Robbie Deans

[Hawko]

If he does anything Dwyer implies: you infer.

so you just discount 1991 do you? and the fact that dwyer got them from the jones fiasco in 87 to a win in 91?
and the fact that he got them credibility in the early 80s - before being sabotaged by QLD so jones would take over the team he had built.
You ignore the fact the team of talent was built by Dwyer - he pulled Kearns from Randwick reserve grade: like or hate him as a commentator you cant criticise his performance as a player (except for his dalliance with the world rugby circus) Horan and Little were picked as unknowns. Egerton was a club fullback who played on the wing at RWC 1991. I think he may have unearthed McKenzie and got hiim to move from Victoria to NSW - admittedly to play for Randwick (Grrr).
I think Dwyer has the runs on the board and, unless your rod McQueen, he's got more on the board than you.
His one error was not to notice me in his first stint as Wallaby coach.

Great line!

 

[Gnostic]

Dwyer's overly flat alignment was a big part of the 1995 downfall. There has to be a balance. It was even flatter than what Cooper does (and I am one of those who talked about barnes standing too deep).

Dwyer took an experienced team with fantastic talent and came away with a terrible result. Deans took an inexperienced team with fantastic talent and came away with an average result.

Dwyer is therefore the coaching messiah?

Not to mention that in almost every article he infers the referees are biased against the wallabies!

The truth about the 1995 RWC isn't as supportive for Deans situationas you would point out. It is bad for Dwyer in selection mode though.

On the injury front and these players should not have toured most probably:-
1. Kearns - chronic ankle and foot problem.
2. Willie O. - Knee held together with strapping tape
3. Horan - less than 12 months and no Rugby after destroying his knee in Super 10 against Natal I think it was. At the time there were questions about him running again let alone playing.
4. Little - knee injury like Horan, just not as bad.
5. Campo - Chronic knee and ankle injuries
6. Gregan - grossly out of form, to the extent in 1996 he would be dropped for the amateur Country Cockatoo player Steve Merrick.

There were other niggly injuries throughout the side but these injured players couldn't train properly let alone play to a high level. Dwyer did have an "out" though, in 1994 they defeated all comers and played very very well to boot. It was the last harrah of the 1991 squad and playbook.

There was another insidous factor at play at the 95 RWC which Dwyer found himself, perhaps unknowingly, compromised by. That of the rebel World Rugby Corporation. It says a lot about the mind set of the team when the Captain (Kearns) has signed with the rebels along with a quite a few others of the senior players. Evidence suggests that Kearns signed or was in serious negotiations with the WRC during the 1994 test series and he makes comment which could be viewed as confirming that when accepting the Bledisloe Cup after beating the AB in Sydney. This is a factor because on top of being injured key players were distracted from their performance by a looming split from the ARU.

Contrast with Deans, he made the same errors with regard to injured and out of form players, and I alluded to this before and when the squad was announced. Dwyer has freely admitted his errors with the side since 1995 in a number of articles and interviews.

Dwyer's sides, where ever he coached were always meticulously prepared and were at the cutting edge of tactics and fitness (excepting his failure to drop injured and out of form individuals in '95 as previously mentioned). This contrasts with Deans whose Wallaby sides have for the most part looked uncoached and bereft of structures. There is no doubt the Wallabies are as physically fit as any Tier 1 side, so that is no area of failure. As I said in the years leading up to the 95 RWC Dwyer's sides performance and played very well. The Deans coached Wallabies have played well in maybe half a dozen games at best in 4 years, regardless of results.

One last point I have to agree with a lot of the criticism of the Refs. It isn't that they are biased, that is an allegation of corruption and significantly better evidence would be required for that. It is simply that too many referees are not competent. Again for me that is a Coaching and Selection issue for which Obrien is responsible, as people are continually put in situations beyond their ability to perform.

BTW I think Barnes just had a poor game last night with the forward passes, his handling of most other aspects of the game was pretty good.

 

[Hawko]

BTW I think Barnes just had a poor game last night with the forward passes, his handling of most other aspects of the game was pretty good.

I agree with the rest of your post but on the forward passes I have a different spin. Poite was clearly at fault in allowing the try, he was right in line, Barnes was behind. I think Barnes realised there was something wrong and maybe peeked a look at the big screen replay. Being human, and with all the history, he instantly resolved not to miss another forward pass and promptly saw one forward that wasn't. Unfortunate, because those two decisions kept the game a lot closer than it deserved to be. Except for Poite, who was right in line and just not looking, it wasn't a hanging offence and I agree the rest of his game was OK.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Even the pass to POite was forward!

 

[Riptide]

Interesting comments from Eddie Jones in his column in the Telegraph

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s-to-be-replaced/story-fn8ti7yn-1226173567346

"A MAJOR shake-up to improve the coaching set-up at the Wallabies is essential because the shortcomings of the Robbie Deans formula has been exposed by his team not firing a shot when it mattered at the World Cup."

 

[Gnostic]

Scathing from Mark Ella, My favourite "Its Obvious he doesn't know too much about back play."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-some-hard-facts/story-e6frg7o6-1226173511880

 

[Bowside]

I thought this comment on the blog was a quality rant:

In 2008 when I was standing in front of the TV asking everyone around me why we had started playing dumb rugby all my friends told me it was change and I was being negative and couldn’t see the big picture.

In 2009 when I stood in front of the TV and asked why we didn’t seem to have any structure or plans I was told that they were “playing what was in front of them” and it would pay off.

In 2010 when I stood in front of the TV and asked why we were playing even dumber rugby with even less structure and pattern and losing to poor teams I was told that “everything is leading to the WC where they will peak”

Well it’s 2011, the cup is over, we fucked up, we lost 2 games and should have lost 3. I’m asking again….why the fuck hasn’t anyone realised that the strength of Aussie Rugby was always that we were smarter than the opposition and had structure and plans to fall back on….all we had to do was lift intensity for big matches and tinker with the game plan to win.

Deans has taken away our smarts and now we are stuffed. Why the hell is he still coach???? We don’t defend or attack as well as we used to. We can’t scrummage, our line out is fucked, we can’t deal with restarts, and we can’t build phases and sustain pressure. We don’t compete with the opposition when they have the ball or in the line out . We can’t hold the ball on attack and our pack is worse than ever.

And now, for the first time in history of Australian Rugby in any code – our centres are not up to scratch….wtf?? We always had excellent centres but not since Robbie took over.
Thank god someone agrees that he shouldn’t be coach.

And I still maintain we need an Aussie to motivate us against other teams – there is no way Deans’s heart is in it.

Thanks for this article – I felt like I was the only one thinking these things.

 

[Lee Grant]

They didn't miss did they?

Has Campo written a review yet?

 

[Bowside]

If the media keeps this up his post may become untenable.

Its only a matter of time before some of the players start rumbling.

 

[Dam0]

If the media keeps this up his post may become untenable.

Its only a matter of time before some of the players start rumbling.

The rub is that the players will only start to rumble if the writing is on the wall, but the writing on the wall won't happen till the players rumble...

Catch 22. Deans will be yours for at least another 2 years.

 

[Gnostic]

If the media keeps this up his post may become untenable.

Its only a matter of time before some of the players start rumbling.

You dont think they have? I heard rumbles as early as the start of last year (Super Rugby).

 

[FANATIC]

If the media keeps this up his post may become untenable.

Its only a matter of time before some of the players start rumbling.

Players have already been rumbling and grumbling about the Deans Experiment; they are the ones that get dropped and are then branded as sore losers for not gettin selected.

Of course Deans position is untenable and his job should not be protected.

 

[Gnostic]

The rub is that the players will only start to rumble if the writing is on the wall, but the writing on the wall won't happen till the players rumble...

Catch 22. Deans will be yours for at least another 2 years.

I think only the disastrous resigning and whatever clauses in the contract will the the only thing to ensure he remains head coach. He may however be forced to take direction from assistants not of his choosing and an independent selector. Given his history with people who don't share his vision (probably because it doesn't make any sense to them) it is unlikely he would accept such appointments IMO.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think only the disastrous resigning and whatever clauses in the contract will the the only thing to ensure he remains head coach. He may however be forced to take direction from assistants not of his choosing and an independent selector. Given his history with people who don't share his vision (probably because it doesn't make any sense to them) it is unlikely he would accept such appointments IMO.

unchosen assistants etc becomes untenable if the man has any pride

 

[RedsHappy]

unchosen assistants etc becomes untenable if the man has any pride

Related question: has the ARU shown the competence and judgement necessary to appoint the right new Wallabies assistants, with or without Deans' approval, and whether they instruct him or not? Based upon the last 4 years, and with the probable exception of Blake, the answer would appear obvious.

 

[Athilnaur]

If he does anything Dwyer implies: you infer. [well, Dwyer could well have inferred prior to implying, but I believe what you are suggesting is that Dwyer made an implication, which others infer from.]
...
...
so you just discount 1991 do you? and the fact that dwyer got them from the jones fiasco in [19]87 to a win in 91?
and the fact that he got them credibility in the early 80s - before being sabotaged by QLD so jones would take over the team he had built.
[new para]
You ignore the fact [ed: the whole team? - fact or opinion?] the team of talent was built by Dwyer - he pulled Kearns from Randwick reserve grade: like or hate him as a commentator you cant criticise his performance as a player (except for his dalliance with the world rugby circus) Horan and Little were picked as unknowns. Egerton was a club fullback who played on the wing at RWC 1991. I think he may have unearthed McKenzie and got hiim to move from Victoria to NSW - admittedly to play for Randwick (Grrr).
[new para]
I think Dwyer has the runs on the board and, unless your rod McQueen, he's got more on the board than you.
His [only] error was [to] not [deleted] notice me in his first stint as Wallaby coach.

Editing, the game the whole family can play!

 

[louie]

I think only the disastrous resigning and whatever clauses in the contract will the the only thing to ensure he remains head coach. He may however be forced to take direction from assistants not of his choosing and an independent selector. Given his history with people who don't share his vision (probably because it doesn't make any sense to them) it is unlikely he would accept such appointments IMO.

exactly. does anyone even know what his vision was? what does play whats in front of you even mean? bizarre man

 

[Gnostic]

I actually don't think un-chosen assistants is a good thing, and you would only do it to ensure somebody moves on. The Coach has to have a vision for the side and the assistants have to share that vision and "assist" in ensuring it comes to fruition. If Deans has been let down by his assistants (and look back on my thread of last year link posted by Langthorne) I suggested that a specialist backs coach and forwards coach with proven success was required.

The problem for Deans is that even if many coaches share his overall philosophy and aims (a rapidly evolving and responsive side instead of the robotic play to formula teams seen under Jones and to a lesser extent Connolly) few would be able to agree with the almost total lack of play structures and the selection policies required by Deans.

Nowhere is the problems with the Wallaby team any more evident than the pack. It all begins with the pack and hence the numbers .
We have utility players as both props. Kepu in particular was the outstanding TH in Oz in the Super comp. Alexander didn't play more than half a game at TH and was pretty heavily penalised in either position. Yet after stating that a strong scrum is essential both are selected out of the positions they play most of their rugby and both struggle. Why are we surprised? Second row, a bloke who hasn't played more than 80 minutes of Pro Rugby for two years is selected to start and he bashes his hardest and does the low skill barge work well. The re-starts are rubbish and the lineout turns to shit. Coincidentally the scrum (a problem in 2007) is again a problem (but it was all Sharpe's fault in 2007). Interesting to note how effective Sharpe was last night with one leg at carrying the ball, tackling, Lineout and restarts. The backrow relies totally on Pocock and Deans goes for a "work horse" as the back up. It goes on. The whole pack was selected for mobility and work rate with only a nod in the direction of the set piece. Why be surprised that the set piece, the source of primary possession was rubbish.

Nowhere more than at 7 is the bullshit that is the lack of depth argument better seen. The options after Pocock in order of merit were 1. Robinson 2. Hodgeson 3. Gill 4. Fainga'a Jnr Jnr 5. McCalman 6. Waugh (He had a poor Super Season looking slow and tired) and probably some more I cannot place right now. There are options in most positions.

The thrust of my ramble is that if assistants are chosen for Deans the selection mix must change as the team is unbalanced. They are good players (many who have skill & technically issues which should have been addressed - and this is a huge area of failure under Deans IMO) but three Utility Props in the squad, No backup 7, three 9s two of who get almost no game time. Two backrowers played consistently out of position.

If Foley is invited back as scrum/lineout coach and told his brief is to fix the set pieces I expect that mobility and ball playing would be sacrificed to ensure that the players could perform at their core duties. I would expect that a couple of Deans favourites would struggle to make the bench.

 

[RedsHappy]

Good points Langers

Just to balance out the "I told you so's" though - I still maintain we were right to stick with Robbie's original tenure of 4 years. We set out with a endpoint in mind - had we changed mid stream, we could still be wondering.

Also, I think I lot of what he has been criticized for along the way, aren't necessarily the reasons why he should go. As an example - the moving on old players / bringing in the kids is not a failure in my eyes - it's what's not been done to prepare them as a total team that is. Yes, this isn't new either, but the ultimate test was whether he could pull together the pieces in the end game - the RWC - and he didn't. Only now do we know for sure he hasn't cut it.

The fatal obsession - 4 years and the glorious end-moment of a RWC. This lies at the heart of much of the problem we have endured with Deans, and much of the indulgence that has been extended to him here and elsewhere. And why we fly out of Auckland today with a flawed and saddened squad that doesn't quite know how the dream has died.

The 'ultimate test, years away' could always be used to justify skills errors, bizarre selections, poor results vs weak teams, lack of coherent game plans, failed kickers, etc as such could be alleged to be 'building and learning' experiences, rather than hard-minded and appropriate Tests of rugby competence here and now. And comparatively poor accumulating Test w-l % ratios could be explained as the wise, essential price of 'developing talented young players for the RWC'. There would always be a pay-off somewhere down the golden-paved track.

Meanwhile, 'everyday' casual Wallaby fans asking for skilful entertainment and an ongoing brand of Wallabies in which they could be proud over the the 3.75 years before the quadrennial crowning moment were served up 'experiments' and 'deposits in belief' that actually patronised them, and under-appreciated their loyalty. And under-delivered quality rugby to them, except on unpredictable 1-in-5 occasions.

The RWC dream seems to excite the mad passionates that inhabit this site, far more than the everyday fans who want to see their year-on-year Wallabies beating NZ, winning a BC and (full-strength) 3Ns, and playing the truly dynamic rugby with smart backs that we are famous for. So many consistent posters here kept relating almost every Test event in 2009 and 2010 to the massively worshipped goal of the 2011 RWC, it was as though little else mattered and sacrifices and peculiarities along the way were barely open to debate so long as they pointed to Eden Park, October 23, 2011. To criticise Deans and doubt the dream was to display a lack of vision and appreciation for what would _really_ matter, the coming RWC.

Maybe this quadrennial obsession wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the major flaws in the RWC tournament model: e.g., the winner by no means necessarily has to play all, or most of, the best teams to win. And the irony of the odd permutations along the way when Aus can thrash France only last November (that was building-to-the-RWC big time!), and now see France way ahead of ourselves in the RWC Final. (And this all further shows how laughable is the great justification of the RWC as end-in-itself as discussed above; France's preparations for this RWC have been a shadow of Australia's obsession with the thing, ditto Wales that has arguably played better, more consistent RWC rugby than Australia's efforts.)

The point is this: building genuine excellence in a complete and consistent performance during the journey is the real marker of rugby playing and coaching quality. The calibre of that journey's achievements is actually far more important than the arrival. The 'sacrificing for the ultimate test of an RWC' model badly risks the use of this goal as an illusory mask to hide unresolved deficiencies in player development and coaching capability. Australia should now focus - as do the benchmark ABs - on winning every Test from its next and doing so with increasing skill, completeness of play, and game-to-game consistency. We should forget any notion of the RWC 2015 until sometime in early 2015 and be sure we have a prior year Test w-l % ratio higher than 70% by the time we arrive at that point. That will be a far better entry gate to winning it than a loss to Samoa.

 

[Athilnaur]

I agree with that RH, but I also think it's fair to say we'd lost a lot of ground and Dean's approach has fostered a squad of players who, while still a little green, are a huge part of our game and will be going forward. (sorry, couldn't help myself).

If the goal was to have that team in world champion form for RWC 2011, well it failed, but maybe not by quite so much as people are saying. You can't have it both ways, are the RWCs most important, or the annual 3/4Ns and EOYTs? We won the 3N this year. That was our goal and we did it. I don't buy the kiwi arguments, it was their choice to blood a b+ team. As a result of it Dagg showed up, and Henry got to see Slade under pressure. Critical moments he acquired by making the coaching decisions he did. Boks have a better argument there, it was their clear and unapologetic intention to rest their key players, and that proved a good decision for them in a sense, but they lost in quarters and I wonder if the Bok fans ren't being even more scathing about the Bok approach than we are about ours.

Call me a glass half full guy, an eternal optimist, a rose tinted goggle kook, but I think Deans and co have achieved a damn good, but green, team. The tactics side I am less sold on