Robbie Deans Report Card

[Langthorne]

A few comments from the man himself:

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12336_6202994,00.html

Deans hails Wallabies' courage

....Wallabies coach Robbie Deans hailed the courage of his side after Australia survived an England fightback to clinch victory in the first Test at Perth.
The hosts raced to a 14-0 half-time lead but England reduced the arrears to 14-10, and then 21-17, before Australia secured a 27-17 triumph.
An injury crisis had forced Deans to field the most inexperienced Australian front row in 27 years, with debutant loosehead prop Ben Daley, hooker Saia Fainga'a and tighthead Salesi Ma'afu boasting just two caps and one Test start between them.
But Deans believed the front row - and his side in general - had acquitted themselves well to claim the victory at the Subiaco Oval...
The Wallabies coach said: "It took an awful lot of courage from our group to win that game.
"Our lineout was very good and when you consider that we had made just nine tackles at the 30 minute mark, that contributed to our ability to defend when we had to.
"It is fair to say our group will be a lot better for the experience.
"I thought the front row did pretty well considering what was asked of them physically and the courage they had to show.
"Given they were on the receiving end at scrum time they didn't go into their shells. They kept coming physically in defence and they had the courage to play when they had the opportunity.
"We got up and that is Test rugby and that is the only thing that matters."


Two points arising:

1. He seems to think the front row did pretty well, and the experience (once their bums stop bleeding) will have done them good.

2. He wants to be judged on wins - because that is the only thing that matters (except the ones they have lost, which are for the experience?).



.

 

[mark_s]

I am not sure if there is any desire to be fair to deans, but if there is, then I think his point is that he is giving the front row credit for not letting getting reamed at scrum time impact the rest of their game. He also says they will have learned alot about how to scrummage. Both are fair points if you want to have an open mind. If not, then continue as you were.

 

[Gagger]

I see valid points on both side of this argument. I thought some of Deans' tactics, particularly around the ruck last 3N, were simply wrong.

But I can't help but think Deans told JO'N early in the piece that if he wanted a franchise that didn't just squeak the odd win (see Knuckles and Eddie) but rather go around spanking all and sundry for years, then it would be all about building the right culture with the best young talent. And that there'd be pain along the way, which we're seeing.

This made JO'N remember the McQueen years and it was a done deal. When Chris Hickey (S14 coach of the year two years running) inherits this team from Deans, he'll be fucking laughing.

 

[liquor box]

The only positive in the scrum was that the front row did n ot seem to drop their heads, they would keep getting in their and looked like they were wanting to fight the whole 80 minutes. Previously when England smashed our scrums I think I recall our front row with hands on hips looking at the ground with no look of aggression on their faces.

I was glad to see a couple of small scuffles too, it showed the fight we need.

 

[Cutter]

I am not sure if there is any desire to be fair to deans

Bingo. Its all a bit tiresome. Apart from Baxter and, possibly, Fairbrother, the cupboard is bare given our injuries.

 

[Ruggo]

I argree with that LB. What we saw was inexperience and last time I checked, that did not grow on trees. The work load of these boys was fantastic. The scrum looked to be an issue 8 blokes not working as one unit. England shit themselves when it became clear that the Wallabies were not going to let them use their rolling maul. We were fantastic at disarming it.

 

[TheRiddler]

When Chris Hickey (S14 coach of the year two years running) inherits this team from Deans, he'll be fucking laughing.

Not even in my worst dreams am I contemplating such an action. Please do not mention it ever again.

 

[fatprop]

Bingo. Its all a bit tiresome. Apart from Baxter and, possibly, Fairbrother, the cupboard is bare given our injuries.

So does anyone think that a front row of

Fairbrother
Faainga
Baxter

would have done better?

 

[whocares]

They wouldn't have done worse. Plus Baxter would have learnt from experience (you would hope)

 

[topo]

I don't. I think the real problem was at LHP last night and that Ma'afu was on a hiding to nothing because of that. Playing 2 THPs and a rookie hooker won't fix it. Probably wouldn't be on roller skates as often but would go down a lot. Baxter has only played a small amount of LHP and was never very good there and I have never seen Fairbrother play LHP. Is Fairbrother even eligible given that he is sheep shagger?
IMO what we desperately need is a LHP. I would bring in Greg Holmes and give Weeks a go at THP. If there was a bit of stability on the LH side, I would back Weeks to get the job done on his side.

 

[Lindommer]

Tim has Aussie grandparents so can march straight into an Aussie rep team.

 

[disco]

I thought Daley was fine he got low & wasn't going to ground like Maafu. Maafu barely bends his back let alone his knees, the bloke was shit in the super 14 so how he made the squad let alone the 1st 15 is beyond me.

The best scrum we did all night was when Maafu was carded & we only had 7 forwards pushing & the poms should have been pinged for not using the ball after the ref had told them.

 

[cyclopath]

Daley went to ground more than once, but was nowhere near as bad as Ma'afu.

 

[DPK]

So this is a Report Card, yet no-one has given him a grade.

Id give Robbie Deans a B- so far.

 

[Scarfman]

So does anyone think that a front row of

Fairbrother
Faainga
Baxter

would have done better?

Yes.

 

[cyclopath]

Shows some potential, but major projects are often poorly organised with many syntax errors. Needs to work on presentation skills, and tends not to be an enthusiastic contributor to class discussions. Excels at PE however, and seems to get on well with his classmates. B

 

[David]

Yeah I'm with Langthorne on this I want to see some silverware we've been patient long enough, why do we have to wait for a RWC year to hit our straps? The poms were starting to dominate world rugby two years out from the 2003 RWC.

I'd love to win the world cup but the Bledisloe & Tri Nations would make me just as happy.

I think Deans is very stubborn he has a game plan that worked well in the super 14 but like the players you have to go up a level for test rugby & Deans hasn't.

We didn't/don't have the depth to dominate world rugby two years out from the world cup.

 

[Langthorne]

Bingo. Its all a bit tiresome. Apart from Baxter and, possibly, Fairbrother, the cupboard is bare given our injuries.

Yeah, how dare I question him?

How about some rebuttal to go with that dismissive rejection?

Well, I guess there is something there: 'The front row selected was the best available, apart from maybe two others' - so not the best available then.

It was obvious beforehand that the 3 props were not the best available, nor up to the task (even more obvious once the game commenced). So the question is: what was Deans thinking? He said he selected solely on form, but it could only be because either he missed much of the s14, sees only what he wants to, has no clue about scrummaging, or just said it when he knows it isn't true.

It is fair to say that Deans' best course of action when asked about the performance of his front row is to support them - I concede that. My main concern is that he doesn't seem to think he made a number of errors both in terms of philosophy and action in this area (see earlier posts)

Gagger - it is very handy for Deans to always be able to fall back on the 'don't judge me now, everything will be great in the future' argument as there is nothing you can say until the future arrives and he is gone.





.

 

[RedsHappy]

Yeah, how dare I question him?

How about some rebuttal to go with that dismissive rejection?

Well, I guess there is something there: 'The front row selected was the best available, apart from maybe two others' - so not the best available then.

It was obvious beforehand that the 3 props were not the best available, nor up to the task (even more obvious once the game commenced). So the question is: what was Deans thinking? He said he selected solely on form, but it could only be because either he missed much of the s14, sees only what he wants to, has no clue about scrummaging, or just said it when he knows it isn't true.

It is fair to say that Deans' best course of action when asked about the performance of his front row is to support them - I concede that. My main concern is that he doesn't seem to think he made a number of errors both in terms of philosophy and action in this area (see earlier posts)

Gagger - it is very handy for Deans to always be able to fall back on the 'don't judge me now, everything will be great in the future' argument as there is nothing you can say until the future arrives and he is gone.


.

Langthorne, you may or may not have noticed elsewhere: I find the thrust of your posts re Deans remarkably astute and fact-based. It's equally remarkable how, despite such poor delivered performance over two full seasons and last night's dancing-with-disaster performance, Deans attracts so many sympathisers, apologists and wishful-thinkers living upon future dreams. The very power of hope!

The other compelling danger now underpinning the 'Deans and co are doing fine' assessment is the 'it's all about the RWC' rationalisation for virtually every moment of Wallaby experimentation and risk, irrespective of immediate (or accumulated) performance here and now, and the hard facts in front of us. It's as if a potential one-off triumph (that we have at best a 30% chance of winning just once every 4 years) in a lone 4 year cycle will repair the core problems of our game in Australia, namely: no nationally exposed Australian rugby teams are winning anything like enough or consistently enough on the world stage against the best teams, and when most teams are playing, the play is typically arcane-rules-based and defensive in nature, not entertaining or exciting, and increasingly 'for die-hards only'. The flush of excitement of the Reds' dynamism this year highlights just how bad things have become in Australian rugby given this very isolated piece of joy (in just one state of Australia after nearly 10 terrible years of QRU incompetence), vs how good they are.

It's not a criticism of anyone, but one of the dimensions that really strikes me about these fora (as the new arrival I am) is the degree to which posters mostly want to dialogue over the day-to-day matters and last night's selections vs the strategic situation of the game in Australia and what may be required to correct the serious financial and sports market share problems the game has today in Australia.

In this very context of strategy-for-survival vs last nights game, I was impressed with your idea-leadership in getting right into the guts of what Deans has or has not really achieved for rugby in Australia given, amongst other things, his huge remuneration paid for indirectly by our gate receipts and our TV viewing habits. Using the most reliable and classical criteria for coaching performance, the W-L ratio over at least 2 full seasons, he's not performed at all well. All manner of excuses, hopes, everything-is-going-well-with-youth, etc, etc explanations are being trotted out for this, we are remarkably accommodating. But I worry that so few partisans seem to want to discuss the actual detail of what happened and what is there (in a long-term sense). Further, the level of expectation for excellence and consistency has subtly deteriorated in the last say 10 years from most fans truly expecting and demanding a team that can win Bledisloe and 3N silverware every year to living with 'happiness over a few June internationals and winning against England'.

The fans seem increasingly to have lost the belief they have a right to demand a team that can lead the world in this game.

 

[Langthorne]

Langthorne, you may or may not have noticed elsewhere: I find the thrust of your posts re Deans remarkably astute and fact-based.

You are not in the majority on that one RedsHappy, but thank you, and the feeling is mutual.

Your comments regarding the wider impact of Wallaby performances (and by extension Robbie Deans' tenure) are well made.

I was looking at the Tri Nations Vs Northern Hemisphere results listed together earlier on and thought to myself 'spot the difference' - the 4 Aussie Super Teams had a pretty successful season (probably the best aggregate points, despite not fielding a finalist, let alone winning it) but that hasn't yet been reflected in domination over NH opponents (40 odd point victories). Just a side issue, and early in the season too.

For the record, even with the less than spectacular win/loss, I would still gives Deans an overall B- . I think he has some good ideas and many aspects of the Wallabies play has been good. He has been particularly successful with back line play/attitude - probably partly a function of the youth policy in that area (an area where it is more likely to work). He loses marks for the areas already mentioned (and I believe it is fair and right to mention them).



.