Pat Lam makes a very good point...

Many of the likely All Blacks on show this weekend get to simulate the knockout stage of the world cup according to Pat Lam...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/5169261/Blues-coach-Pat-Lam-relishing-mini-World-Cup

so if our problem is handling knockout rugby as some suggest then this couldn't be a better scenario. Personally I think thats a crock that we dont handle knockouts well. To me something was left in the changing sheds in those 5 matches which resulted in losses, something about the World cup that makes us underperform.

Though I've read thousands of theories none have answered them better than simply ... 'a bad day at the office' though Pats comments:

"We have to make sure we front up and fire some shots. During our losses we identified that was a real issue for us." are also what I believe we havnt done

I wont dwell on that aspect of things but in following Pat Lams emergence from NPC to s14 coach in Auckland I reckon we've got a real winer there. has a very sensible approach to the game and I'd like to see a Blackadder/ Lam and perhaps Joseph combination in the AB 3 in the future.

Bit short of backs knowledge and Joseph provides the no nonsense roll but I dont think we could do a lot worse than that. And once Henrys gone, Id retire the other two as well. New thinking is needed.

Don't think there's too much nonsense about Blackadder. Not sure Lam has provided enough consistency yet.
Deans is still the man.
Blackadder and Joseph need a few more years before they are ready.

I don't rate Hansen not sure about Smith

Geez Ngan..."Not sure Lam has provided enough consistency yet."

Deans has had the consistency of jelly. 5 losses from last 10, gets huge starts against SA then they dropped the ball, got done and beaten England last year after beating the AB's.

Deans and consistency are like chalk and cheese...

Taylorman, I actually agree the past is past and the nonsense about the ABs as chokers is just that. What it shows is the top teams at the RWC are quite good and the margins are razor thin. Even the favourites need to raise their game to win the whole thing.

Putting aside the question of the forward pass against France, the simple fact was France put them under the type of pressure they weren't used to (or perhaps prepared for?) and then held out. The Wallabies in 2003 were a team jelling at the right moment and played iron clad defence.

So, I am not sure I buy into what Pat Lam is saying. But I do rate him as a coach.

Taylorman wrote:Geez Ngan..."Not sure Lam has provided enough consistency yet."

Deans has had the consistency of jelly. 5 losses from last 10, gets huge starts against SA then they dropped the ball, got done and beaten England last year after beating the AB's.

Deans and consistency are like chalk and cheese...

too true
Butttt....
Look at the talent or lack of that he has got to play with and its at a higher level than Lam is currently at.
Deans was fairly consistent with the Crusaders - though some say that is more about Smith.

Not sure I get the level thing either. Deans had much better players while at the crusaders and a lot more of them.

They continued without him. 4 years is too long to still have a 50% win loss record over the last 10 matches for a top 3 team. Results count for everything and I'm sorry, Deans has won....nothing.

Oz rugby is in a far better state now than when Deans took over and he deserves a lot of credit for his contribution to that. Deans has done pretty well as far as I am concerned. I don't underestimate the benefit of him of having the likes of McCaw, Carter, Thorn, etc in his time at the Cru, but Blackadder and Henry are enjoying the exact same benefit now to general acclaim. He has had to rebuild the Wallabies and personally I think he has done a tough job very well. I hope he re-signs so he can enjoy some of the better years of what he has built.

Taylorman wrote:Not sure I get the level thing either. Deans had much better players while at the crusaders and a lot more of them.

They continued without him. 4 years is too long to still have a 50% win loss record over the last 10 matches for a top 3 team. Results count for everything and I'm sorry, Deans has won....nothing.

I get the impression that there are quite a number of New zealanders that don't like Deans too much.

Perhaps looking at his record in isolation doesn't look good, but add to that the opposition he played, a tough bok team in 2009 and a very good All Black side in 2010. The only loss he had I would put at his feet are the one against england last year.

I think that is fair Biltong. The Enemy were good that day at Twickenham (spits) and they had a game plan to beat us which Johnno deserves credit for. For context, I don't see that as our worst performance in recent times, but it probably was one where Deans was out planned and out coached.

On a more general level, we benefit from the circumstances which see us play SA and NZ regularly, but most wallaby coaches aren't going to finish with great win loss records. It's just the way it is.

Thats a fair comment boomeranga but what I dont understand is this general acceptance that Deans is a great coach. Not a lot supports it and your getting results because of a few very key brilliant players.

He still hasnt found a good reliable front row so if thats the way it is, why also this resignation that he's a good coach. What supports it?

Didnt Deans win his last game against the worlds number 1 ranked team?

And only just lose the one before that?

"Didnt Deans win his last game against the worlds number 1 ranked team?" yes he did Ngan but your point was about Lam's lack of consistency then referred to Deans as the 'model' or 'the man' in the same context.

Consistency is about backing up regularly. Oz beat NZ then got done by England. Even within matches they went to a seeming to a 30-40 point lead then lost or won the match with a huge Beale kick- inconsistency within matches even, not just across them.

I think both Deans and Johnson for that matter have shown there ability in their ability to develop strength in depth. As a result both England and Australia are looking good going into this years tournement and nect year.

Sure he hasn't got a great front row. But there are structural issues in Australia that are more to do with this than it being primarily his fault. What he has done, is to start to develope depth and competition in the front row and have a plan in place to imrove there scrumaging. It is there key weakness. If they can eliminate this achilles heal they will be cery hard to beat.

Johnson has had much the same issues with Englands backline. I think they are getting better for many of the same reasons.

There are plenty of deans skeptics in oz Taylor, so you're not alone there.

I have no background in Rugby other than as a fan, so couldn't create an argument for his technical capability. What I like though is that he has been willing to make gutsy calls on selections which I think show a sense of ambition and adventure.

You mention our front row, so I'll use it as an example. In 2009, Robinson-Moore-Alexander started to show a bit of progress. Not dominant at all, but they didn't get beaten up too much. Last year arrives with Robinson breaking his arm twice (3 months), Moore did his jaw badly, TPN gone as well, and Alexander his cruciate. Deans could have reverted to the same old bunch that had never done much for us, and most people would have said fair enough. Instead he threw in some young blokes, the result is much the same as Dunning, Baxter, etc would have achieved, but Slipper shows he is worthy of having a place around the team. The point is Deans gained something out of an ordinary situation by showing some balls. At the time, Slipper was 20 and had not started a single game of Super rugby.

The highs and lows of following this team could be frustrating, but I love it because some of the rugby they play is fantastic. It's a whole heap more interesting now than the End of Eddie / Knuckles Connelly period. Plus I followed the cricket team through their years of domination and after a while it stopped being interesting. You knew they were going to win, and they were good for our ego, but as a fan the nerves and joy were gone.

Taylorman wrote:so if our problem is handling knockout rugby as some suggest then this couldn't be a better scenario. Personally I think thats a crock that we dont handle knockouts well. To me something was left in the changing sheds in those 5 matches which resulted in losses, something about the World cup that makes us underperform. .

Thing is this.

NZ are widely ridiculed for their lack of ability in knock out tournaments.

England widely celebrate their "graft" and "mental strength" that allows them to so valliant achieve such allegedly great things.

Opposite ends of the spectrum, if the media would have us believe.

However, NZ have won 1 RWC. England have won 1 RWC.

Kind of, makes it seem like it might be just some made up straw to clutch at in diversionary style as certain highly funded and vastly populated unions sink further down the rankings, to me at least.

Whoa GG where did that one come from?