Deans confirmed until 2013

[sneaker]

Who else would they get then? They are silly if they don't, but I guess this is the ARU we are talking about.

 

[Gagger]

Well, there's another ex Super rugby coach who seems to be zeroing in, and must surely have been on a promise since the original "interview process"....

 

[RugbyReg]

[clue]he means David Nucifora[/clue]

 

[vidiot]

Nucifora has certainly had the midas touch.

 

[cyclopath]

Well, there's another ex Super rugby coach who seems to be zeroing in, and must surely have been on a promise since the original "interview process"....

GollyGosh, I wonder who that might be? He might already be involved in the Wallabies set-up by stealth?

 

[sneaker]

didn't the brumbies sack him

From Wikipedia

Wallaby coaching aspirations
In late 2007 David applied for the role of Australian Head Coach. It was well known throughout this time that Crusaders coach Robbie Deans was the favourite of ARU CEO John O'neil, however Deans made a decision to apply for the All Blacks coaching role instead. Dean's decision to apply for the All Blacks made David the front runner for the Wallabies post, however the NZRU controversial decided to keep incumbent coach Graham Henry despite the All Blacks worst ever performance at a world cup which lead to Deans successfully applying for the Wallabies job. Despite Deans' appointment David has insisted that he hasn't given up on coaching internationally one day. Recently speculation has emerged that David may become one of Robbie Deans' assistant coaches at the Wallabies.

 

[vidiot]

didn't the brumbies sack him

That on it's own cannot be considered a negative - in fact, it might be considered a marker of success.

 

[Bruce Ross]

I still reckon Deans needs to deliver something this year to make his appointment worth it,

It would be nice, sneaker, wouldn't it? However it appears that the ARU doesn't want to put him under any pressure. "Just keep doing your best, Robbie. We'll understand if it doesn't work out."

 

[Cutter]

I think if you look at the trend carefully and. hopefully, objectively, what you see is this: the Wallabies are getting better at consistently beating teams that are, on the day, poor or 'OK', but they are not greatly improving in putting away teams that play consistently very well (all of 80 performance) to excellently on the given day.

Take vs England 2010. England were their rusty, stodgy worst in Perth. Wallaby win. They improved considerably for Sydney, especially in their backs: Wallaby loss. Twickers, they played v well for 80 (again notable England backs improvements), Wallaby loss. ABs HKG 2010, Carter only on for 50 mins (or was it 40?), The Duck makes some real, not-AB-typical bloopers late the game, close Wallaby win. Virtually every other time v ABs since 2007, we lose. France 2010: France plays OK for say 20-25 mins max, then totally fall away to a truly sorry state, Wallaby win. Samoa 2011: Samoa played very well on the day for all of 80, Wallaby loss (with excuses for the loss quickly bolted on, as usual). Scotland 2009: we may laugh at them, but on _that day_ they played well in their conditions, on their soil, and read the multiple Wallaby weak spots well: Wallaby loss.

SA: the Deans fans will be up in arms at me saying it, but Blind Freddy can see that since late 2009 the Boks have been in a spiralling decline: their coaching calibre is collapsing, they are making a number of poor selection decisions, they are under-promoting good young players and over-relying upon ageing stars whose fine wine maturation is over and we now see bottle oxidation instead (a la Wallabies 2003-2007?). They did not play well for 80 in Durban, almost grabbed a win, Wallaby ball handling was appalling (as was SA's) after weeks of prep, training camps etc, narrow Wallaby win. The ABs and Wallabies are going to get a much freer ride with the Saffers now until some kind of crisis over poor performance blows the current SARU up and real change begins anew. Of course, let's take the increasing win-rate v SA, but let's also be honest about the core trends in the opposition, as we mark ourselves with objectivity.

For me, the above analysis is why genuine, consistent improvement vs the ABs is so much more a meaningful measure of Wallaby excellence and deeper, well-rooted improvement in all facets of Wallaby play (or otherwise). It's solely because this AB team, this AB system, that AB culture generates an excellence of elite rugby that can be relied upon as a marker of consistent national rugby quality in almost all facets of play. Sure, if you can beat teams that have many 'down' days and can't put it on the field for all of 80, let's take those wins. But that, by the ARU's own stated goals, is never going to be enough to regenerate larger fan motivation and bigger commercial gains for the Wallabies as a successful sporting brand or as a business. (I know, I know, the mad passionates on GAGR etc will, God bless them, always be here and cheering on every victory and rightly awaiting glory, but we are also obliged to look at the bigger picture of rugby's regularly declining sports code share in Australia, and declining Wallaby match game gate and TV viewing figures as these KPIs ultimately drive the long-term viability of the code here, that is an inescapable fact.)

To summarise:

If a team plays well for the whole game, they're harder to beat than a team that only plays well for part of the game. The Wallabies find it harder to beat the more difficult to beat team than the easier to beat team.

Even though we are consistently no. 2 in the world, until we beat our little brothers across the ditch more often, we haven't made progress.

Your logic is difficult to challenge.

 

[daz]

didn't the brumbies sack him
.

Nothing to be concerned about in the slightest. Every career coach gets the punt at some stage in their career. Have we forgotten that Link got boned at both the Tahs and SF? I would argue that being sacked twice does not mean he can't coach. I'm sure he won something recently.....

Mick Malthouse (AFL coach) has said that there are two types of coaches: those who have been sacked, and those who will be sacked.

 

[Gnostic]

Oh, its a puzzle alright. I would go so far as to say its a riddle wrapped in an engima.

Under Deans we're a super young team. There's a price to pay for that. It was more the 'up by 20 after 20 minutes, only to lose the game' 3N efforts last year that has shat me about Robbie's Wallabies.

Interesting that you say this as yesterday Alan Jones hit out at Deans re-appointment and singled out this excuse directly saying words to the effect that the 1984 Grand Slam side and the 1986 side that won the Bled. in NZ were both as young or younger than this team.

I am not a huge fan of Jones but it is hard to argue that Deans can effectively use this excuse when every Wallabies coach has blooded new players and tried things from left field, some which has worked and some that haven't. In fact I would say that Deans in selections shows a fierce reluctance/stubborness to change the norm and only does so under duress/ extreme poor results over years.

Contrast with Jones who picked 19 year old Campo who hadn't played senior Rugby, Dwyer who picked Horan and Little 19 and Kearns from Reserve Grade, Eddie Jones even who looked left field for players to suit his game plan in Tiquiri, Sailor and Rogers (with the full backing of JON). I don't see Deans as an innovator or creative selector. I shake my head at this re-appointment in the sure knowledge that should he and the team fail to deliver at the RWC the ARU will either spin a huge pile of bullshit to justify the decision or be forced to settle the contract in some way. If they do not I have no doubt that more and more fans will get "performance fatigue" in the way Scarfy recently admitted he has and will drift away from the game. If such things are happening to such feral rugby fans the part timers and not so dedicated will leave quicker.

 

[Brumbies Guy]

Interesting that you say this as yesterday Alan Jones hit out at Deans re-appointment and singled out this excuse directly saying words to the effect that the 1984 Grand Slam side and the 1986 side that won the Bled. in NZ were both as young or younger than this team.

Interesting stat; bloody Samo hurting the avgs.