0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Wayne Smith | August 17, 2009
Article from: The Australian
IT was what was said, sure, but mostly it was who was saying it.
The moment was ripe for a "honeymoon is over, Robbie" column. Under Robbie Deans, the Wallabies have lost their last five Tri-Nations Tests, six of the past seven. Those are stats that invite severe scrutiny and the fact is that the Australian rugby media, enthralled by Deans, hasn't subjected him to it.
I'm as guilty as anyone. The circumstances are significantly different but in some respects recent results take me back to the dying days of the Eddie Jones era. As one near-miss followed another in 2005, I convinced myself that the bend in the road was surely just over the horizon.
In my mind, there were just enough promising signs to warrant a suspension of judgment, a stay of execution. I realise now I was kidding myself. And as Ashleigh Brilliant might have put it in one of his pithy pot-shots, I blame myself now for not blaming Jones earlier.
John Connolly? Few critics saw that World Cup quarter-final loss to England coming. Indeed, by the time half-a-dozen Australian journalists had reached their third beer on a balcony overlooking Marseilles harbour on the eve of the match, the talk was turning not to why Connolly should go but rather why he should be persuaded to stay.
By the time the next day was done, so was such talk. Try as he might, he and Michael Foley, the Australian coaches, couldn't pack five years of compensation for the neglect of the Wallabies scrum into the 16 months at their disposal.
There was only ever one way England could win that quarter-final. Connolly knew it, Foley knew it. But there was virtually nothing they could do about it, other than to try to minimise the influence of the set piece.
The match began, England played its only trump, the Wallabies scrum began to disintegrate and from there the poison slowly worked its way into every joint and sinew of the Australian game. Game, set, match and Test coaching career over.
And so to Deans, whose signing as Wallabies coach last year released so much pent-up hope and optimism that it was just as well Barack Obama's inauguration was a full 12 months away because there would have been none left for him.
Deans didn't exactly say "Yes, we can" but everything about his unflappable demeanour shouted it. Or maybe that's just what we wanted to think, needed to think.
Well, one and a half seasons on, yes, we can beat countries listed below us on the IRB rankings, with Deans 9-1 in that regard - losing only to Wales at Millennium Stadium. But no, we can't beat the two sides ranked above us, not on a regular basis anyway. Against the All Blacks, Deans has one win from five meetings, against the Springboks two wins from four. All up, that's 12 wins from 19 Tests, three of those victories coming against Italy, which sits a lowly 12th on the IRB rankings.
It was Andrew Slack who pointed out these stats in his weekly Sunday newspaper column in Brisbane. And if nothing else convinced Deans that things have turned serious for him, the identity of his critic surely would have.
The 1984 Grand Slam-winning Wallabies captain had his own brief flirtation with top-level coaching, taking the Reds to a 5-6 season in 2003 before realising he didn't need the aggravation. For that reason alone, he has never been one to be critical of other coaches, let alone one with Deans's record of having lost only 30 of his 120 Super rugby matches as Crusaders boss.
Indeed, it is not in Slack's nature to be critical - period. He is as composed and considered a columnist as he ever was a captain. And if he has taken it upon himself to uncork the bottle and let the genie of Deans's less-than-dazzling record with the Wallabies escape, then winter truly has arrived for Australia's coach.
Slack raised some general questions but I'd like to follow up with a fairly specific one. Is Deans's mantra of "play what's in front of you" right for the Wallabies?
Playing what's in front of you seems such an obvious thing to do that when Deans spelt out his doctrine to the Wallabies, it was like hearing Karl Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" for the first time. It just sounded so right.
Trouble is, like Marxism, it hasn't produced a whole lot when applied in practice.
While the Wallabies have had their ad-lib moments in the past, it mostly has been the black men in white jersies, Fiji, and the (mostly) white men in black jersies, New Zealand, who do spontaneity well.
Australian sides have flourished most when they have a certain structure about their play. Not too much, because that stifles them, as the final days of the Jones era demonstrated.
Can it be that Deans is giving his players not only more latitude than they can cope with but more credit than is their due?
If a World XV was to be selected today, there would be only four Wallabies worth considering, five-eighth Matt Giteau, openside flanker George Smith and, arguably, loosehead Benn Robinson, all of whom might get rolled in the selection meeting, and number six Rocky Elsom, more on his form for Leinster than for what he has done in the gold jersey.
The rest fall mostly into the category of "good" rather than "great", while a couple probably wouldn't make it if the Earthlings v Aliens contest went all the way down to the fifths.
The mythology is that the Wallabies make up in smarts what they lack in power and precision and, sure enough, the South African media dutifully fed their egos before the Cape Town Test, fawning over how clever a team the Australians were. Well, for a clever team, they played at Newlands some of the dumbest rugby seen in ages.
It was not just that they gave away a lot of penalties. The best of sides will do that when subjected to enough pressure. But some of the mistakes the Wallabies made bordered on brainless, and the fact that their stand-in captain, Smith, and their playmaker, Giteau, were the most guilty of all raises serious questions about the mindset of the team going into the match.
There was no Plan B evident once Plan A went belly-up in the lineout, despite the fact there was always a good chance of the lineouts turning ugly.
The Wallabies were kicking the ball more than ever they did under Connolly - even in "that" Sydney shocker against the Boks - but enjoying it less. And where were the runners inside and outside of Giteau to throw some doubt into the South African defence?
Not once, from memory, did the Wallabies get beyond five phases. While referee Alain Rolland was never going to give them the latitude at the breakdown needed to play the "unlimited tackle" rugby of the Rod Macqueen era, a little more composure by the Australians there would surely have allowed them to build some pressure of their own. Even as damaging a ball-runner as Wycliff Palu can't keep launching himself against a settled defensive line and hope to make any impact.
The All Blacks await on Saturday, followed in quick succession by two more Tests against the Springboks.
Now that questions finally are being asked of Deans, it will be fascinating to see how he responds.
Perhaps he might consider providing his players with more of a framework to work within.
It's quite possible the Wallabies aren't as good as he and we had hoped.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html
Makes some good points but conveniently ignores a few things. Apart from last year in South Africa and perhaps against the All Blacks in NZ, there has not been a whalloping. In all other games we have lost we have been close, as John Eales has recently said. The win in France last year was very good. Winning in South Africa was a big step. The performance against the Barbarians stupendous. So, yes, perhaps the honeymoon is over for Deansy. But like Ealesy, I don't think we are far off where we want to be. This team has shown it can win away. The world cup is an away competition. We just need persistence within matches and consistency between them.
Careful not to bee too critical and also refer to points made by Andrew Slack. Plenty of room to retreat if they come good or conversely give the knife another twist if they aren't.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
It seems to me there are too many players yaping to the media and the tone is always coulda, shoulda ,woulda or gunna, wanna this and that.
It seems, after a loss there is almost a kind of "confession" and then the players all feel alright and look for the positives, just like the coach is always focussing back on the posiitves and never bollocking the shit preformance.
How about shutting the f... up, HTFU and putting a performance on the paddock, then repeat it hte next week and do it with modesty. Times up boys