Reds 2017
- Thread starter Scrubber2050
- Start date
- Status
dru
Tim Horan (67)
Lot of chat about DP. He's one of the guys that I really was excited anout this year. He can look great. Our expectations mean he has big boots to fill and on the whole he has stepped up.
Whatever his stats though, I think he was firing better before the tour. Hopefully with Hunt and Quade returning he'll get back his full mojo.
Very important player for the Reds.
Whatever his stats though, I think he was firing better before the tour. Hopefully with Hunt and Quade returning he'll get back his full mojo.
Very important player for the Reds.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Gnostic
A lot of what you say is true and great in a perfect world.
You say you don't give a jack about win/loss ratios etc and it's all about the system.
The only way of judging whether a system is good or bad, successful or otherwise is the win/loss ratio
If it ain't broke don't fix it, if it is then change.
On Stiles or any other coach their job is just about always dependant on the win/loss ratio.
That id just reality in an imperfect world. If that is the case all Australian ccoaches excluding maybe Larkham should be flicked. I don't subscribe to that theory for newish coaches.
A lot of what you say is true and great in a perfect world.
You say you don't give a jack about win/loss ratios etc and it's all about the system.
The only way of judging whether a system is good or bad, successful or otherwise is the win/loss ratio
If it ain't broke don't fix it, if it is then change.
On Stiles or any other coach their job is just about always dependant on the win/loss ratio.
That id just reality in an imperfect world. If that is the case all Australian ccoaches excluding maybe Larkham should be flicked. I don't subscribe to that theory for newish coaches.
Getwithme
Cyril Towers (30)
Very off topic but does anyone think that with the culling of a franchise ( 
) it may actually help the wallabies on a short term basis? We hopefully get our best players playing together and creating more established combinations, hopefully winning a lot more games and helping develop a stronger culture? I can't help but think of the much needed depth it will bring to some of the squads right now.
Does anyone know when SANZAAR discuss the next deal? Would it be possible to bring a side back in, let's say 5 years time? Here's hoping
) it may actually help the wallabies on a short term basis? We hopefully get our best players playing together and creating more established combinations, hopefully winning a lot more games and helping develop a stronger culture? I can't help but think of the much needed depth it will bring to some of the squads right now.Does anyone know when SANZAAR discuss the next deal? Would it be possible to bring a side back in, let's say 5 years time? Here's hoping
Pfft. I'm from NSW and I think he's been one of the shining lights for the Reds this season. I've watched every game except the most recent one against the Brumbies which I haven't had time to watch yet.
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
win/loss is more relevant if you are second in your conference.
As horrible as we have been we are only a couple of wins from qualifying for a final.
I would prefer to win most games but it is now possible to win the title with a very low percentage during the season then two or three wins in a row.
I will take a title with a 50/50 win loss ratio if one comes around.
All that being said, a minimum win loss ratio must be better than 50/50. At a statistical minimum it needs to be 56.25/43.75. This is winning all home games and winning one away game.
I would like to see 8 home wins, one win in SA and two wins away from home in Australia as an expectation. (win in NZ in the future). This is 11/16 or 68.75/31.25 ratio. This is what gives us a shot at the finals.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Obviously Stiles is gone right?
We have got this job correct once in about 17 years.
We have got this job correct once in about 17 years.
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
he has the full support of the board, I believe our performance in the 19th minute of the last game shows that we turned the corner and will give it another year to show he can meet the KPI's. This season does not count as it is a rebuilding season and we have had quite a few players not available through injury and other matters. The important thing is that we are a strong unit with a focus going forward that will eventually bring success to the organisation. We believe that strong recruiting in the off season will bring results.
Just heard that in the carpark...the international search has begun
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
but secretly you *do* wish you were from Queensland, right? ;P
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
That is just totally incorrect. I have been involved in the design and assessment of more than a few government and private business systems where the outcomes could have been judged on such simple metrics, but the results are very often skewed and do not adjust for external factors.
There are ways to assess coaching apart from Win:Loss such as well known and measured in game stats, fitness stats and more subjective assessments such as game plan development, implementation, squad development/recruitment etc. The first is easy the second needs a more learned assessment by a proven coaching panel.
Dumping a coach purely on win:loss is stupidity, it MAY be indicative but it is not indicative only. A poor win:loss should lead to a review of the other metrics and nothing else.
IMO nobody in Australian Rugby except perhaps Wessells is executing very well and Larkham certainly wouldn't be excluded on the numbers. Newish coaches do have to start somewhere but they should be thrown to the wolves at Super Level. Again here is where the coaching pathway is broken and AGAIN the NRC is a farcical idea for development of coaching because it is simply too short.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Very off topic but does anyone think that with the culling of a franchise (
Does anyone know when SANZAAR discuss the next deal? Would it be possible to bring a side back in, let's say 5 years time? Here's hoping
If you agree with Ben Darwin's analysis regime it may well assist the Wallabies if key partnerships are replicated at Super Level and Wallabies level.
However the best Australian 9-10 combination was NFJ and Lynagh and their only combo was at the Wallabies level and IMO Lynagh played worse with Slattery at 9.
But that 1991 RWC team had these combinations:
NSW Front row (Daly, Kearns, McKenzie)
QLD Locks (Eales, Mcall)
NSW flankers (Poido and Willie O, with Gavin injured pre-tournament)
QLD Centres (Horan and Little)
NSW back three (Roebuck, Campo, Ego).
Lynagh and Farr-Jones had played about 7 years together at that time.
99 similar (3 teams now).
Harry and Blades at prop
Wilson, Kefu and Cockbain
Gregan Larkham
Horan Herbert
It also needs to be considered that with far fewer provincial teams (just 2 in 1991 and 3 in 1999), the odds of the best combinations playing together was far higher.
You'd be hard pressed coming up with any combination of players from a single team now that are the best option.
That said, there's not a whole lot of people you'd actually want to pick for the Wallabies on form currently.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Speak for yourself BH. The Brumbies' forward pack, the Tahs halves and the Force backline (all with a tweak or two only) would provide a pretty good side with established combinations all over the park.
Do you really think there are that many players (particularly the experienced test players) performing to a level that you're happy with right now? I'd say more aren't than are. If you took the test team on the EOYT I'd have reservations about a bunch of them. Some I wouldn't even include in the squad right now.
Clearly the Brumbies are performing substantially better than the other Aussie teams but I also don't think there are too many combinations out there that make a lot of sense at Wallaby level. Sure Gordon and Foley went alright but the Tahs played their best and with most urgency in that game once Phipps came on. You'd be hard pressed finding a single Wallaby fan who wouldn't pick Genia as their halfback if all are available.
Carter and Arnold have both been playing well but would you choose that combination and leave out Coleman when he's back?
If we're looking at front rows, second rows, backrows, halves, centres, and back threes as combinations I don't think you could point to any single combination that you'd pick as your first choice option over players from different teams.
In 1991 and 1999 that really wasn't the case. The combinations generally were the best options to select.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
BH
I agree re the Genia comment.
But that position is purely driven by his past performances and the lack of performance of all the current halves playing in Australia.
Whether he has been playing well or shithouse, he's off the average supporters radar (simply because they don't watch him week in week out).
He would have to be a certainty
I agree re the Genia comment.
But that position is purely driven by his past performances and the lack of performance of all the current halves playing in Australia.
Whether he has been playing well or shithouse, he's off the average supporters radar (simply because they don't watch him week in week out).
He would have to be a certainty
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Gnostic
Well I think you are wrong.
If the systems you were "involved" in didn't work for whatever reason then the architects of the system obviously sis not account for those things and as such the system needs to be fixed and new proficient architects be commissioned.
In respect of your second paragraph I say that the easiest and most efficient way of judging a "system" is through the win/loss ratio. Sure there are lots of criteria to be taken into account but the buck eventually has to stop. You can put perfume on a turd but eventually the smell comes through.
In respect of your third paragraph you are probably right but only in theory. The reality is the big boys eventually make a decision based on win/loss. Same happens in business. At some point in time, if you are in charge of a badly performing team you get shoved.
In respect of your last para I actually agree with your sentiments
Well I think you are wrong.
If the systems you were "involved" in didn't work for whatever reason then the architects of the system obviously sis not account for those things and as such the system needs to be fixed and new proficient architects be commissioned.
In respect of your second paragraph I say that the easiest and most efficient way of judging a "system" is through the win/loss ratio. Sure there are lots of criteria to be taken into account but the buck eventually has to stop. You can put perfume on a turd but eventually the smell comes through.
In respect of your third paragraph you are probably right but only in theory. The reality is the big boys eventually make a decision based on win/loss. Same happens in business. At some point in time, if you are in charge of a badly performing team you get shoved.
In respect of your last para I actually agree with your sentiments
T
TOCC
Guest
This 1991/1999 partnership talk seems a little bit nostalgic, Australia isn't the only country to have won the Rugby World Cup.
Do the All Blacks rely on established partnerships for success at a international level, how about Englands current squad, is that built on partnership from Premiership Rugby?
Do the All Blacks rely on established partnerships for success at a international level, how about Englands current squad, is that built on partnership from Premiership Rugby?
- Status