The NZ Coach selection process

So Ian Foster is the new coach of NZ Rugby. 

He was announced by the Chairman of NZ Rugby, appointed by a panel of 6 or so people that included 2 Heads of High Performance including one for NZ Sport.

Had served 6 years as assistant head coach of the All Blacks.

Coached at the Chiefs for 8 years

Was encouraged to put his stamp on the team.

Won  the position against a list of qualified candidates.

No hint  here of a committee to run the team, no rushing of an assistant coach into the Head Coach role with no prior experience.....encouragement to make the team his own. No mention of working with High Performance or worse yet, for High Performance

Now that's how it should be done. That said the 2 year appointment seems to almost anticipate failure. And I would have gone for Robertson, the current  coaching staff carry a whiff of failure about them. A perfect process doesn't guarantee the best decision.

Nutcase

The full media report on the appointment of  Foster was covered started by a reasonable member, but you cone up with your standard BS as per normal, 

The full coaching complement has not been announced as yet and your deductions are as per normal absolute BS.   NZ has for years had a different system to SA insofar s coordination, training development and co-ordination is concerned,   They do manage their liaison w ith franchises and High Performance Centers like Erasmus wishes to run the SA system  

It works very much like what I tried to explain in some detail to try and get some real ideas in that void in your thinking ability,  

I wish you would look at threads already opened and think before you write BS on site,   I will not hold my breath on that though,      

Naaaah nonsense.....the coach is  expected to coach the team, not be a puppet with strings pulled by another puppet master.

Now that is consistent with modern organization theory which allows the person responsible for results to have the resources he feels he needs to produce those results....without having to go to some committee or some other person who is unwilling to stay at the coal face.

What we are doing is inconsistent with best practice and bound to fail.

So you were the puppet when working for major firms in the USA?  Your most foolish and childish statement you ever made on site - was in serious competition with other foolish statements by you,   

No, given you bring it  up.....as CEO I had the right to pick my own team. I ran the company, although in the case of my direct reports I always ran changes by the Board. Promotional, new product and pricing decisions all stayed with me. The only operational thing I was required to run by the Board was major capital projects and the annual and strategic plans. 

And this is standard practice.....only rarely in America will you find a split in the CEO and Chairman positions....and even then the CEO runs the company.

In sports it's standard practice for the coach to have freedom to choose his players, strategies and tactics. If the coach does this the Eraser role is just advisory.....if the coach can't do this, he isn't the coach.

Mozart

The real problem remains - you frankly do not understand what is really happening in all codes of sport.   The squad is not selected solely by the coach of any team,   The reason for that is practiced widely because the coach  can cause the royal fuck ups that Meyer and Coetzee came up with,  

Why is the Director of rugby, cricket, soccer and virtually ever other sport where the position is  widely used and in charge of the coaching staff in existence,   The system was widely used in other sport codes before it was introduced in rugby.   If somebody is in charge  of staff on lower level had his subordinates all the power and he has NONE? 

And you claimed you know that it does not happen in practice.   Ignorance is bliss I am afraid and making a fool of yourself is your own privilege, so keep it up - it so very amusing, LMAO              

Who told Hansen he couldn't choose Barrett at flank. Who told Jones he had to select Ford at flyhalf. Nobody. Those mistakes were the coach's to make.

Would Erasmus have succeeded if he had to justify his selections to another suit or committee?

Coaching by committee will never work....the Head Coach has to be the decision maker. If Erasmus wants to have a veto he should have stayed on as Head Coach.

If not Nienaber has to be given some space....set free to make his own decisions. Put his stamp on the team just like Foster is being encouraged to do.

There i s no bloody "committee" involved stupid.   Are you really a nutcase?    You obviously decided  that you know better than anybody else what must be the situation in Springbok rugby - so what  is the use of any further discussion with a self-possessed idiot  like you.     : 

Moz

You're ignoring the fact that Rasputin and Nienaber have spent ages together.

They're likely as on the same page as two colleagues could be.

My suspicion is that this is why Swys dropped out. He didn't quite fit in and using his health as a reason made sense since he left the Lions tour also claiming sighting health concerns.

Those two detectives in Tin Tin...Thompson and Thompson, that's sort of how I view Rusty and Nienaber.

No doubt if Rassie attempts utilising Swys as a conduit, that won't work. 

But Nienaber can't be seen as a messenger when he'd deliver the same message regardless.

So Plum you agree it's the wrong solution ameliorated by personal chemistry?  It begs the question, if they are the same rugby persona....why does Eraser have to stay 'very involved'.

So lets face facts - the local BSters on site prefer failed coaches - have fun,

I take it G rant Fox is still a selector there !

Anyone a clue who the Springbok selectors are,or does that fall under coaches jurisdiction?

The coach of any team can only be held accountable if he's given full responsibility and autonomy.

Erasmus must back off. He gave up his right to interfere.

He himself promised a 50% black representation at this WC ... and fell way short. You can bet your last dollar that he'll expect the next coach to adhere to this policy ... a policy that he failed dismally at himself.

Hypocrite.

The only reason he'll want a hands on approach is to ensure that the poor blacks get to represent their country ... no matter how incompetent. Even clowns like Stick will be forced upon the next coach.

You won't see a top rugby coach showing any interest in coaching the Goats. 

Why would they?

CC

As kakpraat 'n siekt e is was jy lankal in "intensive care"   LMAO 

The establishment must resent Henry and it's certainly bad form to break ranks like this. But he is dead right.

'

Former All Blacks coach Sir Graham Henry has criticised New Zealand Rugby for their selection process of the next head coach.

Henry was part of the panel which appointed Ian Foster as the new All Blacks head coach.

Foster had served as assistant coach to Steve Hansen for seven years and was selected ahead of Crusaders coach Scott Robertson.

Two other applicants to the job were Dave Rennie, who was appointed Wallabies coach, and Jamie Joseph, who decided to extend his tenure as Japan head coach.

In an interview with Radio Sport, Henry said that he feels there were too few applicants for the job.

‘We should’ve had more to be fair, more applications, and I think New Zealand Rugby’s learned from that,’ Henry said.

Foster’s appointment was particularly criticised as some felt that NZR needed to go with someone with fresh ideas, something Henry agrees with.

‘They [New Zealand Rugby] need to knock down the castle and build it again,’ Henry said. ‘Winning is everything, winning won’t occur unless they have the foundations right and new foundations because you can’t continue with what’s happening in the past. It gets mundane.

‘Losing [to England] at the World Cup will add to the edge and the desire to get better.  If you keep on winning you probably get a wee bit complacent and don’t make changes. Losing to England will add desire, add change.

‘I think the new team that Fozzie finishes up with has got to develop their own identity, their own purpose, their own culture.’

One could extend Henry's argument to the Boks. If we wanted to maintain the status quo.....Eraser should have stayed Head Coach. Appointing another coach would be consistent with change.

But we are told there will be no change. Implication is we are happy with where we are. So happy we are willing to appoint a clone.

But the world moves on. In consumer goods 6  months is an eternity.....new products, new ad campaigns, new promotional tactics are bound to emerge. And nothing we did is difficult to copy ....anybody can adopt our tactics easily. They aren't subtle.

So come the next RC we should be adding new strings to our bow....but apparently not, we don't need to. What we did against Wales and the AB was expunged by the final!