I've just run some interesting stats, comparing Deans to one of our favourite sons here on G&GR, Bob Dwyer. In Bob's first crack at the Wallaby job, he had a win percentage of 41% (5-6-1) and in the matches from 1988 to the 1991 RWC, it was 61%. Overall, his coaching record with the Wallabies before winning the RWC was:
1982 - 1983: 5-6-1 (41%)
1988 - 1991 (pre-RWC): 13-11-1 (52%)
Overall: 18-17-1 (50%)
That's pretty comparable with Deans. I remember Bob's second period as coach pretty well and he was in a similar situation as Deans, taking a team that had some players either retired or on the wane. The Lions tour loss confirmed this and a clean out ensued. Some poor results against the All Blacks followed and then in 1991 it all clicked and the rest is history. I'm not saying that the two periods are exactly the same, but I think the constant criticism of Deans record needs to be compared in context with other coaches who we hold in high regard.
Points taken TBH, bit you are having to go back some considerable time to find the support data that indicates 'look, Robbie's no worse than some well regarded others in the past'
![Wink ;) ;)]()
. The question that then arises: is that a useful reference point for modern rugby, 2011-version?
I do think there is a major differentiation to be made here in comparing the amateur vs professional eras. Rugby is now a serious business, like it or not, income generation is crucial, crowd and viewer numbers are crucial to income generation, and, like it or not, consistently winning matches in a fan-admiring manner is crucial to all the foregoing that drives the very economic viability (or otherwise) of a code. And with this 'rugby as a business' has come a large expansion in what $s coaches are paid, and the the extensive total resources that are provided to a team and the head coach, in terms of additional specialist coaches, medical support, sports psychologists, etc. This is all aimed, obviously, at consistently winning lots and driving a team's w-l ratio up to levels where crowds and TV viewership grows substantially, kids are pulled into one code/team vs another, sponsors pay more and there are more of them, etc.
Try as one might, in the modern game at the elite levels with its high $ overheads, you cannot escape the ultimate imperative of building a team, or teams, that win lots and wins really well, far more than it loses. The day of reckoning associated with consistently mediocre results can be postponed, but it cannot be eliminated.