In December 2008, the ARU appointed Robbie “Dingo” Deans as the manager to oversee the Wallabies through to the next World Cup.
For the next few years we saw this decent human being descend from adoration (as the next Australian rugby saviour, including the baiting of New Zealand for letting him slip through their fingers), to nasty criticism, authority undermining, ridiculing and eventually outright hatred.
He is now gone, but a proportion of the Australian public and media still seem to take perverse pleasure in sticking the boot in.
Comments such as “Link will need a long time to repair the damage Deans has caused over the years” are common, especially following a defeat. Deans has maintained a dignified silence through all of this.
Just in case (heaven forbid) the Wallabies lose again this weekend, let’s debug what I call the Robbie myth and address some of the criticisms levelled at him.
One of the things that seemed to irk the media in particular was his communication style, which tended to be rather emotionless and monosyllabic. Most successful New Zealand rugby managers tend to be the ‘strong silent types’, more substance than show.
If you look at the crop since the first World Cup (Brian Lochore, “Grizz” Wylie, Laurie Mains, John Hart, Wayne Smith, John Mitchell, Graham Henry and Steve Hansen), none of them were the talkative, laugh-a-minute type.
The closest you would get to ‘talkers’ would be Hart and Henry, but they would still be a distant second to Australian managers in the verbal stakes – Alan Jones, Bob Dwyer, Eddie Jones and Link to name a few.
So my argument is that the ARU knew exactly what they were getting media wise. They would have observed Deans in action over the years and I doubt that during the interviews they had problems shutting him up, so this criticism doesn’t wash with me.
And for the record, they headhunted him and pursued him until they secured his signature.
Now let’s come to his much-maligned record. I investigated his tenure and this is what I came up with.
Win Lose Draw
Argentina 2 0 0
England 4 2 0
Fiji 1 0 0
France 6 0 0
Ireland 2 1 1
Italy 5 0 0
Lions 1 2 0
NZ 3 13 1
Russia 1 0 0
SA 9 4 0
Samoa 0 1 0
Scotland 0 2 0
USA 1 0 0
Wales 8 1 0
TOTAL 43 26 2
Now this might not set the world alight, but it’s acceptable for an international coach who is trying to return a rugby power to its former glories. Of note is his outstanding success against the Boks.
When you remove the ABs (unfortunately Australia’s most frequent playmate) and the easybeats, the record transforms somewhat.
Win Lose Draw
Argentina 2 0 0
England 4 2 0
France 6 0 0
Ireland 2 1 1
SA 9 4 0
Scotland 0 2 0
Wales 8 1 0
TOTAL 31 10 1
Well it doesn’t look too bad to me. As a matter of fact, it looks quite flash.
In the losses to Scotland and Samoa at home, the two low points of his career, the ARU set him up with an impossible assignment – to play Scotland with a second rate team four days before a full Test against a very dangerous Welsh side.
The gale that night didn’t help.
The Samoa debacle was just that and is indefensible, but the Samoans are good and they will keep on catching one of the major powers every so often.
If Deans was specifically employed to get the better of the ABs then he failed, but he is in very good company. The ABs have moved to a different level.
So on results alone I don’t consider him a failure. Beating SA in the QF of the World Cup was a massive achievement, and losing the SF to a rampant AB side on home soil was no disgrace.
Outside of his honeymoon period, I feel that Deans was vilified and hounded by a section of the media and undermined by some players and managers, including Link.
To use an Australian phrase, he was never given a fair go.
Where did he go wrong? He wasn’t ruthless enough in weeding out the toxic elements (ironic choice of phrase). He got rid of Giteau and was heavily criticised.
Andlook what happened when he dropped QC, with sections of the media aiding and abetting.
He should have been stronger in my opinion and cleared a few more out (permanently or temporarily), but I don’t think he was exactly blessed with a lot of quality alternatives.
I don’t know what he did for grassroots rugby and growth of the game here. I would be surprised if he didn’t do unglamorous and unseen work – perhaps somebody can enlighten me?
Biggest mistake? Discarding George Smith, but I think he knows that by now.
Biggest farce? The ARU extending his contract before the World Cup.
I have no issue with Deans being replaced. Although I disagree that he wasn’t a competent coach, my gut feeling was that he brought the Wallabies as far as he was going to and some fresh ideas/approach were needed.
I take issue with the matter of his dismissal, so close to the end of his contract, and I have it on good authority that he was aware he was going to be replaced during the Lions series.
What I find increasingly tiresome is the residual and continuing vitriolic attacks on him every time something goes wrong with the Wallabies.
Time to move on and allow a dignified and decent man to fade into the past of Australian rugby history.
Future results and history will be a better judge.
Buk
Guest
South Africa were the second best team at the WC 2011 And they never got the chance to take down the No.1 team, which (arguably) they might have done. SA played 5 won 4 Australia played 7 won 5 Wales played 7 won 4 Ireland played 5 won 4 (but lost to Wales whom SA beat) England played 5 won 4 (but lost to a team that had 3 losses - France) France played 7 lost 3 (and only beat a Welsh team of 14 players) by 1 point Argentina played 5 won 3
Helen
Guest
I don't follow much Rugby, but even I remember how pathetic the Wallabies were before Deans took them on. What short memories some people have. Credit where credit is due please. You can only work with what you have !!
PeterK
Roar Guru
Mike - The Wallabies were playing a very different style prior to the RWC. Some stats to show this (and how other teams remained constant so not rule changes etc) Pre RWC (From when Deans took over to 1/10/2011) against tier 1 teams no games 35, tries for 85 tries against 77, per game ratio 2.4 tries for , 2.2 tries against against tier 2 teams no games 13, tries for 34 tries against 10, per game ratio 2.6 tries for , 0.8 tries against total (tier 1 and 2) no games 48, tries for 119 tries against 87, per game ratio 2.5 tries for , 1.8 tries against Post RWC against tier 1 teams no games 12, tries for 10 tries against 20, per game ratio 0.8 tries for , 1.7 tries against against tier 2 teams no games 10, tries for 15 tries against 12, per game ratio 1.5 tries for , 1.2 tries against total (tier 1 and 2) no games 22, tries for 25 tries against 32, per game ratio 1.1 tries for , 1.5 tries against Pre RWC (1/10/2009 - 1/10/2011 so just before RWC) against tier 1 teams no games 17, tries for 49 tries against 40, per game ratio 2.9 tries for , 2.4 tries against against tier 2 teams no games 8, tries for 18 tries against 4, per game ratio 2.3 tries for , 0.5 tries against total (tier 1 and 2) no games 25, tries for 67 tries against 44, per game ratio 2.7 tries for , 1.8 tries against The win / loss ratios are very consistent across the periods so losing games is not why the number of tries went down. Rule changes, ref interpretations are not the reason since the other teams no of tries remains far more consistent. The change was the Wallabies became very dour and conservative, playing one out crash ball via McCabe which did not work. They scored very few tries and a lot of those were the forwards. Very very different to the years before. Instead of just repeating the styles were the same please provide evidence, more than your assertion which is clearly wrong. Also explain why the number of tries is so different. They went from 2.4 tries (or 2.7 for the years just before) to 0.8 tries against tier 1 teams.
Sage
Guest
So I have nothing to say when you evade a response.Interesting logic there Mike. Best you stop typing and keep your eye on the rear view mirror. Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep
Ian
Roar Pro
Cheers
allblackfan
Guest
since I moved here to NZ (thank you, God!), just about everybody versed in rugby told me that Robbie had a ferocious temper. They said once you are on his bad side, you never got off it!
Mike
Guest
"Also this is NOT about the AB’s and what they do. It is not about win / loss ratio or it being a valid tactic." I am glad you have taken that position, because I don't see how it is possible to win at all without "crash ball", at least the way you have described it in the past. "My point is the australian public hated the dour ineffective crash ball using a not so big or powerful Pat McCabe as a battering ram" That's the last argument left for you, isn't it? But there is a problem with it - why did crowds go up when McCabe was playing at 12? "Note that McCabe failed to cross the gainline when confronted with powerful opponents like SBW, Nonu, SBW, and very very rarely offloaded" Even if that were correct, so what? It IS permissible to play a 12 who is not a second five, particularly if the rest of your backline is replete with playmakers. And given that a plethora of tries followed when McCabe was doing this, where does that leave your theory?
Gavin Melville
Roar Pro
This has been a good article for getting the opinions going. Nice one ii I have heard the Robbie Deans………. “had two very public distinct key performance indicators – first, to bring back Bill and second, that big cup named after a Kiwi Governor-General” bit a few times, but I can't find the source of the comment outside hearsay & gossip. Was there a press conference sometime? It's not that important, but I find it difficult to believe that the ARU would publicly issue their 2 KPIs. Not to mention the subtext - Bugger the grassroots, screw player development, sod the clubs, f. the 3N/4N etc
Gavin Melville
Roar Pro
Yup - I agree 1 I think Australia's problems are systematic too. 2 The media & fans are a too optimistic/unforgiving/reactionary 3 It's not something a Head Coach can fix However, I disagree that 4 There are people smart enough in the aRU to fix it As 5 There's a $20M a year shortfall in the ARU budgets 6 and it'll get worse if they p!ss the Lions off any more than they did over £, opposition & schedule But 7 If everyone got up off their @rse to help, the recovery prog would go a lot quicker
Mike
Guest
Not by me. I was responding to PeterK, and his argument is that the Wallabies style changed after the 2011 Tri-nations series. So between August 2011 and October 2011.
Two Eyed Cyclop
Roar Guru
Yep, apologised for the error in earlier post, thanks Chinmay.
Mike
Guest
That sums it up pretty well.
Chinmay
Guest
Australia did lose to France, in fact it was just last year in Paris.
colvin
Guest
Gavin, Frankly, Fernando is not too far from the mark when he talks about expectations of Oz fans and media. As has been debated endlessly on Roar, the fundamental problems of Oz rugby are, can you believe it, actually fundamental. They're not something a WB Head Coach can fix. Luckily, there's some pretty smart people in the ARU. And quite honestly, let me be quite clear, the wheel has already been invented. Oz rugby needs to knock off the NZ system, apply Oz characteristics, and away you will go and reach the level of excellence you strive for.
Two Eyed Cyclop
Roar Guru
And if McKenzie maintains the same win ratio against the Boks I will hail him as a bloody good coach. A modicum of realism about what is happening with Australian rugby at the moment in terms of the its depth and mismanagement wouldn't go amiss. But if it makes you happy keep aiming for the easy target, Have a good night,
ADC
Guest
Nice straw man argument (look it up on the internet), maybe Robbie needs a chief boot licker to boost his ego now he's out of a job, you and Mike can fight it out for the spot. I blame Deans for 6 years of poor Wallabies performances, nothing more nothing less. Deans was responsible for those performances, if anything the team was getting worse not better over the time he was in charge. He failed and he was replaced, that's how it goes in professional sport. If McKenzie is 0 from 8 (Bledisloe/4 Nations/Grand Slam/WC) at the end of 2015 I'll say exactly the same about him.
Mike
Guest
This is hilarious ADC, you turn to personal abuse because you are incapable of engaging in reasoned argument, and then you accuse others of being exactly what you are yourself. Simply handing out mindless abuse does not constitute commitment or passion. You deserved Deans. I hope you enjoyed every minute of the last six years. Your last sentence back at you.
Two Eyed Cyclop
Roar Guru
Keep blaming Deans for everything ADc, from global warming to the GFC, while watching the WBs slide down the rankings and your real problems like the lack of structures to build the game bottom up and inability to compete with the other football codes are ignored. Why don't you change your profile to Nero and take up a musical instrument. I can see some very lean times ahead and believe it or not it saddens me. Pathetic.
Mike
Guest
Sage the only thing that is clear is that you have nothing to say. By all means keep living up to your usual high standard.
ADC
Guest
You are seriously a clown mate. Wins against England, Wales, France and Zanzibar are nice but the things that matter to most Wallabies fans in my opinion are: 1. Playing with creativity, skill and passion 2. Winning or performing well at the World Cup, equal second with 2. Winning the Bledisloe more than 0 in 5 years 3. Winning the 3/4 nations 4. Everything else Deans was hired to win the trophies we care about. He failed. Crawl back in your hole.