Coaching the coaches

[Inside Shoulder]

Part of me thinks this is just another "thought bubble" to take attention off the poor quality of play and administration at the moment.
However, apart from mention of Dwyer and Marks, who are the candidates and how would the idea work in practice?
A 1 day gabfest is not likely to produce any greater performance and an ongoing mentor role requires someone above the fray - a position which Dwyer and Marks arguably occupy, though in my view the game has moved on from both of their heydays as coaches or coach educator.
To alter the coaching culture in this country it is not enough to address what is happening at super rugby level: assuming anything could be achieved at that level it would require the reinvention of the wheel with each new generation and would not provide all players in, say, the grade comps with the same grounding in the fundamentals enabling them to step up mid-season to plug a hole.
Thus, it seems to me, the coaching the coaches idea is one that must be implemented at all levels of the game if it is going to produce lasting and sufficient improvement in the product available to the pro levels of the game in AUSTRALIA.
This probably means something like supercharging the development officers - who are probably too few - but I doubt that they generally have sufficient credibility with the first grade coaches to walk in and educate them in how to coach.
Having done the minimum qualification for coaching I can say that the only useful thing about it is the ideas for drills and the placement of cones.
As to the former, a big problem seems to me to be that boffins working full time spend that time inventing drills so that their time does not appear wasted.
The game is not a composite of drills rather it is a composite of skills.
With all that in mind:
How do people think a coach the coaches concept should be implemented?

 

[Brumby Runner]

A coaches' coach if not handled properly will ultimately lead to conflict with the Wallabies' head coach imo. Imagine someone like Dwyer (could be any previously successful coach) coming in and attempting to impose his version of coaching techniques and philosophies on today's crop of coaches around the countryside.

It seems to me that the only feasible coaches' coach would be the whole of the Wallabies' coaching team at that particular time. Right now, we need all the Super Rugby coaches singing from Cheika's hymn book, and the only people who might get that message across to those Super Rugby coaches are the Wallabies' coaches themselves. It would necessitate, of course, that all of the Wallabies' coaches were available full time and were competent themselves. Just not the case atm, is it?

If such a system was successful at the Super Rugby level, then those coaching staffs would need to do the same thing with the club coaches below them.

Long term solution and would always need to change with changes to the coaching team at the top, but that is where the action needs to be directed imo.

 

[Twoilms]

^^^^^
It would be interesting if the Wallabies coaching role took on a slightly administrative tinge with expanded responsibilities in a vaguely centralized system where the Super Rugby coaches are required to answer to Cheika in terms of training techniques and playing style.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It seems to me that the only feasible coaches' coach would be the whole of the Wallabies' coaching team at that particular time. Right now, we need all the Super Rugby coaches singing from Cheika's hymn book,

My impression is that all the pro coaches will say they don't have time, even though its not clear how they are spending their time.
My concern is that some of the issues with the Tahs are the direct result of Cheika's philosophy - so I am not convinced that he has the solution. I am completely convinced that Grey does not have the solution - by reason of his ridiculous comments about fixing the Wobbs defence whenever it was.

 

[A mutterer]

I'd be happy with a more centralised approach if it weren't for the fact that chiekaball has been fully decoded.

 

[Twoilms]

I'd be happy with a more centralised approach if it weren't for the fact that chiekaball has been fully decoded.

I guess the point of a centralized system is that it reflects the man in the middle, so you could replace Cheika and the top down system would still function appropriately.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'd be happy with a more centralised approach if it weren't for the fact that chiekaball has been fully decoded.

A centralisation of planning and improvement around coaching shouldn't purely relate to replicating the current Wallaby coach's plan.

It should be more generalised about improving S&C, skills, set piece, counter-attack etc.

The aim should be to create improvement in how things are done regardless of who is coaching where.

 

[Dave Beat]

Good topic,

• A local school on the beaches has recently sent their coaches to the NZ academy for that reason.
• Murray Mexted spoke and Manly's sports lunch last year, apparently Eddie Jones has been involved in the academy for a number of years, and.....

I think it is very important:
You may have been a great player, and know and read the game, but can you coach? Whilst I understand the game has changed - did Alan Jones ever achieve anything of note as a player?

 

[Twoilms]

A centralisation of planning and improvement around coaching shouldn't purely relate to replicating the current Wallaby coach's plan.

It should be more generalised about improving S&C, skills, set piece, counter-attack etc.

The aim should be to create improvement in how things are done regardless of who is coaching where.

I kinda disagree with this. It's too generalized. The aim of coaching is always to improve skills etc. There needs to be uniformity in approach and a consistent skillset amongst players.

There are distinctive styles of Rugby, and a player who is trained and practiced in one may not particularly suit another. If we are all pulling in the same direction the likelihood of producing a player skilled and suitable to a style the coach wants is higher.

General improvements are obviously needed but i doubt centralization can help that much. I actually don't really know what would fix that besides throwing a wad of cash at it and importing a lot of European/Kiwi/Safa coaches to teach our lot what the fuck is up.

 

[Ruggo]

It's a good idea but people need to remember this is not a quick fix.

It is one of these things that will address a broken system over time.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't think you can have a centralised coaching "plan" that reflects a particular philosophy that is the same as the person who happens to be the Wallabies coach or the Tags or Reds coach.
From what I read Hansen's gift does not lie in an encyclopaedic knowledge of every position's requirements. He strikes me as more of a manager - I understand McQueen and Jones were similar, but only in that they had expert position specific coaches helping them.
I can't remember what Dwyer's approach to assistant coaches was in each of his iterations - he had a very strong philosophy about the proper way to play rugby but i think the nation has moved to a point of taking that for granted: there is not really any other way to play the modern game than ball in hand.
I think the central part of what is required is pretty simple - but simplicity is a hard sell: run, catch, pass, tackle, kick.
There was an interesting exchange between Mehrts and Tom Robertson where the former said something like "has gibson got you playing touch" - Robertson kind of said yes. I think touch is a lot more valuable than some of the drills in the present coaching manual.

 

[A mutterer]

So long as you mean by playing touch, the forwards are using their shoulders and arms and an intense overriding desire to inflict and experience pain than I guess we're in agreement.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So long as you mean by playing touch, the forwards are using their shoulders and arms and an intense overriding desire to inflict and experience pain than I guess we're in agreement.

No.
Not necessarily.
Touch seems to be now played as a hit and giggle which it should not be at training: it is a serious tool to put everyone - forwards included - into positions requiring situational awareness and assessing the pass, the run the intercept option and teaching them all to draw the man and time the pass.
And teaching slower blokes in defence how to position faster blokes to give themselves the best chance of stopping them.
All players need to play as many games as they can and touch, if played seriously and with consequence for doing otherwise, is the low injury risk way of putting blokes into game situations.
And you do it so much and so often that you learn things you don't even know you know.
The physical aspects can be worked on in other training situations.
One problem with this of course is the modern age: when I was a kid touch footy - occasionally tackle - was all we had other than 4 black and white TV channels. We played all year round and nearly every day - and we'd ride our bikes to other games in the neighbourhood.
God - those were the days!

 

[A mutterer]

apparently i needed to insert sardonic tags

 

[ChargerWA]

I think it's unfair to malign Cheikas coaching style purely as Cheikaball and state it has been worked out. It carried us to 2nd in the most recent World Cup. It works on everyone except the Kiwi's, and you have to ask yourself what would work against them while their players base skill set is so much higher.

Cheika's real talent is in man management. He can get In their heads and urge them to play above their standard level. But this is a dangerous thing as if he has a short preparation time he can sometimes fail to get them to rise as required, which is why his coaching record is quite patchy.

Having said that I was wondering how much time our test forwards spend on their basic ball skills. Is there any physiological reason that with the required diligence to practice we couldn't identify a set of forwards with the passing skills to match the backs. I can't think of one and can only assume our forwards don't work on this basic skill like the NZ forwards do. Look at NZ's hookers, their best 3 can out pass, out link and probably outrun some of our incumbent Wallaby backs.

So based on that, there should be an identified flow down effect where each coach, coaches the coaches below them. How the coaching is delivered is up to the coaches delivering the training, but what area they are working on should be aligned across the country. I also think the Wallaby coaches should have a say in what the focus is. If across all levels the focus was on ball skills, off loading and not dying in contact we would make great leaps towards to the Kiwi's when the U15's kids start coming into elite teams in 5 years time.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think it's unfair to malign Cheikas coaching style purely as Cheikaball and state it has been worked out. It carried us to 2nd in the most recent World Cup. It works on everyone except the Kiwi's

did you miss the EOYT 2016?

 

[Brumby Runner]

And the mid-year tests v England? Will need to win all three tests this year, and fairly convincingly, to reassure the fans that he is near the top of his game.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

And the mid-year tests v England? Will need to win all three tests this year, and fairly convincingly, to reassure the fans that he is near the top of his game.

Well his mumbling tonight about the gabfest didn't convey any great insight into what lies ahead concerning the shape of oz rugby and his lack of concern for the guys who don't know what their future holds was bordering on callous indifference - his hayseed persona and homespun mysticism is wearing thin.

 

[Killer]

Well his mumbling tonight about the gabfest didn't convey any great insight into what lies ahead concerning the shape of oz rugby and his lack of concern for the guys who don't know what their future holds was bordering on callous indifference - his hayseed persona and homespun mysticism is wearing thin.

yeah, he is basically lacking intelligence, a key component of being a good leader. It doesn't matter what coaching system you have in place, if you have the wrong people it won't work and vice versa.

 

[cyclopath]

yeah, he is basically lacking intelligence, a key component of being a good leader. It doesn't matter what coaching system you have in place, if you have the wrong people it won't work and vice versa.

He doesn't lack intelligence - he has been very successful in business. He may lack Toastmaster public speaking skills, but the two things are not the same.