Yeah it doesn't take a trained communicator to see Webster is a skilled operator, look at how many enjoy his interviews.
Stephen Kearney is a good contrast, he had those issues we all know so well in the media spotlight, but interestingly his fumbling words in the media were not the whole story. When there was a docco with prolonged presence of the film crew, you saw him with his guard down, F this and F that...no ahhh yeah yah know, and no process within earshot when it was just him and his players. So this just proves that it is very limiting to try to assess anyone without actually knowing them in the real world.
I would like to see Webster in action with no cameras and no media around. He comes across as as someone whose true self is closer to what we see than other people that talk in a media as part of their Job (Fonzie would have a better idea of Webster than I because he has talked to the guy off air).
The thing that separates Websters communication style from the others is substance. We have had great talkers without substance, Mathew Elliot being the most famous word smith at the Warriors, he would talk about the dna of the club, the furniture, he was great with metaphors and other advanced features of speech.
He was not wrong in identifying that the way the club was set up at its core was the problem (just look at how we are rolling now with good relations between the Owner, the Chief operating officer, the game day experience team, the medicos, and the Pathways and recruitment set up - in Elliots day he was fighting with a Womens underwear salesman in the Chief operating officers role, Wayne Scurrah believed that selling all those different jerseys every week was more important than winning, in other words the balance sheet came first, results second, and we had a criminally negligent owner in Watson that did jail time).
But with Elliot, over time, you started to get the feeling it is all words and not so much action.
By happenstance I did get to ask Mathew Elliot a question back in the day, I framed it in a humorous light hearted context, his response was unnecessarily defensive and he waxed lyrical while shifting the focus of my question to giving me a lesson on something so obvious that it was silly. I came away thinking....well that was a waste of time thanks very much for the Gas lighting - I get that at work for free.
Therein is an example of the difference between a good talker (Elliot) and a good communicator (Webster). One guy waxes lyrical for the sake of it, the other listens to the other party and answers them in a fashion that shows he heard them.
And this is so important in a New Zealand Warriors coach, many of our boys have been raised to respect their Elders and to not question. They are less used to being listened to than other cultural groups, which is why a good listener, is more powerful at the Warriors in the head coaching role, than a screamer that takes no prisoners.
The listening thing with Webster is obvious, effective listening includes feed back that shows you are listening to the speaker, which is why Warriors fans relate so well to Webster interviews (remembering that interview questions are 'our' questions by proxy, and we want to know the answers too, and so we react emotionally when a coach like SK was in the hot seat kept saying 'the process', versus what Webster does, addresses the question and by default gives the clubs supporters actual meaningful answers).
Ivan Cleary before he became a great coach had a habit of trying to be a faux version of Wayne Bennet with the media, when he dropped
Krisnan Inu...we all wanted to know why....that version of Ivan seemed to enjoy saying robiticaly that 'he knows what he has done. This seemed disrespectful to the people who followed the club whether Ivan intended it too or not.
Compare that to
Josh Curran under Webster, exact same scenario, Webster tells us he is in NSW cup to work on specific parts of his game, now whether that was the whole truth or not (perhaps he was on the naughty mat with his court stuff) what Webster did was to give us something, an opportunity missed by Ivan back in the day. We as fans would rather be lied to whether we like to admit that or not, than be dismissed out of hand.
Webster has a thing about not making excuses, and we all love that about him. But remember how he held a meeting to let the players air all their grievances about the Covid years? So he gave them a platform, he acted like a listener. Then he closed the lid and moved forward.
This is consistent quality of Webster, he will acknowledge there was a problem, but frame it in such a way that it is not allowed to be used as an excuse moving forward.
He is a bring me solutions not problems guy, and that is a good fit for our much maligned and hard done by club.
The way he talks reminds me a lot of
Daniel Anderson. Another brilliant communicator, another guy who rose out of nowhere and understood fundamental skills in Rugby league and the lack thereof in the NZ system. But Anderson went off the rails, he had a tremendous ego, Webster is not a all about me guy, he has not drunk the one team one nation Kool Aide.
Lastly, our players over the years, our brand, has suffered from serious trust issues. Our players are like foster kids getting shunted from one coach to the next.
Webster is a really smart guy, he comes in and says he wants five years with the players, that is the most crude and obvious way to say to them I want to coach you blokes, and now that he has a top four side, his sermons are word.
I believe Ivan is the coach he is now because his Son was playing league, he is a more relaxed and interesting guy than he was here, that is the interpersonal element, the being real part of being a father, and Webster has those qualities already as part of who he is.
