Who will keep their job the longest - O'Neil or Deans

[Scorz]

There is a international market for quality coaches like Deans

What, abject failures? Deans has done the grand sum total of NOTHING as an international head coach as yet, except prove that an inability to change game plans to suit the cattle, or reshuffle his prize cattle to suit game plans, does not work in the big pond like it did in Super rugby.

Really? He created a game plan to beat south africa this year - that was something that Henry, Laurel and Hardy couldn't do this year...

As for "shuffling" his cattle - he has made some hard decisions in terms of players and has dropped some older players to introduce some very young test players this year. It is pretty obvious (as it was at the time he was appointed) that the main goal is the 2011 world cup. Sure the results haven't been great but the wallabies are better placed for that goal now than they were this time last year and much better placed than when he took over.

Was that the same gameplan and mixed up cows he used to lose to the AB's 4 times this year, scrape past the Poms, draw with the Paddies and get ambushed by Scotland under the banner "Grand Slam Tour"? I am of the opposing opinion that the Saffa's responded to the mind games and fucked up. Logic sends me that way.

As for the results being "not great", that's the same level of understatement as saying it's "not great" to have AIDS. It might seem "obvious" to you now, but I can't agree" When he was given the nod Deans was employed to bring Aussie rugby back to the status they had when they won the World Cup and the Bled and threatened for anything else too. Spin it any way you like, the attitude to losing games to second tier nations advertises the diminishing height of the expectancy bar if the RWC is now all he got the job for.

 

[TOCC]

id say Robbie Deans job is a lot harder the any of the other the other major rugby playing nations, basically all down to the fact that he has a smaller player pool to pick from and those within that pool are less experienced due to the fact Australia has no national rugby comp.

Im sure someone would probably have the statistics stashed somewhere, but it wasnt exactly by choice that the Wallabies(minus a 2 stalwarts) have the youngest average age out of the major nations. At the end of the day, younger players might go ok at Super14 level, but the intensity of International Rugby is a bit to much, especially against countries like New Zealand and England(theres no excuses for Scotland).

It is dissapointing that we cant win every year, but its the state of the game in Australia at the moment in that there arent many elder experienced players running around, and on top of that the younger blokes are starting to prove there worth.

At the end of the day, and this stands the same for New Zealand as well, if a RWC was won by either of those countries, the previous 4 years would be forgotten, its the pinnacle of rugby union and its want every fan and player wants to win.

 

[gone]

There is a international market for quality coaches like Deans

What, abject failures? Deans has done the grand sum total of NOTHING as an international head coach as yet, except prove that an inability to change game plans to suit the cattle, or reshuffle his prize cattle to suit game plans, does not work in the big pond like it did in Super rugby.

Really? He created a game plan to beat south africa this year - that was something that Henry, Laurel and Hardy couldn't do this year...

As for "shuffling" his cattle - he has made some hard decisions in terms of players and has dropped some older players to introduce some very young test players this year. It is pretty obvious (as it was at the time he was appointed) that the main goal is the 2011 world cup. Sure the results haven't been great but the wallabies are better placed for that goal now than they were this time last year and much better placed than when he took over.

Was that the same gameplan and mixed up cows he used to lose to the AB's 4 times this year, scrape past the Poms, draw with the Paddies and get ambushed by Scotland under the banner "Grand Slam Tour"? I am of the opposing opinion that the Saffa's responded to the mind games and fucked up. Logic sends me that way.

As for the results being "not great", that's the same level of understatement as saying it's "not great" to have AIDS. It might seem "obvious" to you now, but I can't agree" When he was given the nod Deans was employed to bring Aussie rugby back to the status they had when they won the World Cup and the Bled and threatened for anything else too. Spin it any way you like, the attitude to losing games to second tier nations advertises the diminishing height of the expectancy bar if the RWC is now all he got the job for.

"When he was given the nod Deans was employed to bring Aussie rugby back to the status they had when they won the World Cup and the Bled and threatened for anything else too."

Glad to know you have intimate knowledge of his KPIs - were you part of the ARU committee that hired him? Or is it just pure speculation designed to prove your point that Deans is the antichrist and isn't fit to coach an under 9s girls team despite being the most successful super rugby coach ever?

He was hired to turn the Wallabies into a team that could win the world cup. He has had to deal with the loss of Gregan, Larkham, Latham, Vickerman and Tuqiri as well as having Barnes and Mortlock unavailable through injury in a country which (as TOCC points out) is widely recognised as having the depth of a paddling pool. Results no matter who was coaching the Wallabies were not going to be great over the last 2 years. His team is now a similar standard to the top teams in the Northern Hemisphere and behind the All Blacksand Springboks at this stage.

Whatever his goals were for the Wallabies he was given 4 years to do it. He is halfway through now and had a full review with the ARU board in December. They are happy with the progress he has made to date and as a result his employment will continue despite your opinion that he is the worlds worst coach and is responsible for all the personal tragedies in your life.

 

[waratahjesus]

is it at all possible that people stop sighting the south african game in brisbane this year as a turning point in australian rugby. it was a dead rubber that the springboks were clearly not up for, coupled by the fact that australia finally showed some effort. we still bombed more trys than we scored and at the end of the day it meant nothing at all. it wasnt a master coaching display or even a playing masterclass, it was a team that was already looking ahed to the blacks playing a team that was playing for pride, nothing more, nothing less, if deans had the skillset to outsmart the boks, one outta three isnt really doing it is it?

 

[TOCC]

i dont think you can blame Deans for not having the right quality players to pick from...

It would be fantastic if we could pick the likes of Botha, Carter, Steyn, Matfield or McCaw, but we dont, if we were to make a hypothetical best 'tri-nations' team, based on S14 and international form, very few Australians would make the cut.

Its just reality that less people play rugby in Australia so there are less chances that we will find players of international standard.

Just have a look, whilst i like some of these players, you really have to wonder what there chances are of making the springboks or all blacks.. Turner, Beale, JOC (James O'Connor), Barnes, Palu, Horwill, Chisolm, Alexander, Moore or Cooper. Some of those might be considered development players, but in saying that, its rare that we would have every seen someone like Cooper, JOC (James O'Connor) or Beale even close to international rep(at this stage in there career) if they were in NZ or RSA.

 

[Scorz]

Glad to know you have intimate knowledge of his KPIs - were you part of the ARU committee that hired him? Or is it just pure speculation designed to prove your point that Deans is the antichrist and isn't fit to coach an under 9s girls team despite being the most successful super rugby coach ever?

It was quite well publicised via the press in NZ, I might try and google it later.

He was hired to turn the Wallabies into a team that could win the world cup.

I disagree.

He has had to deal with the loss of Gregan, Larkham, Latham, Vickerman and Tuqiri as well as having Barnes and Mortlock unavailable through injury in a country which (as TOCC points out) is widely recognised as having the depth of a paddling pool. Results no matter who was coaching the Wallabies were not going to be great over the last 2 years.

I agree it was going to be tough for anyone.

His team is now a similar standard to the top teams in the Northern Hemisphere and behind the All Blacksand Springboks at this stage.

No it isn't, and I'm of the opinion that you can't point to anything that backs that up.

Whatever his goals were for the Wallabies he was given 4 years to do it. He is halfway through now and had a full review with the ARU board in December. They are happy with the progress he has made to date and as a result his employment will continue despite your opinion that he is the worlds worst coach and is responsible for all the personal tragedies in your life.

Hang on, I thought you stated what his goal was? The fact that his employers are happy shows they have lowered expectations too.

And as for your little "dig": I don't think he's the world's worst coach, that's Connelly's title. As I said in my initial post on this thread, Deans has achieved nothing as an international coach so far. I am yet to be convinced otherwise by spin.

 

[gone]

Glad to know you have intimate knowledge of his KPIs - were you part of the ARU committee that hired him? Or is it just pure speculation designed to prove your point that Deans is the antichrist and isn't fit to coach an under 9s girls team despite being the most successful super rugby coach ever?

It was quite well publicised via the press in NZ, I might try and google it later.

The details of his contract was well publicised? And by no less than that brilliant organisation that is the NZ Press. This is the same NZ press that the NZ rugby public laments (as judged by reading a NZ rugby forum that you also post on). I think you must have read it in a Chris Rattue article sometime.

He was hired to turn the Wallabies into a team that could win the world cup.

I disagree.

Oh ok, then what was he hired to do? Turn them into a poor team which couldn't win a world cup?

He has had to deal with the loss of Gregan, Larkham, Latham, Vickerman and Tuqiri as well as having Barnes and Mortlock unavailable through injury in a country which (as TOCC points out) is widely recognised as having the depth of a paddling pool. Results no matter who was coaching the Wallabies were not going to be great over the last 2 years.

I agree it was going to be tough for anyone.

So what was he supposed to do over the last 2 years then? Win the trinations and bledisloe cup? Defeat all in front of him? Take over the world? Or try to rebuild the team?

His team is now a similar standard to the top teams in the Northern Hemisphere and behind the All Blacksand Springboks at this stage.

No it isn't, and I'm of the opinion that you can't point to anything that backs that up.

Really, I can't point to anything that backs that up? Do you watch any games that NZ don't play or does your tin shed with no windows not get coverage of those games?

So which part do you disagree with? The part about being behind the ABs and Springboks? I thought this was fairly obvious as evidenced by results this year. I assume you watched at least the ones with the ABs in them.

So as far as the Wallabies being of similar standard to the top teams in the Northern Hemisphere. Lets have a look at the results this year:

They beat France, Wales and England
Drew with Ireland
Lost to Scotland

I'd say that points to them being at least competitive with the top Northern Hemisphere teams.

Whatever his goals were for the Wallabies he was given 4 years to do it. He is halfway through now and had a full review with the ARU board in December. They are happy with the progress he has made to date and as a result his employment will continue despite your opinion that he is the worlds worst coach and is responsible for all the personal tragedies in your life.

Hang on, I thought you stated what his goal was? The fact that his employers are happy shows they have lowered expectations too.

Well whatever his goals were he had 4 years to achieve them (a world cup cycle I believe it is called) and at the halfway stage he is supposedly on track.

How do you come to the conclusion that they have lowered their expectations by the way- you have no idea what his employers expected in the first place and what timeframe those expectations were based on. The only thing one could say is that his performance for the last 2 years was reviewed by his employers and they have taken no action.

And as for your little "dig": I don't think he's the world's worst coach, that's Connelly's title. As I said in my initial post on this thread, Deans has achieved nothing as an international coach so far. I am yet to be convinced otherwise by spin.

Ah, the old silverfern attitude - I say I'm right 1000 times and I won't listen to any other opinions or any facts about the matter. And if I completely ignore everyone else and keep saying it then I'm right. Part of the reason I stopped visiting that site.

In my opinion and it is only opinion (unlike you I will not state opinion as fact) I think Deans made some big steps this year as Wallaby coach. He's restructed the team and got rid of the dead wood. His forward pack has made huge strides (minus the 2nd row) but his backs have struggled due in large part to his top centre combination (Barnes and Mortlock) missing the entire test season. Unfortunately unlike NZ rugby the depth just isn't there when you lose you some of your top players.

You say Deans has achieved nothing as an international coach so far. Take one step back and ask yourself what was he supposed to achieve? You agreed that it would have been tough for anyone the last 2 years. I would suggest this is because it was very much a rebuilding time for rugby in Australia. And that is what Deans has been doing rebuilding a team, introducing new players and getting them up to test standard. Think of Robinson, Polatau-Nau, Alexander, Pocock, Quade Cooper - all players who have made great strides under Deans. It is clear (in my opinion, you may disagree) that Deans is attempting to build a team to peak in 2 years time and that the results over the next 2 years (and then beyond) will be the proof of whether what he has done to this date has been successful.

 

[Biffo]

well said, that bloke

 

[Lindommer]

And I say, "bloody well said that bloke". I'd add I reckon even Robbie underestimated the extent of the challenge he accepted when he took on the Wallabies job. But he obviously has the most complete faith in his ability to shape a group of young blokes into a competent unit (and that's taking into account the quality, and depth, of talent available in Oz compared to SAf and NZ) and I think he's doing a reasonable job. The wins against the Frogs and BaaBaas last year coupled with those against the Saffers, Poms and Taffs this year show what this side's capable of. The loss against the Sweaties was a very good reality check for these young blokes.

Deans has done as good a job as can be expected with the talent at his disposal (and that's not lowering his job description), and with a bit of luck, and a few second rowers and a fullback turning up fit, there's every chance Australia'll give the RWC in 2011 a bloody good shake.

 

[Biffo]

Very simple, really:

1. Were the Wallabies in better shape at the end of 2008 than at the end of 2007?
2. Were the Wallabies in better shape at the end of 2009 than at the end of 2008?

To me, resounding "yes" to both.

 

[cyclopath]

To be fair to Scorz, he has at least had a go at a detailed argument to support his position, and he makes some good points. Too many pundits (mostly to the East of us) have dumbed the whole equation down to the Henry V Deans score in terms of Tests won. All very nice, but I'd wager that had Henry coached the Wallabies with the same cattle, and Deans the same with the ABs, the scoreline would not be much different - NZ plenty, Aus few.
The good things he has achieved will stand us in good stead for a while - some good, quality young players who will only get better, a front row (and indeed a pack) that can compete with most, and best more than a few and some depth in positions that lacked it before. There are still issues, as mentioned by others, but we are definitely better off than we were 2 years ago.
Of course I would love to have a 3N title and a Grand Slam in the bag too, but Scorz needs to understand that Aus rugby expectations are a little different to those of the Kiwis and Saffas - we expect to be competitive with both the big guys most of the time, but realise that we will never be long-term dominators like the ABs. The Kiwis will always be more gutted to lose to us, than us to them (not that I like it :angryfire. Just the nature of the beast.

 

[Scorz]

Firstly - Cheers Cyclo, I think you get what I'm really saying better than TG, who clearly thinks I'm being a prick about it. TG, Biffo summed it up here:

Very simple, really:

1. Were the Wallabies in better shape at the end of 2008 than at the end of 2007?
2. Were the Wallabies in better shape at the end of 2009 than at the end of 2008?

To me, resounding "yes" to both.

I'm saying it is not a yes, more of a "sort of" and that is below the level he was employed to get the Wobbblies to.

I'm not here to wind you up. :baxter:

 

[straightshooter]

great comments but suppose the real question is that IF the Wallabies are unsuccessful (whatever that is judged to be) at RWC will the ARU show Robbie the door and move on to the next super coach

 

[Scarfman]

Scorz - hats off. Now, I'm not having a go at you thatguy, but you raised the heat, and I'm really pleased that Scorz has been able to have his say without raising it again to the level where I have to step in all the time. So, well played.

The thing about coaches is that we have so much less to judge them on than players. You can look at the way the team is playing and figure out by induction what the coaches have been doing with them. And you can look at their selections. And you can listen to what they say in public. When you consider those things, there are more negatives than positives for the current coaches.

- playing worse in lineouts, tackle area (although we've had a rough trot with refs), backline
- scrumming better
- very very odd selections at times
- a couple of surprisingly good selections - alexander, pocock
- 100% pure nonsense out of Robbie's mouth

Above all else, I suppose is that results were definitely worse than we expected. June tests were great but TriNations and Grand Slam were both big failures. I have lost a lot of confidence in the coaching team, but remain hopeful, of course. I haven't got any other international team to support.