Why aren't the Wallabies playing (and winning) like the Crusaders?

[Newter]

Robbie Deans coached the Crusaders to play one of the most dangerous and beautiful brands of professional rugby the world has seen. Between 2002 and 2008 they were at the cutting edge of ball control in the forwards, and counterattack in the backline. Not to mention a formidable defensive side. I remember watching with awe one particular multi-phase try scored in a semi-final against the Bulls in 2005 - the ball never reached the backline, because Greg Somerville, Mose Tuiali'i and Reuben Thorne et al were too good at picking and driving in numbers until they simply reached the white line. The Bulls could not stop it. What stood out for me wasn't their brute strength, since other teams could boast of the same physical gifts more or less, but their technical proficiency as a unit. The handling of the ball, the timing, the drive forward in twos and threes and the prompt cleanout were magnificent.

Where are these skills in the Wallabies? Was Robbie the coach responsible for those skills at the Crusaders, or wasn't he?

The same thing goes for counterattack. It wasn't just the genius of Dan Carter that won Robbie so many Super 12/14 titles. He had clearly inculcated a system in his backs which even the middling talents at his disposal thrived on. Even Caleb Ralph, even Scott Hamilton looked like world beaters under Robbie's system of straight running, draw and pass, clean out at the ruck, and support of the ball carrier in numbers and at the right depth at every linebreak.

Why are the Wallabies not playing like this???

Either Robbie is not the man responsible for the technical skills of those champion Crusaders teams, in which case maybe we should have recruited Mark Hammett?

Or, he's not been able to transfer his coaching to the particular players at the Wallabies. I don't buy this, as he's brought on so many debutants that he's really had a clean slate to work with: Ben Alexander, James Horwill, Dean Mumm, David Pocock, Richard Brown and Will Genia, Quade Cooper, Peter Hynes, Rob Horne, James O'Connor, Kurtley Beale. This is just to name the new players he's used the most over the last three seasons.

The other possibility is that the Crusaders players themselves were just freaks and Robbie was lucky to borrow some of their reflected glory. But this won't stand up to scrutiny. Robbie had his team playing champion rugby even with his All Black stars missing in the first half of 2007. And he was winning Super titles before Dan Carter hit the scene.

When John O'Neill hired Deans I was looking forward to a Wallabies side which could control the ball and score tries systematically and at will, using all the skills the Crusaders had mastered. It hasn't happened. We haven't found our Aaron Maugers, or Rico Gears, or Mose Tuiali'is. We haven't found a Chris Jack or a Greg Somerville. There's been little or no Crusader-fication of the Wallabies at all.

And don't blame injuries. The 2010 Wallaby squad is heavily experienced. The run on side has about 400 caps.

Robbie's mission has failed. He's got to go.

 

[RugbyReg]

wow. welcome. What an intimidating first post. Love it.

Too over the Wallabies to respond at the moment sorry.

But tend to lean towards Deans just not being 'right' for test footy. You need a hardened edge to play test footy (which is completely different to Super 12/14) and we don't have it. Nor to the All Blacks when Deans and Mitchell were in charge.

 

[Gnostic]

Welcome to the newbie.

Before anybody thinks it, I haven't found a new log in.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Robbie Deans coached the Crusaders to play one of the most dangerous and beautiful brands of professional rugby the world has seen. Between 2002 and 2008 they were at the cutting edge of ball control in the forwards, and counterattack in the backline. Not to mention a formidable defensive side. I remember watching with awe one particular multi-phase try scored in a semi-final against the Bulls in 2005 - the ball never reached the backline, because Greg Somerville, Mose Tuiali'i and Reuben Thorne et al were too good at picking and driving in numbers until they simply reached the white line. The Bulls could not stop it. What stood out for me wasn't their brute strength, since other teams could boast of the same physical gifts more or less, but their technical proficiency as a unit. The handling of the ball, the timing, the drive forward in twos and threes and the prompt cleanout were magnificent.

Welcome, Newter. A very impressive initial post.

To me it is intriguing that the overwhelming majority of observers of our sport immediately discount the strength factor when analysing the reasons for teams' success or failure, as you have done above.

Since 2003 Ashley Jones has been Director of Physical Performance for the Crusaders. When asked what were the common mistakes made in athletic development programs Jones said:

"Ignoring the basics, the big rocks, which I believe are three: 1. Strength & Power 2. Speed 3. Specific metabolic conditioningAs Rusty Jones from the Buffalo Bills once said 'I get the team big, strong and fast and the head coach teaches them how to play the game.' That may be an oversimplification but I do not think it is too far away from the truth. Bottom line if these are not in place then anything else you do is irrelevant."

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I find it hard to argue with really any of that Newter. Questions must certainly be asked. At present, I have to confess that I don't really know where to start. We are nowhere right now.

 

[I like to watch]

But tend to lean towards Deans just not being 'right' for test footy. You need a hardened edge to play test footy (which is completely different to Super 12/14) and we don't have it. Nor to the All Blacks when Deans and Mitchell were in charge.

My recollection is that Mitchell/Deans only lost 1 game (World cup) when they were in charge of the AB's?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I hear a lot of whingeing by Kiwi fans about the Mitchell/Deans years, but the facts are that they won a *lot* of test matches in charge of that team. Belted us before the RWC and we beat them in once in a decade performance in the Semi. England beat them also, but they were genuinely the best team in world rugby at the time.

 

[Top Bloke]

My recollection is that Mitchell/Deans only lost 1 game (World cup) when they were in charge of the AB's?

Mitchell's record was P28 W23 D 1 L4

 

[RedsHappy]

Mitchell's record was P28 W23 D 1 L4

Intriguing, isn't it: there's Mitchell with this excellent ABs record, but he's not done a fine job with the Force. They've not come on well overall, and have achieved an 'OK' 5.5-6.0 out of 10 score I would argue for the last 3-4 years, certainly not a 7-8. Some parallels with Deans here, one suspects. Extrapolating from NZ rugby successes to Aus ones has not so far shown itself to be at all straightforward.

 

[fatprop]

Deans had better players at the crusaders in key positions, he always had a great 10 (Merts, the Carter), a great 7 and an effective, hard working pack

 

[Lee Grant]

Newter.

Welcome aboard. Good post. I was very happy to see Deans get hired as most of us were but we had been so crap since the tenure of Macqueen than I didn't jump over the moon. We didn't have a lot of good cattle on the farm.

Whilst I never got on the Deans bandwagon and said I wouldn't until, win or lose, we showed promising consistency from game to game, from home to away, or even from one period of a game to another, I was willing to give him a turnaround period. That period was over after 2009; two years was enough to expect a noticeable change to our national team.

The only positive thing I have seen is the employment of new young players who would mostly have been picked by any selectors, albeit maybe later than he did.

I thought he erred badly in ignoring Baxter when he had been healthy and it didn't answer that some inexperienced props were getting valuable test time. If Pocock had a bad injury he would probably ignore Waugh also, if he was healthy, such is his dogged stubborness.

His most obvious failure, even to many who don't know the game that well, is his poor use of the bench. There are many examples of that we could all list.

I feel embarrassed sometimes watching our national team because they look badly coached. They are deficient in one area in one game and they get it right the next time only for it to pop up a couple of tests later. There is a turnstile of such bad areas and 4 or 5 are current; sometimes they overlap so that 2 or 3 come up in a match and once a year the planets of errors realign behind the sun and we have a good game or maybe two.

The Wallabies could turn it around next week and show consistency after that and even win the RWC, and I hope it does both of those things, but it will not invalidate what I wrote.

 

[fatprop]

Yeah it would have been nice to call on someone like Waugh in the second half to rally the troups

 

[Scarfman]

Do we have a Scarf Award for Best First Post? Welcome Newter.

I was ecstatic about Deans's appointment. And when our defence IMMEDIATELY went to shit, I was counselling everyone to chillax, Robbie is turning our brick wall defence into a counter attack type of defence. However, as things have fallen apart, I've been asking myself your question over and over.

My answer, which is basically a wild and ignorant character assassination, is that he has got worse as a coach. At some point, he believed his own press, read one too many motivational books, and is in no fit state to be coaching a rugby side. I think exactly the same thing happened to Eddie Jones, Sir Clive Woodward, Piet DeVilliers, and Eddie O'Sullivan. These are guys who need some time away from the game to float gently back to earth. At the moment, Robbie is doing (and saying) so many inexplicable things, that something serious must be awry.

That's my guess, anyway.

 

[Richo]

Great post, Newter. Been wondering the same thing myself and agree with most of what's been said.

I also think that perhaps the Crusaders as a club simply have a confident, positive and winning culture -- not just players and coaches, but management and all the support staff. I know that sounds kind of nebulous, but the Wallabies clearly don't have the right mindset in general -- and haven't for a long time.

 

[Newter]

wow. welcome. What an intimidating first post. Love it.

Too over the Wallabies to respond at the moment sorry.

But tend to lean towards Deans just not being 'right' for test footy. You need a hardened edge to play test footy (which is completely different to Super 12/14) and we don't have it. Nor to the All Blacks when Deans and Mitchell were in charge.

Reg, I'd accept this if the Wallabies were at least approximating the standard set by those old Crusaders teams. But they're not - and I think those Crusaders teams would have beaten the likes of Ireland, Scotland and England every year! We can't even do that.

 

[Newter]

Do we have a Scarf Award for Best First Post? Welcome Newter.

I was ecstatic about Deans's appointment. And when our defence IMMEDIATELY went to shit, I was counselling everyone to chillax, Robbie is turning our brick wall defence into a counter attack type of defence. However, as things have fallen apart, I've been asking myself your question over and over.

My answer, which is basically a wild and ignorant character assassination, is that he has got worse as a coach. At some point, he believed his own press, read one too many motivational books, and is in no fit state to be coaching a rugby side. I think exactly the same thing happened to Eddie Jones, Sir Clive Woodward, Piet DeVilliers, and Eddie O'Sullivan. These are guys who need some time away from the game to float gently back to earth. At the moment, Robbie is doing (and saying) so many inexplicable things, that something serious must be awry.

That's my guess, anyway.

You know I used to think something similar. Not that Deans had a big head - he always came across as a very humble, hardworking guy. But rather that Deans was hogging virtually all the media attention and, by extention, depriving the players of ownership of their own performances. As if Robbie could do it all on his own. Rod MacQueen never got the kind of adulation which Deans enjoyed in 2008 - the lion's share of credit used to go to Eales and Horan and Gregan and the rest. I think this may explain the lapses in focus from Giteau and other leading players - maybe they haven't felt they would get the credit they deserve?

 

[WB3]

You know I used to think something similar. Not that Deans had a big head - he always came across as a very humble, hardworking guy. But rather that Deans was hogging virtually all the media attention and, by extention, depriving the players of ownership of their own performances. As if Robbie could do it all on his own. Rod MacQueen never got the kind of adulation which Deans enjoyed in 2008 - the lion's share of credit used to go to Eales and Horan and Gregan and the rest. I think this may explain the lapses in focus from Giteau and other leading players - maybe they haven't felt they would get the credit they deserve?

I've never considered it like that, but you're probably right. In fact, the recent run of unsuccessful coaches have all had perhaps more than their fair share of press relative to the players, or at least to the best of my memory. If I was a player who recently won a good game (like the Sydney Test v the All Blacks in 2008 ) and it was put down to a coach more than how I played on the day I'd be mighty annoyed.

I wonder to what degree other clubs with a culture of success would be similar or different in this regard. Manchester United (with Alex Ferguson) spring to mind, but I don't know whether his coaching is scrutinised as much as his players' performances. I'd be interested to see. Certainly, he has many truly world class players at his disposal. Whether their success is attributed to him or them is the question.

 

[all black rugby]

the reason the wallabies are unlike the crusaders is because at the crusaders dingo moulded the players from unknowns to some of the worlds best..... at the wallabies he inherited a bunch of idiots who somehow manage to get rid of coaches who tell em straight.....matt giteau is overpaid and overrated. how can he be compared to dan carter? poor dingo. better of staying in NZ. come back mate. you're better here than singing advance aus fair....goodness me...

 

[Scarfman]

Hey ABR, not a very helpful post, mate. Doesn't really address the issues raised about Deans in this thread or any other.

Why hasn't he moulded the Wallabies? Why didn't he use the bench on Saturday night? Why does he keep selecting Dick Brown? Why does he speak in riddles?

 

[Top Bloke]

the reason the wallabies are unlike the crusaders is because at the crusaders dingo moulded the players from unknowns to some of the worlds best..... at the wallabies he inherited a bunch of idiots who somehow manage to get rid of coaches who tell em straight.....matt giteau is overpaid and overrated. how can he be compared to dan carter? poor dingo. better of staying in NZ. come back mate. you're better here than singing advance aus fair....goodness me...

Lets be clear about what Deans did or didnt do with the Crusaders. He took over from Wayne Smith in 2000 after they had 2 titles in the bag. At this stage he had , Marshall, Mehrts, Natson, Maugers Gibson, Thorne, Mayerhofler, Blackadder, Hewitt, Maxwell etc etc so the Dynasty had already begun. Sure he would have brought in players and developed others but the whole structure and internal mentoring systems were in place. Based on their success top players from outside the franchise were attracted to join. I don't believe RD would have had to struggle to sign anyone. Sure to keep the record rolling on and ahead of the game would take coaching skill, man management et all, but considering the quality of his core team over his tenure, his job wasnt handicapped by having to build afresh each season.
It is pretty well known that Deans is stubborn and on occasion may even cut off his nose to spite his face - (eg his fall out with Mehrts)
And although maybe he was just a small part of the decision to put Cullen at centre, none the less he was involved in the worst positional shift in All Black history.
So in my assessment he has suffered from the loss of key leaders such as Mortlock and also in hindsight he might have considered retaining Smith / Waugh a bit longer, but he has had to gamble on bringing through new Players without the luxury of backup talent he had enjoyed with the Crusaders. While he might have been plannign on 1 step back 2 steps forward, right now he's 2 steps back looking to see how he can go 2 steps forward without going sideways first !
Replacing him however would definately be a negative step.