Evaluating McKenzie's first year as Wallabies coach

Always back an ozzy coach. Just look at the cricket. Leeman was rushed into the role. Went away and came back and spanked the poms. With NRC coming online, I'm backing oz to be a shot at the world cup title in a few years, and from then on, to be on par to NZ's current pack if not better.

Man that's some serious gilding of the lily there. "won against arg at home in atrocious conditions that were tailor made for the opposition." The opposition that went 2-10 this season only beating Italy and Georgia and which hasn't beaten the Wallabies since 1997. "pushed the all blacks all the way away." The AB's were 15 points up with 10 minutes to play. Aus got a consolation try which didn't even get them within 7 points. Hardly pushed them all the way. "came back well away after a terrible start against SA (least significant suppose) " They managed a try apiece playing the entire 2nd half in garbage time. could go with lower then a pass but you are missing out quit a few positives in your assessment

won against arg at home in atrocious conditions that were tailor made for the opposition. . pushed the all blacks all the way away. came back well away after a terrible start against SA9least significant suppose) . could go with lower then a pass but you are missing out quit a few positives in your assessment

Stray Gator, who knows what truth there is to anything. Certainly not you or I. Was it real or just lies. Your assertion is that Brett Harris is not person with integrity and quite open to not just stretching the truth, but writing something which is an outrageous lie also doesn't hold water. The onus is equally in you to provide evidence of why you are so dismissive of him So I would suggest Tane made comment that a public article was written and you say rubbish show me more evidence? My understanding from others is this wasn't a lone comment on the matter. And no I am not about to do the running around to grace you with answers. And if you are saying because one of the team didn't public ally come out and say something on tour... It's not valid?!!?? Really?!?! The only person in recent times to have done that is Quade. And look how much respect that got him. So Tane mentioned there was a comment made publicly, by a well known sports writer. And the inane comment back... Is he's a liar, prove he is right. I don't know but why? Why don't you show how a guy who is closer to people in and around this team is making up complete lies. I love how we don't like the answer we blame other or disparage the person making the comment. No wonder EM rates a 7 out of 10.

You may think it is rubbish that a team doesn't have the same resolve and focus when they have won the silverware and are in cruise mode. That is entirely up to you. Simple fact is they lost and didn't look to me like they were a threat of winning. And the Bok as Biltong has spoken about tried expansive footy (higher risk) to make the mountain not such a massive climb against the AB's to attempt to win the cup. At no stage did the Wallabies look they were a threat to them. But if that is good, then good for them. So forgot off field dramas or chat. Flogging the Argies at home was all they did in the RC. If that rates as a pass, then might I suggest the bar is pretty freakin low. Anyway it's just my opinion. The Wallabies liked competitive in a dead rubber, but still never looked like winning. Good? Can't say I'd be excited, glad people are pumping air into the big mans tyres. As for his whinging doing him some good and sticking up for his team. To date Limk still looks more politician than coach at times. But if ego was a pre-condition, maybe he could get 5.5. For me, if the AB's had a season like that, there'd be no way it would be considered a pass. And I'm thinking about days when the AB's have struggled and changing players and coaches like socks... Like Grizz Wylie and John Hart eras. Both top coaches IMO. But both lost the plot. Anyway, I can't see this being more than a pass rate.if you think they did good, well I guess that is good :-)

well later games, we flogged argentina away (better than good), came back against SA away (better than good) after being hammered early (worse than good - good overall, maybe shade not good if you insist) and gave the unbeaten 2013 all blacks a good shake away (good), the whole time playing a good brand of rugby (good). you can interpret opposition not trying or any of that rubbish and mark him down for context but i'm going to go ahead and assume the two best teams in the world try to win every match by as much as they can. and i find his post match comments largely irrelevant, on field performance is what i look for. in any case i liked a coach sticking up for his team when he felt it was needed. funny how our scrum got pinged less often and seemed to stand up after his submission.

Chivas, it is all banter on here anyway so no offence taken. The machinations of team selections during the RC were a bit baffling and it always looked to me like McKenzie was playing politics rather than trying to win games. I thought at the time he was instating Brumbies as a means of placating the supporters that wanted to see them "get a go". He may have been just trying to see how different players performed against the toughest opposition, but a tough learning curve for the likes of Toomua, White and Mogg. Some would say unfair. Or he may have simply been following the mantra of selecting players on form. In which case no one could argue the teams that he put out were not the best of the S15 players AUS had. As to Higganbotham, well, as a Reds follower I rate him, though not anywhere near the quality of Read. I think he is growing into a genuine no8, and one that the Saffas allegedly rate as a thug (read that somewhere), so that is good enough for me. It would be close thing for him and Palu for my vote. McKenzie would have a decent selection problem if all were fit. That would appear to be the problem these days. The lack of competition for spots brings down the quality of game performance. Losing 15 grand by not appearing in the 23 would be enough to spur you on next time you get a gig. I don't know the players feelings about Deans as anyone else on this blog. But I will say that the decision to keep O'Connor on the RWC tour after he missed the morning session for the sponsors was a poor one. People will stay loyal to a leader who treats them well and indulges them, but that loyalty may or may not be repaid, depending on the quality of the individual. People may not like a tougher manager, but it will generally bring out a better performance. I look forward to a reasonably settled squad that can challenge the best teams in the world. I do not for minute think that AUS no3 rating is warranted, England were clearly better able to handle NZL than we were, and they beat us, so how we are above them in the ratings points to a mistake I their calculations. I look forward to their tour of NZ next year as much as the French tour of AUS, as I think it will produce some quality rugby. In the meantime, bring on February and the Reds playing for another title.

How are later games rated as good. By the latter stages of the RC the Wallabies had lost all respect of the opposition. So in dead rubbers or when teams were trying things because they saw no chance of losing to the Wallabies, which they didn't... you rate that as good. I rate it as inconsequential rubbish. Entirely irrelevant and difficult to give any rating. We lost the tournament early on... with all the silverware gone we looked good. For mine, no. They were absolute rubbish. Got knocked down, cried (refer EM and his comments about scrum laws), then turned up for the drinks after where they scored a couple of points in who cares Baabaas footy. Put it another way. How much respect do you really thing they had at the end. More than at the beginning of the RC? If so it was marginal. TBH the jury is still out on the EOYT. For me the EOYT is an endurance test. I respected the Wallabies because they fully committed to the end by beating Wales. Compare that to the ABs who always struggle to remain focused in the final matches. I thought it showed steel by the Wallabies team. That is mor important than Quade's sleight of hand passes. For me that meant the team was united, so kudos to that to EM after all his public posturing and tough love curfew BS. The disaster that was the RC was demonstrated in the way they started the EOYT. Regardless of the ref, they played an English side lacking in fortitude or imagination and couldn't put them away. Granted it wasn't EM making most of the noise, just Australian media and fans. In Marto's eyes that would have been seen as a win. So in fairness, they didn't sit and sulk, they picked themselves up and made sure the rest of the tour was a success. That showed mettle. But to suggest it was a good year, when looking at the cold hard facts in the light of day is stretching it a bit. It wasn't the disaster they looked like they were heading for is what I would say. I think it's excellent fans are watching what could evolve into a very good and entertaining Wallaby side. For that I give credit to the way they finished. At one point I was wondering who would be left to turn out the lights. So in summary, EM survived a cataclysmic disaster and there appear to be glimpses of light. Hope next year starts with a bang not a pfffft or it will be a long hard road back... A bit like Italy trying to win the 6N as David Lord explained so succinctly.

7/10 sounds round about right to me, decent, improving, not perfect but not bad considering. 5/10 isn't a realistic rating for an international coach - if it were, then which of the 6 nations team coaches should be rated a 3 or less? Or is being in the NH an excuse for a sub-standard performance? Notable characters have been clamouring for a while now that Australia don't have the cattle, the excuse that they suddenly gained them to coincide with Link's tenure is bs IMO. Australia lost the #3 position in the world but regained it the same year. That's got to be worth at least 7/10, surely.

i just wouldnt lump the whole rc in the terrible basket. on a scale poor to great i'd say early games poor with the others at good

Sorry that should have read both Pocock and Higgers didn't play much.

Yes 4 is a bit low Soapit, probably 5 is fair. I was just taking the opposite extreme toke a point. I thought EM carried on like a bit of a goose when the scrimmage was being trampled by all and sundry. And the Wallabies did look like a team hastily thrown together and chopping and changing like Tony Abbot and co. on a good day. So the 4n and Bled cup was rubbish however you paint it and that actually made up a fair chink of the games over quite a decent period. But he made up ground on the EOYT and ended the year on a high which is great for the players and definitely means they start grins better frame of mind. But I wouldn't be picking them to beat the AB's or the Bok except in dead rubbers, not ones that count. It will be interesting to see who the French send out and how the Wallabies go. I think the Wallabies are heading towards being the Bok whipping boys again if they don't harden up defensively. I know Jiggs and co. think Wuade tears the Bok apart, but this new style of the Wallabies looks leaky to me at this point. Maybe good razor dazzle but teams like the Bok grind that enthusiasm out of you if it isn't accurate and then stomp you and walk to the line. The Wallaby sides who have been world beaters had world class players, like Eales, NFJ, Lynagh, Willie O, Kepu, Smith, Gregan, that skinny farm kid from the Brumbies. Isn't it funny how much stick Deans got for Folau and how little respect he got when Folau did good. Anyway this side is missing world class players across the board, but they have a fee decent youngsters who have some ways to go and may very we'll grow over the next few years. And that is interesting and exciting for Wallaby rugby. 2015 and 2016 for mine. 2014 I predict more of the same, improvement but still losing to the top sides. So in saying that, can't really be giving EM anything more than a pass :-)

In which case Rebull it is me who owes you an apology and humbly beg your forgiveness. I agree with 50 + 10, except is 50% of games a pass overall. It was a horror start, jumping left right and centre, making excuses about refs and everyone else to buy time for a disintegrating scrum. I'm not sure that is as sorted as everyone is making out. Been reading articles suggesting the Wallabies scrum is now respected by opposition teams and refs. I haven't seen evidence of that. They may be looking stronger than the girls team but I'd suggest they have a bit of ground to make up before they are considered respectable. I have been pretty impressed with Simmons and Moore all year and having a bit of grunt on the side in Fardy is not a bad thing, considering the weight and grunt of Palu has been missing. Might I add all this excitement about princess Higginbotham based in a few good games at the rebels is a bit over the top by some. He's already touted as the next Read and he has only ever looked soft in an international. Anyway, leaving that alone with Horwill dropping form and everyone making excuses like he was tired. You'd think he'd be pumped having his coach there, but who really knows how players really feel. My understanding is the players had a fair bit of loyalty to Deans regardless what gets thrown about on the pages of the roar or in the media. There must be some reason Brett Harris and co liked him or would you suggest they are all fools and the experts on the roar are more knowing? So on the EOYT I'm inclined to give EM a 65% pass mark. For the way he carried on and the team performed in the 4N and Bledisloe, I'd give him 25%, most of that because of one good outing against the Pumas. Scoring a try or two against the AB's in a dead rubber and still losing is nothing. And because they won the last game he can have an extra 10 because they at least go into next year on a positive...and I think a 50% pass rate is a fair reflection. 7 out of 10 is just doe eyed infatuation.

Chivas, the length of these threads means there is a lack of comprehension as to who is replying to what. My comment was to Tane who referred to the Australian as 1 of the biggest newspapers in Australia. I simply responded to that claim. I do not care for News Limited and have some concerns on the barrows that get pushed under its banner. I guess that is why I prefer this site. The agendas are plain for all to see. My reply was also in response to Tane Mahuta refusing to give ground where he was clearly caught out. There was not articles "all over the internet" about a mutiny against Mowen. In fact I had to go looking for it, and then it was behind a pay wall. As to the report of texts and Drew Mitchell, well, how does he figure in this? So one his mates is upset at getting caught and looking for a scapegoat. Balance these instances against the clear message sent from McKenzie with the game suspensions, written and verbal warnings and I would say that there is clear improvement to getting a sense of accountability. If a couple of players want to get out of the situation of accountability, then McKenzie seems willing to show them the door. This can only be a good thing in the long run. Given the nature of the National squad there will always be factions and it is up to the coach and management on how that is handled. As to a more complete reply. I feel that the 7 given is a little high, but I think McKenzie and Australian rugby is headed in the right direction. The coaching staff would get a 5 for the 50% win ratio and another 10% for improving the quality of the rugby played and the laying down of accountability guidelines.

My point was to highlight the fact that Australia did not have to overcome bad weather conditions in which they are so vulnerable. That they played in conditions which suits their traditional style.

Agree the forwards do the hard work, but was under the impression both Pockock and Higgers, not sure about Horwill either. That could be memory. I remember it was the first year Hooper made his mark. Was ever a massive fan of Palu, but accept he was a good player. And while the Aus center partnership was disrupted, AAC has substantial experience in that position as opposed to the welsh options. Leali'ifano has also played in some big matches there recently. Australia play through Cooper, but Warren ball relies on strong running centres. The Welsh really missed Davies. I felt it was noticeable that they improved considerably when North moved to OC.

I got the jist of the article niwd, when you take the third test of the BIL tour through to the last game of season into account then yes, there is every reason for optimism due to the significant improvement in those two games. After England, the WBs were good - not awesome, but good (the Welsh game was awesome). But does the meek manner in which the WBs surrendered particularly SBs merit a 7 in the overall score? What about the English game, yes they were reffed unfairly but that still their game to lose. England didn't win it, the WBs lost it. So 7/10 would be a good score for improvement even then improvement wasn't consistent - it fluctuated, 5/10 on results. 6/10 is fair.

I agree with all that Wozza. The tide may be turning and as you say that is a good thing. Redbull, I'm not saying I agree with anything. The fact you think I am demonstrates my point that perception and reality parts way, quite often in people's eagerness to respond. As I commented in the initial paragraph it seems to come fairly easy to some who just want an excuse to say something and attribute it to someone. But perhaps open your mind a tad and read all the words... I said on the one hand the Murdoch press is rubbished when a comment comes through that we want to dismiss, but on the other hand is the gospel when it is in agreement with our thoughts. I could personally careless about any tabloid or comments which arise from lack of simple reading comprehension. So if you want to make personally disparaging comments, please attribute them correctly to something I say, not what you imagine and attribute to me.

@ Chivas. Au contraire, mon ami. I'm not playing the victim, or the man, and there was no sneer in my comment. All that I was and am still challenging is the asserted "mutiny and discontent amoungst players." One article by Brett Harris, with no specific attribution (or even hinted at attribution) to any member of the current touring team does not a mutiny make. Conversely, an unwillingness to overlook better evidence that, if weighed against that article, would decisely swing the balance of probabilities in favour of an diametrically opposite conclusion smells awfully like bias to me. IMO.

Chivas, tend to agree and think the baby got thrown out with the bath water here. The notion of discontent and the events in Dublin are definitely something worth discussing. I'm sure there was discontent at the time especially from the stuff I remember reading, please don't ask me to cite it, but ultimately I think that will work out better. I think Deans' equivocal reactions to disciplinary issues was also a cause of destabilisation and while players may find McKenzie's approach over-authoritarian, I think they'll appreciate the line in the sand approach McKenzie has brought. They know what to expect and no-one is bigger than the team. The onus is on the players to act like adults and they'll be better for it IMO Without quibbling over the merits of the ABs and Boks, I honestly can't see Deans achieving any better results. He was lucky to beat the Boks at home last year, and this years team is a few notches above that, as is this years ABs over last years. I do think both teams are better than the 2013 BILs and didn't notice any discernible difference from the last Loins game into the first 4 RC games. Sure we were all hopng for better but it was pretty clear the team we put on the field weren't up to it regardless of who was coach and I think anyone who thinks McKenzi was gong to turn it all around in 2 weeks without the benefit of any warm up games is deluded. The way people dismiss McKenzie's nightmare baptism is completely ridiculous and not a fair indicator of his performance. The jury's still out until after next years RC IMO and I think 6 is probably a more realistic grade but one thing I think a lot of Wobs supporters can say right now is that this is the first time we've felt truly optimistic about Oz rugby in a long time and that is a good thing.