Australian Rugby / RA

[Quick Hands]

It's also gratifying to see Chairman Clyne relaxed and comfortable with Cheika and the Wallaby set-up. There is the future to look forward to. And, most particularly, that 'processes' are being adopted and followed (from today's www.rugby.com.au):

Hmmm, I assume that he didn't define his idea of "process?"

I'd love to know the "process" followed to create the DoR position, call for applications, vett and interview candiates and appoint the most qualified person.

While he's there, he could explain what process or evaluation was conducted on the High Performance Unit that Clyne and Pulver so proudly announced as the saviour of Australian rugby in August 2017. What shortcomings have been identified in that unit?

And finally what process of evaluation was conducted prior to appointing Rod Kafer to a role, when the ARU were offered a licence to adopt a readymade and proven system of player and coach development?

Tell us Cameron, please.

 

[Quick Hands]

R (my emphasis below, extracted today from www.rugby.com.au):

​

​

Is this website some sort of sporting version of Pravda? (Pravda being the Russian word for thruth)

During the Soviet era, Pravda was distributed nationwide, offering its readers well-written articles and analyses on science, economics, cultural topics, and literature. There were letters from readers and officially sponsored and approved materials to indoctrinate and inform its readers on Communist theory and programs
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pravda

 

[KOB1987]

Is this website some sort of sporting version of Pravda? (Pravda being the Russian word for thruth)

During the Soviet era, Pravda was distributed nationwide, offering its readers well-written articles and analyses on science, economics, cultural topics, and literature. There were letters from readers and officially sponsored and approved materials to indoctrinate and inform its readers on Communist theory and programs
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pravda

You do realise it's owned by RA? It's useful because it's often the initial source for a news story but you can form your own opinion of the stories beyond that..

 

[Quick Hands]

You do realise it's owned by RA? It's useful because it's often the initial source for a news story but you can form your own opinion of the stories beyond that..

That was the point I was making.

 

[TSR]

On another front there is positive news for the first time in several years men's XV's playing numbers are up.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2018/12/17/participation-selby-xvs-growth

"I think that's really helped where we might have lost people because of barriers, we've removed some of those barriers.

RA have given themselves credit for removing barriers by highlighting casual registration.

Those "barriers" were only put in place a couple of years ago, and RA were told by clubs that they would result in a decline in playing numbers.

If they returned to team registrations player numbers would jump across the country, but they couldn't charge each individual a fee.

Fuck me that shits me. In my experience, the whole Individual player insurance and the casual player fee that has flowed from it has been an absolute fucking disaster. I have no problem with an RA official grabbing whatever positive news he can - but claiming the casual player fee as being some sort of great intervention by them to the game is a fucking joke.

 

[KOB1987]

He’s been in Scotland for 5 years. Where did you expect to find a relevant source - the Manly Daily?

I'm not suggesting it's relevant, that's the point. Assuming it is though is this one any less relevant?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/..._sportsmail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crm

“Scott has made a significant contribution to the development of elite rugby in Scotland and he leaves with our heartfelt thanks and appreciation for the work he has done,” Scottish Rugby chief executive Mark Dodson said.
“His unrivalled global rugby knowledge and connections at every level of the game have hugely benefited the development of how our game in Scotland has progressed in recent years.”

2. It isn’t the role of DoR that is a problem, it’s the previous determination against followed by rushed decision making, a lack of transparency and a process highly unlikely to have found the best candidate

Firstly, the previous determination was Pulver's. I'm no fan of Clyne's, but as pointed out by Fatprop in the Rugby Ruckus podcast, there is a bit of praise being directed towards Castle for actioning these decisions. Have you lot not heard of the concept of headhunting? Just because a position wasn't advertised doesn't mean that there wasn't a valid process. I'm not advocating it, but it's well known that pretty much all of the high level coaching personnel are tied up until after the RWC. Is he the best candidate on the planet? Probably not. Is he the most suitable one to facilitate the role for the next 3 years, considering who was actually available? Possibly.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm not suggesting it's relevant, that's the point. Assuming it is though is this one any less relevant?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/..._sportsmail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crm

“Scott has made a significant contribution to the development of elite rugby in Scotland and he leaves with our heartfelt thanks and appreciation for the work he has done,” Scottish Rugby chief executive Mark Dodson said.
“His unrivalled global rugby knowledge and connections at every level of the game have hugely benefited the development of how our game in Scotland has progressed in recent years.”


Firstly, the previous determination was Pulver's. I'm no fan of Clyne's, but as pointed out by Fatprop in the Rugby Ruckus podcast, there is a bit of praise being directed towards Castle for actioning these decisions. Have you lot not heard of the concept of headhunting? Just because a position wasn't advertised doesn't mean that there wasn't a valid process. I'm not advocating it, but it's well known that pretty much all of the high level coaching personnel are tied up until after the RWC. Is he the best candidate on the planet? Probably not. Is he the most suitable one to facilitate the role for the next 3 years, considering who was actually available? Possibly.

Like when the ARU payed an international recruitment agency hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct a worldwide search for a new CEO. The results being that the person appointed was the best mate and neighbour of the Chairman? (And they also happened to spend 6 years together at Shore).

 

[Quick Hands]

Fuck me that shits me. In my experience, the whole Individual player insurance and the casual player fee that has flowed from it has been an absolute fucking disaster. I have no problem with an RA official grabbing whatever positive news he can - but claiming the casual player fee as being some sort of great intervention by them to the game is a fucking joke.

See post #4942

 

[KOB1987]

Like when the ARU payed an international recruitment agency hundreds of thousands of dollars to donduct a worldwide search for a new CEO. The results being that the person appointed was the best mate and neighbour of the Chairman? (And they also happened to spend 6 years together at Shore).

That was a farce and the appointee was a farce. That’s not what’s happened here though.

 

[Quick Hands]

That was a farce and the appointee was a farce. That’s not what’s happened here though.

Perhaps not, but you'll forgive many long term observers of ARU/RA for being highly skeptical of any announcements. We've had so many announcements of this type over the years.

As I remarked earlier, I think that Scott Johnson is a good addition to Australian rugby. We still don't know precisely what his role is, with the Wallabies, with the current HPU, with Kafer's role or more generally what is the overarching player and coach development strategy and structure. To quote Raelene it sounds like Cheika and Johnson and going to make it up themselves, which means that post Cheika we may be saddled with a system designed by Cheika for his purposes at the Wallabies rather than for the whole game.

"Exactly how Johnson's role will balance with Cheika remains to be seen but Castle said it would leave the current Wallabies coach to focus on the on-field aspects of the national side. "That will be something they will work through," she said.

The ARU/RA never set things up correctly in the first place, which is why they always end up in a strategic and organisational mess.

EDIT: I'll note that the current HPU set up was only put in place in August 2017, so either it wasn't done properly in the first place or all this is unecessary.

 

[Joe Blow]

It makes sense for Clyne and Castle to appoint someone in between them an Cheika as they clearly do not have the required understanding of the game and coaching to make informed decisions about player and coach contracts. Time will tell if SJ is a good choice or not.
Are there not several former Wallabies on the board as well? Clyne clearly has to go. Castle has time to steer the ship in the right direction but she needs to make sure she has the right people around her. What input has there been from the others on the board?

 

[formerflanker]

Castle has time to steer the ship in the right direction but she needs to make sure she has the right people around her.

Castle was given the job to prove that the Old Boys Network had been turfed out. A safe choice. Her record in NZ shows her to be a competent manager of a well structured organisation.
However her track record at Canterbury and now RA doesn't hold any examples of someone with the ability to make huge changes to a poorly performing organisation.
More tinkering at the edges is all I can see for the future of rugby in Australia.

 

[wamberal]

Castle was given the job because there was no better candidate, I assume. Her ability to introduce change will depend on budgetary, contractual, and other practical constraints. Not to mention her understanding of the game, and the needs and wants of all the stakeholders.


I am an old boy, I suppose, although I did not attend a GPS school, and I have definitely had nothing to do with Sydney University. But it is a bit simplistic to talk about "getting rid of the old boys network". The game has been largely built on the back of boys, young and old, and the majority of them have been products of the GPS system.


How do you get rid of them, and what do you think will be left?

 

[KOB1987]

I'll confess to being a bit of a novice with regards to the observations of the RA/ARU board etc. I'm looking at the next level I guess, and as JB alludes to Castle at least is not from that 'old boys' establishment, so I'm trying to be a bit forward looking and hopeful that the necessary changes will occur over time at board level.

With regards to FF (Folau Fainga'a)'s comment above re Castle not showing any real leadership so far, the announcement the other day was probably her first example of this. She has probably taken a bit of a 'sit and observe' approach for the first 9 months of her tenure, also has no doubt had to fight with the old school board for any changes she has wanted to implement. Time will tell with both her and SJ but I'm prepared to at least ride it out without prejudice till the Wallabies campaign the year after the RWC to see if change is actually occurring. That's only at the elite level of course, I also want to see positive action at every level from the grassroots up.

 

[Derpus]

Perhaps not, but you'll forgive many long term observers of ARU/RA for being highly skeptical of any announcements. We've had so many announcements of this type over the years.

As I remarked earlier, I think that Scott Johnson is a good addition to Australian rugby. We still don't know precisely what his role is, with the Wallabies, with the current HPU, with Kafer's role or more generally what is the overarching player and coach development strategy and structure. To quote Raelene it sounds like Cheika and Johnson and going to make it up themselves, which means that post Cheika we may be saddled with a system designed by Cheika for his purposes at the Wallabies rather than for the whole game.

"Exactly how Johnson's role will balance with Cheika remains to be seen but Castle said it would leave the current Wallabies coach to focus on the on-field aspects of the national side. "That will be something they will work through," she said.

The ARU/RA never set things up correctly in the first place, which is why they always end up in a strategic and organisational mess.

EDIT: I'll note that the current HPU set up was only put in place in August 2017, so either it wasn't done properly in the first place or all this is unecessary.

From what i have heard over the last couple of years, Cheika has had to fuck around a lot to get what he needs to have a semi-functional team. He's had to co-ordinate fitness levels with the clubs, negotiate new eligibility rules, etc etc.

Sounds like Johnson is coming in to organize this kind of shit on a full-time basis so Cheika can rock up at camp day 1 and he doesn't have to try and make a team out of a hodge podge group of poorly skilled, unfit players not good enough to land a contract in Europe.

 

[LearningCurve]

From what i have heard over the last couple of years, Cheika has had to fuck around a lot to get what he needs to have a semi-functional team. He's had to co-ordinate fitness levels with the clubs, negotiate new eligibility rules, etc etc.

Sounds like Johnson is coming in to organize this kind of shit on a full-time basis so Cheika can rock up at camp day 1 and he doesn't have to try and make a team out of a hodge podge group of poorly skilled, unfit players not good enough to land a contract in Europe.

Cheika has had everything he wanted, more so than any other coach. He has his preferences in players, as any coach will, and he has made a point of attracting some of them back to Australia (Beale, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), To'omua) and selecting them. He has also discarded players and had plenty of time to check on the fitness levels of players he was keen on. While how the Super Rugby teams organise themselves is beyond his control I am sure that there is communication between the coaches and him. He has his own handpicked support coaches and really for most of the Super Rugby season what is he actually doing? He's likely to be watching players, communicating with the Super Rugby sides and working on ideas. Hardly a difficult load. If the Super Rugby coaches are not responding to his requests around players and their approach then that is something that he needs to improve in his relationship. All the admin side of things is for the team manager. Day 1 of camp should be getting players who aren't used to working with each other to understand each other and the approach he wants. Given he has those interim camps for potential players a lot of that should have already happened.

 

[Derpus]

So is your point that we don't need a DoR?

 

[I like to watch]

I would have thought in the event we did need one, this need would be reflected by the job description that clearly defines their role.
Appointing someone and saying that the new appointee will consult with the current coach,and they will make it up as they go along,is not quite the gold standard in recruiting.....

 

[wamberal]

I have done a fair bit of recruiting in my time. Sometimes the brief is clear, occasionally it is not, or the organisation who is doing the recruiting realises that there is no perfect candidate.


In this case, the brief certainly is not clear (although we can all agree that the national team is in deep doo-doo, nobody can specify a clear brief for a fix) nor is there a huge potential market to search in for either a new coach, or another solution.


And the clock is ticking.

 

[Quick Hands]

I have done a fair bit of recruiting in my time. Sometimes the brief is clear, occasionally it is not, or the organisation who is doing the recruiting realises that there is no perfect candidate.


In this case, the brief certainly is not clear (although we can all agree that the national team is in deep doo-doo, nobody can specify a clear brief for a fix) nor is there a huge potential market to search in for either a new coach, or another solution.


And the clock is ticking.

There's nothing particularly wrong in and of itself with appointing someone quickly to a position in order to fill a short term need. Unfortunately, many ARU/RA appointments seem to fit into this category largely because IMO they've never seem to have taken the time to do things with a strategic, long-term view in mind in the first place and so there is always a crisis on the horizon which requires an extraordinary appointment.

In August 2017 RA completely revamp and restructure their high performance unit and yet by December 2018 they need to appoint someone to a role not identified in 2017.