Mad Robbie

[Nusadan]

Do you know though Scotty, IMO one of the truest things you ever noted was along the lines of: '...the most effective and successful teams are not necessarily the ones comprised of solely the 'very best' players, oftentimes the best teams are comprised of the right players that will make up the best team...' and highlighting IMO a very important point re selection strategy at its core.

Back in early 2010, you'd never have said of the Reds that here was the population of a team that in 15 months would win an S15 (or many of us wouldn't have). The complex and productive blend of this group's skills etc proved crucial, they were never a team of all-stars by any stretch.

All too true, and going off into another sport for the same truism, I bring up a case in rowing where for the Beijing Olympics, the eight was picked from a squad of 12 rowers, leaving a reserve four to make up a coxless crew who amazingly came so close to winning the gold medal after leading for much of the race, and got silver which was still beyond the wildest dreams of anyone, let alone the four rowers themselves.
And the eight? They bombed out in the final and came stone motherless last by a long way!

 

[Gnostic]

I have been perhaps one of the most strident critics of Deans on this board. As RH says this is the first (and I would say only) match against top opposition playing well in which the team has fronted for the whole game. So credit where it is due, I saw what I have wanted for four years, a game plan which I could understand, consistant effort and application from the players and an acceptable level of skills execution. Add to that finally we have sensible selection of appropriate players eg Samo an eight playing an eight's game and full appropriate use of the bench.

Please I beg continue in this vein.

The only downside from the game for me was the absolute shamozzle of the Wobs lineout. How can a lineout with four genuine jumpers lose its first three throws, one of which involved a lifter, Pocock, and the liftee, Vickerman, mixing up the call so badly they moved in opposite directions and ran into each other ala a Monty Python sketch? Vickerman had a good game but will the continued chopping and changing of the lineout caller (Vickerman/Simmons/Sharpe) mean that a oonce traditional strength will now be a real weakness. On that note we are lucky that enither Barnes or the ARs were interested in policing the lineout throws as Fainga'a's were as straight as a scrum half feeding the scrum.

 

[RedsHappy]

Just quietly I was at the game and there is no way the All Blacks could be considered to be playing excellently in the first half. Unless by excellently you mean utter shite.

Actually, I disagree, IMO the ABs played generally well in 1H if you isolate from their play the impressive strength of the Wallabies play. They would have surely dominated from the first 5 mins lesser teams than the Wallabies were on that night. The point is, the Wallabies played so well as to somewhat unhinge the ABs and force them into uncharacteristic errors and a fractured game plan. This is the typical price/gain of relentless forwards dominance within the type of rugby Aus and NZ play. Not for one minute in that 1H did I or those around me at the game think 'gees, the ABs are off tonight, they're just letting us in with an open door here'.

As a general note, I was wholly expecting most passionate Kiwi supporters to disagree with my assessment here; it is a rare thing indeed to find an AB supporter whom concludes, in a match like Saturday's, 'the Wallabies were just too good, we were (overall) outplayed by a way better team on the day'. The conclusion is far more typically that the game was lost (part or all) solely as the ABs played with uncharacteristic badness allowing a lesser team into the jaws of victory principally obtained via erroneous AB play.

 

[Richo]

On that note we are lucky that enither Barnes or the ARs were interested in policing the lineout throws as Fainga'a's were as straight as a scrum half feeding the scrum.

There was one in the second half, I think, that was no better than that awful Smit throw in Durban.

 

[Scotty]

Good stuff Reds Happy. All well reasoned arguments.

I think the change of on field leadership to Horwill will prove the most critical change made by RD (and presumably the board). Kev is a player with very few faults. He has the respect of all the players and he's a likeable lump. Clearly he has a great relationship with Genia and QC (Quade Cooper) who are the leaders in the backs. I also think that the inclusion of Vickerman and his no prisoners attitude is critical. He lined everyone up before the game and gave them a gobfull of "bash the fuckers" invective. When I saw that, it reminded me of the look on the boys faces when the anthem was going down in the 03.

Now all we need is our share of luck.

I was watching the post match huddle where Horwill was doing the talking, then they (foxsports broadcast) panned away to the crowd or something else, and I said to the boys, 'next person to talk will be Genia'. Pan straight back to Genia who is doing the talking. Hardly nostradamus though, as those two boys have been the motivational type of leaders of this side all tri-nations, even with Rocky as captain. They led the Reds to the S15, the wallabies to the 3N and they seem to work very well together.

 

[ChargerWA]

Just quietly I was at the game and there is no way the All Blacks could be considered to be playing excellently in the first half. Unless by excellently you mean utter shite.

The ABs never get beaten by a better team. They only ever lose because they played poorly, according to some fans anyway.

I have also been critical of Robbie. My four big bugbears with Robbie (this international season) have been not including Samo, continuing with Rocky as captain, not picking players on form and playing players out of position.

The Samo and Rocky ones have resolved themselves (but it has taken longer than it should have), picking players on form is improving with the inclusion of Samo and Fainga'a and is less noticable now AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Rocky are finding form. The last one also has improved. Being able to play Higgers at 6 when Rocky has a sit down makes so much sense that it has taken this long gives me a headache and moving AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to the wing while JOC (James O'Connor) is suspended yielded instant results.

But credit to Deans, Rocky and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) would not have found form if they hadn't been given the game time and I also would have not considered Vickerman in my 30, which has turned out to be a masterstroke (yes yes Qwerty, I know).

In balance, with the TN trophy in the cabinet and form rising at the right time, this is the first year I would give him a pass mark. If we make the RWC final it will be a B+ if we win an A+.

 

[tranquility]

Robbie....... what a dream boat.

 

[da_grubster]

I actually thought this game reminded me a lot of Robbie Deans' first game against NZ as coach when we beat them in Sydney.

I had that feeling as well. The good news for All Blacks fans is that the next match (If they meet again this year) will be at Eden Park. See the similarities?

I am actually hoping for that game now, before I was quite happy for Aus to get blown away by France or England. Now, I want that game as a final as I have no doubt the response by the AB's will be swift and brutal. We have seen this happen a number of times throughout our history when the AB's have a point to prove.

This is shaping up as a fantastic world cup.

 

[PaarlBok]

I had that feeling as well. The good news for All Blacks fans is that the next match (If they meet again this year) will be at Eden Park. See the similarities?

I am actually hoping for that game now, before I was quite happy for Aus to get blown away by France or England. Now, I want that game as a final as I have no doubt the response by the AB's will be swift and brutal. We have seen this happen a number of times throughout our history when the AB's have a point to prove.

This is shaping up as a fantastic world cup.

You first have to get past the Bokke. If we beat you in Wellington , the Wallabies can have the World Cup.

 

[antipodean]

Actually, I disagree, IMO the ABs played generally well in 1H if you isolate from their play the impressive strength of the Wallabies play.

That makes absolutely no sense. They dropped ball, passed behind the man, or to someone in a worse position, coughing up possession. What, exactly, were they doing well?

The ABs never get beaten by a better team. They only ever lose because they played poorly, according to some fans anyway.

Sure. What's that got to do with my post?

 

[darkhorse]

I think Deans has a pretty good job.

As people have noted, he has had to deal with a huge amount of generational transition and losing some core members at inopportune times. The team he has now has great depth and he helped develop a lot of it.

At times he has got the tactics wrong, but everyone does at some stage. The forwards have been below par a lot, but that was not his area of expertise and since JIM has been given the boot, Nuci has given them some grunt.

As mentioned he has overcome Connolly's complete disregard for the future. Latham, Larkham & Gregan retiring, Lyons and Vickerman heading overseas, Lote getting the sack, and a lot of players who simply weren't up to international level that were in that RWC squad.

The issue of Elsom getting the captaincy in the 1st place seems to be a case of short-term memory. Who else could of been given the captain at the time? Genia, Pockock and Horwill were newbies to the wallabies and still to young. Sharpe was a good leader, but was clearly viewed as lacking compared to Vickerman and Horwill. Elsom came back in great form, was the only senior wallaby that could be consitently picked and had some small level of leadership. Deans gets way too much flak for picking him and it was a tough call when to hand the captaincy over.

 

[qwerty51]

Elsom was definitely the right call at the time imo. The only other candidate was Moore but he was in doubt with TPN firing when fit. However as we moved on it became clear we needed a change, Robbie's proven to be very stubborn in not just this instance but most of his selections.

 

[Athilnaur]

Stubborn, loyal, self belief. Deans got where he is by being committed to what he believes in imo.

I rate Elsom as a Captain myself and think he's copped a lot of unfair criticism as player and as Captain. But Horwill has shone as a Captain pretty much since Phil appointed him and is a natural leader.

We fans are pretty quick to criticise, especially if our favourite players are disadvantaged, and even more so behind computer screens.

 

[da_grubster]

You first have to get past the Bokke. If we beat you in Wellington , the Wallabies can have the World Cup.

hey paarl, very true and clearly nothing can be taken for granted in a knockout match. RWC rugby suits the bokke 'style' of play however, I am very confident of beating what ever side you pitch up with. This match is in NZ against the best All Black team, not some African backwater against an experimental b side so out top players don't have to travel.

 

[Blob]

That makes absolutely no sense. They dropped ball, passed behind the man, or to someone in a worse position, coughing up possession. What, exactly, were they doing well?


Sure. What's that got to do with my post?

Yeah I'm struggling to see the sense too. Does he mean that since the All Blacks were crap but no team ever plays better than the All Blacks, that the Wallabies were even crapper?

Like you I thought the All Blacks were crap in the first half. Dire. I thought the Wallabie were better. Therefore I think the Wallabies won because they played better.

Claiming that the All Blacks actually played well smacks of disingenuous self-aggrandisationalism. Of the very worst kind. You don't need the All Blacks to have been playing well for the Wallaby victory to have been good. It's alright to beat them if they play badly. It probably helps if they play badly. The All Blacks lose rarely in any case. It's even rarer that they lose when they play well. They had about 25 good minutes.

Note: Part of playing badly is not being allowed to play well by the opposition, and part of it is not responding well to opposition pressure and/or making mistakes. Part is internal and part is external.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Amidst all the rejoicing, backslapping and "Robbie for Pope" campaigning it falls to me, the forum's resident Jeremiah, to sound a cautionary note. We still have a problem playing out 80 minutes. Let's recap our second half scores against the Kiwis in the Deans era:

26 Jul 08, 17-7, margin +10
2 Aug 08, 0-18, -18
13 Sep 08, 17-18, -1
1 Nov 08, 0-10, -10
18 Jul 09, 3-12, -9
22 Aug 09, 6-16, -10
19 Sep 09, 0-17, -17
31 Jul 10, 14-17, -3
7 Aug 10, 0-3, -3
11 Sep 10, 8-17, -9
30 Oct 10, 14-7, +7
6 Aug 11, 14-13, +1
27 Aug 11, 5-17, -12

 

[Blob]

You're right Bruce. The Wallabies could quite easily have lost that one. 0 appears quite often in those second half figures.

 

[I like to watch]

Amidst all the rejoicing, backslapping and "Robbie for Pope" campaigning it falls to me, the forum's resident Jeremiah, to sound a cautionary note. We still have a problem playing out 80 minutes. Let's recap our second half scores against the Kiwis in the Deans era:

26 Jul 08, 17-7, margin +10
2 Aug 08, 0-18, -18
13 Sep 08, 17-18, -1
1 Nov 08, 0-10, -10
18 Jul 09, 3-12, -9
22 Aug 09, 6-16, -10
19 Sep 09, 0-17, -17
31 Jul 10, 14-17, -3
7 Aug 10, 0-3, -3
11 Sep 10, 8-17, -9
30 Oct 10, 14-7, +7
6 Aug 11, 14-13, +1
27 Aug 11, 5-17, -12

Bruce, if I am reading your stats correctly it shows that we continually lose the 2nd half after a very even 1st 1/2.
That suggests to me that we were good enough to stay with them for 40 minutes but not the full 80. Quite often in games, especially in test matches it takes time for your dominance to be reflected on the scoreboard.
Perhaps S & C, is an issue as you suggest, however in the last game after changing tactics in the 2nd half, the AB's drew level with us before we eventually outscored them to win the game.
In this instance your stats showed we lost the 2nd 1/2, but we did finish over the top of them. S & C was not lacking in this game IMO.

 

[MrTimms]

I will disagree with this game, we might have "lost" the second half on the weekend, but...

The way it actually played out was that they scored all their points between 40 and 60 minutes, for the next 20 minutes period, we scored another 5 points and had three kicks (1 con, 2 pen) to their nothing.

If anything, through sheer will, determination and experience they hit us hard after oranges, it took us 20 minutes and the scores levelling to get back on top. S&C doesn't look a problem in that regard, to my untrained eye.

 

[Ruggo]

The second half is more credit to the AB's than dumping on the Wallabies. They took stock of the situation and changed tactics. We held on for 25 phases before their first try which indicates we were still awake. What no stats will tell you is how the Wallabies kept their nerve and did what was required to win the game. The last try was a fair indicater of this and changed the flow of momentum in the game.

If I was to say one thing about Robbie it is that he is very hands on in his approach and that would work with a Super Rugby side where you have significantly more contact hours with your players. He looks to have struggled with this early on but he is now delegating tasks through more staff realising he can't do it all. Some would call this arrogant but to me it is enthusiasm pushed a bit far.