Langthorne
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I don't think Robbie Deans' tenure as Wallaby coach has been sufficiently scrutinised. The Wallabies have been picked over almost constantly, but so far the 'sacred cow' that is Dingo Deans has had a pretty easy ride.
Here are a few areas that might merit attention:
1. Wins, particularly against quality opposition
- there has been little headway made in this area, in fact there have been some unfortunate backward steps and capitulations. I don't believe that losing a significant numbers of games in the lead up is necessary for winning the World Cup (in fact previous winners would tend to suggest exactly the opposite). Many elite sportsmen relate that winning is a habit, as is losing - the Wallabies risk making the latter their habit.
2. Selection policy
- the first thing that irks me is his suggestion that he has something to do with the depth in Australian rugby. For better or worse, it has diddly squat to do with 'Robbie come lately'. The players available for selection for the Wallabies have (in most cases) come through the Australian juniors system, and spend the majority of their time with their Super teams or clubs. If any New Zealander is partly responsible for the depth or otherwise in Australian rugby it would be John Mitchell, by virtue of the fact that he coaches the Force. I'm sure Robbie Deans does make a contribution to the development of the Aussie players within the Wallaby squad, but only in proportion to the time he has with them (ie not much). If he had more time he would probably do more.
- I like the idea of an extended squad, but I think it should include a few more experienced campaigners such as Phil Waugh and Al Baxter, and tough guys such as Van Humphries (already this season, and last, the Wallabies seem to be lacking these attributes). Also, I think these guys are certainly in the top 40 Australian players.
- picking anything but the best players for each position is bad policy. Winning matches becomes less likely, with all the follow on from that (see above). Putting players in to 'build depth/experience' is also a bad idea because it devalues the Wallaby Jersey, and it devalues the honour of playing test match rugby for Australia (maybe being a New Zealander colours his attitude to Australian rugby and the Wallaby Jersey) . To play for the Wallabies you should be the best available. You should have to get past the guy ahead of you - no way are any of the available props are better than Al Baxter, no way did any of them have a better s14 season than him (and before anyone tries it on - look at the score board, look at the s14 table).
Tactics
- when the Aussie S14 teams did well they played a high paced aggressive forwards style. They committed players to the breakdown and pressured their opponents. They relied on their fitness to get them through. When they didn't do this they generally did poorly. When the Wallabies don't do this they do poorly. The tactic of being selective about the battles you fight at the breakdown worked very well for the Stormers, but their size had something to do with that success. The Wallabies don't have the same size, but they do have mobility and (hopefully) fitness. They can afford to put pressure on opposition possession, and even more, they play best when they do.
Management Psycho-babble
- listen to his press conferences! Players 'coming back on line'! Co-captains (and one of them was Hoiles)? Wanker.
Stubbornness
- some might call it single minded determination, or internal fortitude, but I'm going to go with stubbornness. If you make a bad decision, don't compound the issue by sticking with it against all reason...Dispensing with the services of Michael Foley. Not having enough hard nut forwards in the squad. Not having enough experienced props in the squad. Some might add Luke Burgess to that list too.
Coaching Pedigree
- he has won a stack of Super titles with the Crusaders
- he has brought some exceptional players through the Crusaders' ranks
- he hasn't had quite that level of success in the international sphere
I post this now, before the England test, so that the performance of the rookie front rowers can prove Deans a genius (I really do rate Daley, but not so much as a scrummager at this stage). It would please me no end if the Wallaby scrum smashed the English, but even parity would be enough. Of course Deans' genius could be that he expects the Wallaby scrum to falter so badly that we'll end up neutralising the England scrum by needing to go uncontested due to injuries (not a happy thought).
Here are a few areas that might merit attention:
1. Wins, particularly against quality opposition
- there has been little headway made in this area, in fact there have been some unfortunate backward steps and capitulations. I don't believe that losing a significant numbers of games in the lead up is necessary for winning the World Cup (in fact previous winners would tend to suggest exactly the opposite). Many elite sportsmen relate that winning is a habit, as is losing - the Wallabies risk making the latter their habit.
2. Selection policy
- the first thing that irks me is his suggestion that he has something to do with the depth in Australian rugby. For better or worse, it has diddly squat to do with 'Robbie come lately'. The players available for selection for the Wallabies have (in most cases) come through the Australian juniors system, and spend the majority of their time with their Super teams or clubs. If any New Zealander is partly responsible for the depth or otherwise in Australian rugby it would be John Mitchell, by virtue of the fact that he coaches the Force. I'm sure Robbie Deans does make a contribution to the development of the Aussie players within the Wallaby squad, but only in proportion to the time he has with them (ie not much). If he had more time he would probably do more.
- I like the idea of an extended squad, but I think it should include a few more experienced campaigners such as Phil Waugh and Al Baxter, and tough guys such as Van Humphries (already this season, and last, the Wallabies seem to be lacking these attributes). Also, I think these guys are certainly in the top 40 Australian players.
- picking anything but the best players for each position is bad policy. Winning matches becomes less likely, with all the follow on from that (see above). Putting players in to 'build depth/experience' is also a bad idea because it devalues the Wallaby Jersey, and it devalues the honour of playing test match rugby for Australia (maybe being a New Zealander colours his attitude to Australian rugby and the Wallaby Jersey) . To play for the Wallabies you should be the best available. You should have to get past the guy ahead of you - no way are any of the available props are better than Al Baxter, no way did any of them have a better s14 season than him (and before anyone tries it on - look at the score board, look at the s14 table).
Tactics
- when the Aussie S14 teams did well they played a high paced aggressive forwards style. They committed players to the breakdown and pressured their opponents. They relied on their fitness to get them through. When they didn't do this they generally did poorly. When the Wallabies don't do this they do poorly. The tactic of being selective about the battles you fight at the breakdown worked very well for the Stormers, but their size had something to do with that success. The Wallabies don't have the same size, but they do have mobility and (hopefully) fitness. They can afford to put pressure on opposition possession, and even more, they play best when they do.
Management Psycho-babble
- listen to his press conferences! Players 'coming back on line'! Co-captains (and one of them was Hoiles)? Wanker.
Stubbornness
- some might call it single minded determination, or internal fortitude, but I'm going to go with stubbornness. If you make a bad decision, don't compound the issue by sticking with it against all reason...Dispensing with the services of Michael Foley. Not having enough hard nut forwards in the squad. Not having enough experienced props in the squad. Some might add Luke Burgess to that list too.
Coaching Pedigree
- he has won a stack of Super titles with the Crusaders
- he has brought some exceptional players through the Crusaders' ranks
- he hasn't had quite that level of success in the international sphere
I post this now, before the England test, so that the performance of the rookie front rowers can prove Deans a genius (I really do rate Daley, but not so much as a scrummager at this stage). It would please me no end if the Wallaby scrum smashed the English, but even parity would be enough. Of course Deans' genius could be that he expects the Wallaby scrum to falter so badly that we'll end up neutralising the England scrum by needing to go uncontested due to injuries (not a happy thought).
