Coaching Options for Qld Rugby

[Quick Hands]

More so just reiterating the point that if it works, it doesn't matter.

Weren't Michael Foley at the Force and Chris Hickey at the Waratahs appointed through prudent reviews? They never worked out at all.

One of the reasons that Hickey was appointed by the Waratahs was that the board perceived that he was someone who wouldn't make waves and would comply with their directions. It may have been prudent from the point of view of the entrenched elite, but there was nothing prudent about it in terms of a coach who would take the team to the next level. And before you point out some good seasons - every year that Hickey and Foley were in charge at the Waratahs was worse than the year before in terms of results, playing style and crowds.

Foley's appointment at the Force was essentially a Steve Bradbury one - he was the last man standing.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm comparing the Reds in 2011 to the other top teams and the Waratahs in 2014 to other top teams.

This is the top 2 or 3 teams in total each year.

What the Waratahs were doing in 2011 and the Reds were doing in 2014 is irrelevant to the winners. That is poor management from them.

The variance in the top contenders comes down to some fortune on the factors beyond your control.

You cannot see that it's luck you lost Dave Dennis in 2014. Not Nick Phipps, Michael Hooper, Bernard Foley, Sekope Kepu or Israel Folau?

Much like for the Reds in 2011, it was luck that we lost James Slipper and Peter Hynes. Not Will Genia, James Horwill or Quade Cooper.

Do you not think the Crusaders would have been strengthened in 2014 had Zac Guildford been in the team and Johnny McNicholl or Kieron Fonotia been the one injured? Likewise Jimmy Tupou not Luke Romano?

I can't be bothered looking at the 2011 Crusaders squad, but I'm sure one or two specific players would have strengthened them for the Grand Final.

You can manage and minimize your injuries. That's in your control. Who the injuries you get occur to is outside your control. If you lose 3 players in the 3 positions with most depth, that's good luck. If you lose your 3 most important and influential players, that's bad luck. Just about every winner has the former. Many top 4 teams have the latter.

I get the impression that you'd argue all day that black was white if given the chacne.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I get the impression that you'd argue all day that black was white if given the chacne.

So it's an unreasonable point to suggest that teams who minimizing their injuries through good management are also lucky that the inevitable and unavoidable injuries occur to players are are the most easily covered in their squad?

I'm more than happy to admit that the Reds were lucky we never lost Genia, Cooper or Horwill in 2011. We would not have won if we did. We were lucky that Hynes, Lucas and Slipper were less critical to our game plan.

It was also good management that those were our only real losses.

The Reds in 2015 have lost a few players to bad luck (those who turned up injured as well as Quade's broken bone and Horwill's split webbing) but the majority through poor management.

 

[Sully]

Circular arguments everywhere. Could be time to move the convo forward guys.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Would it be wise to leave any decision on the new HC until after the dust settles from RWC15?

Fairly sure some Coaches will be chopped as scapegoats following teams not performing to (unrealistic or inflated) expectations at the RWC. It could be a buyers market towards the end of this year.

Leave Knuckles in place to oversee things in the interim. Could it get any worse? Most of next years squad are already contracted.

 

[Gnostic]

Were the 2011 Reds lucky that there were able substitutes for those unavoidable injuries? I know you answer it is what you have said. I and other contend you are wrong.

Look at the Tahs this year, Skelton was suspended and unavailable so Hoiles started. he doesn't offer anywhere near the same game as Skelton. It is not that he is not a good player or of standard just totally different. The Tahs could have changed the game plan because they lost a massive (literally and figuratively) part of that plan in no longer having the centre field runner and offload option to get them over the gain line.

Here is the good coaching part, they didn't change the plan they changed the structure and made use of the different skills of the players they had available. Naiyaravoro was used far ,ore as a centre field runner off first and second phase than we had previously seen to gain that momentum.

One of the Reds big failures this year was the total lack of adequate coverage in key positions such as 10. Regardless of what some have said it was idiotic to suggest that the Coke man was a Rugby 10 after not playing the game in that position at significant level in so long, and as for JOC (James O'Connor) at 10, only if you're Robbie Deans. It was indeed bad luck that Cooper broke bones, it was stupidity that meant the side couldn't cope in the rehab time frame. Look at the Chiefs, they lose Cruden and their play didn't suffer much at all.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I can't agree Gnostic. And the results seem to say so too. The Chiefs lost 2 of their first 9 games when Cruden was there.

They went on to lose 4 of their remaining 7 without him.

Their success certainly suffered due to his loss.

 

[Braveheart81]

One of the Reds big failures this year was the total lack of adequate coverage in key positions such as 10. Regardless of what some have said it was idiotic to suggest that the Coke man was a Rugby 10 after not playing the game in that position at significant level in so long, and as for JOC (James O'Connor) at 10, only if you're Robbie Deans. It was indeed bad luck that Cooper broke bones, it was stupidity that meant the side couldn't cope in the rehab time frame. Look at the Chiefs, they lose Cruden and their play didn't suffer much at all.

The Chiefs won 7 from 9 up to and including the game where Cruden got injured.

They won 3 from 8 after that.

I agree that the Chiefs had much better coverage at 10 behind their star than the Reds did but it also highlights how much your fortunes can turn in Super Rugby when you lose a star player in a key position.

 

[fatprop]

One of the reasons that Hickey was appointed by the Waratahs was that the board perceived that he was someone who wouldn't make waves and would comply with their directions. It may have been prudent from the point of view of the entrenched elite, but there was nothing prudent about it in terms of a coach who would take the team to the next level. And before you point out some good seasons - every year that Hickey and Foley were in charge at the Waratahs was worse than the year before in terms of results, playing style and crowds.

Foley's appointment at the Force was essentially a Steve Bradbury one - he was the last man standing.

Both were deemed decent choices, but they didn't work out that way

I actually like how some of the European football sides do it, they have director of football and a known style - how they want to play, they then pick the manager (and players) that will work within that style (and wage bracket)

That means if you want to play as a tight forward based, maul and box kick team you sign hard working wingers chase hard and compete in the air for those kicks, not stepping runners better at ball in hand, you sign 9s who can box kick etc etc

 

[Train Without a Station]

I get your point but your coaches are much more easily replaced than your players.

If you are setting your squad based on your coach (or coaching director), if that doesn't work out and you have to make a change, you are locked into a large number of your squad who were picked to suit the last guy.

It's my understanding the movement of under contract players is much more frequent in European football.

The way I see it, coaches blaming a squad is a cop out. A good coach can improve any group of players. If it was certain players that would make the squad a winning team, why would they need a coach?

The biggest constraint is the players you have and the players you can get. A coach needs to be able to work with that. If he cannot take a number of talented players and fashion them into a functioning and moderately successful team then he simply is not a good coach. If he is only able to coach a certain style, he's not a good coach. He may be good at certain aspects but he is just as lacking as the players if that's the case. Not every squad is capable of winning their competition, but they are capable of good team performance.

 

[Quick Hands]

So it's an unreasonable point to suggest that teams who minimizing their injuries through good management are also lucky that the inevitable and unavoidable injuries occur to players are are the most easily covered in their squad?

No, but my impression was the you were arguing against that position at one point. Maybe it was me that was confused.

I agree with you on this point, which is always a nice way to conclude.

 

[Troy]

Would it be wise to leave any decision on the new HC until after the dust settles from RWC15?

Fairly sure some Coaches will be chopped as scapegoats following teams not performing to (unrealistic or inflated) expectations at the RWC. It could be a buyers market towards the end of this year.

Leave Knuckles in place to oversee things in the interim. Could it get any worse? Most of next years squad are already contracted.

Just on this point, Warren Gatland or Steve Hansen COULD be available..

If Wales fail to get out of their group, good chance Gatland gets the chop.
If Wales go on to win the whole thing when the AIG's are expected to win it, there'll be the usual noise and gnashing of teeth from across the ditch and Hansen gets the chop...

Heard it here first

 

[TOCC]

Would it be wise to leave any decision on the new HC until after the dust settles from RWC15?

Fairly sure some Coaches will be chopped as scapegoats following teams not performing to (unrealistic or inflated) expectations at the RWC. It could be a buyers market towards the end of this year.

Leave Knuckles in place to oversee things in the interim. Could it get any worse? Most of next years squad are already contracted.

This... Let's say a coach like Matt Taylor has agreed to join the Reds for 2016 and let's say hypothetically he has a confidentially agreement in his contract as not to disrupt Scotland's RWC campaign... How could this play out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lindommer]

Rule 10, TWaS.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Thanks for highlighting that Lindo after Sully had asked all to move on, and we all did, to other points and other discussions.

As for your comment HJ. Tough call. In acquring the very best possible coach. Yes surely it is in the best interests of the Reds to wait.

In preparing the best for 2016 and ensuring the squad is finalized and that it's the right squad for 2016, after a very poor 2 year period, it's not.

Quite the conundrum and a risk whichever way they go. I'm not sure there's too much confidence that the Reds management will make the right decision at the moment. My concern is they are telling themselves that keeping RG on will help ensure they are set up for 2016, but I really don't have faith in his judgement.

 

[RedsHappy]

Re the role of 'luck' with injuries and that of excellent S&C policy and its execution in reducing injury risk, I was reminded of an old business-based saying that I have found remarkably accurate over the years, and I'll offer it up, adapted for this discussion:

"The harder I work (at real excellence in S&C), the luckier I get".

 

[Train Without a Station]

RH all I will say on this matter any further is every single team no matter how good gets some injuries. The hard work results in the number (low for excellent practice. High for poor practice). The luck results in the who.

And the only way to not be impacted by loss of any specific player, is to not have stand out players. Or basically what BH said.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

@TWAS, At last count there are 22 of the squad finalised for 2016. 20 of the current squad (counting those from EDS, foreign marquee and various short term contracted players) have unknown status. There is a whole NRC to go through as well, and that may throw up a gem or two. I reckon the Reds are reasonably well set up for 2016, in terms of player rosters, compared to other franchises.

Whenever the coach is appointed, they will have to work with the hand they have been dealt in the first instance for at least the first year.

Which of the current batch of 2016 contracted blokes would you have hold the tackle bags at training and game day warm ups, and sit in the Reds Players enclosure at Suncorp in their No1's?

Who is off contract at other franchises that you reckon Reds should be targeting to bolster the squad for 2016?

 

[Train Without a Station]

HJ you make a valid point. McKenzie and Cheika basically inherited what was left in somewhat of a last minute dash to appoint a coach.

I can't help but feel this is a case of overcoming obstacles. If you want to look at a case of excellent planning, I think White's recruitment at the Brumbies is the perfect one. Recruited nice and early and given maximum time with the squad and to fill the holes in the squad which yielded an immediate improvement on what was arguably an even lesser roster than the 2010 Reds.

 

[RedsHappy]

RH all I will say on this matter any further is every single team no matter how good gets some injuries. The hard work results in the number (low for excellent practice. High for poor practice). The luck results in the who.

And the only way to not be impacted by loss of any specific player, is to not have stand out players. Or basically what BH said.

Speaking personally, I'd much rather examine all the potential attributes of rugby team management excellence (such as the role of superior S&C work) that are developable, recruitable, controllable, etc and further can be analysed and transferred vs the random factors of our universe such as 'luck'.

Generally, the more capable, adaptable, well managed and competent you are in any endeavour, the less prone you will be to the unavoidable impact of intrinsic randomness (aka 'luck').