Robbie Deans

[I like to watch]

When you get beat upfront that messes with anyone's tactics doesn't it?
They were better at the breakdown all day as well.IMO that is not down to tactics that is down to the cattle on the field.
We should not have lost to Ireland, so that's a negative to RD. But I don't subscribe to the theory that we should expect to beat the AB's. If you were to select a composite side of Wobs & AB's how many Wobs make that side?

 

[Torn Hammy]

I agree with FP that depth is a major problem for Deans.

When the drop in class between the first and second chosen is substantial, the constant pressure on the best player to improve and perform is not as great. This leads to complacency, inconsistent performance and eventually a poor player/coach relationship.

I think the games of Cooper, Barnes, Nonu and SBW improved substantially this year because of their competition for selection, whereas players such as Carter, Smith, Genia and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) plateaued in their performances as a result of their unchallenged selection. As for the souring of player/coach relationships we only have to look at Giteau and Harinordoquy, who are both scathing of the coaches who thought they needed to do more than just turn up.

Deans didn't have a truck load of fullbacks, and in a masterstroke made the ever potentially great Beale into the best 15 in the world. When the list of inside centres looked dire he tried to do the same with McCabe but failed. But what can he do, he doesn't have the likes of SBW and Robbie Fruen knocking on the door and keeping the incumbents honest.

 

[Richo]

I agree with FP that depth is a major problem for Deans.

When the drop in class between the first and second chosen is substantial, the constant pressure on the best player to improve and perform is not as great. This leads to complacency, inconsistent performance and eventually a poor player/coach relationship.

I think the games of Cooper, Barnes, Nonu and SBW improved substantially this year because of their competition for selection, whereas players such as Carter, Smith, Genia and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) plateaued in their performances as a result of their unchallenged selection. As for the souring of player/coach relationships we only have to look at Giteau and Harinordoquy, who are both scathing of the coaches who thought they needed to do more than just turn up.

Deans didn't have a truck load of fullbacks, and in a masterstroke made the ever potentially great Beale into the best 15 in the world. When the list of inside centres looked dire he tried to do the same with McCabe but failed. But what can he do, he doesn't have the likes of SBW and Robbie Fruen knocking on the door and keeping the incumbents honest.

See, this is just flat-out wrong. Hickey played Beale at 15 in Super 14 and he tore defenses apart. Deans simply played him in the same position internationally.

 

[RedsHappy]

See, this is just flat-out wrong. Hickey played Beale at 15 in Super 14 and he tore defenses apart. Deans simply played him in the same position internationally.

Indeed. And as much as I rate KB (Kurtley Beale)'s outstanding skills, after his 2011 Test season so far, can it really be said that he's 'the best 15 in the world'?

 

[FANATIC]

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

Deans just drives me mad.

Honestly, if the guy simply had a VISION of playing winning Rugby and allowed players to own their place in the team rather than all this banter about 'earning' the right to play by kowtowing and doing anything dumb the coach suggested, maybe we would have won more that one TN in the last four years. We were lucky to make it past the quater finals!

 

[Scotty]

Er, I coulda swore there was a World Cup in there somewhere?

I coulda swore i said that in my first post about Dwyer.

 

[Scotty]

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.

He has plenty more runs on the board than me, pretty sure deans has more on the board than you, but it isn't going to stop anyone here from criticizing him, is it?

You obviously remember dywers good work and completely ignore the bad. I'm just trying to make the point that he also made plenty of errors, which many seem to forget when the get their Dwyer googles on.

 

[Scotty]

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

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.

Like I said I am not excusing deans role in this rwc failure, however I am trying to point out that other factors were at play, just as other factors were at play in 95. One coach is looked at as completely hopeless and the other is looked at as the messiah.

 

[Gnostic]

I posted the 07 squad above. Just which of these players should have been played more? Latham, Smith, Gregan retired. Mortlock got injured. We spent 3+ of the year's saying our backs are fine but our forwards suck. Are we saying Al should have got another year?

Face it, Deans inherited a lemon, he's gone a long way to sorting things, we won the 3N, had a fair year in 2010, and we got bundled out by what is quite probably the best all black team since 1995.

We lost to Ireland due to no Pocock, Moore, Ioane(Mitchell). Would Hodgson really have made any difference?

It's all 20 20 hindsight whinging. Was I happy with our results? No, but to say Deans failed, and that he did so due to short term sacrifices made on the RWC altar is deluded.

The team was shafted, great players retiring, and needed rebuilding. Nor did the whole team get dumped. A large chunk of the squad continued to play.

I have no issues with focusing on annual performance, but the argument is irrelevant to where the team was and needed to go.

At what point has Deans ever said 'this test isn't important, we are trialling players for the World Cup x, years away? '

I know this is a fansite, but all the whinging from Deans haters saying he should be fired... Face it, we could have won and some of you would say we won despite him.

You missed my point. I don't believe in general the problem has ever been the players. In one or two cases yes it is/was, but not generally. The players play as coached. It is the only reason why players perform and position themselves so differently from Super Rugby to test match.

Nearly 19 of the 07 RWC squad were injured, retired or otherwise unavailable (ie gone overseas) since that tour. Many of that 19 were at best fringe players under any coach at test level, Huxley, Norton-Knight etc.

We all agree that in 2007 and before the way the forward pack performed was a big determining factor in the RWC loss. It is also a major factor in so many losses since. What astounds me isn't that so many players left or weren't available, as over any four year period there is a significant turnover of players especially in the forwards (if there isn't they are generally aging and starting to fall of the pace), it is the fact that so many non-performers were retained when there were obvious successors and options. Look at the 2007 pack and there are some concerning players carried over - some who got unwarranted support from the fan base.

In any event the facts remain that the current team has not on any level actually performed better in results or in actual play than the 2007 squad. In fact many can argue legitimately that the play quality has regressed. That is the point, to write us off as Deans haters is shallow, no doubt there are some who are haters, but there are more who just require results from any investment and we haven't seen that or even basic signs that the investment is starting to work. There comes a point when the "Stop Loss" provision has to come into play. For me it was last year, and I haven't seen anything since to convince me that I made an error in judgement then.

 

[Gnostic]

Like I said I am not excusing deans role in this rwc failure, however I am trying to point out that other factors were at play, just as other factors were at play in 95. One coach is looked at as completely hopeless and the other is looked at as the messiah.

Agree Scotty that Dwyer may well get excused somewhat for the 95 failure because of his earlier results over the 7 years from 88 and most especially in 1994. Therein lies the difference, Dwyer had produced the results prior and the fact that he took culpability for the '95 failure. I am yet to see or hear of any instance of Deans admitting fault in anything he has done or not done as may be the case and his team just hasn't performed consistently, ever so it is difficult to find any basis on which to excuse this performance as an aberration.

 

[Athilnaur]

We were beaten up front and tactically by the ABs more than anywhere else. I doubt Beale and Mitchell -- or even Mils and the Duck -- would have made much difference.

I'd agree with that, but that scything run by Dagg through Ant and co to set the try gave them a lot of confidence. Dagg and Jane played immense games, two players who were not even sure picks two months ago. Beale has been a magic link man, particularly for Ioane, as has O'Connor. Stupid discussion though really, as we'll never know and the plain fact is they were picked, blacks played a great game on all fronts, most particularly to Joubert as a ref, while we only showed passages.

Tactically, I am no expert but as they say everyone gets an opinion. I'm a believer in simple tactics with a twist to achieve surprise. We tried to play a counter attack game, which has merit provided you create turnover ball. But at what time in the past two years has Joubert enabled that kind of game vs a committed team in offense? Had the Reds played the way they did in the super final under Joubert we could have seen a very different result. The upshot of that is I agree with you, if there's an area I am faulting Deans on its tactics, but you have to give the blacks credit, they played a superb spoiling game, very tight support and when we did play pick n go type rugby to set a platform it was so static we never had a hope in hell of creating overlaps. It's this last point of course which is why people argue for Barnes. But then Barnes did get to play and even then it didn't change our ability to create. I think our midfield generally played poorly, too much hesitation. There sure wasn't much hesitation from the blacks.

 

[Scotty]

Except his saders record?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

When you get beat upfront that messes with anyone's tactics doesn't it?
They were better at the breakdown all day as well.IMO that is not down to tactics that is down to the cattle on the field.
We should not have lost to Ireland, so that's a negative to RD. But I don't subscribe to the theory that we should expect to beat the AB's. If you were to select a composite side of Wobs & AB's how many Wobs make that side?

And who would coach it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[I like to watch]

You mean which kiwi?

 

[Athilnaur]

How 'bout Bob, that'd get the spittle flying

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You mean which kiwi?

I meant nothing: just identifying another area that is ripe for disagreement and amusing observations from all who post


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bowside]

We were beaten up front and tactically by the ABs more than anywhere else. I doubt Beale and Mitchell -- or even Mils and the Duck -- would have made much difference.

I think tactic's are dean's worst offence. The other stuff I can handle but the tactic's are what make me think he is fundamentally wrong for the job.

When has a Australia ever consistently had the best forward pack in the world? I would say we never really have, we have had good ones that did their job and performed on the day, but far and away the best pack - nah. But has this ever stopped us being successful - no it has not. Why? Because we play smart rugby and find ways to play around it. Man for man the reds pack is no where near the best in the comp, but they are serviceable, have a good cohesion with the backs and the team plays smart rugby, which negates any advantage the opposition originally had.

This in not the kiwi mindset, I'm not saying they dont play smart rugby, but rather they are more into dominating in natural ability and rugby skills. They often have the dominant pack so their is no need to work as hard on tactic's to negate this. Deans has bought this mindset into the wallaby set up, and as such we are playing 'all blacks lite' rugby - and by that I mean we are doing what they do but we are doing it worse. How we ever expect to win more than 1 game in 10 by doing this I do not know.

Often when people defend deans they use the excuse that he doesn't have the cattle. But if that is true, then Australia has never 'had' the cattle. But we've won 2 world cup's without the cattle and came within a bee's foreskin of winning a third. As such I would argue playing to your strengths is far more important than trying to play a gameplan that is out of reach. And deans failure to understand and utilise the strength of the players he has is what has led to him being the most unsuccessful coach of the wallaby's in the professional era.

 

[Bowside]

And thats why we need a coach that understand the strengths and weaknesses of Australian rugby and has the ability to successfully coach accordingly.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Before he can understand our strengths we need to identify them....remind me again?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bowside]

We have a shitload of talented backs. We had two of the best flankers in the world before one of them went overseas. We have a lock who was just about the best tight forward in super rugby. Our scrum was serviceable (I would have had Kepu at TH and slipper at LH). For a periods in his 4 year reign we had a very good line-out.

I dont think the mid field bombs and competing for the high-ball are necessarily strengths. Yet we seem to do it a lot.