Loffreda speaks

[dailywaffle]

No doubt in my mind that whatever you think of Lofredda as a Coach that he was treated very badly by the Tigers Board who have yet to clearly explain and justify their actions, I guess they never will do that now.

I don't know about some of the earlier coaches as it was before my time but Dean Richards also seems to have been in a similar boat.

Don't see how you can include Wells or Howard in that boat though as both of them made it quite clear they wanted to move on.

You can add White to the list of those who chose to move on, so I agree that comparing many of our former coaches serves little purpose. One can also add Tony Russ to the list of those fired.

I would guess that many would consider the firings of Russ and Dwyer to be 'acceptable', whereas the firings of Richards and Loffreda would be considered by many to be 'shabby'. I have no wish to stir up old feuds on this point, but I'm curious to know why some firings are considered more acceptable than others.

[Nic]

I tend to agree with Outlanders comments, however would question any need for a change in direction.

The best rugby since Pat Howard has been played under Cockers without doubt, often with limited resources.
Who would want anything other than teh varied attack and solid defence shown since xmas.
Yes (in hindsight) the previous two were big mistakes, Meyer in particular.
While I understand the need to see ill family members. I question his commitment to coaching abroad.
He seemed from the outside to return too easily , had he had success would he have been given more time.

I still feel that the club's explanation of Meyers departure is dubious. This is probably due to legal reasons, it would be nice to know a bit more,possibly details will emerge at a later date?

[Longshanks]

As for Loffreda, I'll just say what I said probably too many times in the past........

The mistake was hiring him in the 1st place.

With hindsight, yes, but how many of us thought that at the time he was appointed? He had just led Argentina to 3rd place in the World Cup and came incredibly well recommended by players and support staff alike. From memory, Les Cusworth was working in Argentina at the time and had a lot to do with the introductions and citations.

[Gate]

I'm curious to know why some firings are considered more acceptable than others.

General feeling of fairness or not, expressed on a discussion board with the lack of forensic incision characteristic of such boards when emotions are running high, would be my answer. Of course, if you want more detail, there's loads of it on the threads from about a year ago.

[smalldell]

Like all blood letting, and we have all spilled some (nowhere near as much as those involved I know) it was and still is I hope an experience we will all learn from.....

The overriding message for me is clear, if you employ a coach from outside accept the fact you will have 2 spend a season or two rebuilding from the foundations up...if you cannot do that do not employ such people....

[Outlander]

With hindsight, yes, but how many of us thought that at the time he was appointed? He had just led Argentina to 3rd place in the World Cup and came incredibly well recommended by players and support staff alike. From memory, Les Cusworth was working in Argentina at the time and had a lot to do with the introductions and citations.

LS, I would certainly not claim to have had any foreknowledge. I am happy to confess that I was enthusiastic about the hiring and wrote positively at first.

Perhaps I can clarify what I mean by mistake. When I say the mistake was to hire him in the first place, that is not meant as a criticism. I am NOT saying, "Those fools had every reason to know that what they were doing was a mistake." It is entirely possible to make an informed, apparently well-judged decision that then turns out to be a mistake. Skilled investors in markets do it all the time.

I think both the Loffreda and Meyer hirings can be defended on the basis of what was known at the time. They were reasonable, defensible decisions. I was actually hopeful and excited about both decisions. And even after they went wrong, I can't say that either was the sort of mistake that should be pilloried.

My point concerned the tendency for fans to say that Loffreda was treated shabbily when he was fired after 1 season. That, it seems to me, is very confused thinking which centers on the whole "hindsight" theme.

If someone uses hindsight to judge a past decision, that's generally unfair.

But as a club nears the end of its first season under a coach who is doing very poorly, the hindsight issue becomes irrelevant. What matters is he decision that looks forward. the question is not, were we right to hire Loffreda. It is this: would it be wise to let him keep the reins another year?

And there, to return to the financial market metaphor, the appropriate cliche is the one about good money being thrown after bad. One makes a mistaken investment. Fine. But the desire to redeem that initial mistake should never be allowed to influence the decision about whether to get out of the position. Only one question matters: will this investment pay off going forward?

The other confusion that I see in fan writings on this sort of thing is a misplaced sense of morality. The whole "shabby" argument bewilders me.

Suppose Loffreda were given another year. Who would be affected? Players. Coaches. Fans. Loffreda. Loffreda's family. All would bear the brunt of that decision. It's my sense--one probably shared by most here--that the results would not have been good. So ALL of those people would have suffered from that decision. Not least Marcelo. An ineffective coach left in place for another year has a horrible time of it. I personally believe that a decision to leave Marcelo in place another year would have been disastrous FOR MARCELO! He would have been miserable. I've seen it happen in other sports, and it's ugly.

Furthermore, such a decision WOULD NOT have been a hindsight matter. The club had seen Marcelo in place for a year. It had access to information that it had not had when hiring him. Keeping him on, in my view, would have been an irresponsible decision. One that would have been paid for by ... the fans, the players, the coach, the coach's family, etc.

So, I just reject the whole "shabby" argument. It makes no sense to me. Sport is competitive. Every player and coach knows it. Failure to compete effectively loses the shirt or the track suit. For whatever reason. No real competitor wants to be kept on for reasons of vague sentiment when he or she is not able to compete. That's just the way I see things, and I would guess that many a player and coach would agree with me.

So, I hope we can agree that the original decision was defensible AT THE TIME.

But the original decision should not influence the later decision.

Make any sense?

P.S. While I feel understand the Loffreda situation, the Meyer situation bewilders me completely. From far away, I have not been able to get any real sense for what happened. Like others in this thread, I sense that there is something pretty important there that has not been revealed. The guy just wandered off in mid-season. I can't even tell who initiated the break. Weird. I have no judgment because I can't really understand what happened.

[Outlander]

One last quick point, though I've probably said too much already.

I have agreed that one can't use hindsight to condemn decisions that seem reasonable and defensible at the time they are made.

However, one CAN learn lessons from mistakes.

One theme runs through the ML and HM situations, and apparently through other cases that happened before my brief time as a Tigers fan.

That is the matter of Tigers rugby culture, which is a apparently very powerful force on its own. It seems to me that a principle could be learned which could guide the club in future decisions:

Hiring a coach for Tigers means dealing with that powerful rugby culture. This gives the board a choice:

1. Hire someone who is a good fit with that culture. Of course, the danger here is to hire someone who bows to the culture rather than challenging and guiding it firmly.

2. Hire someone who will CHANGE that culture. This option will, I think, be a mistake IF preparatory spade work is not done in advance.

This, I think, is the biggest lesson arising from especially the HM case. It is my sense (from afar) that HM wanted to change the plot to fit his vision. He COULD I think have been successful given a few seasons to re-shape the club. This would have meant a combination of acquiring players who fit the vision and also over time selling the vision to Tigers players.

But the point is that, if you bring in a coach who will change the plot, you need to prepare everyone, including the fans, for a transitional time.

The challenge in doing this is that you folks in Europe have conditions that make transition years tough: relegation and the need to get into and compete in European competitions like the HC. So, I am not sure how to successfully prepare a club that expects success for a transitional period of time.

And if THAT IS TRUE ...

Then really you need to stick with Option 1. You need to hire coaches who can work with Tigers club culture. Tigers may need to understand that, under current circumstances, it is folly to go the 2nd route.

Well, my analysis may be wrong. But, this sort of analysis could LEARN from early mistakes and make better decisions in future.

[dailywaffle]

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree with Outlander on the matter of Loffreda and his so called 'shabby treatment'.

As regards Meyer, is it really so mysterious? I suppose it depends on whether one chooses to buy the official line, but we were clearly told that he had a temporary leave of absence due to the serious illness of two of his relatives; an absence that became permanent. The board were quite open about this at the time, the only question is whether or not you subscribe to the conspiracy theories. As it all amounts to the same thing, I don't suppose it really matters now.

The point about culture is an interesting one. I happen to think that Meyer was believed to be an 'option 1' choice, in that he was a good fit for the culture of the club. In that respect, I believe that the board did learn from the Loffreda debacle. The most obvious 'option 2' choice in relatively recent years would be Bob Dwyer; a man on whom opinions will probably always be divided.

[Outlander]

DW, I think you're probably right about HM having been perceived beforehand as an Option 1 candidate.

And therein would lie the mistake--if there was one--in hiring him. The judgment was that he would fit Tigers culture. Apparently, this judgment was at least to some extent an error.

And again, this is not to condemn the decision. Far from it. It is ALWAYS very hard to pick the right coach, and most clubs make mistakes more often than they succeed.

With regard to the sense of mystery concerning HM's departure, I guess it depends on whether one sees a family illness that does not apparently involve wife or children as a sufficient explanation for a coach leaving a team, especially one who was well known for developing deep relationships of loyalty.

To me, that doesn't seem an adequate explanation. But what do I know?

And by the way, I have no idea about whether lack of immediate success had anything to do with HM's departure. The club were doing OK but not great. I don't think anyone really foresaw the success Cockers would have, so I don't assume that what happened later had anything to do with HM departing. I don't get the sense that the club were expressing disapproval of him. But then, I live about 7,000 miles away and just know what I read in the press and on boards like this one.

The official explanation just strikes me as being inadequate to account for what happened.

[Bill W]

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree with Outlander on the matter of Loffreda and his so called 'shabby treatment'.

As regards Meyer, is it really so mysterious? I suppose it depends on whether one chooses to buy the official line, but we were clearly told that he had a temporary leave of absence due to the serious illness of two of his relatives; an absence that became permanent. The board were quite open about this at the time, the only question is whether or not you subscribe to the conspiracy theories. As it all amounts to the same thing, I don't suppose it really matters now.

The point about culture is an interesting one. I happen to think that Meyer was believed to be an 'option 1' choice, in that he was a good fit for the culture of the club. In that respect, I believe that the board did learn from the Loffreda debacle. The most obvious 'option 2' choice in relatively recent years would be Bob Dwyer; a man on whom opinions will probably always be divided.

Bob Dwyer did what he was paid to do and his contract was then terminated.

Dean Richards contract was terminated because he refused help.

[dailywaffle]

Bill, I agree.
But I don't understand how that links in with the point that Outlander is making. Dwyer and Richards were fired for different reasons, and were from different rugby cultures.

Its for others to be concerned (or not) as to whether the official explanation for Meyer's departure is accurate. As I'm not that bothered, I'm happy enough to accept the official line.

[Bill W]

Bill, I agree.
But I don't understand how that links in with the point that Outlander is making. Dwyer and Richards were fired for different reasons, and were from different rugby cultures.

Its for others to be concerned (or not) as to whether the official explanation for Meyer's departure is accurate. As I'm not that bothered, I'm happy enough to accept the official line.

The relevance to Outlanders point is that Dwyer was most definitey recruited to take us into the professional era with the changes in culture so implied. This he did successfuly but failed to realise that the bit off the culture that demanded success had not changed. Richards was fired when he refused to accept help from within the culture (believed he was bigger than it?) I am unsure whether Marcelo refused to accept help or even if he was offered it- looked to me more the exact opposite. Did Meyer try to change the culture or find the task of adapting to it too difficult with the circumstances of his family?

I think that had the Board not arranged that all four moved on (note careful language) their individual and collective secutiry would have been under threat. Wells is different - whilst "of the culture" he wanted more security which he felt (rightly as events turned out - but their track record is not that clever) was offered by the RFU.

[dailywaffle]

Bill, I agree that Dwyer had a very definite mandate for change, more so than any other Head Coach in recent times. Very much Option 2. But in that sense, he was significantly different to all of the other named individuals.

Richards was very much Option 1, but ultimately he didn't have the necessary (off-field) skills to deal with a collapse in results. Ironically, he has something in common with Loffreda; the loss of key support both above and below him.

Like you, I find it difficult to categorise Loffreda's appointment.

Your careful choice of language,when applied to Meyer, clearly suggests that you doubt the official line. Conjecture, or something more?

[Bill W]

But in that sense, he was significantly different to all of the other named individuals.

Your careful choice of language,when applied to Meyer, clearly suggests that you doubt the official line. Conjecture, or something more?

You answered your own question in a way.

But does it matter?

[G.K]

BW - I think you are alluding to a point that is very important and one that Outlander (for all his analytical skills) appears to be missing.

The point is that if you appoint an outsider (in mid season remember), who clearly has had no direct connection with LFC (Tigers) and no experience of coaching a professional club side and who's first language was not English then you have to accept that such a person needs more support and more time to 'bed in'.

All of this and more (Les Cusworth et al) was known by the LFC Board. So my gripe was, and remains, that he was not given the time nor the proper support to succeed. Indeed there is some evidence that certain individuals even sought to undermine his position. Not to mention that Loffreda had re-located his family here on expection of a 2 or 3 year contract etc.

Some question the definition of 'shabby': well in my view such treatment was 'shabby'. Others appear to think such behaviour is fine in the modern professional era, maybe so, but then so much the pity for that I say.

As for the main issue as to whether Loffreda was or was not a good coach. Remember he took the Pumas to the RWC semi final on very limited resources, beating England at Twickenham for the first time on the way, and in the brief time he was here he took Tigers to 2 finals. Now for the historians amongst you - then how does that record compare with other coaches?

Maybe he was not suited to coaching a professional club such as Tigers and so letting him go after less than one full season was the right decision in the long run. We will never know now but I wish the LFC Board had been somewhat more contrite in accepting the blame for the situation.

Anyway one last parting thought:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."