I don't think I've ever seen an elite rugby team that would so obviously benefit from a much better coaching team (not just head coach, but back/attack and forwards etc) than the 2012/13 Rebels.
You don't get rich dining out on impressive excuses: 'sick of losing', 'getting so many close results vs good teams', 'just a few small player mistakes costing us dearly', 'not quite playing the whole 80 yet', etc. The Rebels w/l % appears in their third year almost as bad as it's ever been. Just not good enough frankly after three years of considerable investment. And average crowds of c.11,000 will send the place broke over time.
Get yourselves a Jim Carmichael-like quality CEO by end 2013 (making him or her the 4th in 3 years!), and ditto a world-class provincial coach with a demonstrated record of success at these levels, and you have the playing resources (with some additional recruitment) to really have a crack in 2014 at a top 6 S15 position, or maybe top 8 first (a la 2010 Reds and 2012 Brumbies), then top 6 in 2015.
I agree with everything you have said here RH. A bit condescending, but pretty well right.
Here comes the but.
But, I don't think the Rebels are on their Pat Malone for being an under-achieving Oz province. After 7 years the Force are still locked on the bottom of the Oz conference. The Reds (while recently finally achieving the pinnacle in the modern game) couldn't win a chook raffle not so long ago. Ditto the Brumbies. And the Tahs are the very definition of doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Note that the Reds and the Tahs have had access to some pretty decent players at the same time they couldn't win.
My point is that "baby steps of improvement" or "one step forward, two steps back" in Oz rugby is the rule, not the exception. Look how long it took the Reds to get the right structure in place and win a title. A hell of a lot longer than 3 years.
I'm not defending the Rebels; I am firmly in the camp that says that a rookie team cannot have a rookie coach. Hill has good vision, but in a non-rugby heartland battling for dollars, the people need a winning team to hitch their wagon to. And frankly, Hill himself said pre-season that the time for using the "new boys" excuse was over.
But let's remember that even the Tahs can't get it right and they are (arguably) the epi-centre of Oz rugby.
Can we learn from the Reds experience? Sure. But I don't think it is quite as simple as "one size fits all" when it comes to managing a sporting franchise. By your logic, we should send Link to Melbourne. You wouldn't mind that, would you? For the greater good?
BTW, what were the Reds and Tahs average crowds when they were rock bottom? Did the ARU have to provide any financial assistance at all to one of those teams to keep them viable?
Just remember, you have first hand experience of a poorly performing team (both on and off field) as well, so take a moment to remember what that tasted like.
