Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
It is usually "give me the job and I will create a plan and select the players necessary to win" (or tell the selectors what type of player I need)
I'm not sure, in NZ, this is really the case.
Our player pool, contracting, and precarious hold on players pretty much means that the pool of players that a coach can pick from is pretty fixed. It's far more about getting a plan to make best use of the 25 players you know have to be in the squad.
That's before you bring in public pressure to win now, and win pretty, there isn't actually that much free reign in teh AB job.
@mariner4life said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
It is usually "give me the job and I will create a plan and select the players necessary to win" (or tell the selectors what type of player I need)
I'm not sure, in NZ, this is really the case.
Our player pool, contracting, and precarious hold on players pretty much means that the pool of players that a coach can pick from is pretty fixed. It's far more about getting a plan to make best use of the 25 players you know have to be in the squad.
That's before you bring in public pressure to win now, and win pretty, there isn't actually that much free reign in teh AB job.
Yeah. To an extent. I think the AB coach has a free reign to argue selection among the selectors though. Plenty of payrolled players are knocked out of the squad.
There is an element that selection in the first squad of the year affords some 'rights' for that year but look at those selected in the first squad this year compared with the end. -
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
-
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Again that not what I'm saying, the head coach definitely needs to know what they require from their players, coach's and anyone else who's helping. But that's a selection process.
To skip the application process entirely doesn't seem wise, perhaps there's simply someone out there that's better than the guy you've coached alongside?
Am I really arguing with people that it's not a great idea for a head coach to turn up to the NZRU and say "here's my coaching team take it or leave it, no-one else can apply for those roles"?
Because that appears to be what I'm doing...
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
its not though, razor famously wanted brown as his assistant, they know the other coaches out there and the team they propose isn't just the one they currently have
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
The paradox is philosophical.
In one there is a willingness to work with everyone.
In the other there is only a willingness to work with certain people.
Which attitude would form the best team?
To quote your OP..
"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"
This forms one side of your 'paradox' yet I have never heard of a candidate coach saying this.
It is usually "give me the job and I will create a plan and select the players necessary to win" (or tell the selectors what type of player I need)
Is there really a willingness to work with everyone in both aspects? Coaches will complain if they have players forced upon them that they don't want.
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Coaches will complain if they have players forced upon them that they don't want.
I dont think Hart complained about selecting Norm Berryman, but was pretty obvious he wasnt a fan...
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
Well yes I am at odds with selecting a coaching package for the simple reason that this methodology in no way guarantees that the best people will be picked in each role...
You could simply select the head coach.
Then advertise the other roles (open application, including those who applied for the head coach role, if they choose not to apply that's on them).
The head coach then selects from those applicants who's the best fit for the team, you never know, someone may apply who's better than the guy you've worked with before...
To make the NZRU head coach role a "coaching package deal" for almost everyone else who come's with it to me just seems like a lazy way to run the process and is fraught I would say almost guaranteed to not get the best people in the job.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
its not though, razor famously wanted brown as his assistant, they know the other coaches out there and the team they propose isn't just the one they currently have
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
its not though, razor famously wanted brown as his assistant, they know the other coaches out there and the team they propose isn't just the one they currently have
Lol - I'll amend it to other people they've worked with or know about - that's still a much smaller group of people than those across the entire world who have the talent and capability to be an AB assistant coach. Which is my point.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
Well yes I am at odds with selecting a coaching package for the simple reason that this methodology in no way guarantees that the best people will be picked in each role...
You could simply select the head coach.
Then advertise the other roles (open application, including those who applied for the head coach role, if they choose not to apply that's on them).
The head coach then selects from those applicants who's the best fit for the team, you never know, someone may apply who's better than the guy you've worked with before...
To make the NZRU head coach role a "coaching package deal" for almost everyone else who come's with it to me just seems like a lazy way to run the process and is fraught I would say almost guaranteed to not get the best people in the job.
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
Well yes I am at odds with selecting a coaching package for the simple reason that this methodology in no way guarantees that the best people will be picked in each role...
You could simply select the head coach.
Then advertise the other roles (open application, including those who applied for the head coach role, if they choose not to apply that's on them).
The head coach then selects from those applicants who's the best fit for the team, you never know, someone may apply who's better than the guy you've worked with before...
To make the NZRU head coach role a "coaching package deal" for almost everyone else who come's with it to me just seems like a lazy way to run the process and is fraught I would say almost guaranteed to not get the best people in the job.
I get what you are saying but in the coaching world that just isn't practical or wastes time. Let's say they follow your process. The Razor gets HC job and applications open for Assistants. Then then go through the time and expense of applications when everyone knows who Razors preferred team is. Just like the HC role others wont apply to have it known they got knocked back. A certain offer elsewhere is way better than a potential kick from the coach.
Last time two strong candidates didn't even apply because it was better not to. Do you really want that same story at the assistant level? -
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
its not though, razor famously wanted brown as his assistant, they know the other coaches out there and the team they propose isn't just the one they currently have
Lol - I'll amend it to other people they've worked with or know about - that's still a much smaller group of people than those across the entire world who have the talent and capability to be an AB assistant coach. Which is my point.
@Windows97 do you honestly think there is like a shadow pool of coaches that only make themselves know for a job interview, the number of international level coach/assistants will be tiny and they will all know each other....theres not going to be a surprise NPC coach no one knows about...and if they are unknown you have to question how good they are
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
Well yes I am at odds with selecting a coaching package for the simple reason that this methodology in no way guarantees that the best people will be picked in each role...
You could simply select the head coach.
Then advertise the other roles (open application, including those who applied for the head coach role, if they choose not to apply that's on them).
The head coach then selects from those applicants who's the best fit for the team, you never know, someone may apply who's better than the guy you've worked with before...
To make the NZRU head coach role a "coaching package deal" for almost everyone else who come's with it to me just seems like a lazy way to run the process and is fraught I would say almost guaranteed to not get the best people in the job.
I get what you are saying but in the coaching world that just isn't practical or wastes time. Let's say they follow your process. The Razor gets HC job and applications open for Assistants. Then then go through the time and expense of applications when everyone knows who Razors preferred team is. Just like the HC role others wont apply to have it known they got knocked back. A certain offer elsewhere is way better than a potential kick from the coach.
Last time two strong candidates didn't even apply because it was better not to. Do you really want that same story at the assistant level?@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
Well yes I am at odds with selecting a coaching package for the simple reason that this methodology in no way guarantees that the best people will be picked in each role...
You could simply select the head coach.
Then advertise the other roles (open application, including those who applied for the head coach role, if they choose not to apply that's on them).
The head coach then selects from those applicants who's the best fit for the team, you never know, someone may apply who's better than the guy you've worked with before...
To make the NZRU head coach role a "coaching package deal" for almost everyone else who come's with it to me just seems like a lazy way to run the process and is fraught I would say almost guaranteed to not get the best people in the job.
I get what you are saying but in the coaching world that just isn't practical or wastes time. Let's say they follow your process. The Razor gets HC job and applications open for Assistants. Then then go through the time and expense of applications when everyone knows who Razors preferred team is. Just like the HC role others wont apply to have it known they got knocked back. A certain offer elsewhere is way better than a potential kick from the coach.
Last time two strong candidates didn't even apply because it was better not to. Do you really want that same story at the assistant level?Well the current "coaching package" if that is indeed the philosophy the NZRU used got us Fozzie and a slew of assistant coach's who clearly weren't up to the task.
It's not hard to see how this was arrived at.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
Well yes I am at odds with selecting a coaching package for the simple reason that this methodology in no way guarantees that the best people will be picked in each role...
You could simply select the head coach.
Then advertise the other roles (open application, including those who applied for the head coach role, if they choose not to apply that's on them).
The head coach then selects from those applicants who's the best fit for the team, you never know, someone may apply who's better than the guy you've worked with before...
To make the NZRU head coach role a "coaching package deal" for almost everyone else who come's with it to me just seems like a lazy way to run the process and is fraught I would say almost guaranteed to not get the best people in the job.
I get what you are saying but in the coaching world that just isn't practical or wastes time. Let's say they follow your process. The Razor gets HC job and applications open for Assistants. Then then go through the time and expense of applications when everyone knows who Razors preferred team is. Just like the HC role others wont apply to have it known they got knocked back. A certain offer elsewhere is way better than a potential kick from the coach.
Last time two strong candidates didn't even apply because it was better not to. Do you really want that same story at the assistant level?Well the current "coaching package" if that is indeed the philosophy the NZRU used got us Fozzie and a slew of assistant coach's who clearly weren't up to the task.
It's not hard to see how this was arrived at.
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
Well yes I am at odds with selecting a coaching package for the simple reason that this methodology in no way guarantees that the best people will be picked in each role...
You could simply select the head coach.
Then advertise the other roles (open application, including those who applied for the head coach role, if they choose not to apply that's on them).
The head coach then selects from those applicants who's the best fit for the team, you never know, someone may apply who's better than the guy you've worked with before...
To make the NZRU head coach role a "coaching package deal" for almost everyone else who come's with it to me just seems like a lazy way to run the process and is fraught I would say almost guaranteed to not get the best people in the job.
I get what you are saying but in the coaching world that just isn't practical or wastes time. Let's say they follow your process. The Razor gets HC job and applications open for Assistants. Then then go through the time and expense of applications when everyone knows who Razors preferred team is. Just like the HC role others wont apply to have it known they got knocked back. A certain offer elsewhere is way better than a potential kick from the coach.
Last time two strong candidates didn't even apply because it was better not to. Do you really want that same story at the assistant level?Well the current "coaching package" if that is indeed the philosophy the NZRU used got us Fozzie and a slew of assistant coach's who clearly weren't up to the task.
It's not hard to see how this was arrived at.
But that's on those that made the appointment and agreed to the package. Foster didn't hold all the cards. They have the ability to tell him to come back with a better team. They are effectively agreeing with Foster's selection so need to do that due dilenge at that point, not through a seperate application process ar by waiting to see how they go.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
We seem to be at odds because you are arguing against the job going to a coaching package. The very simple reason that there isn't multiple applications is that negotiations of combinations would go on forever and you'd never get clarity on where you would end up. You also run a much bigger risk of appointing a team that find out they are incompatible.
Well yes I am at odds with selecting a coaching package for the simple reason that this methodology in no way guarantees that the best people will be picked in each role...
You could simply select the head coach.
Then advertise the other roles (open application, including those who applied for the head coach role, if they choose not to apply that's on them).
The head coach then selects from those applicants who's the best fit for the team, you never know, someone may apply who's better than the guy you've worked with before...
To make the NZRU head coach role a "coaching package deal" for almost everyone else who come's with it to me just seems like a lazy way to run the process and is fraught I would say almost guaranteed to not get the best people in the job.
I get what you are saying but in the coaching world that just isn't practical or wastes time. Let's say they follow your process. The Razor gets HC job and applications open for Assistants. Then then go through the time and expense of applications when everyone knows who Razors preferred team is. Just like the HC role others wont apply to have it known they got knocked back. A certain offer elsewhere is way better than a potential kick from the coach.
Last time two strong candidates didn't even apply because it was better not to. Do you really want that same story at the assistant level?Well the current "coaching package" if that is indeed the philosophy the NZRU used got us Fozzie and a slew of assistant coach's who clearly weren't up to the task.
It's not hard to see how this was arrived at.
But that's on those that made the appointment and agreed to the package. Foster didn't hold all the cards. They have the ability to tell him to come back with a better team. They are effectively agreeing with Foster's selection so need to do that due dilenge at that point, not through a seperate application process ar by waiting to see how they go.
-
@Crucial So the process is fundamentally flawed and produces terrible results and your keen to continue to use it for the next AB coach?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial So the process is fundamentally flawed and produces terrible results and your keen to continue to use it for the next AB coach?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Bad decisions and fundamental flaws are different things.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kiwiwomble said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 your stance seems very skewed towards the idea that the head coach doesn't know who the best assistants are and even that they are likely to pick a bad one...if that was the case they shouldn't be in the running for the head coach job, why are we trusting them to pick a team but not coaches?
i see the assistant roles as very similar to selecting players...its largely the head coach call
Exactly. It is a case of select those that fit my plan in both assistants and players.
Yes but turning up to the NZRU with "here's my pre-ordained coaching team" isn't exactly a selection process is it??
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.
And maybe there's better people out there that they haven't worked with who might be better at the job?
He also had Ronan O'Gara,Mark Jones, who Razor had never worked with Until the Crusaders now Tahiti Ellison James Marshall who he had not worked with prior to them coming to the Crusaders.
This below is exactly how it does work though through the NZR process.
At best it's a selection process based off the people they've worked with.And of Course Foster turned up with his coaching team for the interview.
In fact the NZR ask for your coaching team to be put together when a coach applies.
In Mark Robinsons as per article belowNewly-appointed NZ Rugby chief executive Mark Robinson said a strong assistant coaching group was one reason for Foster’s appointment – seeing off the challenge of Crusaders head coach Scott Robertson.
“We were all impressed by the collective strength of the team that he’d assembled,” Robinson said.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial So the process is fundamentally flawed and produces terrible results and your keen to continue to use it for the next AB coach?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Bad decisions and fundamental flaws are different things.
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial So the process is fundamentally flawed and produces terrible results and your keen to continue to use it for the next AB coach?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Bad decisions and fundamental flaws are different things.
This is fundamentally flawed however.
We want the best people to coach the team however...
We limit who can be eligible for the role via a list of criteria to start with (coaching super rugby, residency etc).
We then limit out of those people who could apply down even further to just those who have been selected by a head coach applicant to be part of "their team".
The board then out of those limited selections then makes their selection.
This is absolutely guaranteed to not get you the best people in each role - even base level statistics would speak to that.
But God help me if I have to bring out bell shaped curves and quartiles for me to make a point.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial So the process is fundamentally flawed and produces terrible results and your keen to continue to use it for the next AB coach?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Bad decisions and fundamental flaws are different things.
This is fundamentally flawed however.
We want the best people to coach the team however...
We limit who can be eligible for the role via a list of criteria to start with (coaching super rugby, residency etc).
We then limit out of those people who could apply down even further to just those who have been selected by a head coach applicant to be part of "their team".
The board then out of those limited selections then makes their selection.
This is absolutely guaranteed to not get you the best people in each role - even base level statistics would speak to that.
But God help me if I have to bring out bell shaped curves and quartiles for me to make a point.
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial So the process is fundamentally flawed and produces terrible results and your keen to continue to use it for the next AB coach?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Bad decisions and fundamental flaws are different things.
This is fundamentally flawed however.
We want the best people to coach the team however...
We limit who can be eligible for the role via a list of criteria to start with (coaching super rugby, residency etc).
We then limit out of those people who could apply down even further to just those who have been selected by a head coach applicant to be part of "their team".
The board then out of those limited selections then makes their selection.
This is absolutely guaranteed to not get you the best people in each role - even base level statistics would speak to that.
But God help me if I have to bring out bell shaped curves and quartiles for me to make a point.
Remember NZR went down your line of thinking a few years back.And it was a complete disaster it seems they have decided to not go down that track again.
Alex Wyllie and John Hart were the standout coaches and reasoned to be the best 2 that applied by a big margin,they both applied separately,NZR decided to put them together as the best 2 coaches.
It was a major mess on field and off,PR disaster they hated each other.
maybe the NZR learn't that lesson and are looking for a compatible team ready to go. -
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial So the process is fundamentally flawed and produces terrible results and your keen to continue to use it for the next AB coach?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Bad decisions and fundamental flaws are different things.
This is fundamentally flawed however.
We want the best people to coach the team however...
We limit who can be eligible for the role via a list of criteria to start with (coaching super rugby, residency etc).
We then limit out of those people who could apply down even further to just those who have been selected by a head coach applicant to be part of "their team".
The board then out of those limited selections then makes their selection.
This is absolutely guaranteed to not get you the best people in each role - even base level statistics would speak to that.
But God help me if I have to bring out bell shaped curves and quartiles for me to make a point.
Remember NZR went down your line of thinking a few years back.And it was a complete disaster it seems they have decided to not go down that track again.
Alex Wyllie and John Hart were the standout coaches and reasoned to be the best 2 that applied by a big margin,they both applied separately,NZR decided to put them together as the best 2 coaches.
It was a major mess on field and off,PR disaster they hated each other.
maybe the NZR learn't that lesson and are looking for a compatible team ready to go.@Chris But that was a debacle - there was no set head coach, Grizz coached the forwards and Hart the backs. It was a co-coach approach that was never going to work.
No-where have I referenced having a co-coach methodology.
I said head coach, and then select assistant coach's including those who applied for the head coach - if they don't want to be an assistant coach and only want head coach then they don't need to apply for the role.
You need to pick a head coach then then the best assistant coaches. Some head coach's would make terrible assistant coach's as that's not what they're interested in - like Hart and Grizz for example.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial So the process is fundamentally flawed and produces terrible results and your keen to continue to use it for the next AB coach?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...
Bad decisions and fundamental flaws are different things.
This is fundamentally flawed however.
We want the best people to coach the team however...
We limit who can be eligible for the role via a list of criteria to start with (coaching super rugby, residency etc).
We then limit out of those people who could apply down even further to just those who have been selected by a head coach applicant to be part of "their team".
The board then out of those limited selections then makes their selection.
This is absolutely guaranteed to not get you the best people in each role - even base level statistics would speak to that.
But God help me if I have to bring out bell shaped curves and quartiles for me to make a point.
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
We want the best people to coach the team however...
...
We then limit out of those people who could apply down even further to just those who have been selected by a head coach applicant to be part of "their team".Wrong. You are assuming that there is no work done by the HC applicant to find the best available (and by that I mean the best available that will work well under their vision).
In the corporate world this is often done by a new CEO getting rid of incumbents and appointing those that share the attributes they want to suceed. Does that mean the new people are the best (or even better than those they replace)? Not at all.
NZR are completely able to suggest someone else to be involved if they have identified an available assistant that they deem 'the best'. The desired HC then gets to state a case for and against their appointment.
