So, who here thinks Deans is the coach we need?

[Athilnaur]

In our passion to see the Wallabies win, and our absolute loathing of losses like, that Aussie A 'practice run' last year against those really big pacific islanders and that other practice run we had somewhere near Newcastle, it is pretty easy for us fire up. Easier too if you see players picked that you don't agree with. Then there is the convoluted management speak.

On the other, some say we should be realistic, that our cattle were knackered, they're coming right. That it isn't Deans fault the English women's team would be fancied (by the Pommy press that is) to out-scrum us. They point to some big victories along the way, our recovered world ranking, and that annoying little fact we try to ignore, that we lack depth because union is probably the fourth most popular football code in Australia after those other games, aerial ping-pong, mungo-ball, and the take-a-divas.

So, in advance of the TRC, here is your chance to take a stand! Deans - Go To Guy or Dunce?

Public Poll, take a stand.

Me, I am saying Go To Guy. Even if he didn't pick Pyle, Neville or Jones.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think there have been some advances under Deans but also some areas that have left plenty to be desired.

I think our depth has improved greatly in recent years. He has blooded a lot more players and now we have more depth in most positions.

Deans' bench use has been generally poor throughout his tenure. This needs to improve.

Our tactics at times have been disappointing, particularly at the RWC. We also suffered from having key players short on form like Genia, Cooper and Moore who had been our best players during the 3N last year. Pocock missing from a couple of games with injury was also costly. Perhaps if all these key players had played better we could have executed the game plan better.

I think this year's Rugby Championship will be decisive for Deans' tenure. I'm not expecting to win the whole thing, but if we can take a game off the ABs and finish a clear second I think it will have been a really successful campaign.

At this stage, I think Deans is the guy for the Lions tour but if that doesn't go well we should bring in a new coach (McKenzie) to give him two years to build for the RWC.

 

[Richo]

Extending Deans before the RWC was poor planning by the ARU. I don't think he's a good international coach and, as BH points out, is frequently caught out tactically. While he has done a decent job of player development, he has also tended to show too much loyalty to poor performers.

Personally, I'd have liked to see a new coach take over after last year's EOYT. That would have given him two years to prepare for the Lions. I also don't think it's too late for change. If the Wallabies are poor in the RC, I think he needs to go immediately. My definition of poor would be "finish third or lower, no win against the ABs".

 

[Aussie D]

I voted against him on the basis that the 'player development' argument can easily be argued to have occurred at super rugby level and depth was always going to increase with the addition of more teams at said level. His bench use as stated above has been poorly managed and the Wallabies look to lack a plan A, let alone an B and C. Player selection is an important aspect of a coaches skill set and Deans seems to err on the side of caution a lot (continued selection of journeyman such as Brown and McCalman when a blind man could see they were struggling to step up to super rugby level). I am not in favour of picking players on 'potential' for test rugby, especially if it is based on size (thought we learnt that lesson in the Knuckles years). Would prefer it if players were picked on their ability to perform the basics of their position under pressure on a consistant basis, not because they are built like Tarzan. Many would argue that he had a phenomenal super rugby record with the Crusaders but he only won 3 titles in 8 years with the best openside flanker and flyhalf in the world and many other players who if not the best in their position were at least 2nd or 3rd.

 

[tigerland12]

With the calibre of playing talent he has at his expense, he has done a royal mess of fucking alot of it up. You look at our full-strength backline, that's the best in the world. We have the best openside in the world, Horwill and Sharpe have been premier locks, Moore Kepu and Robinson are all good frontrowers. So you cannot say it's the players talent that is letting us done.

The amount of shithouse decisions he has made shocks me, I'm not going to list them, but he has tactically turned a highly skilled side into a team that stutters every second game.

 

[No4918]

I won't be happy unless we win one trophy. TRC or Bledisloe. He was bought in to win silverware and so far winning the TN once in a WC year with reduced matches and teams resting players is just sufficient. There have been enough excuses and enough time.

Have we dropped our expectations so far that winning one vs the AB when there is 2 home tests is acceptable?

 

[Bowside]

I think he is totally unsuited to coaching australia. We just go about things differently to the kiwis and since he has taken charge all the innovation and guts that were the hallmarks of australian rugby have disappeared.

I don't think we had the cattle to win the world cup last year, but I did think we had the cattle to make the final and give the all blacks a good run for their money. Instead we lost to the Irish, just pipped the saffas on the back of pococks amazing performance and then never looked like troubling the all blacks in the semi.

He has had more than enough opportunities to prove himself and should have been put on notice after the 2009 eoyt.

 

[Bowside]

We have also lost a fuckload of games under deans that we should have won.

Off the top of my head: 2 Bled cup games, the first test south africa in 2010, at least 1 game against the poms in 2010, 2 losses to scotland, loss to samoa, loss against the irish at the world cup.

You just can't drop that many winnable games and not come under scrutiny.

 

[Gnostic]

Do we really need a Poll? The answer should be self evident really, based on both results, mode of play and players that have shown improvement under his tutelage. No need to say what I voted since I have been calling for him to be removed for well over two years.

This article (Thanks to Redshappy for the link) says it all for me.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10826306

 

[FrankLind]

Best coach you have ever had. Please sign him for another 5 years. Definitely the Go-to-Guy.

 

[Athilnaur]

Absolutely agree we go about things differently. We can't be AB lite or we will almost never win. I personally think Deans tried to embrace that, to the point he is criticised for being the opposite of Eddie Jones.

As an aside under Deans the Crusaders won in 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2008. Not 3 times. I'll leave it to others to argue he deserves no credit. Either way I am sure we all agree it has no relevance to his performance with the Wallabies after five years in the job.

 

[Braveheart81]

Aside from Rod MacQueen, none of our recent coaches have had superb records.

It seems to me that a lot of the criticism towards Deans is based on the fact that the expectation was so high and it hasn't quite lived up to it.

 

[Richo]

I think Deans is probably a good Super Rugby coach, especially in a system with the depth, culture and structure of Canterbury. A less is more approach worked there. It doesn't in test rugby. The coach needs more strategic vision and astute tactics, especially when the main opposition is always the Boks ad Blacks.

I was not in favor of his extension at the time. Many on G&GR were, however. I wonder if anyone's thinking has changed since then? (Not asking to stir shit, genuinely curious about whether the RWC, etc have shifted opinions).

 

[Richo]

Aside from Rod MacQueen, none of our recent coaches have had superb records.

It seems to me that a lot of the criticism towards Deans is based on the fact that the expectation was so high and it hasn't quite lived up to it.

Perhaps this is partially true, but Deans has a particularly poor record amongst that group. I think that the results are only part of the problem. If the side was well-prepared, showed good skills, played to clear game plans, and was managed well (substitutions, selections, etc.) but still lost we would be having a very different conversation and asking a lot more about why our players aren't good enough.

 

[Gnostic]

Aside from Rod MacQueen, none of our recent coaches have had superb records.

It seems to me that a lot of the criticism towards Deans is based on the fact that the expectation was so high and it hasn't quite lived up to it.

The reign of Smith (1996 after Dwyer) was marked by some terrible losses, but he was never offered the same excuses of injury that Deans has been. Remember he lost Little, Horan and a host of others to injury and had to face the retirement of a vast bulk of the rest of the 1991-1995 RWC sides. His critics also choose to deride his initial efforts with the total failures and erratic behaviour at the end of his tenure which we now know to could have been caused by his illness. Smith was an extremely good coach and we never saw the best of him at Wallaby level, I remember his Tahs sides however with fondness.

Maqueen followed - no synopsis needed though it must be remembered that he had a very shaky start.

Jones - inherited Macqueens side and I think initially had success by continuing with his game plan and he managed to make subtle alterations and progress the side, with some significant changes through to the 2003 RWC. He should have moved on then unless he could provide a significantly changed game plan and approach as the writing was on the wall for his tactics then. The ARU, again with much wisdom and foresight saw better than many knowledgable Rugby people and retained him. The damage his approach did to the forward pack at test and provincial level was immense. (I say provincial level as any player aspiring to play for the Wallabies would look at the position requirements for the test side and train appropriately. Hence at all levels we ended up with props and locks who couldn't scrummage and a backrow who detached from said piece and played loose and wide except for the designated fetcher).

Knuckles Connolly - inherited a shit sandwich of a forward pack. A group of 8 individuals would couldn't pack strongly enough or work together as a group to upset the under 16 national soccer side. He was given just a shade under 2 years to rectify 4-6 years of Jones' rugby forward neglect (for want of a better term - more accurately would be termed misplaced focus). He did admirably IMO to get some turn around but there just wasn't time to overcome the inherent issues that he inherited.

Deans - no synopsis needed.

Deans is certainly no better than those who preceeded him and he has been given far more time with far greater resources than any who preceeded him. Indeed IMO Knuckles, Smith and Jones all achieved far better results than Deans has as far as I am concerned when the mitigating and exacerbating factors are taking into account.

 

[ChargerWA]

This thread is the swinging gate after the horse has bolted. I feel I was pretty vocal on this subject before most others on GAGR, but we've waited this long now we might as well let him bungle on through to the Lions.

The real question is who takes over after Deans?

But even that's not much of a question as Link has clearly been annointed.

 

[Gnostic]

IMO it is not as simple as now terminating Deans, JON as hitched his wagon irrevocably to that of Deans, along with Nucifora. I would also suggest that those board members who rubber stamped his re-signing and the non-disclosure of the RWC review should also be looked at long and hard. Retention of those individuals has the potential to significantly hamper the new coach which can only be between Link and Chieka if the position is only open to Australians as only they have recent success as head coaches at the preceeding level, and only Link has test Rugby assistant experience.

 

[Badger]

With hindsight, he was probably the best candidate in 2007. After the less than stellar results between 2008 and mid 2011, it would have made sense to review the Wallabies' RWC 2011 performance before re-appointing him. Agree with the sentiments of the other posts.

If the Wallabies do come third in TRC, then it would make it tough for him to see out his contract.

Is Ewen McKenzie, the dead set certainty to be his successor or is there someone else who could beat him to the punch?

 

[louie]

To be as simple as i can, No. We shouldn't be losing to Samoa or Scotland, period. His home record is shocking.

 

[Tim&Bingo]

He's just the ticket for you Aussies!


I'll put my hat on!