Wallaby tight five - boys or men?

[The_Brown_Hornet]

All I'm saying is that Deans is:

a, Coming to the end of a similar rebuilding phase that Bob went through in the 1990-91 period.

b, In possession of a similar record to another coach who then went on to guiding the Wallabies through a golden era.

If the Wallabies don't have a good test campaign this season and hence don't do well in the RWC, then his tenure will have been a failure for mine. If they win the RWC, it will have been a success. It would also be good to pick up the Bled and 3N trophies along the way, but I would be happy enough if they did that next year if they also had Bill.

 

[Groucho]

Thanks for that Cyclo, good points all, I was probably giving too much weight to the purple patches you and Gnostic note. But those patches do prove that a material period of Wallaby-AB w-l % improvement IS possible and was delivered, these were in fact solid 4 and 5 year periods, they weren't just one-off blips.

Part of my commentary posited that there are IMO broadly identifiable core reasons why we have consistently lost lots more than won via the ABs in, say, the 2004-2010 period. It is not a case of 'they are just geniuses most matches, we are just overall crap most matches'. I think our core problems v the ABs can be fixed, and, in part, as we enter the 2011 AB season, are being fixed. Gagger was right to note in late 2010 that our margin of points loss v the ABs is consistently declining to now very low numbers, this is a good omen. Further, we are today blessed with an impressive number of genuinely outstanding players that, despite their age, have matured rapidly as class players on the world stage and don't fear the ABs; problem is, too many of these are only in the backs, to deal adequately with the ABs we need solid class in the forwards. (And this 'emergence of great players' factor is partly just luck in terms of timing and recurrence - as Australian cricket is finding, Warnes, McGraths, Haydens and Pontings can't be manufactured every 2 or so years, it goes in cycles.)

I don't think we're too far off in the forwards in terms of our players, RedsHappy. Nau, Moore, Horwill, Robinson and Pocock at their respective best are all world 1st or 2nd XV contenders. Elsom has been up there in the past. Kepu is headed in that direction. Slipper could in the future.

The problems we've had have been largely technical: like Lee Grant says, when to commit, how to commit, and the technical quality of our scrum.

 

[Bruce Ross]

You need to understand that Bob was part of the turnaround in Australian rugby. We were shit, then less shit under Dwyer, then very good under Macqueen. We may be in the middle of another turnaround now.

I presume then, Scarfie, that you would rank our current status as the "less shit" phase of the performance cycle.

 

[vidiot]

And that MacKenzie will reap the benefits of the current nebulous coaching paradigm. And that people will naively infer that coaching the wallabies with purpose rather than playing 'Pick-up Sticks' with positions and selections was the reason.

 

[da_grubster]

All I'm saying is that Deans is:

a, Coming to the end of a similar rebuilding phase that Bob went through in the 1990-91 period.

b, In possession of a similar record to another coach who then went on to guiding the Wallabies through a golden era.

If the Wallabies don't have a good test campaign this season and hence don't do well in the RWC, then his tenure will have been a failure for mine. If they win the RWC, it will have been a success. It would also be good to pick up the Bled and 3N trophies along the way, but I would be happy enough if they did that next year if they also had Bill.

I would be careful on using stats such as the above to predict a golden era. Clearly, the wallabies haven't had much to write home about for quite some time so your record doesn't point to anything great on the horizon.

It's more about personnel, age, experience and time together and potential. That is where the upswing for the wallabies is I suggest not on corralating stats from eras 20 years apart. Because frankly both stats from the wallabies are unimpressive.

 

[Groucho]

I would be careful on using stats such as the above to predict a golden era. Clearly, the wallabies haven't had much to write home about for quite some time so your record doesn't point to anything great on the horizon.

It's more about personnel, age, experience and time together and potential. That is where the upswing for the wallabies is I suggest not on corralating stats from eras 20 years apart. Because frankly both stats from the wallabies are unimpressive.

I think rather than stats, one should instead look at the large number of very young world-class players we have.

 

[Scotty]

All I'm saying is that Deans is:

a, Coming to the end of a similar rebuilding phase that Bob went through in the 1990-91 period.

b, In possession of a similar record to another coach who then went on to guiding the Wallabies through a golden era.

If the Wallabies don't have a good test campaign this season and hence don't do well in the RWC, then his tenure will have been a failure for mine. If they win the RWC, it will have been a success. It would also be good to pick up the Bled and 3N trophies along the way, but I would be happy enough if they did that next year if they also had Bill.

Our Bob was also the coach of the team during our brilliant defense of the RWC in 95, wasn't he?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I would be careful on using stats such as the above to predict a golden era. Clearly, the wallabies haven't had much to write home about for quite some time so your record doesn't point to anything great on the horizon.

It's more about personnel, age, experience and time together and potential. That is where the upswing for the wallabies is I suggest not on corralating stats from eras 20 years apart. Because frankly both stats from the wallabies are unimpressive.

I didn't predict anything. I was saying that just because a coaches winning record is moderately poor in the earlier part of their tenure, doesn't necessarily mean that it will be later on, especially if the players they develop during the rebuilding phase are class. I would argue that players such as Genia, Cooper, O'Connor, Beale, Horwill, Pocock and Slipper represent a very exciting future nucleus of a Wallaby team. Deans brought all of these players into the test squad and will deserve some credit for their development.

You seem to be implying that it's only the cattle that matter. I partially agree with that, but quality coaching is at least half of it and I believe Deans to be a good coach.

You'll also notice that I said that if the Wallabies don't take the siliverware this year, then his tenure will have been a failure, because that has been the stated goal of his stint as coach.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Our Bob was also the coach of the team during our brilliant defense of the RWC in 95, wasn't he?

Indeed, but he equally was the coach of a Wallaby team that near dominated world rugby for 2-3 years after RWC 1991. Winning back to back RWC's is hard, just ask any team who has tried to do it so far.

 

[Gnostic]

I am well aware of that Scarfy. I was watching the Wallabies with considerable interest all through that period leading up to the 1991 world cup.

I would also argue that we had a golden period between 1984 and 1987 under AJ as well. The problem that Bob had was that a combination of age, retirements and league weakened the team that he inherited. After the Lions tour in 1989, he rebuilt it into the amazing rugby machine it became. It is possible that Deans may produce the same result.

A BIG thing that seems to get lost is that since 1991 only one first choice Wallaby has left Rugby for League - Garrick Morgan and two capped Wallabies that were "depth" players in Darren Junee and Peter Jorgensen. All results prior to 1991 have to be looked at veru critically knowing that players such as Wally Lewis, Ricky Suart, Brett Papworth, Russell Fairfax, etc etc etc were all lost to Rugby just as they were starting. To put our "purple patches" in context lets remove the three biggest names being chased by League from those teams - Campese, Horan and Little. Now how do we think those teams would have faired during those periods without those stars?

The effect of League Pre-1991 has to be taken into account when compiling our historical W:L. A better comparision for Deans success or lack there of would be only using statistics from 1990 onwards as that error has been largely removed.

 

[Gnostic]

Our Bob was also the coach of the team during our brilliant defense of the RWC in 95, wasn't he?

Bob's biggest mistake at the 1995 RWC was picking the best players, half of who were carrying significant injuries and hence they did not perform. For others it was a year too far and the signs of that could be seen in retrospect in some of their performances in 1994. I have always wondered as well what effect the World Rugby Corporation manourverings had on key members of the squad including the Captain Phil Kearns who had signed with them.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Gnostic, good points raised in both posts and I largely agree with you. With the league era in play during the 1980's, it would make the achievements of Alan Jones on an even higher footing I would have thought. Whatever we might say about the bloke's personality, he was a very effective coach for a period of time.

 

[Braveheart.]

This thread is all about hypothesis and what if's...

We could be on the verge of something special... but only then can we start comparing to past eras.

All I know is that we have a young team with all the skill in the world, with very shallow depth. Draw what similarities you want BUT I'm not going to until we lift up some silverware.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

No argument Braveheart, but I look at our best match day 22 and see quality across the paddock. We aren't world beaters by any means yet, but jeez there is some potential there. This must be the year, I think, or it's all been for nothing.

 

[Groucho]

No argument Braveheart, but I look at our best match day 22 and see quality across the paddock. We aren't world beaters by any means yet, but jeez there is some potential there. This must be the year, I think, or it's all been for nothing.

Even our depth is starting to look strong with players returning.

 

[Braveheart.]

Even our depth is starting to look strong with players returning.

Agreed 100% on the depth this year. We could potentially field an extremely strong 30 man RWC squad with Palu, Barnes, Horne, Mitchell, TPN and potentially Robbo all back and playing.

It's likely one or more of them will miss out on the squad which is a great sign of improved depth on prior years.

 

[Richo]

I'd suggest that the most likely reason for any of them missing out is that it's too risky to load up on players only just returning from injury. Perhaps as much as anyn other factor, that will way on Deans' mind.

 

[Scotty]

Indeed, but he equally was the coach of a Wallaby team that near dominated world rugby for 2-3 years after RWC 1991. Winning back to back RWC's is hard, just ask any team who has tried to do it so far.

We were never going to win in 95, but he had plenty of time and backing to prepare a team that should have at least made the semis. Bringing in a new flat line attack reasonably close to the RWC cost us dearly in my opinion. The other time we didn't make the semis was when Connolly got the job not much longer than a year before the RWC, so it is hard to compare to Dwyer's situation.

Anyway, my point was in trying to back you up in your implication that Dwyer is seen a little through rose coloured glasses, and Deans is seen through black ones.