Brumbies v Highlanders Super Rugby R5 2012

[RedsHappy]

Get your hand off it. My point was about your double standards. If Jake White was a prick for considering the England job, he can't suddenly be a champion because the team has won a few games. That's moral hypocrisy, isn't it. Those of us who never had a problem with a coach taking his opportunities in this industry are honest enough to be grateful that JW stayed, not righteous about it.

Last post on this from me: There is no double standard at all.

My criticism of Jake's fully-declared-by-him 'interest' in the England job, and therefore the real possibility that he'd depart the Brumbies having coached at most only one season, was one of ethics and integrity as to what you take on and commit to, in this case knowing in advance how fragile the whole Brumbies set up was and how damaged they'd potentially be if he left quickly. Summary: business or contractual ethics in a leadership role once you have committed. I'd have zero issue if he decides to leave after say 2 or more full seasons of some success and the Brumbies had solidly benefitted from that and could be further evolved by someone post-Jake. Many other posters here closer than me to the Brumbies had similar concerns and criticisms to me. (You obviously disagree with this perspective, fair enough, but that's no good reason to start bitchy insults like '...spare us the moralistic tripe...' and '...get your hand off it'....unless you enjoy anonymous keyboard sadism.)

Then, when he reversed, I said good, I'm delighted by that, the negative I (and others) worried has not come to pass. Jake effectively admitted the error and has IMO 'done the right thing'. The point above was nothing whatsoever to do with his coaching ability, which of course I rate highly. You can potentially be an ethical shit, and a fabulous coach (just ask the England Premier League). Coaching and ethical responsibility re leaders' commitment are in two different planes of assessment, one's raw talent for the game, the other's what's right in life. If you think that business and contractual integrity have no role in life, then leadership and its responsibilities to others is perhaps not a sphere that you have ever engaged in.

 

[Newter]

Last post on this from me: There is no double standard at all.

My criticism of Jake's fully-declared-by-him 'interest' in the England job, and therefore the real possibility that he'd depart the Brumbies having coached at most only one season, was one of ethics and integrity as to what you take on and commit to, in this case knowing in advance how fragile the whole Brumbies set up was and how damaged they'd potentially be if he left quickly. Summary: business or contractual ethics in a leadership role once you have committed. I'd have zero issue if he decides to leave after say 2 or more full seasons of some success and the Brumbies had solidly benefitted from that and could be further evolved by someone post-Jake. Many other posters here closer than me to the Brumbies had similar concerns and criticisms to me. (You obviously disagree with this perspective, fair enough, but that's no good reason to start bitchy insults like '...spare us the moralistic tripe...' and '...get your hand off it'....unless you enjoy anonymous keyboard sadism.)

Then, when he reversed, I said good, I'm delighted by that, the negative I (and others) worried has not come to pass. Jake effectively admitted the error and has IMO 'done the right thing'. The point above was nothing whatsoever to do with his coaching ability, which of course I rate highly. You can potentially be an ethical shit, and a fabulous coach (just ask the England Premier League). Coaching and ethical responsibility re leaders' commitment are in two different planes of assessment, one's raw talent for the game, the other's what's right in life. If you think that business and contractual integrity have no role in life, then leadership and its responsibilities to others is perhaps not a sphere that you have ever engaged in.

Bloody hell, that's a lot of blather about commitment and ethics. Here are some bracing facts to cut through it all. Andy Friend was on a two year contract when he was abruptly terminated by Brumbies head office after three rounds. David Nucifora was winning the competition when he was relegated by head office to glorified walkie talkie duties in 2004. Eddie Jones was moved on after just one year of a long term contract at the Reds in 2007.

Commitment for four years? What planet are you living on. Don't tell me you think those contracts actually matter.

Meanwhile, Jake White's work after 8 months of preparation has the team's "rebuilding" phase all but done and dusted. But he still would have been an arsehole for leaving at the end of the year, according to you.

 

[mudskipper]

Well Jakes staying so it really is a moot point of no concern... Its more interesting to see what Jake White and crew have achieved so far...

 

[namtrak]

Ive been thinking about this game. And I think it was a case of the boys beating the men - this is a good thing

 

[Slim 293]

Apparently a virus spread through the Brumbies' camp in the lead up to this match.

Hooper was sent to a hotel room as he shares a house with Nic White and Dan Palmer who were both affected.

 

[teach]

Ive been thinking about this game. And I think it was a case of the boys beating the men - this is a good thing

How so? Against a highlanders team missing it's strongest loose forwards, and suffering an injury to a pivotal back?.
Brumbies won, but only just. It could very easily have gone the other way. If you had given us a good rogering like the reds took from the Bulls, then maybe you could get excited. The game was too close to read anything into it, regarding superiority one way or another.
I personally am not too worried about the result. I would welcome a rematch with a fully fit team.

 

[What2040]

Never really watched Hooper until last game - he was fantastic - read a report that he has leapfroged Gill into Australian contention - after that game I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[qwerty51]

This is his third year, do you watch rugby?

 

[mudskipper]

How so? Against a highlanders team missing it's strongest loose forwards, and suffering an injury to a pivotal back?.
Brumbies won, but only just. It could very easily have gone the other way. If you had given us a good rogering like the reds took from the Bulls, then maybe you could get excited. The game was too close to read anything into it, regarding superiority one way or another.
I personally am not too worried about the result. I would welcome a rematch with a fully fit team.

Brumbies can only play who is put on the paddock as their oppostion... the result is recorded...