- Status
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I read JON's statement in the light of a former politician's "non core" promise. Even the goal of Number 1 ranking is rubbish when you regard the total crap that is the ranking system. Have no doubt that when the desired result is not met (under Deans I have no faith that he will improve on his approx. 50% win rate no matter who the players are and what the injury rate is) the flawed nature of the ranking system will be trotted out along with the rest of the usual lame excuses.
As for Fatprop's assertion that it is "lame" to question the integrity of the review process or the individuals involved before the results are examined. WTF? The fact is JON failed in his management responsibilities to his staff and board when he placed Nucifora and the board members involved in the position of reviewing the performance of a coach who has consistently failed to meet any reasonable KPI, which was excused for all manner of reasons. Those reviewing the performance are on a hiding to nothing given that Deans has already been reappointed and that will not (and cannot) be revoked. Thus the review must find that Deans was let down by some other structural flaws (which he as head coach was responsible for anyway but that will be carefully glossed over). That the review committee is essentially made up of those who rubber stamped the re-appointment of Deans and Nucifora who had a hand in the debacle means that the review is in no way independant and as such they should not be placed in this position where their integrity can be called into question and they can do nothing except compromise themselves.
It is a pity that Brett Robinson et al will be remembered for their time on the board smeared with this false sham of a review process. Perhaps now they will regret the stupidity and outright neglect of their Official duties they displayed when they re-appointed Deans prior to the RWC. If they had said the reappointment is conditional on performance and review at the conclusion of the RWC they would give credibility to their position now. They did not do so we have a situation where this review is meaningless and whatever it reports a foregone conclusion, and hence for that reason, FP, those involved have/will besmirch their own integrity.
As for Fatprop's assertion that it is "lame" to question the integrity of the review process or the individuals involved before the results are examined. WTF? The fact is JON failed in his management responsibilities to his staff and board when he placed Nucifora and the board members involved in the position of reviewing the performance of a coach who has consistently failed to meet any reasonable KPI, which was excused for all manner of reasons. Those reviewing the performance are on a hiding to nothing given that Deans has already been reappointed and that will not (and cannot) be revoked. Thus the review must find that Deans was let down by some other structural flaws (which he as head coach was responsible for anyway but that will be carefully glossed over). That the review committee is essentially made up of those who rubber stamped the re-appointment of Deans and Nucifora who had a hand in the debacle means that the review is in no way independant and as such they should not be placed in this position where their integrity can be called into question and they can do nothing except compromise themselves.
It is a pity that Brett Robinson et al will be remembered for their time on the board smeared with this false sham of a review process. Perhaps now they will regret the stupidity and outright neglect of their Official duties they displayed when they re-appointed Deans prior to the RWC. If they had said the reappointment is conditional on performance and review at the conclusion of the RWC they would give credibility to their position now. They did not do so we have a situation where this review is meaningless and whatever it reports a foregone conclusion, and hence for that reason, FP, those involved have/will besmirch their own integrity.
O
ON85
Guest
Grow junior registrations in the West and implement Rugby programmes in the key schools of the Catholic system. how about those targets John?
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Way to debate the pertinent points.
I am a realist not a cynic. A cynic would doubt the actual motivation of the review and wouldn't even wonder at the circumstances that led to the outcome. A cynic would say the conclusion is forgeone because people are inherently corrupt. I regard cynics as close minded and short sighted as eternal optimists.
If you want to debate tell me how what I have said is untrue? I haven't said anything about the people involved except to rue the fact that some wonderful former players and very good people cannot win in this situation, that is partially of their own making.
DPK
Peter Sullivan (51)
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Spot on
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Seems pretty bloody obvious doesn't it. Target specific areas. You could potentially build quite a strong Schools 'club' competition in the Macarthur region relatively easily. Break it into three divsions, 7/8, 9/10 and 11/12. That way you can maximise the number of participating schools. Over time as it spreads move to 6 individual age grades.
The board decided to keep Deans, not JON, he would have had input - clearly recommended it, but the board approved it.
Now you may disagree with that decision, but it is made. Paragraphs on here isn't going to change that.
I would prefer to see how the reports comes out, not pre-judge it and see what happens from there. As I said earlier, the Wobs need tweaking, not complete change. They ain't crap, but they are very young and have struggled with consistency
So I look forward to seeing those recommendations and the Wobs getting better
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
On that basis the site should be closed down.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
The result cannot be met because of the flawed nature of the ranking system therefore it is not in doubt. The Wallabies would have to win close to 100% of their games and the ABs lose a significant number for the rankings to change given the significant difference between the respective ranks. So your selective quoting of my first does not support your statement that I am supposedly a cynic.
The quote from the second post was obviously about the conclusion of the review being pre-determined because the cynic view people as inherently corrupt and unable to overcome said state.
DPK
Peter Sullivan (51)
Winning 100% of the games should have been the goal from day one. Wouldn't we all be happy if we did win all our games?
I don't know if you've noticed, by we tend to play NZ a lot. So if we beat them each time we play them next year, even if we don't win 100% of our games it is likely that we would be able to get to the number 1 ranking.
What are your concerns regarding the ranking system? I don't understand your summation of it being "flawed".
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
You see I am not unreasonable, I don't think that winning 100% of the games in the current climate of close competitiveness is a very reasonable target and if that is set it is setting somebody for a fall. I agree the Wallabies players and coaches would always go out with the mindset of winning (if they don't there is something seriously wrong) but to require it as a KPI or contractual requirement is unattainable.
My issue with the ranking system is simply that the Wallabies have been beaten this year by Samoa and Ireland and over the last few years by Scotland and others who remain very significantly below them on the rankings. For a full breakdown of the flaws in the system I would refer you to the thread on the subject in the forum from pre-RWC this year.
Wow. Just Wow. This is something that we, as Autralian Rugby fans should just agree on. It doesn't matter that JON said it. FFS the Dalai Lama could have said it I would still agree that our goal should be the best Rugby team in the world.IT doesn't matter that the Rugby ranking system may or may not be croked. We should set a goal to be the best. How can any right minded Australian Rugby fan disagree with the sentiment?
B
Blob
Guest
I don't see the problem with the rankings system. It says the All Blacks are number 1 and lo.... It's usually right on that point too.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
Because its management wank.
And isn't there an implication that up until now our goal wasn't to be the best in the world?
It's professional sport - is there a team in the world who doesn't want to be number one?
"Yes up until now no one has dared say it. And plenty of people in this country and on this forum have justified there arguments by stating we are #2 in the world we can't be that bad. I've had enough of settling for second best but it looks like quite a few on here are happy with it. Just like you they would rather be pedantic than go for the gold.
- Status