Wallaby tight five - boys or men?

[Bruce Ross]

Scarfie was very definitely not one of the people I was referring to, Jnor.

I don't necessarily agree with him that "Robbie Deans is crap". It's just that I've been around for long enough to realise that authority and wisdom are not necessarily bedfellows.

Actually there is a lot about the man that I admire. One of his great characteristics is his unpretentiousness, something that he shares with a lot of Kiwis.

 

[Athilnaur]

S t o p f e e d i n g t h e t r o l l.

or ban him for gross stupidity, either works for me.

 

[Jnor]

My mistake, Bruce. I thought you were referring directlly to Scarfie's post. I am yet to fully reconcile my position on RD but my instincts lead me to the conclusion that he does, for the most part, know what he is doing. He is a rugby coach with a very good historical record. That record has not necessarily translated into success in his current position.

This is due to myriad factors, of course, some of which are his own doing, others are not. I do recognise that he does know a lot more than I do about rugby, which does not equate to a blind trust based on his position, merely a reflection of reality. I don't think this is a Matt Burkism, either.

I like his unpretentiousness also, but I wish he would speak more directly.

I don't know if that made anything clearer but I feel a bit better now...

 

[Lee Grant]

Cunning. In fact, as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University.

Watching some Blackadder re-runs are we Scarfie?

 

[Scarfman]

This idea that Robbie knows more about rugby than all of us is flawed. The guy played fullback for the All Blacks, and won half a dozen premierships with his provincial side. I've played for my school's 2nd XV and am a keyboard warrior of legendary status.

But what if ... someone like Bob Dwyer agreed with me and not Robbie? What about Foley? McKenzie? It is possible that the bloke is pursuing a misguided selection policy and game strategy. The props decision is almost definitely a major howler and Bruce's point was that just because Deans is who he is doesn't make him right.

Anyway, I'm not supposed to be doing this anymore, since I got my new signature. I'll leave it there.

 

[RedsHappy]

This reeks of something bitter and twisted. Sorry Bruce.

IMO, tq, that's not fair to Bruce, nor to the facts that Bruce references.

Whatever one's assessment of Deans, it is a cold fact of significance that his Wallabies w-l % ratio over a 3+ season coaching period (i.e., an absolutely fair period for objective assessment) is poor to very poor in comparison with (a) numerous historical Wallaby coaches and, just as importantly (b) in relation to the precise trophy-winning KPIs that the ARU articulated that were to be the clear Wallaby/Deans goals from 2008 onwards. (Btw, these KPIs have been altered and/or diluted by the ARU every year since 2008 to underpin an optimistic approach as to what might happen the next year. For example, last year, after there was again no BC nor 3N win, it was announced that, really, the whole Deans period was principally targeted to prepare for and win the RWC in 2011 vs trophies along the way, of which there have been none, bar the Mandela Plate.)

Given the high cost (both direct and indirect) to Australian rugby of its national coaching group, it is eminently appropriate for fans, media, whatever to describe what has or has not been achieved by that group, based upon objective performance standards over time. Bruce, with his typical eloquent yet biting wit, is highlighting that Deans has not delivered a high outcome in the core performance metric typically associated with the assessment of most elite sports coaches over time, namely the w-l % ratio. And it's not hard to see why this ratio is commonly adopted for coaching quality assessment, over multi-year periods.

 

[Newter]

So we've moved from "the Wallabies got owned at the collision in the first 20" to "the Boks made a coupla nice runs"?

Funny you should pick Smit and Roussow, because they both lost the ball in contact even in the couple of runs they made in the first 20.

Just to be sure - by the "first 20" do you have another definition, like in the pre-game show?

Trouble is, Gagger, they won't keep losing the ball in contact. They won't at full strength in the Republic. And the All Blacks won't give it up softly either.

I'd love it if you were right, and we were physically dominant rather than just fitter and faster than the Springboks 3rds. But then, that would mean ignoring the way Roussow and Smit bumped our chosen forwards backward at will, not to mention Rob Simmons' lame miss on the goalline that gave up a try. The rolling mauls were just the exclamation mark on a physically stronger Springbok performance.

 

[Scotty]

This idea that Robbie knows more about rugby than all of us is flawed. The guy played fullback for the All Blacks, and won half a dozen premierships with his provincial side. I've played for my school's 2nd XV and am a keyboard warrior of legendary status.

But what if ... someone like Bob Dwyer agreed with me and not Robbie? What about Foley? McKenzie? It is possible that the bloke is pursuing a misguided selection policy and game strategy. The props decision is almost definitely a major howler and Bruce's point was that just because Deans is who he is doesn't make him right.

Anyway, I'm not supposed to be doing this anymore, since I got my new signature. I'll leave it there.

It doesn't always make him wrong either.

 

[Bullrush]

IMO, tq, that's not fair to Bruce, nor to the facts that Bruce references.

Whatever one's assessment of Deans, it is a cold fact of significance that his Wallabies w-l % ratio over a 3+ season coaching period (i.e., an absolutely fair period for objective assessment) is poor to very poor in comparison with (a) numerous historical Wallaby coaches and, just as importantly (b) in relation to the precise trophy-winning KPIs that the ARU articulated that were to be the clear Wallaby/Deans goals from 2008 onwards. (Btw, these KPIs have been altered and/or diluted by the ARU every year since 2008 to underpin an optimistic approach as to what might happen the next year. For example, last year, after there was again no BC nor 3N win, it was announced that, really, the whole Deans period was principally targeted to prepare for and win the RWC in 2011 vs trophies along the way, of which there have been none, bar the Mandela Plate.)

Given the high cost (both direct and indirect) to Australian rugby of its national coaching group, it is eminently appropriate for fans, media, whatever to describe what has or has not been achieved by that group, based upon objective performance standards over time. Bruce, with his typical eloquent yet biting wit, is highlighting that Deans has not delivered a high outcome in the core performance metric typically associated with the assessment of most elite sports coaches over time, namely the w-l % ratio. And it's not hard to see why this ratio is commonly adopted for coaching quality assessment, over multi-year periods.

Would the last 3 years of winning SFA be OK if Deans and the Wallabies win the RWC this year?

There is absolutely no way in hell that an AB coach could have the record that Deans has had and still be the AB coach. A loss to Samoa, Ireland or 10 straight losses to the Wallabies and he'd be gone.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily good because personally I believe the cliche that you often learn more from losses than you do from wins.....but I don't know that I could handle 3 years of it.

 

[barbarian]

Would the last 3 years of winning SFA be OK if Deans and the Wallabies win the RWC this year?

There is absolutely no way in hell that an AB coach could have the record that Deans has had and still be the AB coach. A loss to Samoa, Ireland or 10 straight losses to the Wallabies and he'd be gone.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily good because personally I believe the cliche that you often learn more from losses than you do from wins.....but I don't know that I could handle 3 years of it.

Yes.

And we can't all be perfect like NZ

 

[Bullrush]

Yes.

And we can't all be perfect like NZ

Haha....

There must be a part of Henry that envys Deans' ability to take a punt, blood young players, test un-tried combinations and give them some time to develop. GH can win games doing this and still get smashed by the NZ public and media.....the price of perfection.....

 

[cyclopath]

The usual gumph, I'm afraid, from Kiwis that the Wallabies should have the same track record as the ABs. Historically they haven't, and we can all say we expect to beat the ABs most times, and the reality will remain that we do it far less often than we lose to them. For the Wallabies to beat them 10 in a row would be so far off the bell curve as to be worthy of canonisation. Should we lose 10 in a row? No, of course not. Are the results good enough? No, of course not. But you aren't comparing apples to apples. If we beat the ABs even close to 50% of the time, it would be pretty damn good.
You guys sack your coach when he only loses 3 out of 21 or something.

 

[Elfster]

Yes.

And we can't all be perfect like NZ

I always thought that Kiwis attained perfection when they moved over to Australia.

 

[Bullrush]

The usual gumph, I'm afraid, from Kiwis that the Wallabies should have the same track record as the ABs. Historically they haven't, and we can all say we expect to beat the ABs most times, and the reality will remain that we do it far less often than we lose to them. For the Wallabies to beat them 10 in a row would be so far off the bell curve as to be worthy of canonisation. Should we lose 10 in a row? No, of course not. Are the results good enough? No, of course not. But you aren't comparing apples to apples. If we beat the ABs even close to 50% of the time, it would be pretty damn good.
You guys sack your coach when he only loses 3 out of 21 or something.

Settle down.......3 out of 25

I always thought that Kiwis attained perfection when they moved over to Australia.

As a Kiwi living in Aussie, I'm claiming the 5th...... it is the 5th isn't it?

 

[Richo]

As a Kiwi living in Aussie, I'm claiming the 5th...... it is the 5th isn't it?

We really need to give these Kiwis a test before residency...

 

[DPK]

You plead it, anyway, BR

 

[Scarfman]

We really need to give these Kiwis a test before residency...

They don't seem to know what country they're living in.

 

[Richo]

They don't seem to know what country they're living in.

That would be the first question on the test.

 

[cyclopath]

Settle down.......3 out of 25



As a Kiwi living in Aussie, I'm claiming the 5th...... it is the 5th isn't it?

The fufth, I believe.

 

[Scott Allen]

Statistics on the game and my views now posted at http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/austins-tn1-match-review-and-statistics/

The stats are favourable for Alexander - there's no way he can have as many breakdown involvements as he had if he was seagulling.

Watching the game again last night I thought the Wallabies were quite good in the first 1/4 of the game, partcularly in the first 10 mins - in that time the Boks had five possesisons - kicked two of those away after one phase, dropped the ball in mid-field thanks to a strong tackle, dropped the ball from a kick and the Wallabies turned the ball over just prior to the first try.