I think this is a problem that I'm glad NZF are trying to solve - for too long the Men's Coach has been the dictator of development policy and more recently regulations, this is the job of NZF and their high performance team - it's really damaging to the grassroots development landscape to have a "new" way of doing things every time a All Whites coach changes.
I for one welcome a setup where the All Whites coach can give feedback into a strategic plan but ultimately they accept the plan of NZF and their high performance team who are then responsible for the success and or failure of that plan.
I for one welcome a setup where the All Whites coach can give feedback into a strategic plan but ultimately they accept the plan of NZF and their high performance team who are then responsible for the success and or failure of that plan.
I haven’t got my head around what this Hay upsetting whatever the high performance section is (so a summary would help), but what do you mean by being a ‘dictator of development policy and regulations’?
Well it's not just aimed at Danny - it's been a problem of NZF's for many years that they seemed to not develop their own strategic plan but just relied on the All Whites coach to make key calls that frankly should be done at a board level.
For Danny the U20 rule is one example - love it or hate it, as All Whites coach someone shouldn't have the power to drive that kind of change.
Dale posted some info about the review summary including a link to a file which was an interesting read and touched on some of things I think need to be solved.