Coaches and their strategic approaches

[Gagger]

So I've got this half baked idea for a post and I'd be keen on your thoughts

One of the things that I think we've all noticed with the Reds this year is the way they've adapted their strategy. First of all to how the breakdown was being reffed, and then game by game: see the difference between the Bulls last week (ball in hand) and the week before vs the Stormers (territory).

Take another performing team though, like the Crusaders. From week to week they really don't seem to change their shape that much. They have a simple formula that they execute amazingly well, across the park. Similarly the Bulls of 2010 (different formula, but executed excellently and consistently).

So, am I imagining it, or are there these different approaches? Those that plot, tinker and change, vs those that execute the same tested formula, excellently.

Is one better than the other? Link's gameplans seem to be doing a hell of a lot with the lowest wage bill in Australian rugby, whereas the Saders sweep all in front of them, year upon year.

Can you think of other coaches and teams you'd put in either category? Dingo to me seems very much in the Crusader "tested formula" camp.

I'd welcome your thoughts

 

[Scotty]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the saders alter their game plan at some stage it us just that they haven't had to yet.

Personally I think if you have the leadership and nous within the team to be able to alter the plan for different circumstances then that us the way to go. Particularly during the regular season which puts you in good stead for any situation in the finals. You could argue that due to the young age of the reds they are a little more coachable and also a little more in the need of coaching in regards to game plan. The otherside of that is when the saders have the likes of Carter and Mccaw back on the park they have enough experience to be able to alter the game plan as they see fit if necessary.

 

[Langthorne]

Look at the relative strength of the Reds and Crusaders. I think that is a part of the equation. Was it against the Bulls or Stormers last season that the Reds pulled out every trick in the book to avoid a 'normal' lineout contest? McKenzie recognised that the Reds did not have the capacity to compete in that area so he found a way around it.

The relative strength of the squads dictates that McKenzie has to get the absolute maximum from his players, he has to make allowances for their weaknesses, and he has to indentify the best way to use their talents to undo opposition teams.

McKenzie's method probably gets results quicker but Deans' method probably produces (eventually) the better players and team - that is a big generalisation as I'm sure McKenzie does try to improve players and iron out their weaknesses, and I think Deans does try to compensate for player weaknesses and tailor his gameplan.

I like the idea for the article and I'm sure it has legs

 

[Ash]

I reckon McQueen is the "tested" camp as well. You can recognise some old McQueen hallmarks at the Rebels - higher retention, less risk as they try to build phases, more pick and drives than other teams.

 

[RedsHappy]

Gagger, an excellent topic, please persist! I'm always delighted to see coaching - and, generally, team leadership and management quality - analysed more fully here as such capabilities are central to rugby excellence in its various forms, just as you highlight.

Good inputs from Langthorne and Scotty. A (perhaps secondary) element I would add: you must also in this context IMO assess what I would call 'type of player feedstock system' when assessing elite team and coaching play mode options, as evolve over time.

For example, as we look at the Crus, one can readily see that the whole Cantabrian rugby ecosystem, the deep-rugby schools, the depth of excellence in local coaching, the intense tradition and limited codes competition, etc, produces a world-class standard of young professional player by about 18 years of age. The players are not just physically right, they are trained exceptionally well in their teens in the classic rugby skills at breakdown, ball handling generally, catch and pass, kicking from hand, pods of forwards unit play, the necessity for all-of-80 intensity, etc. So the feedstock emanating from this near-unique ecosystem is exceptional and provides elite coaches with immediate player balance, yet also with a lowered burden in support coaching of everyday skills execution, team integration etc. Genuine refinement and finesse of playing modes can be introduced sooner and more effectively. These 'ecosystem' and feedstock factors are critical components of the enduring success we see there, and the superb skills execution and consistency on display in the 2011 Crus. (You will btw note that RD's departure from the Crus and its minimal impact upon them as top class simply proves the enduring power of this superb rugby ecosystem.) To your more general question, I would argue that the better the 'feedstock' baseline of total skills and attitudinal excellence across a XV a coach has at his disposal, the more likely it is that he can prescribe a 'one size fits all' mode of play or game plan that kind of 'has it all' and can conquer via a well set, highly reliable, totality. Watching the 2011 Crus hold the Bulls scoreless and make them fumble every 3 mins or so was a display of 'total excellence, total intensity, total willpower', there was no need for much innovation in game plan was there? Blackadder's job is thus careful selection of the absolute best, subtle refinements, and ongoing team motivation to maintain exceptional standards in all departments.

The 'player feedstock system' sitting in, for example, the QLD GPS rugby network is IMO a world apart from that above. IMO, yes, talented rugby players emerge from that sunny, love-of-winning, running rugby (but forwards weak) system, but there is major competition from other codes, and I simply do not witness in that system a great degree of incessant specialised coaching that builds pre-packaged, refined skills execution across forwards and backs alike to the degree of the Cantabrian ecosystem. The upshot being that there are less truly rounded players thrown up into the professional ranks when 18 or so, and thus the task of elite S14/15 coaching is way different. Gameplans have to adapt to team soft spots much more, and rawer talent has to be seasoned longer, and team culture does not get pre-delivered from a deep. proven system, but has to be more gradually formed by the coaches. The coaches are also driven to build play modes and plans around a relatively small number of individual talents, vs the ability to rely on more consistent and higher average talent and skill level across the whole XV. In this situation, it seems to me that Link's job entailed a quite challenging combination of a major program of Reds' forwards renovation and rebuild (as the inherited at-late-2009 Reds forwards situation was a serious mess), the maturing of Genia, Cooper and Horwill as linchpins, and then the design of game plans that carefully built upon each stage of this team's emerging maturity and core strengths, but did not stretch the team to places where its skills could not sustain the plan. And in 2011, now that the support coaches have consistently built the broader skill base up, and the core best players have grown in repertoire and leadership on field, the capacity for multi-mode game plans is there, and is being used.

Nonetheless, comparing the 2011 Crus and Reds both v 2011 Bulls, the Reds have nowhere near the totality of individual player excellence and sustained, precision consistency in almost every aspect of play as do the Crus, so the coaching strategies must adapt to such realities, not fight against them.

 

[Scotty]

Look at the relative strength of the Reds and Crusaders. I think that is a part of the equation. Was it against the Bulls or Stormers last season that the Reds pulled out every trick in the book to avoid a 'normal' lineout contest? McKenzie recognised that the Reds did not have the capacity to compete in that area so he found a way around it.

The relative strength of the squads dictates that McKenzie has to get the absolute maximum from his players, he has to make allowances for their weaknesses, and he has to indentify the best way to use their talents to undo opposition teams.

McKenzie's method probably gets results quicker but Deans' method probably produces (eventually) the better players and team - that is a big generalisation as I'm sure McKenzie does try to improve players and iron out their weaknesses, and I think Deans does try to compensate for player weaknesses and tailor his gameplan.

I like the idea for the article and I'm sure it has legs

McKenzie's method seems to currently be the one producing the better players and team.

 

[Joe Mac]

I think the answer lies in the dominance of the team.

The Bulls had a tried and tested way to win games. They were so dominant in this approach it was not them that needed to change their game plan but the teams they came up against.

Same with the Saders. They are so dominant that the opposing teams are the ones that need to adjust their plan.

The Reds are a phenomenal team in 2011 but they arent specifically dominant in any aspect. Therefore they have to leverage off teams perceived weaknesses to gain an advantage. Because the different playing styles of the Bulls, Stormers etc we have got a great spectacle from them showcasing their whole spectrum of skills. This will probably mould into a more consistent game plan as they continue to be successful until it will be the other teams having to change how they play the Red's.

Its all Cyclical.

 

[Jets]

Or in the case of the Stormers attacking their point of strength.

 

[Gnostic]

Some coaches like to stick to a plan and not worry about the opposition. Some like to tailor a game plan. Both ways have advantages and disadvantages. ie:-
Fixed Plan:-
The Wallabies 1998-2002 had a fixed, recycle ball plan than when executed well was very very difficult to overcome. It however relied on a large homogenous type of back that we did not have after the retirement of Herbert & Horan. It also relied totally on the creativity of Horan and Larkham to break the line of the opposition. The Forward pack was designed to get parity and ensure safe ball. Speed at the breakdown was not needed. Gregan was the ideal half for this format. However when we saw the breakdown laws get reffed properly this game pretty much ceased to exist and such grinding play is very unlikely to be successful without regular infringement at the ruck like sealing off the ball. I look back on tests played between 1998 and 2002 especially against the ABs and see a penalty at every third or fourth ruck as the Wallabies seal the ball off.
The Bulls/Boks - kick chase plan. Again execution was the key and IMO two or three players in particular were vital. FDP, Steyn and Habbana. WIthout these three fit and on song the plan just doesn't work as well. Hence we see the bulls last year and this year struggling as Steyn and FDP aren't in great form and Habbana at the Stormers. Remember the Wallabies win in Brisvegas against the Bok in 2009 came when Habbana was injured.
England - 1991 they were expected to dominate and control games through their big pack. When they got dominated in Sydney it was a big wake up call and shot them down in flames that I don't think they recovered from. Regardless of the urban myth about Campo's mouthing off at them making them change their game plan for the RWC final in 1991 I firmly believe the 41 point loss in Sydney that year was the major reason they abandoned the tried and tested that day. If you go back and look at that game the English execution in Sydney was poor and if they had stuck with it in London I think they could have won that final as they improved through the year.

Many teams can only play one style beause they do not have the halves to play a wide game with any accuracy so they are restricted to a narrow driving game. Italy is a good example. Others have a kicking 10 or 9 with no chasers or a weak midfield so they play a pure territory game (Scotland)

Adaptable Game plan teams:-
Modern England 2010 - 2011 - is the field is wet they can play a tight driving or kicking game with selections to boost the skill/execution of the core skills required. eg Wilko for Flood. If it is dry the opposite.
Crusaders - they can play anything. The skill set is there in most of their players. As much as some would like to say it is because of individuals it isn't. The coaching systems from juniors obviously focusses heavily on skills execution. It does matter what the conditions or the pressure the execution rarely drops. This high level of skills execution means the players can execute whatever the plan is for the day. The other key for them is the dynamism in their play. Everything is executed with pace and power. Even the blantant infringements which they continuously get away with (only commented on by NZ commentators when playing against another NZ side) is done with pace and power. IMO they get away with a lot of this simpy because it is done with an air of authority, power and pace. The Official is left doubting what happened and lets it go. This has been a big key in so moany games.
2011 Reds - we have seen three distinct game plans assisted by selection, and not so much attacking weaknesses or strengths of other teams but more doing the unexpected. The Stormers didn't expect the Reds to get parity at the set piece and breakdown. They certainly didn't expect a territory based game from the Reds halves. Equally after the dsiplay against the Stormers and considering travel I don't think the Bulls expected the outright attack they recieved. It will be interesting to see what they roll out this week.

 

[Ruggo]

I think the HR factor in the coach's role is the foundation before you start talking stratagy. Link and Deans are excellent at this. It looks like there is alot of player imput in their teams but on the other hand both seem to have established boundaries where they can still step in as the boss. I think it is the cornerstone of why both thease players are fantastic with young and inexperienced players. They always look to command a lot of respect from thier players.

 

[RedsHappy]

I think the answer lies in the dominance of the team. The Bulls had a tried and tested way to win games. They were so dominant in this approach it was not them that needed to change their game plan but the teams they came up against. Same with the Saders. They are so dominant that the opposing teams are the ones that need to adjust their plan. The Reds are a phenomenal team in 2011 but they arent specifically dominant in any aspect. Therefore they have to leverage off teams perceived weaknesses to gain an advantage. Because the different playing styles of the Bulls, Stormers etc we have got a great spectacle from them showcasing their whole spectrum of skills. This will probably mould into a more consistent game plan as they continue to be successful until it will be the other teams having to change how they play the Red's. Its all Cyclical.

Gnostic: 2011 Reds - we have seen three distinct game plans assisted by selection, and not so much attacking weaknesses or strengths of other teams but more doing the unexpected. The Stormers didn't expect the Reds to get parity at the set piece and breakdown. They certainly didn't expect a territory based game from the Reds halves. Equally after the dsiplay against the Stormers and considering travel I don't think the Bulls expected the outright attack they recieved. It will be interesting to see what they roll out this week.

You both make some very good points. Linking some of these back to Gagger's searching questions, it might be argued that Link has evolved an emerging 'sweet spot' for deploying what might be called unexpected multi-mode game plans to undermine ' the dominance' of hitherto superior, or genuinely dominant, teams. The ability to have assembled the player skill, team integration and highly varied game plan execution makes for the required weaponry to undermine a team that is essentially quite brilliant at single mode, yet is flummoxed when attacked with unconventional plans executed well. There's no doubt you need an excellent forwards attack (only now really emerging consistently at the Reds) and sound set-piece to play multi-mode over a number of weeks, then the backs deliver a lot of the required versatility. It is also likely true that, a la the SA top teams, the better you get at your rigid single mode and successfully play that time and again, the greater the gradual risk that you'll lose adaptive flexibility and the capacity to quickly counter a well-executed game plan that is novel and unexpected.

I am not convinced that RD sees it like Link. I sense he's more of a 'one size fits all' strategist that favours a somewhat conventional, fast-paced and wide game that, in his vision, is incrementally perfected until it routinely prevails. Link's imaginative flexibility and rich tactical guile may be the superior means of undermining previously dominant teams, subject always to the ever-better execution of that flexibility.

 

[Gnostic]

You both make some very good points. Linking some of these back to Gagger's searching questions, it might be argued that Link has evolved an emerging 'sweet spot' for deploying what might be called unexpected multi-mode game plans to undermine ' the dominance' of hitherto superior, or genuinely dominant, teams. The ability to have assembled the player skill, team integration and highly varied game plan execution makes for the required weaponry to undermine a team that is essentially quite brilliant at single mode, yet is flummoxed when attacked with unconventional plans executed well. There's no doubt you need an excellent forwards attack (only now really emerging consistently at the Reds) and sound set-piece to play multi-mode over a number of weeks, then the backs deliver a lot of the required versatility. It is also likely true that, a la the SA top teams, the better you get at your rigid single mode and successfully play that time and again, the greater the gradual risk that you'll lose adaptive flexibility and the capacity to quickly counter a well-executed game plan that is novel and unexpected.

I am not convinced that RD sees it like Link. I sense he's more of a 'one size fits all' strategist that favours a somewhat conventional, fast-paced and wide game that, in his vision, is incrementally perfected until it routinely prevails. Link's imaginative flexibility and rich tactical guile may be the superior means of undermining previously dominant teams, subject always to the ever-better execution of that flexibility.

I agree. Deans is not Flexible. His selection policy proves this point. He has shown time and again that he will select for his mobility and speed based game plan at the expense of competing at the breakdown and set piece. Why else select a player like Chisholm last year? Why select mobile props at TH even though their srummaging has been shown to be weak? All because to select otherwise would weaken the running "work rate" game plan he favours. Even on a wet heavy field he has shown that he will not change the plan to suit and got smashed because of it. I was left shaking my head at the end of 2009 wondering where the vaunted abilities of this "Mater Coach" were. After the first tests last year he lost my support totally. He is a limitted coach with a limitted plan that gives the illusion of flexibility while not have the solid basis in skills execution and forward strength and conditioning to support it.

 

[Gagger]

Great points guys.

One interesting thought is about the sides that play a distinctive brand of rugby - say the Chiefs - that never get anywhere ultimately in the comp. Do they just keep on trying to play that same style better, or does someone figure out they need to switch up for different oppo, or even within a game?

Like anything in life, I think a lot of it will also come down to capabilities. Some coaches and teams just can't do more than one flavour

 

[Gnostic]

Gags, I think in the Chiefs case each year there is a fundamental flaw in their squad. In years past they haven't had the forward pack. I don't think it is the game they play per se but a real lack of depth. There is also a problem with the defensive system they enploy with the centres and wings they have.

A better question would be why the Hurricanes consistently fail. Looking at their roster they should have a better set piece than they do, a better attack and better defence. Yet they always play well below their capability as with the Tahs.

 

[qwerty51]

I don't think it's right to say the Chief's dont have a forward pack. In fact I rate them as one of the best breakdown teams in the comp. Their problem is set-pieces. They have none.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

Good luck hunting for a strategic approach of the waratahs coaching staff. Keep in mind "get the ball to drew" is not a strategy

 

[Bruce Ross]

Good luck hunting for a strategic approach of the waratahs coaching staff. Keep in mind "get the ball to drew" is not a strategy

I might be able to assist there, rsa. It's a bit long winded but I call it the first-past-the-winning-post-the-first-time-round-in-the-Melbourne-Cup approach. I credit our northern exile Gagger with first observing that in the first ten minutes of the game the 'Tahs play up tempo rugby that would stretch any team. If the other side don't put up any resistance then our boys are instructed to continue with Plan A. This worked brilliantly in the first two rounds when the Rebels and then the Reds didn't actually participate in the game. They were too busy looking on in admiration at what the 'Tahs could do.

If, on the other hand, the opposition muscle up, well our coaches haven't actually got around to sorting that one out yet. But rest assured that the Hickster is burning the midnight oil working on it. In the meantime, just do your best boys and try not to embarrass us too much.

 

[RedsHappy]

.....Like anything in life, I think a lot of it will also come down to capabilities. Some coaches and teams just can't do more than one flavour

Indeed, but as you'd agree I'm sure, a lot of coaching skill and strategies are about how you develop those capabilities, and the type of team culture a coaching group inculcates.
If you look at the Reds' 2010 players roster, you wouldn't consider this group anything like exceptional or best-in-S14-class. And in 2011 it's really not loaded with star players. But today the team totality as playing machine is looking in the upper reaches of class, S15-wise. Many not-a-star individual players have developed quite rapidly, and clearly, as B Dwyer has noted, the team culture seems highly motivated.

 

[RedsHappy]

I might be able to assist there, rsa. It's a bit long winded but I call it the first-past-the-winning-post-the-first-time-round-in-the-Melbourne-Cup approach. I credit our northern exile Gagger with first observing that in the first ten minutes of the game the 'Tahs play up tempo rugby that would stretch any team. If the other side don't put up any resistance then our boys are instructed to continue with Plan A. This worked brilliantly in the first two rounds when the Rebels and then the Reds didn't actually participate in the game. They were too busy looking on in admiration at what the 'Tahs could do......

Bruce, you are class mate, love your posts, thanks for contributing.

Keeping to topic here, are you saying that you have concluded that de facto the Tahs' 2011 actually have no coaches' strategy or, related, all-of-80 game plans as such, rather the approach adopted is one of 'selection is all' and then couple that with various loosely connected technical and training approaches that assume the innate talents of the team will simply find a way to win (when Phil is there to tell them how)?

 

[Bruce Ross]

Bruce, you are class mate, love your posts, thanks for contributing.

Keeping to topic here, are you saying that you have concluded that de facto the Tahs' 2011 actually have no coaches' strategy or, related, all-of-80 game plans as such, rather the approach adopted is one of 'selection is all' and then couple that with various loosely connected technical and training approaches that assume the innate talents of the team will simply find a way to win (when Phil is there to tell them how)?

I concede there could be a minor degree of exaggeration in my description of the Waratah game strategy, RH. Suffice it to say that if they had as clear an idea of what they needed to do throughout the game as they have of what happens when they burst out of the barrier stalls I'd be much more confident of how they'll go against your mob this weekend.