Wallabies v Poms, EOYT 2010, Twickenham

[barbarian]

Calm down RH, surely you would realise when you post a 1000 word rant you would cop some friendly banter.

The reason why no-one wants to really engage with you (and this goes for all of the Anti-Deans mob) is that we already have months ago. Your arguments haven't changed, and neither have ours. Its a classic stalemate. The difference here is you continue to shout them louder and louder (and longer). Your idea of 'consitency' is others idea of 'repetitiveness'.

I don't mind you voicing your views on here at all. But you can't expect people to engage you in debate over Deans after every single game. We know what you think, you know what we think. I suggest neither party will budge from its viewpoint on the Spring Tour. This is the reality of the situation.

 

[DPK]

In a word, why?

Re-reading RH's post, most of the paragraphs could've been honed down into a couple of sentences. Keeping in mind many of the arguments had already been made, and RH was paraphrasing them (although adding a unique spin on them, I would say).

It's more about effectively and efficiently conveying your arguments, RH. Most readers will do as you suspect and skip your posts because they're simply too long.

 

[Richard D. James]

I have been critical elsewhere of many of Deans decisions/selections/tactics etc, but I do see positives... Particularly regarding the young players he has mentored who were schoolboy "prodigies"

Cooper: Schoolboy prodigy, known flake, now is starting 10 for a national team and is one of the best attacking fly halves in the world.

Beale: Schoolboy prodigy, is now starting fullback for a national team and one of the best attacking players in the world.

O'Connor: Schoolboy prodigy, is now first choice kicker for a national team and one of the best attacking players in the world


Sure, the S14 coaches were a big part of all that, but it was Robbie who brought them into test Rugby and we all know what a step up it is from S14 to tests and Deans deserves credit for how he did it.

 

[TheTruth]

seems that the Benns are under the pump. Not sure how many scrums were had on sat. but when Daley and Maafu got belted against the POMS in June EVERYONE waited the return of the world class Benns with the acknowledgement that their return would fix the "problem". Surely props need to be more than just bookends (5/6 scrums on weekend) they need to work hard around the paddock. May be different if a heap of scrums but in a game like sat. the props need to be hitting a lot of rucks and mauls and show plenty of mongrel.....

Anyway wish Daley and Maafu good fortune on Wed

 

[Bullrush]

I have been critical elsewhere of many of Deans decisions/selections/tactics etc, but I do see positives... Particularly regarding the young players he has mentored who were schoolboy "prodigies"

Cooper: Schoolboy prodigy, known flake, now is starting 10 for a national team and is one of the best attacking fly halves in the world.

Beale: Schoolboy prodigy, is now starting fullback for a national team and one of the best attacking players in the world.

O'Connor: Schoolboy prodigy, is now first choice kicker for a national team and one of the best attacking players in the world


Sure, the S14 coaches were a big part of all that, but it was Robbie who brought them into test Rugby and we all know what a step up it is from S14 to tests and Deans deserves credit for how he did it.

Pull the other one.

All three of these guys probably pick themselves when you look at the Wallaby team. Who else would take any of their spots?

Look at guys like S.Fainga'a and S.Maafu - here are positions where Deans really needed to spot or develop some talent that wasn't so obvious - FAIL.

 

[RedsHappy]

barbarian Calm down RH, surely you would realise when you post a 1000 word rant you would cop some friendly banter. The reason why no-one wants to really engage with you (and this goes for all of the Anti-Deans mob) is that we already have months ago. Your arguments haven't changed, and neither have ours. Its a classic stalemate. The difference here is you continue to shout them louder and louder (and longer). Your idea of 'consitency' is others idea of 'repetitiveness'.

You see Barb, respectfully, I don't agree there was engagement on these central matters of any real depth, 'months ago'. I don't think the precise and visible competencies (or otherwise) of, just for example, Williams and Graham were then, or have been since, debated constructively and in detail. Same re the absence of the potentially relevant specialist coaches that, notably, have not been retained for most of the 2008-10 period. I for one have consistently raised issues in these areas that have nothing directly to do with 'Anti-Deans mob', but do go to the whole coaching infrastructure as has been put in place by the ARU (and Deans).

I don't mind you voicing your views on here at all. But you can't expect people to engage you in debate over Deans after every single game. We know what you think, you know what we think. I suggest neither party will budge from its viewpoint on the Spring Tour. This is the reality of the situation.

OK - so in effect you are saying. 'RH - the 4 substantive issues you raised last night re: kicking coaching and selection; mental skills and team culture; defence capability and consistency, and quality of breakdown work/forwards play' have all been adequately dealt with in reasoned debate months ago, and 'you know what we think' (your words) on these matters'. If 'we' here is, for speculative example, you, Groucho, Cyclo, Gaggs, TK, then, honestly, I genuinely cannot recall you properly debating those core, more detailed, issues in terms of coaching responsibility (or perhaps clearly arguing as to why they are not really the coaches' responsibility). Rather, the line has been more 'macro not micro', namely: 'RD is a visionary coach, who has selected and promoted some exceptionally talented young players whom have formed an attack that will improve the w-l ratio and win us a RWC, and we are improving quite well as we have just beaten the Boks away, and once beaten the ABs.'

 

[Rothschild]

The England game was a bit of a rugby lesson for our youngsters. We didn't treasure possession. England did. We kept hoping for England to relent and give us a chance to recover. They didn't. .

We haven't treasured posession at all for years.
It intrigues me that generally, whenever our backs are bereft of ideas or there is a slightest hint of defensive pressure from the opposition - their first option is to kick, usually handung posession straight back to the opponent who mount an attack and take play back to whence it came.

If England can score a try from their own tryline when our defence is right on them, why the f*&%$#^H can't we at least try to maintain posession.

gees I'm pis*&%$#@%ed off at our incessant aimless kicks.

 

[barbarian]

RH the issue of specialist coaches is a hard one to really debate because the impact of those coaches is almost impossible to know if you are outside of the team itself. Take the kicking coach for example (part of your four point manifesto): I don't know what makes a good kicking coach or a bad one. The mere existence of a kicking coach does not guarantee performance. Take Daniel Carter. Do the ABs have a kicking coach? No. He still manages to do OK though. The Western Force have a kicking coach- Darryl Halligan. Should we blame him? Or just the kickers themselves.

This goes to the core of the problem I have debating the merits of coaches. You point out defensive issues on the weekend. In my eyes the biggest issues weren't to do with numbering or alignment but actually tackling itself. We just kept falling off tackles. Is that the coaches faul for not doing tackling practice at training? Because I have seen Ben McCalman make tackles before, but he just didn't seem to on the weekend. Is that the fault of the defensive coach or Ben himself? I am not suggesting either answer is wrong, only that it is a fairly pointless argument unless you know what is actually going on at training.

Obviously the coach is an important part of the team. But I judge the team on how the players perform. If we aren't winning the breakdown I blame Mark Chisolm for standing out on the wing. Others blame the coaches for teaching him to stand on the wing. It is a fundamental ideological difference in the way we view and analyse the game. There is nothing wrong with that, but you have to understand that a lot of people don't like to debate coaches and their role without knowing for sure what each actually does and how that effects the way the team performs on the park. Unless you are going to training it is very hard to know what that is.

 

[barbarian]

We haven't treasured posession at all for years.
It intrigues me that generally, whenever our backs are bereft of ideas or there is a slightest hint of defensive pressure from the opposition - their first option is to kick, usually handung posession straight back to the opponent who mount an attack and take play back to whence it came.

If England can score a try from their own tryline when our defence is right on them, why the f*&%$#^H can't we at least try to maintain posession.

gees I'm pis*&%$#@%ed off at our incessant aimless kicks.

Are you posting from 2005? We haven't had an issue with aimless kicks for years. England scored a runaway try off their line with a turnover which resulted in a 4-0 overlap. It would have been a miracle if they didn't score.

I think that if you were to criticise our backs for making bad decisions under pressure it would be that they try to do a complex manouvre or throw a wild pass, rather than kick aimlessly. We kicked a little more on the weekend because we were being beaten at the breakdown. That is a sensible tactic that accepts the reality of the game.

 

[cyclopath]

RH,
I for one will not even try to engage in debate where you choose to sum up my / our viewpoint as you just did in your last paragraph, which is demonstrably false. I for one have not pushed the line that "Deans is a visionary blah blah blah" and that he is excused any responsibility. I think I posted a similar argument several thousand words ago (probably 2 pages back now) to this effect. I have been critical of him and his assistants. Including issues of game plan, selection and so on.
However, I think there are other issues - some poor players there, even more poor effort from players who can and have produced better, and so on.
Oh, it's all Deans fault due to selection!! (Yes, that was deliberate hyperbole before someone goes off) Well, in part yes, and in part no since some of these average players, or even good players who are performing badly are what we have, with significant key injuries. Part of the weakness is in our whole structure - Super coaches doing their own thing, and players who may have good potential being left on the bench in provincial rugby (a few props and hookers spring to mind), players being played in all sorts of positions etc...
In any event, we have Deans, he isn't going anywhere just yet, and reiterating the argument that he is a failure repeatedly advances nothing.

 

[Scotty]

Why? Just a cheap shot(s). 'Let's have a giggly, subtly personal, group jibe at RH's text length, but not discuss the substance'. None of the core issues I raised were (amicably or otherwise) dealt with or rebutted after my post. There are issues that sometimes must be set forth with a bit of text and a bit of 'stream of thought'. Tons of amusing, quippy one or two liners are fine for certain topics, but, IMO, not for all. And if people think 'oh no, not more boring and irrelevant text from RH', the great thing about blogs is just: don't bother to read RH, move on quickly to the preferenced brevity.'

I have endured jibes (some quite unpleasant) from Groucho, Cyclo, Daz, DPK/TK and others (incl Gaggs) over many months, some clearly designed not only to undermine my style, but also on occasion to deter the consistent substantive line being conveyed which offends these posters' general preference for a particular kind of Wallabies'/RD non-critiqueing that I question.

RH,

In all honesty, I skip past posts of that length. I think it is my impatience, and it may be that others do the same, hence why you haven't received a response - people just don't know where to start!

Maybe you should consider submitting posts like that one for the blog?

 

[Groucho]

Rather, the line has been more 'macro not micro', namely: 'RD is a visionary coach, who has selected and promoted some exceptionally talented young players whom have formed an attack that will improve the w-l ratio and win us a RWC, and we are improving quite well as we have just beaten the Boks away, and once beaten the ABs.'

RH, that is a monstrous straw man. If, as a group, we have a 'line', it is that Deans shares responsibility for the problems we now suffer, along with the players, assistant coaches, administrators and our opposition.

I for one have never argued the merits of Deans as a 'visionary coach' in order to offset his disadvantages in selection and his choice of game plan. In fact I wrote a blog post that was critical of Deans kicking game plan last year, that was given the nod of approval by the anti-Deans camp at the time.

I'm sure that certain posters use those kind of tropes, but I doubt that the group you're defining there ever have. If you read our posts (they're quite short ) you will see that's the case.

 

[Richard D. James]

Pull the other one.

All three of these guys probably pick themselves when you look at the Wallaby team. Who else would take any of their spots?

Look at guys like S.Fainga'a and S.Maafu - here are positions where Deans really needed to spot or develop some talent that wasn't so obvious - FAIL.

Well now they pick themselves... It wasn't always that way.

 

[Bullrush]

Well now they pick themselves... It wasn't always that way.

They pick themselves on their S15 form. And apart from Mortlock (kinda), who is still running around from the heydays of the early 2000's?

 

[Reddy!]

Okay I'll sort this all out, I'm an expert:

RedsHappy - we all like you and your input, passion, however, try and keep your posts a bit shorter and to the point. It'll make for a much tidier forum and debates that don't stray off topic yadayadayada.

The Jocks - stop being dicks and gloating about how short yours post and making EXTREMELY BORING jokes about word length. Accept all creatures great and small, in Gods name, Amen.

Reddy! - I like your shirt today.

...continue rugby discussion in an orderly manner thankyou.

 

[Groucho]

Okay I'll sort this all out, I'm an expert:

RedsHappy - we all like you and your input, passion, however, try and keep your posts a bit shorter and to the point. It'll make for a much tidier forum and debates that don't stray off topic yadayadayada.

The Jocks - stop being dicks and gloating about how short yours post and making EXTREMELY BORING jokes about word length. Accept all creatures great and small, in Gods name, Amen.

Reddy! - I like your shirt today.

...continue rugby discussion in an orderly manner thankyou.

Reddy! that was an extremely short post. Are you sure you don't have Deansist tendencies?

 

[Richard D. James]

They pick themselves on their S15 form. And apart from Mortlock (kinda), who is still running around from the heydays of the early 2000's?

That's what I mean, they pick themselves on S15 form, but someone still had to manage their step up to Test Rugby, something that can definitely be hard for players as young as Cooper, Beale and O'Connor. It's something I think Deans has done well.

 

[DPK]

Okay I'll sort this all out, I'm an expert:

RedsHappy - we all like you and your input, passion, however, try and keep your posts a bit shorter and to the point. It'll make for a much tidier forum and debates that don't stray off topic yadayadayada.

The Jocks - stop being dicks and gloating about how short yours post and making EXTREMELY BORING jokes about word length. Accept all creatures great and small, in Gods name, Amen.

Reddy! - I like your shirt today.

...continue rugby discussion in an orderly manner thankyou.

Send this guy to Israel, he can fix any dispute!

 

[Bullrush]

That's what I mean, they pick themselves on S15 form, but someone still had to manage their step up to Test Rugby, something that can definitely be hard for players as young as Cooper, Beale and O'Connor. It's something I think Deans has done well.

Fair enough. But when you look at some of those other positions where perhaps it hasn't been so clear, I think Deans hasn't done so well as per my prev examples (Maafu & Fainga'a).

 

[Rothschild]

Are you posting from 2005? We haven't had an issue with aimless kicks for years. England scored a runaway try off their line with a turnover which resulted in a 4-0 overlap. It would have been a miracle if they didn't score.
I think that if you were to criticise our backs for making bad decisions under pressure it would be that they try to do a complex manouvre or throw a wild pass, rather than kick aimlessly. We kicked a little more on the weekend because we were being beaten at the breakdown. That is a sensible tactic that accepts the reality of the game.

While the overlap wasn't exacly 4 it was anoverlap - however if ever a time existed to kick the living crap out of a ball it was then. I am sure the English half back did not see the overlap when he passed the ball.
My point is, they had a go when they should have kicked. I am damned sure that no matter how big the overlap was we would have kicked it. Now technically speaking kicking while on your own line is the safest thing to do, but we seem to take the kick alternative far, far too often instead of hanging onto posession, setting the play and waiting for the opportunity.
Additionally more often than not opur kick are duds and generally get returned with interest. Ball in hand. The English played the game brilliantly, the AB's do it religiously and we can learn from this.