Deans confirmed until 2013

[liquor box]

I think the ARU should issue a statement after this game "Robbie Deans has the full support of the board" and then start looking for a replacement. I am almost at the stage where even if we win the World Cup I want him gone.

Todays effort was a huge step backward for the ARU and the Wallabies in general. We have just had a season where we tasted S15 success, had record ratings and record crowds and a general excitment about Rugby Union in Australia and then we select a second (being nice) class team and lose to the 10th ranked team at home. We should have used this game as an opportunity to demonstrate how good Australian Rugby can be and put some high quality attacking play on for the crowds.

I fear that this single game will put back Rugby to the doldrums of a couple of years ago where interest was at a low due to poor performances. If you continue to select teams with a view to the future you are are going to fail. It is all very well giving players a rest but if a fringe player can learn more about the game by getting game time then surely a great player can also improve from game time. Is our best possible team so bloody good that they dont need a run?

I think Deans is useful as a talent scout for young kids but fear that he is not capable of turning the Wallabies into World Cup winners.

If great S15 players dont automatically make great Test players then why would we expect that a Great S14 Coach will be a great Test Coach?

 

[Aussie D]

So Deans is to blame for players not taking the opportunity presented to them (especially the forwards)? Nearly everyone was relatively happy with the team selected during the week and the fact that key Reds players were being rested. Some players today played themselves out of the Wallaby world cup squad whilst guys like Beale and Genia cemented their position (barring serious injury), and guys like Huggybum and McCabe put their names forward. Not gutted by the loss (was cheering for Samoa as I love it when an underdog gets up - especially the PI underdogs) and hopefully it will remind the coaches, selectors and players that if we don't turn up "physically" at each and every breakdown on our ball this result can be repeated. Is this the loss we had to have to hoist Bill?

 

[qwerty51]

I'm not sure everyone was happy with the 2nd string side, more happy with the 2nd string players picked if that makes sense.

ie. I wanted a full strength side but if Deans was picking a 2nd string side he chose the right players I thought.

 

[James Buchanan]

I've been led down the garden path by someone I trusted.
It was an attempt to counter all the negativity. I grasped at it. I was wrong.

I apologise.

I approve of the sentiment, hence why I added what little I could to it. I approve of your motivation even if the factual issues were incorrect. I think too often in these situations people are too ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[liquor box]

So Deans is to blame for players not taking the opportunity presented to them (especially the forwards)? Nearly everyone was relatively happy with the team selected during the week and the fact that key Reds players were being rested. Some players today played themselves out of the Wallaby world cup squad whilst guys like Beale and Genia cemented their position (barring serious injury), and guys like Huggybum and McCabe put their names forward. Not gutted by the loss (was cheering for Samoa as I love it when an underdog gets up - especially the PI underdogs) and hopefully it will remind the coaches, selectors and players that if we don't turn up "physically" at each and every breakdown on our ball this result can be repeated. Is this the loss we had to have to hoist Bill?

I think there were a few on here who did not like the team, mainly because it showed the hipocrisy of complaining about a second string Boks team.

 

[Gnostic]

I think there were a few on here who did not like the team, mainly because it showed the hipocrisy of complaining about a second string Boks team.

I didn't bother posting about it because of that. My questions can be summed up simply by considering one selection Mark Gerrard. Why select Gerrard when Deans doesn't play a territory based game? The team was obviously under order not to kick and hence Gerrard didn't use the one real strength of his game, so it begs the question why was he selected ahead of say Shepherd who had just as good a season in a losing team or Turner whose side at least made the semi's.

If the answer is experimentation it still doesn't wash because Gerrard just doesn't fit the headless chook Deans plan.

 

[Tahfan]

I think there were a few on here who did not like the team, mainly because it showed the hipocrisy of complaining about a second string Boks team.

utter rubbish. this was a friendly not the tri nations nothing on the line and a number players needed to be looked at before the squad is trimmed. It made 0% sense to pick our best team in this game. If Deans had done that and they had won by 30 (hypothetically) everyone would be on here saying why didnt he have a look at the fringe players.

This was the perfect game to experiment. Maybe a couple of changes too many but to suggest our strongest team should play every game is just ludicrous.

 

[GC]

I didn't have a problem with the selections and was happy to see Samoa deservedly win.

But when a team plays like far less than the sum of its parts the coach has to take a massive part of the responsibility. The forwards had no clue as to what they were supposed to do. The backs had no plan when they got the ball other than give it to McCabe who got smashed.

I blame samoas excellent play, deans crap coaching and some individual players in that order for the loss.

 

[chief]

utter rubbish. this was a friendly not the tri nations nothing on the line and a number players needed to be looked at before the squad is trimmed. It made 0% sense to pick our best team in this game. If Deans had done that and they had won by 30 (hypothetically) everyone would be on here saying why didnt he have a look at the fringe players.

This was the perfect game to experiment. Maybe a couple of changes too many but to suggest our strongest team should play every game is just ludicrous.

There's a difference between strongest team and that load of tripe who played

Timani is not a 2nd stringer. There is Vickerman, Simmons, Horwill, Sharpe, Samo all ahead of him. Hanson is not a 2nd stringer and he was selected on the bench. Gerrard is not a 2nd stringer, there is Turner, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Beale all ahead of him. Hodgson and Robinson aren't either. Phipps is not a 2nd stringer. Sheehan, Genia, hell even Holmes are ahead of that bloke.

To call that a 2nd string team is a joke. In a way I sort of think it is good, as we can exclude a lot of those names from participating in future.

 

[qwerty51]

What do you mean Hodgson and Robinson aren't 2nd stringers? They're both clearly the 2nd and 3rd best.

 

[chief]

What do you mean Hodgson and Robinson aren't 2nd stringers? They're both clearly the 2nd and 3rd best.

Phil Waugh?

 

[liquor box]

utter rubbish. this was a friendly not the tri nations nothing on the line and a number players needed to be looked at before the squad is trimmed. It made 0% sense to pick our best team in this game. If Deans had done that and they had won by 30 (hypothetically) everyone would be on here saying why didnt he have a look at the fringe players.

This was the perfect game to experiment. Maybe a couple of changes too many but to suggest our strongest team should play every game is just ludicrous.

Think what you want, but I want Test Caps to mean something and not just given away to anyone who plays S15 at a better than average standard. I may be strange but I want the team that represents my country to be the best possible.

I want to play the best players possible and if they get injured (rest minor injuries instead of playing and making them worse) then you worry about finding a replacement, if you are lucky you dont get injuries then you will perform better that you could have with a lesser team.

I fully expect to be ridiculed for this but I want to see every game mean something and the best proof of importance is the selection of the best possible team

 

[qwerty51]

Even I'll admit Waugh was pretty average this season

 

[Gnostic]

Phil Waugh?

No.

CLearly Robinson is 2nd IMO and Hodgeson 3. What they lack is any sort of consistant game plan. The Force were a dominant backrow all year because they had a game plan and played to it. This structureless rubbish that Deans has served up for going on 4 years now puts everyone but exceptional players like Pocock under extreme pressure.

 

[Gagger]

I fully expect to be ridiculed for this but I want to see every game mean something and the best proof of importance is the selection of the best possible team

Isn't that the perfect recipe for the shit we got in with Gregan/Larkham?

 

[Gnostic]

Isn't that the perfect recipe for the shit we got in with Gregan/Larkham?

Not really Gagger for at least 18 months before their retirement they weren't the best in their position.

 

[Gagger]

Who was?

 

[Gnostic]

9 Whitaker - faster to breakdown and clearance. Better pass. Even Gregan's vaunted defence dropped away towards the end of his career.

As for Latho he always had the propensity for absolute shockers amoungst his great games, so his position was always arguable while Burke was around, and most would pick Burke because he was solid game in game out and could kick.

 

[daz]

Deans had the squad for 1-2 weeks. He gave some back-up players an opportunity, while protecting/resting some key players.

There was almost universal agreement that for a 2nd string team, this was pretty good on paper.

All I got from this game is that for a first hit-out, combo's were rusty and there was a bit of disjointed communication. But mostly, some players didn't take the opportunity offered.

Disappointed? Of course. Gutted? Hardly.

But of course that can be twisted into being Deans' fault if you try hard enough....

 

[Gagger]

9 Whitaker - faster to breakdown and clearance. Better pass. Even Gregan's vaunted defence dropped away towards the end of his career.

As for Latho he always had the propensity for absolute shockers amoungst his great games, so his position was always arguable while Burke was around, and most would pick Burke because he was solid game in game out and could kick.

I think you're confusing Larkham (10) with Latham (15)

Looking back I could agree on Whits, but that's not the point. If you don't give those players a chance to stake their claim, how do you know who is better at international level?

It's always a lot easier to say a player was past it in retrospect. In the moment their experience and combinations with other players always seems a big plus