Robbie Deans Report Card

[Scarfman]

I'm amazed at the variety of viewpoints on Deans. I can't remember an issue when the G&GR community (or should that be "unique group") has been so divided.

I was excited about Deans's arrival because the Crusaders played such a beautiful style of football. Recycling, counter attacking, 15-man game, it was all there. And it didn't seem to depend on having 15 stars either. Everyone - whether it was Richie or Caleb - just did their job excellently.

Let's leave the issue of blooding new players out of it. Some people think it's a good idea, some don't. Personally, I don't understand it in any respect. What about the value of experience? What about winning the game that's on this saturday insetad of worrying about one next year or the year after? But let's move on.

Forwards: I do believe that the Wallabies have gone backwards in the forwards under Deans. His forwards selections and style of play seems to be unique. Not a single person on this forum predicted the selection of Chisholm and Hoiles, and lets' not talk about Slipper and Edmonds. And I'm sure at least 90% of us are screaming at our TVs to get the boys to get their heads down and go direct, clean out, counter-ruck, etc.

Backs: Lots of improvement here, but I'm not sure how much credit Deans should take. A lot of the improvement seems to me to have taken place in the S14 seasons. The guys Deans has gone out on a limb for - Cross and Cummins, for example, haven't repayed his faith. It doesn't take much talent to spot Genia, Cooper, JOC (James O'Connor), Horne and Beale. We all did. Plus, he was the last man in Australia to understand that Giteau is not a 10.

Psychobable: unlike players, who we get to see do their job, it is difficult to know exactly how good a job a coach is doing. We judge them on their team's selections and performances and ... the analysis they offer on TV. It's not going too far to say that I am DISTURBED by the stuff that comes out of Robibe's mouth.

That's me done, Scarf out.

 

[fatprop]

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

1/ You shouldn't have to learn to scrummage in test rugby, we did that once with Baxter through necessity, never again was my hope
2/ Yes
2a/ Better off the bench for 15 mins to start & A games, realistically none of the starting front row from Saturday would be near the test squad in normal circumstances at this stage of their development
2b/ Not in public and they are prbably still too sore to rock
2c/ England were terrible, they had no attack or defense but we spent the second half stuck in our quarter. NZ would have won by 50.

 

[mark_s]

Fatprop, who you you pick for positions 1 to 3 for this weekend?

 

[RedsHappy]

I'm amazed at the variety of viewpoints on Deans. I can't remember an issue when the G&GR community (or should that be "unique group") has been so divided.

I was excited about Deans's arrival .....

Scarfman, I would love to respond to all of your good points, but one other thing is worth noting: with 5,000+ views (assuming GAGR's stats are reliable) in a thread only 4 days old, there's good interest in the topic here, so let's not get fatigued on this one and depart the scene when you and others have so much to contribute. That's encouraging IMO as there is probably not a more important dimension in Australia rugby than the calibre and track records (over time) of the Wallabies coach and the S14/15 coaches and their direct support staff. Ultimately, these are the guardians and enhancers of the best our game at the top level, and they principally determine the quality of the product that brings fans to the game (via TV or gate), and keeps them there (or otherwise!). And there can surely be little doubt that you would not score the current crop - overall in aggregate - higher than a C + to B -.

 

[fatprop]

Fatprop, who you you pick for positions 1 to 3 for this weekend?

Weekes was the 2nd best THP in the comp and the clear best THP in the squad.
Faainga is the best Hooker in the squad, so that is clear.
LHP is the issue, they are all the pants at scrummaging, whoever we put there from the squad will get owned. I don't get excited about Slipper - yet, but I would have liked to see him start tonight(?) at LHP.

 

[RedsHappy]

.....2c/ England were terrible, they had no attack or defense but we spent the second half stuck in our quarter. NZ would have won by 50.....

Yes. I think it's also debatable as to whether Ireland would have beaten last Saturday's Wallabies. Ireland played very well against the ABs last Saturday in the 2nd H with only 14/13/14 men on the pitch, they scored multiple tries against the ABs. Personally, I think they would have beaten us by a thin margin. There's absolutely no doubt that, as you say, the ABs and SBs would have effected a true humiliation to Australian rugby last Saturday in Perth, with many resonating impacts, had they been there and not the hapless England of 2010.

There's another dimension where I agree with you and yet perhaps is secondary one, but one worth adding: is it good for the everyday (not mad passionate) supporter or viewer of Aus rugby to see an awful debacle in the forwards like that, with a yellow card and two penalty tries and, it should be noted, multiple time-consuming 'boring' stoppages for scrum resets, ref intervention, etc, when the average viewer wants to see the ball moving around.

 

[TheTruth]

Agree re both Weekes and Faainga but Weekes HAS TO PERFORM.
Daley ????????

 

[mark_s]

Weekes was the 2nd best THP in the comp and the clear best THP in the squad.
Faainga is the best Hooker in the squad, so that is clear.
LHP is the issue, they are all the pants at scrummaging, whoever we put there from the squad will get owned. I don't get excited about Slipper - yet, but I would have liked to see him start tonight(?) at LHP.

Yeah I would go with Weekes at TH. LH would be who ever performs best of out Cowan and Slipper tonight, or Daly if they both Slipper and Cowan perform poorly. I would probably keep Maafu as the reserve prop, unless both Cowan and Slipper perform well tonight in which case the loser would get the bench spot. Actually I would have Baxter as my reserve prop but I guess the odds of Al coming straight in from out of the squad are very low.

 

[RedsHappy]

Worthwhile rugby article of the week below IMO, and for those who consider Deans/Wallabies are rightly in a 'it's all about the RWC and today's w-l status is not too important' mode, then please see and assess:


http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...t-years-to-win-cup-pienaar-20100612-y4vc.html

 

[Blackjack]

You guys are a bunch of debbie downer's. Robbie has instigated a generational change that was long over due. These processes are never easy or seamless and have a lag phase before the results can be seen. If he hadn't made the changes he did, the wallabies would be in a much more dire situation. Being a Queenslander i am gland he had the foresight to persist with Quade, a player most initially thought was a useless git, and turn him into a world class 5/8. Clearly the front row situation is not ideal, but it is not a new one or one that Robbie deans has designed. You're criticism is that he hasn't chosen the fuse. The fuse has shown time and again that he can't match it at a world stage. While he may have had a good super 14 season, so did weeks and daley and neither of them have been able to stand up to the English pack. Aside from this one weakness, the wallabies are in a very strong position. With the return of the Ben's and a bit of experience for these new props we will be a very well covered squad for YEARS TO COME. This is a long term investment in Australian rugby that will reap rewards for years, not some stop-gap short sighted plan to win a nothing match against England this weekend.

 

[daz]

You guys are a bunch of debbie downer's.

Post 1 and jumping in with both feet, outstanding. You will do well here. I'm already overwhelmed with your warmth and generosity

 

[DPK]

Worthwhile rugby article of the week below IMO, and for those who consider Deans/Wallabies are rightly in a 'it's all about the RWC and today's w-l status is not too important' mode, then please see and assess:


http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...t-years-to-win-cup-pienaar-20100612-y4vc.html

It took the South Africans 4 months to find Suzie the waitress?

 

[Reddy!]

Gagger, Gagger, Gagger - and also others who have responded to my post on page 4 - when will you learn. I think your memory has been erased as well. 2009 was the year the Wallaby backline died, but this isn't a song about American pie, or music, or a song for that matter. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) was our only standout, consistent performer throughout the whole year (thank God for him), and you should remember this having said as much yourself in blog posts. The Wallabies - and you can help me out on this stat - scored a very low number of tries compared to previous years. I think there was a Tri-Nations game or two where we scored no tries. Surely this is not what you call entertainment? Deans also implemented the kick, kick and kick some more game plan that starved our backline of ball - he made AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), our best back of the season use this game plan. I use Scotland 2009 to sum up this very poor, boring season.

2008, when Deans first arrive, was better and I was actually excited about the Wallabies with the win over the All Blacks in Sydney. But then the wins didn't come that we lead to believe would. Headless chook rugby got the better of us as players could not execute the game plan. I can't remember if it was the 2008, or 2009 season but at some point we were thrashed by the Springboks by 50 points.

On Eddie Jones and John Conolly - They might not have won the Tri-Nations or Bledisloe (although Eddie did win the Bledisloe back when he started) but The Wallabies won more games, scored more tries, won bigger matches (World Cup semis, actually beat the Allblacks, beat the Springboks 49-0 etc. Alas, Deans hasn't won anything, and has been given a chance to fix his legacy this year after a terrible Tri-Nations and record against the Allblacks - a chance that Jones did not get.

You can see now why I was so happy I was to see the Reds play this season after the rugby that we had to sit through in 2009 when watching the Wallabies.

As RedsHappy has highlighted, expectation for the Wallabies has dropped since the days of Jones and Knuckles. But as long as you see improvement THIS Tri-Nations you will lump your faith back onto Deans - I'm sorry, but weren't we meant to see improvement in 2008? And 2009? Seems like we have been waiting for improvement for eternity and every year seems to be a rebuilding year. And every year there is promise that we are going for the silverware. There is no sure thing it will come in 2010, especially not under the dire rugby I have seen this year. I am sure former Wallabies have been offended by the results, rugby and some of the inadequate players that have been representing the Wallaby brand.

Please see the Barbarians game tonight for more crap rugby fun under Deans.

 

[gone]

Gagger, Gagger, Gagger - and also others who have responded to my post on page 4 - when will you learn. I think your memory has been erased as well. 2009 was the year the Wallaby backline died, but this isn't a song about American pie, or music, or a song for that matter. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) was our only standout, consistent performer throughout the whole year (thank God for him), and you should remember this having said as much yourself in blog posts. The Wallabies - and you can help me out on this stat - scored a very low number of tries compared to previous years. I think there was a Tri-Nations game or two where we scored no tries. Surely this is not what you call entertainment? Deans also implemented the kick, kick and kick some more game plan that starved our backline of ball - he made AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), our best back of the season use this game plan. I use Scotland 2009 to sum up this very poor, boring season.

Nothing to do with the fact that injuries crippled the midfield last year - Barnes and Mortlock injured, QC (Quade Cooper) was nowhere near test standard. The only option at 10 was playing our best 12 there. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) had to play inside centre a number of times due to injuries and lack of depth. Not to mention the rules incouraged a heavy kicking approach - for evidence of this please watch any of the Springboks games from last year bar the one they lost to the Wallabies when they decided to run it from everywhere. The rules did not encourage teams to run the ball.

Deans is a very good backline coach and we will see tries from set piece again this year. For last years please see the first try the Wallabies scored in Cape Town and the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) try against the Boks in Brisbane. With the new rule interpretation I am sure we will see a game plan that will create more tries from general play as well.

2008, when Deans first arrive, was better and I was actually excited about the Wallabies with the win over the All Blacks in Sydney. But then the wins didn't come that we lead to believe would. Headless chook rugby got the better of us as players could not execute the game plan. I can't remember if it was the 2008, or 2009 season but at some point we were thrashed by the Springboks by 50 points.

Deans introduced the high ball just outside the 22 tactic, firstly with the Crusaders in the Super 14 (which they won) and then with the Wallabies. The wallabies won the first game that year against the All Blacks because the ABs had an incredibly stupid game plan of running it from everywhere. Following that game the All Black coaches copied Deans' approach. That first win was due to great coaching, when the other teams caught up in terms of manipulating the laws then we were outclassed.

On Eddie Jones and John Conolly - They might not have won the Tri-Nations or Bledisloe (although Eddie did win the Bledisloe back when he started) but The Wallabies won more games, scored more tries, won bigger matches (World Cup semis, actually beat the Allblacks, beat the Springboks 49-0 etc. Alas, Deans hasn't won anything, and has been given a chance to fix his legacy this year after a terrible Tri-Nations and record against the Allblacks - a chance that Jones did not get.

Eddie Jones and John Connelly did not have to face the strongest Springbok side in the professional era. Eddie Jones took a strong team and was responsible for losing the bledisloe cup back to the All Blacks for the first time in 6 years. John Connelly, well what did he win? Definitely not the tri nations or the Bledisloe and he lost in the quarters of the world cup.

I would be very confident in Deans "fixing his legacy" this year if he has his full strength team available to him. Unfortunately our depth in the forwards (and in particular the front row) is not strong to absorb the current injury crisis. Ironically our back depth has improved out of sight due to the amount of players Deans introduced and developed last year (QC (Quade Cooper), JOC (James O'Connor), Horne, Genia) and we could potentially weather a few injuries in the backline.

You can see now why I was so happy I was to see the Reds play this season after the rugby that we had to sit through in 2009 when watching the Wallabies.

Nothing to do with the new rule interpretations? If the Reds played like that last year they would have turned massive amounts of ball over and finished near the bottom of the table.

As RedsHappy has highlighted, expectation for the Wallabies has dropped since the days of Jones and Knuckles. But as long as you see improvement THIS Tri-Nations you will lump your faith back onto Deans - I'm sorry, but weren't we meant to see improvement in 2008? And 2009? Seems like we have been waiting for improvement for eternity and every year seems to be a rebuilding year. And every year there is promise that we are going for the silverware. There is no sure thing it will come in 2010, especially not under the dire rugby I have seen this year. I am sure former Wallabies have been offended by the results, rugby and some of the inadequate players that have been representing the Wallaby brand.

Please see the Barbarians game tonight for more crap rugby fun under Deans.

2008 and 2009 were always going to be difficult since we had lost Gregan, Larkham, Vickerman, Latham etc. And now 2 games in and you're consigned to the fact 2010 is a write off? Bar the scrum (which is badly understrength due to injuries) the performance against England last week was good. The backline created opportunities and should have scored more points in the first half if not for bad handling (which even you can't blame Deans for). The forwards hit rucks and the defense was good. Put Robinson, TPN/Moore and Alexander back in (not to mention Horwill and Palu) and we are a chance of knocking over both the Boks and the ABs this year. However without those front rowers not even Macqueen could help us.

 

[RedsHappy]

.....There is no sure thing it will come in 2010, especially not under the dire rugby I have seen this year. I am sure former Wallabies have been offended by the results, rugby and some of the inadequate players that have been representing the Wallaby brand.

Please see the Barbarians game tonight for more crap rugby fun under Deans.

Reddy, as you know, like you, I appreciate the direct approach to these matters ;-).

When you compare the analysis (yours here) that I think you and I largely share, and that of other posters that have eloquent defences of the Deans era, it is though we have been in two different rugby universes that were definitely not parallel. You and I - partly mindful of the oft-neglected fans and declining gate receipts - expect to see coaching excellence in say 2 full seasons, others are happy to wait until....well...it's usually the RWC, or some other time marker.

To me last night was more proof of very serious underlying problems with our game _in a strategic sense_. Firstly, last night was a reason to showcase dynamic, elite Australian rugby talent to a regional audience (that was asked to pay good money to attend). These midweek games were championed by Deans as, inter alia, devices to promote that talent and let the super-talented shine and compete for Test places. What was on show was, objectively, a disgrace of (a) manifestly poor preparation of the team, there was little evidence of solid team spirit, cohesiveness, or even true Australian old-style rugby grit; (b) a largely mindless kicking and ball-out-of-hand play style that is well known to alienate fans and crowds (c) a scrum capability that was C-grade let alone A and (d) it was almost a show-case in the worst sense in that one really felt as an observer that winning barely mattered to this odd team, rather a few scattered 'show pieces' of rudderless self-promoting clever play did.

Does the above reflect well on the culture of elite Australian rugby and the coaches specifically entrusted to further the finest traditions of our game in this country?

Then, the darker pools: surely last night demonstrated a near-negligent level of ARU and Dean's + co long-range development of world-class depth in our forwards and the technical coaching and skill-development thereof. Compare and contrast: Marseille 2007, England, Sheridan, turnovers everywhere, scrum collapses, a huge loss for Australia, not on points, but in what was revealed in such stark terms on the world stage. Gosford 2010: vs England A (let alone England). A near-repeat, but worse given the time lapse. This is not some passing joke, something to be rationalised away as 'another Deans intriguing experiment and we have injuries', this is reprehensible and revealing of the deeper changes urgently required to truly revive our great game in this country.

Then, as finale, there were wholly justified crowd boos at the end. How many of those 9,000 odd will ever come back? What will be the justifiably negative word-of-mouth impact? This is a serious occurrence of fan-rebellion. These fans were insulted. I noted no apologies from the ARU, Deans, anybody. Deans said something like: 'the sooner we move on from it, the better'. I mean, really.

Let's fast-forward now, not to more of England. They are, sadly, at this time an ordinary side and in no sense should represent a marker for our real standards of achievement in a coaching or player or team quality sense.

Perhaps the only constructive way to leave this fiery debate re Deans et al is this: let's agree some forward-looking markers. For those who believe that the Deans era is, in an underlying sense, succeeding well, surely it is now fair to posit that a _minimum standard_ for the confirmation of this thesis: a reversal of last year's horrendous (almost worst ever) Bledisloe outcome, namely we win the BC, and in a future-defining manner, with clear victories away and just the one loss. I would be intrigued to hear why this is asking too much, but I will not be in any way shocked if the pre-emptive excuses commence with...well...it will surely be 'injuries to our forwards and lots of young players learning the Test trade, ready for RWC'.

Next marker really should be a clear victory in the Tris, but let's be generous. Next one: every game won, and won well, in Europe, and absolutely no Murrayfields and other such debacles against second-order teams.

Personally, I think more is required than a very convincing 2010 BC win. But it's probably time to define some future facts that can ensure objectivity and disallow the sort of dangerous (for our game's revival) complacency and excuse-making that could occur if we have yet-another poor BC and Tris in 2010.

(Btw, and I shall only mention this the once. Part of my motivation for seeking some calmer discussion re 'future markers that define success' is that last night I was abused (by a regular poster here) in a live GAGR chat re the Barbarians game, and it was pretty clear this was driven by Langthorne's and my discussions re an assessment of Deans' coaching record, and related observations. I expected this topic could make me or others the anti-Christ at a fans blog and forum site, but I did not expect personal attacks quite so soon. In fairness, Langthorne and Sully were very professional and considerate over it all and calmed me down. Otherwise, and no one will care over this ( ;-) ), I would never have returned.)

 

[Reddy!]

Holy smokes, that's some decent posts right there. Good stuff fellas haha - what a hot topic eh?

Can't wait to see the reactions of everyone when the Wallabies come out and smash the Poms by 50 points....hahahah okay I couldn't say that with a straight face.

 

[daz]

Can't wait to see the reactions of everyone when the Wallabies come out and smash the Poms by 50 points....hahahah okay I couldn't say that with a straight face.

I can. It might not be as high as 50 points but it should be a clear win for the Wobs.

 

[daz]

it was almost a show-case in the worst sense in that one really felt as an observer that winning barely mattered to this odd team,

In contrast, I'd suggest that win for the Poms has sealed MJ and his coaching staff in place through to the RWC

Then, as finale, there were wholly justified crowd boos at the end. How many of those 9,000 odd will ever come back?

I would hope that the public is not quite that shallow. IMO I think the majority of the Australian rugby public can see that there is genuine excitement afoot (in the backs) and a injury toll that has us on the back foot (in the forwards). I would also say that only 9,000 turned up which is a pretty poor result for a supposed heartland of rugby. Yes, the game was shit, but they didn't know that the game would be quite so bad before the start, did they? They should have been buying tickets weeks ago.

last night I was abused (by a regular poster here) in a live GAGR chat re the Barbarians game,

Sorry to hear that. We are supposed to be a tolerent mob.

I did not expect personal attacks quite so soon.

You know the old saying: If you are pissing someone off, you are doing something right....unless you said something about somebody's sister.

 

[Gagger]

(Btw, and I shall only mention this the once. Part of my motivation for seeking some calmer discussion re 'future markers that define success' is that last night I was abused (by a regular poster here) in a live GAGR chat re the Barbarians game, and it was pretty clear this was driven by Langthorne's and my discussions re an assessment of Deans' coaching record, and related observations. I expected this topic could make me or others the anti-Christ at a fans blog and forum site, but I did not expect personal attacks quite so soon. In fairness, Langthorne and Sully were very professional and considerate over it all and calmed me down. Otherwise, and no one will care over this ( ;-) ), I would never have returned.)

Yeah, playing the man is not on RedsHappy. I didn't see it at the time due to watching a shitty stream and other stuff, but on review a certain Arsey member of the forum should see it as a warning!

 

[Reddy!]

Yeh some members on this forum take comments really personally and will bite, which shows that they are passionate but massive angry heads. As a model poster on this forum I can tell you that your best bet is to not be lured in and even just drop the topic; post on something else.