The argument for getting off Deans' back

Colin, don't be silly. Teams don't change their brand of rugby during a match: ' "In the first half we threw the ball around in their half and gave the ball away a few times," McCaw said. "So in the second half we wanted to play a bit more field position." ' No way a change of gameplan despite the fact that there is huge transfer of emphasis from offence to defence. Best leave this guy alone, Colin. He's paid very well to know about rugby, you're only going to come off a distant second best...

Not reading it, mate. I can see from some of Colin's posts that you've said some silly things... again. Trolling isn't for me thanks.

"Believe you me Nonu can kick!" I've seen him kick and his technique is very poor, so yes he isn't a very good kicker. If that part of his game was up to scatch, they wouldn't use Muliaina to kick for territory from the set piece. I can kick, but it doesn't mean I'm very good at it. "SA 2009 proved your gameplan need not focus on skill to win a Tri-nations. England rugby and skill used in the same sentence is worthy submitting to the “concord” boys for use." Even if you don't like what they do, it still takes skill and ability to execute their gameplan. If that wasn't the case then Portugal and Russia would be playing like this and getting results, but of course, they don't because they don't have the same quality of England and South Africa. Of course skill is a very objective word - how do you define skill? "He certainly did not change tack when they thought they were still in it. Or do you think his change of tack when they were 1000 points behind with 10 minutes to go was still “in the game” Colin?" Which is irrelevant. You used Steyn as an example of adapting their tactics, but they never adapted and instead completely changed the way they play - you have now implied this. Whether the game was lost is irrelevant to the point you made previously, the fact is that they changed their game plan is. "Your little explanation of replacing Tindall with Catt – even though I havent seen the game" Oh dear. This completely negates your argument. You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

I love this one Colin ..... If England has no skill why did they win a WC and beat Oz and whoever else.... SA 2009 proved your gameplan need not focus on skill to win a Tri-nations. England rugby and skill used in the same sentence is worthy submitting to the "concord" boys for use.

Believe you me Nonu can kick! Your assessment comes from where Colin....some journo? your opinion? The higher up the ranks in rugby the less dependence upon a player to display their full tool-box of tricks as more than likely there is someone next to you -better that can do that and guess what at the Lions/Hurricanes and AB's, this happens to be the case. The reason he would not be seen kicking is because he doesnt need to. Hey Colin! Seen Habana step? Doesnt need to does he because he has the gas to 9x out of 10 burn the side-line. But by your assessment Colin because you havent seen Habana step then he most obviously cant possess one..... Gold Colin real Gold! Re Steyns and Boks change of tactics?..... well this took place well into the second half after the match was lost and they had nothing to lose but plenty to gain Colin - but please note from above AFTER THE MATCH WAS LOST! He certainly did not change tack when they thought they were still in it. Or do you think his change of tack when they were 1000 points behind with 10 minutes to go was still "in the game" Colin? Your little explanation of replacing Tindall with Catt - even though I havent seen the game, nor careless about Englands fortunes what I do know is whoever the coach was that a substitute to bring on a corner kicker (remember that was Ben saying this was a tactic changing sub) would have been about short-cutting the attacking half into the attacking 22! What that means is Colin "if your struggling to get your game going from set-pieces in the attacking zone playing the corners is a direct attempt to take it down to the attacking 22.

"Ben at ITM Cup level and international level kicking is part of a midfield backs job description. Just because someone like a Nonu doesnt display it does not mean he doesnt possess it. Some midfielders are chosen more for other value-adds but they all will need to be able to kick. Its like choosing a lock who can jump but cant push or clean-out….remember Issac Ross Ben? Obviously NOT the total package Hanson was looking for." Nonu isn't a very good kicker, which is why he doesn't kick. "TIndall os a cart-horse end of story." You could use the same phrase about Tindall that you used for Nonu above. Nevertheless Isaac Ross is an interesting case - the All Black coaches obviously felt he needed to bulk which seems to have affected his game. It's Chris Jones all over again. A lock doesn't necessarily need to have the total package, but they need to complement each other. Courtney Lawes isn't a great jumper but he complements Tom Palmer who is a good lineout technician. "Another example – if Morne Steyn’s kicks are being returned with interest suggests they are not hanging long enough for his kick chasers to put pressure on the catchers. Did you suddenly see Steyn choose not to kick from that point on or does he try and get more hang time with his kicks for the time remaining?" Steyn's tactical kicking was relatively disappointing in their two games so far against New Zealand. They then decided to change their game plan and run the ball back more when they were so far behind that they needed to go for tries. "England have little imagination and skill from 1 – 15 Ben." If England lacked skill then they wouldn't have won one world cup, reached two finals and beaten Australia on their recent tour. What is it with stereotyping in Australia? "So from the get-go therefor England were not effecting their gameplan to set targets for their forwards with their cart-horse in mid-field, keeping it close to their forwards to slow down what they knew would be a Welsh team wanting to play with speed. Ben they would have brought on Catt NOT TO CHANGE their gameplan but take their game down into the attacking 22. Thats not a change of gameplan Ben?" Haha, I just have a vision of Woodward saying to Catt: "Right, I'm bringing you on to kick to the corners, slow the game down and play it at our pace, but I'm not changing the game plan." Catt: "What? So you want me to take the ball over the gainline and move the ball from deep as well, playing into Wales' hands? Woodward: "No, no, no!! It's pretty clear, kick to the corners but don't change what we were doing on the field before half-time." Catt: "No offence Mr Woodward, but what are you talking about? Do you want me to persist with the game we are playing and failing at or do you want me to put Wales under more pressure by kicking for territory? Woodward: "Ok, you win."

Ok Ben I'll do the same and "cut n paste" entire posts and try and answer your nit-picking! I think such a rant highlights who so may Roarers asked if you were a teenager. No offence was inteded, there’s a lot of South African Roarers. ‘Have you never heard of senior “professional” players sulking and throwing their toys, getting up to mischief out of camp and/or wanting their coaches replaced? Where do you think that comes from if they are supposed to be “professionals” Ben?’ I’m not sure what you’re attempting to say? In response to you asserting that all players are not stupid and emotionally crippled. By far while not to "that" degree most are not confident enough to make important decisions for themselves off the field let alone when buggered and under pressure on it. ‘Therein is the challenge coaches face Ben in that while the players maybe paid as professionals that doesn’t make them think or be professional so get off your high ill-informed horse about players having the mental capacity to in the blink of an eye have the presence of mind to ALL change to another plan b or c while they are stuffed and under pressure – let alone worry about whether or not EVERYONE KNOWS WHATS EXPECTED OF THEM. That assertion Ben is laughable and only serves to highlight your ignorance.’ You’re putting words into my mouth and being rather rude, which is pretty unecessary. Most Test teams have some very experienced members, and given the stops in pIay and half-time break hardly it unreasonable that in an 80 minute game certain members might be able to recognise if a tactic needs to be altered. Again, you’re oversimplifying. Not oversimplifying Ben!!! An alteration to how a player may be able to effect himself to achieve the desired result IS NOT A CHANGE IN TACTIC it is a change in approach to realise the same outcome contributing to the overall gameplan. For example - If a prop is getting penalised repeatedly for dropping his arm and he informs his captain or coach that it is his opposite that is getting away with it, he more than likely will be replaced NOT kept on and informed to change his tack to just hold his opposite and not push! A replacement prop will go out to perform the same job not go out with a set of different instructions for the forwards or team cause he is now on the park. Another example - if Morne Steyn's kicks are being returned with interest suggests they are not hanging long enough for his kick chasers to put pressure on the catchers. Did you suddenly see Steyn choose not to kick from that point on or does he try and get more hang time with his kicks for the time remaining? ‘In ending Ben your examples re the fact England have to choose a midfield back at international level that cant kick says more about where the importance their coaching staff place on bit part roles for individuals than giving the players the ownership to play whats in front of them…and you wonder why they they get spanked by us so often.’ That’s simply ridiculous and doesn’t even make a great deal of sense… ‘bit parts’ … ‘play what’s in front of them’… If you’re paid so well to be knowleadgable about rugby then I’m sure you recognise the significance that is placed upon bench players. It’s also pretty innacurate to imply that all midfield backs can kick. Ben at ITM Cup level and international level kicking is part of a midfield backs job description. Just because someone like a Nonu doesnt display it does not mean he doesnt possess it. Some midfielders are chosen more for other value-adds but they all will need to be able to kick. Its like choosing a lock who can jump but cant push or clean-out....remember Issac Ross Ben? Obviously NOT the total package Hanson was looking for. I’m pretty sure I could list tens of Test centres who aren’t gifted kickers. Would that be Ben because you think so??? In any case, you don’t seem to have made a specific comment about Tindall’s abilities or lack thereof, or indeed contrast his kicking abilities with Catt. TIndall os a cart-horse end of story. England have little imagination and skill from 1 - 15 Ben. ‘Also the fact England changed tack mid game to kick the cnrs v Wales cause they couldnt penetrate?? what was that some journos assessment yourve stolen, your assessment or can you clip me the youtube clip of the post match interview??’ Why would I need to offer you a YouTube clip? Did you not watch the game or can’t recall it? Are you not able to to effect an opinion without consulting the media? Wales were playing an up-tempo brand, and England were struggling for form. Tindall wasn’t gaining his normal go-forward and so Catt was brought on to keep the ball in the Welsh 22 and to slow the pace of the game down. So from the get-go therefor England were not effecting their gameplan to set targets for their forwards with their cart-horse in mid-field, keeping it close to their forwards to slow down what they knew would be a Welsh team wanting to play with speed. Ben they would have brought on Catt NOT TO CHANGE their gameplan but take their game down into the attacking 22. Thats not a change of gameplan Ben? ‘Last year saw 3 teams in the tri-nations trying to impose their own gameplans on each other. I didnt see once any team radically changing their attack mid-game. Again can you clip me the losing captains interview stating this…….or again is it your assessment Ben. hahaha’ I didn’t say that any 3N side did radically change their gameplan mid-game, although if you are a rugby fan you may well have watched the Lions series, specifically in the first Test where the McGeechan switched 2/3s of the front row, and the team was directed to commit greater numbers to the ruck contest, hence seeking the physical challenge, as opposed to attempting to out-maneouvre it. Anyway.. what I questioned was this: ‘BUT LET ME BE CLEAR YOU WOULD NOT FIND A GOOD KIWI OR OZ COACH THAT SETS OUT TO KICK THE CORNERS AS A STRATEGY TO WIN A GAME NOR DECENT PLAYERS HAPPY TO SUBSCRIBE TO THAT.’ Australia have been inherently conservative under Deans, kicking far more than they did under previous coaches. The above comment you have made indicates that you haven’t watched much rugby over the past two seasons, which tends to undermine any credibility you might be seeking to gain. Deans and to a lesser degree Henry have always had kicking games in their arsenals backing their kick chasers and ability to turn-over ball and pressure opposition into mistakes but you will find Ben these kicking games do not include kicking for the corners as a stand-alone strategy. Kicking into the corners from a DC or Giteau will be more about a choice / option available to them in considering tiring forwards, space available playing whats in front of them.....not as a direction from the sideline to "do it" such is the direction in the NZRU Coaching Manual to empower, empower empower players to make their own decisions. Implicit learning Ben is the catch-phrase. In any case, the thrust of the matter is this: you initially stated that teams did not go out to play having based their strategies on the opposition, rather that each team would have their own single idea to play and that’s that, beyond a bit of time spent on how to react to turnovers. Clearly that is a risable suggestion and it is no surprise to see you consistently swerve it. Simply writing a lot of words and attempting to be funny/rude doesn’t make people forget things, you know. Dont try an put words into my mouth Ben?? I said a team will always play to their own strengths not "some single idea" I also said a team does not first look at the oppositions strengths cause whhile they may be a strength against one team they may not be against your team.....think Wallabies one week and that same gameplan the next V AB's. You cannot control what your opposition may or may not bring to the game. You can only control what your team sets out to do - hence you play to your strengths. Now Ben I hope this has satisfied you once and for all cause it is getting tiresome even after I have articulated example after example.

I think such a rant highlights who so may Roarers asked if you were a teenager. No offence was inteded, there's a lot of South African Roarers. 'Have you never heard of senior “professional” players sulking and throwing their toys, getting up to mischief out of camp and/or wanting their coaches replaced? Where do you think that comes from if they are supposed to be “professionals” Ben?' I'm not sure what you're attempting to say? 'Therein is the challenge coaches face Ben in that while the players maybe paid as professionals that doesn’t make them think or be professional so get off your high ill-informed horse about players having the mental capacity to in the blink of an eye have the presence of mind to ALL change to another plan b or c while they are stuffed and under pressure – let alone worry about whether or not EVERYONE KNOWS WHATS EXPECTED OF THEM. That assertion Ben is laughable and only serves to highlight your ignorance.' You're putting words into my mouth and being rather rude, which is pretty unecessary. Most Test teams have some very experienced members, and given the stops in pIay and half-time break hardly it unreasonable that in an 80 minute game certain members might be able to recognise if a tactic needs to be altered. Again, you're oversimplifying. 'In ending Ben your examples re the fact England have to choose a midfield back at international level that cant kick says more about where the importance their coaching staff place on bit part roles for individuals than giving the players the ownership to play whats in front of them…and you wonder why they they get spanked by us so often.' That's simply ridiculous and doesn't even make a great deal of sense... 'bit parts' ... 'play what's in front of them'... If you're paid so well to be knowleadgable about rugby then I'm sure you recognise the significance that is placed upon bench players. It's also pretty innacurate to imply that all midfield backs can kick. I'm pretty sure I could list tens of Test centres who aren't gifted kickers. In any case, you don't seem to have made a specific comment about Tindall's abilities or lack thereof, or indeed contrast his kicking abilities with Catt. 'Also the fact England changed tack mid game to kick the cnrs v Wales cause they couldnt penetrate?? what was that some journos assessment yourve stolen, your assessment or can you clip me the youtube clip of the post match interview??' Why would I need to offer you a YouTube clip? Did you not watch the game or can't recall it? Are you not able to to effect an opinion without consulting the media? Wales were playing an up-tempo brand, and England were struggling for form. Tindall wasn't gaining his normal go-forward and so Catt was brought on to keep the ball in the Welsh 22 and to slow the pace of the game down. 'Last year saw 3 teams in the tri-nations trying to impose their own gameplans on each other. I didnt see once any team radically changing their attack mid-game. Again can you clip me the losing captains interview stating this…….or again is it your assessment Ben. hahaha' I didn't say that any 3N side did radically change their gameplan mid-game, although if you are a rugby fan you may well have watched the Lions series, specifically in the first Test where the McGeechan switched 2/3s of the front row, and the team was directed to commit greater numbers to the ruck contest, hence seeking the physical challenge, as opposed to attempting to out-maneouvre it. Anyway.. what I questioned was this: ‘BUT LET ME BE CLEAR YOU WOULD NOT FIND A GOOD KIWI OR OZ COACH THAT SETS OUT TO KICK THE CORNERS AS A STRATEGY TO WIN A GAME NOR DECENT PLAYERS HAPPY TO SUBSCRIBE TO THAT.’ Australia have been inherently conservative under Deans, kicking far more than they did under previous coaches. The above comment you have made indicates that you haven't watched much rugby over the past two seasons, which tends to undermine any credibility you might be seeking to gain. In any case, the thrust of the matter is this: you initially stated that teams did not go out to play having based their strategies on the opposition, rather that each team would have their own single idea to play and that's that, beyond a bit of time spent on how to react to turnovers. Clearly that is a risable suggestion and it is no surprise to see you consistently swerve it. Simply writing a lot of words and attempting to be funny/rude doesn't make people forget things, you know.

Seriously Ben rather than shoot your lip on here go and try some coaching ......even at 1st XV level where the attention span and skill levels are quite high and try your "go into a game with several game-plans" approach. Be interesting to see how you fare!

Ben I suggest rather than attempt to reinterpret someone's explanation get off your ass and outta your arm-chair and approach your local club and try a bit of coaching. You might just learn a thing or two. I do - so well in fact people find it worthy enough to pay me!!! and quite well to boot. Your hidden, embedded personal jibes Ben only serves to highlight your ignorance champ! FTR arm chair experts like you over-complicate the game with your assessments from afar forgetting the players 90% of the time are not that intelligent, straight out of school, muscle bound gym bunnies with nil life experience. Forgot that point didn't you Mr Arm Chair! Emotionally crippled as you say YOU BETCHA they are!! You need to be their counsellor, father, spiritual guru AND COACH today to try and get the best out of them and heaven forbid if your honest with them...hell you might hurt their feelings. Have you never heard of senior "professional" players sulking and throwing their toys, getting up to mischief out of camp and/or wanting their coaches replaced? Where do you think that comes from if they are supposed to be "professionals" Ben? Therein is the challenge coaches face Ben in that while the players maybe paid as professionals that doesn't make them think or be professional so get off your high ill-informed horse about players having the mental capacity to in the blink of an eye have the presence of mind to ALL change to another plan b or c while they are stuffed and under pressure - let alone worry about whether or not EVERYONE KNOWS WHATS EXPECTED OF THEM. That assertion Ben is laughable and only serves to highlight your ignorance. You think because you hear a few post match comments from some national captain that is half-pie articulate and so the entire team is as articulate? Tell me have you ever heard a post match speech where the losing captain says "oh they were so good we should have changed our tactics cause thats what you do"? No you dont do you Mr Arm Chair what you do see / hear is; "they didnt allow us into the game, assert ourselves, we couldn't get our game going blah blah" In ending Ben your examples re the fact England have to choose a midfield back at international level that cant kick says more about where the importance their coaching staff place on bit part roles for individuals than giving the players the ownership to play whats in front of them...and you wonder why they they get spanked by us so often. Also the fact England changed tack mid game to kick the cnrs v Wales cause they couldnt penetrate?? what was that some journos assessment yourve stolen, your assessment or can you clip me the youtube clip of the post match interview?? Last year saw 3 teams in the tri-nations trying to impose their own gameplans on each other. I didnt see once any team radically changing their attack mid-game. Again can you clip me the losing captains interview stating this.......or again is it your assessment Ben. hahaha

I don't mean to be rude, but is English your first language? There are a lot of Roarers whose first language isn't English, and I'm finding it hard to penetrate your prose. I'd be really grateful if you slowed things down for me, and spaced things out. The narrow text boxes aren't ideal for cluttered dialogue. Anyhow, 'what you fail to understand Ben is coaches will always go out with ONLY 1 “ball in possession” “offensive strategy” “game-plan” call it what you will. WHY?' That's not true. 'Furthermore I dont speak glibly when I say this but with some authority and that is to succumb to your opposition mid-flight is a telling vote of no-confidence in either the individual the pack, the loose forwards or the team and from a coaching perspective to send out a set of different instructions to change can conflict with what they think may be occurring themselves.' That's not true either. You seem to be suggesting that rugby players are stupid and also emotionally crippled. Altering tactics isn't succumbing to the opposition. I can't believe you don't see how silly that sounds?! 'Your example of “kicking the corners” are not tactic changing examples unless mid-game or pre game weather conditions insist but has nothing to do with the pressure from opposition Ben.' That's not true. England changed their tactics versus Wales because they weren't able to penetrate the Welsh defence. ' repeat these are not offensive strategies…well unless your British' Did you not watch any rugby last season, Joseph? 'BUT LET ME BE CLEAR YOU WOULD NOT FIND A GOOD KIWI OR OZ COACH THAT SETS OUT TO KICK THE CORNERS AS A STRATEGY TO WIN A GAME NOR DECENT PLAYERS HAPPY TO SUBSCRIBE TO THAT.' Have you not watched the Wallabies play rugby under Robbie Deans, Joseph? 'Replacing Tindall for Catt to me says more about English backs lack of overall skills and being too 1 dimensional in what they bring to the table.' This sentence doesn't make sense. Replacing Tindall with Catt is a perfect illustration of a coach's desire for his team to vary their tactics in-game. 'Further, England completely changed their selection and tactics versus France in the 2010 6N, and they should have won in Paris, and then they beat Australia in Australia. What they did this during a game?' Clearly not, but it happend across three games. You have insisted that teams do not make changes to combat opposition, and that they are chosen simply to play one style of rugby, and to alter that would be to defrock the forwards and admit to various failings. What you are saying os overly broad and simplistic, I'm afraid. Significantly, you are still avoiding commenting on your initial assertions: ‘Ben! Identifying your own strengths approaching a particular game is by default highlighting where YOU THINK your oppositions weaknesses are.’ ‘Sure you will have responsive strategies for turn-overs but you only train for how you want to assert yourselves onto the pitch for 80 minutes.’

SHheeesh Ben dont cite Pom examples in demonstrating your view. I was starting to take you seriously there for a minute! what you fail to understand Ben is coaches will always go out with ONLY 1 "ball in possession" "offensive strategy" "game-plan" call it what you will. WHY? Because in the meelee of any game at any level all it takes is for one tired or even over exuberant soldier to forget his new role in the changed plan to expose the team. The risk is too high. Furthermore I dont speak glibly when I say this but with some authority and that is to succumb to your opposition mid-flight is a telling vote of no-confidence in either the individual the pack, the loose forwards or the team and from a coaching perspective to send out a set of different instructions to change can conflict with what they think may be occurring themselves. They will tell you if they are struggling but you dont change tactics you replace him. Why do you think players are replaced if they are making mistakes or we are getting ball turned over. Why not leave em on and just change tactics?? They are part of the starting XV so we dont really want them off cause they can contribute elsewhere surely??......EXACTLY!!! Get em off and give the fresh legs a try at doing the same job. Sure the new legs will of had the benefit of viewing along with the coach where the opposing forwards have excelled and look to address that but he would not go out get all the boys together in a huddle and inform "righty-o chaps we are now transitioning into "Plan B" Your example of "kicking the corners" are not tactic changing examples unless mid-game or pre game weather conditions insist but has nothing to do with the pressure from opposition Ben. Further "kicking the corners" are in fact in "the game-day tool box" at a backs disposal to play "whats in front of them" - but only if they feel it warranted. I repeat these are not offensive strategies...well unless your British and having played there Ben they are a default strategy used often at the slightest hint of pressure from your opposition. - BUT LET ME BE CLEAR YOU WOULD NOT FIND A GOOD KIWI OR OZ COACH THAT SETS OUT TO KICK THE CORNERS AS A STRATEGY TO WIN A GAME NOR DECENT PLAYERS HAPPY TO SUBSCRIBE TO THAT. Replacing Tindall for Catt to me says more about English backs lack of overall skills and being too 1 dimensional in what they bring to the table. Further, England completely changed their selection and tactics versus France in the 2010 6N, and they should have won in Paris, and then they beat Australia in Australia. What they did this during a game?

‘Ben you dont just change your gameplan because you lost 1 game. You dont change your gameplan during a game either if you are struggling for possession. What possession you do have you do with it what you have faith in doing with it especially if it worked for you the previous week. You’re glibly oversimplifying matters, Joseph and not answering what you’ve been asked. In 2003 England played Wales in a WC quarter final. Wales were playing very well, and England were making no headway. Consequently, England changed their tactics during the match. They took Mike Tindall out of the centres, and brought Mike Catt in to kick the ball into the corners. England won comfortably. Further, England completely changed their selection and tactics versus France in the 2010 6N, and they should have won in Paris, and then they beat Australia in Australia. Conversely, England lost to Scotland in the 2000 6N, thereby losing a Grand Slam, by failing to adapt to the in-match conditions. Test rugby is about flexibility, which is facilitated by huge amounts of analysis and training. You’d have us believe that you pitch up to an international with the boys only thinking about what they can do to the opposition having given scant regard to the opposition in the first instance. Some of what you are saying beggars belief, although I do note you’re generally talking in abstracts and avoiding detail. Coaches will select a squad in mind for a tournament, obviously with a preferred strategy in mind that suits the players selected. Prior to any match the coaches will do a huge amount of work regarding the opposition – the opposition line-out, the opposition scrum, the opposition defensive line, the opposition attacking strategies etc, therefore there are countless responses developed, for having the ball and not having the ball. Let’s not forget your original statement: ‘Again you dont approach a game with a set of different scenarios based around second guessing what your oppositions gameplan is.’

I agree that we should've scored more points in Cardiff. If we'd done that then Barnes' reffing would've had less of an effect, and in fact if Williams had scored that try late in the first half it may have been a different game. I don't blame Deans for what happened in Melbourne. Personally, I thought it was a crazy game. But there's a few things he can fix in light of the performance and I think soapit covered them well in his article. One thing I'll say in Deans' defence is that if the Wallabies don't fix these things that's not conclusive proof that he didn't try. We know from training reports that the forwards worked on the kick-offs (not very well from all accounts but it was a NZ reporter who said so.) So, unless Deans fails to hook someone if they're underperforming, which is often the case, I don't think he can be blamed for every failing. If problems persist, however, he's the one selecting the forwards.

"A losing coach/team will FOREVER AND A DAY be compared against the winning coach/team in any sport. Doesnt make that losing team bad nor their coach useless….unless your PDV." Agreed, apart from the last bit about PDV. "My point is Ben is that you train, develop all your attack plays and patterns for when you're in possession" And there's the rub. Looking collectively at the Wallaby performances since 2008 against all teams Aussie fans are understandably confused, frustrated and angered at what they are seeing from their side when they are in possession. If we generalise that a teams match performance is the culmination of their preparation, conditioning and training then it's a shared responsibility and accountability of all involved. The coach for the tactical preparation, the players for their execution. A lack of consistency is usually a sign of inexperience and immaturity and symptomatic of a team culture where individual goals outweigh the team goals. People often point to the Wallabies inconsistent performances and ask how can a team that played so well againt SA could be so poor against NZ. However against SA this year, we saw the Wallabies adopt a similar strategy that brought the All Blacks success. My question is why did Deans believe that the same tactics would work against a side that plays very differently to SA? There were so many comments about Quade Cooper's one kick all game and the low number of kicks in total that everyone was being duped into thinking this was the pathway to success. I believe they got their tactics wrong against NZ and were simply outplayed. The tactics was Deans responsibility, the players lack of execution and accuracy on the night was theirs. So what improvements would I be looking for from the Wallabies. I'm not a coach but from what I've observed of the All Blacks play so far this year is that from kickoffs they will look to move the ball infield towards the middle of the ground so they can attack either side. The catcher usually passes the ball to a runner in support so if the Wallabies chase the kickoffs, one or two players targets the catcher or contest the ball and the rest target the expected runners like Jerome Kaino and stop them getting over the advantage line. The All Blacks like to pass two or three players wide off the ruck who are standing flat to get over the advantage line. Take a leaf out of the All Blacks book and tackle them below their knees to stop them crossing the advantage line and send the rest of the players over the top to counter-ruck. Unless Pocock is there, leave the ball alone and don't concede an easy penalty. In defence the All Blacks don't commit too many players to the breakdown and to their credit work very had in getting back into the defensive line after they've committed the tackle, however they're shallow in defence directly behind the ruck, so pick and drive the ball more often to compress their defence before spreading it wide. Attack down the blindside more often for the same reason to shift the All Blacks defence. It will be very different conditions on Saturday night, expected southerly gales and rain will mean that ball security and field position is important. The Wallabies have selected a more direct, physical backline to get over the advantage line and set targets for their forwards which indicates a tactical change. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I still think OJ that we should have converted that wealth of possession in CARDIFF sorry not Paris into points. That is the enduring memory coaches today reflect upon in their efforts. Your not softening somewhat toward Deans huh? I keep coming back to the point that when facing a team stacked with "best on planet" players riding high after the Boks he can only but try anything and I am sure he doesnt think everything is going to come-off because he knows the AB's "will" and "resolve" but he has to try something!

It wasn't in the All Blacks plans in Cardiff to be forced to play pick and go because they were fighting against a million hands in the ruck and an offside backline. Nor was it in their plans to have a player sinbinned and have the opposition score from a forward pass. You can't score points in the "red zone" without the ref awarding penalties. I doubt it was in the Wallabies' plans for Barnes to be charged down or Mitchell to be sent off. It's unlikely that they planned to lose every kick-off. They never got a chance to even enact their game plan because the game was so screwy.

A lot of thoughtful comments here team, I want to state the obvious in that the AB's would have beaten any team in the world by 30 points, even a rest of the world team, they are a class act this season.

Ben you dont just change your gameplan because you lost 1 game. You dont change your gameplan during a game either if you are struggling for possession. What possession you do have you do with it what you have faith in doing with it especially if it worked for you the previous week. You think coaches train pre-season around "if this team does this during a game then we need to do this" or even mid week during a test campaign? "Hey Rocky you need to do this if you think Richie and co might do that" Ludicrous Ben ludicrous.....I can see it Ben ... Giteau - Hey Rocky were' quite a bit behind shall we do plan b cause that will surely make up the difference and see us pull this out of the fire" Elsom - "Well Matteee we have scored twice with 14 men doing what we have trained and believe in" Giteau - Bugger cobber we should have started with 14 men then? Elsom - No Mattee we are just getting out muscled at the breakdown and not getting the rub of the green. Tell the boys to take these skirts off, make our tackles and execute WHAT WE KNOW WORKS with more precision. Ludicrous aye Ben!! Deans will persevere with his plan because in patches it did go to script for him v the AB's and with only 14 men to boot - problem was AB's won the battle of the breakdowns and outside of the set-pieces this is where the game is won and in Deans case... lost. My point is Ben is that you train, develop all your attack plays and patterns for when your in possession. You dont train or develop offensive patterns for when you are not in possession....you need the ball for that Ben! A losing coach/team will FOREVER AND A DAY be compared against the winning coach/team in any sport. Doesnt make that losing team bad nor their coach useless....unless your PDV.

Spencer, you forgot Muliaina. 4 out of 7 is a majority. And they struggled in 02 in that they weren't very good. They only lost one TN match, but SA were very ordinary back then. And they generally didn't fire much all season.