Coaching Options for Qld Rugby

[Train Without a Station]

Unfortunately a lot of great points get lost because the writer goes too far to push their own agenda. The hindsight evaluation of recruitment for example.

This one though is just completely untrue:

James O'Connor has spent considerable time injured this year, hasn't shown any leadership on the field, and single-handedly turned the game against us last week. He also out-douched himself at half time by appearing to go after Adam Thomson (a recruit who has done well) in the sheds for not meeting JOC (James O'Connor)'s very high standards of play.

Yes he's been injured. He didn't "single-handedly" turn the game against us last week. His (absolutely shockingly unbelievable) error in fact had no bearing on the end result - us losing with a bonus point.

But most importantly, the incident between JOC (James O'Connor) and Thomson isn't all JOC (James O'Connor) at fault. Thomson failed to do his job which lead to a try. In that instance, JOC (James O'Connor) was in the correct position, covering the openside at fullback. He then had to cover after Genia either failed to, or was more likely unable to chase, and the opposition 9 ran straight past both Thomson and Schatz.

The fact that the writer finds JOC (James O'Connor) solely at fault and thinks it's unreasonable for him to be remonstrating with Thomson, saying how well Thomson had done as though it should have been the other way round either means they are too biased, or know too little about rugby.

This is why I find it frustrating all these people who want to lay blame for everything under the sun on the administration. The arguments just get picked apart and dismissed as bitter or biased fans, rather than holding them accountable for the many real and avoidable errors which they have made.

 

[RedsHappy]

That's a pretty naive comment.

How many rugby experienced people that are available in Australia would not have a close relationship with the guys like Tony Shaw, Andrew Slack (Who has been surprisingly a vocal critic on Graham's results from the few Sunday Mail articles I actually have read), Damien Frawley, Bill Ross, Mark Conners and Rod McCall?

It's doubtful anybody with the experience and credentials would not have had years playing alongside these guys at Wallaby level. Anybody suitable who had not, would be based overseas and unlikely to take such an appointment.

gel's point was surely not so much as you've argued above, but rather 'is this going to make things better, hiring more of the known rugby 'mates' network to examine the QRU's coaching resources?'

I think he has a very arguable point.

If we look back over the last decade's clear declines in rugby's code market share, Test attendances, Fox viewership declines, multiple near-bankruptcies and related financial bail-outs required in multiple State franchises and so on, very typically the boards of the institutions over-sighting all this have been dominated by 'ex-Wallabies and the rugby mates network'.

More particularly, the infamous post-RWC 2011 'independent review of the Wallaby coaching structures (re which I have often referred to here), turned out to conducted largely by ex-Wallabies on the then ARU board. That review was not dissimilar to what the QRU has announced this week (and I think B Robinson may have been a part of it). That review kept Deans in place but sacked his then support coaches and hired new ones, but ultimately achieved nothing positive, the Wallabies went on a continued decline to an end-point of the 2013 BIL series loss. Only then, after 6 painful and mediocre seasons, was Dens sacked.

IMO, the qualification of 'ex-Wallaby' when used as the basis for construing assumed excellence in determining optimal coaching infrastructures, head coach appointments and so, has been proven over time to be of highly dubious value, and further it could be argued has underwritten an insularity and lack of real independent, innovative thinking re how coaching and rugby business management skill evolved (or not as the case so often is), or indeed should evolve, in this country.

 

[RugbyReg]

Howard has been heavily criticized in his roles at times at Cricket Australia.

until he started to get the results. Well, the team got results

 

[Strewthcobber]

But surely in a performance review, somebody with a rugby background would be beneficial. If this was a review of head office operations, I'd agree that somebody with no rugby background would be better.

I'm going to argue with myself here but I'd guess the real reason a "rugby" person is being used is because they are willing to do the review and be paid massively under the odds for the experience they bring.

And that's probably fair enough.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'm going to argue with myself here but I'd guess the real reason a "rugby" person is being used is because they are willing to do the review and be paid massively under the odds for the experience they bring.

And that's probably fair enough.

So probably a similar reason why we both think Pulver took the CEO job despite it paying a lot less than his predecessor?

It's obviously not an ideal situation, but I guess you need to live within your means and work with what you have.

Surely a successful rugby identify from the Premiership or Top 14 or a top international team would be ideal. Hard to recruit a champagne candidate on box wine money though.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So probably a similar reason why we both think Pulver took the CEO job despite it paying a lot less than his predecessor?

It's obviously not an ideal situation, but I guess you need to live within your means and work with what you have.

Surely a successful rugby identify from the Premiership or Top 14 or a top international team would be ideal. Hard to recruit a champagne candidate on box wine money though.

Yep. And why the ARU board are there despite not getting paid etc etc.

At the end of the day these guys love the sport as much as any of us

 

[RedsHappy]

Unfortunately a lot of great points get lost because the writer goes too far to push their own agenda. The hindsight evaluation of recruitment for example.

This one though is just completely untrue:

Yes he's been injured. He didn't "single-handedly" turn the game against us last week. His (absolutely shockingly unbelievable) error in fact had no bearing on the end result - us losing with a bonus point.

But most importantly, the incident between JOC (James O'Connor) and Thomson isn't all JOC (James O'Connor) at fault. Thomson failed to do his job which lead to a try. In that instance, JOC (James O'Connor) was in the correct position, covering the openside at fullback. He then had to cover after Genia either failed to, or was more likely unable to chase, and the opposition 9 ran straight past both Thomson and Schatz.

The fact that the writer finds JOC (James O'Connor) solely at fault and thinks it's unreasonable for him to be remonstrating with Thomson, saying how well Thomson had done as though it should have been the other way round either means they are too biased, or know too little about rugby.

This is why I find it frustrating all these people who want to lay blame for everything under the sun on the administration. The arguments just get picked apart and dismissed as bitter or biased fans, rather than holding them accountable for the many real and avoidable errors which they have made.

To set (as you seem to) the test that virtually every statement, every claim, every argument, every fact, must be 'correct, and precisely demonstrable as accurate, rugby-knowledgeable and a balanced perspective' in order for it to be a useful contribution to a critical debate over, say, the QRU's coach selections and general conduct is to enter the realms of an idealised, unreal world. Life is not like that, especially where sport is concerned.

And do we as posters here, you and me included, always pass that very high test ourselves in all our posts and passions? And, if we don't pass it, are all our other arguments and convictions to be considered thereby diminished and not credible?

The fundamental gist of the article you quote from contains IMO many valid and telling truths, all wrapped up in admirable and, one senses, very genuine fan passion. One potentially flawed conclusion re JOC (James O'Connor) does not detract from or crush its gutsy and well-argued set of contentions when considered in aggregate. I would guarantee many, many Reds fans would relate to her comments and find them convincing and credible overall.

And the writer had the balls to attach their own name to it and publish it in the mainstream media, which rarely happens here.

 

[Train Without a Station]

To set (as you seem to) the test that virtually every statement, every claim, every argument, every fact, must be 'correct, and precisely demonstrable as accurate, rugby-knowledgeable and a balanced perspective' in order for it to be a useful contribution to a critical debate over, say, the QRU's coach selections and general conduct is to enter the realms of an idealised, unreal world. Life is not like that, especially where sport is concerned.

Perhaps I'm just too entrenched in my profession, in that when responding to anything, we will try and pick flaws in an opposing side's argument to diminish their credibility.

You and I just talking on an internet forum, probably not so relevant. When trying to use your argument to affect change in a professional organization, you probably don't want them to be able to reduce your credibility to destroy your argument.

My view is I liken to a loud and abusive boss. At first you find it alarming when they blow up. After a while you desensitize and say "Oh xxxx is just going off about something stupid again". When you have a boss that maintains their composure, when they lose it, you really take notice.

The Reds have made a number of errors. But they haven't done absolutely everything wrong. If people try and blame them for everything under the sun, it's easy to make excuses and say people are just getting upset due to the lack of results on the field, and those excuses are the reason for that.

Target, specific, balanced and correct criticism, it's much more difficult to wriggle out from.

 

[RedsHappy]

I'm going to argue with myself here but I'd guess the real reason a "rugby" person is being used is because they are willing to do the review and be paid massively under the odds for the experience they bring.

And that's probably fair enough.

Well, if that is indeed the case (and it may not be: don't forget a 'consultant' is also being retained to join this review as its 3rd person), it's stupid.

This latest 3-person review, according to the QRU CEO, is going to review all of coaching both specifically and more broadly, player development pathways, all manner of crucial, strategic topics. And they're going to do it all, on a clearly part-time basis, over only 4-5 weeks. The QRU itself is saying how central these topics are for the future of QLD rugby.

Thus, is this the time and place to be selecting participants for such a review on a principal criterion that they are 'low cost'? We are OK to pay KH c. $500,000 pa (plus ARU top up), but we can't find the $s to fund the very best possible skills for a fast-track review regarding topics that are absolutely central to the future of QLD rugby?

However, if 'the review' is of a far more dubious, less than sincere purpose of instead finding a way to deflect fan anger and disillusionment from being directed squarely at the QRU board whilst at the same time legitimating the reappointment of RG as HC or in some other capacity via 'an independent review panel', then the wise call is indeed to do the review on a basis that sounds very impressive, but is fast and cheap.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Thus, is this the time and place to be selecting participants for such a review on a principal criterion that they are 'low cost'? We are OK to pay KH c. $500,000 pa (plus ARU top up), but we can't find the $s to fund the very best possible skills for a fast-track review regarding topics that are absolutely central to the future of QLD rugby?

I can say I'm pretty sure that is because the ARU covers all player salaries within the Super Rugby salary cap with a grant. It's possible the Reds would not be allowed to not spend this money on player salaries, then use it somewhere else.

 

[I like to watch]

That only makes sense,if the Reds only source of income is the ARU grant.

The Reds have expenses in the millions each year( in addition to player payments).

 

[gel]

That's a pretty naive comment.

No, it isn't.

There are a myriad of people that are experienced in rugby union that have never been involved with the QRU and not all of them are involved with the world cup.

They simply haven't looked if the only people they could find are their mates.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Like Brett Robinson who never played for the Reds?

 

[gel]

^^My apologies, I misread that Brett was on the QRU board, as opposed to the ARU board.

 

[Train Without a Station]

^^My apologies, I misread that Brett was on the QRU board, as opposed to the ARU board.

No worries. That's why my initial comment that I thought almost anybody with the experience would have some relationship through the Wallabies or professional ranks in some ways.

Certainly somebody independent from the QRU is imperative. Beyond that, there's not much further away you can realistically remove the candidate.

 

[RugbyReg]

Like Brett Robinson who never played for the Reds?

Big and fast, he stood 189cms and weighed 101kgs. By 1991, Robinson was in the Australian Under 21 side with Garrick Morgan and Brett Johnstone. He made his debut for Queensland as a 23-year-old in 1993 in the opening match of the season against Western Province at Ballymore and showed up well. During the year, he managed six games for the Reds and was selected for the end of year Wallaby tour of Canada and France.

 

[gel]

hmmmm.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Touche Reg.

Damn Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Robinson

 

[Beer Baron]

I'm sure there are plenty of Rugger involved professionals without being ex Reds/QRU members. Have a look around the various QPR presidents/board members.

 

[Beer Baron]

I also now disagree experience in Ruby is necessary for the review. In the same way firms like Accenture operate (or Administrators take over the running of failed businesses), the benefits of being independent and having no personal connection means every recommendation is based on merit alone - and if contested would have to be with compelling reasons.