Coaching Options for Qld Rugby

[Train Without a Station]

Yes.

Re Jake White. Another indirect compliment to his considerable skills is that despite his emotive, rushed departure from the Brumbies, he clearly left an institutional legacy of quality in terms of both his continuing coaching group and the new total rugby program and group culture he instituted at the Brumbies from 2012 onwards.

Or maybe the people around him were just better and able to maintain the standards of his time after he left, where as at QLD they were not.

Surely TWAS, that is the point re how institutions show their quality (or otherwise) in managing key-to-future-success succession matters!

IIRC White brought Larkham back to the Brumbies in 2012, along with reviving L Fisher's role there. In the first instance, these two men took over post-White and most would agree performed the joint Head Coach role very well, and Larkham post-Fisher's departure has done an equal and perhaps even better job, along with being appointed to the Wallabies' role.

Mean time, the Link/QRU combo appointed Graham and have persisted with him through thick and thin.

The comparative outcome being that the White/ACTRU combo has demonstrably, unquestionably done a better job of critical succession management planning than the Link/QRU combo.

You phrased it as though White had set it up better for succession.

In fact you even reference it still now as both the QRU and Link persisting with Graham.

 

[TOCC]

Of course the QRU are responsible, I don't think there's any scenario where they aren't..

 

[RedsHappy]

If we get some players back and then beat the Lions, does this mean that Richard Graham's performance clock is reset? Is the benchmark for the reds and Richard Graham now just to avoid the bottom of the ladder from now on?

Will the fact that he has not managed to ever get any team of his to ever execute his "plan" to any significance unless the plan is to just hire all the best players and just get them to do crazy individual stuff?

Why is it that he hasn't been able to prepare the balance of the squad in the basics of the game of rugby, let alone his own special brand of rugby (which still looks very much like it is to just wait for the opposition to fuck up somehow and then get it to the big kid in the team to do something)?

How is it that a guy over such a long period of time can get a free ride based on never showing any aptitude for the role at all? Mind boggling stuff.

Can someone Rationalise for me what indicators he has ever shown that make them think that Richard Graham will ever be a coach capable of getting the reds into the finals (or even above mid table)?

If the only way he can get results is to have just a group of the best players around, then and pay me half of what he gets and I will guarantee the reds the exact same outcome as what he is getting with the same squad.

I'll vote for you gel!

Seriously, why is it like this, when an obviously inadequate head coach doing continued damage to the fabric of his team is allowed to go on and on despite all that you so rightly observe above?

The answer must lie with institutional failure.

In the RG matter, and despite the QRU's laudable strengths in brand marketing, grass roots development, membership drives etc, in the context of managing its coaching elite it does not possess the objectivity and evidence-based courage to admit to a very serious Board-level error that started in early 2012 and keeps causing brand destruction, team havoc and fan disillusionment all around.

In 2014 and 2015 particularly the Reds fans have been treated as mugs by the QRU as, in late 2014, 'we've got a squad that's not been replenished enough' become the well-marketed excuse for very poor Reds outcomes, and now with repetitive failure in 2015 despite pre-season assurances, we are being told 'it's all down to horrendous injuries'. These insults to our collective rugby intelligence finally were paid out by the fans when the Brumbies crowd last Saturday declined drastically from 2014's level and even worse from the very weekend prior.

This lack of honesty and prudent decisiveness from the highest levels of the QRU IMO betrays the heavy personal investment various QRU board members made in the original RG call - ' the affable Queenslander rugby mate returning home' that they all chose three years ago obviously had special attachments and bonds for them. It's all so very personal and ego-invoking that the hard reality of the destructive consequences and lack of rigorous thinking at the time will only be faced as the potential for true disaster finally beckons, undeniably.

 

[TOCC]

Re Jake White. Another indirect compliment to his considerable skills is that despite his emotive, rushed departure from the Brumbies, he clearly left an institutional legacy of quality in terms of both his continuing coaching group and the new total rugby program and group culture he instituted at the Brumbies from 2012 onwards.

White ran out mid-contract, the performance of the Brumbies then is a reflection of Larkham and Fishers coaching abilities.. White's succession planning involved him lining up his next job before he handed in his resignation.

 

[kiap]

Re Jake White. Another indirect compliment to his considerable skills is that despite his emotive, rushed departure from the Brumbies, he clearly left an institutional legacy of quality in terms of both his continuing coaching group and the new total rugby program and group culture he instituted at the Brumbies from 2012 onwards.

Howzit working out after he exited the Conference-winning Sharks?

Shorks have lost 3 - only one behind the hapless Reds who've lost 4.

 

[RedsHappy]

White ran out mid-contract, the performance of the Brumbies then is a reflection of Larkham and Fishers coaching abilities.. White's succession planning involved him lining up his next job before he handed in his resignation.

Needless to say I did not above endorse White's manner of departing the Brumbies, but that doesn't mean the man did not possess impressive coaching and franchise-building qualities of a type which have endured post his departure, which he clearly did/does.

He always said he was at the Brums for only 3 years in all likelihood and that his successors would come from the Assistant Coaches he'd appointed.

The point I made was principally that White very clearly appointed excellent support coaches of a sufficient calibre to be able to succeed him and manage the Brumbies well. Fisher and Larkham are no 'yes men' either. That people chosen by a leader to support him and the team can go on to very competently lead themselves when their time comes typically reflects somewhat positively on the person choosing them in the first place.

This is all in major contrast to what happened at the Reds 2011-12 and beyond. Link's key-to-success coaching team of 2010-11 soon broke up after 2011 (and none remain as at 2015) and Link's/QRU's chosen successor has been a serious failure.

 

[Swansong10]

I have just heard mail that the QRU have told RG that he is basically safe for the remainder of the season until his contract expires/runs out.

11 long rounds to go for some of you !

 

[Scoey]

How credible is this 'mail'?

I doubt given the current situation that the QRU would give RG any such assurance. They will be aware that as bad as things seem right now, they could get a whole lot worse still. Sadly.

 

[TheBigDog]

It honestly doesn't surprise me at this stage. If the QRU were going to move RG on, they would have done so straight after the Brumbies game. It became pretty clear to me that when Foxsports wasn't littered with 'Reds Coached Sacked' articles on Sunday morning that RG isn't going anywhere in 2015.

I daresay the QRU know they can't hold RG solely responsible and will need to essentially gut the coaching staff in order to get a fresh start for 2016. Having to sack several blokes mid-season (RG, Meehan and Stiles will probably all be on the block) may result in an even worse outcome.

RG also doesn't seem like the type of bloke who would stand down if given the opportunity. His constant ramblings about missing cattle etc show he doesn't want to take blame for his train wreck time with the Reds.

 

[TOCC]

Needless to say I did not above endorse White's manner of departing the Brumbies, but that doesn't mean the man did not possess impressive coaching and franchise-building qualities of a type which have endured post his departure, which he clearly did/does.

He always said he was at the Brums for only 3 years in all likelihood and that his successors would come from the Assistant Coaches he'd appointed.

The point I made was principally that White very clearly appointed excellent support coaches of a sufficient calibre to be able to succeed him and manage the Brumbies well. Fisher and Larkham are no 'yes men' either. That people chosen by a leader to support him and the team can go on to very competently lead themselves when their time comes typically reflects somewhat positively on the person choosing them in the first place.

This is all in major contrast to what happened at the Reds 2011-12 and beyond. Link's key-to-success coaching team of 2010-11 soon broke up after 2011 (and none remain as at 2015) and Link's/QRU's chosen successor has been a serious failure.

Larkham was already at the club when White joined, if White had a clear succession plan he didn't pass it on..The Brumbies board made the decision to promote Larkham and Fisher, not the bloke who walked out mid contract and shocked everyone..

ACT Brumbies head coach Stephen Larkham says there was no firm succession plan in place when Jake White walked out on the club after last year's Super Rugby grand final loss to the Waikato Chiefs.

The pair have only spoken once since White quit, with Larkham saying they both had a job to do at their respective clubs and there was no animosity towards his former boss.

He said it was always expected White would leave before his four years were up, but he had not set up a succession plan.

"No not really, we'd briefly spoken about potentially after four years to have that transition to take over," Larkham said.

"That was about it. I don't think he was grooming me, he just thought that that might be a transition."

 

[Hugh Jarse]

If the QRU have come out and confirmed that RG is safe and has their full backing, then that means the exact opposite. They have started the search to replace him, but either haven't yet got a preferred candidate but will sack him when they find someone and agreed terms with them.

I reckon the QRU Board backing RG is a very positive sign for the RG haters.

 

[TheBigDog]

Why bother sacking RG any later than now and giving the new coach a half arsed attempt to win a few games? You're better off letting RG sink with his ship, let the guys who are leaving head overseas and the new coach can start fresh in 2016.

By all means if they are replacing him then announce it and hopefully get the new coach involved in negotiations to get blokes to stay i.e. Quade. But I don't see the point of bringing in someone new any later than this stage.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I reckon if you are going to sack him do it now before all the injured players come back, that way, if and when the team naturally improves with the return of missing Wallabies you give the punters hope that there has been a real turnaround.

Of course RG may be on a package big enough that sacking him and paying out his contract is just not financially palatable for the board, but the crowd numbers may make things even worse.

 

[TOCC]

Why bother sacking RG any later than now and giving the new coach a half arsed attempt to win a few games? You're better off letting RG sink with his ship, let the guys who are leaving head overseas and the new coach can start fresh in 2016.

By all means if they are replacing him then announce it and hopefully get the new coach involved in negotiations to get blokes to stay i.e. Quade. But I don't see the point of bringing in someone new any later than this stage.

and herein lies the problem, its easy to suggest that you sack the coach before the season is out but who is the alternative... Stiles? Meehan? I dont rate Meehan and its possible that Stiles doesn't want the job, so who takes over the team?

People can argue that RG can't do anymore damage or the Reds can't perform any worse, but i disagree, they definitely can sink lower and the Reds have sunk lower in the past.

 

[RugbyReg]

the other issue is the time it tacks to recruit a new coach. Particularly at that time of the year (July our time). Obviously impacts player retention and recruitment too.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

All the "good" ones will be locked in for the RWC. In the aftermath of the various RWC reviews, some former International Standard Coaches may suddenly become available.

 

[Floggn']

13,000. I can't remember when the crowd figure was lower. I think it was the Cheetahs saturday day game where they still pulled 14,000 in 2007? That figure surely is the nail in the coffin. I still can't believe they have to wait... no waste another 2 games to see this bloke can't coach a horse to water.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'll vote for you gel!

Seriously, why is it like this, when an obviously inadequate head coach doing continued damage to the fabric of his team is allowed to go on and on despite all that you so rightly observe above?

The answer must lie with institutional failure.

In the RG matter, and despite the QRU's laudable strengths in brand marketing, grass roots development, membership drives etc, in the context of managing its coaching elite it does not possess the objectivity and evidence-based courage to admit to a very serious Board-level error that started in early 2012 and keeps causing brand destruction, team havoc and fan disillusionment all around.

In 2014 and 2015 particularly the Reds fans have been treated as mugs by the QRU as, in late 2014, 'we've got a squad that's not been replenished enough' become the well-marketed excuse for very poor Reds outcomes, and now with repetitive failure in 2015 despite pre-season assurances, we are being told 'it's all down to horrendous injuries'. These insults to our collective rugby intelligence finally were paid out by the fans when the Brumbies crowd last Saturday declined drastically from 2014's level and even worse from the very weekend prior.

This lack of honesty and prudent decisiveness from the highest levels of the QRU IMO betrays the heavy personal investment various QRU board members made in the original RG call - ' the affable Queenslander rugby mate returning home' that they all chose three years ago obviously had special attachments and bonds for them. It's all so very personal and ego-invoking that the hard reality of the destructive consequences and lack of rigorous thinking at the time will only be faced as the potential for true disaster finally beckons, undeniably.

These are the same issues that occurred in NSW for years. It kept us mid table at best for a generation. It was only when the crowds dropped to 12,000 and the NSWRU looked like going broke (again) that changes were made.

You are 100% correct - the problems are institutional.

 

[Floggn']

The QRU Board need to seriously look at the crowd figures on Saturday and realise they aren't going to improve dramatically especially in the next couple of Saffa games unless there is change. RG is the change required. As someone said Qld supporters just need a glimmer of hope and we will follow. The money they will lose letting RG go with be nothing in comparison to the damage that the team are doing to rugby in this state and also the money lost in revenue.

 

[Quick Hands]

All the "good" ones will be locked in for the RWC. In the aftermath of the various RWC reviews, some former International Standard Coaches may suddenly become available.

True, but you need to start talking to them now if you want to employ them post RWC.

Whether the QRU sack Graham now or allow things to run till the end of the super season, they need to start sounding out prospective coaches now. Any coach coming off contract or appropriate next generation coaches looking for an opportunity will want to start 2016 preparations as soon as RWC ends (if not before).