Former Brumbies flyhalf Rod Kafer says the player-driven culture in the ACT should be mirrored by other Australian teams, not shunned.
Playing a game of contact sport in many ways is the same as going into battle in war, thankfully with a different end result. In the military, units are structured into groups with set hierarchies with specific roles play.
A chain of command is established, a battle plan devised, clear orders on the conduct of the battle given and the battle enacted, though there is no referee except for the Geneva Convention.
Each member undergoes basic training, which includes drills.
Learning to march and instinctively respond to orders in the process. This is not so much about parade ground performance but being conditioned to respond to orders without question – millions of dollars are spent on officers to train them to make decisions in the heat of battle.
Debating tactics when there is hot lead flying around your ears is not encouraged.
Success will depend on the teamwork, the tactics and the camaraderie of the group. The battle is conducted with unit officers situated, in rugby terms, usually around the flyhalf position with radio communication back to a superior officer who is following the battle on his map often being able to watch live via helmet mounted cameras.
A game of contact sport is also structured into groups, with set hierarchies with specific roles play.
A chain of command is established, a game plan devised, clear orders on the conduct of how to play the game are given and the game enacted, there is the variable of a referee.
Each player has undergone basic training, which includes drills.
Learning to play and instinctively respond in pressure situations in the process. Coaches have extensive training/experience that also helps them to make the right decisions in the heat of battle.
Debating tactics in course of a game is not encouraged. Success will depend on the teamwork, the tactics and the camaraderie of the group.
In the military leaders often provide a level of inspiration that will see their men follow them to their deaths. There have been many lauded Australian military heroes, such as Weary Dunlop, Sir Roden Cutler and Sir John Monash.
In contact sports the most successful Australian coaches have not only possessed the technical expertise but also people management skills, such as Rick Charlesworth, Wayne Bennett and Rod McQueen.
Regardless, successful leaders are able to inspire their charges to greater things and make it their business to ensure that all in the team are heading in the same direction. Clear lines of communication are established and maintained where valued team members have an opportunity to be heard and in the process all are empowered.
What is never accepted in the military are those that would seek to usurp or promote their agenda at the expense of others. In sport it should be no different but it does take strong people management skills.
Andy Friend called a meeting of the players after the Rebels match to provide them with the opportunity to voice their grievances. Nothing was said.
Sorry Rod Kafer, the sacking of Friend is player power at its most insidious. I is a model not to be mirrored by anyone.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
Exactly Mick - history is irrelevant if you cannot back it up.
Rickety Knees
Roar Guru
And the Reds have won their first match in Brumbyland. The Brumbies lost the match through ill discipline, thankfully the players couldn't sack the referee! The implosion of the Brumbies has begun.
Ballboy
Guest
It has been four days now Charles and what amazes me is that people are still writing in in their droves. Not that I don't think they should. I believe we should keep this campaign up until the Brumbie management come clean. They will probably win this afternoon against the Reds - haven't lost in 12 years and their eputations are on the line more than ever. That won't vindicate the decision. Even if they win it won't vindicate the decision. If Hoiles says that they are going to play the same and the Friend was a good bloke, exactly what was the problem. My theory - senior players not getting special treatment by Friend who always put everyone on a level pegging. The egos in the senior players just couldn't handle this. Despite all of that, it is Fagan and the Board who need to take responsibility for this and step down. You fail to give the coach the support staff he wants, don't allow him to speak to the vplayers at half time, narrowly win one game you should have won by a lot more and lose the second game after having 70% posession. I just don't see why that is Friendy's fault and why Larkham is still there. Go the Reds.
Charles Plowdog
Guest
So it has been now 4 days since the head coach of the Brumbies was sacked. Yet there is still no statement on the Brumbies website of the reasons for it. Super Rugby is big business and clubs like the Brumbies are funded by governments, sponsors, and the fans. Can you imagine a reasonably sized company who sacks one of their key employees not providing some formal statement about the reasons for their actions. At best we get the CEO stating he made the decision, leaving open the question the role of the Board. Again I ask why don't the Brumbies have their constitution, Board make-up and Annual Reports published on their website. Even the ARU publishes their Annual Reports, while they are similarly shy about their constitution. Until there is some transparency about the governance of sporting bodies such as the Brumbies we will never find out the reasons for key decisions.
Rickety Knees
Roar Guru
Ditto BBoB
p.Tah
Guest
The Brumbies justify the decision to sack Friend by saying that they have won two titles therefore they know what they are doing and the player power culture is the right tactic. They are counting on the fans being tolerant of the decision because in the end they believe it's the best strategy to win. In the end winning is what it's all about right? Perhaps not... In the last few seasons the Tahs have played ugly rugby, under the illusion that in the end the result is all that counts. Fans will be happy in they bring home the title irrespective of how they got there... They were wrong. I believe the Brumbies should look to the Tahs for what not to do. It's not the result that counts, but the way that result is achieved and so far the Brumbies fans (and other Oz rugby fans) don't appear to be happy with the process of trying to win the title. Player power real or perceived does not sit well with fans and if Brumbies don't address the concerns of fans... Irrespective of where they finish on the ladder they will lose fans.
p.Tah
Guest
That's all fine Johnno but why did they do it 2 games in and not a the end of last season?
Johnno
Guest
I'll give my quick 2cents worth and voice my opinion about this, and use other examples of sports teams to get my point across to. Pro sport is a results base business, and generally that means you have to win or come close to winning the title, and if not, you change the players , or coach, or backroom staff, because if you keep doing the same thing you get the same results. Which in the context of my point means finishing average in the competition you enter or towards the bottom. And big teams in pro sport like the All Blacks , Manchester United or the Australian cricket team it is basically the coach has to win or go very close to winning or you get sacked, and find some one who will win you the big titles it's that's simple. And reality is in all pro sports teams in all sports if the senior players lose confidence in you you have lost the dressing room, it's that simple to. And Andy Friend had lost the players confidence and his results reflect not only the players ability which has to be quesitoned but maybe he is not the right man to coach the Brumbies. It was not meant to be. But he might be a good head coach in a different team with a different culture more suitable to him. And as for this player power thing , that is more about in my opinion a lack of respect for the coach that can happen in any team not this engrained player power culture of the brumbies set up that i think is exaggerated. I mean the socceroos didn't dare step out of line for Guus Hiddink, but rumblings of dissent of Grahame Arnold's authoirty in the disastourous 2007 Asian cup football tournament , there were wispers everywhere in that 2007 tournament, and to a lesser extent Pim Verbeek in South Afirca 2010 Football World cup., about not being happy with hsi tactics. And Jose Mournino or SIr Alex Ferguson rarely are questioned by the senior players and when they have been eg David beckham, the players supported Sir Alex. So in reality here it happens in all pro sports teams, winning or losing the dressing room, and Rocky Elsom i don't hear him beng so authoritarian and disrespectful to Robbie Deans. The only 1 questioning Robbie Deans is Giteau and he doesn't have the senior players support or the young guns coming through Robbie deans has. So Andy Frieind simply for whatever reason wasn't right with the current cultral style at the Brumbies or quite simply is not currently or never will be good enough to be a Head Coach at Super 15 level .
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
Not by reference to The Art of War or some public service codefied manual. Brett McKay touched on a centrally important point "If a team is on an upward tragectory, enjoying success, and generally tipped for glory, it would be quite easy for a coach to give the players more input ..." - the antithesis was touched on by Vinay in an earlier thread, referring to Bob Simpson's uncompromising method when he was brought back to rebuild the cricketers. There is any number of iterations and few absolutes in selecting which approach is best, for teams and individuals. A Campese would switch off to a Barassi industrial grade rant but a fired up Billy Moore would break bodies on the back of it. Warne could place a bloke at exactly the spot for a catch and Keith Miller once famously said, when asked where they were to field, simply said "Scatter" yet they both inspired excellence in their men. What I fear is a couple of generations have been taught that, if it's not in the procedures manual then it has no efficacy - if you haven't done Coaching 3, 2 and 1 then you're not a coach/leader. That silly co-captains to the co-captain "everyone gets a prize" is part of that. The great Jack Gibson, a journeyman club player, set about reading, contacted great US NFL coaches, visited, observed, listened, reflected and put it together himself. Like Bennett he had an innate ability and instinctive flair as a leader (so few have it, in my experience - there is no single leadership encyclopedia). Warren Ryan never stopped adjusting at the margin. There was no TAFE course back then. Nathan and Brett exchanged information earlier in this thread that in NZ rugby there are no doubts who is in charge. That's been my observation too. A mate who played under Gibson at Easts said you didn't speak unless spoken to, he told them exactly what he wanted and only Allan McKean had free reign "because you're going to do only what pops in your head at the time no matter what I tell you." As tough and confident and talented as those blokes were they trusted their coach, he was the boss and that was that - and their regard for him lasted longer than a Twitter thought bubble. Even the entitled, indulged young also rans of this era will, I suspect, have been bounced right back into their box by Jack. Or visited by his attitude counsellors.
MM Fike
Guest
Good thread guys. Rod Kafer had my blood boiling but at least I now know I wasn't the only one. There was a degree of smugness emanating from RF but maybe it was just me feeling that There are several Brumbies players that I'll never look at the same way again. I wonder how Wayne Bennet, the famed rugby league coach, would have handled the situation at the Brumbies?
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
These sorts of fads go in cycles. One team has success, some bright spark says it's all to do with devolving responsibility, giving the players the authority to make certain decisions about how the game plan unfolds, to even change things mid stream, empowerment is the buzzword of the day - and all of a sudden, the whole comp reckons they need to catch up to the team setting the pace. Within 12 months, another team (or even the same team) has imploded because the coaching staff have lost all authority, the team lacks discipline, players are doing whatever pops into their head, there's no team cohesion, players are playing for themselves first, the team ethic has been thrown out the window, and all of a sudden, player empowerment doesn't sound like a crash hot idea.
Ben J
Guest
This Brumbie side is simply not good enough to emulate earlier sides in using "player power". Sorry Rod Kafer, lost a bit of respect there.
Rickety Knees
Roar Guru
Absolutely PW
Peter West
Guest
Spot on Mac31, the more this subject is discussed the less sense it makes
Mac31
Guest
What exactly are Stephen Larkhams coaching credentials? Am I correct in saying he earned his coaching stripes in Japan? Seems that he's earnt the mantle of "Attack" coach at a Super Rugby franchise relatively easily. The Brumbies should be careful of what they wish for if, as it appears the bulk of their coaching staff is made of former legends of the club. History shows that the alot of our greatest coaches are not always champion players. Rod McQueen and Bob Dwyer are two who spring to mind who by their own admission were good, but not great players. Wayne Bennett, far and away the best coach in Rugby League was a fine but not great player. Great players don't always make great coaches. Surely Stephen Larkham should be given a chance to prove himself as a coach before being given such lofty responsibilities. Coaching is not just about being able to play the game....communication, organisation, delegation and man management are major components of a coaches arsenal. Has Stephen Larkham proven he possesses those qualities yet? The last word...coaching by committee doesn't work, someone has to be in charge. Even though Rod McQueen encouraged player input those who have really read his book would be under no illusions as to who was really in charge. As far as Rod Kafer is concerned he is a fine analyst and respected thinker (his views on Matt Giteau are spot on) on the game BUT it is far easier to stand back and dispassionately dissect a game in a television studio than it is to live with that game, team and players week in week out and live and die by those results as a coach must do. Seems to me our commentators and analysts have a fairly easy job in comparison to our coaches. The Brumbies enjoyed over 70% possession against the Rebels and still lost. This can hardly be a ringing endorsement of their attack as overseen by their rookie attack coach, Stephen Larkham and yet he kept his job. Comparing the team Rod McQueen built to the one that exists today is a futile exercise. However, I doubt he would be terribly proud of what has gone in Canberra this week. That some of his former disciples have taken his original vision and dsitorted it into this "player driven" culture where accountability only really rests with one person is disappointing. For a club once respected and admired for it's creativity and innovation it is sad to see them in everyone's thoughts for all the wrong reasons.
Rickety Knees
Roar Guru
So Friend is a good bloke and the tactics are right - give me a break - what the f*&k is the problem - is he wearing the wrong underarm deoderant?
sheek
Guest
Spencer - true, maturity is important to the equation.
Gatesy
Guest
I just watched the Stephen Hoiles interview on the Rugby Club show. He was at pains to point out that Andy Friend was a good bloke and open to the players, so what exactly is it that was the problem? When asked about their playing style he virtually said: .."no we;re not going to do anything different .. we just want to able to finish better..." No doubt that has to happen, but how can the coach influence that, other than by the way he uses his bench? I've been trying to read between the lines in all of this and I still can't make any sense of it.
PeterK
Roar Guru
They underperformed in that they should of won 2000, very stupid play lost it to them. Additionally with a very very strong squad they did not even make the semis 98, 99, 2005. That is underperforming considering the talent they had.
Spencer
Guest
To add to Sheeks point - Empowering people who are ill-equipped, or not mature enough to handle the responsibility is reckless at best. Based on what I have read on this topic, I suspect this maybe the reality at the Brumbies. Would anyone here have the confidence to hire Matt Giteau (or some of the others involved) to manage their company, our even empower them to make choices? I certainly would not! And yet this seems to be the undertone. Or maybe the "senior" players didnt even project forward to understand the consequences of their actions. Ah the irony - if in 3 years time Larkham and Kaffer are ousted by Toomua and Coleman. I wonder if Bernie realizes the damage that he has done to his reputation. Grow up mate - nepotism is never a good look.