Reds 2017

[TOCC]

"presented most coherent plan"

I can't help but picture Matt O'Connor as the monorail salesman from the Simpson pitching his plan and the QRU all joining in song as he is applauded out of the room.

 

[mst]

So its sounding like the Ballymore Carpark Part II - The Ghost of Graham!

IMHO if here was ever a team that need to resist the nepotism or rehashing past histories or glories and get fresh blood, ideas and leadership its the Reds.

We saw on the weekend you have some good talent that is wasted under the current arrangements.

 

[Lindommer]

God, I hope the Force nab Blackadder. For anyone in the Queensland rugby community to even contemplate anyone's "third southerner to coach Queensland" is diabolical. IF a resident of the Ballymore carpark gets the gig the Reds deserve everything they get.

 

[dru]

So its sounding like the Ballymore Carpark Part II - The Ghost of Graham!

IMHO if here was ever a team that need to resist the nepotism or rehashing past histories or glories and get fresh blood, ideas and leadership its the Reds.

We saw on the weekend you have some good talent that is wasted under the current arrangements.

With respect, rubbish.

The QRU have put out a comprehensive methodology, a selection team involving specialists and specialists outside of Queensland with high performance top of the agenda. There are seven candidates that include the CIHCs, so 5 new names.

Lets put the previous BS of searching Ballymore behind and FFS move on.

If OConner, at this stage, produced the most comprehensive plan, take it for what its worth. Note as well its not a formal missive, but one journo digging.

This all increases my enthusiasm for the process, if not for MOC. But this lands where it lands.

 

[RugbyReg]

Hang on. If he goes the recruitment process and comes away the preferred candidate by the half a dozen or so people involved then what's the issue?

Personally I'd prefer some else but if the process throws up MOC then I'm happy to support. I'd back these guys over most of yours opinions. Respectively.

 

[mst]

I have no issue with following a process, good or bad, but if its not going to yield the right coach whats the point?

Based on the comments I am seeing, from Red's people. they don't appear to be thrilled or confident with MOC, so I cant help wonder if its a case of following the process and even if its the best of a bad bunch.

I hope I am wrong, but its a pretty critical decision based on the performances of the Reds on and off the field and I don't envisage the Reds membership will be tolerant of any "process" justifications if results don't come.

I do have to say, the irony to this is its been the backs that have been the issue for quite a while from all reports and looking at most of the comments in this forum.

 

[No4918]

So they would be in effect saying Stiles is to blame for the lack of improvement across the board since RGs departure? Even Graham would have been hard pressed not to manage 3 wins this season.

Not saying I would be unhappy with MOC but understand the concerns mentioned above. If there isn't clear signs of improvement by mid-season 2017 it will not take long for pitchforks to get sharpened. A new coach would likely get an extra 12 months. That may not be fair to MOC but is likely close to true and I am getting too old to go through this shit every year.

 

[gel]

It all depends on what level of consulting these guys have given in the selection process.

I imagine few of us know the mechanics of how this selection team operates, but the QRU have a long history of poor implementation of good ideas.

I have no strong opinion of Matt O'Connor either way atm, the two co-coach thing with no defence coach and way too long under a completely incompetent coach is not going to produce enough to judge in a season.

 

[liquor box]

So they would be in effect saying Stiles is to blame for the lack of improvement across the board since RGs departure? Even Graham would have been hard pressed not to manage 3 wins this season.

Not saying I would be unhappy with MOC but understand the concerns mentioned above. If there isn't clear signs of improvement by mid-season 2017 it will not take long for pitchforks to get sharpened. A new coach would likely get an extra 12 months. That may not be fair to MOC but is likely close to true and I am getting too old to go through this shit every year.

I wonder if to ensure results by mid year i the new coach needs to be an assistant at the NRC level this year to ensure his teams are playing how he wants them to.

NRC needs to be a preseason for the Reds to have success immediately.

 

[dru]

I wonder if to ensure results by mid year i the new coach needs to be an assistant at the NRC level this year to ensure his teams are playing how he wants them to.

NRC needs to be a preseason for the Reds to have success immediately.

I dont know. Seems to me that we started the trials this weekend.

I think MOC (and Stiles) are in the box seat to present a plan. But the weakness (for both) is that he really should have had a caretaker role as HC(without the CI). He wasnt good enough then. After 3 wins we have changed our mind? Also is he the sort of name that will get interest from guys like QC (Quade Cooper) and Gill?

Wherever it lands, I'm running with the process. It doesnt mean that the irony of an MOC selection doesnt exist.

Remember that all we have to feast on is rumour (or leaks) as cogitated by Journo's. The process looks solid. Role on a fortninght agter the season end.

 

[Sully]

I agree that O'Connor would get less time than another coach from outside the franchise. Mainly because we've seen very little from him to get us excited so far.

 

[liquor box]

I dont know. Seems to me that we started the trials this weekend.

I think MOC (and Stiles) are in the box seat to present a plan. But the weakness (for both) is that he really should have had a caretaker role as HC(without the CI). He wasnt good enough then. After 3 wins we have changed our mind? Also is he the sort of name that will get interest from guys like QC (Quade Cooper) and Gill?

Wherever it lands, I'm running with the process. It doesnt mean that the irony of an MOC selection doesnt exist.

Remember that all we have to feast on is rumour (or leaks) as cogitated by Journo's. The process looks solid. Role on a fortninght agter the season end.

I think as a member and supporter it is important to have some faith in the management, as a group online we protested about the coach and board and changes were made. Now is the time to trust them to do what they are paid to do.

I think this is the time to trial new players. Real games, real intensity and we have nothing to lose.

Thor is a great example, he will only get an idea of what he needs to do by playing in the real game.

Duncan needs to start at 10 for the rest of the year. If and I hope we are looking at a top class 10 then we need to find the backup and cut the rest to allow payments to the new guy.

We have a real chance to get back to the top, with the QRU owning both NRC teams we need the Reds HC to be the director of coaching for both these teams to ensure that the Reds get the development we need.

 

[Getwithme]

Duncan plays a lot flatter and even though he makes alot of errors and his passing isn't 100% accurate, it allows us to actually go somewhere with our ball carries

To be honest, I feel as though McIntyre has had the same issues all year and there is has been no visible improvement. He's either not learning or has reached his playing potential. Why we let Greene go ahead of him I still don't understand. I feel for Greene who, in coming on in the last 10 of a few matches tried to do everything and outplayed himself by doing this. I believed he had something to give to the Reds in the coming years

 

[Simon.]

Hang on. If he goes the recruitment process and comes away the preferred candidate by the half a dozen or so people involved then what's the issue?

Personally I'd prefer some else but if the process throws up MOC then I'm happy to support. I'd back these guys over most of yours opinions. Respectively.

The issue is this organisation only last year went through a similar process in the High Performance Review, and made the worst possible call by re-appointing RG, that was clearly and widely proclaimed to be the worst possible call at the time by all and sundry, and was subsequently proven to be so. So their decisions are not necessarily correct even though they are the authority.

They've told us this time it will be different, with a far more comprehensive process featuring independent members (ARU reps and Mallett), but now we hear yet another old boy from the car park is frontrunner despite his key role in the team's worst performing area, the back line. That's bound to raise eyebrows.

For me, it depends on whether MOC was asked, and if so how he answered, the question "Why has the Reds' backline been poor since you've been coaching it and what is your plan to rectify the situation?"

Maybe MOC had a brilliant answer to that question that satisfied the independents. But surely it would be a hard ask to give a sufficiently brilliant answer to put him in the lead of such a field of candidates when he's starting with the significant handicap of being the current coach of the main problem area?

Obviously we're not in that interview room so we don't know. We can only accept the decision of the panel, and if they tell us MOC is the best candidate, I'll accept that. He'll get the chance to prove them right next year.

 

[Tip]

For me, it depends on whether MOC was asked, and if so how he answered, the question "Why has the Reds' backline been poor since you've been coaching it and what is your plan to rectify the situation?"

MOC: No Quade and Quade respectively, Sir

 

[TSR]

Even easier - ask him the question 'We notice that Jake McIntyre stands too deep and runs sideways. Why haven't you fixed this?'

Jokes aside, I don't see any problem with the panel using his current coaching performance against him, regardless of how he interviews. He and Stiles both have opportunities not given to the other applicants - ie the chance to demonstrate through practical application that he is the right man for the job. For mine, there are a fair few lingering issues which suggest he isn't.

Edit : I should clarify - I am optimistic that the selection panel will make the right choice. If that turns out to be O'Conner I'll be surprised, but I'm prepared to wait and see.

 

[tragic]

I do find it a bit amusing that an interview process is used to select the coaches.
Ffs most of these guys are ex professional rugby players who never interviewed for a job in their lives. How are they supposed to shine in an interview based selection process?
I couldn't give two f@#ks who interviews the best.
Surely they should just look at their results on the paddock and talk to the players who trained under them.
Then just manufacture a selection process around the best candidate.

 

[TSR]

I do find it a bit amusing that an interview process is used to select the coaches.
Ffs most of these guys are ex professional rugby players who never interviewed for a job in their lives. How are they supposed to shine in an interview based selection process?
I couldn't give two f@#ks who interviews the best.
Surely they should just look at their results on the paddock and talk to the players who trained under them.
Then just manufacture a selection process around the best candidate.

No - these guys are now professional coaches. They will have all been through this process numerous times. They'll (rightly) be expected to detail their plans to take the Reds forward including details of strategy & support networks and convince the panel they have the right vision and are able to execute it. If they can't plan and manage the recruitment process they won't have made the cut to this stage. Like any job, references and back ground checks will also be an important part of the process.

 

[tragic]

No - these guys are now professional coaches. They will have all been through this process numerous times. They'll (rightly) be expected to detail their plans to take the Reds forward including details of strategy & support networks and convince the panel they have the right vision and are able to execute it. If they can't plan and manage the recruitment process they won't have made the cut to this stage. Like any job, references and back ground checks will also be an important part of the process.

Perhaps I was a being a bit flippant.
I know they have all interviewed as coaches. Just not much else.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be asked the right questions but it just seems ranking a candidate based on the way they answer the questions in a board room is overly simplistic and not necessarily a true reflection of coaching ability .
We all know of friendly communicators who interview well and are crap at their jobs. RG was presumably one of them.
Many important jobs in the corporate sector go to the person who was always going to get the job before the interview process, and now in the days of transparency the interview is often tailored towards a specific outcome. Rarely does an exceptional and unexpected candidate come from left field.
Just saying I'd be surprised if the same didn't hold true for the coaching gig, and I reckon it probably should.

 

[dru]

MOC: No Quade and Quade respectively, Sir

I see an issue. Surely RG was part of the reason for loosing QC (Quade Cooper), certainly seems to be the case with Gill. One criteria in the new coach needs to be an ability to attract these sort of players.

Is MOC that sort of coach?