Am I hoping for too much to think that Deans can create this in the Wallabies for the rest of time……….

I agree that the problem is not entirely his, but you put no fault at all in his basket.
Is he beyond reproof?
All the things you mention I agree with, infrastructure, development etc,
But your laying zero blame at his feet.

If you didn’t have deans as your coach the win/loss ratio could have been worse, but we’ll never know. So maybe it could have been better?

LAS – That Scotland result, and the Wallabies inability to convert pressure into points is the problem, not a positive from a poor performance. Credit should go to the Scots for tackling their hearts out, but at this level pressure should always = points at some point.
Where does the blame for that lack of finishing lie? In the hands of the coach.
These guys all score tries at s14 level, it isn’t a development problem.

I haven’t said Deans is blameless, or I haven’t had the opportunity to, since most everyone else has been saying so.

Sure Deans has made mistakes, but to base his coaching ability purely on his win-loss record is purile.

As I suggested before, let’s replace him with say Cheika, who’s had a good run with Leinster, or is it Munster. Oh, wait a minute, we selected Deans for the same reason – his excellent provincial record!

One of the Wallabies most revered adopted sons was NZ born Greg Davis, who played 39 tests for Australia 1963-72. Davis led the Wallabies in 16 tests 1969-72 during one of our weakest periods.

He managed just two wins & a draw, yet he was regarded as an inspirational skipper. It wasn’t his fault, he wasn’t surrounded by good cattle.

Yeah, McCaw, Carter & Hayman may not have ready made replacements, but this happens occasionally in NZ rugby. However, you guys generally mask your weaknesses well, due to well organised domestic structures.

Obviously, we’ll have to agree to disagree. It gets silly arguing with a cyber-pseudonym that doesn’t represent a real person!!!

Apparently, Australian rugby’s talent pool is so thin that you can’t replace Smith with Pocock, Burgess with Genia, Giteau with Barnes (if fit), Baxter with Alexander and so on… The problem isn’t the players, it’s that the Wallabies don’t have a system in place where they’re winning matches and introducing players into that game set-up.

The only time they win is when the opposition aren’t up to it.

He either thought he could coach them better or didn’t want to step on any toes, but his hand was forced through losses and the changes came too late. He should’ve known after the Super 14 that the Wallabies needed a shake-up. John O’Neill is banking on Deans making the Wallabies competitive as soon as possible, not in two years time.

Hindsight being 20/20, he should’ve at least stopped the bleeding.

If you call hanging round the tight stuff not really doing anything the old school work, then yes, Hand does a lot of it.

Every other coach gets it in the neck for their results, yet Australians seem almost apologetic for the performances the Wallabies have given under Deans, as though they’ve let him down. It’s like some weird byproduct of having an outside coach.

Two things…..

1. Has it occurred to you that Deans doesn’t have much room to move with the cattle at his disposal? If Graham Henry wanted to motivate a key ABs player, he could drop him & replace him with someone almost as good. Better still, just the threat of relegation might do the trick.

Deans doesn’t have this luxury. He has too few quality players competing for positions.

2. This leads to point two. The players find a comfort zone, & exist in that comfort zone. Only when they feel their position under severe threat, do they play above themselves.

Which might explain the win over the Boks in Brisbane, & the win over Wales in Cardiff.

There is possibly a third point. How do you know Deans hasn’t considered all the other things you mention? Deans is around the players all the time. He’s in a much better position than us to know how his players are going, or not going. He may also have all the right strategies & tactics, which the players are either unwilling or unable to implement.

I could be wrong about Deans, & OJ could be right, although I doubt it. And I say this without conceit or arrogance.

Firstly, I’ve given the matter considered thought, as I’m sure others have done so, but without fear or favour.

Secondly, I don’t have any particular axe to grind. I don’t allow, or try not to allow, personal feelings interfere with what is right or wrong.

Thirdly, I pride myself on not being a sheep. In fact, quite often, I’m quite proud if I find myself in the vast minority on a particular issue. It seems to me, most people are incapable of deep thought, & simply follow the accepted wisdom, without figuring things out for themselves.

It’s a generalised put-down to call someone a “Deans lover”. In fact, it’s so pathetic, it’s amusing. It’s like calling someone a “tree-hugging, looney leftie”. Which is what, exactly?

Here’s an independent, left-field statement for you – the problem is not, & never has been Deans. I contend that had anyone else rather than Deans been coach, the Wallabies win-loss record would have been….. WORSE!

You see, the problems of the Wallabies & Australian rugby is not the national team coach, it’s our structures. A few wins here & there won’t alter that fact, & rugby fans should not forget that either.

We have too few participation players. We have too few contenders for each position in the Wallabies. We have poor coaching at all levels leading to poor individual skills. We have poor career pathways. We have insufficient opportunities for professional players. We have poor interaction between state bodies & their juniors. We have in short, poor structures that need massive overhauling.

It’s not the national coach. We can change the coach yearly without addressing all the other problems, & we’ll still be bobbing up & down in the same spot in the ocean.

Besides, Deans was the best candidate for the job. If all this makes me a “Deans lover”, I’ll wear the insult with pride!

I see similarities between Smith and McCaw. great players in a critical position. But also very taxing on the body. Smith and Pocock can, together, go thro two more 3N and BC’s and on to 2011 putting in great performances if they play 40 minutes a game. can McCaw go the same distance at the same intensity and effectiveness while playing 80 minutes. I doubt it. Secondly, who is his replacement if he cant? His Pocock if you like……

the same goes for carter, but his risk is injury more than work rate toll. Who is his back up and how much experience has he had?

at this point in the cycle, I can live with a scotland performance but I cannot live with wellington where they simply didnt play committed rugby or represent their country adequately……………

It is inexplicable for a team to dump successful tactics in the second half. had the welsh scored a try agaisnt the run of play, and that can happen, the game would have chnaged completely and the Wallabies would have been facing a reinvogorated team and vociforous crowd and they would have been on the cusp of another loss after leading at halftime…………….

I genuinely can’t remember the last time. I remember numerous times of giteau, at 10, running a crash ball. that is not a backline movement. it only includes one player and ignores the fundamentals of rugby, the ball is the fastest object on the field and backline movements that encompass clever running lines and extra players puts pressure on defending backlines. I refer to the Ireland try by O’Driscoll. It included an extra man (8 made the first pass), a double cut out pass form 9 to 13 and then a straight run by 13, all done at speed and with no margin for error, either on the try line or mid field with really fast wingers to finish off. Thats why they are called “finishers”.

With such a young and unproven team as the Wallabies, the question is whether the group has the ability/potential. this has been a difficult thing to determine given the unpredictable game results. Brilliant Brisbane followed by woeful Wellington (dont take too much out of my choice of words, I was prioritising the illiteration!!!!! rather than the accuracy of the word). the gap between the games was almost too hard to believe.

the lineout is comprmised by the lack of locks due to injury. of all the positions, lock is the one dragging the chain in terms of development and renewal. But, I cant understand or explain why Mumm was left on the bench game after game and then Chisholm given the gig ahead of him and yet the led the dirt-trackers.

All I can say at this point is that this team, on the basis of what is in front of us now, can go all the way. Whether they do will be determined primarliy by their desire and some luck. They cannot just stop now. In fact, the effort required will only increase.

And let me clarify, by all the way, I mean get to the final. then it is a lottery. At this moment, the AB’s are the team to beat. they are much much more likely to win and so say the bookies. $1.95 to $5.50. See below. Interestingly, the bookies still have the boks very much in the frame.

NEW ZEALAND 1.95
SOUTH AFRICA 4.75
AUSTRALIA 5.50
FRANCE 11.00
ENGLAND 13.00
WALES 21.00
IRELAND 26.00
ARGENTINA 41.00
SCOTLAND 151.00
FIJI 251.00
ITALY 251.00
SAMOA 501.00
TONGA 501.00

My article just restates the market as follows:

NEW ZEALAND 2.50
AUSTRALIA 4.00
SOUTH AFRICA 5.50

As regards the rants, after the Wellington game, a rant was more than justified. they were appalling and this is a national team!!!! It came on the back of too many poor games (Brisbane excluded, but also it demonstrated what they could do if the got it together). the culling at the selection table for the NH tour and the call for Giteau to be given a wake up call were all justified. Again, Giteau’s performance agaisnt Wales showed just how poorly he had been playing in the previous games. I was never calling for him to be dropped and never returned, just benched ” ‘ta think again!!”, as the Scots say.

Growden’s wild swings in attitude do nothing.

Four consecutive losses to NZ is not acceptable, especially where the team got worse and worse.
I for one want more results now and every season, and do not plan to pin my hopes on 2011 (I remember only too painfully 2007).