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.
-
@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 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? -
@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
-
@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 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.
-
@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.
-
@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. -
@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.
-
@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. -
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
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
I'm not assuming that in the slightest.
I'm saying that limits those positions to either people the HC has worked with or knows.
By doing this your talent pool you can choose from is reduced considerably.
The smaller the pool you have to pick from the "worse" your candidates will get.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@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.
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.If it is the selection board then there is the potential for the Hart/Wyllie situation again it opens that door, as the assistants could be pissed they missed out on the HC job and undermine the HC.Which I have seen before.
I don't think any of the HC in the world will just apply for a role to end up as assistant,That is a demotion to your standings a HC to be now an assistant.
I just can not see it working to be honest. -
@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' -
@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...
-
@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?
-
@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.
This is the coaching group that won Foster the All Blacks job. Can they keep the Bledisloe?
