Richard Graham to quit the Force and join the Reds

[Gnostic]

The article from todays Sunday Times highlights what a duplicitous game has been played with the fans and the players. What a disgrace. We can attack RG for his lack of integrity and ethics in this but equally culpable is the Reds board, CEO and Link. I was strongly, very strongly supportive of all the achievements that this group have had at the Reds over the last 2 years. Indeed it was a truly amazing feat.

That has all be tarnished for me and I can only express my extreme disappointment in the lack of professional ethics and integrity on display in this by all involved. Worst of all is the direct conflict of interest that Chris White has had in this and been actively involved and then the attempted misuse of his media position to skew public opinion by Horan.

I can only say I would not be upset if Link doesn't get the Wallabies job now. Integrity like virginity can only be sold once Mr McKenzie.

 

[louie]

Good point well said Gnostic. RG doesn't have the record that inspires much confidence. This is his first big head coaching job and leaves at the first sign that it might not work. Not much of a leader. Poor decision.

Interestingly he's worked under Deans, Mitchell, Aston, Jones, Foley and Connolly. Impressive list.

 

[Waylon]

And still potentially only finishing 6th that year...

The fact is that both years they were never really in contention for the finals...

Yes they were

 

[Waylon]

The article from todays Sunday Times highlights what a duplicitous game has been played with the fans and the players. What a disgrace. We can attack RG for his lack of integrity and ethics in this but equally culpable is the Reds board, CEO and Link. I was strongly, very strongly supportive of all the achievements that this group have had at the Reds over the last 2 years. Indeed it was a truly amazing feat.

That has all be tarnished for me and I can only express my extreme disappointment in the lack of professional ethics and integrity on display in this by all involved. Worst of all is the direct conflict of interest that Chris White has had in this and been actively involved and then the attempted misuse of his media position to skew public opinion by Horan.

I can only say I would not be upset if Link doesn't get the Wallabies job now. Integrity like virginity can only be sold once Mr McKenzie.

The Force raped the Reds at inception so I don't expect there is a lot of love for the Force. To be fair, RG wasn't planning to leave until the end of the super 15 season where he would have honoured his contract.

If he was a decent coach, the players would have been happy for him to stay. Most of them have been in negotiations with another franchise whilst playing for another. It's what happens.

It was an opportunity to get rid of him. The playing group has no respect for his coaching style, game plans, people management or intelligence

The players were rubbing their hands together with glee when news broke

It was night of the long knives stuff

RG leaving will help the Force recruitment prospects.

Good riddance. Nobody here misses him.

QLD is welcome to him

 

[kiap]

Kiap,
I think all your anecdotes prove is that understudies in 5 cases out of hundreds, if not thousands, went on to have successful careers.

Correct.

Those cases were a counter to the statement that: "Any coach with that driven, winning mentality is unlikely to serve as understudy to assume the reins down the road."

They do whatever it takes. Are you saying those coaches don't have that driven, winning mentality?

In order to prove your point, even with this limited sample, you would need to show that each coach handed over to the understudy willingly as opposed to his being shown the door and that when hired the understudy was being groomed to take over.
And you would need to look at all the understudies who didn't work out when given the head job, so to speak.

No. There are several points being made on this thread and they are being conflated. A point that doesn't seem to register with some is what this euphemism of "succession planning" actually means.

It's corporate-speak to put a veil of certainty over an uncertain future, but it doesn't guarantee any changes. As was said earlier, succession planning is not about getting people promoted; most internal candidates in the business world don't get the top job.

What it is about, and this part is useful, is the process of finding and developing people capable of stepping up. That's it. Much of this is done through time in the job, learning under the wing of a successful coach. Some people obviously do get promoted internally, but many more go elsewhere - because more opportunities are elsewhere.

 

[kiap]

two bosses model

McKenzie will be Graham's boss.

anyone believes his contract will be torn up before he can be held accountable for the Red's on-field field results.

If the Reds make the finals, or are close enough to it, then Graham would likely get his chance to be in charge. But if they somehow slumped to the basement then, absolutely, he could be canned. You don't need to be in charge to be boned.

But if they do put in a new coaching boss, Graham's contract under the boss doesn't have to be torn up. It's like Jake White with Larkham and Fisher on board, guys who have been at the Brumbies in good times and bad. It's working now.

 

[vidiot]

The whole thing is untidy, but is it going to be any other way when Graham had the choice of waiting to be boned or loking for a job?

I have no inside knowledge of the force but Waylon's comments ring true, I doubt that there were many tears in the West. So in that sense, meh. They didn't like each other enough, they split, the timing came down to what each party wanted. Sounds like most of my relationships.

The reds end is completely fucked up. His manager is a QRU Board member so they pick him without any sort of process? Brilliant! Just when I thought the organisation had pulled it's head out of it's arse.

 

[Slim 293]

Yes they were

Teams that "just missed out on the finals" don't finish 8th...

Especially when you spend most of the year at the bottom end of the table...

 

[Waylon]

Teams that "just missed out on the finals" don't finish 8th...

Especially when you spend most of the year at the bottom end of the table...

They spent 2008 and 2009 in mid table and were a realistic chance of making the finals

end of round 12 2009........one win from 4th place with 2 rounds to go

similar situation round 12 2008

The middle of the table was very even. If they'd won both remaining games they would have gone through. They didn't. 2 points separated 5th and 9th..........ie very competitive

2009 Super14 Table as at Round 12
Team Played Won Drawn Lost BP (4T) BP (<7) Points For Pts Against Points Diff Competition Points
Hurricanes 11 8 0 3 5 2 335 235 100 39
Chiefs 11 7 0 4 5 4 312 221 91 37
Bulls 11 8 0 3 3 2 282 225 57 37
Sharks 11 8 0 3 2 1 244 196 48 35
Waratahs 11 7 0 4 2 2 187 167 20 32
Crusaders 11 6 1 4 2 4 184 173 11 32
Brumbies 11 7 0 4 4 0 267 280 -13 32
Blues 11 5 0 6 8 3 311 317 -6 31
Force 11 5 1 5 5 3 271 222 49 30
Highlanders 11 4 0 7 3 4 204 209 -5 23
Stormers 11 3 0 8 1 6 182 203 -21 19
Lions 11 3 0 8 4 3 234 359 -125 19
Reds 11 3 0 8 3 3 218 311 -93 18
Cheetahs 11 2 0 9 1 2 171 284 -113 11

 

[Slim 293]

Stretch...

 

[RedsHappy]

[Re RH concerns over the 'two bosses model'] Kiap: McKenzie will be Graham's boss.....

Kiap: may I refer you to the presser when Link discussed 'the announcement'. The clarity around RG's 2013 role in terms of whom precisely was to be the actual, unambiguous 2013 boss of the Reds team was, well, not entirely clear. There was talk of future later work on job descriptions for the Head Coach and then the Coaching Director and such like. There has been talk of 'match day' coach vs 'overall coach responsible for the team', and so forth. The overall inference was that RG would, in 2013, be some kind of upmarket apprentice to Link...but yet also live up to the title of Reds Head Coach.

My concern about all this is that - in my experience anyway - high performance teams require and respect clear direction as to what is expected and how it should be obtained and in the manner by which it should be obtained, and related elements of action. Once the 'two voices' modality creeps in, that focus and certainty is typically lost, and with typically less than ideal results.

Whatever, I suspect 2013 may shape up as a highly critical year for the Reds to equal and beat 2011's skill and execution standards, and rebuild fan-love. It categorically will not be a year for experiments in innovative social leadership structures, ambiguous directions, tolerance of non-productive layers of management, or fudged recruitments or departures. It will likely be a year when very high competencies will be required at all levels of the Reds' organisation.

 

[kiap]

Kiap: may I refer you to the presser when Link discussed 'the announcement'. The clarity around RG's 2013 role in terms of whom precisely was to be the actual, unambiguous 2013 boss of the Reds team was, well, not entirely clear. There was talk of future later work on job descriptions for the Head Coach and then the Coaching Director and such like. There has been talk of 'match day' coach vs 'overall coach responsible for the team', and so forth. The overall inference was that RG would, in 2013, be some kind of upmarket apprentice to Link...but yet also live up to the title of Reds Head Coach.

Yup, McKenzie (backed by Carmichael) being cagey about job descriptions and tasks!

But make no mistake on the coaching boss question, there's only one puppetmaster here and I'll give you the tip: It aint Graham.

We've taken a view six months ago that we could have a good look at, given we've built the strength of the organization and the team, that we're able to have a good look at the succession side of things. We started that process six months ago and obviously yesterday it was announced. It was just part of that process. It's an ongoing process of making sure that we've got the ongoing calibre of the right people and the right inputs at the right time. In the end, coaching is a collaborative process. There's always a bunch of coaches involved in putting our preparation together and so that continues.

I'm still running the program and still accountable for Rugby in Queensland, so, in some sense, some things don't change, but Richard has a chance to come in and understand how we do business and learn that. Obviously my time in Queensland, in a coaching sense, is always finite. It always is in coaching. You have to prepare for other things. So we've got a chance to transition that. Next year we'll be transitioning.

Link has the whip hand here as to what duties will be delegated, and how fast Graham takes them on.

 

[waratahjesus]

So what were basically saying here is in 2013

Ewen McKensie is QLD head coach

Richard Graham is assistant coach.

But due to ego both are getting bigger titles.

If Ewen doesn't get the wallaby job this has disaster written all over it.

 

[Riptide]

McKenzie will be Graham's boss.

If the Reds make the finals, or are close enough to it, then Graham would likely get his chance to be in charge. But if they somehow slumped to the basement then, absolutely, he could be canned. You don't need to be in charge to be boned.

But if they do put in a new coaching boss, Graham's contract under the boss doesn't have to be torn up. It's like Jake White with Larkham and Fisher on board, guys who have been at the Brumbies in good times and bad. It's working now.

You seem to be alone in believing that the Reds have not offered RG a contract to be their head coach, or only that "Graham would likely get his chance to be in charge" as long as the Reds perform next season under Ewen McKenzie's stewardship. RG is going to be the Reds head coach in 2014 unless he is caught in the Ballymore showers with a 12 yr old. Read the press release.

You also seem to think that there is no difference between the contract under which Larkham/Fischer ply their trade at the Brumbies, and RG at the Reds. Larkham/Fischer are assistants and like all assistants may "ascend" into the head coaching role at any S15 franchise if deemed good enough.. succession planning, I suppose. They have no legally binding contract telling in which it is written that they will be a head coach with sole responsibility for their franchise in 2014.

RG has not won at all in the S15 while a "head coach", and yet the Reds hired him to be theirs. As you have said, a "more credentialed" coach (someone who had actually won with a Test, S15 or HEC team) would probably require full control, and not a transition into the role. The Reds have handicapped their franchise with this "succession planning".

Anyway, I'm ending my discussion on this. Believe as you wish.

 

[kiap]

You seem to be alone in believing that the Reds have not offered RG a contract to be their head coach

Check again.

He is being hired as head coach but clearly won't be in charge of the program. It's a different model.

... <yada yada yada> ... I'm ending my discussion on this. Believe as you wish.

See you tomorrow then.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What it is about, and this part is useful, is the process of finding and developing people capable of stepping up. That's it. Much of this is done through time in the job, learning under the wing of a successful coach. Some people obviously do get promoted internally, but many more go elsewhere - because more opportunities are elsewhere.

But it's not "planning": head coach has a bad year; we need to sack him; let's save some money (or whatever is the non performance imperative) and look for someone for the year after next; assistant gets job; assistant does well; assistant keeps job.
In Australia the opportunities are small: the same faces get recycled through the assistants roles and then a crisis leads to the succession.
I haven't seen a lot of evidence of planning in the us or uk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

But if they do put in a new coaching boss, Graham's contract under the boss doesn't have to be torn up. It's like Jake White with Larkham and Fisher on board, guys who have been at the Brumbies in good times and bad. It's working now.

I don't see the parallel here.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

Brett Harris is onto the scent...

NEW COACH COULD BRING RED FACES - BRETT HARRIS - THE AUSTRALIAN - APRIL 23, 2012

THE Reds' renaissance under Ewen McKenzie was remarkably swift, but their decline could
be just as quick.

In the space of two years, McKenzie transformed the Reds from Super Rugby also-rans to champions.

When he guided the Reds to their maiden title last year, jubilant Queenslanders talked optimistically about creating a dynasty.

But McKenzie's decision to leave the role of head coach to take up the new position of director of coaching/rugby and bring in former Western Force's Richard Graham as coach next year has created enormous uncertainty.

The Force players reacted angrily to Graham's defection and the management stood him down for the rest of the season.

But what about the reaction of the Reds players?

Queensland captain James Horwill admitted the players were shocked when they were told about the coaching changeover last Monday, the same day it was officially announced.

While Horwill said the players supported the decision, you would have to think that not everyone in Brisbane was happy about it.

Most of the Reds seem to enjoy being coached by McKenzie, who has developed a good rapport with his players.

But how will they feel about being coached by Graham, who is a different type of coach to McKenzie?

Former Australia captain Phil Kearns questioned what Graham has done to deserve the Reds' coaching position, which is one of the plum jobs in Australian rugby.

It was a good question.

Also, how do the Reds feel about being left in the dark about the coaching changeover?

McKenzie has said that the new coaching structure has been in the pipeline for six months.

It may be coincidental, but that's about the same time ARU chief executive John O'Neill reconfirmed Robbie Deans as Wallabies coach for the next two years, after Australia was beaten by the All Backs in the World Cup semi-final last October.

McKenzie clearly had designs on the Wallabies job, but it was denied him.

Instead, the Reds announced in January that McKenzie had been recontracted until the end of the 2014 Super Rugby season.

Significantly, McKenzie assumed the role of negotiating player contracts this year.

Several Reds, such as Wallabies second-rower Rob Simmons and promising openside flanker Liam Gill have already re-signed. But they thought they would be playing under McKenzie, not Graham.

This has the potential to cause conflict at the Reds -- just look at what happened at the Force.

The two most influential players in Queensland, Will Genia and Quade Cooper, remain uncontracted.

Incredibly, Genia and Cooper were not consulted about the decision to appoint Graham as head coach.

Graham coached Genia and Cooper when he was the Wallabies skills coach. Did anyone in Queensland ask them what they thought of him?

If Force captain David Pocock remains in Perth, he will do everything humanly possible to bring his good mates Genia and Cooper across the Nullarbor.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Graham arrived in Brisbane for pre-season training in September and the Reds' star halves combination was in Perth?

We have already seen how much the Reds have struggled this season without the injured Cooper. What would happen to them without Genia and Cooper?

Of course, McKenzie has stated that he is not going anywhere. He will still be in charge at the Reds. The buck stops on his desk.

Where does that leave Graham? Will he be the head coach or is he answerable to McKenzie?

A coaching transition is not an easy process, as evidenced by Collingwood's experience with Mick Malthouse and Nathan Buckley.

If McKenzie wants to remain in control and Graham wants to be his own man, the Reds could be living in very interesting times.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Cooper might grow up in Perth

 

[fatprop]

Pretty hard to get a clear judgement on Graham's real coaching ability

In his first season he picked up a team up late with no input into contracting

In this season, the squad looked OK and then they lost their first choice 10 forever before firing a shot. So he was on a hiding to nothing.

This year they have played some nice, well structured rugby. The team appears well drilled and to have a game plan they play to (there is a difference between having the plan and the players executing the thing). They also are smart enough to play to their strengths.

As for Waylon's cries of buying "mercenaries" what do you expect? I don't think it is that easy to get top line players into their program without shovelling fist loads of cash at them, but then they are "mercenaries" There is no depth to WA rugby so they have to bring in pros.