Wallabies S and C coach

[hammertimethere]

Who is handling the wallabies S and C at the moment? At the Wales test last night I saw a bloke I'm 99% sure was Ashley Jones (Formerly of the crusaders and All blacks) running the water. I knew Peter Harding had been moved on but I didn't know Jones was involved (though I had hoped). Have I missed the announcement? Is it along term appointment? If so he is a superb pick up, the best thing to come back across the tasman since Deans himself

 

[hammertimethere]

Edit: He is the Head S and C coach. It says so on the ARU website, though it denotes a new appointment. Perhaps he was in Japan somewhere and only just arrived.

 

[Jnor]

He's got quite the repuation if I remember right (waiting for Bruce's opinion on that one)

 

[Bruce Ross]

Ashley is very highly respected. I have heard reports that he has been visiting the franchises. Hopefully he will assert himself with respect to the training of the national level players as at least one franchise is way off the pace in terms of maintaining let alone building the strength of its players.

There are two elements to strength and conditioning. It might be more appropriate and more honest if the individuals concerned styled themselves as being an "and Conditioning Coach". Alternatively someone at the franchise should tell them players have to be conditioned to last 80 minutes. That's assuming anyone in a position of authority there has the nous to realise it.
.

 

[hammertimethere]

Agreed. Strength is the most fundamental of physical qualities involved in our game. Its possible to play well without it, but it makes things vastly easier when you have it. Ashley Jones' experience with the All blacks and crusaders can only be valuable, given that our kiwi cousins have mandatory resting periods for their national players resulting in most players only having 3 or so weeks of full time training with S and C before pre-season trials start. Working and producing sustainable strength (plus size, speed, conditioning etc.) gains under that kind of time pressure necessitates a measured approach with a focus on in-season progressions (i.e lifting heavy weights cannot just be an off-season endeavour), a scheme well suited to the Wallaby set up under the current scheduling. Perhaps we will see a shift in focus that bruce has wisely indicated is required. Great appointment.

side note: Ashley is indeed somewhat of a legend in the coaching community, but is that enough to cause the ARU to grab him? My bet is that Deans said that if you are going to fill my on-field staff for me, let me at least bring in this bloke who I trust to help me off-field.

 

[Bruce Ross]

side note: Ashley is indeed somewhat of a legend in the coaching community, but is that enough to cause the ARU to grab him? My bet is that Deans said that if you are going to fill my on-field staff for me, let me at least bring in this bloke who I trust to help me off-field.

My mail is that when Robbie was appointed he wanted to bring Ashley with him but for whatever reason it did not eventuate. Had that happened I think that Robbie's win/loss ratio and thus our opinion of his coaching ability may well have been enhanced.

It's hard to run 4-cylinder cars, no matter how nippy, against V8s.
.

 

[Jnor]

My mail is that when Robbie was appointed he wanted to bring Ashley with him but for whatever reason it did not eventuate. Had that happened I think that Robbie's win/loss ratio and thus our opinion of his coaching ability may well have been enhanced.

It's hard to run 4-cylinder cars, no matter how nippy, against V8s.
.

No replacement for displacement, Bruce!

 

[Bruce Ross]

No replacement for displacement, Bruce!

I wish I had said that, Jack.
.

 

[cyclopath]

I wish I had said that, Jack.
.

You can't say everything, Bruce. Leave some morsels for yoofs like Jack.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

No replacement for displacement, Bruce!

Depending on the position, yes. There are positions that put a higher value on other things, like acceleration and technical skill. For the majority of our forwards, the brute strength factor is very important. I'm not convinced, however, that we should prioritise it in all areas of the paddock.

A V8 super car is not the ideal racing vehicle in all situations, after all. A great line though

I recall from previous posts on this board that Ashley Jones was highly thought of and if you look at the results he had a hand in at Canterbury and the Crusaders, it's hard to argue that he doesn't have a great pedigree. I would like to see our pack in particular be more consistently powerful in the collisions, as I believe that is where the modern game is largely won (one of the reasons why the AB's are so good). I thought they were good last night in that area and hopefully they can improve there.

 

[Gnostic]

I found it very interesting that Kepu didn't run out of puff as he seems to in Tahs games. Why was that? I still believe that the Tahs have fitness issues as evidenced by them getting run over so often in the closing parts of of each half. But what I saw from Kepu last night and to a lesser extent Fatcat perhaps just as much is wrong with their application to the task.

 

[hammertimethere]

Depending on the position, yes. There are positions that put a higher value on other things, like acceleration and technical skill. For the majority of our forwards, the brute strength factor is very important. I'm not convinced, however, that we should prioritise it in all areas of the paddock.

A V8 super car is not the ideal racing vehicle in all situations, after all. A great line though

I recall from previous posts on this board that Ashley Jones was highly thought of and if you look at the results he had a hand in at Canterbury and the Crusaders, it's hard to argue that he doesn't have a great pedigree. I would like to see our pack in particular be more consistently powerful in the collisions, as I believe that is where the modern game is largely won (one of the reasons why the AB's are so good). I thought they were good last night in that area and hopefully they can improve there.

You're not wrong TBH, just not fully correct. ALL players require high levels of maximal strength (relative to their bodyweight), regardless of position. Acceleration is a trainable quality, but you cant be explosive without being strong. Acceleration (linear or otherwise) is just an expression of strength over time, and in a mixed sport like rugby, has a limited application in a pure sense due to the likelihood of physical contact. Plus, improving technical skill is something that can be added almost anywhere in a training week without being to the detriment of the rest of the work performed (unless its scrummaging, which is about 60% strength related anyway). JOC (James O'Connor) is a perfect example of a player who is exceptionally strong for his size and it allows him to do things on the field i.e express his specific skill set/footwork/offloading (particularly in heavy traffic) etc. that he wouldn't be able to otherwise.

See usually it is a given that all the players (by and large) will do X amount of conditioning work during their training week, and it will be balanced in the overall volume equation with what they do on the field/extra skill work etc. So their skills can be worked on ad infinitum with minimal impact on recovery, the issue Bruce has raised (and I fully agree with) is that there is too conservative an approach to strength work in-season by some, during the allotted time given to S and C. Some coaches/teams/individuals shy away from doing much heavy lifting in-season a) for fear they will not be fresh come game day or b) they do not prioritise maximal strength development (or even maintenance) as part of a game specific conditioning and in-season program. What the priorities are during the X amount of time spent on conditioning week to week and month to month during the season is key, and with clarity around that issue comes the logistics of how to implement the scheme to elicit the greatest performance weekly. Ashley Jones is reputed to have both the required philosophy and technical expertise to hopefully address this alleged shortcoming.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

HammerTime interesting comments, thanks. I'm not suggesting that it's an either or proposition by any means. I guess what I'm referring to is that there may be the temptation to pick bigger players who are very strong or focus overly on building strength at the expense of other important aspects. This isn't really an issue in the pack, as all things being equal you want big strong bodies as much as possible. The exception I've seen to this is in the front row, where big blokes like Andy Sheridan and Beast get picked at prop and while they are immensely strong, they can be beaten by a guy with superior technique. Where I feel it can become a problem is out in the backline, where I've at times seen a greater emphasis on playing "hulks" who are effectively bash and barge merchants only. As these guys get older, their lack of pace or skill (in a relative sense) gets shown up a bit. This is where League has ended up for mine. I look at the Force backline and I see (and have seen) some big blokes out there, but I don't see the pace or skill of other teams.

I don't totally agree that acceleration is simply a function of strength, though you will probably have some technical/scientific information that suggests otherwise. I've seen a lot of rugby players over the years who weren't big guys but were incredibly fast over that first five or so metres, something that I think is of value in our game. They had certain genetic advantages, but also great running technique.

I agree with your second paragraph totally.

 

[hammertimethere]

Yeah I do agree with your first comments. Size (bodyweight in kg's) should be last on the list of selection criteria, and some selections (or selectors) do seem to be bewitched by centres or wingers (or props) who are massive. However size is only indirectly correlated with strength, having more muscle only gives one more potential to be strong (larger and sometimes more motor units to recruit per unit of time) and a little more padding to help deal with contact injuries. For example, Neither Franks brother is massive by the standard of test props, maybe 110-115kgs but having been trained appropriately and consistently for strength (with an olympic lifting coach) for a decade and a bit has resulted in the 5-10kg they lack against the Ma'afu's of the world being irrelevant, and in some cases an advantage when you factor in their technical expertise. This probably also applies to Dan Palmer and maybe Benn robinson. Further out, you'll note that given that technical skill and courage is present, strength can be the ingredient that allows one to fully maximise potential. For example Digby is only about 95kg, not really big by test standards these days (think North 110kg, Savea 107kg etc.) but is immensely strong and it allows him to display his skill set (footwork, aggression with the ball in hand and the ability to make effective carries even under fatigue) well. McCabe, Juan De Jongh, BO'D are other example of players whose skill is paramount, and there ability to show it is enhanced greatly by physical strength. I think the prevalence of massive backs is more a function of a) all things being equal, the bigger man (appropriately trained to maximise his strength) will have an advantage or more likely b) skillfull and tough players are spending long off-seasons building and learning to carry bodies which make them imposing.

My attitude is that size on its own is irrelevant as a selection criteria. Specific strength is absolutely valid (i.e performance in maximal squat, clean, Deadlift and bench pull for props and possibly maximal single leg squat, Deadlift, bench press and bench pull for centre/wingers). All things being equal the stronger (not necessarily bigger) player will be advantaged, and since strength is the most trainable physical quality in an athlete, deserves due consideration in terms of training time.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yep, that's fair enough.

 

[yourmatesam]

Great thread here guys. These "inside knowledge" sort of threads really get me thinking about the game from a different angle, keep it up!

 

[Lindommer]

hammer and the hornet may as well be talking Gaelic as far as I'm concerned. Too tech for me. Bit like me rabbitting on about tannin levels for most of you.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Hands up all those who want to hear from Lindommer "rabbiting on about tannin levels"?

As you were then.

 

[yourmatesam]

Hands up all those who want to hear from Lindommer "rabbiting on about tannin levels"?

As you were then.

I've been hearing it for 30+ years Bruce!!

 

[dangerousdave]

I don't totally agree that acceleration is simply a function of strength, though you will probably have some technical/scientific information that suggests otherwise. I've seen a lot of rugby players over the years who weren't big guys but were incredibly fast over that first five or so metres, something that I think is of value in our game. They had certain genetic advantages, but also great running technique.

Maximal strength is kind of like an upper bound on the force somebody will be able to produce when sprinting. If somebody can only produce x amount of force during a squat or deadlift then they sure as hell won't be able to produce more force during the quick ground contact of the foot while running. For some people their squat/deadlift will go up a large amount with only a small increase in speed but that's the way the cookie crumbles, plyometrics and olympic/explosive lifts can also be used to help turn the 'slow strength' into speed.

I guarantee you that the "certain genetic advantages" you see in those people is a very high strength to weight ratio, whether this is because of genetics, how they played/ate as a kid or from training probably depends on the individual.

The great technique is useless without strength and vice-versa if you want to be at the top.

Edit:
Strength itself also has multiple aspects, there is muscle size, training of the nervous system and the speed with which the force can be applied (how long it takes the muscle to go from a relaxed state to fully contracting). The last one is very important for running because your foot doesn't have very long on the ground to do it's thing.