If John Plumtree does not come back with at least 2, preferably 3 victories on the road and end in the top 8 of the Super 14 log, he must get the boot.
That ladies and gentlemen is the bottom line in professional sport.
Forget sentiment, forget emotions, history, tradition or whatever we as supporters love to bring up to defend our teams. The reality is rugby is a professional sport and is measured through results achieved.
We can (and do) analyse teams to the smallest detail, raising (very valid) points on possible reasons why teams, or our teams, are not performing to their potential, or the way I look at it, performing to expectations.
You see ‘expecting’ specific results is what it is all about – potential is just a gob-wolly term that more describes our emotion or emotional attachment to a team than realistic expectation.
And expecting something is measured against specifics, or constants in business (of which rugby is one).
For example, if an organisation has X, Y and Z you expect a return on result or investment of A, B and C. Organisations however, as with rugby, differs, so even in the same industry (rugby) some unions might only have X and Z, so if they achieve A, B and C it is a massive bonus and they performed ‘above’ expectation.
But there is, or should be a definite break-even point, which will then serve as an indication whether the organisation, or union are delivering as expected, delivering above expectations, or delivering below expectations.
A practical example would be to compare the organisations or unions, Sharks and Cheetahs.
Compare the budgets, compare the resources, compare the markets, etc., etc. Pretty much what is done in business, and then judge results based on this.
A union like the Sharks for instance, with a budget to buy the best to not only manage (coaches and administrators) the organisation, but also deliver a product (players), is realistically expected to deliver the best.
Of course we need to judge and analyse industries in accordance to the environments they operate in, and in this case, the industry is sport.
Now sport is unpredictable to some extent, but not completely. In any organisation, including rugby there is a clear indication or measurable standard or scale which reads – if you buy the best, you expect the best.
Players and coaches can be measured on their ability, it is therefore not unrealistic to expect the best in their trade, to operate better than the average Joe’s out there from which they distanced themselves thanks to how they performed in their trades historically and their achievements.
So quite simply, if Plumtree is not able, for WHATEVER reason, to have the best in the business operate to the best of their ability – he does not belong there.
With the budget the Sharks have, it is not unrealistic for the board and investors of the union to expect specific results. How else can Plumtree, or Straeuli realistically expect to walk into the board meeting at the end of the Super 14 campaign to table budget projections to the board and investors for the coming season and expect to get it?
In professional sport you either deliver on expectation, or you get shown the door.
There are four positions in a rugby team you should have clearly settled players filling it. Those four positions are hooker, tighthead, scrumhalf and flyhalf. The Sharks are tucking around with all four of them.
Bye bye John…
Don’t know why the Sharks bother with overseas coaches and players so much in any case…
Build our own brand dammit 👿
Some where else it was reported that John Plumtree was offered a three year extension to his contract
#3
You have got to be kidding me … 😯
No joke. Read it on Supersport.
Sowaar as wat padda mannel dra….
Lees bietjie hier…
The Sharks bosses have refuted the rumours that coach John Plumtree is about to lose his job, and have instead confirmed the counter rumour that has been doing the rounds in Durban that the opposite is true.
It is true, as both factions of the rumour mill have said, that Plumtree went in to see Sharks chief executive Brian van Zyl before his team left for Australia two weeks ago. But it is not true that Plumtree was read the riot act and told that if he did not return from the five-match overseas tour with any wins he would be shown the door.
Instead, Plumtree was offered a three-year extension to his contract, something that should be seen as good news to those who have worked with Plumtree and know just what a good coach he really is.
By offering Plumtree an extension, the board of the Sharks Rugby Union appear to be acknowledging that the real fault for the current failures lies with the players, who have not played like a unit since the Springboks returned from Tri-Nations duty at a time when the Sharks, without their stars, were topping the Currie Cup log last September.
The Pietermaritzburg newspaper, The Witness, reported on Thursday that Van Zyl has fully endorsed Plumtree and scotched any suggestion that the coach might be facing the axe.
“The Sharks board have agreed to extend the contract by three years and we would not have done that if we did not have every faith in him as a coach,” said Van Zyl.
“Plum only has to agree to the terms now but we obviously want him to stay. A good coach does not become a bad coach overnight.”
Van Zyl said a similar thing in January when New Zealand newspapers reported that Plumtree was fishing for a job with the Hurricanes, who are changing their coach at the end of the season. He said a deal would be negotiated with Plumtree to keep him in Durban, the home city of his wife’s family and where he has appeared very settled and happy over the past three years.
Subsequent to that, the Hurricanes have announced that Marc Hammett will be coaching them in 2011.
There has been some uncertainty around the Sharks camp over Plumtree’s future plans. He is a widely travelled coach, who coached for several years in Britain after finishing his playing career in Durban and then coached Wellington in the NPC. It is understood he may want to take a sabbatical during the coming Currie Cup season. But the Sharks administrators do seem adamant that they want the man who took them to their first Currie Cup title in 12 years in 2008 to stay on.
Van Zyl also told the Witness that there was no substance to the widespread rumours of a rift within the Sharks team.
“These are the types of rumours that surface when a team is losing but I have spoken to Plum and he assures me there is no unhappiness in the team and everyone is focused on turning the season around,” said Van Zyl.
The big question does remain, however — what has happened to the Sharks since Plumtree had the no-name brand version of the franchise sitting comfortably at the top of the Currie Cup log last September?
Morne
I have it from a VERY GOOD source that the Sharks made a monumental Fopar in their budget forecasts (income) last season, and that it IS affecting the Union this year.
The same source told me that the Sharks HQ is a very gloomy, almost depressed place at the moment.
Unlike Doornfontein of course where everyone is smiling and happy with expectation. (A bit like the village idiot?)
7#
The solution is simple, retrench your forecasters and other dead wood and replace them with happy, knowledgeable and hardworking people.
I just do not buy this extreme crash of the Sharks.
Now it appear as if there are significant politics at play here (extending a failing coach contract etc,). This is the Bulls of 1999-2003 all over again!
Well lets try and simplify this situation.
Most people are speculating about Plum being fired and about the Sharks being an unhappy camp.
The rumours are gathering momentum and eventually it is difficult to really get to the truth.
As a front row man, I look no further than this foundation and the old sayimg about the most important player in the team being the number 3.
There may be other problems facing the Sharks, but the number 3 issue is the beginning of the rot.
A S14 team has to know who their first choice front row are.
They must then have a strategy that allows that front row to play as much as possible.
Tight head and hooker are both specialist positions and it is laughable to think that anybody believes they are inter changeable.
A good scrumming pack is like a good red wine.
It gets better with age.
However they have to play together week after week.
Go back and look at the Crusaders packs that consistently won the S14 and you will see consistency of selection.
The next problem is that you have to decide who your best hooker is and play him.
Your second best hooker sits on the bench.
This has happenned in rugby for years.
Unfortunately the national coach has had a hand in the mess that we are now seeing.
BJ Botha should have never been allowed to go to the UK.
John Smit should never have been asked to play tight head at national level.
PDV does not understand the front row and the loss of BJ Botha started this whole chain reaction.
If the national coach had kept BJ at tight head, Smit at hooker, then these 2 would be playing that way at the Sharks right now, and I can assure you the Sharks would be scrumming properly, Smit would not be under the pressure he is currently under, and the 2 Dup boeties are free to go and play wherever they like.
TH,
Wrote this elsewhere:
As much as it is the administrators responsibility to appoint the correct person as coach, the coach and his team controls the assets and effectively the product of the union.
Plum with his team, which includes all his backroom staff from physio, to bus driver, are responsible to get the product (team) to perform at optimum level.
Plum, the coach, manages this process and the people involved.
It is his responsibility to ’sell’ his plan, structure and phylosophy to his management (the union), which forms part of his appointment and all relevant KPI’s.
It is also his responsibility to manage the process and backroom staff of this plan or structure to deliver the results.
It is his responsibility to also manage the players to deliver on this plan.
From a resource point of view the union, or his employers give him what he requires according to his plan he sold them.
This includes a massive chequebook, facilities and tools to implement and execute this plan.
It then comes down to Plum, and his backoffice staff to firstly, acquire the resources (players) they believe necessary to execute this plan. This together with succession and development plans to ensure growth and continuity as well as a back-up plan (depth).
Secondly, it is Plum and his back office staff’s responsibility to create an environment for acquired or existing resources to operate (read train and play) at optimum levels (to the best of their ability), as well as ensuring his back up structures (depth, age-group level teams and players and academy) are also operating at maximum effeciency.
Another responsibility of this coach, Plum, is to identify and rectify any possibly threat to success of his plan or structures, this include internal management (support staff and coaches, either lack of or disruptive influences), and players.
Quite simply, if neither of them buys into the plan he has, they should not be part of the plan.
You see coaches today are not the guys 20 years ago that used to make us run out hills, steps or pull tyres with opfok sessies anymore – these guys are fully fledged professionals who manage processes and people.
So either as a professional he is able to identify, implement and execute a plan and philosophy effectively, or he is not.
This includes making tough business and rugby decisions.
If he needs extra resources needed to do this, he must incorporate it, similarly, if factors (players specifically) threatens the success of this plan, or does not buy into it, they cannot be part of it.
We must let go of sentiment in rugby – it is a result driven business.
Who will the dup Plessis brothers play for next..?
Any guesses…
Blouste@11 – Toulon 😉
Blouste@11 – saw you swimming backstroke at Voldy! 😆
Irish
Would’nt suprise me the least bit…
How are you doing ?
😆
Morne
Everything you say is 100% correct.
In the same way I am saying that the mismanagement of our front row at national level has not only damaged our scrumming internationally but a side effect is now the front row stuff up we see at the Sharks.
This takes nothing away from the responsibility of the Sharks coach to fix his own front row problems.
At the end of the day, the greatest Bok captain we have seen in years is now disrespected and fighting for his rugby existence, and this all started the day he agreed to play tight head for PDV.
11 – Blouste, How about a good swap, Sharks give you two for one of yours? We take Morne you can have both the Dup Brothers for free too and we would pay for Morne? Now that is a good deal 😆
Morne @ 10
The same can be said of any provincial coach / Union, except perhaps the massive cheque book.
16 – Tight Head,
I personally don’t think it has to do with Plum though, think it was PdV wanting John to play TH. Now we at the Sharks suffer for it.
TH,
Agreed
Scrum,
Wanted to incorporate the Lions into this column as-well, but I reckoned enough has been said about them in the recent past.
Also, can easily take a look at the Cheetahs and Stormers in this respect too.
I personally don’t think all the problems at the Sharks is just Plums fault. I think it goes way further than that. Just a feeling.
Puma.
Plum has to make his own bed and lie in it.
He does not have to follow the national coach if it means that it is not good for his team.
The tragedy, as I have said is that Smit agreed to play tight head at international level.
The whole chain reaction started right there and now we see the results.
Smit will probably not make 2011 WC 😯
22 – TH, Does Plum have complete control (selection) over the team though? With Van Zyl and Straueli there, not so sure.
The Dup brothers? Heard plenty too about them. Not sure if the rumours are all true. Have no clue but don’t think it is all Plums fault here. Just a feeling, it goes way further.
Blouste.
It sure does not look like it.
But then I would not like to see a national coach there either who disrespects the importance of the number 3 jersey.
PDV started this mess.
Puma.
As much as Plum is in the firing line to take responsibility,I think that he has had some difficult man management decisions to make.
The coach has to be responsible for selection.
That is the best way.
The Dup boets rumours are thick, however I prefer to not speculate until I know.
I do have access to some on the inside, however I prefer to not ask unless I am told.
#25@Tight Head
I think the only certainty at this moment is that PdV will be there…
9 – Tight head, Reading your post there. Agree 100% there mate. BJ should have still be playing with the Sharks and the Boks. Remember PdV never wanted him at the time and he went to play overseas. Think that what made BJ’s mind up and he left. Now we hear he wants to come back and really hope that the Sharks get him.
Just wish the Dup brothers would leave. Freestate can have them for free or any franchise for that matter. Seems they causing some trouble at the Sharks.
Would rather have John at hooker and BJ at TH.
26 – TH, Well just hope he keeps playing John from here on at hooker.
Now with his weight up what you think? Can he still perform well there? I think he can but you the know that better than anyone else here. Also Carstens for Beast for the Tahs game what you think?
Many questions to be asked. Why are we still playing Odwa? I would have played Mvovo. Also why did we buy Goode? Damn I never even heard of him or seen him play until last week, then only saw him play for 8 min. Lambie too such a talented player just not being used.
Then we also lost Frans Steyn why? That was stupid of the Sharks we should still have him.
Blouste – Good buddy! Busy but hey the sky is changing colour – I sometimes see the colour Blue and as you know everything about you and your team is Blue, so it can only be a good thing.
Users Online
Total 234 users including 0 member, 234 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,447,514 Page Impressions
_