Does Robbie Deans have the right stuff?
By stash, 1 Jul 2010 stash is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, Graham Henry, John Mitchell, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, wallabies
143 Have your say
Related coverage
There has been plenty of debate about the Wallabies recent drop in form, with genuine concern that Australia will struggle to rise up for the Tri Nations challenge when pitted against powerhouses New Zealand and South Africa.
While many place the blame on the players, more recently the spotlight has started to shift to Wallaby coach Robbie Deans with question marks arising about whether he is the right man for the job.
New Zealander Deans’ rise to the highest office in Australian Rugby was after his renowned steering of Super 14 franchise, Canterbury Crusaders. While the Wallabies assignment is his first position as a head coach for an international team, Deans was an assistant coach between 2001-2003 for the All Blacks during the John Mitchell reign.
Deans even managed five caps for the All Blacks during the mid-1980s – but there were murmurs of discontent squared at Deans about his performance as All Black assistant coach, particularly at his selection decisions which included a publically played out debate that ended the All Black career of Christian Cullen. Cullen is now almost universally accepted as one of the all time greats of international rugby.
Deans became available to the ARU after being rejected for the head coach position of the All Blacks.
Criticisms aimed at Deans include his player selection, the management of his reserve bench and his focus on a youth orientated team. Some quarters are questioning if Deans is attempting to change the Australian Brand of rugby to a New Zealand model – essentially a hybrid All Black team.
Moreso, there are questions that Dean’s player management skills may not be up to scratch for the international arena – that his quiet type, soft speak persona is just not a powerful enough influence on the Australian team psyche.
Perhaps what we need to do is alter our perspective in order to understand if the Wallabies patchy form is a result of the players or the coach.
So the question is this; would the Wallabies win more games if Graham Henry was the Wallaby coach?
As Henry settles into his coaching swansong, he has matured into a fine rugby Statesman. While he has, in the past, made his share of blunders with rotation, resting players and flat offensives, he also holds an enviable record and is highly regarded on the international stage.
To Henry’s credit he holds the reins firmly on the All Black team, with never a whisper of discontent rising from the ranks. On occasion, when the All Blacks have had a lackluster performance in an opening half, Henry’s thunderous halftime diatribes have sparked the team into action often triggering a turnaround and even a hammering of the opposition.
If Henry was the Wallaby coach, do you think he could alter the mindset of the Wallabies and grab those close games to victory as opposed to defeat?
And if the answer is yes, then maybe the questions revolving around Deans are quite valid indeed…
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (161)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (158)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- A Kiwi’s advice to Wallaby supporters (7)
- Confessions of a rugby union traitor (2)
- Brumbies vs Reds: a lesson for the other provinces (8)
- Chiefs vs Bulls: Super Rugby live scores, blog (14)
- Hola Argentina, and welcome to the Rugby Championship! (21)
- Irish coaches looking to head Western Force (15)
- Dull Super Rugby coaches equal dull rugby (50)
- Explore:
- All Blacks, Graham Henry, John Mitchell, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, wallabies


July 1st 2010 @ 2:40am
matt said | July 1st 2010 @ 2:40am | Report comment
nup deans needs to go
ewan mckenzie for his sucsessor- he revived the reds this year he can do the same for the wobblies
deans has never done anything great. we all thought hed be the savior but the only thing hes done for the wallabies is introduce o’connor and genia to the team
mckenzie has created great players – davies, cooper, genia too, higginbotham, weeks, daley, faingaa, the other faingaa etc
im pleading get rida deans and get mckenzie if availiable
July 1st 2010 @ 3:38am
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 3:38am | Report comment
A record loss in SA, 7 consecutive losses to NZ, the 3N wooden spoon, a 50% European win percentage, an away loss to Scotland, a home loss to England, dropping (albeit temporarily) to 4th in the IRB rankings… doesn’t smack of the right stuff.
July 1st 2010 @ 3:44am
Justin said | July 1st 2010 @ 3:44am | Report comment
Selections – let’s see, I think Deans couldn’t pick his own nose.
July 1st 2010 @ 6:58am
GT75 said | July 1st 2010 @ 6:58am | Report comment
Oh yes Deans must go it’s his fault Giteau misses kicks infront of goal posts, it’s his fault Mitchell can’t catch and it’s his fault Beale kicks the ball away when going for a try and it’s his fault the forward pack gets smashed, it’s his fault there’s a huge injury list, it’s his fault there’s no depth in Australian rugby……. Shall I continue people!!
July 1st 2010 @ 7:19am
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Giteau’s occasional missed kicks are irrelevant, and in any case you are referring to two games, not twenty two. In the second test versus England Flood and Wilkinson missed 8 points between them and it seems to have been forgotten that one of the Australian 7 pointers came from a knock-on by Genia. What you should be asking is why such an inexperienced England side was so easily able to shut down Australia and pick holes out wide.
If the Australian forwards struggle then Deans is to blame because he hires and fires the forward coach. He also selects the side. Australia dominated the ruck contest in the first test but not in the second, and post-game Elsom seemed puzzled as to why and how England were so physical. Hardly the mark of a well coached and drilled side.
If Mitchell can’t catch then the Australian coaches should be helping (the same applies to the Burgess pass scenario) given the amount of time spent in camp, and if he stll struggles then he should be dropped. It’s not as if Turner and Hynes aren’t reliable test players.
A few weeks ago Australian Roarers were crowing about their depth and yet now it is their Achilles Heel. I didn’t hear much compassion when England had 25 players injured in the Autumn, so Deans is pretty open to criticism as far as I’m concerned. Australia has 4 Super sides and the Australian skill set frightens the NH, according to O’Neill. If that is true then why has there been three seasons of erratic selections and three seasons of erratic tactical play? What progress has Australia made under Deans? Has the attack improved? Has the defence improved? No. There doesn’t seem to be any direction whatsoever and no amount of excuses can cover that up.
July 1st 2010 @ 7:14am
TrueblueOzzzziesssss said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Kick out the kiwi. Give the job to an Australian. How can he a patriot when he’s not even an Australian.
July 1st 2010 @ 7:26am
Severian said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:26am | Report comment
If Henry and Deans swapped jobs, the results would stay the same for both teams, IMO.
It’s difficult to be the coach of the AB’s in terms of public pressure and expectation, but it’s a hell of a lot harder being the coach of the Wallabies in terms of player resources.
I think we’ve got to acknowledge the holes in the Aussie team that are there even when everyone is fit (desperately need some more depth in 2nd row). With the raft of injuries to our already struggling pack, Henry couldn’t get any more out of the squad than Deans, or anyone else.
July 1st 2010 @ 7:29am
ohtani's jacket said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:29am | Report comment
I don’t know if Henry could get the Wallabies playing any better but the All Blacks would be worse under Deans. Far worse. It’s a nightmare really. I don’t want to think about it.
July 2nd 2010 @ 8:11pm
mother teresa said | July 2nd 2010 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
yep definitely a nightmare and it could get worse
July 1st 2010 @ 7:34am
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:34am | Report comment
That’s a point of view, but not one I agree with. I recall just how erratic, and at times powder puff, the NZ pack was during the reign of Mitchell and Deans. Henry remedied that situation straight away.
At the end of the day the Australians have Sharpe, Chapman, Douglas, Byrnes, Mumm, Humphries, Samo, Chilsholm, Dennis and Hand to choose from at lock (with Horwill and Kimlin to come back from injury). You honestly think that Deans/Williams shouldn’t be able to produce a temporary unit from those players?
July 1st 2010 @ 7:31pm
katzilla said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:31pm | Report comment
“and at times powder puff, the NZ pack was during the reign of Mitchell and Deans”
Indeed, but would you be surprised when your captains nickname is ‘Mr Invisible’?
July 1st 2010 @ 7:44pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Poor Reuben Thorne. Guy just can’t catch a break… Thorne at lock is Henry’s dirty little (not so) secret. What was he thinking?
July 1st 2010 @ 8:08pm
Jerry said | July 1st 2010 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
Dirty little secret?
It’s not like he was ever selected as a starter, I can only remember him filling in late in the game a couple of times when the match was already won.
July 1st 2010 @ 8:12pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
At lock, or in general?
July 1st 2010 @ 8:56pm
Jerry said | July 1st 2010 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
At lock. Henry never started him at lock (though he might have started a test there earlier in his career).
July 1st 2010 @ 8:58pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
Aha, but he did Jerry. Thorne started three games at lock under Henry. Anyhow, I was only being mischevious. The idea of it amuses me, as did the idea of Hayman playing lock, and as does the idea of Afoa playing 1,2 and 3, and Cruden playing 9 and 10.
July 1st 2010 @ 9:50pm
Jerry said | July 1st 2010 @ 9:50pm | Report comment
Ah, I just checked and can only find 2. Against the dominant forces of Romania and Scotland (B).
Thorne was actually pretty good in 06 and 07, though he only got starts due to the rotation policy, though Henry did seem to have a horses for courses approach with him against the Boks. I saw one test in 07 against them in Wgtn where he stopped a bunch of Bok mauls by driving in on the ball carrier and splintering them.
I really don’t get the Afoa at hooker thing – he’s mobile and skilled for a prop, but not for a hooker so his main strengths don’t actually transfer.
July 1st 2010 @ 10:04pm
Jason said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
The missing third was against the Barbarians in 2004.
July 1st 2010 @ 10:05pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
And one match verus the Barbarians, Jerry. Jason is correct. Personally, I never understood how a man who was 6’3 could ever have been considered even as a temporary lock.
The Afoa transformation is bizarre. I agree with you about his skill set and mobility. Henry and Hansen seem to have a soft spot for players swapping positions. I don’t see the point myself. Also, it’s a pretty poor indictement on De Malmanche, Elliot and Coles.
July 1st 2010 @ 10:16pm
Jerry said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
They only picked 3 locks in the WC squad. Someone had to fill in against the minnows (which Scotland reduced themselves to by picking their B side).
As regards the other contenders for Hooker, De Malmance simply can’t throw, Coles is far, far, far too small to be a test hooker and I’ve heard rumours about Elliot’s off field attitude meaning he’s unlikely to be back in black any time soon (for what that’s worth). There’s still Hore to come back from injury remember.
July 1st 2010 @ 10:23pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Sure, I understand the logic, but I still think it was faulty logic.
I also recognise the limitations of the alternative hookers, but to try and upgrade a prop is a massive insult to the players. Surely it would be easier to simply help remedy any problems the players have? I’ve never been a fan of Elliot as a player, for example, but given that Afoa isn’t likely to actually play a Test at 2, and that Hore and Mealamu will duke it out in the near future, I really don’t see the point in not using an actual hooker – if only for the experience they will gain?
July 1st 2010 @ 10:32pm
Jerry said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
As far as I know, the point of the Afoa experiment is to see if he can cover the 3rd hooking spot in a World Cup squad – basically they want to see if they can get away with only two hookers in the squad.
Henry was pretty clear that he’d hoped Troy Flavell was going to be the loosie who covers lock in the 07 squad, but his form wasn’t good enough. Another alternative was having Jason Eaton as a 4th lock who covers blindside, but he was injured. And it hardly mattered.
July 2nd 2010 @ 6:40am
Mr Saunders said | July 2nd 2010 @ 6:40am | Report comment
I know, but I just don’t see the value? If one of the starting hookers were to be injured then Afoa would be the automatic bench cover. Seems like an unecessary risk.
July 2nd 2010 @ 9:10am
Jerry said | July 2nd 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
It’s only a risk if Afoa turns out to be crap at hooker. While, I don’t agree with the idea (as I don’t think Afoa can cut it as an international hooker) I can’t really fault Henry for having ideas. If Afoa turns out to be a servicable test hooker it’ll be a good idea. If not, he’ll have to select 3 hookers.
It’s not like Henry’s sold the farm on this one anyway, he’s got 2 hookers in the TN squad and may not actually go through with giving Afoa any time at hooker.
July 2nd 2010 @ 11:38pm
Mr Saunders said | July 2nd 2010 @ 11:38pm | Report comment
Another aspect of the Afoa hooking conversion is that he is losing valuable time in which he could be propping. With Tialata typically unreliable, Owen Franks still learning and Hayman in France, Henry might be undermining the potential of an option at 3.
July 1st 2010 @ 9:22pm
Sylvester said | July 1st 2010 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
For all the critcism of Thorne, he did play 50 All Black tests over eight seasons, and under three different coaches…someone must have rated him.
July 1st 2010 @ 9:37pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
Sylvester, from 2004 until 2007 under Henry, Thorne started 7 Tests and one match, and came off the bench in one other. He was an unused replacement in another match.
July 1st 2010 @ 9:58pm
Sylvester said | July 1st 2010 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
I count nine tests and one match all up, but I won’t split hairs.
However, I never said his role wasn’t diminished but the fact is he still got picked by Henry after most thought he was goneburger when Mitchell got shown the door.
July 1st 2010 @ 10:07pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Sure, he was picked, but I wouldn’t consider 8 or 9 Tests as an illustration of great staying power considering the fact he was a former national captain and played for the best NZ Super side.
July 1st 2010 @ 7:52am
Rob said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Are any Roarers out there current or former school teachers? If you are, you know that in a class of 30 students just 1 person can change the whole dynamic of that class. When he/she is not there, the class is great. When he/she is there ,the whole atmosphere can be changed. Sounds strange but that is the reality. Looking at the tests played this year I would argue that the thorn is Giteau. Does Deans have the authority to drop such a highly paid, high profile player or is Giteau’s face too important to the marketing arm and to people’s reputations who have paid him so much money?
July 1st 2010 @ 10:25am
kingplaymaker said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Rob why on earth is it Giteau? He did score all Australia’s points against England, which isn’t so bad for a thorn.
July 1st 2010 @ 10:51am
reds fan said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
He scored them, but he didnt create them. He has created very little for the past year or so.
July 1st 2010 @ 11:10am
kingplaymaker said | July 1st 2010 @ 11:10am | Report comment
reds fan the other way of looking it is that the backs outside him have capitalized very little on the good situations he has created for them.
July 2nd 2010 @ 6:41am
Mr Saunders said | July 2nd 2010 @ 6:41am | Report comment
Which good situations?
July 1st 2010 @ 1:18pm
sixo_clock said | July 1st 2010 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
IMO Gits was stung/affected really badly by the Firepower deal and he has not fired since then, it is a tragedy but he, not Australian Rugby has to get over it. Till he does we will not see those athletic gems he used to conjure up.
If right then the failing is retaining players on reputation rather than taking the hard-nosed approach that they have to leave the squad to work it out. Maybe the ARU can cut him a deal outside the squad which will restore his eqilibrium. Eg: a roving coaching position that has him turning up at schools and subbies, just a suggestion.
July 1st 2010 @ 7:52am
formeropenside said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Why would Queensland release McKenzie when he is doing so well at the Reds?
The problem with appointing Deans in 2008 was that there was no fallback plan in place, and we would be stuck with Deans come hell or high water until 2011. I would have rather seen Alan Jones given a shot, probably fail – but identify talent, the man can certainly do that – and then Deans (or whoever) could have come in at the end of 2009 or this year.
Thats not to say that the outcome would be any better, but certainly Deans has not been the supercoach we all expected: Wallaby performance has not improved since 2007. The trpphy cupboard is still bare.
July 1st 2010 @ 9:08am
Quicksilver said | July 1st 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
I agree OJ, it’s a nightmare. Deans would take the ABs backwards in a re-run of what he and Mitchell did to them during their reign.
When they were appointed I thought Mitchell, being a hard-nosed Waikato forward, would be good for team bot how wrong I was. The memory of 6 Englishman pushing an 8 man AB scrum off the ball in 2003 still makes me ashamed. And then there are all the other selection, tactical and man management issues which resulted in a complete shambles.
As I said in another thread I don’t think Deans will ever coach the ABs again anyway. We can live with NZ coaches coaching countries who are not perceived as genuine threats to the ABs but to coach Oz or SA, no way.
July 1st 2010 @ 10:32am
sheek said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:32am | Report comment
What a load of tripe from the Deans haters camp.
Back in 2003, had the Wallabies & All Blacks played that semi-final over 10 times over, the actual win by the Wallabies would have been their only win. They played better on the day, & good on ‘em, but they weren’t in the same ball park as the ABs.
The ABs of 2003 were frightening with the power, speed & precision of their game. Had they rolled the Wallabies, they would have then put the old men of England to the sword as well in the final.
What beat the ABs in 2003 wasn’t the coaching ability of Mitchell & Deans, it was the old human weakness of arrogance. Of counting your chickens before they hatched.
The whole team, repeat whole team, was guilty of this hubris, & paid dearly for it…..
July 1st 2010 @ 7:12pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
The 2003 NZ side wasn’t arrogant. It was poorly coached and poorly selected with glaring tactical weaknesses… wonder which side that reminds me of? You’ve obviously forgotten the English victory versus NZ in June 2003 too.
July 1st 2010 @ 9:35pm
Sylvester said | July 1st 2010 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
The 2003 WC squad was:
Braid · Collins · Flynn · Hammett · Hewett · Hoeft · Holah · Jack · McCaw · Mealamu · Meeuws · Somerville · So’oialo · Thorn · Thorne (c) · Williams
Atiga · Carter · Devine · Howlett · Kelleher · MacDonald · Marshall · Mauger · Muliaina · Nonu · Ralph · Rokocoko · Spencer · Umaga
The only weak link I see there is Ralph and perhaps Devine. Mehrtens and Cullen were notable omissions, but both had been struggling with fitness and form, from memory.
Umaga’s injury could not be predicted, but the reluctance to play Nonu at centre after that was a tactical blunder.
July 1st 2010 @ 9:43pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
Sylvester, if that is a response to what I said, I referred to the 2003 side, i.e. the 22, not the WC squad.
July 1st 2010 @ 10:05pm
Sylvester said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
Fair call. this was the 22 for the ill-fated England game:
Howlett; Rokocoko (Muliaina 72), Nonu, Umaga, Ralph; Spencer, Marshall (Devine 46); Hewett, Oliver (Mealamu 56), Somerville, Jack, Williams, Thorne, McCaw, So’oialo (Collins 73).
I can’t recall how close that was to the 22 used for the crunch games at the World Cup. I’m sure Mauger played 12 and Umaga 13 till he was injured.
Again, apart from Ralph and perhaps Hewett and Devine, all of those players had or are having successful international careers.
July 1st 2010 @ 10:13pm
Mr Saunders said | July 1st 2010 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
That’s true, a lot of the players went on to become successful All Blacks, but under Henry. At the time I took issue with the front row. Hewett was lamentable and Somerville was half the player he would go on to be. Collins was never an 8, IMO, and Thorne was a poor choice for the captaincy.
The backs were pretty exceptional at that period: Howlett, Rokocoko, Mauger, Umaga and Muliaina, but we will always come back to the selection of MacDonald at 13, and IMO the continued selection of Spencer at 10. Where was the kicker? Despite some great talent that NZ side was inherently flawed, and I think the coaches were to blame.
July 2nd 2010 @ 8:17pm
mother teresa said | July 2nd 2010 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
no you are wrong my friend.choke
July 1st 2010 @ 9:49am
kingplaymaker said | July 1st 2010 @ 9:49am | Report comment
‘To Henry’s credit he holds the reins firmly on the All Black team, with never a whisper of discontent rising from the ranks.’
Maybe but he doesn’t have to cope with his own union firing senior players like Tuqiri, thereby leaving the whole team unhappy and untrusting of authority-that’s the real origin of any discontent amongst the Wallabies ranks.
July 1st 2010 @ 12:26pm
Jason said | July 1st 2010 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Nonsense. Tuqiri fired himself. Witness the difference between Lote and Jimmy Cowan for management of themselves when told you’re on your last chance.
July 1st 2010 @ 12:30pm
kingplaymaker said | July 1st 2010 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Firstly Jason the ARU were just looking for an excuse to fire him to save money.
Besides you’re missing the point that this terrible miscalculation led to such player outrage and subsequent discord the team stopped functioning and hence last season was a disaster. If you fire a senior player, you risk bad consequences in terms of team disharmony.
July 1st 2010 @ 12:42pm
Jason said | July 1st 2010 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Of course the ARU were looking to save money – he was an expensive marketing exercise.
Your mistake is assuming it was a terrible miscalculation and that alone lead to a dysfunctional rabble with an appalling season.
One of the problems is the sense of entitlement amongst certain Wallabies and the obvious lack of competition for places. As it was, they weren’t that upset, more shocked the ARU had grown a spine and were seeking clarification about the circumstances and it’s impact on them – something their (ex) team mate could have clarified immediately…
If we’re to believe your version, these Wallabies must be the most delicate flowers running around on a football pitch if they don’t possess the mental fortitude to continue playing after an employee rightly gets fired. What are they, a knitting circle?