Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
If you get a Brothers person in is it because of Rod McCall etc etc.
Coaching Options for Qld Rugby
- Thread starter the sabanator
- Start date
- Status
Beer Baron
Phil Hardcastle (33)
What skills/exp are required for qualification? Serious Question? Don't need to know how to stop a rolling maul or have been part of x no. of scrums.
I would think the requirements are someone who is experienced in the objective review of past goals and and measures achievements against that and identifies where there were deviations from this plan. That's all business coaches do. Business coaches aren't experts in the business.
I would start with interviewing all the backs... "why do you only kick it out on the full or down the F%$en fullbacks throat. To which the answer is either - "we never practice", "the coach tells us to", or "we practice and are told not to, I just enjoy it" (in which case I'm the muppet)
I would think the requirements are someone who is experienced in the objective review of past goals and and measures achievements against that and identifies where there were deviations from this plan. That's all business coaches do. Business coaches aren't experts in the business.
I would start with interviewing all the backs... "why do you only kick it out on the full or down the F%$en fullbacks throat. To which the answer is either - "we never practice", "the coach tells us to", or "we practice and are told not to, I just enjoy it" (in which case I'm the muppet)
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
I'd like to think at least being part of a successful professional (preferably rugby environment) in some capacity.
Somebody with no rugby background likely would not have the understanding of the game to even ask the basic questions you have proposed.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I find it very interesting that even though the QRU is having a complete review of its program it has hired coaching consultants and other coaches for the next year already.
I know that I am somewhat cynical, but this "review" is very similar to that undertaken in 2011 into Deans. That "review's" findings were never made public and the "coaching overhaul" saw Deans (forced some say, to) take on assistant coaches he had no say in. Many here were calling for Deans to be sacked for prolonged poor performance and an unwatchable game plan (when one was discernible) or at least an open and transparent review. We got neither and I am seeing the same thing happening with the Reds.
Furthermore the premise that one must have Rugby experience to conduct an investigative review of a Rugby organisation is a big furphy. An investigative review is about gathering evidence and then that evidence can be analysed by experts in the fields. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge none of those doing this review are top level coaches. None are strength and conditioning coaches. It matters not one bit that they have been involved in high level rugby when it comes to gathering information and then getting that analysed, in much the same way as receivers and administrators rarely have any experience in running the businesses they get put in charge of.
I see this review as a public relations/appeasement action entirely to allow those fans who tend to control the debates to say "we have to give the review time" and the "we have to give the new systems from the review time to bed down" even when essentially no substantial changes have been made. That is exactly what happened at the Tahs.
My fears are that the Reds in treating their questioning fans with such disdain, as the Tahs did when it came to a head at the "fan forum". The Tahs even though they won the title playing the best Rugby I have seen from a Tahs side since 1991-1994 have not won back a large number of the fans who walked out. I fear that the Reds marvellous revival from the lows of 2008 to the highs of 2011 will be lost. In the climate that Australian Rugby finds itself in there may well not be yet another chance, at the moment the Reds are the only province which has to this point been really viable long term. We need to build off that not see it collapse back to the pack because of the nepotistic tendancies of those in Rugby management to select only from their own small sphere of people.
I know that I am somewhat cynical, but this "review" is very similar to that undertaken in 2011 into Deans. That "review's" findings were never made public and the "coaching overhaul" saw Deans (forced some say, to) take on assistant coaches he had no say in. Many here were calling for Deans to be sacked for prolonged poor performance and an unwatchable game plan (when one was discernible) or at least an open and transparent review. We got neither and I am seeing the same thing happening with the Reds.
Furthermore the premise that one must have Rugby experience to conduct an investigative review of a Rugby organisation is a big furphy. An investigative review is about gathering evidence and then that evidence can be analysed by experts in the fields. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge none of those doing this review are top level coaches. None are strength and conditioning coaches. It matters not one bit that they have been involved in high level rugby when it comes to gathering information and then getting that analysed, in much the same way as receivers and administrators rarely have any experience in running the businesses they get put in charge of.
I see this review as a public relations/appeasement action entirely to allow those fans who tend to control the debates to say "we have to give the review time" and the "we have to give the new systems from the review time to bed down" even when essentially no substantial changes have been made. That is exactly what happened at the Tahs.
My fears are that the Reds in treating their questioning fans with such disdain, as the Tahs did when it came to a head at the "fan forum". The Tahs even though they won the title playing the best Rugby I have seen from a Tahs side since 1991-1994 have not won back a large number of the fans who walked out. I fear that the Reds marvellous revival from the lows of 2008 to the highs of 2011 will be lost. In the climate that Australian Rugby finds itself in there may well not be yet another chance, at the moment the Reds are the only province which has to this point been really viable long term. We need to build off that not see it collapse back to the pack because of the nepotistic tendancies of those in Rugby management to select only from their own small sphere of people.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
It's not a review of the organisation. It's a review of the High Performance Department (As far as I'm aware, everything squad/game related). I understand your point but in this case, it's probably somewhere that actual rugby experience is beneficial.
If it was a review of the S & C Department or perhaps the Development Pathways individually I would agree. But considering they are reviewing the recruitment, coaching, training, etc. then I think some rugby experience is important. There are certain specific intangibles in every sport that cannot be measured in any metric.
Some aspects such as the planning, etc. would not be the case, but then you would not be getting a full review of the entire program.
Richard Graham may be able to (I think it's likely due to the board's affinity to him) talk the talk when it comes to overall planning, strength and condition input and development planning but putting this specifically in practice in how it applies to rugby may be his downfall. But a person with little knowledge of rugby may not see this the way somebody who has a history with successful rugby programs would.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
TWAS there is nothing in the review of the HP Unit that makes it necessary for it to be run by a "Rugby" person. As I said gather the evidence and compare the systems to bench marks. The affinity for RG to the Reds board and ability to walk the walk so to speak makes the independance of the review so important both in actuality and perception to the fandom. They are the stake holder in this that is continually forgotten. Glid PR and reviews that include the "old boys" such as that seen in the ARU post RWC2011 are viewed cynically by the fan base. Hence my other points.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
But there's not exactly a database of rugby program bench marks that any lay person can just compare against. In fact much of this is kept guarded by teams because they aim to be a step ahead of their competitors.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Robinson is close to many QRU 'links'. He's close to Horan, and they went to the same QLD private school, Downlands.
He's on or was on the ARU board, the QRU depends upon $ grants from the ARU. They are interdependent as a big component of ARU S15/18 TV revenue derives from the broadcasting of Reds matches.
He's far from the ideal definition of 'independent' as governance specialists would define that.
The much bigger question of all is of course this: why does a State RU that has often indirectly bragged since 2011 of its commercial and rugby competencies as superior to other RUs, suddenly need an urgently-assembled review panel to recommended coaching team assessments back to it? And this after its HC has had (a) 15 months of mentoring by Link and (b) 2 full seasons of being HC and (c ) the appointment of a 'coaching consultant' surely seasoned enough to provide fresh advice on coaching matters back to the QRU.
Why does the QRU with all its resources and extended player contact (one hopes) and much time to assess every imaginable stat and data point and win or loss, now, suddenly and out of the blue, need a new body to advise it on one of its most essential and core duties, namely the appointment of suitable coaches for the QLD Reds?
It's odd, very odd. And the notion that such a review panel can, working only part-time, credibly assess such major items as player development pathways and much more (see Carmichael's quotes on this) in a mere 4-5 weeks is just not credible or sound.
Either:
- the QRU has totally lost confidence after the severe RG debacle in its ability to adjudge on coaching capability matters and they simply cannot make the 2016 coaching assessments without aid from outside parties in relation to both key HC choices and their associated risks or
- the QRU board and management are somehow solidly split over the right course of action on coaching matters and thus need a convenient 'independent' device to resolve the deadlock or
- the review is more truthfully a 'clever' smokescreen/PR job to deflect focus re such an intense topic from direct QRU board and CEO accountability and thereby use 'an independent panel of review' to effectively rubber stamp what they know will be highly contentious outcomes such as RG continuing on in some form in 2016.
What's your pick?
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
The factors that make a successful team are pretty well known, there are numerous books in the public sphere about them just from a Rugby viewpoint. Look at the metrics of actual team performance. S&C, technical forwards coaching etc etc. Crunch the numbers and look at the systems of other sides, even from the outside much can be told.
A big one that can be seen from miles away is the loss of the S&C coaches/program early this year. Why, what happened there? Significant questions need to be asked about that which require no Rugby knowledge what so ever, just pure personnel management investigation. Just in answering the questions behind that circumstance could go a very long way to resolving the structural issues at the Reds right to the board level.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Why isn't every single team successful if that's the case?
Teams are constantly attempted to innovate. It's not a static market. Whilst some basic principles do hold true (and I think this may be where Graham actually is struggling the most) what worked a few years ago very likely would not be successful in 2015.
In fact wasn't it the incorrect assumption by the QRU that Graham could come in under McKenzie and then would be able to continue that success the source of the problem in the first place?
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Many here said that RG was the wrong person for the job right from the start simply because of his lack of meaningful results anywhere and the lack of player improvement where he was firstly assistant and then HC.
The basic principles is all that this minor review can examine. How much time would it take to completely review the entire system? Certainly more than the time frame allotted.
Given the coaching appointments that the board has made in advance of the review it really seems to me that the review is just a public relations measure.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
If the QRU was truly serious re a genuinely independent review of very high quality of all aspects of its HPU and player development pathways and so forth:
- that review would require proven external specialists in a number of critical sporting disciplines, some rugby, some certainly not
- it would take at least 4-6 months of near full-time work
- it would require not old-boy rugby mates tainted with the chronic institutional incestuousness of the Australian rugby system that, in general, has clearly by decade-long results not over-sighted the code well here
- it would need to be led with a person of personally excellent track record in coaching leadership and then also ideally elite sports systems development in general
- coming from the bosoms of Australia or QLD would not at all be a key or essential criterion
Someone broadly fitting this bill - to head such a review up - would be Clive Woodward. Not only was he a highly successful national rugby coach but his more recent long-term role in elite sports development systems for the British Olympic movement pre the London Olympics has been widely praised.
- that review would require proven external specialists in a number of critical sporting disciplines, some rugby, some certainly not
- it would take at least 4-6 months of near full-time work
- it would require not old-boy rugby mates tainted with the chronic institutional incestuousness of the Australian rugby system that, in general, has clearly by decade-long results not over-sighted the code well here
- it would need to be led with a person of personally excellent track record in coaching leadership and then also ideally elite sports systems development in general
- coming from the bosoms of Australia or QLD would not at all be a key or essential criterion
Someone broadly fitting this bill - to head such a review up - would be Clive Woodward. Not only was he a highly successful national rugby coach but his more recent long-term role in elite sports development systems for the British Olympic movement pre the London Olympics has been widely praised.
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
What do you reckon Clive charges for 6 months work?
I'd guess the board, representing the 27 affiliated members and 250 thousand participants, considered a full review into the elite level, run by a genuine, independent external expert and decided it would rather spend the enormous amount of money on something else.
They then got in someone who's a respected business man, done it before, run a high performance unit, and willing to do it at much reduced rates because hes a member of the rugby community plus lives in Brisbane so expenses can be minimised.
I'd guess the board, representing the 27 affiliated members and 250 thousand participants, considered a full review into the elite level, run by a genuine, independent external expert and decided it would rather spend the enormous amount of money on something else.
They then got in someone who's a respected business man, done it before, run a high performance unit, and willing to do it at much reduced rates because hes a member of the rugby community plus lives in Brisbane so expenses can be minimised.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
RH which brings us back to the issue that somebody who is possibly the best candidate is European based. Is taking up the coaching role in France his first major role outside England?
A rugby experienced person who wants to undertake the role in Australia is unfortunately, very likely somehow connected to the old boys network.
That's before we talk financial considerations.
A rugby experienced person who wants to undertake the role in Australia is unfortunately, very likely somehow connected to the old boys network.
That's before we talk financial considerations.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Look, I honestly didn't want to incite a micro-argument here re cost budgets and such like for this 'review'.
Rather my point was and is:
- the whole rushed basis for this urgent and fast review, and why the QRU board itself obviously felt not capable of deciding upon these central matters of coaching strategy, the HC, etc., when that is one of its main duties, is very odd and unexplained;
- however, if they then tell the world that 'the review' will be looking at numerous fundamental policy matters of central importance to the future of QLD rugby (i.e., way beyond who should be the HC for 2016), then surely the sound approach is to to do it right, with adequate time, and with the right, fully resourced expertise and certainly not merely 'who's around with rugby experience and knows us well and can do it all in a hurry and cheaply to boot'. Something declared as this strategic and fundamental - if it is sincerely cast - should not be done with a mind to 'low cost' as a key driver behind doing it.
Thus the wide nature of the stated task, its sudden appearance, that the QRU can't cope with doing this work itself, and then how it is to be done and done within 4 weeks only, all seem very out of alignment to me. The pieces don't add up.
Which further increases my perception of its oddity and my early suspicion that its real genesis and purpose is not quite what it seems, or what we have been explicitly told.
liquor box
Greg Davis (50)
It might help but is not the most important thing.
If I was chosen to do the review I would gather all information the team holds and try to find experts from outside the Reds and possibly ARU set up to give opinions on what went wrong.
An example would be taking the training programs and recovery from injury plans and ask experts what they would do and compare it to what the Reds did.
This is an expert opinion but does not require the person completing the review to be an expert themself.
- Status