I have been thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of Robbie Deans as a coach. I thought I would try and quantify it by adding my subjective ratings rather than just have qualitative statements.
The approach I made is to break the coaches responsibilities down into different areas, score them and give them a weighting so the total adds up to 100. Then add the scores and get a rating out of 100. The weighting is my subjective evaluation of the relative worth of that aspect.
First of all the ratings are made in the historical context of Wallabies performances in these areas in the professional era. If we are normally weak in an area and are now on par then you get a high rating, similarly if we used to be excellent in an area but are on just par you get a low rating.
I am also focusing on where the Wallabies are now not four or five years ago.
Set Pieces: Scrums
This is a traditional weakness for Wallaby teams who are normally satisfied with parity. The Wallabies are currently strong in this area having bettered England, SA and achieved parity with New Zealand and Argentina. Italy were slightly better and the French were a lot better.
Weighted score 4/5. 8/10 Scrum weighting 5.
Lineouts
This is a traditional strength of Wallaby teams. Expect dominance against most teams in this area. Only against Wales in the last match have we dominated. Against most other teams the performance has been one of parity or we have been well beaten (for instance South Africa).
Weighted Score 2/5. 4/10 Lineout weighting 5.
Mauls
This is a traditional weakness for Wallaby teams. We are achieving parity in most cases at the moment. We use them slightly better than we defend against them.
Weighted score 3/5. 6/10 Maul weighting 5.
Ruck
This is a traditional strength of Wallaby teams. This strength has traditionally been due to the quality of opensiders rather than technical expertise or tactics or power of players. Expect dominance against most teams in this area.
This is possibly Deans’ best area. The Wallabies actually have multiple plans for the breakdown. Sometimes they leave it with few players, sometimes they flood it. They have been winning the collisions in this area (and this is rare for Wallaby teams).
They counterruck well, and they have excellent turnovers in this area or manage to slow the ball down.
Since rucks happen far more than scrums, mauls, lineouts, and are the most common way to get on front foot, I give them a higher weighting.
Weighted Score 16/20. 8/10 Ruck weighting 20.
Attack
This is a traditional strength of the Wallabies. Wallaby teams normally challenge any defence. They offer multiple threats and challenges. They are innovative and creative. They are hard to read and predict. Skill levels are normally high.
This is Deans’ worst area.
Under Deans, attack does not threaten and is predictable. The team scores few tries, and has low skill levels. Wallaby teams have gone backwards a lot in this department. The only area of improvement has been the forward pick and drive.
Since attack is half of the general play it is weighted very highly.
Weighted Score 2/20. 1/10 Attack weighting 20.
Defence
This is a traditional strength of Wallaby teams. Wallaby teams normally are difficult to score tries against or retain possession against, or even to get over the advantage line.
The results here are reasonable for Deans.
Under Deans the defence is solid, and very good near the line. Not many tries are scored. However the drift defence allows easy territory gain out wide.
Also angle attacks punch through too often. The percentage of made tackles have dropped under Deans. The defence was best under Muggleton but has dropped since then. It is still a strong defence but not as good as it used to be.
Weighted Score 10/20. 5/10 Defence weighting 20.
Tactics / Opposition Analysis
This is a traditional strength of Wallaby teams. Wallaby teams normally play clever rugby since as they are not the strongest or have the fastest or best athletes, they need to be clever.
Under Deans this is very poor. The Wallabies do not have different plans for different teams. They play the same in attack and defence. They do not exploit weakness in other teams. Even worse they do not counter known ploys or strengths of other teams.
Case in point is restarts. It is common knowledge that some teams kick short to the backs and have multiple players contesting it. We do not position players to counter this.
Another common tactic by Ireland and Wales is to hold up attacking players and make it a maul and so nullify the Wallaby ruck strength. Deans knew about this for the Rugby World Cup (it was in the media) yet Ireland still held us up, made it a maul and then turned it over. Same with Wales in Australia.
Weighted Score 2/10.
Selection
Selection is neither a weakness or strength for Wallaby teams.
Selections includes the ability to detect talent and promote it, and to jettison players past their prime, and pick the players that suit the game plan, and the ability to realise your original selections are wrong and replace them early rather than late.
This is a real weakness of Deans. His only strength in this area is to pick players that suit his one dimensional attack method of a direct runner (McCabe) to get over the advantage line and then attack from front foot. Deans plan is conservation with little risk or skill.
Deans selected and held onto journeymen for far too often (names like Brown, McCalman, Mumm, McCabe, Barnes, Dennis, Fainga’a come to mind).
About the only right move was jettisoning Giteau and promoting Pocock ahead of Smith. Deans contrary to popular opinion does not detect and promote talent.
Cooper and Genia were detected by Moody and developed by McKenzie. Deans held onto Giteau and Barnes ahead of Cooper for far too long. Nearly all of Deans successes in discovering talent have been forced by injury not due to his selection talent.
Weighted Score 1/5. 2/10 Selection weighting 5. Low weighting since when you boil it all down there are not that many choices to make.
Man Management
Traditionally this is a weakness in the Wallabies. McQueen was exceptional but both Eddie Jones and John Connelly had difficulties in this area. They were both known for being hard to get on with.
Deans is quick to punish dissenting voices. Players are ignored and put on the outer and not to be selected. Deans is a poor communicator which exacerbates this weakness.
Players do not look like they enjoy rugby under Deans. Very similar to Jones and Connelly they are under strict orders and cannot utilise their talents to their best.
Deans does have leadership groups and players are allowed input however it is debatable if the input is listened to.
Weighted Score 3/5. 6/10 Man Management weighting 5. Only because most Wallaby coaches are poor in this area does Deans get a reasonable score.
Game Day Coaching
This is the coach on match day adjusting to the play as it unfolds. What do we need to change to fix weaknesses the opposition are exploiting, how do we attack weaknesses that have unfolded? How do we exploit injuries in the other team? How do we manage the bench for maximum impact and for managing tired players?
Deans is about the worst match day coach I have seen, with very poor use of the bench.
Deans replaces by predetermination rather than by ‘what is in front of him’.
I have never seen any play change in reaction to how the match day has unfolded.
Weighted Score 0/5. 0/10 Game Day Coaching weighting 5.
The result of my quantitative analysis is 43/100 for Deans as a Wallaby coach.
Conclusions? He has been a failure, and needs to be replaced.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Ireland, England and France show far more basic skills in attack than the Wallabies do. Look at the skills of short passing, offloading and support play the french displayed. How long has it been since the Wallabies have shown this sort of skill? Englands skill in attack against AB's, and Ireland's against Argentina, compared to the Wallabies dismal efforts.
guth
Guest
The Reality has changed- Australia used to have good players- No1s but not anymore, the last was Eales Genia and perhaps Sharpe in the top 5. Pocock pushing hard, but Hooper maybe the better- time will tell. The rest?? a couple of them may get a berth in a 6 nations team, but the balance are poor to average super 15 players at the best. and people put Deans down -Aussie were going downhill fast with the last twocoaches.- Mckenzie has been fired or pushed from all other coaching positions he held!! The best bet is White or Chekia for 2014
Mike
Guest
"The skill levels of the team are deplorable." Sorry Peter, but this is just one example of how you make unsupportable statements that reflect on your credibility. The skill levels of the Wallabies are about on par with other top 5 or top 8 teams (take your pick). The ONLY team that has a clear gap over others is the All Blacks.
Mike
Guest
Explain what? The fact that reality has not changed to conform to your 'logic'? Sorry, that's not our job.
Mike
Guest
I agree PeterK - it has precisely as much merit as an article about why rugby must change to 4-point tries.
Bruce Rankin
Guest
PeterK, My "typical Australian tall poppy hatchet job" remark applied to all but 3-4 Roar readers - not just your good self - all of whom appear to want to tear down Deans for all the failings of the 15/23 Wallabies actually on the field and playing the game! For me 100% coach - 0% players responsibility is untenable. Yes Deans must wear a fair proportion of the responsibility for areas of the game where the Wallabies have performed poorly - but the players themselves have to wear their fair share of responsibility too! Plus as I said the injury toll had to have a huge impact on performance - as Hightackle has pointed out delightfully tongue in cheek, NZ wouldnt miss Carter, McCaw, Read, Nonu, O.Franks, Woodcock, Romano, C.Smith, A.Smith and Cruden [and Dagg] if they were all injured at the same time either.
PeterK
Roar Guru
I agree that Deans needs a fair balanced assessment and thats what I did. I did NOT do a typical tall poppy hatchet job. I gave him credit for areas as well as critique. I critically looked at how all aspects compared to how historically Wallabies have been in these areas during the professional era. BTW you cannot have it both ways. If the failings of the team and the massive number of mistakes it makes and the low skills levels cannot be apportioned to the coach then neither can the successes ie the teams ranking or the teams win / ratio. Mind you then why have a coach, its just the players. The Wallabies have an appalling record against the top 4 teams this year. Lost 4 won 1 dawn 1. The win was by a small margin. The defeats except for 1 were thrashings. NZ, Boks and France totally dominated. However you are the one that brought in win / loss rankings , not I. On selections many many people were saying others should of been chosen. Cooper Vuna, many criticised this. I have been saying Cummins should of been chosen from the Scotland test. It took multiple injuries for him to get a chance. Many many have stated Taps should of been there and it took an injury for McCabe to be flicked. Anyway I do agree that injuries have had an impact. However you notice I do not look at records or wins etc to make my assessment. I critically look at areas that the coaches should be coaching / improving , especially they are below par then the buck stops with coaches improving technical areas. Sure they the coach cannot do much about speed but the coach sure can about skill levels. They have the players permanently, they have plenty of training time. The skill levels of the team are deplorable. The team has very poor tactics. Show me where ANY of my assessments are influenced by injuries?
PeterK
Roar Guru
just as discussion of Cooper or Folau won't change anything so why discuss it? Or results of a match wont change so why discuss the refs wrong decisions? This is an opinion site and that itself provides enough merit for this article.
guth
Guest
I think you are all over looking one fact. The quality of the Australian players. The All Blacks and Springboks will have at least 1 player if not 2 players in every position who are in the top 5 in the world. Australia may have 1 or 2 player who would be in the top 10. So how the hell are you number 3 in the world??- you should be 5-6 in the rankings Please Explain!!! ??????
Gnostic
Guest
That is just idiotic. You want to sack the coach but not because the team is underperforming? If you don't believe the team is under performing why the hell sack the coach? "Moaning and whinging." Some of you so called fans make me just want to throw my hands up and leave you to it, literally. How long will Australian Rugby be able to pay the bills when their crowds fall to the level the Waratahs crowds have for the past three years? Because that is how it is going. Win or lose the Wallabies are unwatchably dire.
Mike
Guest
"“Overreached”. That is laughable." Indeed it is, because what he actually wrote was "overachieved". Your argument is tripe. The injury crisis was real and still is. The same thing will happen next season if we do not address the real issues in Australian rugby, instead of shallow analysis like this. Tapuai has shown promise, but also some defects at test level. He is a good selection but hasn't been brought on too soon. Cummins time of selection was about right. Pyle, Mowen, White? Yeah, possibly - but we hear this all the time - "X player must be picked; he looks good in S15" - and every punter has a different idea of who "must" be picked. "For the first time in 30 years I stopped getting up to watch the OS tests and struggled to watch the replays." Suit yourself. I hope you are consistent and therefore do not purchase test tickets either - more for the rest of us.
Gnostic
Guest
"Overreached". That is laughable. Before the great injury crisis Deans supporters were decrying the lack of depth in Australia. The great injury crisis has shown what a crock that whole argument was which many of us argued right from the start. Players like Tapuai and Cummins would never have got a shot if not for injruies. There are still others who have shown huge talent and potential AND actual form who haven't got a chance. Mowen, White, Pyle just to name three. Now just consider the situation of White, he was told he wasn't needed for the Wallabies as he wasn't even considered in the top three halves. Off he goes to have his knee reconstructed as an elective surgery instead of waiting for the Wallaby call up which he indicated he was fit for. Genia is injured and suddenly there is a shortage of halfbacks in Australia. We do not even have to discuss the continued selection of Phipps as starting halfback despite better options being available. No, the injury crisis showed Deans for what he is, a conservative, no risk, coach who is unable to truly unearth talent that isn't individual "X factor" types that arrive with massive media coverage and a chorus of angels singing their status of messiah of Australian Rugby. He is stubborn to the point of fault. I too disagree with the article though, simply because it rates Deans too highly and the weightings are somewhat out of proportion to my belief. The statement that the Wallabies forward pick and drive has improved is patently untrue as very few forward drives make the gain line let alone break it. I gave up on the use of statistics long ago in this argument simply because no matter what any side presents it will be argued bent to fit the position the presenter wishes to support or negate. For mine the only metric that matters is can I sit and watch them play. The answer to that is no. The Wallabies under Deans are simply unwatchable, the skill levels, the game plans, the application are all so pitiful that they are simply unwatchable, and judging by the TV ratings so many other Rugby fans agree. For the first time in 30 years I stopped getting up to watch the OS tests and struggled to watch the replays. Finally those who support Deans have variously labeled many who rationally argue for Deans sacking, or at least opposed the re-appointment, as xenophobic, haters and many other negative labels. Labels such as these are designed to suppress the debate and debase the arguments presented by attacking the standing of those who present them and to my mind they say much more about the people trying to stifle the debate through such means than those so labeled.
Mike
Guest
This article is as useful as one that presses the merits of changing tries to 4-points. It simply will not happen, so why even discuss it? Two years ago there was a point to it, even one year ago. But now, right or wrong (and regardless of the merit or lack of merit of this article) Deans will be coach for the Lions series.
Bruce Rankin
Guest
PeterK, Am wryly amused by 'jameswm' appellation of me as "this Bruce bloke" as I seem to be the only correspondent not wanting to be anonymous or hiding behind a pseudonym!! First errata: the All Blacks v Wallabies draw was indeed 18-18 and not 3-3 as stated. Secondly I omitted to include that the massive injury toll included three Captains, senior team leaders and world class players in their positions in Horwill, Genia and Pocock. They have a huge impact on the team's performance, particularly the loss of their collective on field leadership skills. Imagine what the All Blacks performance would be like if they lost McCaw, Carter and say Kieran Read for the same period of weeks. No coach can replace them at their level at the drop of a hat.... it's inevitable team performance levels suffer. To pillory Deans in that scenario seems unjust to me. Nathan Sharpe was persuaded to play on, took over the captaincy and I think most would agree he did a pretty good job - 2nd in TRC, drew with All Blacks and won 3 of 4 games in Europe. Imagine how much better the Wallabies would have been with all 3 back. (Pocock was only back for the last game.) Now to the excellent point made by "nickoldschool" - the game day team of 23 and the 15 players on the field have to take the majority of responsibility for their on field performance!! It is untenable to blame the coach for everything the players do on the field, and say the players are not responsible for anything they do - or omit to do - as you appear to be doing. Remember, once the game starts, it's the Captain and the senior leaders who are responsible for the tactics and on field performance! Once they go onto the field they are responsible for executing the gameplan and adjusting tactics to the various conditions. The captain cannot put his hand up to the coach and say "Please sir, what do I do now?" (The coach is limited to a half time team talk, exchanging players and getting the occasional message out to the team.) For example, Robbie Deans did not coach the players to go on the field to commit mistakes like we've seen from the Wallabies: - miss tackles - drop or fumble balls or knock on - send wayward passes along the ground, behind the receiver and over the touch line - make forward passes - make crooked or misdirected throws to the lineouts - make a crooked scrum feed - collapse scrums (Deans not the forward coach either!) - lose turnover ball at rucks, mauls and lineouts - make restarts / kickoffs short or out on the full - drop the high ball and knock on ( Beale and AAC especially) and fail to take the high ball - make poorly directed tactical kicks (long, high ball, grubber and box) - get offside by touching the ball after a knock on - fail to find the line with penalties and in key defensive kicks from inside the 22 - fail to execute the gameplan the coach has established / agreed with the team (Captain and senior leaders' responsibility) - make poor tactical choices (Captain and senior leaders' responsibility) - fail to change or vary tactics when things are not working (Captain and senior leaders' responsibility) - etc etc etc These mistakes are mostly in the basic skills area which every Wallaby should already possess - players at this level should not have to rely on Deans or the coaching team to develop them! However mistakes will happen in any game and sides that keep their error rate to a minimum are more likely to succeed. Yes, there have also been poor tactical choices, few tries scored, poor periods of play, wins by small margins etc etc. But every team goes through periods like that - even the great teams. The All Blacks only got out of jail against Ireland in the second test in Christchurch, when Carter potted a goal to win 22-19. One mark of great teams is their ability to come from behind in the last 20 minutes to win. It reminds of Prime Minister Bob Hawke saying in the 1980's, that to win a horse race - eg the Melbourne Cup - you only have to win by a nose, not by the length of the straight. The All Blacks only beat France 8-7 in the World Cup. But that was enough - they are the World Champions - until next time. I recall the 2002 Bledisloe Cup test played in Christchurch in driving rain and freezing conditions. Not a pretty test, it was won 12-6 by the All Blacks 4 penalties to 2. Afterwards Sir Fred Allen - one of the greatest All Black coaches ever - was asked to comment on the poor play, lack of tries etc. He simply replied "A win is a win son." Conclusions: 1. While it is useful to look at the performance of past Australian coaches in terms of winning percentages etc, remember that even successful coaches like Alan Jones (grand slam) and Bob Dwyer (RWC 1991) had poor records at various stages. Similarly Eddie Jones performance declined markedly from 2002 onwards as many of the MacQueen era players retired. Rod MacQueen was the oustanding coach with an outstanding captain in John Eales. 2. I prefer to look at Australia's current standing in world rugby as it is a consistent measure of where we are relative to the rest of the world. At 3rd in the world rankings on 86.87, we are only a whisker behind South Africa on 2nd at 86.94 - a mere 0.08%. 3. Imagine how much better the Wallabies would be placed had Deans not had the horrendous injury toll to contend with, especially the loss of 3 captains and senior leaders in Horwill, Genia and Pocock, together with the limited selection choices he had available, forced to play players out of position or move them around, plus all the attendant difficulties in getting working combinations in place and gelling. Noone appears to be suggesting Deans should have selected any players other than those he used either. I put it to you Deans has done the best job he could in incredibly difficult circumstances. 4. My view of the Wallabies is that the glass is 80% full - that they are very well placed and poised to excel, with a complement of uninjured players in 2013. 5. It is fair enough to criticise the failings of the Wallabies..... it is fair enough that we are disappointed that the performances and results were not better. It is fair enough to want the Wallabies to be No 1 again, however we have to admit that the All Blacks have been supreme in 2011 1nd 2012. However the savagery of the attack on Deans, with nary a word on the instances of mistakes and poor play of the 15 players actually playing the game, is in my view appalling. It is a quite unbalanced portrait of the situation. It is looking at the 20% empty part of the glass, focusing entirely on the failings, then sheeting those failings home to one person alone - the coach. I suggest dear readers, that we put ourselves in the position of gentleman John Eales - the greatest Australian captain of all (my view) in 2003, during the World Cup, when the Wallabies had played incredibly poorly, the All Blacks had thrashed them in the Tri-Nations beforehand 50-21 and everyone was writing Eddie Jones and the Wallabies off.....as here in the Roar now. John Eales was asked if the Wallabies could win.... he was the one beacon of light who said "Yes - the Wallabies can win" and went on to say how. It is history that the Wallabies beat the All Blacks in the semi-final and came ever so close to winning the final. I put it to you Deans and the Wallabies are in a similar position now. And Deans needs a fair balanced assessment - not a typical Australian tall poppy hatchet job.
Justin2
Guest
Ah but we did beat the 9th ranked team four times in a row Kev!
Justin2
Guest
You show me yours and I'll show you mine Ra ;)
Ra
Guest
I look forward to seeing yours and PeterK applications for the job. It would have been good to have your own performance as a lower grade coach reviewed. I bet you put a lot of heart and love into that role, as you should do. Now could be a time to step up.
Ra
Guest
the sad part about you doing all this Pete is that you already had a reputation as an anti Deans scribe, so anything you may write is already tainted. Any attemped you may try to make after that to show rational judgement has already been soured. Forget about the qualitative/quantative analysis, your survey fails to stand up to social rigour and therefore cannot be taken seriously, and it shouldnt be, as its not meant to be an academic research document, rather an anecdotal analysis carried out by a very extreme sports and rugby fanatic which you do not ever have to apologise for. This is the same passion shown by those players you support, to get over the line during the weekend against Wales. You may disagree, but then we are allowed to agree to disagree
jameswm
Guest
Ra I've only coached at underage club level, and I have to say it pains me that I reckon I could coach a lot of it better than Deans or Foley. There are glaring things they're doing wrong.
jameswm
Guest
How can this Bruce bloke ignore the following? - at times embarrasingly poor attack, like last game against Wales. I cannot excuse this. I don't care (that much) that we won against Wales, but our attack was boring, stupid and ugly to watch - beating Wales in Australia whoopee, they're losing at home to everyone now - massive loss in SA - 2 poor losses to NZ, managing one meaningless draw in a dead rubber. So we get one draw and 2 bad losses, and this is a positive? NZ have a bad day and we're at our best ground, and the best we can manage is a draw? - losing to Scotland, ranked 12, both home and away. Embarrassing - that's 0-2 against Scotland - losing to Samoa - badly picked and players not ready for the game - Injuries is a dead argument now. We're almost back to full strength. Horwill, Genia and JOC are the only ones still injured. - very poor match day coaching/management - picking non-performing players when better ones are available - Phipps, Harris at fullback, persisiting with the limited McCabe at 12 - picking players out of position - Harris at FB, Slipper at TH, Alexander at LH etc - not getting selections right till forced on him by injury. Look at our centres now, for example You really made the argument for us at the end though Bruce - here's your quote: "try scoring record could be much better, as could other aspects of their play and tactics" So the guys are pulling together despite poor attack, poor play and poor tactics. Imagine what those blokes could do with a decent coach - that is, decent attack, tactics and skills. They're winning games right now DESPITE the coach - even you're saying that.