Reds 2018

[Sully]

Frankly, right now, if it cameto a choice between Thorn and Cooper I'd pick Cooper.
For all the talk of culture in the real world nothing has changed. Thorn has never given a meaningful reply as to why Cooper isn't playing and I've never thought that was good enough.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

Frankly, right now, if it cameto a choice between Thorn and Cooper I'd pick Cooper.
For all the talk of culture in the real world nothing has changed. Thorn has never given a meaningful reply as to why Cooper isn't playing and I've never thought that was good enough.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Could not agree more. Responsibility lies with the Reds management for the appointment though.Thence Thorn for his actions.

Cooper might make an interesting future coach for the Reds - presuming he is developed and not turfed in ala Thorn.

 

[neilc]

I saw Perese this morning out at an U12's representative tournament with his leg in a brace. Not sure exactly what the issue is but it didn't look good. On the other hand, it was good to see him there ( in his Reds shirt) at a juniors event.

 

[Dan54]

I was at an evening where Thorn and Graham were guest speakers a year or so ago, and said then I thought Thorn was after top job, and also said then (and posted as much in here) that he didn't sound like he had the goods to be a head coach, and unfortunately it seems to be I may of been right (for once?)

 

[Gnostic]

Its would be a great pity if Thorn is discarded because of the failures of this season. A pity because I have no doubt he has a great potential that would be unrealised. The biggest problem is the total failure of management time and time again to identify that it doesn't just take potential to succeed, it takes actual experience, experiences in both success and failure. Then if the individual proves their stuff then promote them, with appropriate team mates to assist to develop a complete coaching group. What did the Reds do, take an ex-player who coached two seasons in a nothing extremely short competition and put him in the head coaching position of a team that had been grossly under performing and badly coached for 6 or 7 years. Then compounded the failure by employing a bloke who has a track record of failure in every coaching position he has held and supported him with people I have been reliably been informed are divisive at best.

When Cooper was dumped after the end of the window in which he could have reasonably expected to have been able to find a lucrative OS or even Australian contract people said Thorn had better have a great season and the Reds play well. Well it has been a disaster, and without any explanation of why Cooper was dumped, and adding in the problems with Hunt and to a lesser extent Slipper and it paints a very dysfunctional picture.

If Thorn is shown the door, every single executive and coaching position at the Reds simply has to be dumped as well.

 

[Strewthcobber]

CEO and Board chair have already gone. Broom is going through

 

[dru]

CEO and Board chair have already gone. Broom is going through

Who was/were actually responsible for the Thorn appointment?

Who is pushing the broom?

<genuine query>

 

[gel]

Who was/were actually responsible for the Thorn appointment?

Who is pushing the broom?

<genuine query>

 

[Strewthcobber]

Who was/were actually responsible for the Thorn appointment?

Who is pushing the broom?

<genuine query>

The Board would appoint the coach on CEO's recommendation I would imagine. Chair of the board would have a (very) big say

Reg would know way more than most, but Jeff Miller seems to have a very large influence on the QRU at the moment

 

[dru]

The Board would appoint the coach on CEO's recommendation I would imagine. Chair of the board would have a (very) big say

Reg would know way more than most, but Jeff Miller seems to have a very large influence on the QRU at the moment

OK, Jeff Miller new. David Codey new. Boyd Curran new. Are they new-new or simply the next out of the same box?

James Beirne not new. Bill Ross not new. Andrew Slack not new. Mark Conners not new. Mark Stanton not new. Which need to stay and why?

btw that's from a single simple search: http://www.redsrugby.com.au/News/Ne...llaby-Jeff-Miller-Appointed-QRU-Chairman.aspx

SO not exactly empirical, happy to be corrected on the names. But if we have the whip on Thorn, what is happening with these guys?

Repeat: "Who is pushing the broom?"

 

[Strewthcobber]

OK, Jeff Miller new. David Codey new. Boyd Curran new. Are they new-new or simply the next out of the same box?

James Beirne not new. Bill Ross not new. Andrew Slack not new. Mark Conners not new. Mark Stanton not new. Which need to stay and why?

btw that's from a single simple search: http://www.redsrugby.com.au/News/Ne...llaby-Jeff-Miller-Appointed-QRU-Chairman.aspx

SO not exactly empirical, happy to be corrected on the names. But if we have the whip on Thorn, what is happening with these guys?

Repeat: "Who is pushing the broom?"

President and VPs are largely ceremonial so Codey, Slack, Ross and the immediate previous version of Miller don't really count.

Miller apponted himself coach the last time he was CEO - I'll leave it up to you to decide on his judgement

 

[upthereds#!]

Reds are number 2 in the comp this year for missed tackles with 322. They missed 340 last year over one more game.

Has the tackling really improved?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

You COULD argue that the individuals themselves are better tacklers at least in Thorns eyes. However due to the poor patterns and reads, they are failing to put themselves in a position to make the effective tackles. Most missed tackles out wide for example IMO are because of a poor positioning so you literally cannot make a solid tackle. So to me - being a bad tackler is different to being a bad defender.

 

[RugbyReg]

President and VPs are largely ceremonial so Codey, Slack, Ross and the immediate previous version of Miller don't really count.

Miller apponted himself coach the last time he was CEO - I'll leave it up to you to decide on his judgement

It wasn’t as simple as Miller appointing himself. His coach at the time, Andrew Slack, had stood down somewhat suddenly. He had key players (Sailor being a big one) wanting to leave and the uncertainty over the coaching spot was a big factor.

Miller was an assistant coach with the RWC winning wallabies of 99 and also was High Performance Manager of the ARU (during a golden era) so he had some credentials.

He would not have simply woken up and said ‘hey I reckon I’ll coach now’. It would have been in consultation with the board and key constituents.

As for the Thorn appointment, much would rest former CEO Richard Barker who has now left.

 

[neilc]

I think that the Board of the QRU are involved in more than the Reds - they (I assume) are overseeing Qld rugby as a whole, so juniors, clubs, development etc. Now we all know that there are issues at all levels, and some of these are complicated and a separate discussion, so I think it is not necessarily fair to bag the board over the Reds situation. From a coaching appointment point of view I don't know how much say they have (or should have) in the matter - that's why you have the employees of the QRU to make those decisions.

My issue is that one of the powerhouses of Australian rugby has been allowed to have a revolving door of underdone coaches and now to allow an inexperienced coach who seems to have got the job based on his playing history, who is excluding players based on some personal dislike of their lifestyle or tackling ability, to the detriment of the team and that leads to the ripple effect of making Qld rugby as a whole less attractive given that the Reds are our window display for our sport.

Now if a particular player was a negative influence within a squad and therefore disrupting the team, sure, deal with them, lay out what you require, and if they continue to be disruptive do something about it, but I am not sure that is the case here. There are quite a number of contracted players who seem to have been discarded, and will likely look elsewhere so be lost to us. We have brought in stop gap players as short term fixes, not because of injury, but because we have discarded players who could fill those roles, and we have at times persisted with players who clearly were below par. Coaches are meant to develop those players to be able to execute the skills but aside from our scrum, which has been good for a long time, what has improved?

Right now, if you or your son were a player who was good enough to generate interest from Super Rugby teams in Australia, would you choose the Reds if you had other options?

 

[Ignoto]

I don't think appointing Thorn was a terribly bad decision if he had the right support around him. He's got an inexperienced AC in Sqwabba and a total failure of a coach in Tony.

If the QRU management were serious about using Thorn as the way forward, they needed to include someone with proper experience to guide and help Thorn find his feet at the next level.

Remember that structure we had in Links last year, where he was the 'Head Head Coach' and Dick was the "Head Coach"? That would have been the ideal set up for Thorn. A guy like John Connolly would have been perfect person had the QRU management not totally burned that bridge.

 

[neilc]

I don't think appointing Thorn was a terribly bad decision if he had the right support around him. He's got an inexperienced AC in Sqwabba and a total failure of a coach in Tony.

If the QRU management were serious about using Thorn as the way forward, they needed to include someone with proper experience to guide and help Thorn find his feet at the next level.

Remember that structure we had in Links last year, where he was the 'Head Head Coach' and Dick was the "Head Coach"? That would have been the ideal set up for Thorn. A guy like John Connolly would have been perfect person had the QRU management not totally burned that bridge.

That structure is a nice idea but you have to be willing to learn from the 'mentor' and the mentor has to have the confidence in the person that they are guiding. There was a story that Thorn was previously taking players for extra weights sessions, beyond what the S&C people were prescribing which seems to indicate an 'I know better' attitude.

If you think about Thorn's strengths as a player it was being big and very strong, working really hard and not giving up. It wasn't about being smart as a player and it wasn't particularly about skill development - I recall when he first left league and went to Canterbury NPC and playing Number 8 he couldn't adapt to a role that I expected he would be good at (being a big, strong guy who could run the ball) - he couldn't pick the ball up from the back of the scrum so ended up being a lock where being big and strong and hard working are the key attributes. So how does that translate to being a coach that can improve skills and playing strategies?

If it's not working are the players just meant to get stronger and try harder at the same thing? Not a great tackler? We can work on improving that but at the same time, does that player have key attributes that are more important? Andrew Mehrtens was never noted for his defence but he was valued for what he offered in other areas. Grant Fox wasn't a dynamic runner of the ball but his tactical kicking was second to none. Should those players have been excluded because they were lacking in certain areas? Does every player need to have 'all of the skills' or should the coach be trying to get the right balance of skills and personalities, just like a workplace does?

 

[Gnostic]

CEO and Board chair have already gone. Broom is going through

The problem with that is that under the guise of management stability and orderly transitions the replacements tend to maintain the programs of the predecessors. They will also do everything to avoid criticism or impacting the reputations of the past board and executives. Just look at the banks and other businesses and you will see the same approach.​

​

What other explanation is there for the continual journey down this same path at the Tahs and the Reds over the last what, decade and a half, excepting a couple of outlier selections that are startling on review in how they were outside the box.​

 

[sunnyboys]

what the treatment of frisby, cooper, hunt and slipper has shown me about Thorn is that his first reaction is to banish anything he feels he cant manage. those 4 players all had different circumstances. but his way of dealing with them was the same each time - and to effectively not deal with the issues. some of the 4 probably should have been sacked - some not. but Thorn doesn't seem to be able to see the nuances or care to deal with them if he can see them.

 

[Juan Cote]

Perhaps they could try and bring in a former coach as a mentor or appoint two head coaches in an attempt to improve things?....oh, wait

 

[Troy]

The problem with that is that under the guise of management stability and orderly transitions the replacements tend to maintain the programs of the predecessors. They will also do everything to avoid criticism or impacting the reputations of the past board and executives. Just look at the banks and other businesses and you will see the same approach.

What other explanation is there for the continual journey down this same path at the Tahs and the Reds over the last what, decade and a half, excepting a couple of outlier selections that are startling on review in how they were outside the box.

So you're saying we need our very own Donald Tump?