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.@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 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.
@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:
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?
@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 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 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 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?
-
@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:
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.
-
@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?
@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 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
-
@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.
