Deans is an international rugby coach. Whilst it is adorable that we accountants, hairdressers, bankers and computer programmers believe we're better at coaching and selection at that level, it is highly unlikely that we actually are. When I see what I perceive to be an obvious error from a national coach, the first thing I wonder is what it is I don't understand. Of course it might be true that we could teach Deans a thing or two, it is slightly more likely that he could teach us. Of course, this doesn't mean we can't disagree and moan to our heart's content! This is the Internet, after all. As long as we keep remembering that it's all a fantasy, and that we're not actually experts, then we'll be alright.
Groucho, of all the means of protecting our coaches and Wallabies and ARU management from legitimate critique, this one (above) IMO is the weakest of the bunch.
History is littered with powerful examples of where 'non experts' and 'ordinary people' dared to question an embedded elite's MO and alleged greater wisdom, and were ultimately proved right and the elite or management in question eventually gave way to an analysis of their ineptitudes or limitations that prevailed as the more truthful narrative. A lack of 'expert knowledge' never proves that 'amateur knowledge' cannot, through good instinct or a more profound intuition, be more correct over time.
None of we critics of multiple elements of Deans' policies, management structure or selections claim to be, as you say, 'better at coaching and selection at that level', but we do see outcomes that, over 3 plus years of this highly praised coaching regime, look way less than optimal and that are properly subject to hard evaluation by a passionate fan or two (that btw typically pays big $s to go to Wallaby games, etc.).
The core problem that you indirectly evade in these comments is really the compelling issue: a chronic lack of real, measurable success over many years now, and 90% of the critique of Deans arises from this. Whatever the cheerleaders say, by any standards of performance, including those set forth by the ARU every year since early 2008, Deans has achieved a poor level of % wins, and when the easy-beat teams are taken out, his w-l is less than 50% and against the major teams it's been ordinary at best over this extended period. We have Scotlands, Samoas, two Test losses v England just last year, no silverware bar the Mandela, and then we have appalling inconsistency and lapses of intensity within many games that could have been won, but weren't. Moreover, as legitimate contrast, we have the example of Link who achieved major improvements with the Reds _in less than 6 months_ in 2010, and then, in less that 20 months, had that team winning a major championship, not with 15 star players, but with just a few stars and plenty of 'workmanlike' other players. Accordingly, _based upon results actually achieved vs constant excuses and post-hoc rationalisations_, many of us have praised Link and supported him with affection and intensity as he hasn't talked, he has delivered and totally rejuvenated large tracts of Australian rugby in a remarkably short period. That is a wholly admirable achievement, and what should be admired. So, we are not inveterate carpers, we strongly support those that deliver for the game, as we should.
I sense that you and others 'want to believe', sort of an 'addictive patriot' syndrome IMO. Others that critique annoy you as they see a world where more should be demanded of this expensive coaching elite that promised so much at commencement, yet have delivered principally future-ware, not now-ware. Unless and until we see a pattern of consistent success and achievement by the Wallabies, vs endless promises of delayed gratification, we shall all just have to learn to live together.
