with being 2nd or 3rd best? I most certainly am not because it means we will NEVER win the Bledisloe back and that is just a ridiculous concept to try and comprehend. (@cyclopath I realise you do agree with what I'm saying, I mean others who seem to be content with the 60%)

But back to the point, maybe the next coach won't do better than 60%. But its better than having a 'known known' which is that keeping dingo isn't going to change anything. Time to take a risk and move on to someone new. Time to see what this lot are really capable of.

 

[Sully]

The difference between 60% and 70% is about two games a year. You can't see us winning two more games a year on a regular basis?

 

[cyclopath]

The difference between 60% and 70% is about two games a year. You can't see us winning two more games a year on a regular basis?

Of course we could. But many of the wins, and (often overlooked over the past 5-6 years) the losses are narrow, so while we might convert some from Column B to A, we might see the same the other way, especially playing the teams we regularly play. It's tight.
In the halcyon days of 1998-2002 when we held the Bledisloe for 5 seasons, we won quite a few tight ones, but we have had a lot of 1-4 point losses in recent years to the ABs. Don't forget in 1998-2002 we hardly had the 3N all our way - won twice with last minute kicks!!
My point; we are not crap, and can often run them very bloody close, but we are not quite as good as them lately. We are not miles behind them. When it comes to the small percentages, the ABs seem to have the depth to keep the machine ticking just a little better. At our peak, we are their equal, but the slope downwards is steeper on our side of the ditch, I reckon. We have suffered at key times with key players being out. Our depth seems to be improving, save for a couple of key areas (hooker, for example), which is one positive to come from the Deans era, I think. Whether that is by design, or just a function of the vagaries of injuries I cannot say. Probably more the latter.
I actually reckon whatever coach has the Wallabies over the next 2-3 years will have a better run of it, whether that be Deans, McKenzie or White.
But the time seems ripe for change.

 

[redstragic]

The difference between 60% and 70% is about two games a year. You can't see us winning two more games a year on a regular basis?

That difference is also the difference between having trophies in the cabinet and not having them.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The difference between 60% and 70% is about two games a year. You can't see us winning two more games a year on a regular basis?

2011... Samoa and Scotland. 2 games. Does not seem that far fetched at all does it Sully? Let's throw in Ireland as well, that's even 1 more beatable opponent than you even mentioned.

I'm with you. 60% is only acceptable is we resign ourselves to that fact it's the best we can hope for. With potentially 3 sides in the finals, and definitely 2, one could argue that we have adequate talent available to compete with our 2 most regular opponents.

Even if 60% was our historical average people, why can we not realistically hope for me? Have teams never improved themselves in history?

 

[Sully]

What I will add is I think it's impossible for the coach we have now to take us to 70% or even 65%. And that's why we need to be looking for another coach. Jake Whites win percentage with south Africa was 67%. I'd like Ewen McKenzie to be the next coach but White is no mug. But we've seen what a South African did with our cricket team. Frankly I'm behind McKenzie because he's Australian. But if he got the job and we still only travelled a 60% after 3 or 4 years I'd be looking for a new coach.

 

[Sully]

I'd like to add I was a passionate deans supporter for the first half of his Australian coaching stint. He has had a fair chance to improve our lot. It's time top move on.

 

[USARugger]

70%+ is the magic number for teams that win the RWC in a given year, just saying.

 

[Gnostic]

I'd be interested to see the reaction if Jake White was appointed.

One of the main criticisms of Deans has been the fact that the Wallabies have been playing a 'negative' style of rugby over the past two seasons. A game built on minimisation of risks with few tries scored but even fewer conceded.

White has employed a similar style at the Brumbies. They have never been a great team to watch, and some of their games have been downright dull. The fact that they still can't fill Canberra Stadium is an indictment on this style.

I think White is a great coach and wouldn't have too many issues if he was given the job.

But I can't help feeling he won't solve many of the 'problems' that Deans is seen to have created.
.

That statement is fundamentally incorrect. This is just the most recent manifestation. The issues have always been multifaceted but can be summed up:-
1. Bench usage
2. Selection for purpose
3. Selection in general
4. Personality issues and personel management. This is not just with regard to players.
5. Tactical development
6. Execution of game plan

Now many will say that point 6 is down to the players purely and simply, but again this is influenced by the selection of the players with the correct skill sets to execute said plan and also the ability of the plan to be executed in the face of an opposition which often seemed to know exactly was coming.

I supported Deans selection at the start but was uncomfortable even then with the process that saw him appointed. That lack of integrity has blighted the ARU since with his re-appointment and reviews. This I will admit colours my view on his performance to some degree as I see him as the beneficiary of a corrupt process, but that being said it is obvious that he has always been a season behind tactically and prior to the RWC he was panicked into drastically altering the entire game plan of the Wallabies. At no stage in his tenure can I say that the play of the Wallabies has met the standard that is possible with the talent available. The win:loss is irrelevant for me, it is about making best use of the resources available and that just hasn't happened.

 

[USARugger]

Well, not really

This year appears to be different, but they fell to pieces last year

Wouldn't it be nice if we saw the Wallabies go from bottom feeders, to almost weres, to a table-topping squad in 2 1/2 years?

My reference was to the 2013 Brumbies and how they performed in years prior has little/nothing to do with the discussion at hand about their current game plan and execution of it.