Mad Robbie

[Rob42]

... 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)...

The "Rocky as captain" issue resolved itself? Harsh - I don't think Rocky offered his resignation. Even when Robbie does make the right decision, he doesn't get the credit.

 

[RedsHappy]

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.

Yes Mr T. As much as I normally agree with Bruce - a great of these fora - I think this time his 'model' is too harsh in its latest guise, in evaluative terms. We cannot expect the Wallabies to win every Q of every AB game. We know the ABs are immense competition, they are masters of cunning and fight and never lose a conviction of full recovery to win from behind. That in part is what makes beating them the appropriate test for Wallaby growth as a successful team that delivers, vs promises to do so. (Just btw in this context I feel sure that the ABs themselves would not expect to beat the Wallabies or Boks or England by winning every Q of every game, they might hold that as the ultimate goal, but they'd know it wasn't a realistic expectation; the key is to win 2+ Qs or 3 every time.)

In this last AB game, IMO (and I think many agree), we 'won' 3 Qs, ABs 1 Q. That is essentially why I consider this game a major RD/team milestone that, when combined with the last SA away win, potentially indicates the beginning of an upward curve of Wallaby excellence where we play top teams that play well for most of 80, and we beat them.

 

[Bruce Ross]

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.

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.

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.

In this last AB game, IMO (and I think many agree), we 'won' 3 Qs, ABs 1 Q. That is essentially why I consider this game a major RD/team milestone that, when combined with the last SA away win, potentially indicates the beginning of an upward curve of Wallaby excellence where we play top teams that play well for most of 80, and we beat them.

I don't necessarily disagree with these comments and hope that they indicate that the perceived problems with S & C have been addressed.

I certainly hope so as our physical reserves are about to be comprehensively tested. The Samoan Test would have reminded the likes of Ireland and England that the breakdown is a potential weakness for us.

 

[Braveheart81]

The Samoan Test would have reminded the likes of Ireland and England that the breakdown is a potential weakness for us.

... and now Dan Vickerman has reminded the likes of Ireland and England to stay the f#ck away from our breakdown.

 

[Scarfman]

Vickerman is injuring Kiwis and staying fit. It's a dream come true. And he no longer spends half the game looking for his contact lenses. Could he be better than before?

 

[RedsHappy]

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

If we don't get our place kicking into a consistently high-70%s+ zone, and get an excellent defensive and offensive line out working, last Saturday risks being another false dawn. We were fortunate those major line out errors and QC (Quade Cooper)'s poor pressure place kicks didn't cost us victory. As I said elsewhere, this Wallabies team has to get a complete orchestra working in all its parts, we never seem able to do that. Our bucket gets filled up with talent, but we always spring a leak somewhere, just in different places.

 

[ChargerWA]

The "Rocky as captain" issue resolved itself? Harsh - I don't think Rocky offered his resignation. Even when Robbie does make the right decision, he doesn't get the credit.

You are correct, he does deserve some credit. But it is tempting to deny it to him for his ham fisted efforts at managing it.

The perfect oppourtunity to replace Rocky came at the beginning of the international season when Rocky's fitness was still under a cloud and he had played 1 game of rugby in 12 months, allowing Rocky to step down with a modicum of dignity. Instead Robbie backs himself into a corner by backing Rocky, who has never worked as a captain, a guy who the refs ignore or dislike due to his game management style.

I agree that Rocky was the only option at the time he was appointed, but even blind freddy could see both Horwill and Genia were a better option moving forward, and then Robbie goes and makes the change with 1 game to go before the RWC starts.

Don't get me wrong, i'm glad he has made the change, but it hasn't been a shining beacon to hold up as an example of good man managemant.

 

[Jnor]

If we don't get our place kicking into a consistently high-70%s+ zone, and get an excellent defensive and offensive line out working, last Saturday risks being another false dawn. We were fortunate those major line out errors and QC (Quade Cooper)'s poor pressure place kicks didn't cost us victory. As I said elsewhere, this Wallabies team has to get a complete orchestra working in all its parts, we never seem able to do that. Our bucket gets filled up with talent, but we always spring a leak somewhere, just in different places.

Exactly, RH. what worries me most, however, is that in our next game our lineouts and placekicking will be perfect but every single other element of our play will automatically go to shit. Is it simply because the coaching staff say 'ok, this is what we need to work on' after a game and proceed to work on absolutely nothing but that until the next fixture?





PS I'm being just a little bit tongue-in-cheek here people

 

[Iluvmyfooty]

lets look at the two games this year.

First game Eden Park - NZ 30 - OZ 14, halftime 17-0 NZ
NZ dominate the first half with strong forward play and outmuscle the OZ to lead 17 - Nil at halftime. OZ come out and start to compete with the Black and end up winning 2nd half 14-13. OZ dominate possession and field position but due to NZ defensive strength cannot make the pressure into points

Second Game Suncorp - Oz 25 NZ 20 half time OZ 20-3
Oz take a commanding 17 point lead at halftime due to some strong forward play and outmuscling the AB's. NZ come out in second half controlling the ball and establishing field position. Score two tries after numerous phases of play. Oz defence in 2nd half contributes greatly to the win. Cooper misses some easy kicks and final score could have easily been 30 - 20

What I take from this is that there isn't very much between the two teams. Similar victories and similar points spreads (after considering the missed kicks) following two very similar games where one side completely dominates the other in one half and the other team comes back in the second but cannot get the necessary points due to some very good defence.

The only difference is that we complain about how we fail to play out teh game but the All Black supporters are happy with the win and give credit where it is due when the other team has come back at them

 

[Iluvmyfooty]

Don't get me wrong, i'm glad he has made the change, but it hasn't been a shining beacon to hold up as an example of good man managemant.

I have to disagree with this. Deans stated that he gave Rocky a chance at the start as captain as he was the incumbent and was being selected in the team. After 3-4 games it was clear that the long lay-off he has had coupled with the captaincy was affecting his play. Deans could then confront Rocky and say that in the interests of the team it would be better for him not to be captain.

Compare this to the scenario of not selecting him as captain having a possible disgruntled ex-captain in your side grumbling that he was not given a chance and possibly fracturing the team and putting another issue for the team to work around.

The way it has worked out looks to be pretty good with all parties happy and coming together as "One Team"

 

[Scotty]

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

Changes were made a little late I reckon. Samo was busted. Our bench made more of an impact than theirs, and we still have TPN, Slipper and Palu to come onto it. At the moment Robbie is too scared of subbing Moore or Alexander too early due to the options coming from the bench. When TPN and Slipper come back I think we will see earlier subs and even more impact.

 

[RedsHappy]

Exactly, RH. what worries me most, however, is that in our next game our lineouts and placekicking will be perfect but every single other element of our play will automatically go to shit. Is it simply because the coaching staff say 'ok, this is what we need to work on' after a game and proceed to work on absolutely nothing but that until the next fixture? PS I'm being just a little bit tongue-in-cheek here people.

Good question Jnor. I have often wondered on this. One clue to this 'quite regularly, a different leak in a different place' is IMO an element of the Robbie era that relates to ChargerWA's point above/below regarding his man management attributes (which I agree with ChargerWA are very debatable given the history), and an element that's too little assessed and critiqued. (It's like a business analyst only looking at a CEO and not the calibre of his/her top management group and how the CEO uses them that can be just as important to the business' success as is the calibre of that CEO as an individual.)

It's this: from mid-2008 right through today, Robbie has never really assembled a stable, fully functioning group of applicable specialist coaches that have continued on over his era. This is a major contrast to say NZ's top three, headed by Henry. Foley departed late 2008, Williams in, hasn't worked well (by any objective standard over the 2009-10 period), effectively sidelined by the 'coaching co-ordinator' Nucifora drafted in when problems were building in late 2009 and then started serious work with the Wallabies in 2010 and now largely in charge of forwards work. Graham - the 'skills (and sort of backs) coach' - in from early 2009 and then oddly is let go to the Force just pre a RWC year (normally the elite coaching group is kept tight when entering a RWC or major championship). Blake (ex league) mutates from defence coach entering in late 2010 to 'skills coach' in 2011. At no time in this period is a clearly designated backs/attack coach ever appointed (which in its absence is almost unprecedented in the big national rugby teams' coaching infrastructure), and today RD is himself directly the backs coach. No full time kicking coach is ever appointed, and Bram van S is only appointed part-time from an SA base in 2010. The team has no elite sports psychologist or mental skills coach (unlike, for example, the ABs that have this position and speak highly of that coach's work).

RD's fans are not the slightest bit troubled by the above oddities of support structures, but for me, over the 2008-11 period, these have likely contributed to (a) Wallaby skills inconsistency and unevenness and regular lack of an evident, coherent game plan and (b) RD appears to see himself as 'the master coach' that can in effect coach all attributes of play and micro-manage all aspects of skill development within the team. I have always felt there's something not optimal about his management and communication style. The Elsom saga heightened that concern.

 

[ChargerWA]

I have to disagree with this. Deans stated that he gave Rocky a chance at the start as captain as he was the incumbent and was being selected in the team. After 3-4 games it was clear that the long lay-off he has had coupled with the captaincy was affecting his play. Deans could then confront Rocky and say that in the interests of the team it would be better for him not to be captain.

Compare this to the scenario of not selecting him as captain having a possible disgruntled ex-captain in your side grumbling that he was not given a chance and possibly fracturing the team and putting another issue for the team to work around.

The way it has worked out looks to be pretty good with all parties happy and coming together as "One Team"

I could agree with this if Rocky was an excellent captain, but he never got above a pass mark for his captaincy style or substance.

 

[Gnostic]

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.

I think people need to consider that the whole performance of the Connolly era could well be a good lesson in the application of KPIs. Anybody think that Connolly selected, coached and developed a game plan that was safe and aimed to minimise points against and lose less games than he won. Sounds awfully like the Tahs stats based games where they were better than the actual results and their fans believed, the stats proved it. My point is after the Eddie Jones ultimate structure era Connolly was selected on the basis of a game plan and structure he could bring to Eddie's grid pattern game, his results were IMO closely tied to the KPI structure of his contract. I think it is a bit unfair to bag him out as a failure etc without acknowledging he has a better success rate than Deans, even though as with the Tahs such "safe" practices will rarely get over the line when that extra, outside of KPI effort is required, hence so many failures in the big games when less KPI based teams "outperformed".

 

[DPK]

Isn't the "third half" more important anyway?

 

[Blob]

What I take from this is that there isn't very much between the two teams. Similar victories and similar points spreads (after considering the missed kicks)

Interesting approach. If I retrospectively add a few points to last Saturday's game can I make the All Blacks have won?