Foster, Robertson etc

[Victor Meldrew]

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:

However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.

"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"

"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".

"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".

Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.

There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.

To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.

Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.

The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.

Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.

I was replying to your comment on how you thought the best coaching set-up worked - which wasn't about how the coach was selected.

Fair enough to use a mission statement to see how a prospective coach thinks and it setting goal, but actually delivering results is a wee bit different than articulating a Mission statement.

[Dan54]

@nostrildamus said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@ploughboy said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@kiwi_expat said in Foster:

Was flicking between the Barbarians match and the All Blacks. Really showed who is the coaching guru out of the 2 games, the difference in cohesion and tactics. We certainly shouldn't be giving Robertson any credit whatsoever for taking a rag-tag group and turning them into a winning team in two coaching sessions.

Razor had 2, yes 2 training sessions with this team that beat a All Blacks B side, who had already been together for weeks and already had a win on tour. Took a group that haven't played together, from different countries and languages and beat a NZ XV team that had weeks of training together including another game. Then we flick to All Blacks with the Foster swapping players game after game with little clue of a game-plan. I certainly didn't waste much more time watching the aimless kicking and disorganized mess in Black.

Also McDonald has had more failures than successes, always outsmarted by Robertson in head to heads. Razor does it his way and doesn't have to call in the likes of Schmidt and other international or ex-international coaches to help him out. McDonald seems to lack the technical skills that Robertson displays in his game-planning, strategy & team selections. NZRU adore Leon though, despite his limited success and his inability to counter Razor's pragmatic tactical nous and astute calculated game-plans.

yeah what a legend 277 caps in baa team. only three havnt played internation rugby in the starting team against 116 in nz team.against 6 Abs that two had 83 caps combinded,.
if you carnt get that team organized you would be pretty poor

How many test caps do the ABs now have and Foster has had them all season?

and just to add: "277 caps in baa team" across how many languages, how many countries, how many playing styles and strategies?

Actually the game where Baabaas were successful the majority of players came from La Rochelle, the team that Ronan O'Gara coaches. The coach who never gets mentioned? (I know I like O'Gara as a coach, and it annoys me he doesn't get any credit)

[kiwi_expat]

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.

yeah - obviously the head coach isn't the driver of the team's culture and ultimately mindset...

[Chris]

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:

However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.

"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"

"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".

"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".

Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.

There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.

To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.

Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.

The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.

Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.

I was replying to your comment on how you thought the best coaching set-up worked - which wasn't about how the coach was selected.

Fair enough to use a mission statement to see how a prospective coach thinks and it setting goal, but actually delivering results is a wee bit different than articulating a Mission statement.

It is where the coach sets out his plan,values ,KPIs,Results and how he thinks he gets to that end result.
My point is with one Hc coach and one plan the results are easier to get to than having a set up of 2 HCs was my point,like a Razor/Joseph scenario were both coaches will have had their own way of achieving results and they both are after the same results but are trying to get there 2 different ways .
That can cause confusion,a seperation in team goals and lack of unity.
Everyone has to buy into the way the HC is setting things out going forward or it will never will work.

[Victor Meldrew]

@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.

yeah - obviously the head coach isn't the driver of the team's culture and ultimately mindset...

Glad you agree.

[Victor Meldrew]

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:

However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.

"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"

"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".

"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".

Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.

There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.

To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.

Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.

The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.

Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.

I was replying to your comment on how you thought the best coaching set-up worked - which wasn't about how the coach was selected.

Fair enough to use a mission statement to see how a prospective coach thinks and it setting goal, but actually delivering results is a wee bit different than articulating a Mission statement.

It is where the coach sets out his plan,values ,KPIs,Results and how he thinks he gets to that end result.
My point is with one Hc coach and one plan the results are easier to get to than having a set up of 2 HCs was my point,like a Razor/Joseph scenario were both coaches will have had their own way of achieving results and they both are after the same results but are trying to get there 2 different ways .
That can cause confusion,a seperation in team goals and lack of unity.
Everyone has to buy into the way the HC is setting things out going forward or it will never will work.

Hear all of that, but as I mentioned before, the plan and mission statement are one thing. Delivering them in the real world is different and they rarely survive beyond the first brush with reality.

The idea that what is effectively a dictatorship by he Head Coach is the only way to achieve success in a team environment is pretty much a recipe for disaster and the sign of a really, really bad leadership qualities. A good leader welcomes challenges to his/her ideas and uses that to build consensus and a strong team ethos.

[Chris]

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:

However simply speaking it is quite an interesting paradox.

"Give me the 23 best rugby players in New Zealand and I will give you the world cup!!"

"Very good Mr Roberston/Joseph, and of course we'll give you the best coach's in NZ to work with as well".

"Heavens No!! I only want to work with these specific people and couldn't care less about the skills, talents or ability of any other coach".

Whilst of course the above is facetious one mark of a "good coach" is that they can get the best players in the country and form them into the best team. It would seem a little bit odd that they wouldn't take a similar approach with the coaching team. Get the best coach's there are and make them into the best team.

There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.

To have a vision were you want to go and get results a mission statement driven by One HC works the best IMO.

Teamwork and working together is way, way more important than who's in charge. Ask Eddie Jones.

The coach of a national sports team will need a plan to get where he/she wants to go (i.e. get the best out of his players) but I find lot of vision statement stuff complete bollocks.

Well if you were in the coaching profession as I am
It is my paid job 7 days a week, The first thing you have to put together and deliver is a mission statement, or you will not even get an interview.
So you are way out of touch with how coaches are interviewed and selected.
No mission statement no job.

I was replying to your comment on how you thought the best coaching set-up worked - which wasn't about how the coach was selected.

Fair enough to use a mission statement to see how a prospective coach thinks and it setting goal, but actually delivering results is a wee bit different than articulating a Mission statement.

It is where the coach sets out his plan,values ,KPIs,Results and how he thinks he gets to that end result.
My point is with one Hc coach and one plan the results are easier to get to than having a set up of 2 HCs was my point,like a Razor/Joseph scenario were both coaches will have had their own way of achieving results and they both are after the same results but are trying to get there 2 different ways .
That can cause confusion,a seperation in team goals and lack of unity.
Everyone has to buy into the way the HC is setting things out going forward or it will never will work.

Hear all of that, but as I mentioned before, the plan and mission statement are one thing. Delivering them in the real world is different and they rarely survive beyond the first brush with reality.

The idea that what is effectively a dictatorship by he Head Coach is the only way to achieve success in a team environment is pretty much a recipe for disaster and the sign of a really, really bad leadership qualities. A good leader welcomes challenges to his/her ideas and uses that to build consensus and a strong team ethos.

No you miss my meaning,Once you have the Job you need to meet with senior players discuss your thoughts with them, of course buy in from the players is essential.
But 2 HCs rarely ever works Wyllie/Hart is an example ,2 HCs get in each others way and not everything is clear.
Someone has to drive the ship thats why there is a Captain not 2 or 3.
ultimately the buck stops somewhere.At the HCs door normally that is why some get sacked.
An edit to that I or any other coach I know doesn’t run a dictatorship just strong leadership, if I had lead a dictatorship I would not have had the success I have had, and not lasted 17 years as a Coach no one would hire me.
Team enviroment is everything, but it still has to be led by the HC or no one answers to anyone as the HC answers to the board there has to be decent structure and culture driven by the HC with the buy in from his employers and the players.

[nostrildamus]

@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@nostrildamus said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@ploughboy said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@kiwi_expat said in Foster:

Was flicking between the Barbarians match and the All Blacks. Really showed who is the coaching guru out of the 2 games, the difference in cohesion and tactics. We certainly shouldn't be giving Robertson any credit whatsoever for taking a rag-tag group and turning them into a winning team in two coaching sessions.

Razor had 2, yes 2 training sessions with this team that beat a All Blacks B side, who had already been together for weeks and already had a win on tour. Took a group that haven't played together, from different countries and languages and beat a NZ XV team that had weeks of training together including another game. Then we flick to All Blacks with the Foster swapping players game after game with little clue of a game-plan. I certainly didn't waste much more time watching the aimless kicking and disorganized mess in Black.

Also McDonald has had more failures than successes, always outsmarted by Robertson in head to heads. Razor does it his way and doesn't have to call in the likes of Schmidt and other international or ex-international coaches to help him out. McDonald seems to lack the technical skills that Robertson displays in his game-planning, strategy & team selections. NZRU adore Leon though, despite his limited success and his inability to counter Razor's pragmatic tactical nous and astute calculated game-plans.

yeah what a legend 277 caps in baa team. only three havnt played internation rugby in the starting team against 116 in nz team.against 6 Abs that two had 83 caps combinded,.
if you carnt get that team organized you would be pretty poor

How many test caps do the ABs now have and Foster has had them all season?

and just to add: "277 caps in baa team" across how many languages, how many countries, how many playing styles and strategies?

Actually the game where Baabaas were successful the majority of players came from La Rochelle, the team that Ronan O'Gara coaches. The coach who never gets mentioned? (I know I like O'Gara as a coach, and it annoys me he doesn't get any credit)

And yes then Razor would find it easier to coach them BUT they still all looked well coached together at least the first few games..and Rangi knew quite a few of his players very well too .

[Windows97]

@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:

There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.

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?

[Crucial]

@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.

[Kiwiwomble]

@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:

There's no paradox. Coaches have different methods and philosophies. It stands to reason that they won't necessarily all work well together. Same does apply to players in some circumstances. eg the three best loose forwards in the country may not create the best loose combination.
Then you get coaches that are best at being head and those that can assist.
Last thing we want is another Hart/Wyllie scenario.

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?

I would say there is a chance that that person is very self aware, they know what it takes to get the best out of themselves and therefore the team theyre coaching

just because someone is willing to work with anyone doesn't mean they will get results with anyone...see fozzie's original assistants

[Windows97]

@Crucial You're misrepresenting what I'm saying here.

And confusing a selection process with an application process.

There's either a philosophy of let everyone apply (application) and then we select the best of those that apply (selection).

Or one can forego the application process and instead lead straight to the selection process (apparently based off the head coach's whims of whom they will or will not work with).

Basically put you can either say I will let everyone apply, and select the best out of those who apply for "the team" or I can present you with a pre-ordained team, which you can take or leave.

And again which approach would build the best team?

If you were a hiring manager and had those two scenarios presented to you by two potential applicants which one would you pick?

[Crucial]

@Windows97 I'm not misrepresenting anything. I am commenting on what you posted. I don't think quotes have been taken out of context unless you didn't mean what you typed.

Your last post as explanation is a totally different tack

[mariner4life]

@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.

[Kiwiwomble]

@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

[Windows97]

@Crucial No it's exactly the same tack - minus any attempts at humor.

[Crucial]

@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.

[Crucial]

@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]

@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...

[Windows97]

@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?