Mike Hosking: Only time will tell if Stephen Kearney sacking a good move

COMMENT:

Nothing wrong with sacking people, if you have the answer. So the question for the Stephen Kearney sacking is, what's the answer? Have they, by getting rid of him, solved their problem?

I don't see how. Is Wayne Bennett crossing the Tasman? What about Craig Bellamy? Some other coaching guru come genius who has that magic combination required to take a side with so much potential and yet so much inconsistency and meld that together for a season we have been waiting for, for over a quarter century now?

What you do get with singular ownership is decisive action. That's the beauty of owning the whole joint yourself. Robert Croot and Mark Robinson want results. They are known to want results, that's why they bought the place.

None of this is unusual in the world of elite sport where the model, generally, is of a team owned by an individual. You work or you're out. The EPL, the NFL, pick any of them, they all see a veritable merry go round of talent come and go. So let's not get overly involved or emotional about a high-level decision based on performance, or lack of it.

In many respects given what we have seen lately, it's refreshing. Megan Woods and Digby Webb are your similar scenario at government level. Of course, under the Ardern model no one ever gets sacked or held accountable. But essentially Wood and Webb replace David Clark and Ashley Bloomfield because of lack of performance.

Kearney's story is no different. But what's the Warriors problem? Inconsistency. Are they a bad side? No. Can they beat anyone? Yes.

So far in the relaunched season their record is two and two. Two spectacular wins, and two very ordinary, you could say, typical losses.

There are two sides. Is that the coach's fault? Is there something a Stephen Kearney can be held responsible for? Same side, same approach, same plan, but completely different results. What part of that lies at the player's feet? What part at the coach's?

If Kearney wasn't liked, if he wasn't trusted, or if he had lost the dressing room, that might make sense. But I see none of that. I see a side that would do any coach's head in.

So does the sacking solve a problem? As of right now, no. Therefore Kearney is hard done by, and it's not a reflection on his talent or ability to get another job.

The ball is now in the owner's court. Is the sacking part of a well thought through strategy that will unfold quickly and become obvious? Or was it a fit of pique leaving a side without a coach and a recruitment headache for the rest of the season?