I watched the press conference last night and am very disappointed with Richard Graham's responses.
Everything was an excuse.
He positively lit up when one of the reporters suggested that the injuries in this game are a reflection of the season and was clearly satisfied to play the injury card. S&C can and does have an effect on injuries, but so too does player confidence and technique. Doubt yourself in contact, or not practice properly and you will get hurt. He is head coach - there is a problem there, so take the responsibility for it, don't just use it as an excuse.
He once again used the "concentrating on attack instead of defence" excuse, just as he did after the disastrous New Zealand tour. He even said last night that attack wins you crowds and defense wins you championships - suggesting that is an either/or proposition (at least it is in his minuscule mind). Laughable, considering that the team we just played have the best attack record and the best defensive record (you can have both), and last years champions had the best attack, but the seventh best defensive records - making a mockery of his glib statement.
More likely, he will use this to somehow say he was forced to focus on attack against his better judgement in some reds membership drive thing. He has not accepted blame for the defensive coaching failure, because he has excused himself from it claiming he has focused on attack. Pathetic.
The stupidity of the timing of this statement now (just as it was after the New Zealand tour), was that it has come after two of the worst and utterly incompetent attacking efforts. If he is focusing on attack, then surely some amount of ball retention must be factored into his plans in attack? The skills required to attack must surely align with those of keeping the ball in hand and not gifting the opposition easy ball after one or two phases. If he has focused on attack so heavily, why can we simply not attack successfully? Surely that is a clear sign of failure. Our attack is 9th best - hardly awesome stuff for something that was a primary focus. Our defense until last nights disaster for the cheetahs was the worst. Embarrassing stuff surely for the defensive coach of the organisation. In both aspects, a massive failure. Fail at the thing you were supposed to do, and fail at the thing you were concentrating on instead of that which you were supposed to do.
He mentioned the closeness of the competition this year and that little things going the other way could have made the season vastly different for the reds. This is classic excuse making now: shoulda, woulda, coulda. The close results we had were hardly inspirational performances by the reds, and I count very few as ones where we "shoulda" won but didn't. Does he honestly think that we are the only team that is unlucky? Other teams have unlucky moments, but they win regardless because they aren't losers. Richard will focus on this (as he did throughout the season with the "x games within 3" speech), because he is, in fact, a loser and this is how losers talk.
He mentioned the inaccuracies in execution. Again. Surely this is an integral part of the coaches responsibilities. If the players are not training to be able to execute the simplest of tasks properly, then what is the coach doing about it? Lack of motivation, player confusion, incorrect training techniques, dicking around at training, low confidence, unclear communication, not doing enough extras - whatever the reasons for it, it is the coaches job to provide a solution for the players to fix it.
Those items furthest from his influence and expertise (forward technical play and set piece) are the best aspects of the reds at the moment.
Those items closest to his influence and experience (game plans LOL, defense, self proclaimed attack, basic skills and player management) are the worst.
He is a failure. He surely must see this himself (his facial features during the presser says he does), so why stay in a role that is clearly well above his abilities?
I don't want him around any australian teams ever again. How does it serve australian rugby well, when you have a coach running around ensuring that one whole franchise of players are ineligible for selection because he has coached them so poorly? How does it do the ARU any good to have your one and only profitable organisation turn to losses (poor results next year and the sponsors and memberships will disappear faster this time).
I wonder if ICE will continue to have their brand splashed all over the coaching gear next year, or if they will choose somewhere else (or some other team). They are very clearly linked to the coaching staff in the reds organisation - which is not a positive link.
