Dangerous4 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:58 pm
Question. Why appoint a head coach who needs mentoring? Totally barmy imo.
Incredibly short-sighted.
Agreed it was incredibly short-sighted to appoint a totally inexperienced head coach.
Please explain why you think it is short sighted?
The way I see it is that changing coach after coach over the past few years didn't particularly work very well, and contributed to last seasons relegation struggle, and so retaining some continuity and sticking with a coach already in place and now providing that coach with support by way of a mentor is a different approach.
The support is in the form of Pat Howard, an successful experienced and trusted former coach, I assume this is to try and avoid a repeat of the Mauger situation where a clash occurred with the coach already in place.
They could get a brand new coach but it doesn't always work out, it can clash with an entire squad and it can also just simply flop, there are previous examples everywhere.
Probably only two clubs at present in the Premiership who can lay real claims to success in coaching appointments and they are Sarries and Exeter.
It all seems pretty clear to me.
Agreed it was incredibly short-sighted to appoint a totally inexperienced head coach.
Please explain why you think it is short sighted?
The way I see it is that changing coach after coach over the past few years didn't particularly work very well, and contributed to last seasons relegation struggle, and so retaining some continuity and sticking with a coach already in place and now providing that coach with support by way of a mentor is a different approach.
The support is in the form of Pat Howard, an successful experienced and trusted former coach, I assume this is to try and avoid a repeat of the Mauger situation where a clash occurred with the coach already in place.
They could get a brand new coach but it doesn't always work out, it can clash with an entire squad and it can also just simply flop, there are previous examples everywhere.
Probably only two clubs at present in the Premiership who can lay real claims to success in coaching appointments and they are Sarries and Exeter.
It all seems pretty clear to me.
No 1 we would not have finished 11th last season
No2 we would not have to pay for a mentor
No3 the appointment remains a total gamble
Without hope we are nothing, keep the faith, a Tiger for eternity
Agreed it was incredibly short-sighted to appoint a totally inexperienced head coach.
Please explain why you think it is short sighted?
The way I see it is that changing coach after coach over the past few years didn't particularly work very well, and contributed to last seasons relegation struggle, and so retaining some continuity and sticking with a coach already in place and now providing that coach with support by way of a mentor is a different approach.
The support is in the form of Pat Howard, an successful experienced and trusted former coach, I assume this is to try and avoid a repeat of the Mauger situation where a clash occurred with the coach already in place.
They could get a brand new coach but it doesn't always work out, it can clash with an entire squad and it can also just simply flop, there are previous examples everywhere.
Probably only two clubs at present in the Premiership who can lay real claims to success in coaching appointments and they are Sarries and Exeter.
It all seems pretty clear to me.
No 1 we would not have finished 11th last season
No2 we would not have to pay for a mentor
No3 the appointment remains a total gamble
Still banging that tired old drum I see. It happened and isn't going to change in the medium term. Any (realistic) ideas on things Tigers might do differently going forward, rather than harking on about the past?
BTW all your 3 points above could be applied, including relegation, no matter who was appointed.
Dangerous4 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:58 pm
Question. Why appoint a head coach who needs mentoring? Totally barmy imo.
Incredibly short-sighted.
Agreed it was incredibly short-sighted to appoint a totally inexperienced head coach.
Ok so let's theoretically go back to last season, one game in and we've just sacked MOC. We've paid to get rid of MOC having not long paid off Hanson, Mauger and Cockerill. We've previously bought Blake out of his contract to get him on board so funds are limited and we can't just go and buy another coach out of contract. All the Super Rugby coaches are under contract now and so are the AP coaches. Which out of contract coach are you going to try and get in on a budget with limits on who he can hire as part of his coaching staff and there's no real room to bring in his own players. What's the better option than Geordan at that point.
Agreed it was incredibly short-sighted to appoint a totally inexperienced head coach.
Ok so let's theoretically go back to last season, one game in and we've just sacked MOC. We've paid to get rid of MOC having not long paid off Hanson, Mauger and Cockerill. We've previously bought Blake out of his contract to get him on board so funds are limited and we can't just go and buy another coach out of contract. All the Super Rugby coaches are under contract now and so are the AP coaches. Which out of contract coach are you going to try and get in on a budget with limits on who he can hire as part of his coaching staff and there's no real room to bring in his own players. What's the better option than Geordan at that point.
Dangerous4 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:58 pm
Question. Why appoint a head coach who needs mentoring? Totally barmy imo.
Incredibly short-sighted.
Agreed it was incredibly short-sighted to appoint a totally inexperienced head coach.
I think some posters need to look up the definition of shortsighted in relation to business decisions. If anything the appointment of GM was clearly a long term potential opportunity and the provision of a mentor made complete sense (should have been done earlier). I'm not saying the board should have been this longsighted, but shortsighted it ain't.
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
On Murphy’s appointment, Ben Kay said that they had to make a quick appointment so that incoming players would know who would be in charge. I took from that that there was nobody else readily available at the time, not that it was an appointment with an eye to the future, more a hopeful plunge in the dark.
Please explain why you think it is short sighted?
The way I see it is that changing coach after coach over the past few years didn't particularly work very well, and contributed to last seasons relegation struggle, and so retaining some continuity and sticking with a coach already in place and now providing that coach with support by way of a mentor is a different approach.
The support is in the form of Pat Howard, an successful experienced and trusted former coach, I assume this is to try and avoid a repeat of the Mauger situation where a clash occurred with the coach already in place.
They could get a brand new coach but it doesn't always work out, it can clash with an entire squad and it can also just simply flop, there are previous examples everywhere.
Probably only two clubs at present in the Premiership who can lay real claims to success in coaching appointments and they are Sarries and Exeter.
It all seems pretty clear to me.
No 1 we would not have finished 11th last season
No2 we would not have to pay for a mentor
No3 the appointment remains a total gamble
Still banging that tired old drum I see. It happened and isn't going to change in the medium term. Any (realistic) ideas on things Tigers might do differently going forward, rather than harking on about the past?
BTW all your 3 points above could be applied, including relegation, no matter who was appointed.
...not too sure you can say that!!!
Employing Baxter or McCall as head coach would have brought us a better season even if that was not a top 4 finish. The late addition of Mike Ford is perhaps the main reason for Tigers avoiding relegation as the slide we were on was gathering momentum.
The players gained (in their own words) "clarity" as to the requirements needed to put a game plan into action and a way to carry that plan out.
To an extent every new appointment is a gamble, but the appropriate coach reduces the odds of failure.
Agreed it was incredibly short-sighted to appoint a totally inexperienced head coach.
I think some posters need to look up the definition of shortsighted in relation to business decisions. If anything the appointment of GM was clearly a long term potential opportunity and the provision of a mentor made complete sense (should have been done earlier). I'm not saying the board should have been this longsighted, but shortsighted it ain't.
... it was the cheapest option.!!
You really are giving the Bod too much credit. There was no real thought went into this appointment of GM and to compound their error, they confirmed him as Head Coach when it seemed he couldn't buy a win.
Loyalty is all very well but choosing the believe the Board had the best interest of the club at heart is just wishful thinking.
But do find it funny how much Leinster get praised for developing Cullen with a mentor and a solid International coach (With a very patchy record) in Lancaster, yet with Tigers getting Ford and Howard it's
FrontRowUnionMember wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:09 pm
So where will the rumoured appointment of a DoR post World Cup leave the Murphy/Howard pairing?
I still think we'll see Geordan move to DoR if the club can sign a head coach to work within the existing structure. Especially now that there is a vacancy with no Head of Rugby operations around. This would leave Howard working with Geordan, staying hands off whilst a head coach develops the players and the style Geordan wants. Or Howard is being tempted to come back in full time.
Alternatively, a buyout is a lot closer than a lot of us expect and with a new viewpoint and hopefully a bigger coaching budget we'll see the changes then.