Robbie Deans Report Card

[Reddy!]

What? This is the Robbie Deans thread. His use of the bench (or lack of) has a negative pyschological effect on the players.

 

[Richo]

I wouldn't want to speculate about how much not going to the bench effects the effort levels of the starting players, but I would second the contrast between the bench use of Deans and Henry. Even with everything on the field working against the Boks last weekend, Henry was unafraid to ring in the changes. This kept the energy levels up and the Boks on their toes, and by doing it when the ABs were soaring instead of stumbling, Henry maximised the benefit for his team.

 

[Ruggo]

The jersey has been cheepend for some time now. That is the problem and it extends way back before Robbies tenure. John O'Neil is the problem here. It started with the league converts. That is when the Wallaby jersey started to be handed out on the size of your pay check and not your form. We are still seeing it with Gitau. Then there is the Elsom saga. We bend over backwards to welcome him back from Europe and throw him into the tri nations without him having made a contribution to Australian rugby in that year. Lets not stop there as we then make him captain for the upcomming spring tour. Nothing against Elsom but we have done everything possible to build this bloke up to be bigger than the jersey. Then there is the matter of sponsorship. When the fuck did we stop being the Australian Wallabies and become the fucking Qantas Wallabies. I understand the value of having a major sponsorship but they are the Australian Wallabies sponsored by Qantas. I don't stand in my living room, singing the national anthem before a test to watch the Qantas Wallabies. We badly need to install some pride back into our jersey and wear our hearts on its sleeves.

My gripes with Robbie are the way he has gone too far in trying to change how we play the game. He needed to adapt to our style, not the other way around. We needed tougher forwards and a better culture, not a complete overhaul on how we do things. I am starting to find at times what he says does not reflect his actions. For the most part Robbie has done some bloody good things and I still regard him as a great coach.

 

[Scarfman]

WTF are you dribbling?

I was making a joke about you using Robbie speak. It was like CPR for weasel words. Sorry you didn't get it, but thanks for the insult anyway.

 

[RedsHappy]

The jersey has been cheepend for some time now. That is the problem and it extends way back before Robbies tenure. John O'Neil is the problem here. It started with the league converts. That is when the Wallaby jersey started to be handed out on the size of your pay check and not your form. We are still seeing it with Gitau. Then there is the Elsom saga. We bend over backwards to welcome him back from Europe and throw him into the tri nations without him having made a contribution to Australian rugby in that year. Lets not stop there as we then make him captain for the upcomming spring tour. Nothing against Elsom but we have done everything possible to build this bloke up to be bigger than the jersey. Then there is the matter of sponsorship. When the fuck did we stop being the Australian Wallabies and become the fucking Qantas Wallabies. I understand the value of having a major sponsorship but they are the Australian Wallabies sponsored by Qantas. I don't stand in my living room, singing the national anthem before a test to watch the Qantas Wallabies. We badly need to install some pride back into our jersey and wear our hearts on its sleeves.

Ruggo, great deal of truth in what you say here, it hadn't quite occurred to me in this way, you made me think. You would never have the 'Tooheys' Australian Cricket Team' emblazoned across Ponting's cream Test shirt, for example. Qantas could still be a major sponsor, without the Qantas Wallabies being the new brand.

 

[daz]

Ruggo, great deal of truth in what you say here, it hadn't quite occurred to me in this way, you made me think. You would never have the 'Tooheys' Australian Cricket Team' emblazoned across Ponting's cream Test shirt, for example. Qantas could still be a major sponsor, without the Qantas Wallabies being the new brand.

Well, Ponting has VB on his right tit in big letters. In Australia, he plays in the "3 Mobile Test Series" sponsored by, you guessed it, 3 mobile.

The qantas socceroos, the Tooheys Mungo of origin, The Toyota AFL Grand final, the Telstra Dolphins swimming team, etc etc etc.

Sorry guys, but in the professional age and especially where rugby is competing for the corporate dollar against multiple codes, what did you expect? That ship has long since sailed.

Qantas being on the Gold jersey is a contributer to our inability to be consistant and win games? Pleeeeeease!

 

[Ruggo]

Well, Ponting has VB on his right tit in big letters. In Australia, he plays in the "3 Mobile Test Series" sponsored by, you guessed it, 3 mobile.

The qantas socceroos, the Tooheys Mungo of origin, The Toyota AFL Grand final, the Telstra Dolphins swimming team, etc etc etc.

Sorry guys, but in the professional age and especially where rugby is competing for the corporate dollar against multiple codes, what did you expect? That ship has long since sailed.

Qantas being on the Gold jersey is a contributer to our inability to be consistant and win games? Pleeeeeease!

Daz, I have no problem with Qantas as our sponsor. What I have a problem with is that the focus has shifted away from the wallabies being our national team. You sight cricket as an example and it is a good one as they promote and cherish that baggy green as a national icon. I wish the Wallaby jersy could be loved the same way as it once was. I wish our players would wear the Wallaby jersey as the cricketers wear the baggy green.

What did I expect? I expect our team be known as the Qantas Australian Wallabies. It may sound petty but it is a matter of friggin' pride.

 

[Nusadan]

You sight cricket as an example and it is a good one as they promote and cherish that baggy green as a national icon. I wish the Wallaby jersy could be loved the same way as it once was. I wish our players would wear the Wallaby jersey as the cricketers wear the baggy green.

You said it...the baggy green cap hasn't changed in well over 100 years of Oz cricket...the ABs jersey hasn't either despite Adidas sponsorship...and look at how the Wallabies jersey has been chopped and changed style wise in the past 30 odd years...how can one take pride in that jersey if it is made redundant next season?

 

[Gnostic]

I was making a joke about you using Robbie speak. It was like CPR for weasel words. Sorry you didn't get it, but thanks for the insult anyway.

It would be a good joke me using Robbie speak, given my loss of faith in him as Wallabies Coach. I still don't get it but there was no insult just a question. Did you understand what I was trying to say at all?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

To all those who want to get rid of Dingo Deans, who would you have in his place, and who would be the assistants?

Secondly over the past couple of years, who could have done a better job with the player stock available, if Dingo had not got the gig?

 

[Scarfman]

OK, Gnostic, we'll move on. I did understand what you are saying, but I don't approve of "culture" and "group" being used in the same sentence.

As that noted hard man Hermann Goering once said: "Whenever I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my revolver".

Actually, he said "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning!" but you get the point.

 

[daz]

You sight cricket as an example and it is a good one as they promote and cherish that baggy green as a national icon. I wish the Wallaby jersy could be loved the same way as it once was. I wish our players would wear the Wallaby jersey as the cricketers wear the baggy green.

Ruggo, I get what you are saying, but there are two main points as far as I can see. One is that winners are grinners. Of course the baggy green is revered, but being the #1 team in the land in both forms of the game over a 10-15 year period will do that for you. The Wobs can only dream of that kind of record.

Secondly, I bet you a pound to a shilling that if the cricket team was not as successful, or was competing harder for our money against other codes, the baggy green would long ago have become the Microsoft/Telstra/Qantas Baggy Green. It may yet.

Nothing is sacred in professional sports anymore. Shit, even our stadiums are on a 3 year naming rights deal...

The jersey is important as a symbol, but the real heart and soul of the Wallabies lies in the the chest and heads of the guys wearing it.

 

[RedsHappy]

OK, Gnostic, we'll move on. I did understand what you are saying, but I don't approve of "culture" and "group" being used in the same sentence. As that noted hard man Hermann Goering once said: "Whenever I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my revolver".]

You won't mind (I hope) if I ask you to reflect upon the particular 'cultures' the 'noted hard man' likely had in mind?

 

[RedsHappy]

Ruggo, I get what you are saying, but there are two main points as far as I can see. One is that winners are grinners. Of course the baggy green is revered, but being the #1 team in the land in both forms of the game over a 10-15 year period will do that for you. The Wobs can only dream of that kind of record.
Secondly, I bet you a pound to a shilling that if the cricket team was not as successful, or was competing harder for our money against other codes, the baggy green would long ago have become the Microsoft/Telstra/Qantas Baggy Green. It may yet. Nothing is sacred in professional sports anymore. Shit, even our stadiums are on a 3 year naming rights deal...The jersey is important as a symbol, but the real heart and soul of the Wallabies lies in the the chest and heads of the guys wearing it.

daz, very sound arguments. But not necessarily without regret as a consequence of their correctness.

I think what Ruggo and I perhaps had in mind is that there is in fact something vaguely cheapening and a bit degrading about a genuine 'pure' (or once was pure) sporting icon of this country - the Wallabies as our name for our best rugby team - being directly conjoined as 'the QANTAS Wallabies'. I mean, in historical essence, how can this statement even be true, let alone the fact that it lacks all meaning and integrity - how does an airline end up describing or possessing a national rugby team, it's a complete nonsense.

This type of total commercial co-optation of something in language and fact - that meant so much to the followers of rugby over 80 + years - by a commercial brand sort of deadens and degrades the inspiration that came with the name 'Wallabies'.

This doesn't mean what you say is wrong. But it does mean that what you refer to can have unforeseen impacts in the subtle ways fans, and perhaps the players, perceive the game, particularly when allied to other sorts of deteriorations in the evolution of Australian rugby.

 

[disco]

To all those who want to get rid of Dingo Deans, who would you have in his place, and who would be the assistants?

Secondly over the past couple of years, who could have done a better job with the player stock available, if Dingo had not got the gig?

I would have McKenzie or Nucifora as head coach, Gaffney as the backs coach, Foley as the Forwards & Re-start coach & would have kept Muggelton on as defence coach.

I didn't have a problem with Deans getting the job although a non-aussie getting the gig was a little hard to swallow at 1st.

Hindsight is always 20/20 but if I had know how different Crusader Rugby was to constructed Aussie rugby then Deans should never have got the job I don't think we have the talent to play the way Deans want's us to. We thrived under MacQueen & if Eddie had of spent more time developing forwards then he would have been far more successful.

 

[Gnostic]

I think keep Deans as head coach but acknowledge the massive problems with selection and with team spirit, mongrel, application, desire, passion (add any further descriptor you wish) and cull the rest of the coaching team. Replace them with people who have achieved significant improvements at S14 level. Foley for the Pigs and Mooney for the backs.

Muggo had to go as defensive coach as his defensive line whilst pretty damn good was also limiting to the attack and could not adapt to a rapid counter attack from depth. We would have seen this from the Wallabies if the backs would work off the ball (Mitchell). Deans defensive systems allow that adaption and whilst not as impregnable as Muggo's system Deans rightly said that you can't win by limiting the opposition's scores, you have to score more points than them.

Edit:- And Nucifora loses any input into the selection of the team. If these messures fail to get results Deans will be lucky to get another shot at a International coaching spot, unless it is with an emerging nation.

 

[Langthorne]

White, Ruddock, Mallet, Gatland all had pretty good credentials as international coaches, if you want to look at foreigners. As for Aussies, I seem to recall MacKenzie and Alan Jones were candidates. Jones had a sucessful stint way back in the 80s, but had been out of coaching for a while, and MacKenzie (like Deans) had no international coaching experience, and Deans had a pretty exceptional Super record.

How any of the other options would have gone is pure speculation, but it is fair to say there were other options, and that Deans' record has been poor (I'm talking about games won, but others may use some other measure).

When it comes to assistant coaches, there are plenty of good alternative options.

I'm not at the stage of calling for sackings, but I'd suggest there are a couple of things to consider:

Are the current coaches performing well?

If not, what can be improved?

If they are not capable of doing it, are there other alternatives available?


Ideally things will improve, but even if they don't we could be stuck if there is no alternative available.

 

[fatprop]

Deans isn't the problem, we just don't have the cattle to be anything better than 3rd or 4th in the world at the moment. We have one decent 8 in the country and one decent THP (both injured), We have one and a half locks. a new 10, a 12 out of form and no certainty over the rest of the backline except that AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) & Digby will be there, and we still don't know where to stick AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper).

 

[RedsHappy]

....I'm not at the stage of calling for sackings, but I'd suggest there are a couple of things to consider: Are the current coaches performing well?If not, what can be improved? If they are not capable of doing it, are there other alternatives available? Ideally things will improve, but even if they don't we could be stuck if there is no alternative available.

(*Please forgive long post, I am trying my best to contribute thoughtfully to the debate ;-) ).

Like us all, I have been thinking about this. When you look over the panoply of top line coaches in many team sports, you tend to find that no one is good at every core dimension of coaching. These coaches tend to be excellent in one or more of, but not all of: (a) team selections/composition over time, (b) individual player development and skills, (c) game planning and detailed tactics, (d) team culture/mind/psychology/attitude/'right stuff', (e) physical conditioning and endurance. (You could finesse all these terms to your personal taste, but hopefully you know what I mean.).

What I think has happened with Deans _may_ be this: NZ is by history naturally stocked with elite rugby players many of whom come ready-made with the 'right stuff' as per (d), it's built into the DNA of the game there and the entire AB tradition and its link with cultural identity in NZ. Coaches may need to encourage this 'stuff' and build on it, etc, but they don't need to be expert in creating it, finding it, culling the non-stuffs, and constantly re-inforcing it. NZ rugby coaches thus, by natural evolution, tend to have skills honed and directed more to (a) and (c), than all of the others above. And these coaching skills are often flattered and enhanced by the country's natural propensity to generate the right feedstock of (d), in quantity. The Crusaders' and ABs' wonderful histories could not be better examples.

I would argue that Australian rugby, for many varied reasons (a long post needed for analysing that), has, in the last 10 years, thrown up less and less elite players whom _naturally_ come to the top game with 'the right stuff'. We know what we mean by 'the right stuff': intensity, high physical courage, 'mongrel' when needed, always-on aggression (right sort), absolute commitment to attack, 80 mins mindset, incredible jersey-pride, etc. Whatever, this 'right stuff' is actually more and more critical to winning in top line rugby, not less so. Doesn't mean that player quality and experience is not hugely important, but you need the right deeper attitudes and team mind to go with all that, or you get loss-inducing inconsistency within games, or from one game to the next, or you handle pressure poorly with higher error rates as the mental attitude is not hardened.

Now, with hindsight, I would argue that probably what the Wallabies most critically needed from 2008 (or earlier) was a coach that was excellent in culling and deeply rebuilding the core attitudes of the Wallabies, and forcing a team that could deliver this 'right stuff'. And that is precisely what has not happened in the 2008-2010 journey, and why we still see such core problems of intensity and application today. And I don't think Deans has this skill (and, as above, with his history he probably didn't much need it), I think his skills are far more in (b) and perhaps (a). This is NOT to argue that 'promoting talent and youth' etc and better game plans and back line ingenuity and handling skills etc had no role in what was needed in Wallaby land. But the central point is that there is no use having a bunch of capable players and tactically brilliant schemes if they cannot consistently bring the right fundamental mental strength and attitude to the park for 80 mins when needed. In fact, what I sense is that Deans has recently become markedly less confident in directing the Wallabies because he has realised that, whilst he has achieved some growth in player competence and talent, he has not at all corrected severe flaws in the Wallabies' attitude and mindset. And the result is just a kind of more youthful re-run of 2005-07.

It may well be that RD has had a collision in time with Australian rugby history and both parties are concussed in incompatibility and with a fit that may never have been destined to work.

 

[I like to watch]

Redshappy, I agree it is the mental part of the game where the team needs improvement.
Could it be as simple as,the wobbly jumper is no longer the prize it once was? yeah sure everyone wants one & would like to play with them as long as they can. How many players are hanging around for the RWC then going to Europe? they are not concerned that they are walking away from another 10,20 or 30 caps.
There is also nowhere near the spotlight on national players here compared to SA & NZ, they are put on pedestals but are also judged harshly by the fans, there is a LOT of pressure on the Boks & AB players to perform every time. The wobblies do not have that pressure.
Walk the tight 5 thru martin place & see how many people can put names to faces. when they fail no one hardly gives them grief.A losing bok or AB will be given advice 100 times a day,on where they went wrong.
Robbie deans cannot manufacture that kind of pressure on the wobblies.