S
spooony
Guest
What happened to them in the WC then? Ireland who did not had a good scrum and dominated you guys in that area? That quarter final your got dominated by a lackluster Bok pack.
Wallabies Assistant Coaches
- Thread starter fatprop
- Start date
- Status
What happened to them in the WC then? Ireland who did not had a good scrum and dominated you guys in that area? That quarter final your got dominated by a lackluster Bok pack.
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
The defining characteristic of the Deans era has been inadequate and inappropriate physical preparation of players. In particular the lack of focus on heavy strength training has meant an inability to maintain intensity for 80 minutes. Whether this will change with the appointment of a new strength and conditioning coach remains to be seen, but I am not optimistic. The first step in fixing a problem is recognition that there is a problem, and for the past three years I have been conducting a dialogue with myself on this.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Bruce, not quite just with yourself. I recall in both 2010 and 2011 posting that (as non-expert) I for one thought there was much in your viewpoint re this S&C dimension that went to at least in part explaining why the remarkably consistent pattern of the Wallabies being able to create 1H leads over the ABs, then dissipating them in 2H as ultimate game losses, existed.
The fact that Harding was finally dispensed with at end 2011 _may_ indicate an awareness that change is needed in the Wallabies S&C domain, but, as so typically with the ARU, no explanation of any kind has been offered regarding the departure of Williams and Harding, or of the rationale behind their replacements. The fans must explore these facts as mysteries that may be decoded in time.
Finally, I note that Link in 2011, in an article re his coaching staff, considered that his recruitment of his S&C coach was one of the best calls he made and was a major factor in the Reds being able to physically close out tight games, etc.
The fact that Harding was finally dispensed with at end 2011 _may_ indicate an awareness that change is needed in the Wallabies S&C domain, but, as so typically with the ARU, no explanation of any kind has been offered regarding the departure of Williams and Harding, or of the rationale behind their replacements. The fans must explore these facts as mysteries that may be decoded in time.
Finally, I note that Link in 2011, in an article re his coaching staff, considered that his recruitment of his S&C coach was one of the best calls he made and was a major factor in the Reds being able to physically close out tight games, etc.
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Yes, RH, I appreciate the support I received from you and a few others, but with all the discussion of the performance and contribution of the assistant coaches the S & C is almost never mentioned.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
A note to certain posters here: may I plead that we/you do not engender yet another myth in the long lexicon of apologia, excuses and post-hoc rationalisations for the bewildering and hapless decision-making of The Wallaby Master Coach that has culminated, inter alia, in the 'disappointing' RWC campaign.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Deans did not himself govern the choice of his 2008-2011 support coaches, such as they were. He announced Graham with positive PR flourishes in early 2009 (before quietly packing him off the Force just prior to a RWC year...enough said), stood by Williams thick and thin through a manifestly mediocre mini-era of Wallaby forwards evolution, hired Bram van S to do part-time kicking coaching mostly in absentia via video link, never once appointed a clearly defined and dedicated backs or attack coach (instead preferring a mystifying combination of doing this task himself or calling his support coach for backs a 'skills coach', a bizarre term in this context no one understood then or now). Indeed, a number of us here in both 2010 and 2011 posted that we considered Deans' choices of an odd, incomplete sub-structure of under-qualified support coaches his greatest managerial and technical failing, in that it betrayed an implied view that he was in fact The Master Coach whom could direct most technical aspects of elite international rugby himself, a view that has been wholly undermined by outcomes in the field of play.
The obvious flaws in this poorly constructed 2008-2011 managerial system began to be recognised - although never admitted - by JO'N and the ARU when post the Scotland debacle Nucifora began to be inserted the next year on and off directly into the Wallables coaching group. This insertion - and the deficiencies in total coaching capability so implied - accelerated majorly when Nucifora took a very direct role as de facto forwards and set piece coach (sidelining Williams) for the pre and during RWC period. This sort of direct intrusion by a national body into an elite coach's support group is highly unusual, and the core message could not have been clearer.
The 'independent review committee' (which of course was no such thing, all of its member coming solely from Wallaby ARU Board parties) has openly declared that a key focus of its work was to be Deans' support coaches infrastructure. It took 4 tiresome years for this in-your-face penny to drop, which in itself is bad enough. Now we have the media leaks that in effect virtually all of The Master Coach's support team is to be replaced and a new group installed under close ARU supervision (though presumably Deans must have agreed to listen and learn on this subject, hopefully better late than never). The fact that the ARU is having to oversight and intervene in this quite extraordinary manner of essentially telling a team CEO that most of his direct reports were duds and need upgrading - and some of this must have come from the current Wallabies interviewed in this process - says it all. With the possible exception of Blake, Deans was not able to design and build a high calibre group of appropriately technically qualified support coaches of the standard required in today's elite rugby competitions. Further, the ARU has belatedly recognised what many of us have argued prior namely that such a group is an essential component of properly building an elite national rugby team, no one 'master' can in 2012 cover all the crucial technical aspects of the modern game and the skills required in order to forge a consistently winning team.
The 'independent report' has not yet been released by the ARU (unlike Cricket Australia that deemed in similar circumstances it owed its public honesty and full transparency). Given that the ARU is so obviously itself part of this problem of its own making in indulging and over promoting Deans as 'the master', and that the ARU's board is so dominated by its over-long-serving CEO, it's unlikely the Australian rugby public will ever have the benefit of being owned up to. Nothing new there either.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Deans did not himself govern the choice of his 2008-2011 support coaches, such as they were. He announced Graham with positive PR flourishes in early 2009 (before quietly packing him off the Force just prior to a RWC year...enough said), stood by Williams thick and thin through a manifestly mediocre mini-era of Wallaby forwards evolution, hired Bram van S to do part-time kicking coaching mostly in absentia via video link, never once appointed a clearly defined and dedicated backs or attack coach (instead preferring a mystifying combination of doing this task himself or calling his support coach for backs a 'skills coach', a bizarre term in this context no one understood then or now). Indeed, a number of us here in both 2010 and 2011 posted that we considered Deans' choices of an odd, incomplete sub-structure of under-qualified support coaches his greatest managerial and technical failing, in that it betrayed an implied view that he was in fact The Master Coach whom could direct most technical aspects of elite international rugby himself, a view that has been wholly undermined by outcomes in the field of play.
The obvious flaws in this poorly constructed 2008-2011 managerial system began to be recognised - although never admitted - by JO'N and the ARU when post the Scotland debacle Nucifora began to be inserted the next year on and off directly into the Wallables coaching group. This insertion - and the deficiencies in total coaching capability so implied - accelerated majorly when Nucifora took a very direct role as de facto forwards and set piece coach (sidelining Williams) for the pre and during RWC period. This sort of direct intrusion by a national body into an elite coach's support group is highly unusual, and the core message could not have been clearer.
The 'independent review committee' (which of course was no such thing, all of its member coming solely from Wallaby ARU Board parties) has openly declared that a key focus of its work was to be Deans' support coaches infrastructure. It took 4 tiresome years for this in-your-face penny to drop, which in itself is bad enough. Now we have the media leaks that in effect virtually all of The Master Coach's support team is to be replaced and a new group installed under close ARU supervision (though presumably Deans must have agreed to listen and learn on this subject, hopefully better late than never). The fact that the ARU is having to oversight and intervene in this quite extraordinary manner of essentially telling a team CEO that most of his direct reports were duds and need upgrading - and some of this must have come from the current Wallabies interviewed in this process - says it all. With the possible exception of Blake, Deans was not able to design and build a high calibre group of appropriately technically qualified support coaches of the standard required in today's elite rugby competitions. Further, the ARU has belatedly recognised what many of us have argued prior namely that such a group is an essential component of properly building an elite national rugby team, no one 'master' can in 2012 cover all the crucial technical aspects of the modern game and the skills required in order to forge a consistently winning team.
The 'independent report' has not yet been released by the ARU (unlike Cricket Australia that deemed in similar circumstances it owed its public honesty and full transparency). Given that the ARU is so obviously itself part of this problem of its own making in indulging and over promoting Deans as 'the master', and that the ARU's board is so dominated by its over-long-serving CEO, it's unlikely the Australian rugby public will ever have the benefit of being owned up to. Nothing new there either.
Exactly RH, you would be a muppet to expect anything concrete to come out of this 'report', if indeed we are ever allowed to lay our mere mortal eyes upon it.
I find it interesting that Andrew Blades is being thrown out as a potential scrum and lineout coach. What is his coaching experience? I recall having him on the G&GR podcast last year and he wasn't doing much at that time.
For mine the ideal structure should be:
- Head coach
- Forwards coach
- Backs coach
- Scrum/Lineout coach
- Defensive coach
- Kicking coach (part time as needed)
- S and C guy
And that's it. Five blokes in the coaches box, with the S&C guy running the water and the kicking coach running the tee. Simple. But at the end of last season it ended up something like this:
- Head coach/Backs coach - Deans
- Forwards coach - Nucifora
- Scrum coach - Noriega
- Lineouts/Restarts - Williams
- Defense - Blake
- S&C - Harding
That needs to be streamlined and individual roles better defined. To be honest the failings in the RWC was our backline and overall strategy. So who should take the bullet?
.
I find it interesting that Andrew Blades is being thrown out as a potential scrum and lineout coach. What is his coaching experience? I recall having him on the G&GR podcast last year and he wasn't doing much at that time.
For mine the ideal structure should be:
- Head coach
- Forwards coach
- Backs coach
- Scrum/Lineout coach
- Defensive coach
- Kicking coach (part time as needed)
- S and C guy
And that's it. Five blokes in the coaches box, with the S&C guy running the water and the kicking coach running the tee. Simple. But at the end of last season it ended up something like this:
- Head coach/Backs coach - Deans
- Forwards coach - Nucifora
- Scrum coach - Noriega
- Lineouts/Restarts - Williams
- Defense - Blake
- S&C - Harding
That needs to be streamlined and individual roles better defined. To be honest the failings in the RWC was our backline and overall strategy. So who should take the bullet?
.
S
spooony
Guest
Barbarian, I got a better idea. Why not burn down that stupid room with the silly Big Brother cams we see on Tv at games and get them into track suites sitting with the players next to the field? It is not the NHL it is Rugby! Do you really need to pay a guy to run around with bottles and stuff when you can pay another guy to gather all the tactical data of your opponent that you are going to face etc etc like Jake White did for Nick Mallet. Thx to that they got Larkham to stand deeper than usual.
Bowside
Peter Johnson (47)
There is a bit of a transition going on at the moment generally in regards to the make up of coaching teams. I think we are seeing a move away from forwards and backs coaches towards attack and defence coaches.
I would have thought the coaching team make up would be more like this:
Head Coach - selections, tactics
Attack Coach
Defence Coach
S and C
and then from there you would probably have:
set peice forwards coach
kicking/highball coach
Because when you think about it, the attack coach would still be dictating to the forwards what he whats from the set piece, as the amount of time the ball is in the scrum or which line-out jumper it is thrown to greatly impacts the amount of time and space the backs have to work their magic. In the same way the defense coach is not just a tackling coach, but also a breakdown coach.
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Its a nice list but I would want to know how successful he was in those roles. Many of the greats have had a crack at coaching but surprisingly few have been all that successful. Still ex-THP's seem to go OK.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Well, yes, quite so Barb. Just to add to this I'd argue that issues with competence in Wallaby backs' coaching under Deans were latently - or perhaps even obviously - there throughout most of the 2008-2010 period. See for example Scott Allen's 2010 blog essays on Wallaby backs' performance and the seeming death of classic Australian backs' ingenuity and cunning backs' set plays. The 'masking factor' was that so many of our new backs would often break out into individually brilliant moments and thus create an adulating gloss that would hide the lack of systemic training and development as a unit under pressure. Or one that would never get to rehearse the right game plans.
And another dimension to your point above: whilst far from a perfect analogy, in business I have regularly observed how many a talented CEO has ended in mediocrity or failure as a direct result of a poorly resourced and/or chosen executive team under him or her. The over-confident leader starts working 15 hour days in compensation, takes on too many key tasks personally and is soon spread too thin and stops thinking clearly, and the business totality is thus irrevocably poorly managed. If they'd picked more and better resources in support, their own considerable skill would likely have led to a fine outcome.
IMO, the key misundertanding that blighted the recruitment of Deans and his pre-RWC period here was both his and the ARU's lack of a full appreciation of how important the deeply successful (and deeply embedded) Cantabrian rugby support and excellence-building system was in the underpinning of Deans' own success there. Saying this is not to take credit from Deans' personal S14 record, rather that the deeper lubrication system was a huge part of the engine's performance so to say, and once that sub-system was no longer supplied, the engine went from outstanding to tolerably all right on the flat, and spluttering up the bigger hills. Until the RWC in one big condensed moment exposed all the systemic team and game plan flaws, Deans and the ARU conspired to not recognise the critical need for new high calibre support coaches in the right format and quantity, the belief was that a maestro of great symphonies had been retained and all that remained was to watch carefully and sell out the house. Only now is that serious mistake of analysis and judgement beginning to be corrected with the design of a new Wallaby coaching support system....or we hope that is what is happening....or seems to be happening, or may happen...perhaps.
S
spooony
Guest
Read this
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=...a=X&ei=jexOT80viZ06vfSQjwo#v=onepage&q&f=true
Go to page 93 almost at the bottom of the page and start reading from where it say: England uses a system called Prozone....
Very interesting piece of equipment that.
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=...a=X&ei=jexOT80viZ06vfSQjwo#v=onepage&q&f=true
Go to page 93 almost at the bottom of the page and start reading from where it say: England uses a system called Prozone....
Very interesting piece of equipment that.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I agree totally Bruce and I am sure you will have noted amoungst my tirades about Deans some selected barbs for his support staff or lack there of. The one big question that has always hovered around for me is, do the support coaches have any real say in anything that happens or are they given specific directions. Are they micro managed themselves? Pato for instance - I seriously doubt that he would have selected Alexander at THP over the last two years or Maafu for that matter. Has Harding been told to concentrate on raising anaerobic fitness levels at the expense of outright strength?
Then factor in the return of long term injured players that een though they have been training as much as they could whilst injured, they wil be well out of sync with their team mates in teams of team goals. Recall the injured players from the forward pack and you have to ask "Why is anybody surprised they didn't perform?"
Starting from the front TPN, Vickerman, Elsom, Palu (50% of the pack) were all injured and had little preparation time befoe the RWC. I argued strenuously that none of them were up to the tournament on this basis and I still asert it.
Then we add in the penchant for Deans in dictating players be played out of position as in Alexander/Kepu and then fatally McCalman.
So here is the reason that I believe that nobody with any long term aspirations to be involved with a successful Wallabies team will have anything to do with the current set up. They will bide their time and wait for the big broom to sweep away JON and Deans and the rest who will be tainted by association. I just hope it doesn't take too long as we have a golden generation of players ATM and I would love to see them reach their test potential.
There's not a lot of evidence to the contrary either. Both ways it doesn't ring well for Deans, but the fact that he seemed reluctant to have assistant coaches all along (or unable to find them?) actually looked to me that it was the ARU sticking in coaches for him - see Pato, Blake etc.
But where would Deans get a good knowledge for selecting coaches anyway? He was basically stuck in Canterbury forever wasn't he?
Riptide
Dave Cowper (27)
I have no information on the quality of S&C training being undertaken by the Wallabies, but surely most of a players fitness base will be delivered at the Tahs, Reds, Rebels etc.?
Nevertheless, I dispute that Wallabies conditioning has led them to fall apart in the late stages of games. Take the WC for example - we were pressing the Irish line with 5mins to go, held up superbly against the extraordinary weight of possession and tackle count in the Qtrs against the Boks and were just blown away by a consistently superior AB team.
The Wallabies won on the road against the Boks in the 3Ns last year, and came back to defeat the ABs late in Hong Kong.
The Wallabies are ranked #2 in the World at the end of the word. There is much to argue wrt to Deans and his stewardship of the talent available to him, but I'm not convinced that fitness is one of them. The ABs are not known for being gym monkeys. McCaw, for example, hardly lifts at all and he attributes his ability to compete effectively in the last 10 mins of a game to the fact that he doesnt emphasize weights.
Nevertheless, I dispute that Wallabies conditioning has led them to fall apart in the late stages of games. Take the WC for example - we were pressing the Irish line with 5mins to go, held up superbly against the extraordinary weight of possession and tackle count in the Qtrs against the Boks and were just blown away by a consistently superior AB team.
The Wallabies won on the road against the Boks in the 3Ns last year, and came back to defeat the ABs late in Hong Kong.
The Wallabies are ranked #2 in the World at the end of the word. There is much to argue wrt to Deans and his stewardship of the talent available to him, but I'm not convinced that fitness is one of them. The ABs are not known for being gym monkeys. McCaw, for example, hardly lifts at all and he attributes his ability to compete effectively in the last 10 mins of a game to the fact that he doesnt emphasize weights.
S
spooony
Guest
Well you did beat us at high altitude. That is the ultimate fitness test and we were found wanting in that department. Our guys look tired in Durban and that is not even high altitude. But coming back to that Prozone which England got installed at Twickenham. If a person is not active for 5 min during a game it put a circle on the name. It was tested on a game we played and they found like five players with circles around their names lazing around on the field like walking to breakdowns instead of jogging etc etc. Also explains why Clive Woodward made sure he played against every nation at Twickenham before the 03 WC.
numbertwo
Peter Burge (5)
to be honest I'm a little disappointed with the reactions on this post. A couple of issues I have: 1. strength training has absolutely nothing to do with your endurance or ability to finish a game. Strength training is about power and fast twitch muscles. Endurance is about heart/lung fitness and slow twitch muscles. 2. you criticize the assistant coaches but don't even mention them. Nick Scrivener, for example is an extremely experienced coach and coach trainer who specialises in backline attack and has had considerable success with the teams he has coached. He is a perfect assistant coach as he doesn't have the huge ego that a lot of coaches do and is a very good communicator. I have coached with him and think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he will succeed maybe not. Let's see rather than sprouting ill-informed diatribes.
- Status