In hindsight it looks like naivety, but at the time we only have one other fair assessment to make on the guy's coaching career. In all fairness to the Force, they were pretty shit when he started, shit when he was there and shit again when he left. Within a reasonable period, of around 6 weeks, the conclusion had to be made that clearly one common denominator in this had been him.
Nobody disagreed that he hadn't showed that he was an absolutely outstanding candidate. But the quality of a candidate is really only relative to their competition, and who was actually out there and available? How many of them were interested in relocating to the SH? Names like Scott Johnson, Vern Cotter and Todd Louden can be thrown around but one has performed poorly, another has taken a national role which I doubt he would have moved to the Reds over whilst the other probably doesn't have the experience and credentials to say he is ready to take on a Super Rugby head coach role.
Graham had done well in assistant appointments, with his areas of specialty thriving. Much like it did in 2013 when he was managing defence. Now, he has been given a fair opportunity after showing as a promise, he clearly isn't capable of the task at the level required.
But when you're looking at the only other experience being at a perennial struggler which was very similar before and after he left and has greater recruitment difficulties than other teams, how much can you weight it's relevance?
Your comments come back to some transparent process as it is a government appointment or similar process. Company management recruitment is done this same way. it's at the detriment of the industry and shithouse practice, but that's life. Taking a stand on principles will only be at your own detriment. Candidates are spoken to whilst currently under contract and for this reason there needs to be secrecy maintained for both parties to save face in the event this discussions do not result in anything further.
To say this should have been paraded out in the public is naivety on your part. It could only have possibly limited the process to candidates who were openly on the market. How many of them are there ever really? Well to re-phrase, how many that haven't just been sacked are there ever really?
Obviously Graham has been a poor recruitment choice in management. But you cannot fault the process for that. If he had been able to perform, it would be lauded as a great coup to be able to snatch an under contract coach with minimal fuss, gossip and innuendo and bring him across. It hasn't worked out, they fucked up with their selection but that is where there errors end in this.
A lot of your comments, none of us can know what is definitely occurring, and seem to always lead to the most pessimistic view. Was the admitted decline in the Reds in certain aspects due to hubris? Or was 2011 just a bit of a perfect storm, where everything from recruitment, to individual skills each player brought, whilst planned and managed, it's high level of success somewhat of a fluke and the management team not completely sure how to replicate it?
Even the Reds have attempted to replicate what worked for them. The winning team was primarily home grown talent, sprinkled with strategic recruitment of players that were available at good value. They have continued this with players like Lachie Turner. Is it the Reds fault that there aren't 30+ year old number 8's like Radike Samo floating around being rejected by every other club, yet still have their peak ahead of them?
