Australia has managed to win the RWC twice. This is an effort equal to NZ and SA. Let's have a look at the winning sides:
1991
1. Tony Daly
2. Phil Kearns
3. Ewen Mckenzie
4. Rod McCall
5. John Eales
6. Simon Poidevin
7. Willie O
8. Troy Coker
9. Nick Farr-Jones
10. Michael Lynagh
11. David Campese
12. Tim Horan
13. Jason Little
14. Bob Edgerton
15. Marty Roebuck (a bit of man love here, but Marty Roebuck was one of the best fullbacks I have ever seen)
The coach was non other than GAGR's own Bob Dwyer. Dwyer had a good tactical eye for the game, and exuded passion.
Lets look at the 1999 team:
1. Richard Harry
2. Michael Foley
3. Andrew Blades
4. David Giffin
5. John Eales
6. Matt Cockbain
7. David Wilson
8. Toutai Kefu
9 George Gregan
10. Stephen Larkham
11. Joe Roff
12. Tim Horan
13. Daniel Herbert
14. Ben Tune
15. Matt Burke
The coach of this team was Rod Macqueen. Here we have a coach that analyses other teams, finds their weakness and coaches his team to be ruthless in exploiting opposition weaknesses. Macqueen was methodical and exacting.
Currently, we have a team that should be capable of taking on heavyweights. However, something is clearly being lost in translation. Our coaching setup is not getting the best out of our top players, and I think that this is a major communication issue. Ambiguous expectations about gameplan, expectations of players and accountability lead to a muddled selection and playing process.
Our top line players have the talent, but that talent is not being harnessed correctly. Yes, poor performances rest on the heads of the players, but poorly performing teams are happening too often at international level to account for "an off night" or "out of form".
Ask yourselves, who currently coaches in Australia that has passion and a methodical approach to the game?
The thing that is not seen in looking at team sheets is that both sides had a plan. They were starkly different those plans between the sides, but the players, some of who were there for both wins, executed those plans perfectly on most occasions and when the real pressure came on they were able to get over it because their base structures were in place. Think the '91 game against the Irish and the the final, and the '99 game against the Bok.
Now tell me what the base pattern of the current Wallabies is?
I can tell you that the '91 Wallabies played an exceptional game around set pieces, be it from the actual set piece or by executing backline moves from general play breakdowns. The sort of thing that Deans says should never score tries in test Rugby. Any wonder that the Wallabies have scored 5 tries in 7 matches and in the last two never really looked like scoring except for the Barnes effort tonight. Is one real chance in 80 minutes really that good no matter the opposition. Especially when you consider the sheer weight of possession the Wallabies enjoyed in both games. It is hard to say the pigs haven't done the job when they achieve 60% possession as they did in the first match.
The '99 Wallabies had the most structured game plan (apart from Eddie's play by numbers approach) seen yet. The constant recycle and grind away game with exceptional counter attack when available. To execute that plan the players were drilled mercilessly to be in position and back up. They rarely got turned over. It was far from nice to watch but winner are grinners and Macqueen ground out many victories.
So what is this Wallabies side's plan? Up until the RWC it was hold on and let the "X factor" players break the line and get us some points. At the RWC it was kick the shit out of it and defend, with some one out hit ups to confuse the opposition. When under Deans have the Wallabies put together a comprehensive game plan as we did under those worthies named? I say again Deans is a failure, not because of results, they are a by product. He is a failure simply because he has no comprehensive plan and has failed to equip our players with a system and tactics that they can rely on in test match Rugby. I say again that it doesn't matter who is selected to play when there is no plan. This is the reason why Graham Henry was given the second chance, not because he and his team were the best, so many Kiwis wanted their heads for the "resting" program, but simply because the only opponent for the job had NO plan and the NZRU were smart enough to understand that a plan and method is essential.
