RedsHappy, is it the case that the Wallabies setup don't do some or all of these things?
Thanks for what is a very good question. Firstly, as you see, I am arguing that the 'capability in depth' parameters I listed are, IMO, absolutely essential to the construction of an ultimately successful elite rugby team in this era. For example, this year we have an Aus champion team in the Reds. If you look at that team's playing roster as at February 2011, you'd say that the only really outstanding players then in it were Genia, Copper, probably Horwill and Ioane. The rest were either experimental, or merely solid and 'reliable'. Far from a team of stars (and btw, and this is crucial, this roster was not drastically different to the Reds' 2009 one). Now, what has obviously made the difference is the total leadership, coaching, technical support, culture development, tactical and game plan ingenuity that Link and his team management group have created, building upon a good (but by no means universally exceptional) group of players. So, from this indisputable example spanning a mere 18 months, in assessing any team's viability as champions-to-be, we must assess both (a) intrinsic player capability and, just as importantly, (b) total team leadership and management capability (and my last post focussed upon (b) obviously). (An aside: a listen the last GAGR podcast interview with the Reds' Assistant Coach M Taylor powerfully highlights the role of specialist support coaches in building a successful elite rugby team, in this case: defence).
Secondly, re the 2008-2011 Wallabies. I have taken a vow to generally stay away from the Deans assessment debate until, say, late August when the 3N is over and we have much more fresh data to assess. What I will say, in trying to offer an answer to you as above, is that IMO the relatively slow and halting progress that the Wallabies made from May 2008 - December 2010 (and no one could factually argue the progress was exceptional and/or fully consolidated into very consistent winning outcomes) can be ascribed to certain deficiencies or under resourcing in a number of these parameters within the Wallaby leadership and management group. Purely for example: defence, consistent breakdown excellence, and scrum excellence/KPIs did not advance as well as they should have over a whole 3 year cycle under a new national coaching regime; not enough
consistent specialist resource has been devoted to kicking and the construction of reliable kicking technique; 'culture and mindset' - against the best oppositions, the Wallabies regularly faded in 2H situations, failed to consolidate 1H leads, and appeared to lack the ultimately required psychological intensity to close out crucial wins (and perhaps S&C issues were relevant to this), just examine the 2008-10 track record vs ABs.
For most of the foregoing, I don't 'blame the players', I believe there were management issues involved which required/require correction (and bringing in Phil Blake for defence in late 2010, and the recent 2011 scrum camps, are hopefully moves in the right direction. On the other hand, I am very unclear whom - if anyone - is now providing specialist coaching re attack, back line work etc to the Wallaby backs. Just having a powerful bunch of X-factor backs will be a necessary but by no means sufficient condition for RWC success in attack and counter-attack.)
