Australian rugby union coach Robbie Deans (centre) talks to players during a training session for the team in Sydney on Monday, June 1, 2009. The Wallabies will play the Barbarians on Saturday night. AAP Image/Paul Miller
The Wallabies performance is being held back by the myths of a lack of depth in Australian rugby and a fear of young players being able to step up. The Wallabies are also missing the motivation of a well designed remuneration structure and individual packages.
Robbie Deans has blooded many new Wallabies but, rather than stop now, he needs to push on.
The first wave of new blood replaced the obvious dead wood, such as George Gregan.
The Wallabies still contain players who are struggling with consistency, mongrel, player smarts (avoiding dumb penalties) and overall motivation.
Sharpe, Baxter, Moore, Horwill, Brown and Mitchell are good examples. They need to listen to the drivel that they come out with after a loss. It is very indicative of the mindset.
Burgess is not in this category.
His issues are technical weaknesses and, I suspect, a lack of confidence, not effort or motivation.
Robbie Deans is more than capable of subtle but clear communication. Deans must, and is reportedly intending to, send the message – “No one is safe, no one!” – by dropping several senior players who are not performing for the upcoming game.
Don’t move them to the bench, drop them from the 22 for next three games as a minimum or until they are needed again, if ever.
Alternatively, as the 2009 Bledisloe Cup and the Tri Nations campaigns will effectively be gone by late on this coming Saturday evening if the Wallabies lose, make the changes after next weekend and give the underperformers one more game.
Do not underestimate the shot in the arm that the right youngster will get by being in the run on team.
Young players do step up and quickly. Sport is full of such success stories.
The current Wallabies squad has many examples of youngsters who have stepped up: Genia, Burgess, Giteau, Barnes, O’Connor, Pocock, Turner, Hynes and AAC, despite their age.
The advent of the professional era determined that the Wallabies are employees of the ARU. Just ask Lote Tuqiri. Despite the glamour of being a Wallaby, the Wallabies remain employees.
Most companies have transitioned to performance based pay and use the recruitment of bright young things to keep their more established employees on their toes.
The ARU, despite the belligerence of Tony Dempsey at RUPA, must use the renegotiation of the SANZAR TV agreement to also renegotiate the structure of the player packages.
The Wallabies currently receive the majority of their package as a guaranteed “salary” boosted by a $11,500 match fee for every test match played, win lose or draw.
At least 30 percent of the guaranteed salary and at least 50 percent of the match fee should be “at risk” or performance based, even if it means increasing the amount that they can earn in the new agreement.
fred
Guest
JUPES dont waste your time mate ;hes too lazy
Knives Out
Guest
Maybe he's lost it. It happens. Look at McMeniman. Some people are not cut out for professional rugby regardless of their size.
Dexter William
Roar Guru
JJ That is unfair. You want me to go back and watch that dreadful game again just to gather information (when, who and where). What is your point anyway. I have seen the game and I am giving my comment. Just because you see it differently, you call my calls sweeping statements? The Boks played well and deserved to win - I have said it before and I will say it again so that you can go away happy. BoL - ywni
Jolly Jupes
Guest
Again Dexter the sweeping statement - Find me two examples of players that were too lazy to chase in that test. All they practice and talk about doing is this so I am happy for you to give me some time references and name the players My point is that is all SA do and are widely criticised for it. The Wallabies dabble occasionally in running the ball (both tries in the test) but the rest of the time they kick the ball away. This style of game does not suit certain players and plays away from their strengths I am happy for you to show me this lack of committment as I think its a bandwagon statement when in fect its the game pla that is at issue
AndyS
Guest
My mate put it quite well during the last game - when South Africa kicked, it was because that was the plan. When Australia kicked, it looked like it was because they had no plan.
AndyS
Guest
And that is fine, but running rugby is inherently higher risk and would never be seen again. So long as no-one was going to miss it, by all means put their money in the game. I wonder what would happen if their pay were based on the gate/viewing numbers...?
Robbo
Guest
Professionals should not be spared, but the reality that the ARU does have to be very sensitive when dealing with their players. Saying you aren't good enough - here is a pay cut - is not an option when almost every player in the Wallaby team could command $1 million a season in Japan.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
DW, spot on. Its not that hard, you just have to want it more than the other bloke, for 80 minutes and on every occasion. eventually they give up!!! The Boks are bullies and the best way to exploit them is to give them some of their own medicine, and keep giving it until they break!!! Its the nature of sport, at all levels.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
palu hasnt been getting it done for more than 12 months, S14 2008 was his best season. I dont remember the last time he took the ball to the line at pace or made one of those massive tackles?
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
1. Got rid of the old guys like Larkham, Latham, Gregan who were either past it, injury prone or were too selfish in attitude. (no disrespect to these Wallaby stalwards BUT.....) 2. recognised and emphasised the need for a strong set piece; 3. Gave young guys a go because they were young and enthusiastic and good (not because they were forced to by injury: Connolly with Barnes) (Burgess, Cooper, Turner, Genia, Pocock) 4. gave fringe players a go (Brown, Hynes, Hodgson, Mumm); 5. Let go of the "league players are better" mentality, and stood up to the big names, i.e. didnt select lote or tahu this year; dropped Sharp: he returned a much better player!!! 6. Built stability in selections (AAC at 15, Giteau at 10, not 9 or 12 or both) 7. Simply better organised and better at managing the person inside the body of the player. 8. A coherent game plan, (Eddie was rarely coherent) retaining the defensive strength and building the set piece and winning the break down (Smith, Pocock, Brown and Waugh) (England beat us in 2007 at teh breakdown: remember? it was embarassing and yet so simple) Now he has done the relatively easy things, (see above), he now has to deal with the fundamental problems that stop this wallabies dynasty from winning
Dexter William
Roar Guru
JJ Not so. Just watch SA kicking away the ball and chasing like mad men. Watch their physicality and compared them to us. When we kick, someone is just too lazy or too tired to chase.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
No. but they will feel the pain of loss more than if they have no skin in the game. whether it is running rugby or not, they have a better chance of playing to win at all costs, if their financial remuneration encourages this.
Jolly Jupes
Guest
Picking up on your musings Dexter and it is worth noting that 110% is unachievable The Wallabies lacking physicality has nothing to do with not giving 100%. I am interested in your statements that Palu lacks impact, Sharpe does not "pump his legs" and I am not sure what excuse you are talking about for Burgess. It would seem to me that alot of what you are talking about is made difficult by the Wallabies game plan - kick the ball away. I just dont see the opportunities for Sharpe to carry the ball or Palu for that matter. Most of the time they are chasing kicks and competing for turnover ball, not the forte for both. I struggle to concede that Burgess gives anything less than 100% and some of his try saving tackles have been extrordinary this season. Given Gregan never tackled this is an improvement. If you are talking about pass execution then again he has tehcnical deficiencies at times but again this is made difficult for him as everyone is "playing whats in front of them" there never seems to be a definite first receiver so sometimes its guess work - just watch the game closely and tell me that this is not the case
Knives Out
Guest
It's not workable in rugby union. You don't give your all and you get hurt, especially as a forward. This is just another excuse to avoid criticising Deans. Palu has been injured, perhaps he isn't match fit, perhaps there could be a hundred reasons why he isn't grabbing the game by the scruff of the neck. Perhaps he has mental fatigue... blah blah blah...
Dexter William
Roar Guru
Well Bonza, it is like this: Have you ever manage a team? Or if you have not, worked in a team? If you had, you would know who goes through the motion, who does 90% and who 100% and those who gives 110%. Some are going through the motion of tackling, but 110% means trying to tackle so hard that your aim is to concuss the ball carrier so that he dislodge the ball. The answer is that after you watch a contact sport match, you would be able to tell. Just listen to this forum and they will tell you that the Wanabee lacks physicality. Just watch Palu tackling impact for such a big man, or Notso pumping his legs when he is driving. And also listen to all the excuse that Burgess have been giving to the press. You just know it! Sometimes you can be blind even if you see - just feel man!
Dexter William
Roar Guru
Bonza
Guest
Dexter you are the king of the easy throw away lines "not giving 110%" but please cite where the effort was lacking in either game or are we talking about failure of skill and tactics under pressure. The coach is responsible for the skill levels and the tactical approach for which there seems to be no criticism from you guys. I believe that we are playing the wrong game and are too far away from the intelligent and skillful approach that has see the Wallabies competitive for the last 25 years. The only words that come from the coaches are about being more "physical" but never smarter or using our skill. Beating the springpoks physically is going to be a challenge, beating them with intelligence and an uptempo game might offer you a chance. We ran one 1st phase attack play and scored and that was it for the night against the Boks. We could actually do this all the time and it might actually be more threatening accross the 80 minutes - Thats what the Lions did. I am happy to buy into your arguement if you can cite specific examples where players did not give 110% (of what you have not explained). I have seen them train and play and its obvious they are trying but they play in a framework designed by others. Some serious analysis needs to be done on whether the environment they play in allows them to be at their best. We are playing a physical kick/chase game that was designed in NZ. We are along way from the intelligent ball running approach that was our brand for 20 odd years. Where we won games by attacking and not kickiing. LAS - the cultural change is always the hard part but Deans has had the job since Dec 07, and he chose to delay coming on board till June 08 and give himself no lead in. Other than that he has now had the players for 14 months and judging from the "Deans speak" that comes out of their mouths each day in the press, the players are getting his message so why is it now that the cultural change has to start. What has he been doing for the last 14 and even 20 months - my point is that the blame is always elsewhere and the coach is foreever absolved. Now we are saying the players are not good enough. Deans has been picking his squads and there are good players not in the mix - that his call thats his responsibility, so is the three openside policy which failed, so were the mass changes that saw a 50 point drubbing in SA last year. The players aren't picking the teams and they are not designing the tactics so I can assume the incentive based scheme should apply to the coaches and perhaps the administration as well as they do the recruiting?
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
thanks, and so sussinct!
Dexter William
Roar Guru
KO "You can only get to test level by putting in huge amounts of work, and accordingly that work ethic does not lend itself to being weak willed." You are a smart guy, but you are blind. Go watch the last two matches we lost and tell us that the Wanabee has given 110%. LAS is correct.
Knives Out
Guest
Thank you. Very sweet. I think you're way, way off and I can't see how you can't see that it is ridiculous to suggest that money is a motivator in the playing stages of a test match. It's ludicrous, frankly. Your 1, 2 and 3 is totally logical, as is 4 to an extent. Give elite players elite treatment, but that does not extend to a few extra coins. What difference does a few extra bucks make to all that hard work, all those mornings waking up with aching joints, popping anti-inflammatories like ju-ju beans and not being able to lift your kids above head height until you have that shoulder surgery?! A recent study of the Guinness Premiership indicated that 95% of professional players from that league would have seriously bad joint issues in the middle stages of their life. The vast majority of players can't go any harder than they do.