• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Dictatorial vs Inclusive coaching

Status
Not open for further replies.

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Macqueen
White
His Cliveness
Sir Henry
McGeechan
McKenzie - only to preempt Scotty having a moment but seriously not quite at the level of this lot but he is the next Wob coach so let's 'ave i'm :)

I'm going to guess a bit, but I reckon the above were inclusive and surrounded themselves with a good team. The others, like Mallett and Christie, I don't know enough about their methods to say one way or the other. Saffers might say that White was dictatorial, but I reckon his coaching improved considerably once he got his mate Eddie Jones involved as a consultant. MacQueen and Lord Bald set the new standard in terms of coaching as a team, IMHO, with their "manager" style approach and specialist consultants. I'm not 100% sure I favour such a hands off approach BTW, but it worked for those guys.
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
If you want to effect real change at an international level, you HAVE to be the manager.

Look at what MacQueen did, look at what Woodward did, look at what Ted has done with his team. Now look at what Deans has done.

I actually don't think this is a "style" discussion, but actually a right and wrong discussion as you simply cannot manage all of the factors at the international level and get ahead of the game without such an approach.

my thoughts here http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/john-oneill/
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Hornet:

Actually traditional SA style coaching was always very dictatorial. It's a cultural thing. Staunch Afrikaner finger wagging my way or bust.

That changed with the likes of Mallet (White was his technical advisor), White himself, Heyneke Meyer at the Bulls. Moved with the times.

I think giving Eddie credit for radically improving Jake's coaching is a bit far fetched. Eddie had a specific brief in the World Cup over about three weeks. But that's another discussion.

The bottom line is Jake White has enough confidence in his own style and ability to bring in other strong characters and being able to management them in context of the overall strategy. That is the mark of a good modern coach (or any manager) I reckon.

Almost a case of an inclusive style with lots of very clear delegation but there is massive accountability and everyone know where the buck stops. Sir Henry seems very much in that mold from what I can see but not sure.
 

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Hornet:

Actually traditional SA style coaching was always very dictatorial. It's a cultural thing. Staunch Afrikaner finger wagging my way or bust.

That changed with the likes of Mallet (White was his technical advisor), White himself, Heyneke Meyer at the Bulls. Moved with the times.

I think giving Eddie credit for radically improving Jake's coaching is a bit far fetched. Eddie had a specific brief in the World Cup over about three weeks. But that's another discussion.

The bottom line is Jake White has enough confidence in his own style and ability to bring in other strong characters and being able to management them in context of the overall strategy. That is the mark of a good modern coach (or any manager) I reckon.

Almost a case of an inclusive style with lots of very clear delegation but there is massive accountability and everyone know where the buck stops. Sir Henry seems very much in that mold from what I can see but not sure.


I don't doubt for one minute that the traditional Afrikaner method is exactly as you describe, very top down. Without wanting to engage in a stereotype here, I would imagine that this part of the culture in South Africa to some degree. In management terms it's called "high power distance".

I still reckon Eddie had a positive effect on White's coaching and the quality of their backline play did improve in the brief time he was with the team.

The rest of your post I agree with totally.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Who would we consider to some of the most successful coaches in the history of the game? And not just international.

Not just win/loss but big achievements. Now what were their styles?

Macqueen
White
His Cliveness
Sir Henry
Kitch Christie
Guy Noves (Toulouse)
Nic Mallet
Cheika
Laporte
McGeechan
McKenzie - only to preempt Scotty having a moment but seriously not quite at the level of this lot but he is the next Wob coach so let's 'ave i'm :)

Let's not debate who was the best and derail the thread. If I missed a name or two let's add them but let's not go over the top arguing the point.

So what are the styles of this lot?

Interested to see what you guys think.

A moment about a Victorian? Give me a break.

Missing knuckles but including Cheika on the other hand..... :)
 

chasmac

Alex Ross (28)
I'd be interested in any thoughts on coaching styles that have got results outside of rugby.
The NRL have got some big names with Des Hasler, Craig Bellamy, Mal Meninga, and Wayne Bennett all enjoying successes over the years.
Brian Smith on the other hand seems to be a fix it man but unable to get the ultimate prize. Come to think of it, Brian Smith reminds me of Eddie Jones; very dictatorial.

The other aspect worth discussing is horses for courses; Does a certain style fit one group better than another group. E.G. Rick Charlesworth coached Aussie Womens Hockey to Gold at the Sydney Olympics. The mens team managed bronze this year in London
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Head Coach must be a Dictator, but the best Dictators give the impression that they are inclusive. Best of both worlds.

They tell the assistants WHAT must be achieved, and leave it up to the assistants to establish HOW thay will achieve WHAT the Head Coach has directed them to achieve.

There may be some consultation with the subordinates (inclusiveness) while the Head Coach is establishing WHAT must be achieved, but ultimately the Head Coach (Dictator) is responsible for the results of their Coaching Team. This may be seen as inclusiveness, and it may well be so, but to this black duck that is just a sound decision making process.

Head Coaches who get too involved in the HOW, and the WHAT, typically end up getting lost in the minute detail, achieving diddley squat.
 

James Buchanan

Trevor Allan (34)
The weird thing about this whole conversation is that 6 years ago, many of the people who are lambasting Deans for being too 'dictatorial' were having a go at Connolly for 'not being directly involved enough with the players'.

Seems a bit of trying to have it both ways to me.
 

chasmac

Alex Ross (28)
Head Coach must be a Dictator, but the best Dictators give the impression that they are inclusive. Best of both worlds.

They tell the assistants WHAT must be achieved, and leave it up to the assistants to establish HOW thay will achieve WHAT the Head Coach has directed them to achieve.

There may be some consultation with the subordinates (inclusiveness) while the Head Coach is establishing WHAT must be achieved, but ultimately the Head Coach (Dictator) is responsible for the results of their Coaching Team. This may be seen as inclusiveness, and it may well be so, but to this black duck that is just a sound decision making process.

Head Coaches who get too involved in the HOW, and the WHAT, typically end up getting lost in the minute detail, achieving diddley squat.

Hugh - Any comments on Rick Charlesworth?
 

Roundawhile

Billy Sheehan (19)
The view that you have to be dictatorial or inclusive is in my opinion a load of shite.

This is pertinent to general management style, whether business sport or whatever.

A manager/coach gets the best out his/her people.

The way you do this depends on the people you are managing. Pure and simple.

If you cannot adapt to the personnel at hand, you are not a manger, and you will not achieve your objectives.

The biggest problem with most Australian management is that they try to force people to work their way.

Management is about getting the best possible outcome. If that means you have have to tailor your approach depending on who you are working with, well then you are striving for the overall goal.

I am not talking about pandering to egos, I am talking about bringing out the best in the people you are responsible for. And that means treating peole individually without losing the overall objective.

The people who can achieve this are usually well respected and successful.

They are few and far between.
 
D

daz

Guest
If you cannot adapt to the personnel at hand, you are not a manger, and you will not achieve your objectives.

The biggest problem with most Australian management is that they try to force people to work their way.

Sorry about snipping your post, but i just wanted to reply specifically to the points you made above. Note that this is just my point of view and could be right, wrong or a bit of both.

I agree that you need to work with the team you have (at the start) and manage differently for different people. Some like firm direction, some prefer a more relaxed approach.

If a company has a poor safety record or is bleeding costs, a bit of "my way or the highway" is appropriate to right the sinking ship.

For longer term strategic vision, it is also about education and clear goals. I expect A, B and C, and here are the boundaries and constraints you have to work within. If you have good staff, once you set the rules and the goals, get out of the way and let them get on with it, and simply track performance and verify outcomes.

Give people time to digest, adapt and ultimately contribute.

Those that don't will either leave, or be asked to leave along the journey. One thing is for sure; eventually any manager worth his salt will have the team he/she wants; it just depends what level of team capability they are starting from.
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
Well, at international level, if hope to have two guys who could otherwise be Super head coaches working for you, I'd say you'd need to be inclusive of them, or watch them walk.

However, when it comes to players - there will be a few you'd want to involve in some decision making, but the rest just need to get on and do, and would probably prefer it that way.

The weird thing about this whole conversation is that 6 years ago, many of the people who are lambasting Deans for being too 'dictatorial' were having a go at Connolly for 'not being directly involved enough with the players'.

Seems a bit of trying to have it both ways to me.

Farque - you've got a good memory!
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
However, when it comes to players - there will be a few you'd want to involve in some decision making, but the rest just need to get on and do, and would probably prefer it that way.

Really? So, you've got a backline of, say, 10 Cooper 12 McCabe 13 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) 11 Mitchell 14 Ioane 15 Beale. Whose opinion do you disregard? I reckon everyone should have a say, and formulate the backs strategy together, with the coach being the guy who pulls the vision all together. I've never played rugby at an elite level so maybe someone could shine some light on this? But I can't believe that you wouldn't ask for input from the guys out there trying to make plays.
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
Really? So, you've got a backline of, say, 10 Cooper 12 McCabe 13 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) 11 Mitchell 14 Ioane 15 Beale. Whose opinion do you disregard? I reckon everyone should have a say, and formulate the backs strategy together, with the coach being the guy who pulls the vision all together. I've never played rugby at an elite level so maybe someone could shine some light on this? But I can't believe that you wouldn't ask for input from the guys out there trying to make plays.

From what I've heard you might be surprised how many of those you name might actually want to pipe up and put a "rugby intellectual" hat in the ring. You intimated this yourself on the front page in a comment replying to Hux's post about "smart rugby" and a current lack thereof.

At the end of the day, most of these guys are PHYSICAL athletes. No one says they're going to be brains trust members as well.

Link, for example, has been very clear in identifying that only a minority will want to be involved in more. Laurie Fisher said similar on one of our recent podcasts
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Gagger therein lies our problem - we do need a thinker at 10 because no matter how you play it I don't think it can ever be just a physical position.
If richie's right about Deans it wouldnt matter if we did have a thinker at 10 but I cannot believe Deans didn't tap into Carter (for one) at the Crusaders. I think it unlikely he tapped into Carlos Spencer in the AB's.
 

Jets

Paul McLean (56)
Staff member
Link has said in the past that Quade has a say in the backline of the Reds. If you watch when Sam Lane was playing 10 Quade was talking to him at every break in play. Quade needs the other players in the backline running the angles he wants so he's going to have to have a say in what's going on.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Jets - of course you must be right. How could the flyhalf not have input in the backline? (Maybe "If they are the Wallabies" is the correct answer).

Gags, Cooper illustrates the fact that there's a difference between rugby smarts and intellectual smarts. Let's say that I think Cooper has rugby smarts. I would be astonished if Beale didn't, as well. In fact, it generally looks to me that the backline are all playing their own style, with no coordination between them.

Gags - think about this. The Wobs are playing stupid rugby with a dictatorial head coach. Maybe they would play smarter if the coach could synthesise a game plan that emerged from the way the guys think they can win.
 
D

daz

Guest
Cooper illustrates the fact that there's a difference between rugby smarts and intellectual smarts.

The Wobs are playing stupid rugby with a dictatorial head coach. Maybe they would play smarter if the coach could synthesise a game plan that emerged from the way the guys think they can win.

Maybe the "play what's in front of you" mantra is really recognition that RD only considers rugby smarts?

Scarfy, when you say the Wallabies are playing "stupid rugby", I assume you mean "directionless" rugby. In contradiction, I also assume that the coaching staff pore over tapes of the opposition and identify gaps, weaknesses, etc to exploit, and work on that during training.

Am I naive to assume that a game plan is formed out of that, or does RD really just walk in 5 minutes before a game and tell the team to just go out there and have a crack? Simplistic, of course, but I think a lot of us are left feeling a bit dazed and confused after watching the boys play and I for one just don't understand how a team (preferred first 15 at least) of such talent can be so, well, gelatinous on the field.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Maybe I'm being naive, but I reckon the combined talents of any backline, plus some video, is enough to figure out a game plan. I'm not saying players can't be taught things, or have interesting stuff brought to their attention, I just reckon that the game plan needs to written in collaboration with the guys who are supposed to execute it.

I reckon that will give you a game plan that (1) the players understand, and (2) are committed to.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
Scarfie:

You posts above are excellent, and represent the discussion that urgently needs to be had re the obvious deficiencies in the contemporary Wallaby back line performance.

To echo Jets' and your points: Link has absolutely made it plain on many occasions that I've heard him in small groups that QC (Quade Cooper) 'thinks a lot about the game' and is highly active in planning and advising on the Reds' backs in particular and attack in general. But remember: Link appointed a formal, full-time, dedicated backs/attack coach in Jim McKay whom Dwyer and others has praised for what they have seen at the Reds. Excellence in back line delivery obviously must, as you say, involve meticulous consultation with the relevant players as the execution requires rehearsal, precision and rapid-fire implementation that means that any player involved must not only know and understand their role(s), but equally must be comfortable in being able to execute it. Fine rugby backs work by definition requires a recipe for collaborative planning, decision-making and execution - how else could it be given the nature of the task?

Now for perhaps the most crucial observation of all: Since Day 1 of the Deans era, there have never, not once, been a formally and clearly appointed backs/attack coach. Which other elite rugby team follows this pattern, where clearly in the Wallabies case the head coach assumes this role himself, directly. And does this highly odd construction of elite coaching roles not resonate with McCaw's precise concerns over Deans as AB's coach post 2007 and where further Deans did not consider it material or important that he took to his crucial NZRU final 2007 interview a statement as to whom his key assiatant coaches would be?

It all fits together like a perfect jigsaw. It's all there in the video, we're seen the pattern of quality Wallaby back line play gradually decay for 4 years. Just compare the Wallaby backs play of their home win vs the ABs early in the 2008 season with what we see in 2012 vs Wales and the ABs.

Now, whom did Henry recommend as his backs coach for 2008 and beyond? Wayne Smith. To see what a fine elite-level backs coach can do _in quick time_ just go compare: Chiefs' 2011 backs play and general quality with the Chiefs' 2012 variety. That upgrade - and to very high standards of backs play - was manifestly central to the Chiefs' dramatic improvement in winning the S15 this year. Who's the Chiefs' 2012 backs coach: Wayne Smith. Meanwhile, for nearly 5 years, the ARU and Deans have considered it perfectly acceptable that no person of proven credentials in the elite game be appointed clearly and consistently to this role.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top