Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Who selects the assistant coaches HC or Selection Board.
If its the HC then you will get the coaches he wanted anyway as they will apply.I mentioned this before, but you obviously didn't read it.
HC needs to pick who they think are the best for the assistant coach role. Yes the above could come into play.
But a serious question if Schmidt had put his hand up to be assistant coach you think Robertson would have turned him down in favor of one of his Crusader mates with no international experience?
Maybe Robertson or fozzie might have wanted Schmidt, or Brown, or goodness knows who else but couldn't get them as they weren't on "their team".
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
Yes Razor would have taken Schmidt but I am sure he would have sounded him out before he applied.
But in the end if it is HC selecting the assistants he is always going with who he thinks he can work with.Which odds on will be his coaching team.
Not necessary the next best HC ,if Eddie Jones applied and got the assistant job he would not be assistant for long.
The Different process you advocate will probably end up with the same outcome as the present System. -
My point and logic is that an ad saying "AB's assistant coach available - please apply" will get you more applicants and talent than the list of coaches in fozzies/robertsons/any other HC head.
The bigger your talent pool is, the better your chances are for selecting the best person for the role.
To case in point Robertson applies and gets the job - then to his surprise/delight he sees Schmidt and Brown have applied for AC.
Would a team of Robertson, Schmidt and Brown be better than Robertson's original "team"?
My proposed methodology as least gives the chance of the above happening.
The status quo does not.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
I'm saying that limits those positions to either people the HC has worked with or knows.
And you are sure of this? One of the first questions I would ask an applicant about their package is if they had considered others outside of their 'circle'. You'd know who was available and interested. It would undermine your own application to ignore others and not be ready with the reasoning behind who is in and who isn't from your package.
You are showing quite a naive view to how this likely works. It is very unlikely that you would get the job by saying 'and my mates here have said they will work with me'Are you involved in the application process to even know this? Your assuming those are the questions they asked - so were you there?
I thought it was quite clear I was making assumptions and attributing questions to "what I would do" but even so mistakes or bad practice does not mean fundamental flaws, just poor application.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
then to his surprise/delight he sees Schmidt and Brown have applied for AC.
That is unlikely to be a surprise. If it is then Robertson wouldn't be very clued up.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Would a team of Robertson, Schmidt and Brown be better than Robertson's original "team"?
I am not sure would it work together or would it be a Wyllie/Hart thing again.
It is a gamble, were a coaching team put together isn't.
The best coaches do not always work well together for a multitude of reasons.
I can see why the NZR and a lot of other codes do it the coaching team way.@Crucial beat me to it in Razor would already know who was on the application list coaches all sound each other out.
-
Ok lets look at it this way.
Under my proposal the worst outcome would be that Robertson gets the job and gets his team - exactly the same as it is now.
The best case would be that Robertson gets the job and people "better" people than what were in his team apply and he could choose to have them in the role.
Seems like a win, win situation to me...
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
It is a gamble, were a coaching team put together isn't.
The only gamble taking place there is "would the coaching team all get along together".
I think there's more than enough evidence in this year alone to show that a coaching team that gets long splendidly doesn't automatically translate to results on the pitch.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
The only gamble taking place there is "would the coaching team all get along together".
Is that not a big gamble for the next 2 years or so ?.Then it is a wasted process.
Look I do not agree with half of what NZR do and handle things I think they have been poor on a number of things.
But I do see and understand why they select the AB coach this way. -
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
Choose the desired head coach first, then do whatever necessary to build the best possible team around them.
It's common sense, which inevitably means NZR will do the opposite.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
Select the desired head coach first, then do whatever is necessary to build the best possible team around them.
It's common sense, which means NZR will do the opposite.
On the surface that does seem the best approach, but I can also see the benefit of 'team' approach.
Not advocating doing what other teams do, but when Pivac was sacked, did his whole team go, and Gats came in with a new team, or is he working with Pivacs team?
Same goes with England and Eddie...Cockerill is there presently, I expect he would like to remain there regardless of who steps in...imagine if Norm Hewitt applied
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
No we are trying to tell you that you are simplifying what happens to prove your argument and that your scenarios aren't based on reality.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
Choose the desired head coach first, then do whatever necessary to build the best possible team around them.
It's common sense, which inevitably means NZR will do the opposite.
...and if it turns out that there is no one in tune with the head coach you just signed up? I'd say that it is common sense to make sure there is a cohesive plan around assistants first.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
Choose the desired head coach first, then do whatever necessary to build the best possible team around them.
It's common sense, which inevitably means NZR will do the opposite.
Except if that decision doesn’t include all the information required to choose the right head coach.
Had the Head coach been chosen last time without consideration for their team, there would have been an assumption that they’d get Brown. However, he was only prepared to be an assistant alongside Joseph.
L -
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Getting the best talent in NZ rugby, forcing them into pitched camps and then making them fight to the death for the job seems an entirely silly way of doing it...
I think we'd all agree with this.
No, no your wrong here, a number of people have been arguing with me all day this is exactly how it should be.
No we are trying to tell you that you are simplifying what happens to prove your argument and that your scenarios aren't based on reality.
I'm not overly sure as to which reality you live in.
If you have a small talent pool you need to do your best to attract as much of that talent as possible to apply for a vacancy.
Not put in place silly rules or process that limit that already small pool of talent.
Because if you put in place silly rules you have less people apply and less chance of getting the prerequisite talent to do the job.
Worst case scenario you get whittled down to only being able to pick from a very small pool of talent - like only 2 applications for the AB coach for instance.
You then don't get the right people for the job, they lack the necessary talent and when it comes to perform they fail (sounds awfully familiar doesn't it).
This is the EXACT reality we are in now.
All of the above is entirely of the design of the NZRU.
And instead of trying to offer a solution you offer nothing but apologetics.
I mean if you want to think this is the gold standard for recruitment fine, I'm honestly flabbergasted that something so obviously broken would have so many excuses made for it. But after all, this is the internet.
-
@Windows97 still missing the aspect of pre-negotiation and filtering before the process.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 still missing the aspect of pre-negotiation and filtering before the process.
Which if you have a small talent pool is a stupid thing to do
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 still missing the aspect of pre-negotiation and filtering before the process.
Which if you have a small talent pool is a stupid thing to do
or cuts to the chase.
-
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 still missing the aspect of pre-negotiation and filtering before the process.
Which if you have a small talent pool is a stupid thing to do
or cuts to the chase.
Or terrible results, and people being found out they weren't up to the job
