The stupid Director of Rugby structure

The job that counts is Head Coach of the Springboks. That should be the  top line job in the SA setup. If you want a  Director of Rugby, a staff position, that  should report to the Bok coach, or to some other suit in the SA Rugby setup.

The Head Coach should never report to a staffie like the Director of Rugby.

Make the Head Coach the top  position. Give it the highest remuneration. And lets avoid this silly charade where Eraser is expected to be a puppet master, and the new Head Coach a puppet.

Bok success drives everything and if you have the reigns as Erasmus does, he should be chomping at the bit to drive home the WC success in 2020 through to the Lions series and the next world cup .....not looking for this fake stage exit .

It could be totally eliminated with no consequences...we haven't needed it for 120 years.

The structure is in use  virtually all over the world and you know better than experts do? 

In fact the DoR could be making the head coachs' job easier by cutting out extra commitments that aren't particularly necessary, thus not wasting his time.

Complete freedom?   Is that why De Villiers. Meyer and Coetzee f ailed so badly?

Think about it Shezza. If these are things the Coach doesn't need to do.....have somebody else do it .....but don't have the coach report to that staff person.

The coach should report directly to the Rugby Board, which should appoint him. If he needs a day to day liaison point, why not the Chairman of  the Board, or if that suit is too afraid of the role....to a small sub committee. But I can't see why any chairman worth his salt  would want to delegate that role....the key role.

Appoint the very best coach, give him maximum autonomy....and demand results. Because Eraser for some reason doesn't want the role....we are about to appoint a coach without looking at all the options, and ask Eraser to still take  the key decisions behind the Director of  Rugby cloak.

A nonsense.

In total agreement with Moz.

You cannot have a Head coach taking direction from the Director for the actual game plan etc for the team of players.

The Director is a political title and carries with it the responsibly for admin, media, financial and general business relating to rugby not the players training, coaching, selection and planning of game plans.

All those fat midgets in the front office are actually paid to do that admin related duties but as usual are incapable of performing those duties thus the title of DIRECTOR was created.

You cannot have a two bosses performing the same duties without conflict.

You would have thought that after all the screw up's and demise of the SARB after Dr Craven's death that someone, somewhere would have heard or seen the penny drop.

Alas not so,,,,,so full speed ahead and we all know the end result.

As far as I can make out the functions of the Director of Rugby are basically as follows:-

• Appointing Head Coach, Coach Assistants and Junior Coaches
• Organise pre-season friendlies
• Organise Skippers for teams
• Organise & liaise with 1st XV Managers
• Maintain player recruitment & retention
• Manage playing and training equipment
• Organise Physio’s for 1st XV games and provide a clinic
• Report weekly scores of franchise teams team results to SARU
• Liaise with Youth and Mini sections to develop coaching systems.
• Liaise with Junior Managers on player retention and actively get involved with coaching & developing this age group
• Oversee senior selection meetings, working with Skippers and Coaches.
• Attend Country and Franchise disciplinary hearings
• Recognise Country achievers.
• Assist with coaching or organise assistance where required.
• Attend Executive Meetings
• Work with other stakeholders to develop facilities available to all players

In a way the Director of Rugby has a major role in advancing of rugby as a game in SA  and other countries and on franchise/clubs levels  where used - as well as being the de facto manager of rugby overall - while the coaches are actually supervising the day to day  coaching of the players.

The above is not necessarily the detailed functions of Erasmus himself - but gives a general idea of what is required from directors of rugby generally.   In the past there was lots of talking about co-ordination of rugby played on all professional level and nothing was achieved since coaches all went on their own merry way.    

Head coaches were generally poor managers on higher levels and coaches like De Viliers, Meyer and Coetzee in the case of SA were serial flops damaging rugby as a game.   They were also not prepared and were even deficient in coaching teams and came away with deficient performance of teams on national level.  

In practice De Villiers is not even usable coaching on any level and Meyer was recently fired by Stade Francais for the reasons attached to player identification and management.   Coetzee was even worse in management and is still coaching in Japan on club level - how long that would be the case is up n the air.

I think that the idea with Director of Rugby is wider than only coaching - but at the same time must ensure that professional coaching is on a sound basis.      

Coordination of coaching is another idea which sounds good, but has negative consequences. Coordinate to what style....would the Ackerman Lions ever have emerged under this cookie cutter approach?

Far better to have a bunch of independent and talented Super coaches pushing the envelope according to the talents they have at their disposal. Creative destruction and many experiments versus the one way.

 Creativity vs conformity....which will produce better results down the road?  If our rugby  is to evolve, the choice is obvious. National coordination led by a coach who is  having his strings pulled by the Director of Rugby feels like a losing proposition.

Agreed. Real responsibility lies with the individual. Always. If it's more than one it's a committee (or even worse - a parliament) and the buck stops nowhere. This feministic notion that everyone must be controlled and all must have a say is going to bring us to the brink of extinction.

Duplicate. Fr fck sake. I did a Mike. VPN latency is my excuse, not dementia.

Mozart

You refer to the Lions as an example of a team that emerged from the junk status.  Why did Meyer totally ignore what happened and do not claim he did not.  There were NO players from the Lions in the WC squad for 2015,   

Why was their ZERO co-ordination between the Director of Rugby and the Head Coach in the past.     When Erasmus raised the issue with Coetzee he was rebuffed and then took up the role of Director of Rugby at Munster,   When he did that he was not supposed to do the coaching - but the Munster Head Coach died suddenly as a result of a heart attack and Erasmus took up the role as Head Coach for a while with major success.   He was named as the Coach of the Year in 2017 and got glowing reports from the Players and press in Ireland.  

I for one cannot see how the Head Coach can simultaneously handle the day-to-day coaching issue without regard to rugby development in the country and as happened under the previously three coaches ignore what the development of players on all levels mean.   I can understand the situation with due regard to what happened since 2008 when things totally went backwards instead of advancing.   For instance Meyer admitted that he looked at what players in the past were capable of - not what they were capable of  in 2015.   Coetzee made a total mess and under De Villiers he did no real coaching, the players decided on everything,

That being the case - what was to be done to overcome the past problems and develop the game looking at the future,   The first step  necessary is to look at what went wrong and how deficiencies should be fixed.   The obvious one was to look at a combination of  management and coaching and then the day-to-day operation affecting both,

The problem was that our last three Head Coaches buggered up badly and it is to my mind necessary to get management of the system on a sound level and then try and prevent it happening again.  Erasmus at least showed us what is possible through positive management and coaching combined can achieve, but it is clear that it is too big a job for a single person to handle without delegating some functions to his understudies and that is effectively also the Head Coach and his staff,   Without doing that - the development issue will suffer and not take anything or anybody new into account.         

Agreed. Real responsibility lies with the individual. Always. If it's more than one it's a committee (or even worse - a parliament) and the buck stops nowhere. This feministic notion that everyone must be controlled and all must have a say is going to bring us to the brink of extinction."

Wow, didn't see that coming from you...but I agree 100% Everyone is not equal.  Everyone should be treated equally under the law, and no one should be discriminated against, but  that's a different topic...

There are big problems with equality, fer instance when the majority elects a dictatorship, thus destroying it. Many other problems are inherent to this type of governing system, e.g. that it requires that the majority of chronological adults are properly informed and capable of autonomous thought. Both of these are unattainable objectives simply because of the modal IQ and more importantly because 50% of the pop are even fckn dumber than that. The best solution is a sort of meritocracy (intellectual aristocracy) in which single individuals take sole responsibility for decisions and are held accountable for outcomes. This is of course also dogged by an inherent set of problematic potentials, but a far better option than the current zeal to IMPOSE equality through the enforced/ideological elevation of people like RC and increasing legislation to destroy natural equality, such as the right to an opinion (Folau). It's like washing your arse with shit.

Ndabaningi

Somewhat off the topic - but the Ancient Greeks said democracy is a bad form of Government because of exactly the problem you referred to.   Modern technology allowed for brainwashing and influencing of the ignorant on a massive scale  and what we have today is that the brainwashers is trying to get into power and once in will be virtually impossible to dislodge.

I believe the world is moving in a very difficult time during which a new set of dictators will emerge,    What they will do is nothing compared to what the past bad eggs like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong did in the past.   What is clear is that the ordinary people will struggle even to find food and the rich will get richer through bribery and corruption.

I am too old to see the disease in my lifetime - but it still worries me and I think of younger people that will suffer in future,        

"........but I still worries me "

That doesn't surprise me one bit. I believe you.

Dofdoos

I corrected the typing errors 

"........but I 'CleverWanker' still worries me "

Not to worry SB - it is relieving of internal stresses and strains - so not a real problem  for anybody else bar myself anyway,   LMAO

Uniformity of approach to the game? So we're all going to play backward Stompie ball. Some progress. 

Moz

2020 is the final season of SR as we know it. The broadcast contract won't be renewed in anything resembling what we currently have.

SR is dead it looks like more of our teams will be playing in Europe. 

Personally, I like it. No, I love it. It certainly means a ton more money for our players, less player drain and it allows us to keep up to date with players that are signed to Euro clubs.

Rassie's role as DOR, will likely draw heavily on his Euro experience in assisting our sides with the transition.

The move is probably also in line with what Saffa rugby fans have been calling for. Streamlining our systems in a similar vein what we've seen from NZ. 

Obviously I'm speculating, but if the above is true, one struggles to see the downside. 

If there are strategic, fitness and skills benchmarks put in place for our club sides, it'll only serve to strengthen the Boks.

But it needs a clear message and thorough oversight from upstairs. I can't think of a better guy that Rassie to do that.

Anyhow, we've seen how far we can get without this structure. 

We'll never know if this will work unless we try it.

Akkers worked a miracle at the Lions. It was all for 0 though, since Coetzee ignored their game plan and Meyer ignored ALL their players. Coetzee was so clueless that he even dropped Faf.

Streamlining isn't a bad thing. Provided the template is a good one and holds the potential for success. 

And, it also doesn't mean that every side is forced to play exactly the same way. 

This proposal was first put forth by Gert Smal, then by Meyer. Both had better models in mind, Meyer's model was extensive, to say the least. Rassie is not the man to oversee such remodeling of our rugby. He is an average coach, his model for the game is inadequate. To allow him to exert such extensive control over our rugby would be typically South African in its shortsightedness. It's incredible how much leeway this man receives. It actually reflects how low standards have dropped post-2015. 

AO

Meyer's model was so advanced that he effectively  got fired by Stade Francais, And the inadequate Erasmus was instrumental to win the RWC.  

How lunacy persist in you case is amazing, but then idiots like you never learn anything constructive and the fact that you have the audacity to write such BS on site shows you are beyond saving that single malfunctioning brain cell of yours.  LMAO    

Let me just remind you of the following:-

*   RWC winner  2019    -   the Springboks

*   Team of the Year        -   the Sp ringboks

*   Coach of the Year       -   J Erasmus

*   Player of the Year      -   P-S du Toit,

Was Meyer ever won the coach of the year award?   Never

One can add another Award,   Idiot of the Year  AO      

Great AO

Do give us your analysis of the differences between what Rassie and others proposed.

I don't think anyone here has any info, so if you do, it would be great if you'd share.

Mozart

Even though I agree with you that a straightjacket game plan is not the way to go and that there will be changes from franchise to franchise since execution  depends also in player strengths and weaknesses - there should at least be a  more uniform approach would help massively.

At the same time it would not lead to exclusion of players from selection as happened in the case of the 2015 WC because there was no way - according to Meyer - that the Lions players would fit into the game he wanted the team to play,   

So there should be close liaison and discussion all the time that ensure that players from the franchise teams would not  have to change totally if they were selected to play for the Springboks,  I do not think the future will represent a straightjacket at all,   The general playing conditions may be more uniform than they were in the past.

There is virtually no chance SA will leave the Super Rugby competition without destroying the whole concept and World Rugby will not allow it,  The real financial muscle of Super Rugby lies with Supersport and they will actually be the body that would determine where the competition is going.  

Insofar as Super Rugby is concerned the attendance numbers declined because SA was so out of depth in the last decade in any rugby competition and financially struggling potential spectators thought it better not to go to matches.   However, the WC win may have a positive effect onm game attendance and that would also be a positive.          .   

SB

Not to worry it is only AO that thinks Meyer is the best coach SA  had since White and he dreamed up a Meyer game plan that nobody ever saw really in evidence  and that Erasmus is a second rate coach that is taking SA rugby down the tube,

He used to have the support of  Mozart, Ceradyne and Pakie - but although the latter three has gone lukewarm in the case of Erasmus - nobody has written glorified comments on Meyer recently.  

AO is been so foolish on site = he rarely wrote contributions of not recently and I think he may go quiet and then use a new user name,         

You harp on about Usernames, I suggest it's you who should start with a new clean slate after the shame you brought on yourself throughout the season. It was supposed to be your moment of glory, yet you soiled yourself. Hilarious, predictable, but hilarious all the same. 

Now, this new model? What has it done to develop the Boks? We are a team reliant entirely upon physical superiority. Physical superiority and tactical kicking, with set-piece parity a minimum requirement. What has the Rassie blueprint yielded in super rugby? The worst attacking stats of the past twelve years of all South African sides, consistently bottom two-to-three, every year. What have we seen for the Boks? Exactly the same thing. We are now a slightly more developed Straeuli-era team. What happens when teams stand up to us physically? Look at the New Zealand loss. Even a heavily depleted Welsh side was able to make us look very, very ordinary to say the least. 

Rassie, the average coach, become the very first authentic quota coach. He cannot evaluate his personnel, his is very limited tactically and has regressed the Bok game markedly. He is everything the plastics have been critical of for the past twenty years. Everything and then some. He has no record of excellence as a technical coach at any level of the game. Worse than that, he has shown a need to hide behind a fall-guy, as he cannot take responsibility himself. Now to impose this mediocre blueprint at all levels of the game? That right there is the death of our rugby. I'm sure there is an alternate universe where I am actually surprised that nobody can see it. Here and now, I'm well aware of the Saffer tendency to puff up like a cocky chihuahua when they think they are top dog. 

Don't say I didn't warn you. Keep talking Lügnerin. You possess an unmatched ability to talk yourself into a corner, then cry as you spit your dummy out. This is the part where you begin another "I arz more smarter dan eberyboody".

You say it's stupid, yet none of you have ever been able to refute it with one tangible piece of evidence. There is no evidence of Rassie being an above-average coach at any level of the game. All we have is a blueprint whereby defence is the primary weapon of all his teams, set pieces, kicking. Every team Rassie has coached has been a very substandard attacking team. So, where is Rassie the better coach? I don't even need to compare Rassie to Meyer, or Jake, or Mallett et al. I can e valuate him on his own merit. He is found wanting. So now we are being told by the plastics, that this static, blunt, predictable game that is behind the rest of the world must be imposed at all levels. Why? Because we are assured of physical dominance? Because kicking will win every game? Fancy that, the man who said he would never accept past Bok sides because they were "too boring" now embracing the most one-dimensional Bok side since Straeuli, one which is below all top tier nations for attacking out-put. Well below those past Bok sides. Interesting. Another ill-conceived position routed. Nothing ever changes.