Shute Shield 2013 Transfers

[BellyTwoBlues]

Come on Belly, I would have thought we agreed on a number of things!

Too many to mention Coxy.........

 

[Done that]

Thanks Andrew, good post.

 

[BellyTwoBlues]

Couple of questions there Done that. I'll try and answer each as clearly as possible.

1. My tenure at West Harbour began in mid January 2011 and concluded in September that year. My replacement was announced before the semi finals were concluded, so it was a short run. The ability to spot talent was not a reason for my departure. Given that more than a dozen colts players from 2010 made their debut that year in first grade, I'd say I encouraged young talent. As my tenure was short, I basically 'got what I was given' in terms of recruitment. The club had re-signed a number of players prior to the second round of my season to avoid the walkout caused by the instability at the end of the year prior.

2. An internal review into first grade took place without my involvement. A number of players expressed their concerns in my ability to coach, which was upsetting to say the least. I don't know who the players were, but I really did try my best to help all the guys in the side. The club delivered the line to me that it was easier to recruit a new coach than recruit a new team, and they risked losing players. So I moved on to the under 12s at West Harbour. Once again, I think I coach for the right reasons and improve the lives of young men, so you could say I was shattered.

3. Reg is a fine man and player, and the captain at the beginning of the year. I had a number of really good and versatile front rowers at the beginning of the year, Vaughan Lomax was playing great footy at tighthead- but could also hook and play loose head, and Todd had converted from hooker to loose head- a position we thought he was more adept. Reg was first selected hooker, but could play tight head as well. When Rodney Blake returned from the Rebels, I took the decision that Reg, who's throwing had gone south a tad, was the player to go to seconds- a very painful decision given my respect for his character and ability. But 4 into 3 just don't go.

4. By midway through the season, we had a number of injuries. Michael Aalatoa was playing loose head, Reg and Todd were injured and I wanted to play Myles at hooker, given his throwing and work around the paddock. Unfortunately he wanted to do his own thing, so I chose someone who really wanted to play firsts, and that was John, I even tried Patrick Andrews until he too succumbed to injury. In all Myles could have possibly played 7 or 8 more first grade games. We finally got him to play and he got injured! Particularly after getting maximum Best and Fairest points. Perhaps my inability to connect with Myles was the reason he didn't want to play 1sts, and some could point towards that, however, I think some of his mates at the time who were serial club switchers had dragged him into their protest.

5. To add to Stonecutter's hypothesis, I would argue that a number of players' unhappiness had allowed them to remove Stu, and the same process was used to remove me. I could speculate that this very process has been used to bring Matt Briggs in to work with Daniel, after Daniel possibly received some dodgy reviews. Both Stu and I, while able to present to the coach selection committee, had no involvement in the review. Ultimately a culture such as this places responsibility away from the players and onto the coach. I guess you can see where I'm going with this.

So to summarise, Myles was a player of first grade ability at Wests, even if he didn't play so many games. Given his head in the right place, he may have displaced some of the guys I mentioned earlier. And Stonecutter, yes, I think if the club backed the coach rather than the players, the players may have to take responsibility for their performance. If they lose players through that policy,so be it. But I think there may be too many club hoppers at Wests anyway.

Some very detailed insight their Coxy. And I must say, very brave of you as well. Hopefully the bomb shelter is suitably reinforced!

 

[en_force_er]

Some very detailed insight their Coxy. And I must say, very brave of you as well. Hopefully the bomb shelter is suitably reinforced!

Pretty diplomatic I'd say. Ammo sport is always a minefield but anybody that would get angry at anything that was said is an idiot.

That being said, somebody will. Somebody always does.

 

[2bluesfan]

Couple of questions there Done that. I'll try and answer each as clearly as possible.

1. My tenure at West Harbour began in mid January 2011 and concluded in September that year. My replacement was announced before the semi finals were concluded, so it was a short run. The ability to spot talent was not a reason for my departure. Given that more than a dozen colts players from 2010 made their debut that year in first grade, I'd say I encouraged young talent. As my tenure was short, I basically 'got what I was given' in terms of recruitment. The club had re-signed a number of players prior to the second round of my season to avoid the walkout caused by the instability at the end of the year prior.

2. An internal review into first grade took place without my involvement. A number of players expressed their concerns in my ability to coach, which was upsetting to say the least. I don't know who the players were, but I really did try my best to help all the guys in the side. The club delivered the line to me that it was easier to recruit a new coach than recruit a new team, and they risked losing players. So I moved on to the under 12s at West Harbour. Once again, I think I coach for the right reasons and improve the lives of young men, so you could say I was shattered.

3. Reg is a fine man and player, and the captain at the beginning of the year. I had a number of really good and versatile front rowers at the beginning of the year, Vaughan Lomax was playing great footy at tighthead- but could also hook and play loose head, and Todd had converted from hooker to loose head- a position we thought he was more adept. Reg was first selected hooker, but could play tight head as well. When Rodney Blake returned from the Rebels, I took the decision that Reg, who's throwing had gone south a tad, was the player to go to seconds- a very painful decision given my respect for his character and ability. But 4 into 3 just don't go.

4. By midway through the season, we had a number of injuries. Michael Aalatoa was playing loose head, Reg and Todd were injured and I wanted to play Myles at hooker, given his throwing and work around the paddock. Unfortunately he wanted to do his own thing, so I chose someone who really wanted to play firsts, and that was John, I even tried Patrick Andrews until he too succumbed to injury. In all Myles could have possibly played 7 or 8 more first grade games. We finally got him to play and he got injured! Particularly after getting maximum Best and Fairest points. Perhaps my inability to connect with Myles was the reason he didn't want to play 1sts, and some could point towards that, however, I think some of his mates at the time who were serial club switchers had dragged him into their protest.

5. To add to Stonecutter's hypothesis, I would argue that a number of players' unhappiness had allowed them to remove Stu, and the same process was used to remove me. I could speculate that this very process has been used to bring Matt Briggs in to work with Daniel, after Daniel possibly received some dodgy reviews. Both Stu and I, while able to present to the coach selection committee, had no involvement in the review. Ultimately a culture such as this places responsibility away from the players and onto the coach. I guess you can see where I'm going with this.

So to summarise, Myles was a player of first grade ability at Wests, even if he didn't play so many games. Given his head in the right place, he may have displaced some of the guys I mentioned earlier. And Stonecutter, yes, I think if the club backed the coach rather than the players, the players may have to take responsibility for their performance. If they lose players through that policy,so be it. But I think there may be too many club hoppers at Wests anyway.

Insightful, introspective, and some brutally honest self-appraisal - I tip my hat in your direction Andrew.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Awesome post Andrew. With so much spin and BS in todays world, honesty and straight talking is a very rare commodity.

 

[Franky]

It really makes you second guess the world of coaching and I too take my hat off to you Andrew.

 

[stonecutter]

It really makes you second guess the world of coaching and I too take my hat off to you Andrew.

As someone who would like nothing more than to see West Harbour be a success there are a few issues that seem to slip by each year without being addressed.

Any good coach can tell you that it takes a balance of experience and youth to have success. A playing group with 50 plus 1st grade games would be ideal with a couple of old heads and young guys added to the mix. Unfortunately Wests (and Randwick) have fallen into the trap of thinking that a coach can turn this around in one playing season. There are not many past coaches on rugby boards and they tend to work on the theory of it's easier to replace the coach than the players but in doing this they create a culture where players individual egos are fed and they react like spoilt children when their performance doesn't justify them playing 1st grade. Look back at the Brumbies to see how ridiculous it can get. Won the comp and sacked the coach, but then again Nucifora hasn't covered himself in glory since!

Something is wrong at Concord when you are losing the likes of the Aalaatoa, Orr and Sio brothers and Steve Cummins in the space of a couple of seasons. I don't know John Lomax but I do ask myself why Wests needs a Club Coach to oversee a poor performing 1st grade side.Could this resource not be used more efficiently? Most coaches are control freaks who don't relish shared responsibility so who has final say, especially when your employment is based on results.

The only constant at Wests over the past few years is the Coaching director and talented players leaving. Some people need to look in the mirror and come up with some answers one would think.

 

[In the know I think.]

Couple of questions there Done that. I'll try and answer each as clearly as possible.

1. My tenure at West Harbour began in mid January 2011 and concluded in September that year. My replacement was announced before the semi finals were concluded, so it was a short run. The ability to spot talent was not a reason for my departure. Given that more than a dozen colts players from 2010 made their debut that year in first grade, I'd say I encouraged young talent. As my tenure was short, I basically 'got what I was given' in terms of recruitment. The club had re-signed a number of players prior to the second round of my season to avoid the walkout caused by the instability at the end of the year prior.

2. An internal review into first grade took place without my involvement. A number of players expressed their concerns in my ability to coach, which was upsetting to say the least. I don't know who the players were, but I really did try my best to help all the guys in the side. The club delivered the line to me that it was easier to recruit a new coach than recruit a new team, and they risked losing players. So I moved on to the under 12s at West Harbour. Once again, I think I coach for the right reasons and improve the lives of young men, so you could say I was shattered.

3. Reg is a fine man and player, and the captain at the beginning of the year. I had a number of really good and versatile front rowers at the beginning of the year, Vaughan Lomax was playing great footy at tighthead- but could also hook and play loose head, and Todd had converted from hooker to loose head- a position we thought he was more adept. Reg was first selected hooker, but could play tight head as well. When Rodney Blake returned from the Rebels, I took the decision that Reg, who's throwing had gone south a tad, was the player to go to seconds- a very painful decision given my respect for his character and ability. But 4 into 3 just don't go.

4. By midway through the season, we had a number of injuries. Michael Aalatoa was playing loose head, Reg and Todd were injured and I wanted to play Myles at hooker, given his throwing and work around the paddock. Unfortunately he wanted to do his own thing, so I chose someone who really wanted to play firsts, and that was John, I even tried Patrick Andrews until he too succumbed to injury. In all Myles could have possibly played 7 or 8 more first grade games. We finally got him to play and he got injured! Particularly after getting maximum Best and Fairest points. Perhaps my inability to connect with Myles was the reason he didn't want to play 1sts, and some could point towards that, however, I think some of his mates at the time who were serial club switchers had dragged him into their protest.

5. To add to Stonecutter's hypothesis, I would argue that a number of players' unhappiness had allowed them to remove Stu, and the same process was used to remove me. I could speculate that this very process has been used to bring Matt Briggs in to work with Daniel, after Daniel possibly received some dodgy reviews. Both Stu and I, while able to present to the coach selection committee, had no involvement in the review. Ultimately a culture such as this places responsibility away from the players and onto the coach. I guess you can see where I'm going with this.

So to summarise, Myles was a player of first grade ability at Wests, even if he didn't play so many games. Given his head in the right place, he may have displaced some of the guys I mentioned earlier. And Stonecutter, yes, I think if the club backed the coach rather than the players, the players may have to take responsibility for their performance. If they lose players through that policy,so be it. But I think there may be too many club hoppers at Wests anyway.

Well worded as always Andrew, I'm sure it will get back but anyone that objects to what you say or thinks less of you for saying it is a fool.
Fully agree that Myles could be a force in the top grade, and he is a great guy, I wish him all the best.

 

[Andrew B Cox]

Well worded as always Andrew, I'm sure it will get back but anyone that objects to what you say or thinks less of you for saying it is a fool.
Fully agree that Myles could be a force in the top grade, and he is a great guy, I wish him all the best.

Thanks for that. Probably didn't mean to go into that much detail. But some of the answers probably required explanation.

As they say, those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them.

 

[BellyTwoBlues]

A couple of clubs calling us and telling us 'hands off'. Not going to name the club or the players, but would be keen to hear the thoughts out there on such behaviour. Isn't it a free trade competition?

 

[wamberal]

A couple of clubs calling us and telling us 'hands off'. Not going to name the club or the players, but would be keen to hear the thoughts out there on such behaviour. Isn't it a free trade competition?

Most real rugby supporters would like to see Parramatta and Penrith doing well. Assuming that you are not doing anything sneaky, or under-handed, I would say, go for it.

 

[Andrew B Cox]

A couple of clubs calling us and telling us 'hands off'. Not going to name the club or the players, but would be keen to hear the thoughts out there on such behaviour. Isn't it a free trade competition?

Belly, all I'd say is " OK, we'll back off as long as you give us back the ones you've already taken ".

Or the other one is "the players approached us. We can't turn them away".

From experience, the only way other clubs know that you're speaking to their players is because the players are telling them to stump up with more cash, as 'Parra's interested'.

At one club, I had a certain player from the North shore who'd pop in annually to get a 'check quote' before re-signing with his current club. It would usually start with a phone call from his mother saying 'he'd realllly like to play for you guys'. We'd over-quote and send him on his way, safe in the knowledge that the money his club was paying was not going in the direction of anyone they wanted from us.

All good fun really. If they're asking you to back off, you can be sure they've run out of money.

I'd go harder. It's all part of the game within the game.

 

[no9]

A couple of clubs calling us and telling us 'hands off'. Not going to name the club or the players, but would be keen to hear the thoughts out there on such behaviour. Isn't it a free trade competition?

The response of "couldn't give a rats arse" comes to mind, especially to any of the serial offending club talent poachers.

 

[Done that]

A couple of clubs calling us and telling us 'hands off'. Not going to name the club or the players, but would be keen to hear the thoughts out there on such behaviour. Isn't it a free trade competition?

Well I guess it may depend on which club you are associated with.
Players who leave a club usually go to a second club which is higher up the table .
Obviously this results in the clubs lower down the table , frequently losing their better players to the clubs above them , & then struggling to climb
out of the cellar, because they can't attract established players themselves.

 

[Pete King]

Well I guess it may depend on which club you are associated with.
Players who leave a club usually go to a second club which is higher up the table .
Obviously this results in the clubs lower down the table , frequently losing their better players to the clubs above them , & then struggling to climb
out of the cellar, because they can't attract established players themselves.

Normally the case but what I gather from Randwick this year coming is that alot of young fringe first graders or promising 1 year out of colts have come to Randwick after the wicks poor performances last year would indicate an opportunity to play 1st grade

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Some one telling you to "back off" is an admission of defeat on their behalf or fear of your potential.

Reminiscent of BellyTwoBlues signature, everyone is all for supporting the "Battlers" like Parra as long as they do not develop to be a genuine threat. NIMBYism of the first order.

You should take the phone calls as a complement of the programmes you now have in place. I reckon that they are clearly worried that the status quo may change from what they have been used to for the last 100 years.

Hang in there. What can they do? Take away your birthday?

 

[en_force_er]

Isn't it a free trade competition?

Exactly. Hate the player, not the game (literally).

 

[BellyTwoBlues]

Some one telling you to "back off" is an admission of defeat on their behalf or fear of your potential.

Reminiscent of BellyTwoBlues signature, everyone is all for supporting the "Battlers" like Parra as long as they do not develop to be a genuine threat. NIMBYism of the first order.

You should take the phone calls as a complement of the programmes you now have in place. I reckon that they are clearly worried that the status quo may change from what they have been used to for the last 100 years.

Hang in there. What can they do? Take away your birthday?

I like birthday's................LOVE pavlova!

 

[Sniper]

Players will move where they want for all different reasons. Most times they ask for money so they can justify it to their mates.