Australian Rugby / RA

[stillmissit]

Interesting that the discussion about coaches overlooks Bob Dwyer. He was pretty successful.

Bob Dwyer was a great coach, winner of the 1991 RWC and also a fantastic picker of talent that could step up, an issue we have had since his time.

 

[wamberal]

Bob Dwyer was a great coach, winner of the 1991 RWC and also a fantastic picker of talent that could step up, an issue we have had since his time.

He was also a very good tactician. He fooled the English into believing that we were going to run them off their feet in the 1991 RWC, and we did the opposite.

 

[Wallaby Man]

I personally don’t think there is any correlation between having an excellent off-field culture and success. Although id like to perceive the teams I support to be anything other than good environments to work for the athletes/staff, I don’t think there is any direct link to the wins and losses column.

Some of the greatest teams have included coaches that have ruthless streaks and act tyrannical, just like some of the best athletes are horrendous humans, or alcoholics, drug takers or just so self absorbed they will burn anyone around them to get the w on the weekend.

At the end of the day all that truly matters is can the coach select the right players, enforce the right tactics and provide an ‘environment’ that gets the best results for the team. That environment might mean favoring players, boosting egos, pissing people off or throwing players in the deep end to think for themselves. Maybe with the Deans example of not been prepared is what was needed as he wanted the players to drive the sessions or create leaders.

 

[RebelYell]

I personally don’t think there is any correlation between having an excellent off-field culture and success. Although id like to perceive the teams I support to be anything other than good environments to work for the athletes/staff, I don’t think there is any direct link to the wins and losses column.

Some of the greatest teams have included coaches that have ruthless streaks and act tyrannical, just like some of the best athletes are horrendous humans, or alcoholics, drug takers or just so self absorbed they will burn anyone around them to get the w on the weekend.

At the end of the day all that truly matters is can the coach select the right players, enforce the right tactics and provide an ‘environment’ that gets the best results for the team. That environment might mean favoring players, boosting egos, pissing people off or throwing players in the deep end to think for themselves. Maybe with the Deans example of not been prepared is what was needed as he wanted the players to drive the sessions or create leaders.

I take your point, and excellence and class will always shine through, but I would counter that teams who over-achieve based on the talent at their disposal generally do so whilst benefiting from an outstanding culture.

 

[stillmissit]

rebel and wallaby m, It is a tricky thing and at its base is how to motivate humans in all endeavours. I found in 20 years of management, you support the guys who are capable and give the strugglers some support if they don't improve rapidly then cut them out.
The worst thing you can do as a manager is what Deans (from my read of Rodha) might have been guilty of, it is called the 4-1 Zap. It is when you tell your best people how good they are and how valuable they are, leave them to their own abilities and when they fail or stuff up come down on them hard. It is like a gardener feeding and watering plants that are struggling and ignoring those that are going well.

 

[wamberal]

rebel and wallaby m, It is a tricky thing and at its base is how to motivate humans in all endeavours. I found in 20 years of management, you support the guys who are capable and give the strugglers some support if they don't improve rapidly then cut them out.
The worst thing you can do as a manager is what Deans (from my read of Rodha) might have been guilty of, it is called the 4-1 Zap. It is when you tell your best people how good they are and how valuable they are, leave them to their own abilities and when they fail or stuff up come down on them hard. It is like a gardener feeding and watering plants that are struggling and ignoring those that are going well.

Robbie Deans was a hugely talented attacking fullback but he only played a handful of Tests. I worked with a New Zealander in the late eighties who swore that he was the best full back in New Zealand, but was just too adventurous to get a fair go from the selectors. If that was a commonly held belief it might help to explain his coaching style?

 

[rodha]

Rodha, very interesting regarding the culture and points to having a local coach who appreciates the history and responsibility. I will say that for a coach who lost the support of the senior players his record is pretty good. Compare it to Cheika and Ewen who improved the culture but the results went down. A very good coach is a very rare thing and that's why McQueens time is valued so much., although it bred 'player power' which undermined the culture. Ho! Hum! it's human nature again.
Your post stated:

"Moore believes the culture of a team must be set by its coach.

"The coach obviously operates at the top of that tree, that would be where I see it being really important," he said.

"Then it’s up to the senior players to really drive it."

I believe that Stephen Moore is partly correct. The senior players should set the tone and culture and not allow youngsters to get out of control. That is a big part of what a good captain with strong senior players brings to a team. If we want to employ foreign coaches and learn new methods then the senior players must step in and set the culture and discipline. Deans in Christchurch (which was about 50 years behind Sydney) enjoyed a playing group that was so thankful to get a chance, it was unlikely that they would do much to stuff that up, particularly when an AB shirt was a reasonable opportunity.

It's worth pointing out that with the Crusaders, he had a typical bunch of NZ rural characters, reserved quiet, low-key personalities, (think Thorne, Summerville, Franks types) a lot of no-nonsense individuals who don't question the coach or even say much at all, it's quite a bit different to Aussies who have a lot more confrontational, brash, louder and outgoing personalities. For a coach that doesn't like being challenged Australian players weren't a good personality fit. The South African culture, their player's personalities would have suited Dean's more authoritarian coaching style well. He would've been a good fit for Springbok coach, given their rugby culture/attitudes/ideals/values are more identically aligned with NZ's, in many ways.

 

[wamberal]

I recall that one of the criticisms made about Deans was that he expected his backlines to back themselves - "play what's in front of you". Whatever that means.

 

[stillmissit]

I recall that one of the criticisms made about Deans was that he expected his backlines to back themselves - "play what's in front of you". Whatever that means.

I went to a presentation of his when he was the coach and his reply from my very shakey memory was that the game is dynamic and if there is an opportunity then take it. The plan was only there to give some structure but players should be able to react to situations on the field. The Crusaders would have no trouble doing that as they were drilled like that. In Australia we seem to prefer structure and game plans, maybe if you let Quade Cooper loose in that unstructured manner he would be on his own and isolated more often than not.
We are and have been over the last 20 years, too slow to react, used to annoy the hell out of me how fast an AB will dive on a loose ball while we look at it.

 

[Dan54]

Robbie Deans was a hugely talented attacking fullback but he only played a handful of Tests. I worked with a New Zealander in the late eighties who swore that he was the best full back in New Zealand, but was just too adventurous to get a fair go from the selectors. If that was a commonly held belief it might help to explain his coaching style?

Wamberal, don't know who the kiwi who told you he was too adventurous, I'm assuming a Cantabarian, he was injured and was replaced by a exciting skilled fullback, and had trouble getting back in. He I thought was a good fullback, but not a real excitement machine.

 

[Dan54]

I went to a presentation of his when he was the coach and his reply from my very shakey memory was that the game is dynamic and if there is an opportunity then take it. The plan was only there to give some structure but players should be able to react to situations on the field. The Crusaders would have no trouble doing that as they were drilled like that. In Australia we seem to prefer structure and game plans, maybe if you let Quade Cooper loose in that unstructured manner he would be on his own and isolated more often than not.
We are and have been over the last 20 years, too slow to react, used to annoy the hell out of me how fast an AB will dive on a loose ball while we look at it.

Yep was very much coached even at club level, skills are everything, have some moves, but basically use the skills toplay what needs to be played.
A coach shouldn't have to tell you how to play the game, he should make sure you got the weapons to do it. The opposition should decide how you play the game.

 

[wamberal]

Wamberal, don't know who the kiwi who told you he was too adventurous, I'm assuming a Cantabarian, he was injured and was replaced by a exciting skilled fullback, and had trouble getting back in. He I thought was a good fullback, but not a real excitement machine.

Yep, he was a Canterbury man. He had a very intense personality and got wound up about Deans. This was back in the mid eighties, I knew very little about New Zealand rugby, I had just returned to Australia after a long spell in Asia.

 

[Dan54]

Yep, he was a Canterbury man. He had a very intense personality and got wound up about Deans. This was back in the mid eighties, I knew very little about New Zealand rugby, I had just returned to Australia after a long spell in Asia.

Yep mate, there no shortage of intense personalities down there with rugby. When the ABs were playing a test in Christchurch, Hewson who was fullback instead of Deans, they had people standing outside their hotel late the night before test chanting Hewson's a wanker.
And whe Deans missed AB coaching job, mates from Aus who were over in Christchurch for Bledisloe test in 2010 were amused to hear from a number of people they would be supporting Wallabies etc

 

[wamberal]

Yep mate, there no shortage of intense personalities down there with rugby. When the ABs were playing a test in Christchurch, Hewson who was fullback instead of Deans, they had people standing outside their hotel late the night before test chanting Hewson's a wanker.
And whe Deans missed AB coaching job, mates from Aus who were over in Christchurch for Bledisloe test in 2010 were amused to hear from a number of people they would be supporting Wallabies etc

I recall reading a while ago that the incidence of death by heart attack went up when the ABs lost. Now, that is intense!!

 

[RugbyReg]

I recall that one of the criticisms made about Deans was that he expected his backlines to back themselves - "play what's in front of you". Whatever that means.

I think it was to encourage players to be instinctual and not overly robotic who just performed set moves in set parts of the field etc. meaning he was trying the de-program the Eddie out of us.

 

[rodha]

Interesting that the discussion about coaches overlooks Bob Dwyer. He was pretty successful.

yeah, although his tenure was split into two different periods, 6 years apart.

Alan Jones	1984–1987	30	21	1	8	70.00%
Greg Smith	1996–1997	19	12	0	7	63.16%
Rod Macqueen	1997–2001	43	34	1	8	79.07%
Eddie Jones	2001–2005	57	33	1	23	57.89%
John Connolly	2006–2007	25	16	1	8	64.00%
Robbie Deans	2008–2013	75	44	2	29	58.67%
Ewen McKenzie	2013–2014	22	11	1	10	50.00%
Michael Cheika	2014–2019	68	34	2	32	50.00%
Dave Rennie	2019–2022	34	13	3	18	36.40%

 

[rodha]

Bob Dwyer	1982–1983	12	5	1	6	41.67%
overall: 63.01%	1988-1995	61	41	1	19	67.21%

 

[rodha]

I think it was to encourage players to be instinctual and not overly robotic who just performed set moves in set parts of the field etc. meaning he was trying the de-program the Eddie out of us.

Ironically, according to Squidge Rugby, Eddie for the past few years, has apparently been working on a team that can change it's shape rapidly and instinctively when it's necessary... he's starting to implement unstructured attack... "playing what's in front of you"...

I guess the irony here is the contrast between Eddie's approach in previous world cup cycles... as back in 2018, Jones was holding back a very formal and rigid structured game-plan. It's entirely possible for teams to train that in secret and then just deploy it at a given moment. This time it looks like what Jones is holding back is something much more unstructured, free-flowing and devolved which requires players to think on their feet and make decisions for themselves.

In 2019, England had beautiful attacking strike plays but they came from a very rigid and disciplined structure which saw the team always do the same kind of thing in the same areas of the pitch. In particular a big part of it was kicking into the right hand corner but not into touch, forcing the covering winger to kick off their wrong foot for a net yardage gain and then run a rehearsed first phase strike play off a lineout around the 10 metre line. And more generally lovely as some of England's attacking moves were they were a bit like Japan's: built up out of very tightly scripted and choreographed individual building blocks so the whole looks fluid but is made up out of a collection of very rigid parts.

In contrast, according to Squidge's analysis, is that what Eddie is building towards for 2023 is something more like 2000's New Zealand style "Total Rugby", or essentially scaled up Seven's style, where there might be set-plays (TBC) but there are no set roles, and everyone is expected to be able to fill in for everyone else. That requires the players on field to make decisions rapidly about who is going to perform what role, it's not like in 2019, where everyone can just snap into the positions they had in training.

 

[stillmissit]

I think it was to encourage players to be instinctual and not overly robotic who just performed set moves in set parts of the field etc. meaning he was trying the de-program the Eddie out of us.

Absolutely Reg, Eddie was everything and the players were just the pawns in the game Eddie played. Total wanker and political animal.
Some of the players reports re running the game only on stats and from there he went onto scrums don't count for much in total game time and get the lineout over as quickly as possible, this took us to the poorest set piece team in the top teams. Penalised off the park in one game against England(?) due to our scrum being incapable of holding up.

Funny just stumbled on an article about Eddie Jones having England players scared to make a mistake. Didn't read it all. I've heard it all before in OZ.

MIKE BROWN: England coach Jones has created an environment of fear

I've spoken to a lot of people in and around the England set-up and it feels like it is time for change. Eddie Jones has lost the support of the public and it's hard to see how he can turn that around.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tomthumb]

I recall that one of the criticisms made about Deans was that he expected his backlines to back themselves - "play what's in front of you". Whatever that means.

Whatever that means? It's pretty basic. You can have systems that you can base your game around, but when play has broken down and its the 6th phase, there is no point running a random set move that the other team can see from a mile away. Players look for weaknesses in the defense and attack it

It's really how should be played by the best players