Plan B

[Jiggles]

Like others I think having a ‘Plan B’ is an oversimplification. I think it comes down to understanding your own strengths, and weaknesses, which are generally fixed for the season, and knowing the oppositions, which change weekly or frequently. A good coach should do his homework; know how the opposition is going to play, and amened attacking and defensive tactic accordingly. He (or She) must be a clear communicator so every player knows his (or her) specific role within that game plan. The good teams, with good coaches, do not play the same week in week out, but vary slightly and accordingly. The best coaches I have played under are the ones who’s vision, for lack of a better world, are the clearest.

Sometimes players need to be refocused and confirmed of their roles, and the system in general. This is what half time is for. I think the Reds win against the Chief’s is a textbook example of this. The Reds made some great yards on the fringes of the ruck during a period at the start of the first half and showed a definite weakness in the Chief’s systems. However they lost their way when the Chief’s got a little ball, and became to rushed and frantic when they had it back in latter stages of the first half. The HT message from link was pretty clear. Trust your systems, attack the 1-2 channel at pace, the tries will come. And they did.

I am of the opinion, that there is no system at the wallabies. The players look lost at certain moments of key games. Play what’s in front of you means that all the key decision makers on the field have slightly different opinions on how to achieve the same goal, and hence we see the unorganized and rushed game play we frequently see with the Wallabies.

Sure having a clear and simple game plan is not always going to guarantee you a win, but it sure as hell wont result in losses such as Ireland, Scotland x 2 and Samoa where the way in which we lost was more frightening than the actual loss itself.

 

[RedsHappy]

RH,
I was using my job as an example to illustrate that experience counts, and in difficult circumstances, you draw on it, and my point was about senior players who do have experience, not newbies. And I absolutely disagree with the premise aired from time to time that the players aren't responsible, the coaches are solely to blame, which is how it sounds at times. We have Moore, Sharpe, Pocock, Genia, and to a lesser extent Barnes out there who have been around a bit, they've lost more than a few games in bad circumstances, so they ought to have some idea of how to adapt. Not just Pocock and Barnes. They've played hundreds of games of rugby each.
Coaches shoulder a lot of the blame, fair enough, but senior players should not get a free pass.

Cyclo: yes, I get it. Since I've been on this site, there is always a group that considers coaching a kind of guidance lite of only moderate impact, and that it's the players that should be most judged, and harshly if needed. But I always wonder, OK, you might take this view, but where do you then go with it? - write them a note, or a tweet, and send them some friendly instructions as to how to be more adept at tactical variation, or deliver enhanced skill under pressure? The point being: it's either the coaches' job to fix such flaws, or to pick better players, or both.......or do we just say we are not good enough at a national level if our senior players can't perform in tough Tests?

I offer you a complementary thought in this debate: it's not often in the Aus S15 teams that all parties agree are well coached that these 'senior player faults' re tactical skill, variation in game tactics in play, and general execution come up for strong critique. The fact is the same players move over to the recent Wallabies, and suddenly their capacities seem to dim as do elements of their skill levels. Genia Tuesday a case in point. Is this decline in perceived capability 'all their fault', or are other factors involved?

 

[cyclopath]

Well, RH, I don't think, nor did I imply coaching was "guidance-lite" at all, but agreed the coaches shoulder most of the blame. Quite different, in my mind. If senior players struggle to make good decisions, then yes, a simple version is for the coach to bear all responsibility to fix it, or dump them. I would argue the players are not mindless muppets, and ought to take some pride in improving themselves, rather than having to be told everything. Your model seems to imply very little role for player responsibility, and I guess we differ on that.
As for the next part - there are so many factors to account for. Different team, different players around them, in this case unfamiliar after a crap build-up (not an excuse at most times in Tests though), different structure of Test rugby to Super 15 and so on. I don't believe it is "all their fault" at all, and neither did I state as much. For example, if Genia is unhappy with the options presented to him, why stand like a meercat rather than tell them what he wants, or at least tell Pocock. Surely he knows what he wants?
Anyway, I guess we differ on this.

 

[Gnostic]

With all due respect, Scott, I disagree. If it all goes pear-shaped for me, the pressure is pretty high, and you don't get time to contemplate your navel for long. And it might be at hour 5 of a 6 hour op. And I am dong something I've been doing for maybe 10 years at the level I am at, having trained for 10 years prior. Not unlike a pro footballer. My point is, they have experience, and they should draw on it. They are not novices, in particular the senior players that I singled out. I think the senior players could do more. Obviously, I am not expecting Tomane or Morahan to pull it out of the fire. Others there have been there many times before.

And here is the clincher Cyclo. You were trained by accomplished people in your field, to lead and make decisions. What we see on the field from the Wallabies is paralysis and a leadership void. What we see from the coaches box is the same (possibly exacerbated by the yes men assistants with clearly defined and restricted roles) with poor selections for the game plan to be played, no or poor use of the replacements and no responsibility taken by the oach for these factors let alone the actual tactics and the way the players consistantly implement said game plans.

 

[Gnostic]

I have played in a situation where our 5/8 had good awareness of what was required and this was not in any representative teams.
Opposition scored a try to take the lead in the 75th minute.
Under the goalposts our 5/8 said deep kickoff to cornerflag. The intention was to get a lineout in their half from which to take a drop goal attempt.
All of this came to pass and the drop goal won us the game.
Point is; Even in the lower grades there are players with this awareness.
Do we have a situation in the Wallabies where the players do not feel that the coach has their back?
Are they afraid of the repercussions of trying something different and stuffing it up?
Deans always seems confusing and ready to absolve himself from the responsibility of the results.
The same team mentioned above managed to play different attacking styles throughout the season and we would use crtain styles within games in order to have these to use in the finals.
The Reds last year did the same with their game V's the Stormers in Capetown being an obvious example.
I think the Wallaby players surely have the ability to construct a game that ultimately wins the contest. Perhaps this is being stifled by the coaching.
Final comment; Eddie Jones was a coach that imposed the gameplan heavily on his teams.

I think the Jones method did indeed stifled the players, however I think the Deans "plan" is the opposite, the players are lost and don't know what to do. They need some structure. IMO Deans hasn't implemented any aspects of the Crusader's plan in Oz, show me where the accuracy of breakdown is, or the offload plays, or the backs working constantly off the ball? After 5 years if that was what he was working towards we would have seen a glimmer.

I also think that the players have no idea what the coach is talking about half the time, as most fans have never understood a word he has said. I also think as Mat Gitteau said, Its Deans way (whatever that is hence player's hesitation) or the highway/oblivion.

 

[Dan54]

Always rteckoned the Auckland (and ABs) team of late 80s had the idea. If plan A doesn't work, just play it better until it does!!!

 

[RedsHappy]

Cyclo, it was not at all my intention to polarize this particular debate in the manner that seems to have occurred via yr concluding remarks above, rather to round out the debate and closely consider the interaction between coaches and players in achieving quality outcomes.

Let me conclude my input with this: there is very, very little evidence that high performance, champion football teams in any code get that way without top quality, skillful coaches happy to take proper responsibility for the performance of their teams.

 

[cyclopath]

And here is the clincher Cyclo. You were trained by accomplished people in your field, to lead and make decisions. What we see on the field from the Wallabies is paralysis and a leadership void. What we see from the coaches box is the same (possibly exacerbated by the yes men assistants with clearly defined and restricted roles) with poor selections for the game plan to be played, no or poor use of the replacements and no responsibility taken by the oach for these factors let alone the actual tactics and the way the players consistantly implement said game plans.

And senior players, like those mentioned, have not been trained over a number of years by accomplished people in their field? Did they lob into Super rugby and Test rugby un-coached, and proceed through several more years of same with no guidance, anywhere, at anytime??
Anyway, I have a different view of things to you and RH, and that's fine. I don't believe it is all the coaches' fault, rather that it mostly is, and I expect the players to cope better than they do at times.

 

[cyclopath]

Cyclo, it was not at all my intention to polarize this particular debate in the manner that seems to have occurred via yr concluding remarks above, rather to round out the debate and closely consider the interaction between coaches and players in achieving quality outcomes.

Let me conclude my input with this: there is very, very little evidence that high performance, champion football teams in any code get that way without top quality, skillful coaches happy to take proper responsibility for the performance of their teams.

Who's arguing with that??

 

[Gnostic]

And senior players, like those mentioned, have not been trained over a number of years by accomplished people in their field? Did they lob into Super rugby and Test rugby un-coached, and proceed through several more years of same with no guidance, anywhere, at anytime??
Anyway, I have a different view of things to you and RH, and that's fine. I don't believe it is all the coaches' fault, rather that it mostly is, and I expect the players to cope better than they do at times.

You may have misinterpreted my meaning, or I was unclear. I think the players are capable, but have not been trained to play at the level they are now. Even those who were accomplished at that level are failing noticeably in key aspects of their play that was previously a strength eg. Barnes. I think that they haven't turned to shit or always were as some would like to imply, but rather they have lost confidence in their abilities as they no longer have tactics, squad selection, bench usage and quite possibly fitness to back up those skills. In short the coaches have not been equipping the players properly so their on field decisions can be made appropriately. To continue the surgery metaphor, you have walkind into the theatre to find the incorrect implements, poor lighting and no assistants, can you perform your role or will you be a bit shakey doing the job with no way out?

 

[cyclopath]

You may have misinterpreted my meaning, or I was unclear. I think the players are capable, but have not been trained to play at the level they are now. Even those who were accomplished at that level are failing noticeably in key aspects of their play that was previously a strength eg. Barnes. I think that they haven't turned to shit or always were as some would like to imply, but rather they have lost confidence in their abilities as they no longer have tactics, squad selection, bench usage and quite possibly fitness to back up those skills. In short the coaches have not been equipping the players properly so their on field decisions can be made appropriately. To continue the surgery metaphor, you have walkind into the theatre to find the incorrect implements, poor lighting and no assistants, can you perform your role or will you be a bit shakey doing the job with no way out?

Have you been spying on me at my public hospital? That's not adversity, that's the norm!
The serious answer is I get the proper stuff, fix the light, shout a bit and get on with it. Really.
But I take your point.