Deans under fire from Wallaby greats.

[FlukeArtist]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/6024463/Campese-slams-Deans-wants-Ewen-McKenzie

As a kiwi I have to agree - Deans international record is average.
Even with the ABs - he could never look past his beloved Canterbury boys.

I think Deans is not a great coach, I think he is a decent coach that has benefitted from the Canterbury system.

I have always been so glad Henry got reinstated and this guy wasn't given the reins.
I doubt we would have seen the likes of Kaino or Nonu playing.

 

[Gavin]

Have to disagree; anything Campese says usually comes with its own shovel. Deans is a top club coach and still has time to prove himself on International level. Remember Australia didn't have the kind of players New Zealand did and Deans had blooded a load of young players who will be playing international rugby for perhaps a decade.

 

[Larksea]

hard to judge either way, it's easy to pinpoint particular things after all is done and dusted.

could pinpoint not having 7 backup for Pocock or maybe not playing the right guy at 10 or 12.

But at the end of the day the team that won did not have a backup 7 and they were on their 4th man at 10 when they won the thing.

But at the same time you could say that it has seemed for a while now that the All Blacks in particular had Coopers number and he had become a very 50/50 player during the world cup.

I still think Dean's biggest mistake was the lack of value he had for his experienced players. Matt Getau, Nathan Sharpe, Stirling Mortlock, Phil Waugh, George Smith.

All these guys have been pushed away by deans in some way. All or some of these guys should have had some or a much greater Role in the campaign. It's great having a young team full of x-factor but when it comes to the massive knockout games I believe having Seasoned test Pro's who have been their before is much more important.

can't believe Sharpe sat on the sidelines with his 99 tests experience for that Semi final. Crazy, utterly crazy.

It was link deans didn't learn anything from his failed 2003 campaign with the All Blacks.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Have to disagree; anything Campese says usually comes with its own shovel. Deans is a top club coach and still has time to prove himself on International level. Remember Australia didn't have the kind of players New Zealand did and Deans had blooded a load of young players who will be playing international rugby for perhaps a decade.

Deans has had plenty of time at international level. 3 seasons with Aussie now, plus his years coaching the ABs (and make no mistake he was the one doing the coaching in the partnership with Mitchell- thats how he got all his Canterbury boys in there)
His biggest problem is he ostrasized all the experienced players in the Australian set-up.
You could also argue that Deans has had fantastic raw talent to work with in the likes of Beale, O'Connor, Pocock et al, and he has underachieved.
I guarantee Henry would have got more out of those players.

And remember- it wasn't just Campese saying this stuff about Deans

 

[nickdnz]

I disagree. I think Deans has done a very good job. So much young talent has been dug out, that Australian rugby is looking very bright come the next RWC and potentially the one after that. Remember that Australia had literally not unearthed any new talent since 2003. I think Mortlock and Giteau should probably have been in the side, and possibly Waugh (although I'd have gone for Beau Robinson), but overall the Wallabies will benefit from having Deans. We'll see come the next Lions tour just how well Deans has done, but I think some of the Australian legends are more annoyed that he is a Kiwi than a "bad" coach.

It's strange that people also credit Dean's success at the Crusaders due to the "Canterbury system". He pretty much invented that system with Canterbury. Before him Blues and Auckland rugby were pretty much the most dominant province in New Zealand. Winning 5 Super Rugby ***les in 8 years is amazing. I don't think it's just bad luck that the last time the Crusaders won a ***le was in Deans last year.

 

[Gavin]

Deans will show if he has balls when Quade Cooper returns to fitness. I full expect O'Connor to play well at fly-half against the Barbarians and Barnes also when he gets the chance; he will then have to decide whether to keep with form or go back to Quade.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Hang about Nick - he has one of the worst records of any Australian coach.

Also- has he really "dug out talent" or has the talent just come through the system like it usually does in due course?

 

[Dizzy]

Bro how can you possibly be defending Deans?... It seems like, no matter how much he f***s up the Wallaby camp, he still get's the benefit of doubt,... How about having the record 10 straight losses against the All Blacks on your CV, or the lowest winning percentage for a Wallaby coach?.
When Henry was reinstated over Deans, at the time it seemed like I was thee only one who agreed with the decision, EVERYONE around me were saying Deans' Wallabies were going to punish Henry's All Blacks and they were set to win the World Cup.
Henry won the world cup and people around me are STILL talking up Robbie Deans, do they forget he was involved with the All Blacks before where three-quarters of the All Blacks were Crusaders? And they failed miserably. I remember at one point in time where all but ONE player in the starting 15 were Crusaders...
It was Deans' poor hope in Quade Cooper that gave the Aussies such a bad World Cup campaign, it was his lack of faith in the experienced hard-men of Wallaby rugby which gave the Aussies such a bad World Cup campaign.
I just don't understand how some people can still rate him over Henry[not on here, people I know] and not run his name into the ground after his pathetic display as Wallaby coach.

 

[Seaton]

Got to disagree that Deans has been pathetic in his role as Wallaby coach, he brought in players like O' Connor whom had barely even touched senior rugby games yet, and has slowly been building the side which has a great future in that there are many young players whom have got loads of experience at the international level, and has selected squads and teams which don't leave much room for discussion.

That players like Cooper didn't perform in the world cup wasn't Deans' fault, nor was it his that Giteau was lucky to get selected for games during the S15, he was just plain awful.

 

[Dizzy]

With the talent that James O'Connor has, do you really think that he wouldn't have made it to the Wallabies if Deans wasn't the coach?

Is that what you're trying to say?.

It is Deans' fault Cooper didn't perform, as he is the coach!. He continued to pick Cooper even though it was obvious he wasn't having a good tournament but he kept making "hope" picks on Quade. In the game against the All Blacks, which is THE game Deans' should have had all his homework done on, he should've pulled Quade off in the first 20 mins and let Barnes steer the ship.

It was Deans who continued to pick the poor midfield combinations when what he needed was an experienced-safe player like Giteau. He played TWO DEFENDING centres against the All Blacks... Bro, if you want to score tries, you need to play attacking players. He shouldn't have left Giteau out at such a crucial time for Wallaby rugby. George Smith should've been taken as cover, Higginbotham should feel like fu***** Bismark Du Plessis.

Robbie Deans hasn't done anything for the Aussies.

 

[Darwin]

I have to agree entirely with nickdnz - I can't understand all this criticism of Deans. As nickdnz points out Deans didn't 'benefit' from the Canterbury system at the Crusaders - he (along with Wayne Smith) built the successful Crusaders system!

When Deans took over Australia at the end of 2007, Australian rugby was hardly in great shape. They had just been knocked out at the quarter-final stage of the Rugby World Cup, and were currently ranked 5th in the World. They had an older squad, and a number of their world class players over the last 10 years were near retirement (e.g Gregan, Larkham, Latham etc). Deans made the decision that the current crop of older players was not going to win him the RWC in 4 years time, so went about introducing new players over the next few years in an attempt to give them a chance of being more competitive at the 2011/2015 Rugby World Cups. In many ways the 2011 Rugby World Cup came a year or two to early for Australia, as their young players weren't quite yet ready for the pressure of a RWC yet. In another 4 years though it could be a very different story! Despite not being quite at their best at the RWC they ended up getting 3rd (much better than last time), they are the current Tri-nations champions, and are currently ranked 2nd in the world on the IRB rankings. Therefore over the last 4 years Deans has manged to introduce a huge number of new players, improved their World Ranking, and improved their result at the Rugby World Cup.

People spend a lot of time pointing out that Deans does not have a great winning percentage as Australian coach. This is true, but his winning percentage is very similar to the other Australian coaches over the last 10 years. In his time as Australian coach Deans has won 32/55 test matches (58%), which is similar to John Connelly (16/25 - 64%), and Eddie Jones (33/57 - 57%). The suggestion that Deans has the 'lowest winning percentage for a Wallaby coach' is completely false - Australia's have won 271/515 (53%) of games that they have played - Deans's winning percentage is actually higher than the average Australian coach!

I'm certainly not suggesting Deans is the greatest coach around - I too get really annoyed by the fanatical Robbie Deans supporters, many of whom vowed to support Australia after Deans lost the AB's coaching position to Henry. Like any coach Deans, certainly does make mistakes - he may have dropped too many experienced players, and kept faith in Quade Cooper a bit too long. I was actually one of those that supported Henry's selection over Deans - not because Deans is not a very good coach, just I though Henry was a better coach, and I thought he would have learnt from his mistakes (which I believe he did). Just because Henry won a Rugby World Cup (on his second attempt, with far more talent to work with) it doesn't mean that Robbie Deans is a poor coach.

Overall I think Deans is a very good coach, and I'd be more than happy if he decided to jump ship and come and coach the AB's now that Henry is gone!

 

[Sam Owen]

Like Malcolm, Im in the middle for this one. I think Deans has done a good job with the Wallabies. They were in turmoil before he took the job and then they slowly progressed to a very good side with Deans as coach. BUT after reading everyones post that disagrees with Deans as being a good coach, you cant help but see those good points, its like 'true that'.

I think Deans biggest problem as being the Wallabies coach from an Australian perspective (and no, Im not Australian just hear me out) is that he is a kiwi. So if things go wrong they can resort to that, and most probably will be the first thing on Aussie minds when they lose. If he was succesful in the RWC, the Aussies wouldve only praised him a little, the full credit would have gone to the team and understandably so.

Take Graham Lowe for example, when he coached the (kick NSW butt anyday) Queensland Maroons in one of the best Origin series ever and won it, there was many Aussie skeptics about Lowes ability to coach the Maroons before he even did anything. When the Maroons won it, there was praise for the team but hardly any praise for Lowe. Just a shoulder ride and got made an honourary Queenslander, thats was about it.

Now in contrast, Wayne Bennett coming to help the kiwis is a different story any country that knows League would gladly except him, no quarrels there. Deans accomplished a lot with the Crusaders but for some reason he just doesnt measure up to Wayne IMO. Where Im going with all this is, as a kiwi you just going to find it very hard to please the Aussies.

Bottom line I think Campo just sees Deans as a scapegoat to why his team lost so badly in the semis. At the same time Campo has come up with some good points thats got nothing to do about Deans being a kiwi but I cant help but think that it is a factor, possible foundation for Campos blast of Deans.

 

[smartcooky]

I disagree. I think Deans has done a very good job. So much young talent has been dug out, that Australian rugby is looking very bright come the next RWC and potentially the one after that. Remember that Australia had literally not unearthed any new talent since 2003. I think Mortlock and Giteau should probably have been in the side, and possibly Waugh (although I'd have gone for Beau Robinson), but overall the Wallabies will benefit from having Deans. We'll see come the next Lions tour just how well Deans has done, but I think some of the Australian legends are more annoyed that he is a Kiwi than a "bad" coach.

It's strange that people also credit Dean's success at the Crusaders due to the "Canterbury system". He pretty much invented that system with Canterbury. Before him Blues and Auckland rugby were pretty much the most dominant province in New Zealand. Winning 5 Super Rugby ***les in 8 years is amazing. I don't think it's just bad luck that the last time the Crusaders won a ***le was in Deans last year.

I agree with this Nick. Team performances are not only down to the coach, they are down to the players as well.

Does anyone really believe that he would have only achieved a 58% record with the All Blacks?

Could Graham Henry have done any better given what Deans had to work with?

How many of the top Wallaby line-up would displace their counterpart in the All Black line-up? IMO, the only one who might come close would be Genia

Deans' record stacks up well against other recent Australian coaches.

Deans..............P55 W32 L22...58.2%
Connolly...........P25 W16 L8.....64.0%
Eddie Jones......P57 W33 L23....57.9%
Rod MacQueen..P43 W34 L8.....79.1%
Greg Smith.......P19 W12 L7......63.2%

Only Rod MacQueen really stands out.

There is not much difference between Deans 58.5 % and the 63.2 of Smith and 64% of Connelly over the small number of matches the latter two had

For Smith, turn ONE win into a loss, and his record would have been W11 L8... 57.9%
For Connolly turn TWO results into losses and his record would have been W15 L10... 56%

Just three matches with different results would give Deans the second best Wallabies coaching record in the 15 years.

 

[Dizzy]

I have to agree entirely with nickdnz - I can't understand all this criticism of Deans

I can only speak for myself, so my criticism comes from relief and a "eat-that" mindset towards those who doubted Henry's reinstatement and pledged allegiance to Robbie Deans when he went to Aussie.
I can't speak for Australians, but I can put myself in their shoes where as if Rod McQueen had come to the All Blacks and kept playing a player who clearly wasn't doing his job and struggling with the pressure or hype or whatever was wrong with Quade, especially in a pivotal role like 1st five when we've had DC sitting on the bench and being a back-up, I'D BE EFFING FURIOUS and criticise the shite out of McQueen.
It was all to do with selections, if McQueen had gotten rid of Nonu and McCaw and kept playing SBW and Ben Smith in our centres, I'd be criticising him.

When Deans took over Australia at the end of 2007, Australian rugby was hardly in great shape. They had just been knocked out at the quarter-final stage of the Rugby World Cup, and were currently ranked 5th in the World.

Don't forget about that Black team which ALSO got knocked out in the same stages that year.

They had an older squad, and a number of their world class players over the last 10 years were near retirement (e.g Gregan, Larkham, Latham etc).

I feel that they would've retired anyway, regardless of who was coaching them.

Deans made the decision that the current crop of older players was not going to win him the RWC in 4 years time

And his new batch didn't win him the RWC either so this point is invalid.

so went about introducing new players over the next few years in an attempt to give them a chance of being more competitive at the 2011/2015 Rugby World Cups. In many ways the 2011 Rugby World Cup came a year or two to early for Australia, as their young players weren't quite yet ready for the pressure of a RWC yet

To have the mentality that you only want your team to be more competitive when you're arguably the second best team in the world just isn't good enough. In my opinion, 4 years is an absolutely brilliant amount of time to mould your team. And if you're only going there to be competitive then you shouldn't even be there in the first place. You go there to win especially if you're regarded as a threat.

I agree with this Nick. Team performances are not only down to the coach, they are down to the players as well.

Does anyone really believe that he would have only achieved a 58% record with the All Blacks?

If he applied the same tactics and hopeful beliefs in a tried and failed first five then yes..... And especially if he pulled the Canterblacks back and did a Mark Hammett in not giving guys like Kaino and Nonu a chance.

Could Graham Henry have done any better given what Deans had to work with?

Again, if Graham Henry applied the same tactics then I DO believe he would've done better. Henry is able to make crucial selections, Deans clearly showed he wasn't ready to do so with Quade.

How many of the top Wallaby line-up would displace their counterpart in the All Black line-up? IMO, the only one who might come close would be Genia

The same could've been said about the All Blacks themselves. Who would've thought Richard Kahui would displace Sitiveni Sivivatu on the wing?... Only Henry. And he could have done many things with the Wallabies but we will never know.

 

[smartcooky]

Of the 55 Wallaby matches that Deans has coached, 15 of them have been against New Zealand .That is more than a quarter all matches against the top side in World Rugby

His win percentage against NZ is 20% (3 from 15)

During the same period...

South Africa 45% (5 from 11)
France 20% (1 from 6)
England 0% (0 from 5)
Wales 0% (0 from 5)

Deans' record against all teams OTHER than New Zealand is 72.4%, Can any other coach in world rugby match that, apart from Ted?

The answer is no.

Deans' record is skewed compared with that of others because of the large number of matches he has against the worlds top sides.

 

[Darwin]

I can only speak for myself, so my criticism comes from relief and a "eat-that" mindset towards those who doubted Henry's reinstatement and pledged allegiance to Robbie Deans when he went to Aussie.

The problem is though, that is hardly objective criticism. I can understand where you are coming from - as a supporter of Henry I too took great pleasure every time "Henry's" AB's beat "Deans's" Wallabies - those idiots who pledged their allegiance to Deans when he went to Aussie really ****** me off too. However just because "Henry's" AB's has gotten the better of "Deans's" Wallabies does not mean Deans is a poor coach!

I can't speak for Australians, but I can put myself in their shoes where as if Rod McQueen had come to the All Blacks and kept playing a player who clearly wasn't doing his job and struggling with the pressure or hype or whatever was wrong with Quade, especially in a pivotal role like 1st five when we've had DC sitting on the bench and being a back-up, I'D BE EFFING FURIOUS and criticise the shite out of McQueen.

To be honest Deans had no real option but to stick with Cooper once the Rugby World Cup started. The Cooper/Genia combo had just won a Super Rugby ***le, as well as the Tri-nations. After the Super Rugby season people where asking who was the best 10 in the world: Cooper or Carter! Personally I don't think Cooper is in the same class as Carter (yet), but after the Super Rugby season he was clearly on top of him game. There is no doubt Cooper was poor at the Rugby World Cup, however no matter who Australia played at 10 in the semi versus the AB's they were going to lose - the AB's were just far too good.

Are you really suggesting having Berrick Barnes on the bench is like having Dan Carter on the bench? Barnes had a solid Super Rugby season, but has failed to really establish himself at test level, having started less than 10 tests at first-five. Barnes also missed large parts of the season with head knocks - he's a good player, but we are not talking about a superstar here.

It was all to do with selections, if McQueen had gotten rid of Nonu and McCaw and kept playing SBW and Ben Smith in our centres, I'd be criticising him.

Again your comparison are very misleading - Deans didn't get rid of anyone in the class of Nonu and McCaw! I don't agree with all of his selections (just as I didn't agree with all of Henry's selections), but overall I thought the vast majority of his selections were pretty good. The only real selection issue I had with Deans's initial RWC squad was the omission of a genuine 7 to backup Pocock - I had exactly the same issue with the AB's squad too though!

I feel that they would've retired anyway, regardless of who was coaching them.

Yes, they probably would have retired, but the point is that Deans inherited an aged squad, with numerous greats of the game on the brink of retirement. It is not surprising at all it took him a few years to build a competitive team.

And his new batch didn't win him the RWC either so this point is invalid.

I wasn't a 'point' it was simply a statement of what Deans did. His selection policy put them in a strong position to win the Rugby World Cup, and they are in a far better position now than they were 4 years ago after the last Rugby World Cup.

To have the mentality that you only want your team to be more competitive when you're arguably the second best team in the world just isn't good enough. In my opinion, 4 years is an absolutely brilliant amount of time to mould your team. And if you're only going there to be competitive then you shouldn't even be there in the first place. You go there to win especially if you're regarded as a threat.

They are the second best team in the world now. When Deans' took over they were the 5th best team. I think you misunderstood what I mean by 'more competitive' - I meant they had a much better chance to win the Rugby World Cup. There is no doubt that the Wallabies went to the RWC to win, but they met a better team in the semi-finals, and hence got knocked out.

 

[Larksea]

To be honest Deans had no real option but to stick with Cooper once the Rugby World Cup started. The Cooper/Genia combo had just won a Super Rugby ***le, as well as the Tri-nations. After the Super Rugby season people where asking who was the best 10 in the world: Cooper or Carter! Personally I don't think Cooper is in the same class as Carter (yet), but after the Super Rugby season he was clearly on top of him game. There is no doubt Cooper was poor at the Rugby World Cup, however no matter who Australia played at 10 in the semi versus the AB's they were going to lose - the AB's were just far too good.

wasn't long ago people were asking who was the best 10 in the world: Carter or Giteau? Didn't stop deans from dumping him after a few bad games.

 

[Darwin]

wasn't long ago people were asking who was the best 10 in the world: Carter or Giteau? Didn't stop deans from dumping him after a few bad games.

Wasn't long ago? It was about 3-4 years ago! Giteau is still a good player, but he's nowhere near as effective as he was 3-4 years ago - it appears opposition teams have worked out how to contain him. Deans didn't dump him after 'a few bad games', it was more like he dumped him after a few average seasons.....

 

[Larksea]

Wasn't long ago? It was about 3-4 years ago! Giteau is still a good player, but he's nowhere near as effective as he was 3-4 years ago - it appears opposition teams have worked out how to contain him. Deans didn't dump him after 'a few bad games', it was more like he dumped him after a few average seasons.....

I don't think he was that bad, I still would have had Matt in my squad if I were Aussie coach. and I would have done everything to make sure Stirling Mortlock was in the squad and at his best too. And i think he showed he was still class in the baba's game though it wasn't easy for him defending between Cipriani and Fruen

 

[Darwin]

I don't think he was that bad, I still would have had Matt in my squad if I were Aussie coach. and I would have done everything to make sure Stirling Mortlock was in the squad and at his best too. And i think he showed he was still class in the baba's game though it wasn't easy for him defending between Cipriani and Fruen

Giteau hasn't been bad, but his form at international level last season was hardly compelling and he struggled under pressure when he got a chance versus Samoa this year. There was certainly a case to include him in Australia's 30-man squad (I would certainly have considered including him myself), but I don't think he is the same player he was a few years ago (or maybe he is the same player, but everyone has worked out how to counter him....). In any case the backs weren't really the main issue for Australia - even if they had the best backline in the world they probably would still have been lost to the AB's, as they were so comprehensively beaten up front.

I certainly wouldn't have picked Mortlock - he is still a good player, but his complete lack of pace is a big liability in midfield. He's no longer really an attacking threat with ball in hand, and though he is great on defense when players run straight at him, his lack of pace means he is quite often exposed. It certainly wasn't easy for him defending between Cipriani and Fruean, but I think his lack of pace was exposed in this game too - he certainly made a few tackles, but he did miss a number too.