I for one would hate to be an NRL coach and Hagan is one of a number of persons that has to make decisions regarding the make up of the team.
He is the one who has access to the training and match videos, the performance sheets of each player and he knows the personal traits of every player at his disposal.
It is his decison to pick a team on what he believes to be the best chance of winning the game.
My biggest problem with Michael Hagan is his apparent lack of ruthlessness. He seems to give players too much latitude and as a result right at this moment, the lack of respect that the players have for him is glaringly obvious.
The question has to be asked : If Craig Bellamy was to take over this team for a month, how would the team play?
Would the individual players play better knowing that a huge spray and a demotion would follow their tardiness ? or would it make no difference?
I believe that we are witnessing the classic human behaviour of "while the boss is away..."
If your boss was away from work for a week and said to you - do what you want and there will be no consequences - what would you do?
If you are like me I would be doing stuff all ,other than playing cricket in the hallways and goofing around.
Has Hagan said this to his troops ? No... You sure ?
Maybe thats the message he has portrayed to the team.
What Im saying is that it is classic human behaviour to look for the easy way out, to gravitate towards a boss who is more than a friend than a hard taskmaster.
Parra went from a system under the 'hard taskmaster' in Brian Smith where work was done and limited joy was found to the 'absent taskmaster' in Michael Hagan. At first the players felt liberated from the oppressiveness of Smith and told one and all that they felt 'liberated' in the way Micahel Hagan coached.
Unforturnately the liberal attitude created by Hagan has created its own problems, players looking for easy outs are just not going that little bit extra as they have no fear in retaliation by the coach, from the coaches point of view, its hard to be everyones friend and suddenly turn into an orge when you have to discipline them.
The ability to manage people is the same whether it is a football team or a bunch of lads in a panelbeating shop. You have to have the ability to relate to the common man, you have to inspire and you have to have that aloofness that tells the troops - "Its OK to be my friend but if you stuff up , Im going to come down on you hard". Its this main reason why most workers dont like the boss.
I beleive that is where Parra is now. Hages has created a place where carefree is the norm and consequences are few.
To the players he is more a mate than a boss. He threatens the players with the sack but it is the same as one of your mates telling you that he may do something similar, it just doesnt have the same punch.
There is no going back for him and his position is untenable.
I was talking to Craig Catterick the other day and he told me that he was talking to Hayne before SOO 3 and Hayne said to him, "I just want to to do my best , Im scared of stuffing up " When pressed Cat said that Jazz wasnt scared of anything footballing wise, he was scared of facing Bellamy if he did stuff up.
Cat also mentioned that he loved his first taste of rep duties and couldnt believe the 'respect' that the players had for the coach who really took no sh*t from anyone.
Probably sums it up doesnt it ?
