Just an aside: why do we focus most singularly upon coach and player development etc failings (even if they are factual failings we can see and agree on as such), when the truly most culpable parties are the respective RU board of directors and RU CEOs whose fundamental responsibilities are to get HC choice, and the major strategic team-related policies surrounding HCs, right?
Eg, Richard Graham was a catastrophically bad coach for the Reds in his period there. But it was a stubborn, egotistical then Chairman of the QRU whom drove for his initial appointment and then refused to listen to the many legitimate critics (including some on his own QRU board) that, almost from the first, advised him that Graham would be/was being a disaster for the Reds. Were the appalling Reds outcomes under Graham truly, in the deeper sense, just his fault?
It all starts and, over time, finishes at the top. No organisation is EVER of a higher calibre than that demonstrated and delivered by an entity's highest supervisory body.