Wallabies world cup squad selection

[Ruggo]

The variables between the two roles are highly significant. The Super rugby coach arguably has had more time with a pres eason and trials. It is different for the International coach.

This whole argument of Robbie Deans's tenure is subjective as it is based on people having different measures of success.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

agree.
as well, Link and Deans started from different bases. When Link took over the reds he already had a developed cooper and genia. He brought in other players from the cold, but there can't be much doubt he benefited from some of the development deans undertook with particularly those two players.
But as said above, its a different system, international and super rugby. deans is with them for a few weeks before the intl season starts and then they dissapear to club structures for 80% of the year. I think he's done a lot for rugby in general let a lone AUS rugby and people shouldn't sell him short.
that being said. all that matters is the next 3 months. if he doesnt win at least one of the william webb or the bledisloe i dont understand why the ARU would resign him unless they feel Link isn't ready?

 

[Gnostic]

so based on link's super rugby success he is a better coach than deans? and you think Link should be wallabies coach based on what he's done this year with the reds?
what did deans do in the previous how many years?? with the crusaders? consistent success across the board. which is clearly the major basis on why he was hired for the wallabies job. yet clearly that success hasn't exactly transferred over. do you think that is because of deans himself or the players and the structure he has had to work with?
I believe the mental lapses in key moments is the inexperience of the young players he has blooded not really deans. and as he's progressed with these young players and they've matured those lapses have become less frequent (think the clutch playing in HK and Bloemfontein). it was deans that blooded cooper, oconnor, beale, genia and pocock. they were inconsistent at first and made some bad decisions but now look how good they are.
I hardly see any reason why Link would be better than Deans at wallaby level especially if you're rationale is that link had success in one year with the reds.

Based on test results when Link was assistant and Deans was assistant they are better if you want to compare apples with apples.

I recently spoke with a very knowledgable Kiwi rugby man who supported the statements of a few kiwis here when he said to me Deans was lucky with the players he had at the Saders, especially Merhtens and Carter. He said something that is 100% true, no team has rver won Super Rugby without a world class 10, and apart from the crocked Larkham no Oz side has fielded one until Cooper. He further said that Deans behaviour as Wallabies coach is no different to when he was AB assistant, especially with mystifying selections and game plans.

 

[Groucho]

Kiwis are a Balkanised nation when it comes to coaches. They are as divided on Deans as we are. They are as divided on Henry and the cartel as we were on Connolly and Eddie Jones.

 

[Lee Grant]

According to the SMH Giteau is a chance to play for Randwick v. Norths in the TV game today:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/giteau-to-step-out-for-galloping-greens-20110805-1if9i.html

Could be a beat up.

 

[Athilnaur]

I can't say I have been a fan of Gits play in recent years, he seems to play rogue rather than combine and his lateral play drives me nuts. As a 12 outside Barnes he is an option with the Wallabies playing a more traditional game. Outside Cooper, in my view he is an unmitigated disaster. As a 10, I imagine Genia could make him look good, but vs Samoa what happened was Beale stood up instead so Genia made Beale look good. There's very few combinations he really sits well in.

At the risk of wrath from Brumbies fans, it is my suspicion on and off field Giteau caused a lot more problems than he solved in the Brumbies, however that is pure speculation.

That said, he is a class player, proven at the highest levels, and in excellent condition. Can't see him missing the squad. He will struggle to get into the 22 however.

 

[waratahjesus]

i cant believe Gits cops shit over the samoan game, if your not getting any decent ball, its hard to look good. He plays a different game to Cooper and its one thats going to suffer with less space alot more, he does crab at times but the entire team against samoa deserves blame and the forward pack deserve most of it.

 

[qwerty51]

That tackle attempt on Tuilagi was pretty poor. I know he gives away a lot of weight there but he went about it the complete wrong way.

 

[TOCC]

i cant believe Gits cops shit over the samoan game, if your not getting any decent ball, its hard to look good. He plays a different game to Cooper and its one thats going to suffer with less space alot more, he does crab at times but the entire team against samoa deserves blame and the forward pack deserve most of it.

People were quick to criticize gits and other outside backs following that game, like you say, hard to perform with a pack getting smashed

 

[RedsHappy]

RH's argument is not so much that Link would be a better option but that coaches can achieve significant results from a low base with a much faster turn-around than Deans has achieved so far.

To my mind, we will see this year if the investment in youth will pay off. I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel, even if I do think criticism is valid. Our result in the RWC (and to a lesser extent the Bled) will determine both Deans' legacy and future as Wallaby coach.

Thanks Richo, your first para above is precisely what I intended, and meant in context. I was not (in these posts) trying to argue that Link is automatically the man for the Wallabies, I was rather examining the rate of improvement and achievement that is demonstrably possible in Aus elite rugby and with the players and player depth we have here. With RD and the ARU, we have been waiting now well over 3 years for the type of consistent, all-round performance that would produce a BC and/or 3N championship win.

 

[Bowside]

People were quick to criticize gits and other outside backs following that game, like you say, hard to perform with a pack getting smashed

The thing with gits that someone once said and I thought was most interesting is, see the difference in the how well the rest of the backline plays when cooper is at 10 compared to giteau. All season AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) looked ordinary at the brumbies but as soon as he got in a gold jersey with cooper inside him feeding him front foot ball he starts to put together some better performances. Likewise Rod Davies (who I don't think is international standard) who when playing for the reds was able to show off his pace because cooper was putting him in space, but when he was playing outside giteau he wasn't nearly as affective.

 

[waratahjesus]

The thing with gits that someone once said and I thought was most interesting is, see the difference in the how well the rest of the backline plays when cooper is at 10 compared to giteau. All season AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) looked ordinary at the brumbies but as soon as he got in a gold jersey with cooper inside him feeding him front foot ball he starts to put together some better performances. Likewise Rod Davies (who I don't think is international standard) who when playing for the reds was able to show off his pace because cooper was putting him in space, but when he was playing outside giteau he wasn't nearly as affective.

for mine, this is a coaching failure, giteau and coops play different games, if your going to play them both at 10 (i still see gits as a 12) then you need to play with a different game plan. the brumbies failed across the park this year and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) played like shit, u cant place that at gits feet.

 

[RedsHappy]

The variables between the two roles are highly significant. The Super rugby coach arguably has had more time with a pres eason and trials. It is different for the International coach.

This whole argument of Robbie Deans's tenure is subjective as it is based on people having different measures of success.

Ruggo, I hesitate to agree. Re your first para, you will recall that it was major S14 success that justified in the minds of all comers what an outstanding candidate for Wallaby coach RD would be. And an international Test coach in the SH has the major benefit of receiving elite players immediately post the S15 that have been hardened and well-prepared by over 16 or so games of international level rugby played by and against many of the world's best provincial teams and players. This is precisely what many commentators argue - with some justification - will aid the Wallabies capability and mindset as a result of the Reds S15 win this year.

So arguing that somehow the task of rapidly improving a team and creating a good w-l % ratio is somehow so much more intrinsically harder and difficult for an international coach than it is for an S15 one, I don't buy.

And I don't agree that 'the Deans debate' is all totally subjective and 'based upon different measures of success'. Ultimately, in any major professional sport with very high $ overheads, large player $ payments, and a demanding public, any decent national code or team managing CEO will tell you that 'success' is pretty simple and objective, namely: you have to build a team (and related team brand) that wins many more games than it loses, does so in an play style that attracts large numbers paying fans (gate or TV), possesses a number of dynamic individual players that aid that attraction for fans, and thus in aggregate pulls in loads of sponsors, media buyers, and big crowds that fill stadia. If you don't achieve this, it's only a matter of time before (a) you get sacked and the team/club/code whatever broke or backwards and/or (b) the fan base gradually dies away and/or leaves for competing codes, and the public in general loses interest, and the downward spiral vicious circles start of under-investment, top player loss, weaker and weaker teams, etc. The modern sports' code's 'cycle of life' is actually remarkably objective and measurable, over time.

The notion that somehow the Wallabies can avoid these hard business and professional truths and we can wait years and years, and then more years, for the magic of 'development' to take its course, is reckless and inaccurate.

 

[Athilnaur]

WJ I agree with you on most things, but not about Gits. I think it has been long known he can play 10 but shouldn't. He has been a great 12, and outside say Barnes he could be again. But outside Quade last year it just didn't work. With regards Brumbies Gits was the captain and chief playmaker. I didn't see many of their games but those I did see gave me the impression he tries to do it all himself.

Mortlock once wrote he thought Gits needed to be by hard straight runners. By design or accident, he is out of luck.

For myself I did criticize Gits vs Samoa. I hear you about going backwards and for sure that was the prime cock up, but as the playmaker outside a green halfback, it fell to him IMO to drive the back line game. He didn't. Genia comes in, does drive it, and suddenly it's Beale making space. fair? Maybe not but IMO either of Beale or Barnes could have played outside Phipps and done better.

Mortlocks question does beg a question tho, could Gits have played in a better duo teamed up with Carter at 13?

 

[Athilnaur]

RH, it seems to me your argument is a little circular. Link takes on a team with a core of good players that show great promise but have brain fades and can't see a game through. By 2009 Deans had already invited ridicule by chancing his arm with Cooper, just as he chanced his arm with Pocock, Beale, Genia, O'Connor. All of those players needed time we didn't have. Meanwhile our forwards were a mess. For the first time in forever Aussie wins this year, in large part to players already nurtured by the time Link arrived. It still took Link two years. Why would Deans -who played a significant role in the development of the Reds core players - take less time than Link did when tests are a big step up from super rugby and you have considerably less training time to do it?

I'm sorry but I just don't see it.

 

[Bowside]

for mine, this is a coaching failure, giteau and coops play different games, if your going to play them both at 10 (i still see gits as a 12) then you need to play with a different game plan. the brumbies failed across the park this year and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) played like shit, u cant place that at gits feet.

It may well be, but the fact remains, injecting giteau into the backline fundamentally changes the way the backline functions, and I dont know that you want to be messing around with the balance of a backline by bringing him on with 20 minutes to go in a world cup knockout game. And for that reason I think we will see Barnes, Horne or Fiannga in the 22 ahead of him when the time comes.

As Athilnaur said, I think Giteau is suited to 12, and suited to playing with barnes inside him someone like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) (or rob horne?) outside him. We may well see that backline in action in some of the lesser pool games at the world cup....

 

[fatprop]

According to the SMH Giteau is a chance to play for Randwick v. Norths in the TV game today:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/giteau-to-step-out-for-galloping-greens-20110805-1if9i.html



Could be a beat up.

playing

 

[fatprop]

Quoting Lee Grant View Post
According to the SMH Giteau is a chance to play for Randwick v. Norths in the TV game today:

playing

did OK, but keeps running his outsides into the grandstand

 

[TheNextBigThing]

did OK, but keeps running his outsides into the grandstand

That flick pass was magic.

 

[RedsHappy]

RH, it seems to me your argument is a little circular. Link takes on a team with a core of good players that show great promise but have brain fades and can't see a game through. By 2009 Deans had already invited ridicule by chancing his arm with Cooper, just as he chanced his arm with Pocock, Beale, Genia, O'Connor. All of those players needed time we didn't have. Meanwhile our forwards were a mess. For the first time in forever Aussie wins this year, in large part to players already nurtured by the time Link arrived. It still took Link two years. Why would Deans -who played a significant role in the development of the Reds core players - take less time than Link did when tests are a big step up from super rugby and you have considerably less training time to do it?

I'm sorry but I just don't see it.

I see this: compare and contrast: Link's first 4 games with the Reds, 2010 v his last 4 Reds games 2011 S15. You may note some considerable, genuine development and major improvement in virtually every area of play. Now, Deans' 2008 Wallaby games v ABs compared with tonight's 2011 Wallaby game v ABs. You will see no improvement substantively, and you will see some deterioration, e.g., in defence.