Plan B

[p.Tah]

Many posters commented when their team lose, “but where was plan B?” I am of the opinion that you don’t have plan A, B, C … as a coach you analyse your team’s strengths/weaknesses, the opposition’s strengths/weaknesses, the likely conditions on game day and hypothesise what game plan the opposition coach will employ… then you devise a game plan.

During the game, it’s the players who assess how the game is playing out. They then adapt (read “tweak”) the strategy based on how the opposition is playing. This is where the senior group is critical. There is no ‘Plan B’ because you can never calculate all the variables and possible strategies that the opposition will come up with. If you do you’ll probably confuse the players.

Devise a game plan, then adapt during the course of the match if need be.

I’m interested in other posters thoughts? Do coaches devise Plan A,B,C...?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I don't think there is a plan B or C as such. This concept is an oversimplification used by the media to try and convince the punters that they know what they are talking about. Think about the "Downwards pressure" crap that is parroted by the Foxtel mob.

Coaches develop an overall strategy for the season. That strategy is often described in a Playbook. This will have numerous plays (options/moves) for a whole variety of situations to cover all contingencies, some likely, some fanciful. These should be practiced at training until they are intuitive. Emphasis on practicing particular plays will be given depending on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the team and their upcoming opponents, and forecast weather conditions.

During Warmup, and Pre-game, the coaching staff are finalising the selections of plays. Once the whistle blows, the selection of the various options/plays is what is tweaked by the Captain and the playmakers on the field on the day. This is supplemented by advice from the coach (via the runners and medicos) as what they think needs to be changed.

As dramatic as it otherwise may otherwise sound, unlike the infamous Lions "99" call, there is no one monumental "Plan B" announcement made by the coach.

 

[Riptide]

Jesus, lets not complicate this. If something is not working, change it to something that might. What are the options? But, if it's not working and whatever you're doing is being read easily enough and countered by the opposition, then fucking change it and exploit what the opposition appear to be giving you!!!!

The Wallabies have not show sufficient tactical flexibility in game-time under Deans, which is infuriating. Does anyone need to be reminded of the Wallabies (Cooper et al) at the RWC?

 

[p.Tah]

Riptide, I agree.

do coaches specifically devise a number of game plans to take into a game or do they adapt that plan as the game unfolds.

The Wallabies have not shown sufficient tactical flexibility in game-time under Deans

could we say they are not 'playing what is in front of them'?

Serious question: lack of flexibility during a game, is that a coaching issue or a players issue?

 

[Scott Allen]

It's a coaching issue. You'd like the players to be able to change the plans on the field if required but if they don't, you step in as the coach.

The reality is as a coach you make your plans based on your best estimate of your team's strengths, the other team's weaknesses, how you expect the opposition will play and of course conditions.

I doubt there are many coaches who go into a game having given players a plan B because that would tell your players you're not sure plan A is the correct one.

However, if things aren't going according to plan I'm sure most coaches will already have thought of an alternative before the game even starts and certainly as it becomes obvious plan A is not working. That alternative can be relayed at halftime or by sending instructions out to your key playmakers during the game.

If you're ship is going to run into an unexpected Iceberg you alter the course, not just keep going with your original course that you expected to be free of Icebergs.

Unfortunately Robbie Deans was the captain of the Titanic on Tuesday night. I can't believe he didn't send out a message halfway through the second half to try something else and change course.

 

[cyclopath]

It's a coaching issue. You'd like the players to be able to change the plans on the field if required but if they don't, you step in as the coach.

The reality is as a coach you make your plans based on your best estimate of your team's strengths, the other team's weaknesses, how you expect the opposition will play and of course conditions.

I doubt there are many coaches who go into a game having given players a plan B because that would tell your players you're not sure plan A is the correct one.

However, if things aren't going according to plan I'm sure most coaches will already have thought of an alternative before the game even starts and certainly as it becomes obvious plan A is not working. That alternative can be relayed at halftime or by sending instructions out to your key playmakers during the game.

If you're ship is going to run into an unexpected Iceberg you alter the course, not just keep going with your original course that you expected to be free of Icebergs.

Unfortunately Robbie Deans was the captain of the Titanic on Tuesday night. I can't believe he didn't send out a message halfway through the second half to try something else and change course.

True.
But - I am loath to absolve the players of all responsibility. There were guys out there who have played a huge number of games at high level. Senior, experienced players have to be able to look at what's happening and make some decisions to do something a bit different. Do we really think McCaw looks gormlessly at the coaches box when it isn't going right? It's not like deciding to turn the ship 180 degrees and bump the icebergs away with the stern, but I can't believe anyone thinks the players can't make some decisions themselves. If I come across a problem during surgery, I don't throw my hands up and say "Well, that's not in the book, what can I do?". I draw on experience and work it out. Sometimes in a big hurry. As do most people in specific jobs.
Maybe they should be going out with some more options, granted, but I really think the responsibility should be spread a little wider.

 

[Scott Allen]

Cyclo

When you're performing surgery you're not getting belted from pillar to post in the pouring rain, driving wind etc. etc. It's pretty tough to make decisions under those conditions.

When you're performing surgery you're also not a 25 year old (average age of the Wallabies) who still has a lot to learn about life experiences.

Because you have the experience to be able to conduct surgery you probably don't need a coach sitting up in the booth telling you what to do next if you forget or make the decision that is not best.

The role of the coach in rugby is to equip players with as much knowledge as you can so they can make the decisions on the field but to then step in if the right decisions aren't being made.

The best rugby coach would be able to impart so much of his/her knowledge to players so that they make the right decisions on the field without intervention but the reality is that in any physical sport, decision making gets harder the more fatigue sets in.

 

[FiveStarStu]

Plan A: Win.
Plan B: Try and make the line bet.

 

[Gagger]

The team who most obviously has a 'plan B' in my mind is the crusaders - probably moreso of 2010/2011 vintage. If the side-to-side game isn't working they just go 8 on 8 and grind it out on the back of Carter's boot. They seem to slip effortlessly into doing it as well.

Who makes this call - I dunno, although there are plenty of occasions in the modern game for someone to get a message out.

I believe this is what makes them so consistent, and hard to plan against

 

[qwerty51]

Plan A: Win.
Plan B: Try and make the line bet.

Should be the other way around if you're the favourite

 

[cyclopath]

Cyclo

When you're performing surgery you're not getting belted from pillar to post in the pouring rain, driving wind etc. etc. It's pretty tough to make decisions under those conditions.

When you're performing surgery you're also not a 25 year old (average age of the Wallabies) who still has a lot to learn about life experiences.

Because you have the experience to be able to conduct surgery you probably don't need a coach sitting up in the booth telling you what to do next if you forget or make the decision that is not best.

The role of the coach in rugby is to equip players with as much knowledge as you can so they can make the decisions on the field but to then step in if the right decisions aren't being made.

The best rugby coach would be able to impart so much of his/her knowledge to players so that they make the right decisions on the field without intervention but the reality is that in any physical sport, decision making gets harder the more fatigue sets in.

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.

 

[Gagger]

What you need is an 8 man leadership group

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Cyclo is right and his surgery analogy is very apt I think. It's all about what Lord Bald used to call TCUP (Think Clearly Under Pressure) and his England team was brilliant at it.

Another term would be situational awareness. You survey the landscape around you and adjust if you have to. The great players and especially captains are able to do this. Think about how we won that QF in 1991, being down late in the game and with our captain off the paddock. Noddy didn't panic, assessed the situation, formulated a plan on the spot and it went perfectly. That's what great situational awareness gets you.

 

[Riptide]

Riptide, I agree.

do coaches specifically devise a number of game plans to take into a game or do they adapt that plan as the game unfolds.
could we say they are not 'playing what is in front of them'?

Serious question: lack of flexibility during a game, is that a coaching issue or a players issue?

1) If the players aren't changing then you change the players. Here Deans use of the bench has been so poor that one must conclude that he bears significant responsibility

2) players must have the skill set and awareness to observe the field, what the opposition is giving them and where they can exploit opportunities and make adjustments. This is a learned or coach-able trait. If players are selected that lack the skills to observe, adjust and execute when they go onto the field or are ill prepared for what the opposition will/can do and for how best to counter it, the again the coach bears responsibility.

Test players have less time; everything is faster, mistakes are more likely to be punished. More experienced players should be able to recognize things more quickly but posters on this forum have rightly recognized that it's not as if the players are even attempting to do the appropriate things and failing .. "oh, it's pissing rain and the pick & go is no longer working against this committed and stacked defense, let me put some grubbers and high balls in close to the goal line" (i.e. it's not a lack of execution), there is just insufficient tactical flexibility.

3) Selection plays a big part. Players must be able to adjust their game to the demands of the situation. Again the head coach identifies and chooses the players.

Bottom line; it's the coaching. This is not one isolated game, but a trend.

 

[Riptide]

Cyclo

When you're performing surgery you're not getting belted from pillar to post in the pouring rain, driving wind etc. etc. It's pretty tough to make decisions under those conditions.

When you're performing surgery you're also not a 25 year old (average age of the Wallabies) who still has a lot to learn about life experiences.

Because you have the experience to be able to conduct surgery you probably don't need a coach sitting up in the booth telling you what to do next if you forget or make the decision that is not best.

The role of the coach in rugby is to equip players with as much knowledge as you can so they can make the decisions on the field but to then step in if the right decisions aren't being made.

The best rugby coach would be able to impart so much of his/her knowledge to players so that they make the right decisions on the field without intervention but the reality is that in any physical sport, decision making gets harder the more fatigue sets in.

Scott, fully agree.

The most professional coaching staffs are well equipped with various real-time tools to give them exceptional feedback on all aspect of he game and to complement what their own eyes are telling them, and what players may not be in a position to grasp as quickly. They also have well established systems for getting simple messages down to the players quickly from the basic "Attack down the right side - their 11 is way too deep on all defensive scrums and lineouts" to the "Stick a few balls high and hard up at the 15 - It's pissing rain, the 15 has lube on his hands and is clearly struggling with a dodgy hamstring" . They are also privy to a large field view and can discern some things that players dont always get in real-time.

Henry and Smith always said that one of the traits that made the ABs so good was Carter; he was like having a coach on the field, they said. He frequently saw the opportunities and made the adjustments in real-time as they themselves were seeing it high up in the stands. He was the best quarterback in the game, surveying all around him.

Coaches spend enormous amount of time going through various scenarios with players so they they know what to do in certain situations and can also communicate it to their teammates. This seems precious little evidence that the Wallabies are doing this consistently under Deans.

 

[cyclopath]

Scott, fully agree.

The most professional coaching staffs are well equipped with various real-time tools to give them exceptional feedback on all aspect of he game and to complement what their own eyes are telling them, and what players may not be in a position to grasp as quickly. They also have well established systems for getting simple messages down to the players quickly from the basic "Attack down the right side - their 11 is way too deep on all defensive scrums and lineouts" to the "Stick a few balls high and hard up at the 15 - It's pissing rain, the 15 has lube on his hands and is clearly struggling with a dodgy hamstring" . They are also privy to a large field view and can discern some things that players dont always get in real-time.

Henry and Smith always said that one of the traits that made the ABs so good was Carter; he was like having a coach on the field, they said. He frequently saw the opportunities and made the adjustments in real-time as they themselves were seeing it high up in the stands. He was the best quarterback in the game, surveying all around him.

Coaches spend enormous amount of time going through various scenarios with players so they they know what to do in certain situations and can also communicate it to their teammates. This seems precious little evidence that the Wallabies are doing this consistently under Deans.

I don't disagree with this at all. Coaches should be doing more than they are to equip the players with options. This coaching team seem not to do this well.
But as The Brown Hornet put so nicely, it is situational awareness that must be expected of players who have a broad experience - exactly as you point out with Carter. The 2 must be hand in glove.

 

[BPC]

Stuff Plan B, I would be happy with a Plan A that looked like working more than once in a blue moon. I don't consider "play what is in front of you" a real plan.

 

[RedsHappy]

Cyclo

When you're performing surgery you're not getting belted from pillar to post in the pouring rain, driving wind etc. etc. It's pretty tough to make decisions under those conditions.

When you're performing surgery you're also not a 25 year old (average age of the Wallabies) who still has a lot to learn about life experiences.

Because you have the experience to be able to conduct surgery you probably don't need a coach sitting up in the booth telling you what to do next if you forget or make the decision that is not best.

The role of the coach in rugby is to equip players with as much knowledge as you can so they can make the decisions on the field but to then step in if the right decisions aren't being made.

The best rugby coach would be able to impart so much of his/her knowledge to players so that they make the right decisions on the field without intervention but the reality is that in any physical sport, decision making gets harder the more fatigue sets in.

Scott (and Cyclo):

Can I add:

1. I have worked with doctors in business and to a lesser degree with some professional sportspersons.

There's just a world of difference in the capacities for self-adjustment that these two highly varied skill sets and typical educational backgrounds bring in terms of managing the very different types of pressure they have to face. So I think this analogy is way over stretched in this context.

2. Crucial, crucial, crucial: Pocock is NOT McCaw and Barnes is NOT Carter. It's clear from examining him at the Force that Pocock is not (yet) a tactically adept captain, he's more a 'follow me to the end of earth' type leader (and why I worry about him as Wallaby captain). So IMO Scott's analysis and the required active coaching perspective is highly valid with a captain like this _in his first Test FFS_. Next, it's abundantly clear that BB has a tendency to get twitchy and either indecisive or over-kick under pressure, he's another 'senior player' that absolutely needs support in tight and varied game situations like Tuesday's; this is where good coaching throughout the entire game comes right into its own, or should.

3. On Tuesday night, I actually think there were many signs that the important troika linking captain and 9 and 10 was either indecisive or over-rigid as to the tactics they would use, or, more importantly, vary in altered game conditions. With such an untried troika having to perform in tough conditions, relatively intrusive coaching to overcome that inexperience of each other in combo, would seem essential and desirable.

 

[cyclopath]

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.

 

[chasmac]

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.