I was there, so can only assume that part of the throng that wasn't asking the tough questions was me, I though Link addressed most of these things, and I will try and summerise what I think he said to answer these questions.
So during the first or second Press Conferences some of the following questions should have been asked and truely answered without Gillard type evasion or her form of honesty.
1. What is the actual Function and Duties of a Coaching Director or Rugby Manager? What then does the CEO do? Why is there a need for this extra layer of bureaucracy?
2. If we accept the premise for the answer to Question 1 (whether or not that is the case) What was the process by which RG was selected? Were other candidates considered? If not why?
3. RG has not demonstrable success with any team he has been involved with. What therefore were the skills the QRU considered made him the best candidate over a very wide field of coaches even if only Australians are considered?
1. There will be a clear and concise set of responsibilities drawn up for the two roles. That will be done as part of the recruitment for Matt Taylor's vacated role. Once the final structure is worked out the two roles will be defined. With the quality of the coaches they are assembling, they will have the ability to structure things as required, and there is still plenty of time to bed down that structure. It does seem the essence of the differences are that the Head coach role will be the one with the team on match night and doing all the traditional tasks such as media and other administrative duties, while the director of coaching performs more of an overseeing role, with more time dedicated to executive level functions such as ensuring access to more facilities (Ballymore redevelopment) and community engagement.
2. Link says that as with players, and it is something he has been noted as saying plenty of times, personality is often more important that achievements and skill set as it has a greater effect on the culture of the organisation. Along those lines, coach recruitment is as much about "runs on the board" as it is about ensuring the right personalities and strengths balance weaknesses within the whole team. From that, Richard Graham's work has demonstrated that he gets and has similar philosophies to what the Reds are trying to do. Culturally that is just as, or perhaps more, important than pure win/loss records.
3. Link addressed that, saying that he has had a tough situation at the Force, with the obvious issues around recruitment and the difficult circumstances in Perth. Even given the what he has had to work with he has managed some good wins and with the right structures to work within provided things will come good.
I would like to stress, while people keep quoting his lack of record that perhaps that isn't everything. I understand why people get hung up on it, but in the industry I work in there are some certifications that people can get. Often the people with the most certifications are not as complete as the ones without the certifications. Any organisation that focuses purely on that measure often suffers for it. While considering this, I will just cite an example everyone should be familiar with, perhaps a coach with an impeccable record that hasn't had much success in his new role. I know that is not necessarily comparing oranges with oranges, but Robbie Deans had all the credentials, and I think the same people unhappy here also aren't happy with the success he has achieved.
