Jim Williams BONED

[Bullrush]

Are you saying that Cullen and Umaga said Deans was no good?

Deans and Mitchell - yes. Well - no. Not 'no good' but they definitely did not like playing for them and didn't think too much of them as coaches.

 

[Slash]

I agree with some of what you're saying Slash but not all.

QC (Quade Cooper) probably played about as good as most people outside of Australia thought he would. Why? Because he's young, inexperienced, hugely talented but far from a complete player yet. Very low percetages on winning RWC with that kind of player. His unpredictablility and balls to make risky decisions unfortunately doesn't normally go to well in the World Cup.

Agree with Gnostic on Sharpie. Who is a better lock in Aussie? Penalty magnet Vickerman? And I don't recall seeing Sharp lose the ball in the tackle at all. Maybe once?!? He's miles ahead of Simmons anyway.

For all the lack of experience in the squad, Deans should have taken Mortlock and Waugh. If for nothing other than to be the voices of experience and wisdom in a very young and very green squad. Again, I don't think McCabe/Fainga'a/McCalman brought anything to the team that these two guys couldn't have provided.....just minus the 150-odd Tests they must have between them.

And that's where I agree with you re: Deans and cutting older players eg. Cullen. I said a number of times here that this is the guy who has been publicly slated by 2 of the best ABs ever in Cullen and Umaga. There's a reason a huge number of NZ'ers were happy to see Henry stay after 2007.

The best thing that could have happened for Australian rugby in 2011, IMO, is for the Reds to have lost the Super Rugby Final and the Wallabies to have lost to South Africa and come 2nd in the Tri-Nations. I think they won competitions which meant more to them then they did their opposition with the 'big picture' being taken into account.

Finally, to say that Jim Williams was a 'scapegoat' just doesn't hold any weight. Please point to where he had the forwards consistently playing together well eg. Bledisloe decider in Brissy. I just think he's not good enough at international level yet. The same may apply for Deans but that has little to do with whether Jim is or not.

Firstly, I think the best lock in the country is the captain.......remember him? James Horwill. I'll get some footage from my friends in high places and show you Sharpe's turn overs....will need a few weeks to get the footage though.
Secondly, I wouldn't have had an issue if Mortlock or Waugh was selected for RWC. We all know experience goes a long way in big games...though I must admit I would prefer it to have been Mortlock and not Waugh. I think Waugh was passed it for the last few years. His game still measured up somewhat at Super level but as I've said time and time again, test level is another step up. I have also said I rate McCalman and still stick by that. He is just not a 7 or even a back up 7. His best position is 8....and he should be allowed to develop is game internationally as an 8. I am aware of Cullen and Umaga bagging Deans, hence my earlier comment so nothing required here other than to say I tend to agree with them.

Finally, I think Williams was the scapegoat in terms of the sacking. To be honest, I think Deans should have been canned and then his assistants subsequently perhaps, however they re-signed Deans and would have to pay him out financially which would probably not go down too well. In saying this though, I don't disagree that Williams needed to go, I just think there should be others. At the moment, with he being the only one sacked, it looks like they are blaming him solely for the RWC performance........which is unfair.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Did they given any detail as to wh they did not like them?
I find it interesting because I think an issue with Deans is that he, maybe, gives the players too much leeway. That said my uninformed hunch is that Waugh and Mortlock were never in the frame because they threatened Deans position as the top of the pile.
Its more than a coincidence that the coaches who are arguably most aloof from their players finished up with teams in the RWC final, in my opinion.
The best, neutral or unarguable, example to prove the rule being Martin Johnson.

 

[Slash]

Ever stop to think he just shanked it? It wasn't pretty off the boot. I don't agree that Cooper cannot play what the coach wants. Go and read the interviews and listen to the Podcasts with Link. Cooper is one of the most coachable players he has had. Lets look at Genia's performance as well, "why does a 9 that has one of the best running and passing games around suddenly start doing endless box kicks, even when they clearly aren't working? Genia has largely been quarantined from any real blame post RWC but his decision making was dire, if indeed it was his tactics/choices, possibly because he is a very good defender in a purely defensive game plan and mindset.

Great question Gnostic. The first question I asked my Wallaby friends when they told me of the change of tactics was very much along those lines.................their response.......was to point out the chasing Wallaby players in the footage, Digby was sprinting in anticipation it was going long and they all had to stop.

Shanked it, well you would have to say that it was a possibility, but then that would only serve to support the argument that he is not up to it at that level............

As for comments on Genia, I have pointed out in previous posts of my thoughts here too. And I agree, he needs to be held accountable too.

 

[Slash]

I cannot believe the amount of unfounded and largely unthought Cooper bashing going on here.

Cooper is pretty much a front foot running 10. Yes he can kick effectively, as he showed in the Reds win over the Stormers, but he requires time and at least defensive parity from his inside backs and forwards to achieve this. Cooper is at best an average defender with poor technique. Since the game plan from Deans in every RWC game up to the Welsh 3rd place playoff was a defensive pattern with nearly all useful ball kicked why was Cooper selected over Barnes who is a tactical 10 with the occassional run? Yes Cooper played badly, but he was the wrong player to play the game plan he was given with poor support from a badly selected forward pack, and these facts were abundantly clear to everyone except Deans by the second game of the RWC.

To add a few comments to some above, Sharpe is indeed the best lock in Oz bar none. The myth of his scrummaging woes which started to a large degree at the RWC '07 never seems to effect Vickerman who was also present in RWC 07, and the lineout and scrum at RWC 11 went to shit with "saviour" Vickerman on the pitch, Sharpe largely wasn't thereand hasn't been all year yet he is the reason for the poor scrummaging? Elsom (and Vickerman I will add) did not on form deserve his place in the squad and has not in the last two years, quite a few of us voiced this decision before the first test this year and the results have supported the statement.

As for the assistant coaching positions I fervently hope that neither Foley or McKenzie have anything at all to do with the Wallabies under Deans. I say this simply because I don't think that the assistants are to blame for the results. Sure they had a hand in them but at the end of the day the tactics and selections are signed off by the Head man. Does anybody here really think that Pato Noreiga would have selected Oz's best THP this year at LH and the third or fourth best LH at THP? Maafu didn't even rate in the best scrummaging Props thread here near the end of the Super comp. The facts are that Deans has always selected a Wallaby pack that is high on workrate with the assistants then trying to plug the set piece gaps. So I hope that the Tahs and Reds coaches have nothing to do with Deans as I would hope to see them at the Wallabies in 2013 when we see the back Deans. If they do become Wallabies assistants then Nucifora is positioning himself to be the next Wallabies coach as I doubt the Wallabies will improve in terms of actual play between now and the end of Deans' contract and anybody who is associated with his tenure will be tainted by the play.

I agree with a lot of this Gnostic. To comment on what I have highlighted

I have put a lot of thought into the Cooper bashing. Hence why I spoke to my Wallaby friends. I have also been around the game long enough to know the difference between a good provincial player and a good test player.

Defensive parity....are you saying those around him need to be as poor as he is? By your own admittance he is an average defender with poor technique at best............in my opinion he would fail the criteria to be a test player based on that alone.

I stand by my comments on Sharpe and will support it when I get the necessary footage and post it.

Admittedly I hadn't thought of the assistant coaching repurcussions.

Nucifora has been doing that since day one of his appointment!

 

[Sully]

"Talking to your Wallaby friends" is not a reliable source. I suggest you all step back from this conversation and leave it go.

 

[Sully]

Are you serious that quade played well?
He didnt.

The team was built around him instead of building the team and when it came to the crunch he didn't have it. It's as much about coaching as it is about him. That's for sure but the fact is for every good play he makes he makes a couple of bad decisions, they don't all cost points but they cost ball and territory and his flashes of brilliance seem to make people forget the down times. That's fine if you win. Consistently, if you dont, you need to take responsibility for the way yo played, something Quade, his management and his coaches refuse to allow to happen.

2 defencive centres and an unbalanced back row? Was that really what Cooper asked for?

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Shanked it, well you would have to say that it was a possibility, but then that would only serve to support the argument that he is not up to it at that level............

Bit of a harsh call I would think, and not something to hang an argument on. I am certain that I have seen Dan Carter put a kick-off or two out on the full, does that mean that he is not up to International level?

 

[Slash]

Bit of a harsh call I would think, and not something to hang an argument on. I am certain that I have seen Dan Carter put a kick-off or two out on the full, does that mean that he is not up to International level?

of course it doesn't............but then Carter knows how to control a game, is not a defensive liability or even an attacking liability either is he...............could you say the same about QC (Quade Cooper)?.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I don't believe you have Wallaby mates.

I don't believe any Wallabies would think the way you talk.

I think you're making it up, or exaggerating beyond all recognition of the truth.

All my wallaby mates (which I don't have) think players make mistakes - and rugby is about being adaptable.

 

[cyclopath]

Schadenfreude - the first line is unnecessary, it will only lead to antagonism. Hence, I deleted it. Take note anyone else who read it.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Noted

 

[waratahjesus]

2 defencive centres and an unbalanced back row? Was that really what Cooper asked for?

I didn't say cooper asked for it. I said they built the team around Cooper instead of building a team.
They expected Cooper to be able to turn it on and make the breaks and deliver the ball into space that he did at the reds. I called before the world cup for barnes and I stand by that, Cooper should not be a lone play maker. Great for the reds, not for the wallabies.

 

[Sully]

My point was that they didn't build a team around him.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

 

[waratahjesus]

My point was that they didn't build a team around him.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

They did though. There is no way we would have had 2 defensive centers without Cooper at ten. It was down entirely to his frailties and a misguided opinion that he could show enough composure to deliver the ball out wide bypassing said centre combination.

It wasn't his fault it was a pure coaching failure and his lack of composure showed through. If he through the good balls when they were on and played sensible no frills rugby the rest of the time he would be world class (in attack)

 

[Sandpit Fan]

of course it doesn't............but then Carter knows how to control a game, is not a defensive liability or even an attacking liability either is he...............could you say the same about QC (Quade Cooper)?.

Of course you can't say the same of QC (Quade Cooper). Who has actually said that? I doubt even his most ardent supporters would make those claims.

However, to pick a single incident like that one (and he would be the only one who knows if he shanked it or just had a brain fart) and use it to support an argument is hardly fair, which was my point. That kind of thing happens to everyone, Dan Carter included, and is also the reason why no goal kicker has a 100% record. His poor defence doesn't happen to everyone, and is a valid point to support an argument.

He's not above criticism for a number of faults, but let's try and maintain a semblance of fairness about it shall we?

 

[Sully]

They did though. There is no way we would have had 2 defensive centers without Cooper at ten. It was down entirely to his frailties and a misguided opinion that he could show enough composure to deliver the ball out wide bypassing said centre combination.

It wasn't his fault it was a pure coaching failure and his lack of composure showed through. If he through the good balls when they were on and played sensible no frills rugby the rest of the time he would be world class (in attack)

They built the backs around Cooper, Beale, O'Connor and Ioane.. Saying they built the team around one player in BS. Plain and simple.

 

[waratahjesus]

They built the backs around Cooper, Beale, O'Connor and Ioane.. Saying they built the team around one player in BS. Plain and simple.

It's really not. Without Cooper at ten, or when barnes came I. The back line play changed. The back line was picked and drilled around coopers game for the RWC, coopers defensive problem caused the best part of brakes game to be changed for instance. If Beale was picked as th best fullback he would have been fielding and returning balls from fullback. Instead he was out on the wing most, of the time and recieving balls from Cooper that sent him straight into touch.

OConner was picked out wide, not in the centers as they didn't want a small man next to Cooper as the feared size. The list goes on, if you don't think the team was picked the way it was , rightly or wrongly to offset coopers game the that's fine. But in my opinion it's painfully obvious they expected Cooper to do much more than he proved capable of.

 

[Sully]

Well duh. Of course the back line played differently with Barnes there. They are different players. It's not proof of anything. If they had built the backline around Cooper they wouldn't have picked Beale at all. Ben Lucas would have been a much better option.

 

[Bruce Ross]

I suggest that this thread has really lifted the bar in terms of wandering off topic. The link between Jim Williams and Quade Cooper is tenuous in the extreme. But please feel free to carry on.