Dingo Deans serving the Wallabies proud

I think Dingo has been fantastic for Australian Rugby across the board. His work at grass roots level promoting the game has been tireless. Yes he is on big coin but he earns every cent in my opinion. I don't recall any other Wallaby Coach promoting the game the way Deans has and continues. He scrapped the controversial Camp Wallaby set up to ensure the players are in touch with the supporters. Great move. He has had training sessions and players appearing at camps in Sydney's greater west, great move. Endless appearances across the Eastern states at Schools and Junior Club trainings and tournaments. Brilliant. Based on the above and anything else he has acomplished behind the scenes IMO he has been outstanding. As for the Wallabies, there aren't as many wins or trophies as we all want however that happens when you usher in a whole new era. The Wallabies were a rabble after the 2007 RWC. In saying that I have found some of his selections and game management quite baffling at times. Losses to Scotland and Samoa were low points as was the obvious 10 straight to the AB's. However if you were JON back in 07 after the RWC debacle and had the opportunity to sign Deans, of course you would sign him. Who else would you have picked and would have done a better job ? Yes the World Cup is his summit. He has built this team for 4 years and now we get to see if he can deliver Australia a 3rd Webb Ellis Trophy.

Jossy, Perhaps you can actually read more than one or two of my comments?!

Oneteam: "Zach over Sivi and Gear? Yup you paid the price didn’t you? " So you're saying that the All Black loss to the Wallabies was due to the selection of Zac (not Zach) Guilford? If not, then what price was paid by that selection? Perhaps you can elaborate as I'm a bit lost. The All Blacks can only hope that they can get a better result against Tonga than the Wallabies did against Samoa. You must be on a high after the rare win in your own backyard against, well, anyone really. Enjoy it pal, it may be another 10 years before the Wallabies win anything of importance. As for the 4 more years comment; that's pretty much true for all 19 teams that don't win it, isn't it? If the Wallabies don't win, it'll be another 4 years (making it 16 years since their last win by the time RWC 2015 comes around). Hardly the most insightful comment; seems more petty than anything. And if I recall correctlty, the Boks won only 1 of their 4 Tri-Nations games in 2007, but won the cup, so I hardly think that a 2 game losing streak is hardly that big a deal (if 2 games can really be called a streak; I'd have thought the 10 straight losses by the Wallabies to the All Blacks was more of a streak).

The Australian youth and inexperience myth is just that: a myth. For example, the England side that beat them in Australia last season was younger and more inexperienced than the Wallabies. Deans has always had an experienced core throughout his tenure: Robinson, Moore, Baxter, Dunning, Chisholm, Vickerman, Sharpe, Elsom, Smith, Waugh, Palu, Cordingley, Mitchell, Ashley-Cooper, Tuqiri, Giteau, Mortlock.

'And he’s done wonders with Beale – a top 5 finalist in the IRB player of the year last year.' How? Beale only made the side because of injury to Rob Horne (yet another awful selection by Deans), and played his natural game.

'(think baxter, mortlock, richard brown and now gits).' This last sentence is totally contradictory. What you're saying is utterly revisionist.

Mike, you're a thoughtful, reflective fellow and spot on about my beef. It's not with you but with AussieKiwi who began the thread, "I firmly believe he [Deans] is the best coach in the world and that the ABs lost a major advantage when they did not pick him as coach after the last WC". I'm in full agreement with you about who might be the best available for national coach. McKenzie has developed into one of the best going around, having transformed a team in disarray and taken them to the top. That said, he has some exceptional talent at his disposal, but nonetheless, he has impressively constructed specific game plans to combat almost every opponent. I'm surmising O'Neill was beguiled by the Crusaders fabulous form in the early/mid-00's and was convinced Deans was the mastermind, and so desperately desired him for the Wallabies. The real test of any person is never how they perform when things are running smoothly, rather, when under duress or in a crisis. The Crusaders, under Deans, was chock full of incredible talent and experience and probably didn't need a coach at all (as shown by the Brumbies in 2004, when Nucifora was essentially sidelined as coach). Consequently, assessing Deans' coaching capacity on Crusaders' cracking history is fraught with possibilities of misjudgment and misunderstanding. Me thinks, O'Neill jumped to a hasty conclusion. Not all is lost, though, where O'Neill is concerned, as the ARU strongman seems to pipe the tune while Deans dances to it.

Mike, just reading some of your posts on this article, is there anyone on this forum whom you understand, or doesn't confuse you? You seem to be going out of your way to rip people's comments to bits (and yes, I understand that people have different opinions; I just don't feel the need to rip every single one of them that I disagree with to bits). Perhaps you can point me a comment of yours where you've actually agreed with someone?

Mate, I suspect that I'd need to write a 2000 word answer to each point you've questioned here, and even them I'm guessing that you still "won't get it", so I won't bother.

"They have struggled to put it together over the 80 minutes though. I have no idea why." Callow youth and inexperience perhaps?

Okay understood Jerry. Whether or not I made it sufficiently clear, I don't see the rankings as proving that much in themselves. Perhaps "reflective" would have been a better word than indicative.

Well, at the very least it means he didn't actually take the team from 5th, cause by the time he actually did anything with them they were no longer 5th. A card-board cutout of Robbie Deans wearing an "I heart Jon O'Neill" t-shirt could have coached the Wallabies up from the 5th ranking. But of course, that's nit-picking. So, I'll explain the point of my nit-picking. It illustrates that the ranking was an anomaly, one that was never going to last regardless of whether the Wallabies were coached by a genius or Pieter De Villiers. Therefore it's not a useful barometer of Deans progress. There are many other useful barometers, and there's some very good arguments that Deans has done some very good things. But the ranking isn't one of them. You can call that nit-picking and say it's the vibe of your posts rather than the actual meaning of the words that's important, but if you want to actually argue a point it's probably useful to do so with convincing evidence.

That's remarkable Jerry, because I also despair at yours! To write: "So much so that the number 5 ranking didn’t even last until a Deans coached side first stepped foot on the pitch" (i.e. your argument that the rise to 4 happened because of another team's loss) doesn't contradict my point, doesn't even confront it Just keep on picking those nits mate!

Sigh - I despair at your reading comprehension. Ok, I'll spell it out in the simplest terms. “More to the point, that 5th ranking and the rise since then is only a number, but it is indicative of a general improvement in this side in the three years under Deans. That is not to be ignored.” It's not indicative of anything of the sort. It's indicative of the fact that the number 5 ranking was an anomaly. So much so that the number 5 ranking didn't even last until a Deans coached side first stepped foot on the pitch. So, while ignoring the rise in ranking may be a bit over the top, it's of little relevance when push comes to shove.

Mate think there are tad more crimmal convictions sitting on the AB side eh :) .

No comment in case I lose my one eyedness

DocP, Thanks for the stats, but note that I have never suggested that "Deans is the best rugby coach in the world". You've obviously got a beef with someone who has said or written that, which is fair enough. I think one poster on this thread has done so, but the article above doesn't, and I can't think of any recent media articles I have read that suggest so (at least in Australia). John O'Neill is on record recently as saying that "Deans is the best available for the job" - I don't happen to agree with that (McKenzie), but whatever, you can't say JON has put Deans up as the best in the world. (I don't like JON particularly either, but somehow I now seem to be defending him!)

Mike, many say Deans is the best rugby coach in the world. I remain unconvinced. Deans' wins/games played, i.e. winning record, is the poorest of the last seven coaches under whom the Wallabies have played. Blaming the talent pool / "cattle" is nothing more than going into denial by putting one's head in the sand. Mike, the media loves to manufacture myths, into which most of us buy WITHOUT ever realising that has happened. Please check out the figures which corroborate my contention: Rod Macqueen (1997-2001) 34/43 – 79.07% Alan Jones (1984-1987) 23/30 – 76.67% Bobby Dwyer (1982-1984) and (1988-1996) 47/73 – 64.38% John Connolly (2006-2007) 16/25 – 64.00% Greg Smith (1996-1997) 12/19 – 63.16% Eddie Jones (2001-2006) 33/57 – 57.89% Robbie Deans (2008+) 27/48 – 56.25%

Jameswm, thank you for "confirming" what I've long suspected. Is it indeed fact or are we just surmising that Elsom was brought back from Ireland on a promise … by none other than JO'N? Such input doesn't alter my contention that if Deans had balls, and as head selector, he'd confront the ARU CEO with facts to over-ride the status quo. Let's recall Elsom's removal took place after Greg Martin's media attacks on his performances and leadership, or lack thereof. This too (c.f. my earlier comments) speaks volumes about Deans character and his inability to influence.

I positively welcome being held accountable Jerry, although I appreciate that you don't like your tendency to nit-pick being called out. But that's the way it goes. As I wrote in my original post: "More to the point, that 5th ranking and the rise since then is only a number, but it is indicative of a general improvement in this side in the three years under Deans. That is not to be ignored." You don't seem to be raising any point contrary to that, so that's fine by me.