Waratahs 2015

[gowaratahs]

Foley has been reasonably successful at the Force so you cannot say reappointing him would be a management error.

That's a lazy assumption that suggests all things are always equal.

Foley was a very proficient forwards coach both nationally and at the Tahs, well-liked by the players. Appointing Foley when the senior player-power (not to be confused with proficiency, like the Brumbies under Nucifora) was high, though when strong mentorship was actually needed was a mistake - Foley's style was collaborative, which is working under very different circumstances at the Force (ie. bringing together a young, disparate group without the politics of a long-term leadership group).

That appears to be Foley's forte (which was known when management and players welcomed him to the top job), whereas Chieka is a no-nonsense leader who whipped the buggers into submission and ultimately success. The circumstances were not dissimilar (though not quite the same) to that in Qld when McKenzie arrived - maybe Phil Mooney could've done well at the Force too. I've got some banjo-playing mates who think Richard Graham is a Foley-trying-to-do-a-Chieka, but the senior leadership group isn't buying it.

Different coaches are needed under differing conditions, Chieka flogged the same boys who told Foley they wanted a longer summer break just a year before, and the results 2 years in are obvious - I'm convinced the discipline of the superior fitness program led to the rarely-seen low player turnover through injury we've seen in other years.

There seems to be a lack of appreciation (across all codes in Australia) that you need to appoint the appropriate coach for the current set of circumstances. Would either of the Larkham/Fischer player-management style which worked at the Brumbies get the same result at the Tahs?

Not likely.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But can you be sure Foley got the support from management needed to stand up to players?

It's rude to bag a coach for a lack of back bone when you consider the times that a coach has been speared due to player power in the last decade.

 

[gowaratahs]

Whether he got the support or not, my point is that he's a collaborative-style coach - and at that time we needed a head-kicker.

I'd argue that the coaches that get speared are the wrong coach for the circumstances. That includes McKenzie when he wrongly promoted win-at-the-cost-of-entertainment rugby (despite making the final in 2008), Mooney at the Reds when he had the ingredients but zero control, and Nucifora at the Brumbies (despite winning the final) also having lost the players.

If you're not the style of coach to bust player power (when the power is detrimental to the team performance - eg. Foley in 2012), you're at the wrong team. When you've got players on unaligned multi-year contracts you have to select a coach that can get the best out of the players from the start, while he/she is implementing a long term recruitment plan to meet their strategic intent.

Coaching at this (or a higher) level ain't a sheltered workshop, it's performance based and no-one does it at gunpoint.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But as I said, hard to busy player power when management supports the players.

 

[Forcefield]

I reckon there are so many different variables that make judging the performance of a CEO difficult (unless everything that has happened has been overwhelmingly positive). Just go with the vibe of it. Does the sense you get from press conferences and media releases, from organisational decisions or from the things that are fucking up give you the feeling that the guy is on the ball?

 

[Gnostic]

The one factor nobody has raised its the confidence and engagement of the fans. Hickey/Foley managed to alienate a vast swarth of the Tahs can base that had already been wording under the previous Link reign. There comes a point regardless of any other factors if the fans/membership losses faith the coach will get the shaft. Anyy thought of re-signing Foley in 2013 say doomed to suffer this fate.

 

[Braveheart81]

I find it difficult to really say how good or bad the CEO is from the outside. There's not a whole lot to go on and most items could be split between CEO and board responsibility.

Who pushed for Foley to be made coach in 2012? Who wanted to retain him for 2013 before he walked? Who appointed Cheika? Who led the chase for Folau?

Jason Allen could have been responsible for some or all of these things. The board should have had some responsibility for all of them.

In some ways there's a similarity between the thoughts about John O'Neill during his second stint with the ARU in particular. People complain about O'Neill that he was paid far too much (which he was, particularly on departure) yet he's not deciding his own salary. The board decided that and ultimately they were responsible for the situation that occurred.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Mate do you mind? We're trying to conduct a witch hunt and public stoning here!

 

[fatprop]

The challenge with both Hickey's and Foley's subsequent appointments was that they were sound at the time

Hickey was a long term very successful club coach

He started his coaching career in 1994 as the coaching director of the ACT Vikings Rugby Club where he took them to six grand finals and secured three championships. He then joined the Eastwood Rugby Club in 2001 where he led them to back-to-back championships in 2001 and 2002.[1] In addition to his duties at Eastwood, he coached the NSW 'A' team in 2003, and the Australian Under-21 team in 2005 and 2006.[2]

That isn't a bad resume, it didn't work out as well as hoped, but he wasn't crap either, nor was his results considering the injury toll.

Then we get to Foley, again a reasonable decision to try him, his resume again made him a reasonable option

So when you look at the individual decisions, they stand up

The only issue potentially was holding on too long when things weren't working, but that is always a tough call, sacking staff is one of the most truly horrible things to do as an employer.

Allen as CEO? He can' win, he is getting blamed for any failures and excused away from any of the successes.

As usual I expect reality is somewhere in the middle

 

[Train Without a Station]

But also, who were the alternatives at the time?

It's easy to criticize a decision but if it was the best of those available at the time, how is it an error?

 

[fatprop]

But also, who were the alternatives at the time?

It's easy to criticize a decision but if it was the best of those available at the time, how is it an error?

Yep, I have employed some duds, but they were the best duds who put in an application

 

[Braveheart81]

The criticism that can be fairly applied at the appointment of Michael Foley is that they went with an existing assistant coach without seemingly conducting a wider search for a new head coach. Whether that was actually the case is not certain but it certainly seems to be that way.

It's always a difficult thing though. At some point in their career, an assistant coach become the head coach and if you conducted a wider search the current assistant coach probably won't stack up on paper against an existing head coach from elsewhere.

I can certainly understand the desire to upgrade an assistant who is working well within the club and you already have some familiarity with. Unfortunately it seems to fail more often than it succeeds.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The criticism that can be fairly applied at the appointment of Michael Foley is that they went with an existing assistant coach without seemingly conducting a wider search for a new head coach. Whether that was actually the case is not certain but it certainly seems to be that way.

This is one thing that Gnostic and Redsfan love to bring up about the appointment of Richard Graham. That some public search should be conducted that all in sundry are not privy when in fact this is not the case is it? Organisations talk to individuals and their management in private, often while under contract to assess who is available and who is unavailable but interested. They don't put advertisements in the paper and on seek. This is how the industry works though.

If a coach is or would be interested and his name hasn't come up in front of the organization hiring, that's not the fault of the organization, that's the fault of the coaches manager. He is being paid his 10 percent in order to ensure his client is on every list he wants to be considered on.

 

[p.Tah]

From my understanding Hickey wasn't coaching the Tahs, he was 'managing' them. Foley was doing the 'coaching'.

 

[boyo]

Yep, I have employed some duds, but they were the best duds who put in an application

I would hope so.

 

[Braveheart81]

If the board and the CEO believe that an existing assistant coach is ready to make the step up to the head coach role and the CEO and board believe that is the correct decision for the club, I can certainly understand them not wanting to conduct a wide reaching search that might unearth coaches they haven't considered.

I certainly agree with you though that clubs are likely to be far more knowledgable about who is available and interested or not without their fans needing to be aware that the club is searching for a new coach.

 

[Ash]

I thougt the initial appointments of Hickey and Foley were good at the time too, the re-appointment of Foley was very questionable though.

Someone mentioned fan engagement and community and social media and so on, and sadly the Tahs lag several other of the Australian teams very, very badly on these points. Then there's the Tah media unit - there seems to be a reason why there's rarely Tahs on the GAGR podcasts, sadly.

Having lived in Sydney for well over a decade, the presence of the Tahs in the sporting landscape here feels a lot lower than what it was 6-7+ years ago.

Yes, I know the Reds have a much less competitive market, but the Reds would have to be a benchmark in Australian rugby currently for how they built (off the field) on their success in 2011, and you could even see their shift from 2010. Ultimately, that's the benchmark the Tahs will be held to.

 

[It is what it is]

Please don't give any credit to Allen for signing Folau.
All the heavy lifting including the initial approach was done by others.
Other players who signed were in 2 categories. They either wanted to come home like Phipps, Beale and Hooper or they wanted to play for the coach.

 

[#1 Tah]

Please don't give any credit to Allen for signing Folau.
All the heavy lifting including the initial approach was done by others.

Do you know this for a fact? Can you give us any names?

To think that Allen wasn't involved at all and he deserves no credit seems a bit rich.

 

[Biffo]

Do you know this for a fact? Can you give us any names?

To think that Allen wasn't involved at all and he deserves no credit seems a bit rich.

there is that lovely photo of Robbie Deans and Folau having coffee in the days preceding the latter's move to Rugby. Folau later went on record with high praise for Robbie D. we would have to judge that Robbie D, as the national coach and the highest-ranking technical official at the ARU, had more than a little to do with Folau being introduced to Rugby; after all, he would have had to give the ARU his technical opinion on the merits of a top-up for the player. no top-up, no Folau is an opinion that is very hard to oppose.

then there is The Great Cheiks. Folau is on record as saying that he was highly impressed by The Great Cheiks at their first meeting and knew instantly that he wanted to play for and be coached by him.

i rather believe that coaches and "senior" players have by far the dominant (sic) role in setting out attraction to targeted players. i suspect that the great deal of chatter that goes on among pro footballers is very action-forming. see how Tongan Thor responded to a call from Quadey - do you think he would have been as impressed by a bloke calling and saying "hi, i'm Jim Carmichael"?

CEOs and other admin personnel have very little sway with players - they talk to the players' agents about business, while the real business (Rugby) is discussed between players and players and coaches.