Ewen McKenzie to coach Wallabies, Deans sacked

"Deposing authority is what Australians do best."... First Rudd,Foley followed at the Tahs, then Arthur, Gillard next, then Deans, and hopefully Abbott will follow...... Link is safe...he is too big to shift.

Mike, Interesting read of the game. I 100% agree about failing to anticipate the Lions tactics. If the game plan was territory - and I'll admit I have always struggled to understand what Deans' game plans are - I cannot see how Deans could think this would work. Not only does it avoid the strengths in the squad (Folau and a potentially mobile backrow that could win the support race against a Warburton-less Lions) it plays to the strengths of their squad. To me this game plan was not implementable (is that a word) with that team - why, well for the following reasons; 1. JOC is a poor from the hand kicker. He's one of our better goal kickers, but otherwise has a poor boot - hence why he is never really considered at fullback; 2. Beale also can be very average with the kicking from hand. Again, if I had Mogg in my side and I wanted to try a kicking for territory approach I'd have gone with Mogg (and Toomua) instead of Beale. The other thing to remember is that if you are kicking for territory you have to accept that you won't find touch everytime and that you will recieve a kickback, for this reason alone you should avoid Beale who cannot catch. 3. We didn't pick a great line-out. On Tomane, I'll admit I hadn't paid a lot of notice to him all series, so it is quite possible that they specifically targetted him noticing things I didn't, through failing to watch him much at all (weaknesses).

The only meaningful thing in any of flying hori's posts is the 'Reply' at the end.

Come the BLED cup,we WILL see where the measure of the team will be. The AU team is full of talented players. The problem is, they play for themselves,to make themselves look good, JOC,as an example. All Dingo Deans tried to do by excluding QC was to instill a "TEAM" ethic.... And paid the price. But they will not learn. Deposing authority is what Australians do best.... Sports/ politics... Same same.

Actually for a large chunk of the time we were number 3 - basically until we beat the All Blacks in October 2010, then we essentially stayed at 2 with a couple of swings up and down, but certainly we can do a lot worse then being the 2.5 best team in the world. Link will have to stay sharpe.

The 'fog of war' takes on a whole new meaning. Don't give up so easily. You're still in there with a chance... ;)

My apologies Bush, I did misjudge you. Thank you for the clarification. Okay, on that level, this is what I inferred as the outline of the Wallabies' game plan: Territory-based, in the sense that the WBs were never going to seriously press for a try from beyond the Lions 22 – I could not see any sign they intended to put Folau into space inside their own half for example. Rather, it was always their intent to get themselves within the 22 then apply phases to disrupt the defence, so that the tries could come from fairly short attacks, similar to how JOC put AAC through in the second test. But at that range they would equally have expected the try to come from the forwards. I think it was clear that they fancied themselves to win the game by crossing the chalk and they felt that this was where the Lions were vulnerable (which is bitterly amusing in retrospect). By the same token, it appears to me that they did not believe the Lions were going to attempt to win the game through tries, but would put heavy reliance on Halfpenny's boot again, and planned accordingly [That could fairly be called a flawed game plan, especially as dropping O'Driscoll for Davies gave a strong hint that Gatland was going to radically change his approach from the second test. The territory-plus-penalty-shots basis was likely to give way to a prise-open-the-defence-and-punch-the-runners-through approach. However a flawed game plan is not the same thing as having no game plan, which was my original point] Re possession, consistently with above comments on tries I think they clearly placed emphasis on discipline in kicking, and they in fact did this at first. Most kicks were for a line-out in or near the opposition 22, and some were quite good. I see their loss of kick discipline in the second half as being a case of failing to stick to their game plan, rather than an absence of one. It also seemed to me that the Wallabies game plan was based on the belief that pressure at the breakdown would negate much of the impact of both teams' three quarters, particularly the wingers. That proved to be the case, until the last quarter of the match. Taking a 6-2 split on the bench usually points to an expectation that the breakdown will be crucial. It was a plan which proved to be misconceived, but still a plan. One point about Wales' game-plan that intrigues me – did they plan before the match to put pressure on Tomane's wing? This didn't happen until late in the second half. It may be that Gatland always had his eye on this but it wasn't possible in the first half because of pressure at the breakdown. Or it may be that Gatland worked this out at half time. But whatever, it was clearly a planned strategy by the Lions. Re Hooper/Gill – I think the real issue for Deans was Poite's notoriously loose policing of the breakdown (similar to Bryce Lawrence, interestingly) hence he started George Smith as the nearest he could get to a David Pocock. Note that I am not saying this was a correct call, just saying that in my view there was a game plan, good or bad.

Mick does have very strong views with regard to the discipline of players. It's an age thing...lol. However, I agree with you, Peter, that QC I think will now show some pretty fitting performances. Interesting we didn't see him out with Beale and O'Connor at any time during the series, and they seemed to be out and about most of the time (unless it was QC masquerading as a Lions fan at 4am). Young guys need to be given second chances and I would say QC has grabbed his. Let's hope McKenzie has him firing so as we can once again be a competitive force within the Rugby Championship.

Deans would have gone in with a game plan but to suggest it was sensible defies his history. Deans selected JOC as the 10 and told the world JOC traumatises defences. I'm pretty sure the only person JOC traumatised was poor Will Genia. A lot of posters here have mentioned what a poor game Genia had and I don't necessarily disagree but the fact he had to search for JOC at almost every ruck would not have helped. I think Horwill and Genia have showed great diplomacy in saying the players take responsibility for the loss. The truth is both would've been seething that Deans selected an inexperienced and unproven 10 for such an important series. And yes due to the forwards capitulating we did not get the opportunity to see this game plan fail in its entirety. JOC was the lynch pin of his game plan.......nuff said.

You're probaly right Dave, I can see that as a distinct possibility but it isn't assured. What is assured is that if we do happen to not be demolished by you next month and God forbid actually win, you will be nowhere to be seen. You're cosnstant narkyness is so very predictable and boring. You should be happy and confident in you're own right without constantly downing on others to make yourself feel better. Get some counciling, I'm sure you'll feel better

Mike, No need to get angry - you're the oen that has insisted that it was a sensible plan, so you obviously know it; all I am asking for is a quick summary I don't need the in's and out's of the variables according to injury etc. All I need is a simple summary of what the Wallabies game plan was - was it territory based, possession based, was the plan to score tries or keep it simple? As an example, I'd love to have this expained to me - what was the point of having McCalman on the bench? What was the plan there? It obviously wasn't to win the breakdown, because then he'd have kept Gill over Hooper - yet all we heard was that the breakdown was vital, so we were bringing in GS. Perhaps the plan was to play a more high tempo game? Not sure what McCalman brings to that table, but perhaps that was the plan? What was the game plan I would have used? I would have picked a more mobile pack that could retain possession better in an attempt to keep the penalties down by working well at the breakdown. I would have also selected players that knock the ball on less, this is in the backs and forwards so no Beale in my line up. Why you might ask? Well we have for years now had a scrum deficiency and with the change at prop by the Lions it was clear their scrum would be much stronger. I would have at all costs avoided any attempt at a kicking duel against the world's best full back whose strength is - wait for it - kicking. So therefore I would have gone with a more ball in hand approach, carrying the ball back to my mobile forward pack to retain possession and start again. Would this simple ball retention, kick duel avoiding tactic have worked? Who knows, probably not - I am not an international rugby coach obviously - but it certainly seems more logical than what was dished up all series...

What on earth is that supposed to mean? A game plan is usually several pages long, covering many eventualities. I do not have to waste my time typing out pages, simply because you made an (unsupported) assertion that Deans never had a game plan. Try putting forward some evidence for your assertions before asking other people to spend time refuting them in detail. Still I might be misjudging you. If you want a short summary, show me an example - what do you consider the game plan that should have been used?

Hindsight? Beau Robinson battled injury throughout 2012 and 2013. I conceed he is/was not a long term test prospect but mainly due to the depth of 7's in Australia however he was good enough to do the job against McCaw in the Super XV final. McCalmans selection in 2011 and 2013 over either of these players was simply wrong. Matt Hodgsons form in 2011 was very good and his leadership qualities in 2013 are really shining through. The process of selecting a rugby squad should be about balance and objectivity. Deans' actions in 2011 indicated and 2012/13 proved that this above all else is his real weakness. Tui, a poster on this site wrote mockingly after seeing the 6/2 bench for last Saturday that a person making a decision like that would never coach the All Blacks. Tui was so right.

Mike, "A good example is the test last Saturday night – the Wallabies obviously had a game plan and it was a sensible one." Please do elaborate - what was it?

Correct. I would not have thrown Beau Robinson in at test level on the basis of one decent season at S15 level, and for what its worth I think hindsight has confirmed that he wouldn't have cut it. Hodgson is arguable but he went over anyway, and regardless he could not compensate for the loss of Pocock. As it happens, I think Hodgson is starting to look a good test prospect now, but we are talking about 2011, not 2013. If we were, Deans would have both Gill and Hooper as potential back ups to Pocock, and my opinion would be different.

A bit of an amateurish stab there Mike. Both Matt Hodgson and Beau Robinson were fit with Robinson close to the form 7 of the 2011 Australian conference but let me guess, you don't rate either as serious options.

Ask the French, they hate releasing any foreign players for test duties.

If you kiwis don't like it, find some other site with .co.nz and have your own party.

McCaw didn't want Deans as coach of the AB's, said he was a great Super Rugby coach but lacked the flexibility for test rugby.

I rest my case.