Robbie Deans

[Gnostic]

Very well said RH.

This part in particular for me.

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.

Perhaps Deans and his "group" have yet to learn that each step on the journey is one taken that cannot be done over and if it is compromised the next step on that path will probably be so as well and each step from there will be harder and harder to correct.

I warned that the time for change in the approach to the national coaching set up was in early 2010 at the latest. I also warned that if changes were not made I could not see the Wallabies playing well, forget results, for me I just want to see them play well, the results will follow. Well here we are, the Wallabies have come third playing atrocious Rugby. One good defensive performance got them to this placing. I thought they played OK against a Wales side badly missing Adam Jones, Priestland and Warburton. (Most especially Priestland, Jones and Hook really don't add anything to the side, in fact they may have been better playing Halfpenny or putting one of the 9s at 10.) Now we have a growing chorus of discontent that will see Deans either remaining at the helm with a discontented and disenchanted fan base, or he will be sacked/resign with his career in atters. It is a pity because the situation was avoidable if somebody at the ARU had stepped in and said, "This shit has to stop." Start filling in the blanks Robbie, you can't send the side out under prepared......" So many of the issues now being commented upon were apparent to those who wanted to see in 2009.

 

[Gnostic]

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

The argument is Athlinaur, that the RWC is important, but if Deans had concentrated more on the immediate he would have got better results at the RWC and along the way. How does it help to have a side so used to losing, not only to the top sides but start losing to the lower tiers, all while playing shocking Rugby? Intersperse that with a good performance every now and then (though I still think the tactics in those games were rubbish) and you will have a side and players that harbour huge doubts and worries.

I also challenge anybody to say hoenstly that the "stars" that Deans is alleged to have fostered wouldnt have been selected by any coach in the country. Show me a player picked from left field who has out performed? The fact is all the X players would have been selected. Quite a few forwards and one or two backs out of this RWC side would have struggled to get a spot under any other coach and that isn't even taking into account the continual selection of non performers we had to put up with over the last three years.

 

[Gagger]

If you bought into giving Deans a go you bought into there being a deep cultural change in the Wallabies to get it into a performance mindset that would churn out trophy upon trophy, rather than limping from comp to comp like we had since 2001 - that's why I called it the Crusaderville Experiment.

This would take time and then need a solid test to see whether it has happened or not - that's where the RWC came in

 

[Athilnaur]

Fair enough Gnostic, I agree the x players would have self selected. Not so sold on keeping more old guard in 08 but for sake of discussion here's the squad for RWC 2007, per G& GR:

The squad
Backs:*Chris Latham,*Julian Huxley
, Lote Tuqiri,*Adam Ashley-Cooper
,*Mark Gerrard,*Drew Mitchell
,*Matt Giteau,*Stirling Mortlock
*(capt), Scott Staniforth, Stephen Larkham,*Berrick Barnes, George Gregan (vc),*Sam Cordingley
.
Forwards:*David Lyons,*Wycliff Palu
,*Stephen Hoiles, George Smith,*Phil Waugh*(vc), Hugh McMeniman,*Rocky Elsom,*Dan Vickerman,*Nathan Sharpe,*Mark Chisholm
,*Al Baxter,*Greg Holmes,*Matt Dunning,*Guy Shepherdson,*Adam Freier,Stephen Moore, Sean Hardman.

Shadow squad:*
Benn Robinson,Rodney Blake,*James Horwill,*Al Campbell,*Josh Holmes,*Tatafu Polota-Nau, Jone Tawake,*Josh Valentine,*Ryan Cross, Clinton Schifcofske and*Sam Norton-Knight.

 

[Gnostic]

If you bought into giving Deans a go you bought into there being a deep cultural change in the Wallabies to get it into a performance mindset that would churn out trophy upon trophy, rather than limping from comp to comp like we had since 2001 - that's why I called it the Crusaderville Experiment.

This would take time and then need a solid test to see whether it has happened or not - that's where the RWC came in

I "bought" into Deans getting appointed for the Wallabies job because he had the best results of any candidate. The Wallabies needed a drastic change away from the overly structured ponderous game of Jones and to a lesser extent Connolly.

What I expected was some form of Crusader Rugby we were used to seeing. Structures that allowed complete Rugby, a territory game, a strong set piece and fast counter attack.

At the end of 2009 I began to question the direction because none of these things were evident and the skill levels appeared to be decreasing. As time has gone on we have gone further and further from the very reason I was happy to see him appointed until all we have is a pretty good defence (still not as good as Kiss or Muggo I would suggest though some of that comes down to personnel and playing people out of position) and a fast counter attack based around three individuals. Shut down those indiviuals and there is no attack at all. Nowhere is the full team game we saw from the Crusaders and I will add we still see from them under Blackadder even without McCaw and Carter in the side.

 

[Epi]

I know a lot is said about the difference between super rugby and test rugby but why do Cooper and Genia play so well for Link and then get progressively poorer when they play for Deans... Not just this campaign but every time.

 

[Bowside]

I know a lot is said about the difference between super rugby and test rugby but why do Cooper and Genia play so well for Link and then get progressively poorer when they play for Deans... Not just this campaign but every time.

This one bugs me and I often pick my brain about it. I've come up with a few hypotheses:

Firstly, because at the reds it would seem that they are actively involved creating in the gameplan, and as such they 'own' the play a bit more and seem to be more successful. Examples of this is the way genia will often take a quick tap and go for a run when the team is awarded a very kick-able penalty. People will write this off and say this is not how you win test matches. But I think controlling the momentum of the game is much more important than 3 points, no matter what game it is.

Secondly they are supported by their team mates much more 'effectively'. Kicks are chased, tackles are made, quick ball is won, defenders are impeded to create gaps. Little things that turn half chances into points.

When the momentum swings in their favour they feed off it. I dont know that their is one thing that sets the performances apart, I think its just a lot of little things that start to build up and then they just go from there.

 

[Dam0]

I know a lot is said about the difference between super rugby and test rugby but why do Cooper and Genia play so well for Link and then get progressively poorer when they play for Deans... Not just this campaign but every time.

I wonder if you are underestimating the difference in level between super rugby and tests, particularly big tests.

The difference isn't so much in personnel, although this is a factor, but in the systems and planning that the other teams have. Super XV coaches have to coach in a week in week out competition against 14 other teams and have limited time to focus on individual teams let alone individual players.

Test match coaches on the other hand have a massive paid off-season and time in which to make plans on how to shut down individual players and teams. They also have far fewer teams to worry about, realistically, the AB's team could spend most of their planning time on just 4 countries. They also have an embarassment of riches to work with. A little known fact is that the AB wise men are joined in the box by their video analyst who spends literally all year going through tape of opposition players which he can then work on with the wise men and others.

In short, any weaknesses that you can get away with at super XV level will be ruthlessly exposed in test level, especially at the ones that really count. We have found that out to our demise on several occasions with players like Carlos Spencer and with Leon McDonald, Christian Cullen et al playing at centre.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The argument is Athlinaur, that the RWC is important, but if Deans had concentrated more on the immediate he would have got better results at the RWC and along the way. .

Shakespeare, when captain coach of the Stratford on Avon mediocre 15 side summed it up:

Tomorrow I will live the fool doth say,
Today itself too late
The wise lived yesterday


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Athilnaur]

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.

 

[vidiot]

Face it, we could have won and some of you would say we won despite him.

But when we did win, it was despite him!

>

 

[Scotty]

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

Pretty sure I mentioned that in my first post on Dwyer. It doesn't change what happened in 95 and people having a skewed memory of that time. We were one of the favorites for that rwc and we had our equal worst result.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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.

There's no agree button on Tapatalk: I agree, some good points: the question should be what's his philosophy from here?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Reddy!]

I always wonder why Deans did not select Barnes at flyhalf and Giteau at inside for the opening test in 2008. Especially after Barnes had a successful debut season during the 2007 WC at flyhalf, and would have been both players natural positions. I remember Rod Kafer expressing his disagreement about this in 2008 on The Rugby Club. This really was the start of 4 years of poor selection decisions in my mind.

 

[Ruggo]

As Crap as he has become, Gits 2008 for the Force was outstanding and Deans was right to select him at 10. Deans actually picked players in their correct positions then. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and things have changed.

 

[fatprop]

I do think some people on here have higher opinions of the cattle we have available than I do.

Deans may have taken options that can be questioned, but does anyone really think they would have made any real difference in the final outcome?

Our depth is better than it has ever been, but who would have been our 4th choice 10 etc. (answering my own question, Cooper, Barnes, Beale then JOC (James O'Connor) - but what would that have done to the rest of the backline)

Could we do better, sure, but to me, the selection choices were made because we just don't have that real battle hardened depth, it is clearly improving but it just isn't there yet.

The reality is that if we had decent depth, Mitchell, Horne, Palu & Nau just wouldn't have been picked

 

[Langthorne]

Robbie Deans:

Bonsai Breed (the backs?)

A Bribes Done (ABs or JON?)

Sad no Bieber (JOC (James O'Connor) not withstanding?)


Langthorne:

Rant he long!

 

[Richo]

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.

Oooh. Two can play that game.

I know this is a fansite, but all the idolatry from the Deans lovers saying he should stay on... Face it, we could have gone out in the pool rounds and some of you would say it wasn't his fault.

 

[Athilnaur]

Heh Rich, probably, but not on this site, at best here he gets approval like when we won bled 2.

We get our hopes up then get whacked with the reality stick.

The irony here is that the all blacks, too me, looked vulnerable. Two months ago I posted on the fern that Mils was too slow. Copped some heat for that, heh. Anyways their backline was unsettled, half the country wanted money bill gone, Read was injured, Slade was looking decidedly dodgy but who cares they had Dan.

Pipedreaming, but I wonder how that semi would have gone with no Dagg, and Donald, who had more experience, was played and we'd had Beale and Mitchell available. Not sure we are quite so outclassed by the blacks as some think, except in depth, and that's improved somewhat.

 

[Richo]

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.