How much of this predicament can Deans actually control?

Why do Roarers keep mentioning New Zealand as if the Australian inability to beat the All Blacks is the sole complaint? How about losses to Wales and Scotland, and a home loss to England? What about a record defeat in SA, and a draw with Ireland? A 3N wooden spoon and some damn ugly rugby? That's bad enough, but then when you add in a 9 game losing streak! Jeepers... If Rocky ends up lifting that cup then Australia will have to get a fortunate draw or start winning basically every game before the WC kicks off.

Honestly, Deans isn't the problem. He is the solution. And actually, the Wallabies aren't that bad all things considered. Room for improvement sure but many expectations are unreasonably high. Australia is rated third in the world (up from 5th by the way) and just put 30 points on the World Champion Springboks in Brisbane. No one has beaten the All Blacks this year. You guys don't agree with selections at lock, prop and number 8. Well next year James Horwill, Van Humphries will be fit again. Apparently Dan Vickerman will be back and TPN, Ben Alexander and Cliffy Palu. That should fix those concerns. Hmmm, a lot of Roarers could be eating humble pie if Rocky raises that World Cup over his head in about 15 months time.

One question for Aussie rugby fans: what are your 12 year olds choosing to play? I hear it is worse than but at leat they are mainly choosing one of the codes. Is the malaise in Aussie rugby based on the fact that 5-6 years back young fellas starting to give up on rugby? Fug me you need more of those Michael Brial types to step up to the plate. The team you have now are lame and no coach can fix in in less than a decade. I think Mr O'Neill understands this.

I keep hearing that Deans can't continue to expect to remain coach with such a poor win/loss record. Yet, if a win/loss record sheet determined a player's greatness, then quite a number of our most famous Wallabies would be ineligible for selection in all-time XVs. Win/loss is important, but has to be considered along with other indicators.

Cliff, What is behind some of Deans selections? One day we might find out, but for the moment we're all guessing..... I thought I would use Ma'afu as an example of how Deans might be thinking, might I say, & why he has selected someone most of us believe shouldn't be in the run-on team. For starters, Alexander & Weeks are on the injury list. Deans probably thinks Slipper has a bright future, but doesn't want to rush him too quickly. So bringing him off the bench is designed to be slowly beneficial for his development. Deans can't go back to Baxter, that wouldn't make any sense at all. Despite his experience, poor old Baxter was being horribly exposed these past few years. Consequently, Ma'afu might be seen as a sacrificial lamb. He's got bulk, although not much else besides at the moment. Deans has him treading water. Ma'afu is a solid boy, he can take the hits for 2010, but by the end of the year, his usefulness might be expended. Ma'afu is the fall guy while Alexander & Weeks are injured, & Slipper is developing. Don't feel sorry for Ma'afu, he's a Wallaby forever, something nobody can take away from him. He did his best when called upon, whatever the underlying circumstances might be. Come 2011, Deans hopes to have his prop forward quotas back to full strength, with Alexander, Weeks & a blossoming Slipper all contesting the tight-head. And so on it goes for each position in the team, each position with its own story to tell. Of course, I could be horribly wrong. I'm not suggesting this is exactly how Deans is seeing the tight-head position, merely offering it a possible scenario. We cannot possibly know what is going on behind the scenes. And until we are privy to all these decisions, we have to remain circumspect in our criticisms, if that's at all possible!

I'm a supporter of Deans holding his position but I don't understand some of his selections either. But there's no-one more qualified, both practically & theoretically, than Deans. He's an ex-All Black, so he reached the highest level possible as a player. I understand he holds the highest coaching certificate available, so he knows his technical stuff as well. He's been there & done it all, to the very highest level. Unlike most of us computer jockeys. There probably is a plausible reason for every selection he's made, if we were at all privy. We all know that not every selection comes off. Making one bad selection error doesn't make you a bad selector. Just as one tactical error doesn't make you a bad coach, or one mistake on the pitch doesn't make you a bad player. it's the sum of your achievements that measures you. We should all be familiar with the saying about it doesn't matter how many times you get knocked down that counts, it's the number of times you keep getting back up. Frank, I thought Tahu's selection several years ago was an inspired choice. Tahu is a magnificent athlete - big, strong, fast, talented, skilled. He grew up in the tough world of rugby league. If there's one thing deans probably felt Tahu could do, was tackle fiercely & effectively. But Tahu also has a fragile mind, which Deans may or may not have been aware of at the time. In the end I think Tahu let himself, the team & Deans down. He froze. His selection ended up being a terrible mistake, but it had the potential to be an inspired choice. Frank, I also disagree about O'Connor. Like Giteau, I reckon he's overrated. We love him because he has those two valuable commodities - youth & potential. Well, he 's into his early twenties now, & I seriously question if he has much improvement in him. Rugby's a power game today, more than ever. There's only three positions I reckon O'Connor can play - wing, scrumhalf & fullback - probably in that order. His lack of size is against him. Unfortunately for him, he arrived in the wrong era. Frank, I do agree that Alan Jones is a more perceptive selector than Deans, but disagree he would have made a better difference. Second comings generally don't work (think John O'Neill) & like poor young O'Connor, Jones belongs to another era.

Some guesses: 1. - 3. In each case there probably are alternatives, but none of them stand out as obviously better and demanding to be picked. I think Brown gets through more work than he's generally credited with, but it goes against him that none of it is very eye-catching. Both Simmons and Slipper are still kids in rugby terms and easing them is not unreasonable. 4. Giteau strikes me as having been flat for a while, and the breaks he used to produce have been few and far between. However, he went ok at 10 previously and was able to add some threat there. I prefer to see him at 12, but if Cooper's not there I don't see clearly better alternatives to Giteau at 10. Barnes is a good solid player but doesn't strike me as more than that - he's not going to spark the blokes outside him. The other alternatives (to Giteau) suggested seem to me to have never dominated at S14 level, so I don't understand how they're supposed to a further step up. 5. Douglas I don't know. Higginbotham - reports were he didn't recover from his ankle(?) as well as hoped and needed more of a gallop at club level. He's not been a regular No8 of course and that's the obvious potential vacancy in the backrow now. 6. Don't know. Again though, is he a No8? Seems like one of the issues is there are several blokes who are blindside flankers who can play a bit of No8 (Elsom, McCalman, Higginbotham and Mowen, and possibly Douglas) only only one spot on the field and one on the bench for them. Are any of them clearly better No8's than Brown? 7. Don't they want Turner to work on aspects of his game other than running fast in a straight line (which, don't get me wrong, is important, but the higher you go the more you need)?

I'll say this about the last week. It's been nice to see how discontented the Wallabies are with losing to New Zealand again. Someone asked Dean Mumm whether the Wallabies were happy with their improved performance against the Blacks. He said they weren't. They wanted the win. They're angry they're not winning. They expect to win. At least the Wallabies aren't accepting they're losing. Wallabies want to win, always. They think they're better than everybody else, even when they're not. Sounds arrogant, but it's something I love about the Wallabies, and it's something that used to enable them to win games they didn't deserve to win.

I'm not a fan of Deans' selections. People can talk about the problems he's inherited, and he has inherited some problems. But his selections have been poor. Dwyer said it best recently when he said he looked at 2, 3, 4, 8, 12 on the weekend and couldn't figure out why they were selected. The omission of Berrick Barnes angered me. Yes he wasn't great in Melbourne, but he's the best defender in the Aussie backline in terms of knowing when to come out of his line and smash the opposition. Instead Fainga'a was chosen... why I don't know, and was found out several times and it was actually quite costly for the Wallabies. He was a little lost in defence. It's good to try new players... when it's merited. For example, we all knew David Pocock was young and had (and still has) awesome potential. At the same time, George Smith was in a bit of a form slump and making some bad errors. It makes sense to blood the new bloke, and Pocock almost deserves the John Eales Medal this year for how he played in Europe last year, and Australia this year in the Tests. But when Deans selects people arbitrarily, like when he selected Tahu, then I get worried. I also don't like how he messed around with James O'Connor. He's a 12. He always said he was a 12. He talks about how it's his most comfortable position. But he's small so Deans plays him at 15 where he looks out of place. And when he's not at 15 he's at 14... it's stupid. I don't like how Deans doesn't realise that Matt Giteau isn't a five-eighth, or that he needs to address the small Aussie backline issues. The Wallabies desperately need a Daniel Herbert/Sterling Mortlock-type players... and really Will Chambers should be in the Wallaby side, just because a backline plays as one, and it's not about picking the seven best individuals, it's about picking the best side. Alan Jones was such a better selector than Robbie Deans that it's sad comparing the two. People can talk about Deans inheriting problems, and he has, but he can't hide behind his selections. Most of all I don't know what his fixation on Richard Brown is... didn't work in 2009... hasn't worked any better in 2010.

It's impossible to know how much control Deans has over the Wallabies' predicament without being privy to what's actually going on within the squad. Most of our opinions come from what we've observed from Wallaby performances or from what we think should be happening but we won't really know what happened until the marriage is over. Nevertheless, I don't see that the reasons are all that important. Regardless of whether it's his fault, Deans hasn't been able to be successful with the Wallabies. The Wallabies are in desperate need of some fresh perspectives whether they come from Deans or somebody else, because at present they simply don't know how to win matches.

Hi Blinky - yes you are correct. Based in Afghanistan - in the North working on Irrigaiton and Civil Works Construction Projects. Talking to farmers and hoping that they are not Taliban. If they are, well take my last beer and kiss my a.... goodbye. No it is not that bad - interesting really. Thanks for the story on Mark Ella. Players have to read the game and that is what Carter does - he is not the best I have seen but he is also not one dimensional - but it is easy behind a great pack of pigs. I honestly thought that Barnes may have been the answer because he can read a game and he can marshell his players - BUT - this year he has not got the same Mojo - and I believe that the fault is Hickey. He dents the Waratahs - not that I am concerned because I am a Reds fan - Queensland born and raised. It could be that there is too much influence of the game of NFL - chess board football. Players are taught not to think. Rugby is a chess game and it requires set pieces and set drills - BUT - it has to allow for the instictive, the change of plan mentality - not necessarily for the game - BUT - at certain times during the game when one is trying to ressurect a win. I thought that Genai was instinctive but of late he stands and waits for the ball. His forwards are lazy and have no idea of how to pick and charge at speed or how to pick and push off with the legs or take it at speed. Kefu and Loane were never standing still when they got the ball - also in their day - the pigs hunted as a pack - now we have to many one outs and lost ball - turnover. I hope we change - but we need mongrel and that is why I question the non-inclusion of McCalam (reserve), Hodgson (reserve), Higgenbottom, Kane Douglas over the last 6 tests - particularly the continuation with Mumm. I would loved to have played against Mumm - he is literally soft. What is the answer - maybe Cooper will develop it as he does show a willingness to try different things. And I hate to say this but also Giteau may develop it if he controls his own game - but at 12 - although I do not think he has the "thinking power". Elsom cannot do it - too introverted - not a Captain's backside. So where does it come from - and maybe Sheek is correct - we definitely need development and growth at the lower level - the legs to support the body - we seem to be aimlessly going from one RWC to another RWC.

Sheek - agreed - change for changes sake is not the answer - BUT TELL ME 1. Why does he continue with Mumm when Mumm has not stood up. Why has Simmons not started. 2. Why does he continue with Brown when McCalam is available (Does he want a Mark Loane or a Kefu before he gets rid of a "Not Up To Test Standard Player" 3. Why does he continue with Ma-afu when he is definitely NOT TEST STANDARD - Scrum of Fitness - why noy give Slipper a full game. Can you tell me that Weekes is still injured ?? 4. Why do you persist, even with Cooper on the sideline, Giteau at 10 when he is definitely not up to the posiiton. Why not try Barnes at least? 5. Why has Higgenbottom and Kane Douglas been kept in Club - not necessarily performing - but can they be givne time - why Mumm? 6. What has happend to Mowan (correct spelling??) 7. As much as JOC has talent and he may be the future 12 - why has Turner not been bought back to fill the lack of wingers - and let JOC be a bench man? Sheek, I am not asking for change and change and change - I am aksing why SOME SEEM TO HAVE A CHARMED LIFE when they STAND OUT LIKE DOG'S ...... THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE THERE. For me Deans gives me the impression that hs is not a otugh coach or does not have the guts or the strength to make the hard calls. We have a froward pack that is BELLY SOFT.

Sheek - well said and I am on the same wavelength. But how is it to be done - what are the steps: 1. How do we the Rugby Public convince the Powers that Be in the ARU - to set up a working forum for change - no not change - improvement and development 2. How does the ARU challenge the STRENGTH of the Brisbane and Sydney Club POWER LOBBY Note: For me Club Rugby is no longer interesting - it is a game not played well - it does not attract. 3. How do we manage a tier game of - Maybe Under 21 or Academy Games or Strong Teams in say Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth - yes the ARC - but why do the Super 14 Teams not have an Under 21 or Under 23 Team? Back to you Sheek and I know you have written on this before - but there is more than the ARU seemingly against growth and improvement - AS - the Club land is selfish??

Cliff, It's all very well to say change & keep changing, until we get it right, but we also want to avoid the 'revolving door' fiasco. Change should be for the better, not merely for its own sake. How do we know Deans hasn't considered the players you mention? I would be surprised if his spy system doesn't keep him informed of talent around the country. He's even been to premier rugby games himself. Perhaps he's considered the guys you've mentioned & made an educated decision either they're not an improvement on the incumbents, or they're not yet ready. Bringing a guy into test rugby before he's ready can destroy him, so he has to consider that as well. A lot of fans at The Roar are getting desperate, & desperation often leads to unsound judgements & unsound decisions.....

Rugby Wits - you might be right - BUT - I belive that Giteau's posiiton is a No 12 but I also belive he is a destabilising influence within the team - irresoective of words spoken by others. He has coem from the "Player Power" era and he is one who remains. He was not and never will be a No 10 Cheers

EP, It's not an excuse to say that historically we haven't been that good. it's a fact. Whenever I mention this, I'm challenging all rugby lovers - "How long should we continue to carry the yoke around our necks, of our history?" We have the power to change things, but lack the will to do so. Back in the mid-70s, a massive restructure occurred in the running of Australian rugby. The final indignity was losing to Tonga in 1973. Yet the game had lurching into oblivion for the previous 6 years. And quite often that as well. Are we going to wait until we hit rock bottom again, before we decide "enough is enough" & make the necessary changes to our game in order to become consistently successful, as opposed to consistently unsuccessful?

Cliff (Bishkek) - On your Part 3. I understand you are overseas, Afghanistan I believe, and so don't have the ability to catch The Rugby Club on Fox Sport. Last night they had as special guest Mark Ella and the question of Plan B was raise and he made some interesting comments. He felt, like many here on Roar, that "Plan B is fine in theory" but essentially you go out there with your best game plan and should it not work then the players (presumably the senior guys) work out what next to do based on what happened in the last 10-15 minute stanza. So in essense he said what you are saying. We need someone in the style of Michael Lynagh to take charge and adapt. By the way I searched the Fox Sports site hoping for a link to Mark Ella's interview for you but unsuccessful. Personally I have not given up on Plan B as a planned thing. But then maybe that's me being old fashioned and stubborn.

Wits, this is a good article, I think you've put up some good points here...

To All, Going back to old coaches never works - not when their tenure was many years ago. However I do agree on the three things that have been listed. Or the three that I see as detrimental to Deans being accepted as a GOOD COACH. 1. His selections - "we can say not enough cattle" and for mine the cattle is there - not a lot of it but it is there - it just has not been groomed and bought in. For example - McCalam (for Brown - McCalam was not even in the 22), Slipper (for Ma'afu - Weekes has been injured), Barnes (for Giteau as Cooper out on suspension - I belive he should be benched or out of the 22 - no Rugby nous and no good for the team), Simmons (for Mumm - the worst lock I have saeen for a very long time - and sgould never be picked again - but he will be), Shepherd (for O-Connor - but for me O'Connor should be on the bench - but size is limiting and if Beale in the team = then no JOC). Higgenbottom has been injured and then they saying playing bad at Club football - but not once was he even trailled in the early tests. Same for Kane Douglas - where is the selection Nous on this There are other examples also of poor selection or not giving a person a go - TRY THEM OUT and THEN KEEP TRYING 2. Use of the BENCH - it is not used correctly. Matt hosgson is a terrific player - but is he able to cover 6, 7 and 8. Why was Mvc Calam not in the 22? when to bring htem on - Deans seems clueless in this regard 3. No PLAN B - it does not exist - period - also remember on the field we do not have a GOOD LEADER or a man with RUGBY NOUS who can think out a game and try a different approach or who can call shots - Elsom is not the one and Giteau is not the one - there is no Lynagh, Ella, Horan, Eales, McLean, Shaw - men who knew Rugby and could call a game. The best of all was Wally Lewis but he was not Rugby Union after the Aus Schoolboys. The Team lacks RUGBY NOUS ON THE FIELD. These things have to change and I am amazed that NO BODY IN THE ARU IS AT DEAN'S THROAT on these concerns. Maybe us ROARERS are just RATBAGS and know nothing of the game - AND - it is easy to criticise from behind a computer - BUT I HAVE PLAYED THE GAME AND COACHED - a bloody long time ago. But surely we all are not wrong???