one last rugby rant

[Ken Gargett]

Can't help it. One last blast.

And apols to those who have already heard it but surely now we can agree that we actually do not have the Messiah as coach. Those that still think so, please hand your white canes and straight-jackets in immediately.

Absolutely no question that the All Blacks thumped us and were the far better team on the day. But what is so frustrating is that this is a good All Blacks team but hardly a great one, especially sans Carter. They were beatable, no question.

But on the day we were out-thought, out-enthused, out-coached, out-played.

One mate reckons we don't have the cattle to beat them. I thought that he was probably right and then I thought about it some more. I don't believe so. Quite the opposite. Our problem is that we have a brain-dead hopeless joke for a coach. This crap about the great Deans – hell, he makes the toxic hobbit look good. Deans had four years to get the cattle and train them and he failed miserably on every count.

Think of it this way – under McKenzie, the Reds won the Super XV. A long, tough comp. That was a huge achievement – I’ll confess to standing there at the ground for an hour post game, tears still pouring down the face. Not even I thought it was possible at the beginning of the year. To that Reds side (a side that beat the Crusaders not once but twice and this when the Crusaders had both Macaw and Carter – and how much better would the all blacks have been with Carter – you could even argue that the Crusaders with a fit Macaw and Carter are at least as good as the current Carter-less all blacks), add some of the most outrageously talented players Australia has ever produced – Beale, O’Connor, Pocock. Then add the potential experience of players like Moore, Sharpe, Elsom, Barnes, Giteau, Alexander and others. That is more cattle than we needed to beat a World XV.

This side has underperformed at every turn. We had one good half this year – the first half v all blacks in Brizzy

And look at the Cooper debacle. Under McKenzie, most exciting and dangerous player in the world. Under Deans, custard. All very well to say that this is test rugby but these tests where he has been appalling include Russia, America, Italy, Ireland, Samoa. Under McKenzie, he would have torn them apart.

My take on Cooper is that he did not handle the bile and venom from the Kiwis thrown at him. Some would, some don't. But at least he had the best placed person in the world to help him get through it. Another Kiwi on the side of the Aussies. Yet another failure by Deans.

And I still can’t understand the centres. Barnes would have been absolutely perfect as a foil to Cooper and having so many more dimensions than either Faingaa or Mccabe.

If you could play a computer game of Mckenzie’s reds v Deans’ Wallabies, I know where my money would go.

Deans has to be a Kiwi Trojan Horse. And we fell for it. No competent coach on the planet would have persisted with McCabe. He plays all of the Super XV season at fullback or wing and then Deans shoehorns him into in-centre (not that it is an important position or anything). I believe at last count, in his dozen or so tests, he has passed the ball on two occasions, tho one of those might have been when it was jolted loose. A fridge has a better sidestep than either of our centres. They will go down as trivia questions. Two of the three slowest centres of all time – poor old Nathan Grey tried hard but I don't think that there has been a prop who could not have beaten him over 40 metres (and I don't count Lloyd Walker because I refuse to acknowledge that he was a rugby player, let alone a centre).

I do have to apologise over one of my earlier statements/predictions. I said that the Wallabies would not be consistent enough to win this thing. As Rob has mentioned, I was wrong. They were extremely consistent. Consistently bad.

And didn't the policy of taking injured players and hoping they got better, or forcing them back too early, work well. The time we got out of Palu, Barnes, Slipper, Horne and so on – priceless. Years from now, if someone bothers to study this campaign, they can only assume Deans was on the Kiwi payroll.

And only one open side flanker. Brilliant move, Robbie. Had Robinson or Gill or even Hodgson been there, we might have beaten Ireland and been through to the final awaiting the winner of the Kiwis and Yarpies, after they bashed crap out of each other.

What competent coach is so bereft of ideas that he has to change captains on the eve of the Cup. Elsom should have gone two years earlier. But it must have done wonders for team morale.

Love the different approaches. O'Connor sleeps in and gets suspended. Cory Jane gets on the piss a few days before a game and gets told that he better play well next game.

And no Giteau? What squad on the planet could have left him out of the thirty. Just Deans.

The bottom line is that Deans is an utter failure. O'Neill should immediately do two things (I’d like to add 'shoot himself' but I can't believe we'd be that lucky). Sack Deans. Sack himself. A disgrace.

I promise, no more.

[dicko]

genius

[Ken Gargett]

genius

dicko, always said you were a man of taste and perception.

[Montaigut]

Our problem is that we have a brain-dead hopeless joke for a coach.

Years from now, if someone bothers to study this campaign, they can only assume Deans was on the Kiwi payroll.

Ken, you can't have it both ways. Either he is a totally incompetent coach (in which case he is in good company in this WC )

or...

He is a plant which, on the basis of your take on the team's results in the RWC, makes him more than competent enough to know what it takes to screw up the selection consistently. I assume here that by definition an incompetent coach couldn't help but get it right sometimes.

[Ken Gargett]

Ken, you can't have it both ways. Either he is a totally incompetent coach (in which case he is in good company in this WC )

or...

He is a plant which, on the basis of your take on the team's results in the RWC, makes him more than competent enough to know what it takes to screw up the selection consistently. I assume here that by definition an incompetent coach couldn't help but get it right sometimes.

fair point.

one would like to think he is genuine and not a plant (if he ever gets a job coaching the all blacks then i will believe he really was a plant). which leaves him as abysmal. and yes, there are a few around. it is just that some of the decisions are so bizarre it is hard to see how a competent coach would have ever made them.

[mazolaman]

fair point.

one would like to think he is genuine and not a plant (if he ever gets a job coaching the all blacks then i will believe he really was a plant). which leaves him as abysmal. and yes, there are a few around. it is just that some of the decisions are so bizarre it is hard to see how a competent coach would have ever made them.

Yep,I think our coach is rapidly entering this category.

[El Presidente]

Ken

As you know I was always vehemently opposed to Deans as National coach.

Now Deans is a good coach. Yet Rugby is tribal and having a Kiwi as head coach is a national shame even in this 15 year world of "Rugby Professionalism".

Still, it is his coaching which requires analysis and not his nationality.

Deans failure has been his inability to get the best out of his players. As a coach you do not have to be the best tactically. You do need however to understand the psyche of your cattle and to ensure 99% of them are playing at 100% of their ability on any given day, and playing to a plan..win or lose.

Deans does not have that ability as Natioanal Wallaby Coach. It is statistically proven. He has the worst coaching record since Smith.

Australian Rugby Union heads have to swalow their pride and let him go.

Australian Rugby has its challenges. Our finest footballing atheletes are split over three codes. Australian Rugby Union requires passion, blood and intellect in order to succeed in winning games against the top international sides.

In this World cup we have not played a decent balanced game of Rugby against any of the top sides. Leading up to the tournament we have seen a mismash of performances from Good to appalling. No consistency = no culture.

I wish Deans all the best and if he ends up coaching NZ in the future I am sure he will be a success. Australian's have a different mindset to Kiwis and what works for one will not work for another....as has been made painfully clear.

[Van55]

I wish to point out that the use of capitalization and paragraphs in the original thread is conclusive evidence that someone stole Ken's log-in.

That said, I could't know less about international Rugby.

[asmith]

I think third is pretty good!

[Onsto]

could yet be 4th Smithy. You have to get by Wales for 3rd

[frenchkiwi]

Re: Cattle. Wallabies did not have WC winning personnel.

Australia did not have a world cup winning front row. Better than in recent years but poor by international standards. Teams that actually did or would've monstered them in scrums at this WC: South Africa NZ Ireland / hypothetically France Argentina England.

That's a lot of better scrums and a lot of penalties conceded and games lost, very hard to win a WC on that basis. Add on the fact that the lineout jumpers arent the best e.g. SA and Ireland games. Hard to believe it but for once Wallabies did not turn up with world class locks either. (Just googled this - sums it up for the ireland game!!)

So an under-par tight 5 in terms of personnel. Hard if not impossible to compensate for that during games let alone win a world cup. "It all starts up front" esp. at WC time!!!

As a result they were dominated in every game they played against a major nation - Ireland, South Africa, NZ.

The fact that they got past the quarterfinal stage was down to brilliant, committed defence and a bit of luck with ref (and southafs passing forward at try time).

If I were a Wallaby fan I'd be disappointed to lose of course - but realistic and happy that they got to where they did (which was probably one step further than their potential on paper).

Remember early 2010 no-one would have expected more from Wallabies at WC, but they won a couple of dead-rubber trinations games and suddenly they were going to win WC. Hmmm. Some clear improvement but still the same young and relatively inexperienced team with 50% win loss record and habit of losing tight games.

As for the Super 15 - it has little relevance at all - Crusaders are a pale shadow compared to the ABs as the Reds are to the Wallabies. International rugby is a lot tougher and tighter than our fancy free-running competition, and the players involved are that much better because the wheat has been sorted from the chaff (which has been getting thicker as the competition expands needlessly and dilutes talent pool). All the trinations test coaches have admitted S15 is not a great preparation for WC rugby.

And Deans - there's a reason kiwis call him Dingo Deans, once he signed the contract he became fully Australian coach belting out the anthem etc. Going above and beyond. His coaching style suits the Wallabies much better than the ABs. Rome was not built in one day and provided some quality players develop especially in the tight 5 the wallabies will be strong contenders for the next WC - they will have the experience that every WC winning team has needed.

This Wallabies team would have needed the luck of the French AND some to win the WC - they did not have the personnel up front. Cooper and/or Barnes? makes little difference behind a pack going backwards (Giteau would have - he has been woeful for 3 or so years now and he would have ensured a pool game exit!!!), no amount of media hype can replace the need for experienced players, the better Wallaby vintages of 99 to 03 could not win at Eden Park so how were these baby wallabies going to do it etc etc.

I thought their defence, courage and commitment was second to none at this WC - good building blocks for the future.

[Ken Gargett]

Re: Cattle. Wallabies did not have WC winning personnel.

Australia did not have a world cup winning front row. Better than in recent years but poor by international standards. Teams that actually did or would've monstered them in scrums at this WC: South Africa NZ Ireland / hypothetically France Argentina England.

That's a lot of better scrums and a lot of penalties conceded and games lost, very hard to win a WC on that basis. Add on the fact that the lineout jumpers arent the best e.g. SA and Ireland games. Hard to believe it but for once Wallabies did not turn up with world class locks either. (Just googled this - sums it up for the ireland game!!)

So an under-par tight 5 in terms of personnel. Hard if not impossible to compensate for that during games let alone win a world cup. "It all starts up front" esp. at WC time!!!

As a result they were dominated in every game they played against a major nation - Ireland, South Africa, NZ.

The fact that they got past the quarterfinal stage was down to brilliant, committed defence and a bit of luck with ref (and southafs passing forward at try time).

If I were a Wallaby fan I'd be disappointed to lose of course - but realistic and happy that they got to where they did (which was probably one step further than their potential on paper).

Remember early 2010 no-one would have expected more from Wallabies at WC, but they won a couple of dead-rubber trinations games and suddenly they were going to win WC. Hmmm. Some clear improvement but still the same young and relatively inexperienced team with 50% win loss record and habit of losing tight games.

As for the Super 15 - it has little relevance at all - Crusaders are a pale shadow compared to the ABs as the Reds are to the Wallabies. International rugby is a lot tougher and tighter than our fancy free-running competition, and the players involved are that much better because the wheat has been sorted from the chaff (which has been getting thicker as the competition expands needlessly and dilutes talent pool). All the trinations test coaches have admitted S15 is not a great preparation for WC rugby.

And Deans - there's a reason kiwis call him Dingo Deans, once he signed the contract he became fully Australian coach belting out the anthem etc. Going above and beyond. His coaching style suits the Wallabies much better than the ABs. Rome was not built in one day and provided some quality players develop especially in the tight 5 the wallabies will be strong contenders for the next WC - they will have the experience that every WC winning team has needed.

This Wallabies team would have needed the luck of the French AND some to win the WC - they did not have the personnel up front. Cooper and/or Barnes? makes little difference behind a pack going backwards (Giteau would have - he has been woeful for 3 or so years now and he would have ensured a pool game exit!!!), no amount of media hype can replace the need for experienced players, the better Wallaby vintages of 99 to 03 could not win at Eden Park so how were these baby wallabies going to do it etc etc.

I thought their defence, courage and commitment was second to none at this WC - good building blocks for the future.

as i guess is obvious from my post, i simply don't agree with much of that. it is a lot of argument that is convenient to fit what has happened. don't win, ergo must not have had the cattle.

since i can remember, for probably forty years, we've been told we don't have a front row. even when we had a good one, like 91, we were told we were crap upfront. look at 2003. supposedly worst ever front row in our history. still beat the all blacks and, with a smidge of luck, would have beaten england in the final. both teams with acknowledged great front rows. it has never been our strongest area (and yes, iof we had better front rows, it would make us stronger) but we have won a great many games, including many against the supposed great scrumaging nations, the way we are. they have found ways to make do for decades. not ideal but they take that view. we lost robinson pre cup - didn't help - and slipper, who seemed to be considered by those in the know as our best, went in injured but even after recovery, deans hardly used him. why? ask deans.

as for locks, when guys like matfield and various kiwi locks describe sharpe as one of the best around, and we had the two locks that took the reds to the super xv title (whatever you may think of that) and that was against the best of new zealand and the south africans (including matfield twice), hard to support . harder to support why deans dumped him completely and kept up the revolving door selections.

the 'one step further than their potential' comment is, with respect, nonsense. as i said, they don't stuff up against ireland - and even if ireland did have their supposed one big game, we still should have been able to win comfortably - we are on the other side of the draw and should have easily been good enough to go through to the final. much of that goes back to the enormous stupidity of the coach in taking one open side flanker to the cup - as good as pocock is, he did spend much of the super xv season injured. that is not a case of no cattle, it is a case of moronic selection policy that bit us badly. sure, the coachj can only do so much but here, it was so much damage. the 1/4 - the defence was terrific and pocock was brilliant but if we had come up against any side that had any creativity or thought in their attack, we'd have been done.

as for the expectations of two years earlier, hardly relevant, and i'm certain that is not accurate anyway. and with respect, no idea what you have been watching but to suggest clear improvement is rubbish. we have gone backwards. there should have been improvement but there was not. we played three other major rugby nations. we scored one try in total against them, with our supposedly great attack - and that came from a south african error. god help us if that is an improvement. with the greatest of respect, that comment is simply the patronising nonsense we've come to expect from kiwis in past years, when they are not spending their time abusing refs or busy choking.

we could argue the super xv influence and get nowhere. but i simply don't agree re the crusaders being a shadow of the all blacks and certainly not re the reds and wallabies. it may be that henry is a far better coach than blackadder and mckenzie than deans which narrows things. the all black pack is almost all crusaders and by your arguments, that is where games are being won - and agreed. the crusaders back line was not bad - is there anyone in it not an all black? and may be i have a far higher opinion of carter than you do but no back line on earth would not be improved with him in it. especially one with which is already extremely familiar.

sure there is more attack in many of the super xv games but there were plenty of very tough low scoring ones as well. without sitting down and doing the sums, i'd be surprised if the average points per game from the last super xv was any higher than the average at this world cup. yes, both comps have their minnows which blow things out. but to suggest that the lead up comp to the tests, over about 4 1/2 months, with a gruelling travel schedule and up to 16 often extremely tough games is irrelevant beggars belief and suggests you are being completely disingenuous or or simply have trouble comprehending the game. it is the competition that all top southern hemisphere teams have, not just us, and the comp in place since its inception, for the winners of every cup bar the poms narrow win (and that with your lot hot favourite and us second in the final). can't be too useless? national coaches don't want injuries, they want their players for as long as possible - of course they are going to prefer something else but unless we reduce rugby to tests only, that won't happen.

i can't see how deans suits us more than the kiwis - although you may be right as he did fail with them as well, as assistant coach in 2003. he clearly does not suit us. have a look at rob's comments. spot on. and with respect, the rome not being built in a day crap is just more patronising nonsense. he had four years. that is way longer than the average test player's career. he is given credit for the young players coming through - that would not have happened without the super xv coaches. mitchell got o'connor and pocock up and running, not deans. 99 shows the folly of that. we were in no better shape, allegedly, until the very last bledisloe in sydney, just before the world cup of that year when things clicked. deans had more than enough time.

as for the dilution of the super xv comp, there has been one team added in the last 6 years and that was an aussie team this year. so the only dilution was to us and yet an aussie team won the comp. that hardly then makes any sense.

and "needless"? a different issue but by whose suggestion? the rugby authorities are doing what they can (sure, they stuiff things regularly) to expand the game. it may not need it in nz but here, it is by far a minor code - i sometimes wonder if kiwis and others realise just what a minor sport it is here. league and aussie rules leave it for dead. and soccer is challenging. to increase audiences and both attract and retain players, it is very very far from needless. again, with respect, an absurd comment from a myopic kiwi perspective.

agreed eden park was always going to be very tough but your five year period actually, i think, only saw two games so hardly brings much light to it. and in both of those, the wallabies were at least as big an underdog as they were last week. one in early 99 when we were still to even look like threatening (we were rubbish up until the last bledisloe in sydney that season when things started to come together, so the four years needed idea is trite nonsense - as said) and one in 2003, again were not considered much chance, but we went very close then.

apologies if some of this seems a bit terse but i really have no idea whether you are serious or not - if you are, then i really don't know what else to say.

[Coolio]

I've got 3 things to add to Kens post;

1. Regards the WC, I agree with whatever Ken said. He's obviously knowledgeable and passionate about Union, and anyone named Ken is a good bloke in my books,

2. I'm a Victorian by trade and grew up with Aussie Rules, so winning the International Rules games against our Irish cousins is more important to me, and...

3. Having a Kiwi coach the Wallabies (and don't get me wrong i am pretty chur with a number of Kiwi's), is akin to having a white collar Carlton tax cheat coach Collingwood. Or worse, having a non Australian coach the national Test cricket side. Although, a valid argument could be mounted that it would be worth the pain and humiliation given the way our cricketing summers have been lately!

i've added a fourth point for good measure;

4. I've just smoked a surprisingly good Monte no. 4 after a crap day at work. So maybe it's not all that bad in Oz this week! Unless you've booked a flight on Qantas recently!

[frenchkiwi]

i see where you're coming from. speaking of myopia, i hope that brisbane eye patch isn't too itchy

in 2003, you could almost win the WC without a front row. in 87 or 91, you could win it with a ragged defensive line and outside backs who could hardly tackle. rugby is always changing (laws and their interpretations as well), and to expect to win in 2011 without a front row when weak scrums are by and large (finally) the ones being consistently penalised is shooting at the stars.

of course having a young 1st 5 who wilts under pressure doesn't help. but he won with the reds and was deemed good enough at super rugby level, wasn't he? Would it have been much better playing a 2nd 5 out of position - one who has his own issues? (seem to remember you having a good go at barnes for having no fight on field as well as no loyalty). possibly. possibly not. in any case Quade Cooper is the best current australian 1st 5. (fully supported and rubberstamped by former NSW Canberra and now nouveau brisbanite Euan Mackenzie) That is a cattle issue as well.

Who had WC experience in this team? 5 players maybe? the great Gregan Larkham Mortlock trio is gone. takes a while to replace that. (Genia Cooper Beale might step up to that mark with another year or so.) a bit like the ABs in 99 without zinzan or fitzpatrick, or the Sth Afs next year.

anyway it is all very well preaching with hindsight, your opinion is probably (almost ;-) as good as mine, but i still think it was a very long shot to expect a WC win out of this aussie side.

hope we get a good game on friday night unlike the usual 3rd place dross.