Link: Winning is imperative but it's not everything

[TOCC]

Most elite team sport has winning as its centrepiece and a very important KPI. At the Reds, our number one goal for the season is to win the Super Rugby title - and we are doing everything in our power to achieve that.

But the reality is that only one team wins a tournament or competition each year so there needs to be more to an organisation than just supporting a team in the hope of seeing them capture the silverware. For me, a team’s success is better judged over time and there are a number of ingredients - not than just winning - that need to be measured.

Early in my career I borrowed a line – “winning fixes everything”. However, it is a statement that has proved over time to be perhaps too simplistic and narrow.
Advertisement: Story continues below

When you have a team situation that is dire or historically poor there is no doubt that winning is critical and a first priority. Winning instils confidence, not only within the team but also in the fan base, future players, sponsors and media.

It also allows a different mind set to be taken onto the field. Players can express themselves and try things because the downside is mitigated by the winning. Winning for me is a habit. Habits need to be learned just as losing can also become a habit, one that is sometimes difficult to break.

When winning is difficult to come by you also need to focus strongly in this space. You need to be realistic about your capacities and you need to find a way to win. Style can sometimes take a back seat to the positivity that comes from finishing ahead on the scoreboard.

When winning has become more predictable and a habit has been formed, then there is a capacity to look at the wider quality aspects and develop some ability to take risks. A winning team also tends to attract players and therefore your skill/talent base may well expand to allow differing methods of play.

There is little point in belligerently playing a brand of rugby that is beyond your capability and does not get you a win. It will look poor and compound the confidence problem.

But the necessity to provide entertainment cannot be underestimated. In the world of competitive sport and sponsorship there is a need to attract people and keep them emotionally attached to your game.

There are many entertainment options these days and to ignore responsibility to grow in this space is an opportunity missed. In recognition of this, I had to modify my original mantra to then become “Winning is not enough”.

Winning is not enough to focus on in a highly competitive sports landscape. When you have developed a program that makes regular winning possible, then you need to look beyond the winning part and consider the quality of your approach and the needs of your stakeholders.

The reality is the fan base and sponsors need to have a reason to be attracted to your endeavours, let alone actually turn up to an event. This is made even more important now when the games are broadcast live and the consumer gets to make a choice.

Given there are plenty of alternatives in the entertainment space there needs to be a strong and compelling case for kids to be inspired to play, for fans to turn up, for partners to attach themselves to the brand and for the media to promote.

Unless you become self-sufficient and grow the game then you are going backwards in the face of the broader competition. Winning does not automatically convert to overall success. A winning team does not equal a winning sport.

Supporters accept that their teams do not always win but they like to see risk, they like to see effort, they want to be surprised and they want to see commitment. People want to turn up and be excited, challenged and inspired.

Winning is definitely an important part of elite sport but capturing the hearts and minds of the next generation of players and fans is critical.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...-everything-20110519-1etvb.html#ixzz1MlgHkCPj

 

[TOCC]

given the timing of the recent news articles and the Tah's Fan Forum, you can't help but feel as though this article is directed towards NSW.

 

[RugbyReg]

Early in my career I borrowed a line – “winning fixes everything”. However, it is a statement that has proved over time to be perhaps too simplistic and narrow.

yep and that statement shows how he has developed as a coach, from his days at the Tahs. Perhaps it was his contact with the heavy marketing/promotion based world that was Stade Fracais that gave him the insight about engagement with those on the other side of the fence.

 

[RedsHappy]

given the timing of the recent news articles and the Tah's Fan Forum, you can't help but feel as though this article is directed towards NSW.

As someone has said on the blog, is not Link by far the most thoughtful and eloquent senior spokesperson in Australian rugby today? - whatever your views, this is quality argument and output. I believe Link's reflections here in part demonstrate his recent personal growth and development as a coach and I credit the skills of Jim Carmichael (Reds' late 2009 on CEO) with influencing Link in this more 'winning yes, but with other outcomes too..' perspective on the game, and the business of the game.

 

[chequebalance]

It's hard to sell a product that is unattractive to most people regardless of the brand or the price tag.

 

[Ruggo]

yep and that statement shows how he has developed as a coach, from his days at the Tahs. Perhaps it was his contact with the heavy marketing/promotion based world that was Stade Fracais that gave him the insight about engagement with those on the other side of the fence.

Inheriting an already formed squad at the Reds might have helped change his view a bit. The combination of traditional Link and last years flair in the Reds this year I find a good hint he has developed as a coach.

I also love that he controls the side on gameday from the bench. Adds a good vibe me thinks.

 

[Hawko]

given the timing of the recent news articles and the Tah's Fan Forum, you can't help but feel as though this article is directed towards NSW.

Anyone who thinks Link is not a good coach should be certified. Here the Tahs are, copping heaps from everyone, and he quietly adds to the pressure on them by putting out a piece that doesn't directly attack them but just adds to the overall pressure. I think its called keeping the foot on the throat in the coaching manual.

Deeper than that however, would he have bothered if the Tahs were on the bottom of the ladder? Surely the big story for him to write about was the Brumbies situation and Rea's spray? But he chose the Tah's difficulties and I think its because the Reds could well have to face off with the Tahs in the finals. He knows how desperately close the game was in Brisbane, much closer than the Blues game, and he's looking for any conceivable edge going into that possible encounter. I wish the Dills in the NSWRU who got rid of him had had a fraction of the smarts Link has - they would have waited till after the end of the comp to make a decision and he'd still be in Sydney.

 

[Rob42]

...they would have waited till after the end of the comp to make a decision and he'd still be in Sydney.

That's all fine with the benefit of hindsight, but as I remember, he was off-contract that year and it was reasonable on both sides to make a decision before the end of the season, and the move to France was contingent on him being able to sign on before the end of the Tah's season.

 

[Scotty]

Good article, but it is pretty easy to essentially say that 'style counts' when you have Quade Cooper in your team.

QC (Quade Cooper) goes down and Lucas or Harris come into the team, the style will change significantly.

 

[Red Rooster]

Good article, but it is pretty easy to essentially say that 'style counts' when you have Quade Cooper in your team.

QC (Quade Cooper) goes down and Lucas or Harris come into the team, the style will change significantly.

No reason the tahs couldn't be playing Beale at 10 and have similar skills and x factor. Play Barnes and Carter and you get what you get

 

[HG]

No reason the tahs couldn't be playing Beale at 10 and have similar skills and x factor. Play Barnes and Carter and you get what you get

I don't think playing Beale at 10 would not give the Tahs the same x factor that Cooper brings to the Reds. Beale has proven that he is not a 10, he playes his best football at 15 and that is were he needs to stay no mater what team he is playing in.

 

[Scotty]

I guess the xfactor at the Tahs could still come from Beale though. More back line play where he comes into the line as a second playmaker, and more support for him on the counter attack from a kick.

 

[Red Rooster]

I don't think playing Beale at 10 would not give the Tahs the same x factor that Cooper brings to the Reds. Beale has proven that he is not a 10, he playes his best football at 15 and that is were he needs to stay no mater what team he is playing in.

where was it proven he could not play 10? He played 10 for the Tahs (age 19) for the whole season in 2008 and they played in the final and lost two tries to one to the Crusaders. he set up the two tries and the Thas lost it when he went off with 20 mins to go injured. That was the last time the Tahs made the final btw

 

[qwerty51]

where was it proven he could not play 10? He played 10 for the Tahs (age 19) for the whole season in 2008 and they played in the final and lost two tries to one to the Crusaders. he set up the two tries and the Thas lost it when he went off with 20 mins to go injured. That was the last time the Tahs made the final btw

Exactly what I was going to post. When has he proven is isn't a 10???

 

[HG]

He played 10 this year while Barnes was out. He struggled in the position and lacked direction in his play.

 

[Gagger]

I had to say this article certainly gave me a wry smile as I remember very clearly the "winning fixes everything" days only a coupla years ago at the Tahs, when the Fan sentiment wasn't far off what it is now (although I thought the basics of the attacking play were better then, even in the dour games).

I remember when Link was pre taking the reds job, a lot of us (well, me anyway) thought it was a nuts move, but obviously what he saw was the core of a strong team (QC (Quade Cooper), WG, JH, DI), good Jrs coming through, franchise management he could trust and a shit load of headroom for improvement. So hats off for
a) seeing that opportunity and
b) making the most of it

I do wonder though that without QC (Quade Cooper), WG and DI in place, and the low expectations last year, whether we'd be seeing such a reformed character. Winning might be higher up the agenda and attractiveness low on the radar. Finals time will be interesting.

 

[daz]

I'm drawing a long bow here, but what happens if the Reds do get a shot at the title? Does Link trust his team to play the way that got them there? Or does he fall into the trap many before him have fallen prey to, which is to get 3 points clear then shut up shop? (See the RWC07 final for full mind-numbing details).

I guess my point is, while Link is taking full and deserved credit for the Reds revival, we haven't yet see what might happen when the shit really does get serious and silverware is on the line.

Winning, even winning ugly, may turn out to be the be-all and end-all. History records who won, not how they won.


Edit: It just occured to me that one of the key men responsible for showing how to win ugly on the world stage (RWC07 winner Jake White, no less) is now the Ponies head coach.....