David Kirk speaks out on Ardie Savea rumours after Robertson's exit

Hmm well my comment wasn’t really about Wayne, it was about a different trifecta doing the same thing these guys did. You’re right, Wayne would be the most qualified and of least worry from that last leadership group.

Well the more comments I read the more rumours are saying this was a kneejerk reaction. Of course as I’ve read regarding how Razor might have responded to Kirk’s probing, we don’t really know how it played out. The time factor though is irrefutable. One of the funny anecdotes I have forgotten to mention in other posts is that after his appointment he talked about having to treat the interview like an exam or paper. It’s like he doesn’t have in his head all the workings and pieces of the puzzle. Many I have seen just say he does the Crusader thing (not to say it’s not worth here). I imagine a meeting with the board about your performance would be much harder to prepare for something that look months like the job interview (obviously thats the test though). Trying to compare it to how the Foster situation went down is of course pointless.

I’ve talked at length about Razor’s advantage with being with the Crusaders in Super Rugby and how that differed from international rugby

But you’re not prepared to give him time to adjust? I don’t think Kirk would have held any such opinion like you do, so if you are right, you would be better placed to have made a decision.

I don’t know why so many people bring up the fact it was France C. Did other countries whos metrics you are surely comparing Razor against face France A? No, in fact the Springbok have had the easier of the July windows (ofc they also performed better, but as records go).

On your netball example, sure, but I am introducing parallels here for you to get you thinking. If its so different, drop it. Don’t even bring such a thing up next time. Those sort are probably far too gone to influence.

Kirk and Mealamu had little appetite for gossip or individual gripes, hence the questions were understood to be along clear lines such as:

“Is the gameplan serving the team well?”

“Is the gameplan adapting effectively?”

“Is the environment setting the team up to succeed?”

Wow. That’s ugly. I hope Paul is making that up and Kevvie wasn’t forced to ask crap like that.

Yes, I’m hearing the players didn’t want him fired, and based on what Paul wrote, you can see why?

To carry on reading your previous reply

1) Razor, despite being in charge of selections, refusing to talk to the players

I think you are creating words there “refusing”. I dont think the situation is as you paint it. From what I have read, from Paul and others, the simple addition of a competent replacements for Holland and Leon could rectify that problem. From the picture I and getting of Razor, I can totally see individuals going to him, being told that their specific coach is the one who needs to hear them, having the players walk off saying “right boss, I’ll do that”, and not reading the room that they aren’t going to do that.

As it comes to November, and some of what Paul wrote about the situation at that stage, it sounded like at the point the players had become difficult and he was merely putting his foot down. The longer this goes on and more I’m hearing the less positive it had got to decent at this point though (or at all).

That’s no easy situation for any captain regardless of what Scooter or Razor thought about that mihi

But it’s Scooters responsibility is it not? I didn’t even see the Haka in the build up to that game, and any of the news of it wasn’t interesting to me so I have no idea what took place, but I’m pretty sure I’m right in saying that the coaches would have no involvement in the Haka, that is something for the sole responsibility of the leadership group and Haka leader.

If you are critical of anyone following the wording of your comment, it is the manager.

Of course another person could have just said we have no comment on that, and I take that point, but this seemed a fairly Razor thing to do (be open).

ow demoralizing is that for any 10 on the team

You don’t need to go past the dropping of Dmac to make that point. But as a personality, it appears consistent with what I’m hearing.

Just like with the Fiji example, I think you are making a mistake of Razor delivering a message. If there is one thing you should take out of this whole situation, it’s that he’s not that deliberate.

I suggest you never read another Gregor Paul article. Razor was simple referencing something Johns said about rugby because he thought it would be a cool anecdote.

publicly going on about how he wants McCaw to unretire.

Or how unstuiable Ioane was? Everybody makes mistakes.

Take all that together, you have a coaching staff disconnected from a bulk of the team in a way that one could definitely assume that a decent chunk of the 20 or so players interviewed would have expressed these in the review.

What makes you think the situation was untenable though?

Two hours was the time taken to convince the board (assume he had already drawn that conclusion during the review), it basically means there was no push back, which could be for whatever reason. It feels like a week of him not knowing exactly where he stood any longer.

he lost the players by being nowhere near as competent as he promised he’d be

This sounds like a can’t see the trees for the forest example. Surely he only promised he’d be himself, provided examples of what he had done and achieved? He has 7 titles, he is not an unknown.

Personally I think you are mistaking them not listening to the players for not listening to the same points ‘again and again’. Small differences I know, but ones relevant to turning it around.

Ultimately I’d hope he’d having finally listened to the players and us but we’ll never know if a) he would have, or b) if his team had finally proved him right to believe in what they were doing.

A lot to take in here.

True Kev could have a certain sort of pull here, but are you also saying Wayne Smith doesn’t have mana, and a relationship with that players that has formed trust here? Bare in mind of course that Wayne Smith is more knowledgeable than Kevie, so plays may be able to relate more and express more detail. Why have you excluded Kirk’s name? Is it the same pretense to Smith? So you include Tricker, but wouldn’t include Wayne?

I think you might be overthinking this tbh. I personally wouldn’t have a problem with him either but remember that as a head coach himself, one who’s in the past been rejected from the job, it’s a bit of a different dynamic if he was the one to do a review looking at coaches. I only left out Kirk because it’s his review, it’s a bit of a given here, especially as the incoming CEO coming in to the void left by Mark Robinson. Also I mention Tricker because he’s independent from both coaching and playing for the All Blacks and is concerned just with high performance.

And the last statement, clearly unfit for the job for a while.. so that’s a yes and a no answer? You’d trust him based on proven performance only, yet you are happy to accept what a new employee or w/e does like Kirk? That sounds like double standards to me and it’s not actually the process you are happy with, which leads me to believe you might also have been happy with the netball bosses actions if you had faith in him too.

If the question is did he have enough to go by to make that decision, then it’s a yes. The play on the field reflects a player group that clearly did not gel with the coach and coaching decisions. I disagree that it’s a double standard because we’re not talking about the same metrics. I’ve talked at length about Razor’s advantage with being with the Crusaders in Super Rugby and how that differed from international rugby and in terms of results and quality of output on the field, there is a noticeable drop-off there that makes the constant bandying about of the 11-3 record disingenuous, especially factoring in the France C team and the nature of the losses. With Kirk, he’s the incoming CEO, his responsibility here is ensuring performance quality and personnel so of course he’s gone beyond the record on paper like many of us have.

And no, I’m not happy with the netball boss’ actions with suspending Taurua, I’ve explained this - different situation, they took action based on the feedback of a much smaller group that clearly didn’t represent the team, not even in any season review period (in fact it happened just before the Silver Ferns were even due to start their international season). That was a poorly handled shitshow and I only pointed it out because people are acting like it’s the same thing. They did an actual knee-jerk reaction, Kirk and crew took a definitive decision based on information gathered from a wide range of important voices within the organisation and the fact that it “only” l took them 2 hours likely just reflected how widespread the negativity was.

And yes, I definitively agree with it and have just been explaining them for you. I’d assume that if the players didn’t try the same thing to save Razor then clearly he didn’t establish any sort of rapport with them in the way Foster did.

There was another Gregor Paul Premium article that came out a day earlier that shed some light into the process itself:

Kirk and Mealamu had little appetite for gossip or individual gripes, hence the questions were understood to be along clear lines such as:

“Is the gameplan serving the team well?”

“Is the gameplan adapting effectively?”

“Is the environment setting the team up to succeed?”

Straight questions got honest answers from a playing group who care deeply about legacy and want a high-performance environment in which they feel the team is set up to succeed.

Between the findings of the review, the team’s patchy performances and the board’s intuitive sense of Robertson’s competencies and capabilities, the decision was made to terminate his contract. It is believed that one of the most significant findings/failings that the review uncovered was confusion around the coaching structure, division of labour and who held responsibility for what. The unusual set-up of Robertson styling himself as culture coach was something the Herald highlighted several times last year, and it would appear that the review found that players were confused by the lack of clarity. The idea that Savea somehow got Robertson fired is preposterous, as is the characterisation that player power led to the coach’s demise.

Obviously this is still withholding a lot of confidential information that would probably throw certain players under the bus but definitely sounds like a far cry from players’ egos just not wanting to work with Razor - the environment clearly wasn’t a great one to play in.

it was Keven Mealamu, a player with a lot of mana whom I’d assume a lot of players would be happy being honest towards and Don Tricker, someone with a long history in high performance, including when NZ Rugby was at its peak. Robinson has been clearly unfit for the CEO job for a while.

A lot to take in here.

True Kev could have a certain sort of pull here, but are you also saying Wayne Smith doesn’t have mana, and a relationship with that players that has formed trust here? Bare in mind of course that Wayne Smith is more knowledgeable than Kevie, so plays may be able to relate more and express more detail. Why have you excluded Kirk’s name? Is it the same pretense to Smith? So you include Tricker, but wouldn’t include Wayne?

And the last statement, clearly unfit for the job for a while.. so that’s a yes and a no answer? You’d trust him based on proven performance only, yet you are happy to accept what a new employee or w/e does like Kirk? That sounds like double standards to me and it’s not actually the process you are happy with, which leads me to believe you might also have been happy with the netball bosses actions if you had faith in him too.

This feeling is what I expressed in the uncertainty of the process. I’m not sure they did the right thing and your response only enforces that.

Are you happy to just openly come out and say that your happy Kirk just decided to get rid of Razor, no mucking around though? As in you’re not trying to sugar coat things (you may have just been explaining them for my benefit etc).

I’m not a fan of Fozzie myself but if the players were willing to have a meeting about him, then you’d assume that if they interviewed 20 players about him in an end of season review, that the feedback would be far different from what it was with Razor.

They did interview the players, their review (at the same time) was probably worse than Razors (given the actual feedback we know it had). The point is that Robinson did not make the decision as hastily, so Razor could have had another 20 players coming out defending him if given the same opportunity.

Poor communication

Not enough staff

low trust

What from?

favouritism

Who, Dmac?

conflict avoidance

Or being fed up with the players attitudes, repeatedly telling them who to talk to. Actually on that one, I assume you’re referring to the talk that he wouldn’t listen to the players in November, and wasn’t that when the news and commotion started about who’s got what responsibilities in the coaching group? Sheds a whole lot more like on how unusually forthcoming Razor was in acknowledging he doesn’t do anything rugbywise.

You might also recall me saying he sounded far more calm and open towards the end of that tour. I wonder if it had anything to do the offload of those duties, or that he had become aware for the players attitudes.

Not because of who was involved? You would have been happy with Robinson to send in Smith to interview the players and have him decide to continue or not with Razor in a couple of hours.

Except in this case, it was Keven Mealamu, a player with a lot of mana whom I’d assume a lot of players would be happy being honest towards and Don Tricker, someone with a long history in high performance, including when NZ Rugby was at its peak. Robinson has been clearly unfit for the CEO job for a while.

I take it by the same measure Robinson should have got rid of Foster as fast and not allowed a player meeting even time to take place?

I’m not a fan of Fozzie myself but if the players were willing to have a meeting about him, then you’d assume that if they interviewed 20 players about him in an end of season review, that the feedback would be far different from what it was with Razor.

Nothing in his article describes toxicity to me. Are you sure you’re not factoring in other stories you’ve heard? Paul of course describes Razor directing players to his assistances to raise matters as ‘toxicity’ when in fact or could just be the correct process, you aren’t listening to him are you? Certainly ‘unclear halftime messages’ is nothing like “implosion”, are you Gregor Paul?

Poor communication + low trust + favouritism + conflict avoidance —> breakdowns in relationships and building toxicity. The halftimes are an example because they both illustrate the poor communication and what really looks like tactical incompetence from the coaching group, which in itself would understandably lose the coaches some trust from the players, since players would expect to be able to trust the coaches’ gameplans being effective. But from there what else do we see?

1) Razor, despite being in charge of selections, refusing to talk to the players about their selections (or lack of) and delegating these to his assistants. Given that this is something he is definitely in charge of (unlike the game day tactics) and that it’s one of the most controversial aspects of his tenure, he probably should’ve been more prepared to do that. I’d assume that if some players keep asking, then the answers from the assistants might not be good enough especially since they’re not the ones picking the starting XV. So, in that example, poor communication + conflict avoidance.

2) The situation with Scooter having to cover explaining the controversial haka without his input. That’s no easy situation for any captain regardless of what Scooter or Razor thought about that mihi and the least they could’ve done was be on the same page, instead of he left Scooters to deal with it and he’s already proven to not be a great media communicator either. And on that note, Scooter’s captaincy when compared to performance as well, because I’d doubt that the fans are the only ones who’ve seen the dips in his performance.

3) All the Richie Mo’unga stuff, from the mention of him in the surfing interview, to him publicly calling for a relaxing in the eligibility rules to the point where Richie had to step in and tell the boys he’s not pulling any strings - how demoralizing is that for any 10 on the team, whether you’re a vet like Beauden or DMac or a newer 10 like Love? The optics of it is that no matter how good you are, Richie’s probably taking your job anyway (and no, I’m not saying any of them played amazing by any stretch). That’s like if Steve Hansen spent Sam Cane’s early years as a starter publicly going on about how he wants McCaw to unretire. Other players on the team seeing that unfold probably wont be too stoked either.

Take all that together, you have a coaching staff disconnected from a bulk of the team in a way that one could definitely assume that a decent chunk of the 20 or so players interviewed would have expressed these in the review. You might not think two hours is a long time to deliberate but also consider that maybe they’d heard the same negative threads recur so much that it made the decision that much easier.

I’m also worried that players and the process pinned Razor into a corner, and didn’t give him the freedom one would need to find their way through this process.

In general though I was looking forward to more real discussion about the problems, not this surface stuff Kirk and media have led it to. Like we know/think Razor wouldn’t bend to help, do we know the players would have bent their ego to continue with Razor? Is this just a money equation when it would have cost more to ditch players?

But clearly, Razor pinned himself into the corner here for the reasons I mentioned above - he lost the players by being nowhere near as competent as he promised he’d be and by clearly not respecting the players enough to visibly play favourites or communicate with them directly. People keep saying the players are having too much power here but respect generally has to be built on mutual trust and communication, even if the coach is technically “in charge”. If it’s so visible that they were regularly feeling out of sync on TV, then the players most definitely have been playing with a feeling of uncertainty throughout those games that would’ve eroded their trust in the coaches’ game plan over time and Razor choosing to avoid the questions and tell them to trust a process that they could feel wasn’t working is not going to help them trust that process any more.

Glad the woker has gone. too cuddly for his own good or our good. Savea is glad also as is the team. canary in the coal mine Macdonald when he left.

Hope Razor’s fans don’t turn this into a narrative about “Ardie’s revolt’ or ‘players’ power’. He was out of his depth, looked like a possum staring into the headlights from the very first press conference, and he lost the dressing room. The people who helped put him there are gone too - Mark Robinson, Mike Anthony et al. Hallelujah.

It’s easy to forgot how old… he is. 51 is late for a coach, he should have come through much younger with his record.

Frustrating thing is I’m still not seeing the right accountability from the top brass now that makes me think they would have made any better decision in 2019 than that group did.

This talk with Ardie being one, I really still hope he doesn’t mean nothing is changing on the Ardie front with these words.

In reality, this is all on Razor.

Were the results good enough - NO

Was the team making sufficient progress? - NO

Will that record defeat against SA have raised questions - YES

Will more coaches leaving have raised louder alarm bells - YES

Will players be happy in this environment - NO

Can the coach stay when that is the environment they have created? - Kirk just gave you the answer.

The king is dead, long live the king. Time to see who comes next and see if they can do better.

This needs to be amplified because people are already trying to portray this like the Netball NZ/Noeline Taurua drama where what was clearly a small minority of players raised concerns that were clearly blown way out of proportion by Netball NZ, leading to what looked more like a knee-jerk action of suspending her. Ardie was just one of many people who individually when interviewed expressed an opinion and it’s one that clearly recurred throughout the board and represented a big enough proportion of the squad to lead to Razor’s sacking.

This is all the Boks fault… they’re against the spirit of the game.