Coaching Options for Qld Rugby

[Strewthcobber]

Matt Taylor

Has he been a head coach anywhere before?

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Assistant Coach of Scotland at the moment. That'll do me.

 

[Wilson]

Spiro has suggested Pat Howard in his roar article today:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/03/09/spiro-win-hunt-defeat-reds-still-loss-loss-result/

An interesting option, has some good experience and a forward thinking mindset, could potentially do a fair bit with the QRU and their budget behind him. Has a history of ruffling feathers, but that may not be a bad thing.

 

[RedsHappy]

While the rehash of the presser by RH above makes it sound like Link was all in favour, you'd wonder what reality was. RG is at the Reds because he's Chris Whites client/mate/whatever.

And going by one of Reg's tweets today about him not returning under current management, it sounds like RG was forced on him.

Sorry, I just cannot credibly buy the notion in that early 2012 a new future Reds head coach - RG - was just foisted on Link by QRU board members come what may and without Link's full buy-in and thus all Link's statements quoted above in April 2012 were insincere and, in effect, knowingly untrue.

At that time Link was at the absolute peak of his perceived powers as a Super rugby coach. He was singularly credited as the key achiever/driver/planner/coach etc for the much-lauded 2011 S15 Title win. Rumours were all over the place re lucrative overseas offers for him, 'he'll soon coach the Wallabies', etc, etc.

Why would any senior person with that much prestige, power and media applause be so weak and timid to have a board ram a successor down their throat that they didn't rate as well and truly competent, to take on their role in future, and also like personally, etc? And would a QRU board with even the most basic common sense risk so alienating such a powerful person within the QRU and in front of the newly adoring fans in such a manner that they might simply resign and depart in a huff right after winning the 2011 Title and then consequently publicly dump on the board's conduct (i.e., imposing a successor to Link with no consultation) as the reason for departing?

The 'Link had RG foisted upon him from on high and had to like it or lump it' theory just doesn't stack up within the Reds/QRU power and influence context at the time.

(Btw: my contestation above does not mean that 'our QLD-er'/QRU-old-boy-cronyism was in no way involved in the RG selection process, I am quite sure it was to one degree or another.)

 

[Brendan Hume]

It suited Link who was moving on with a stated aim to leave the Reds to pursue an international role. Link still coached the team, even though his title changed, and he had an assistant in RG who'd been a Super Rugby head coach. Is it that difficult to believe he couldn't buy into a plan that affected him for a year, without necessarily owning to choice of candidate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

It suited Link who was moving on with a stated aim to leave the Reds to pursue an international role. Link still coached the team, even though his title changed, and he had an assistant in RG who'd been a Super Rugby head coach. Is it that difficult to believe he couldn't buy into a plan that affected him for a year, without necessarily owning to choice of candidate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK - where is there a scintilla of evidence that Link did not heartily buy-in to the appointment of RG, and thus subsequently quietly tolerated it just being a bad recruitment forced upon him? All of the evidence (that I have ever seen), by dint of both Link's repeated public comments and conduct, from early 2012 to mid-2013 (when he left the Reds) points to the contrary.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Spiro has suggested Pat Howard in his roar article today:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/03/09/spiro-win-hunt-defeat-reds-still-loss-loss-result/

An interesting option, has some good experience and a forward thinking mindset, could potentially do a fair bit with the QRU and their budget behind him. Has a history of ruffling feathers, but that may not be a bad thing.

Imagine what the ACB can afford to pay their coaching staff compared to what the reds can, add in the success and prestige hes gained in that position, include the fact that the National Cricket Centre is in Brisbane so he'd be spending plenty on time at home already; I reckon he'd be very unlikely to accept the position

 

[kiap]

Why would any senior person with that much prestige, power and media applause be so weak and timid to have a board ram a successor down their throat that they didn't rate as well and truly competent, to take on their role in future, and also like personally, etc?

I think the question should be looked in at another way.

i.e. Why would someone — who was, after all, an employee wanting to move to a new role elsewhere — (a) be expected to appoint their own successor, and (b) really care all that much about how that successor performs?

I mean, I'm sure Link was involved in the RG discussions and wished everyone the best as he went out the door, but once you've left you're gone and it's not your problem. The decision was always the ongoing management's to make.

 

[vidiot]

"Only when you are looking from the inside can you look deeper beneath the surface" says RG.

That's too deep for my liking.

 

[Wilson]

Imagine what the ACB can afford to pay their coaching staff compared to what the reds can, add in the success and prestige hes gained in that position, include the fact that the National Cricket Centre is in Brisbane so he'd be spending plenty on time at home already; I reckon he'd be very unlikely to accept the position

I can't speak to the ACB pay on offer, but super rugby coaches are certainly not poorly paid and given their current financials there's every reason to expect the Reds would make the right candidate the best paid of them. I do think it goes beyond money though, particularly with coaches, and given Howard is not a cricket coach but a high performance manager he may not have much further to advance within the cricketing ranks. Were he to come back to rugby he has the opportunity to face new challenges and there's no reason he couldn't aspire to the Wallabies job down the line. Successful coaches are rarely so mercenary as to be motivated by money alone.

 

[redstragic]

"Looking only from the inside are you, can you see deep within the surface." Master Woda (Yodaisation of Woody)

Anyone got a better way of Woda saying it?

 

[Train Without a Station]

OK - where is there a scintilla of evidence that Link did not heartily buy-in to the appointment of RG, and thus subsequently quietly tolerated it just being a bad recruitment forced upon him? All of the evidence (that I have ever seen), by dint of both Link's repeated public comments and conduct, from early 2012 to mid-2013 (when he left the Reds) points to the contrary.

Solid logic. Everybody doubts there was actual buy in from link, and you ask for evidence that it DIDN'T happen.

Oh but everybody nodded along in a public press conference. MUST BE TRUE!

 

[Sandpit Fan]

<snip>
And would a QRU board with even the most basic common sense risk so alienating such a powerful person within the QRU and in front of the newly adoring fans in such a manner that they might simply resign and depart in a huff right after winning the 2011 Title and then consequently publicly dump on the board's conduct (i.e., imposing a successor to Link with no consultation) as the reason for departing?
<snip>
(Btw: my contestation above does not mean that 'our QLD-er'/QRU-old-boy-cronyism was in no way involved in the RG selection process, I am quite sure it was to one degree or another.)

RH, this is an internet forum - rumour, innuendo, conspiracy theories and so on are the reason it keeps going. Only Link & the board know how it went down, regardless of how credible (or not) anyone finds the situation.

I'm happy to admit I have NFI what went on behind the scenes, and I suspect you don't either. I would guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle - along the lines of Link & the QRU thinking the overall concept of a successor etc was good, and the old mates act hijacking the purpose.

I think the QRU board also have a bit more balls than the NSWRU board, who would all turn up to the match in dresses if Cheika told them to! Link was an employee of the QRU, let's not overstate his power within the system. And given previous form after leaving NSW he was hardly likely to shit over them in public if/when it went bad.

I must admit to having a bit of a chuckle at you of all people standing up for the QRU board & management

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Solid logic. Everybody doubts there was actual buy in from link, and you ask for evidence that it DIDN'T happen.

Oh but everybody nodded along in a public press conference. MUST BE TRUE!

Of course - no one ever lies at press conferences! Everyone knows that!

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm not sure that answers my question.
I have no doubt he is a good backs coach.
Clermont was in 2 finals immediately preceding his arrival,and were a basket case for four years after his departure(forced).
Where has he taken a struggling side and made them contenders?
Which is the task at hand with the Reds.

Well, not at Super level or equivalent (he hasn't had the chance). He took Manly from mid-field to Premiers in a season and he has taken Lyon from 8th in Pro D2 the year before he started in 2012-13 to Premiers in 2013-14. They are struggling in Top 14 this year, but that is usual for the teams who come up in their first season as it's such a big jump.

I wasn't suggesting that he is god's gift to coaching, IMO he is better than either Graham or Foley and I still can't work out how either got a gig before he did. For example I don't think you would see the 5/8 standing 15m deep under a team he coached.

It took Hickey and Foley 3 years to destroy the Waratahs after Link's departure and Graham has achieved the same in half the time at the Reds.

 

[Quick Hands]

OK - where is there a scintilla of evidence that Link did not heartily buy-in to the appointment of RG, and thus subsequently quietly tolerated it just being a bad recruitment forced upon him? All of the evidence (that I have ever seen), by dint of both Link's repeated public comments and conduct, from early 2012 to mid-2013 (when he left the Reds) points to the contrary.

And how can anyone who read the article you posted at post #90 (complete with quotes from Carmichael and McCall) stand at the barricades and defend the board. Almost everything that they said hasn't eventuated and in fact the exact opposite of what they said they were planning has happened.

If the board don't bear any responsibility, I'd like to know who does.

 

[Lee Grant]

How about trying to land Adrian Thompson after the Under 20's campaign at Jnr RWC in Italy?

He's from QLD, and seems to be acceptable to the Mandarins in St Leonards.

Seems to be able to cobble a team together from disparate locations and teach them to execute some semblance of a game plane.

Can the QRU wait until after the Under 20's are finished, and (more importantly) would Adrian actually want the job?

Good suggestion HJ and he's been with the Reds before in the turnstile period. He also coached Australia A back in the day for Eddie Jones.

Later he brought Kyuden Voltex a bunch of no names into the Top League of the Japan competition before returning to Australia when the Gold Academies started up.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/interview-with-australian-under-20s-coach-adrian-thompson/

.

 

[Joe Blow]

Is Link finished with rugby........in Australia anyway?
Qld could do worse.

There must be a number of very good grade coaches bumping around that have a proven record at that level.
RG has a proven record at Super Rugby level and it's not pretty at all.

 

[RedsHappy]

I think the question should be looked in at another way.

i.e. Why would someone — who was, after all, an employee wanting to move to a new role elsewhere — (a) be expected to appoint their own successor, and (b) really care all that much about how that successor performs?

I mean, I'm sure Link was involved in the RG discussions and wished everyone the best as he went out the door, but once you've left you're gone and it's not your problem. The decision was always the ongoing management's to make.

Only one problem with all this: he Link wasn't resigning in early 2012, he didn't leave or even hint he intended to leave the QRU's embrace in fact around this time he re-committed to stay with the QRU through 2014 as a higher-up executive Director of Rugby supervising all of the QRU's rugby operations, 'European-style' it was to be organisationally. The idea that Deans might soon depart (leaving Link to take that job) was pure speculation then (early 2012) as only 12 months before Deans had secured a 2 year contract extension through to end-2013 from the ARU.

Accordingly, in this very stay-with-QRU context Link knew that his successor would very likely be performing under his tutelage for some multi-year period and that at least in part, he Link would be accountable for the Reds outcomes under his own indirect watch over RG. So the RG appointment was not at all a matter of casual interest to him as he contemplated a quick-fire departure within months from Ballymore; rather it was a matter of high relevance to Link's ongoing managerial sucess and reputation.

Finally, I can vividly recall a number of media statements Link made at the time talking of his and JC's clandestine meetings in late 2011/early 2012 with RG pre-contract-signing and related multiple glowing statements regarding RG's attested capability to advance all sorts of QLD rugby's needs and goals - I'll dig a few more out, given time.

 

[RedsHappy]

Solid logic. Everybody doubts there was actual buy in from link, and you ask for evidence that it DIDN'T happen.

Oh but everybody nodded along in a public press conference. MUST BE TRUE!

'Everybody' (in yr second sentence) ?? You mean one or two Internet posters here don't you?

My point is that both the full contextual evidence and the many statements-to-media evidence of the relevant time period point markedly to the conclusion that Link was fully and heavily involved with RG's selection and positively desired and endorsed it.

Those positing the alternative historical view - that Link was almost exclusively uninterested in the RG chosing process, and/or that Link had the RG appointment foisted upon him by cronies-at-all-cost QRU board, have produced zero even anecdotal evidence to support that contention.