Robbie Deans Report Card

[Gagger]

Yeah, how dare I question him?
Gagger - it is very handy for Deans to always be able to fall back on the 'don't judge me now, everything will be great in the future' argument as there is nothing you can say until the future arrives and he is gone.

Langers - don't get me wrong; I look at the win/loss, especially in the 3Ns last year, and I think "that's shit". I think you're right to ask the questions you are and unless there's some dramatic turn around this season, these questions are gonna get even louder. The 'run of form to the world cup' really needs to start this year.

However, I look at what Deans has done along the way and I ask "what can I see that I reckon he's obviously done wrong", and more often that not, I find especially when it comes to selection, he's done about right and far better than his previous two predecessors.

Because what I think he's done is consistently make the tough calls, based on what's good for the Wallabies in the 2-3 year time frame, not the next game.
Examples:

• Tuqiri - did LT have a season or two left? Now we have Diggers, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Hynes all with a bunch of caps because of the space he made
• Giteau - didn't automatically make him VC and has slid him out from the 10 spot Giteau had nailed his colours to in favour of a young talented freak (QC (Quade Cooper)) who Deans has undeniably had a big effect on
• JOC (James O'Connor) - kid was too young last year, but now we have a young supertalent with 15 caps who's been round the block
• Waugh - see Tuqiri, add in Pocock and Hodgson
• Mortlock - Eased out of captain so he could be put out to pasture this year. Now AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Horne and even Chambers all have a shot
• Baxter - gave the guy a fair shot, but when it was obvious refs weren't gonna change, Dingo made the big call and binned him. We now have Benny A developing nicely.
• Genia - Went from second string QLD 9 to best half back in world in one season, because Deans gave him a crack

I reckon most other Coach/selectors would have been eking the last out of those old names above (and others) and who knows, maybe winning a few more games. But each time he's made the tough choice.

No clearer example than the front row against the poms last week. Was/am I comfortable with it? No. Has Deans just put 3 more names on the Wallaby mix - you can't deny it.

 

[Reddy!]

Yeah but is it going to win us the tri-nations and bledisloe?! Probably not!!!

 

[Reddy!]

And another point: the worst rugby I have seen the Wallabies play, ever, has been under Robbie Deans. They have played some god awful dire rugby these last 2 years, just bad viewing. Nothing exciting about their play or tactics.

 

[cyclopath]

Yeah but is it going to win us the tri-nations and bledisloe?! Probably not!!!

No, but I doubt we would have in the manner we were playing prior to him. And no-one knows if we could or would have with anyone else, so it's a useless exercise in hypothesis.

 

[RedsHappy]

No, but I doubt we would have in the manner we were playing prior to him. And no-one knows if we could or would have with anyone else, so it's a useless exercise in hypothesis.

That's unarguably true; we don't know. But what I find striking is this: many posters revert to the 'well, he's better than Jones and Knuckles'. This may be correct, but the point I return to is this: why should we adopt _a relative standard_ v past (not great) coaches (whom btw had accumulated W-L ratios better than Deans, to date) versus a more absolute standard surely applicable to the top coach in one Australia's icon sports (or what was an icon sport) and whom is remunerated by fans, viewers and sponsors to the tune of $1m pa? Why don't we say: 'the top coach and his staff and our best players should be achieving a 55-65% W-L ration in the Tris (best teams in the global game) as the required market of Australian excellence. Contrast with cricket, where we have dominated (largely) for 15 years: the ongoing obsession is: top of the global Test table, top of the global ODI table, etc...and rightly so! My point is that we all seem to have started to accept a lower standard of performance than we should, and a standard that is actually what is required to push hard for a _sustained_ revival of our game in Australia, and its market share vs League, soccer, AFL etc.

 

[cyclopath]

I agree, RH. I am not happy with where we are, don't get me wrong. I just doubt anyone else would have done better at this point. I honestly thought Deans might have made more progress. Winning the 3N or Bledisloe would be great, and we had a good chance to do it last year but in my opinion were well short (despite the scoreboard). If we compete really well this year and contend for either strongly, I would say we are getting somewhere. The RWC is all very nice, but an overwhelming obsession with it is not healthy, so it sits lower on my radar.
Remember, our cricketers benefit from probably the strongest domestic cricket comps (as a group) in the world - 4 day, one day and 20/20, so it is hardly surprising they stay at or near the top. In rugby....

 

[daz]

And another point: the worst rugby I have seen the Wallabies play, ever, has been under Robbie Deans. They have played some god awful dire rugby these last 2 years, just bad viewing. Nothing exciting about their play or tactics.

Come on Reddy! Really? Nothing exciting about their play? IMO, while there has been a few dire displays, some of the stuff I have seen from time to time has been simply breath-taking (in a good way!). What we need now is to remove "from time to time" and replace it with "consistently".

I've had a go at RD occasionally, to be sure, but I do think that what he is doing (or attempting to do) is implement a way of thinking that is entirely different from previous coaching tenures. The RD "play what's in front of you" mantra, while occasionally frustrating due to poor execution, is a far cry from the rigid game-plans used by both Jones and Connolly. I expect some time lag before it becomes natural.

But, and this is a big but, I also think that 3 seasons is enough time to have this down pat. You know what? Right now I could not give a tinkers cuss about the RWC in 2011. I want, and expect, a Tri-Nations and Bledisloe crown in 2010.

 

[RedsHappy]

But, and this is a big but, I also think that 3 seasons is enough time to have this down pat. You know what? Right now I could not give a tinkers cuss about the RWC in 2011. I want, and expect, a Tri-Nations and Bledisloe crown in 2010.

Yes! Go Daz.

 

[RedsHappy]

Langers - don't get me wrong; I look at the win/loss, especially in the 3Ns last year, and I think "that's shit". I think you're right to ask the questions you are and unless there's some dramatic turn around this season, these questions are gonna get even louder. The 'run of form to the world cup' really needs to start this year.

However, I look at what Deans has done along the way and I ask "what can I see that I reckon he's obviously done wrong", and more often that not, I find especially when it comes to selection, he's done about right and far better than his previous two predecessors.

But Gagger, for a top coach in a major sport, isn't this just 'the core basics' of what competent coaches are meant to do, and do well, as one of numerous actions and attributes designed to gain dominance for their team?

So sorry for the cricket analogy once again, but top coaches (and, I would argue in other major sports too) there are not applauded for just promoting talent and discarding old guardians, that's just a 'baseline expectation', they are applauded for winning (say) big Test series and getting right to the top of the global rankings and then attempting to say there.

We often in Aus rugby 2010 seem to have defaulted into 'thank heavens for small mercies...this is so much better than Jones and Knuckles' vs demanding sustained, and consistently dominating, performances against the best teams = Premier trophies won. Crowds thrilled. Fans proud. New kids drawn into the game. TV audiences up. Positive circles start and more talent is drawn into the game...more talent builds genuine depth, etc...

 

[RedsHappy]

Remember that time when Robbie Deans ignored the experienced props we already have and let 3 green props be publicly humiliated on the world stage, their dignity in a heap just like the scrums they tried to prop up.

I do, it just happened and it wasn't pretty.

Yes...and if England hadn't played so cluelessly and with a remarkable 30+ tackles missed etc, we would surely have lost that game. Their deficiencies were extraordinarily fortunate for us, as surely, surely, a loss on Saturday would have been legitimately termed a disaster for Australian rugby, coming right on the heels (sequentially) of a mediocre series in Europe late 2009.

 

[RedsHappy]

....

For the record, even with the less than spectacular win/loss, I would still gives Deans an overall B- . I think he has some good ideas and many aspects of the Wallabies play has been good. He has been particularly successful with back line play/attitude - probably partly a function of the youth policy in that area (an area where it is more likely to work). He loses marks for the areas already mentioned (and I believe it is fair and right to mention them).



.

Langthorne, it will hardly surprise you that I would not be quite so supportive as granting a B- as at mid-2010 to RD.

For what it's worth, he's my grading (designed like yours to stimulate discussion mostly):

Dimension 1: Promotion of Viable Talent and Discarding Deadwood to Achieve Excellent Team Construction: B+ to A- Backs; C+ Forwards

Dimension 2: Consistent Excellence in Game Tactics and Competitive Game Strategies That Work Against Top Teams: C to C-

Dimension 3: Excellence in Physical Conditioning, General Physicality of Play, and Micro-Skills Consistency (eg breakdown skills/intensity/mongrel, scrummaging, kicking, consistent passing accuracy, v low handling error rate, etc): B-

Dimension 4: Team Culture and Mindset Designed to Drive Ruthless Winning Psychology and Application under Sustained Pressure: C.

(Btw, its notable how so many posters focus on Dimension 1 above as a kind of holy grail of what they like about Deans and what by implication they see as most critical, or almost the only critical Dimension. I don't agree; I consider the other 3 Dimensions (and maybe others?) as just as important, and in fact you need B+ to A- in all 4 really to be a successful coach in the genuine top league (assuming you have a reasonable depth of players). IMO, the losses last year at Murrayfield and against the ABs had big doses of deficiencies of Dim 2 and 4 about them. The draw with Wales hinted at a C only in Dim 4 IMO.

Now, let me turn to the future period through to December this year.

If this year we win the Bledisloe, I will move Master Deans to (a provisional): B to B+

If we win the Tris: A-. (Real A to A+ comes for doing it twice in a row.)

If we win neither of the above (as per 2009) and win all the Euro games: C - to D +.

Ditto directly above, but lose (say) half the Euro games: E....off the cliff.

 

[daz]

RedsHappy, are you a school teacher by any chance? I think we should just send that assessment to Mr. Nucifora for sign-off. Do we get to sit in on the performance review and take notes?

 

[Gagger]

Yeah but is it going to win us the tri-nations and bledisloe?! Probably not!!!

What the fuck did we win under Jones and Knuckles??

One Tri-Nations/Bled in the year Jones got the gig and a drawn Bled the following year because he was surfing McQueen's team and fuck all under Connolly. In fact, Knuckles was still surfing McQueen's team at the 2003 World Cup, playing the world class Half-Back pairing that Sir Rod blooded as kids and wait, what is Robbie building right now with Genia, Cooper, JOC (James O'Connor) and Beale......?

As for playing style, are you seriously telling me you thought the 'play by numbers' style of Jones and Knuckles was more entertaining than the team now? I saw a backline play last weekend with more natural flair than I can remember for a long time, perhaps ever (I'm serious - not saying best, just least scripted - NB: I'm too young for Ella & Co). The Poms aren't regularly poor tacklers, they just got shredded. And remember, the last two years has been among the worst in world rugby for attacking play do to the ORI's

Are there guys walking around with Men in Black memory erasers in QLD?

 

[RedsHappy]

What the fuck did we win under Jones and Knuckles??

One Tri-Nations/Bled in the year Jones got the gig and a drawn Bled the following year because he was surfing McQueen's team and fuck all under Connolly. In fact, Knuckles was still surfing McQueen's team at the 2003 World Cup, playing the world class Half-Back pairing that Sir Rod blooded as kids and wait, what is Robbie building right now with Genia, Cooper, JOC (James O'Connor) and Beale......?

As for playing style, are you seriously telling me you thought the 'play by numbers' style of Jones and Knuckles was more entertaining than the team now? I saw a backline play last weekend with more natural flair than I can remember for a long time, perhaps ever (I'm serious - not saying best, just least scripted - NB: I'm too young for Ella & Co). The Poms aren't regularly poor tacklers, they just got shredded. And remember, the last two years has been among the worst in world rugby for attacking play do to the ORI's

Are there guys walking around with Men in Black memory erasers in QLD?

I think you have to give Jones some credit for RWC 2003 semi final and final, and so close, extra time, etc. But other than that, the facts are right behind your view. These coaches highlight for me just how far the ARU had lost it way in terms of aspiration level for the game in Australia, and for what was/is required in the 20XX years for rugby to get a viable and sustainable market share in the Australian sports market. For long, far too long, periods since 1999 the ARU has been dangerously introverted, club-like, unimaginative, self-flattering, and poorly directed. We can talk coaches and so on, but the real responsibilities for rugby's perilous decline in market share and silverware and general income from the gate, etc, lie with the ARU, and to lesser degrees, the QRU and NSWRU, as a crucial game-guiding institutions. These bodies, with some exceptions, have generally failed the _long-term development of the game_ in the last decade and commend an overall C-/D+ at best IMO. Having said that, I like JO'N and he's done some good things, and the re-construction of the QRU (after multiple disasters) is really making progress, and let's hope the likely looming reconstruction of the NSW RU will revitalise the game in that great State.

 

[RedsHappy]

RedsHappy, are you a school teacher by any chance? I think we should just send that assessment to Mr. Nucifora for sign-off. Do we get to sit in on the performance review and take notes?

(Love your new signature line btw Daz!)

No, not a school teacher, but a hard marker in life ;-). More importantly, what did you think of the Dimensions and scores to date?

I will be sending my recommendations and scoring off to Mr Nucifora later this evening, but I suspect that after Saturday it will take him a little while to clear his Inbox.

 

[the gambler]

Some really good discussion in this thread guys, especially Redshappy and Lang.

I personally think Robbie has done a job that is on par with the expectations I had when he started. I have no doubt that he has improved the culture of the Wallabies and we are in a better position than we were at the end of that fateful day in Marsaille in October 2007.

Many trumpeted his arrival as that of the messiah, and while he hasnt delivered us from evil, if I was JON and considering my selection I would be comfortable in the belief that I had chosen the best man that was available at the time.

I wont be giving marks on each aspect of his coaching regime but I do think he has had a positive influence on the game in Australia and would give him a Credit with a Bledisloe victory this year elevating him to a Distinction (Rugby is an educated game so think we should use tertiary grading rather than schoolboy stuff)

 

[Jethro Tah]

Great discussion going and well worth revisiting after every game.

On gamblers tertiary rating, I would give Robbie a Credit and judge him more on whether he has managed to bring the best out of his players rather than purely on a win/loss ratio. For the youngsters in the squad, yes. On the senior players and as a team, still work to do. Under Robbie and what he has done, I have hopes for being competitive in the 3N and a chance at the Bled Cup, and can't imagine having these hopes under another coach. The WC? - that's next years problem. IMO he will get the best the players have to offer and if the ABs and/or Boks just happen to be on fire then it's not his fault.

 

[RedsHappy]

On gamblers tertiary rating, I would give Robbie a Credit and judge him more on whether he has managed to bring the best out of his players rather than purely on a win/loss ratio.... Under Robbie and what he has done, I have hopes for being competitive in the 3N and a chance at the Bled Cup, and can't imagine having these hopes under another coach. .....

Thanks Paris Tah.

Two points:

One, all the business research done on the sustainable economics of major global sports (and their leading teams) in Australia confirms that, like it or not, over time, winning a lot more often than losing by a major representative team is a central component of all of viable gate receipts, TV viewership, and paid sponsorship levels. Namely (and amongst other relevant factors), the win-loss ratio needs to be good over time for a leading team of a leading sport to develop or maintain its economic viability. Fans flock to watch winners, or the perception that good wins are likely to come. (In this context, I note that both the NSW RU and the QRU have now announced a lapsing into actual financial losses, in the latter case making it essential for the ARU to prop up its solvency, or it would likely have had to declare bankruptcy. Plus, did you see all the empty seats at Subiaco on Saturday, not a good omen for the ARU's gate receipts this year.)

Two, when it's mentioned that "Deans was really the only, or best, choice to rescue the Wallabies post the Marseilles debacle", I often wonder why no one thinks that Jake White would have been at all suitable. He had one big jump on Deans as well - he possessed a very successful international and Test rugby coaching track record by late 2007...about when Deans was recruited. This input is not per se an anti-Deans comment, just a note that there were (and still are) on paper quite credible alternatives to Deans at about the time he was retained by the ARU.

 

[Langthorne]

However, I look at what Deans has done along the way and I ask "what can I see that I reckon he's obviously done wrong", and more often that not, I find especially when it comes to selection, he's done about right and far better than his previous two predecessors.

That is a good start, but comparing him to Eddie Jones or Connolly is not exactly raising the bar high. Maybe it is unfair to compare Deans to MacQueen, the best ever Wallaby coach. On the other hand it is more constructive than comparing him to Eddie Jones or Connolly, as I'm sure we all want the best for the Wallabies, not just someone who is better than an average to poor coach. I am not saying sack the guy, just wanting to discuss what he has or hasn't done well.

When starting the job he had some advantages (very good playing depth and talent, the return of John O'Neil - always chuckle to myself when I think of him in "a week in the life of" in "Gold") and also some disadvantages (mainly a team that was not delivering on the field).

Because what I think he's done is consistently make the tough calls, based on what's good for the Wallabies in the 2-3 year time frame, not the next game.

-It is possible to do both, see your example of those outstanding young halves Rod MacQueen blooded-


Examples:

• Tuqiri - did LT have a season or two left? Now we have Diggers, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Hynes all with a bunch of caps because of the space he made
  
  -A great call. I never rated him for philosophical (an over paid mungo convert) and rugby (wasn't up to the task for me) reasons, but putting that aside. the guy takes up one spot, not 3, so having him around need not have been a stumbling block. That said, I don't miss him.
  
• Giteau - didn't automatically make him VC and has slid him out from the 10 spot Giteau had nailed his colours to in favour of a young talented freak (QC (Quade Cooper)) who Deans has undeniably had a big effect on
  
  -Basic coaching tenet - pick your best team, there are no garaunteed places. If QC (Quade Cooper) has an unexplicable loss of form I would hope that the new best option would get the spot (but this is an area that Deans doesn't excel in - reversing a bad decision when he is wrong)
  
• JOC (James O'Connor) - kid was too young last year, but now we have a young supertalent with 15 caps who's been round the block
  
  -He could have been introduced just as effectively without showing him up
  
• Waugh - see Tuqiri, add in Pocock and Hodgson
  
  -Pocock was an exceptional talent and an obvious choice from early on in his career based on his s14 form (see blogs and posts on this site), and Hodgson has had a great s14. I would argue that Waugh still has plenty to offer even as a mentor in the Baa Baas team (and surely a better captain than Hoiles)
  
• Mortlock - Eased out of captain so he could be put out to pasture this year. Now AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Horne and even Chambers all have a shot
  
  -If someone is injured they can't play, so other options need to be found. My issue here is that I suspect that if Mortlock (by some miracle) is fit and in great form next s15 season (ie the best Aussie 13) Deans still wouldn't select him
  
• Baxter - gave the guy a fair shot, but when it was obvious refs weren't gonna change, Dingo made the big call and binned him. We now have Benny A developing nicely.
  
  -If Alexander is better he deserves the spot. It is the 'binning' I have an issue with. Some highlights from that decision have been seen over the last couple of weeks, such as 2 penalty tries and four young Aussie front rowers tarnished. Based on s14 form Baxter should be in the squad.
  
• Genia - Went from second string QLD 9 to best half back in world in one season, because Deans gave him a crack
  
  -Just because Deans gave him a crack? Would giving Holmes a crack make him the best halfback in the world? Genia was the best player available for his position, certainly within the top 3 for squad selection purposes. I am very happy to see him in the team, not because he might be the best in 2-3 years time, but because he is the best now.
  

I reckon most other Coach/selectors would have been eking the last out of those old names above (and others) and who knows, maybe winning a few more games. But each time he's made the tough choice.

No clearer example than the front row against the poms last week. Was/am I comfortable with it? No. Has Deans just put 3 more names on the Wallaby mix - you can't deny it.

In the Wallaby miix? More like the England mincer.
It was a tough call, it was an unexpected call, it was also a bad call. Making tough calls is not necessarily a virtue.

The fascination with youth is mystifying to me. We know it didn't work out for the All Blacks under Mitchell (with Deans). We know that the best and most succesful coaches/managers in all international sports combine experience with youth, rather than favouring one or the other (in essence they pick their best available team, with squad rotation a factor, and gradually introduce the majority of their young talent. In exceptional cases a youngster bursts in as the best player for their position - Campese, Wayne Rooney, Tendulkar etc). Connolly went for experience over talent to his detriment (not his only problem, but one of them). On occassion Deans has gone the other way, with the Win/Loss ratio reflecting that. Deans' option is the better of the two, for the reasons you (and others) mention, but I don't believe it is the best option (note that he did not employ this policy with his successful Crusaders teams).

I'm trying to think of a reason why Deans would go this way, and when it doesn't work out, why he doesn't adjust his squad/plan/attitude (dare I say it - 'play what is in front of him'!). I think the best managers (not just in sport) tend to get results, be able to identify problems and remedy them, work with a variety of personalities (and ages), are able to build on what is good rather than simply throw everything out and start again, are able to identify the best assistants and delegate accordingly, are prepared to adjust or reverse their position when required, are realistic in their assessment of themselves and others, and are prepared to take responsibility for their actions. I might also add honesty and the ability to communicate, but they are implicit in a number of the others.

In some of those areas Deans falls short - particularly in results to date, ability (and preparedness) to draw the best out of players of all ages (he has done it with youth), to play the best players available even if it requires a willingness to adjust when the need arises.

As a result, we have had some brilliant play and glimpses of precocious youth. We have also seen occassions where naivity was undone, grizzled old heads were not to be found when needed, promising starts were undone by experience, and a couple of unnecessary personal and aggregate disasters.




.

 

[Gagger]

I'm just about typed out on this one, so two final (I think) points from me

1) "Why the pre-occupation with youth?" Because having a 25 year old with 50 caps under their belt is a hell of a lot handier than a 29 year old with 50 caps, and to get that you have to start somewhere. Putting it off for the next coach just means it never happens.
They also don't have the pre-conceptions that they're owed a test spot like a bunch of the last lot did / still do, and can still learn a few new tricks, like how to catch, pass and kick.

2) Was the weekend really that much of a disaster for the front row?
a) They had to get a first cap some time - they now do
b) I don't see them rocking back and forwards in the foetal positions, and any that do are surplus to requirements on the international stage as competitors
c) We won the game