Dictatorial vs Inclusive coaching

[en_force_er]

I could go on for another two paras, but I think you get my drift.

Could you? You're got me interested.

On another note, I really don't like this anti-'Gen Y'' sentiment that exists in rugby right now.

Gitts, Campese, Spencer, etc are not Gen Yers and they have a similar attitude to the Coopers of this world. Nobody is saying it's good to be arrogant, but I am saying that this is an issue of professional athletes and their egos and not a generational thing.

On yet another note, engaging them via social media is very intelligent and shows Link's keeping with the times like any good people manager.

 

[Roundawhile]

As a rusted on, bolted on, superglued on Reds supporter of very many years, I would love Link to take on the National Coaches role.

Wobs always come first and I believe that, especially with JON gone, Ewan could turn our game around. Yes the Reds will suffer, but bloody hell to have a person that truely understands our game, has no parochial bagage, has the ability and (hopefully the backing) could be a game changer.

As much as I would love to see him stay here, he is our best hope of changing the face of Aus Rugby.

 

[waratahjesus]

With the problem of our forwards not being dominate enough to provide our backs any opportunity, are you saying the reds game plan transfers to the wallabies or what other areas do you think Link can change to change the face of Aus rugby?

I think he would come with an instant PR boost but beyond that I think realistically number 2 in the world is achieving currently (and I hate myself for saying it)

 

[en_force_er]

The Reds don't play like the Tahs did under Link or how Stade did under link.

This ability to adapt speaks well on him as a coach. He's mixed performances season-to-season do raise some question but the point is we know he can be successful, and there seems to be a semi-upward trend to his results.

 

[Jets]

With the problem of our forwards not being dominate enough to provide our backs any opportunity, are you saying the reds game plan transfers to the wallabies or what other areas do you think Link can change to change the face of Aus rugby?

I think he would come with an instant PR boost but beyond that I think realistically number 2 in the world is achieving currently (and I hate myself for saying it)

I agree with you to a point WJ.
The Reds game plan wouldn't work for the Wallabies but Links ability to engage with players would be an asset, as would his ability to look at what resources he has and adapt the game style to suit it. As he tells anyone that will listen he's a pragmatic coach.
As for being number 2 in the world I think there are different ways to go about it. Currently we are number 2 due to the fact that all the other teams in the world don't take advantage of our failings. We should expect the second place ranking as a minimum and be sniffing on the heals of number 1. We should beat the number 1 team on a regular occurrence and provide them with the stiffest of competition in every game we play them. Also we shouldn't loose to teams outside the top 5 ranked teams in the world ever. In fact we should be expected to beat most teams when we play them.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think of all the game plans Link has adopted in his time as a coach, the Reds would be the most relevant to the Wallabies. He has been able to get an inferior pack to lay a solid platform of fast ball for the backs, despite lack of size and scrummaging ability. Am I the only one who sees the Wallabies generally in a similar situation? Imagine if he was able to extract a bit of that effort out of our current Wallabies forwards and then encouraged the backs to play their natural style?

 

[Scarfman]

The debate here seems to be between a "solo head coach" and a head coach who listens to his/her assistants.

But I reckon you really want to listen to the players. You've got to ask the guys in the game what's going on. At the very least, you establish a game plan in collaboration with the players. I reckon the number of times you would have to overrule that process and put your foot down would be few.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I'm drawn to make a comparison between a dictatorial or inclusive style of forum.

 

[cyclopath]

I'm drawn to make a comparison between a dictatorial or inclusive style of forum.

I'm stunned.

 

[daz]

I'm drawn to make a comparison between a dictatorial or inclusive style of forum.

Very poor bit of sniping.

No, dictatorial is when things get done whether you like it or not, with no prior warning or opportunity to give feedback.

Inclusive is the exact opposite of dictatorial. It also means that while your feedback is asked for and welcomed, it will be considered; it does not mean that your views will be automatically included.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I'm stunned.

You shouldn't be; the reasoning from both perspectives seem to be broadly similar.

 

[BPC]

You shouldn't be; the reasoning from both perspectives seem to be broadly similar.

Don't be silly. By definition, a dictator is a sole figure.

The group of mods here is more in the nature of a junta.

However they are a very inclusive junta.

 

[cyclopath]

You shouldn't be; the reasoning from both perspectives seem to be broadly similar.

Forgot the irony smiley. I was not stunned one bit that you would think the point was worth making.

 

[vidiot]

With the problem of our forwards not being dominate enough to provide our backs any opportunity, are you saying the reds game plan transfers to the wallabies or what other areas do you think Link can change to change the face of Aus rugby?

I think he would come with an instant PR boost but beyond that I think realistically number 2 in the world is achieving currently (and I hate myself for saying it)

The reds had a game plan and varied it according to the situation. The brumbies had a game plan and did like wise. The wallabies have a vibe.

 

[waratahjesus]

I never understood how the reds are applauded for the type of gameplan used as an example of Robbie deans being out of touch with his players. Is it solely because they won?

- just need to ad to avoid usual replies. Not trolling, interested in the discussion about it.

 

[Scotty]

With the problem of our forwards not being dominate enough to provide our backs any opportunity, are you saying the reds game plan transfers to the wallabies or what other areas do you think Link can change to change the face of Aus rugby?

I think he would come with an instant PR boost but beyond that I think realistically number 2 in the world is achieving currently (and I hate myself for saying it)

I think you are right about being no. 2, but that we should expect to be closer to no. 1 than we currently are. Realistically the only reason we keep the two spot is due to inconsistency of the boks and poor touring performances of current 6 nations sides.

 

[Scotty]

Ps Deans' winning % vs the ABs sits at around 20, I think we are within our rights to expect more like 40.

 

[Blue]

Who would we consider to some of the most successful coaches in the history of the game? And not just international.

Not just win/loss but big achievements. Now what were their styles?

Macqueen
White
His Cliveness
Sir Henry
Kitch Christie
Guy Noves (Toulouse)
Nic Mallet
Cheika
Laporte
McGeechan
McKenzie - only to preempt Scotty having a moment but seriously not quite at the level of this lot but he is the next Wob coach so let's 'ave i'm

Let's not debate who was the best and derail the thread. If I missed a name or two let's add them but let's not go over the top arguing the point.

So what are the styles of this lot?

Interested to see what you guys think.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Forgot the irony smiley. I was not stunned one bit that you would think the point was worth making.

You don't? I think the comparison is a genuinely interesting one.

Both have opposing valid models and each have their advocates.

Top down vs bottom up.

Personally I prefer a balance. For instance I'm regularly in the situation where a decision needs to be made, and everyone in the room has a different opinion. Usually I'll give everyone a reasonable say then make the decision - because wasting time arguing is, well, wasting time. Quite often there's two equal options and once again someone needs to make a decision, in which case I'll pick one.

I usually explain that neither choice is better, but we need to move on.

In any case both topics seem to parallel some leadership methodologies, so I thought the comparison fair.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Ps Deans' winning % vs the ABs sits at around 20, I think we are within our rights to expect more like 40.

His (Deans) quotes in the paper today read like he thinks we can't do better than 0%