Coaching Tips

These are my opinions, I have only done a bit of coaching, but I have been coached a lot.

Firstly I believe a coach should turn everything in to a competition, or preferably a game of some sort, the difference being games are fun even if you lose. As Brian Ashton said recently, drills are out, never do anything that resembles a soulless repetition of actions, always make a game of it. For kids (under the age of 50) I would avoid any obvious fitness work, integrate fitness into the skills work, and try to keep ball in hand for everything. I would also try to build confidence in defence, a lot of young players are weak in defence because they do not have the confidence to bring down a big player. So I would emphasise the different types of tackle and do a bit of individual work to build confidence.

A few final opinions; I believe support play and running off the ball are the most under appreciated skills, so keep an eye out for player movement. I would prefer to start with everyone chasing the ball rather than them running in their position waiting for the ball. Avoid my pet hate in junior sides: calling set moves for the sake of it. I would prefer to avoid set moves, look to play simple passes, if you see a gap go for it and call for the ball. Get players to look up and be ready, hopefully they will all see the same thing.

England towards the World Cup

When it comes to the debate about ten man rugby I believe it is one of those times when the debate is pointless as there is only one way to play rugby: have more points on the board at the end of the match. Now to deliberately contradict myself there is not one way to play rugby, the game varies according to the team you have available, the opposition, the conditions, the current scoreline. What this contradiction means is that at every moment every member of the team has to decide what the best option is. A great example is the now famous sequence leading up to Johhny's winning kick; Johnny was ready to take the pass, Dawson spots a gap and goes, Back was quick to the breakdown ready to put in the pass to Johnny, Johnsons see the weakness and calls for the ball takes it in recycles and Dawson gets to his feet and gives Johnny the pass, absolute poetry. The pass could have gone out straight away, and Johnny may have scored, but the players were able to assess the percentages and improve their chances, an example of “heads up” ten man rugby.

One of the keys to making good decisions is quick ball, it allows the attacking team more time than the defencive team. This requires players to get to the breakdown and clear the opposition and for someone to get the ball away quickly. However there is an even faster way that I prefer; the offload. If a team offloads well, the defence can never settle, it never gets a chance to slow the ball. An offloading attacking does require a high skill level, both passing and catching as well as running close support lines, but then winning a world cup will require the highest standards.

Defence, ironically I actually liked what Mike Ford was doing with England in Australia. He mixed it up brilliantly; drift and blitz, the Australian back line was really unsettled as it did not know what was next. England appeared to have a hybrid formation where they let one player rush up and disrupt and the others formed a conventional drift behind, I liked that, I will keep an eye out for it again. I also liked the way he varied the line so that you did not know who was standing where, so if they identified a weak channel in our defence then a set move might fail as the weak link had moved to a different position. As it was the Australian back line played great “heads up” rugby and still picked off the gaps, but I think given a bit of time our defence will be a real asset.

I believe we have strength and depth in our front five, we are good enough to compete in the set pieces with any team in the world. Our front five also has the ability to get around the pitch in defence and attack, a great asset to team. What is required is for the front five to play the same game as the rest of the team, we need them supporting and offloading in attack, or if necessary clearing the rucks or quick pick and drives, basically they need to be smart.

The back rows are facing three southern hemisphere teams with huge mobile backrows who have great ball skills in attack. I don't believe we currently have the backrow players to compete directly with the all three options of size, speed and skill. Our current players can compete for size or speed and skill, not both. Given the size and mobility of our front five and, to play a rounded game, the importance of speed and skill I go for that over sheer size. Ultimately the players I pick are actually pretty tough, and so on balance I think will will compete.

The half backs have got to have a full complement of skills, not weak spots, but my priority is quick service from the scum half and good decisions from both. I prefer a second five-eighth at inside and a more conventional running outside centre. For the back three I prefer three players who are comfortable at full back as well as being good finishers in the traditional winger role. I also prefer to have winger in the mold of Austin Healey who can play “third-five-eighth” a role I believe is crucial in later phases.

Finally given the short time before the World Cup I would try and play the same team in every game. Some of the decisions are optimistic but a good coach must be able to see potential and know how to unlock it, but must also know when a mistake has been made.
I have a primary squad of 30; I carry 4 props, 3 hookers, 3.5 second rows, 5.5 backrows, 3 scrum halves, 2.5 flyhalves, 3.5 centres, 5 back three.

I also have a larger squad of 60, which adds a third fifteen of old pros who can step in and do a job, some of them may on form be first choice. Then I have a team of youngish players who have great talent and may develop quickly this season, but have not quite done enough last season to be included. I would never rule anyone out completely as injuries and form will dictate a lot.


Props
Sheridan, Stevens, Vickery, Freshwater
In reserve:
Rowntree, White
Incubation:
Barnard, Forster

Hookers
Thompson, Chuter, Paice
In reserve:
Mears
Incubation:
Buckland

Second Row
Grewcock, Jones, Kay, Borthwick
In reserve:
Palmer, Brown
Incubation:
Kennedy, Hudson

Back row
Lund, Moody, Rees, Sanderson
In Reserve:
Dallglio, Lipman, Worsley
Incubation:
Seymour, Deacon, Forrester, Crane

Scrum Half
Hodgson, Perry, Ellis
In reserve:
Walshe, Richards
Incubation:
Care, Foden

Fly Half
Wilkinson, Hodgson, Flood
In reserve:
Barkley, Goode
Incubation:
Lamb

Centres
Abbott, Tait, Smith
In reserve:
Bell, Noon, Johnston
Incubation:
Allen, Vesty, Erinle

This selection deserves a comment; although I have Barkley has cover for fly half he is also and inside centre. I really believe Flood will come through and play in the way Catt has done so well in the past. Erinle has so many attributes that I still can't ignore him , and it may be he develops on the wing. I really can't pick Tindall, the guy just clogs up the midfield in attack and ruins the back three's chances. Although he is a great defender I just don't pick a team on that basis, I believe you pick talent and coach defence. Vesty is a lovely, skillful, smart footballer, and I am hoping Tigers start playing him as a second-five-eighths. If Smith finds top form I might consider moving Tait to the wing ahead of some others, but I expect Tait to be the best outside centre.

Back three
Simpson-Daniel, Varndell, Lewsey, Cueto, Balshaw
In reserve:
Cohen, Voyce
Incubation:
Doherty, Monye, Armitage

There are some interesting options here, if Varndell and Balshaw fail to make the grade or Simpson-Daniel is never fit, then we have an experienced player like Cohen, who despite his detractors still provides a strong runner with a good finish, and vitally good in the air against Tuquiri and Rockoko. If Balshaw fails we are left with few options at full back so I might be tempted to reinstate Van Gisbergen or possibly Perry,. However, I would like to see continued improvement from Armitage, especially now opponents know him, but the real excitement for me would be if Doherty is able to take the Wasps full back spot on a regular basis. Finally Monye, who I think will be a solid performer in the mold of Cohen but a little sharper.

Rugby's progress in England and the World

England were never as professional as New Zealand or South Africa. We also haven't had the high profile, across the all sections of the community, to attract young players or the infrastructure to develop them. That is changing, hence England won a world cup, and we should start to see better coaching, better identification of players. If we can keep crowds growing, then we should get in to a virtuous cycle of attracting more players, better results, better crowds, more players and so on. The more high quality ex-players at all levels, then the more the chance we have of developing good coaches at all levels.

The point has been made about good athletes going to other sports, and some suggestion that footballers aren't big enough for rugby. I am no expert in football but I do know that height and speed are considerable advantages and young players do get overlooked if they are too short. In countries like NZ and SA, and until recently Wales, rugby comes first, and so all good athletes get a go at rugby. Australia is the best sporting nation in the world, having spent time there it obvious why; kids play sport anywhere and everywhere. England has progressed with professionalism as it has been able to get the best out of the players available. The inception of a meaningful academy system a few years ago means we are starting to see the fruits of proper scouting. The final piece of the jigsaw for world domination is to make sure we get as many athletes as possible to give rugby a try. If we could just change the weather we might even get more kids chucking a ball around, and then we will win everything, until China starts playing.

There has been a 6N B for some time, but of course without the promotion. Before the 5N was expanded I had hoped that they would introduce promotion instead. I thought it may be possible to squeeze the B tournament in to September/October so that the winner would able to play in the 6N , then for some time we would see the same 6N until a B nation deserved their place.

I think the SH tournament is less plausible due to the distances already mentioned, but a Pacific Islanders team should be added asap.

What happens to players that aren't picked in the draft, do they really stop playing? Is there no semi-pro league below the NFL? There are huge crowds for NFL players, but if USA rugby could develop a bit then there should be good crowds and half decent pay cheques, which might be more tempting than welfare to some.

There is already a concept called 80/80 rugby where players must be no more than 80kg. It is popular in Thailand and is catching on in the region. What we are really talking about is classifying rugby in a similar way to boxing, to let Simon Amor fight at his own weight.

The IOC have looked at sevens and so far rejected it. I actually think it would be an ideal sport for the Olympics. One of the reasons China is playing rugby is because it thinks it may become an Olympic sport.

The Churchill Cup was set up with the RFU specifically to support North American rugby, and frankly I think it is superb. I think the SH should have done more for the islands by letting them put franchises in the Super 12 instead of more from the tri-nations, but I am pleased to see the Pacific Islanders team is on the agenda again.

I am very tempted by the idea of Argentina in the six nations playing from Spain, perhaps even add some Spanish teams full of Argentinians to the European Cup, thus helping Spain and Argentina. However, I see this as a long shot unless we accept the expansion of both tournaments, but then something else will have to give, which may be politically awkward. In doing this I would consider it a short term fix, perhaps declare that Spain itself will be added to the Six Nations as soon as they are strong enough and Argentina have a fully fledged South American Tournament to play in. It is this second point that I think secures the long term future of not only Argentina but possibly South American rugby. Currently Uruguay are ranked 18th, Chile 24th, Paraguay 30th and Brazil 34th, if you really want to push the boat out Venezuela are 54th. I mention the last one particularly because I think the Venezuelan president Chavez might be encouraged to throw his billions at rugby. If they are supported in producing a South American club tournament, perhaps modeled on the Super 14, and a strong International tournament modeled on the Six Nations, then rugby in the region and around the world will benefit. I also think the European teams need to persist with tours to Argentinian every summer, as there are six of us and four southern teams (five if you count the Pacific Islanders as one) we should be able to work out a schedule.

Japan is quoted as having more players than any other country, now if we can involve them more, turn a few big sumo wrestlers in to props

As for the spreading the hosting of the World Cup here are a few suggestions:

2015 Japan
2019 SA
2023 USA
2027 Argentina
2031 Italy
2035 Uruguay
2039 China
2043 Namibia
2047 Russia
2051 Chile
2055 India
2059 Kenya
2063 Spain
2067 Paraguay
2071 Korea
2075 Zimbabwe
2079 Germany
2083 Brazil
2087 Ireland
2091 Australia
2095 Canada
2099 Peru
2103 Nigeria

New Zealand and the Pacific Islands

Whenever New Zealand play rugby comments are usually made that they steal all their players from the Pacific Islands. This is often based on the simplistic observation that many players have Pacific Island ancestry, but often has no more validity than saying that selecting Pakeha players damages European rugby. I think many outside NZ don't understand the reality, I have a some idea of dual identity as my grandparents come form Scotland & Wales and my wife's parents are from India. Some time ago I looked to see if NZ were enticing teenagers over on lucrative contracts, and they weren't. Sure an occasional player has been born and brought up on the islands and played for NZ, but as you say most are born and bred NZ.

What I would like to see is a stronger incentive for NZ born and bred islanders to play for there parents/grandparents nations. The only way I see this happening is if the Pacific Islanders are given there own status on a regular basis and island franchises are playing in the Super14. If that happens then top class rugby (and top class earnings) could be available outside of the NZ route, something that may tempt a few and strengthen the islands generally. If this isn't done then I suspect island rugby will struggle more and more, leaving many players no option but to move abroad to play rugby at the highest level.

Due to my personal experience of mixed loyalties I don't care if a player is born and raised for a thousand generations, or if they have never been to a country before being picked. What I care about is getting as many strong teams in the world cup as possible, and making sure that a players source of income allows their head to match their hearts. To do this we need to be sure that the Pacific Islands have a strong income stream in their own right, my choice would be for franchises in the Super 14 tournament and a combined Pacific Islanders team. I am not from the Pacific Islands so I don't know if they think this will help, although for the record I went to Vanuatu once.

I don't think it is NZ problem, it is Rugby's problem, and the IRB should be the guardian of Rugby. I think the rules are just fine now so what I want is meaningful games that make money for the Pacific Islands, and to make sure they benefit unlike the chaos previously. On another point I know the RFU are putting support in to North America via the Churchill Cup and related activity. Only the IRB can rise above the national interest, but hasn't done so effectively, yet.

Australia v England

We lost and so there are lots of points to be negative about, and we know Australia can or will be better, however I like to show a little optimism at times.

England had Australia under a lot of pressure early on, although Australia had a lot of possession. If England had taken the chances on offer then it is possible that the pressure would have been too much. England need to sharpen up their work with the ball in hand, take less contact by offloading more and taking territory when there is nothing on in your own half. England need to keep mixing things; chip over, long kicks for territory, offloads and wide passes, to really test Australia, there was too much one dimensional bashing to test Australia. In defence we looked good for most of the game, it was only as Catt tired and the sluggish Goode and Worsley came on that gaps appeared in the middle. Until then Australia could not run round us or through us and were not able to create the spaces inside. If we can maintain the performance and not let it slip on the hour mark, and make sure we have points on the board, then there is a chance England can turn this around.

I think England had two main problems, the first is that they took contact too often. I was expecting England to offload far more, I can't believe it was Ashton's game plan to bully a bigger pack at the breakdown. Secondly, Peter Richards has got to go. I can sense raised eyebrows as I type. He personally had a great game challenging Australia, but that is not what we need from our nine, the reason Barkley and the whole backline looked sluggish is because Richards is not a link man. Richards is a one man attack machine, but more than that is required here. If Walshe was in the backline would have more time and space to do it's magic. How often was Richards AWOL, because he had taken the ball on, and if he was there the ball was too slow. The back three came in for some criticism but I think they were poorly served when their strength is attack, but even in their weakest area, defence, the conceded nothing on the outside against the best backline in the world. Catt struggled as the game went on, as predicted, leaving holes in the middle that became worse when Goode was on. Goode to his credit had a decent attack, but that may have been the extra time and space created by Walshe.

In the second row I am not sure about Jones for coming on for Brown, I think Deacon did less than Brown, Brown looked better as the game went on. However, a double swap Jones and Kay, could be acceptable but I would just drop Deacon. I still think Jones is England's best second row, so I would always look to start him there. For this tour I think he should be in the second row as that is our weak spot, for the future I would only put him in the backrow if it means getting our best players on the pitch, which given the options I see in the back row is unlikely. With Lund an injury doubt then I would accept Jones at eight and Kay in to the second row ahead of Deacon, but if Lund is fit Jones should start in the second row. I will keep Worsley on the bench, but if you want biffer Worsley take Moody off not Lund. Nice work by the old boys up front for the first sixty minutes.

I still think Tait is our best future bet at centre and would not sacrifice his learning curve for short term fixes like Noon at centre and Tait to the wing, especially as I think Varndell will also benefit from another outing. Varndell should be persisted with because you can coach the things he's bad at but can't coach the things he's good at, such as his stepping around Tuquiri.. The real problem is that England played on the backfoot and we know that is not Varndell's strength and yet against the best backline in the world how many tries were scored on the outside? None. Yes he has frailties but he is learning and I think he could be great but we need some quick answers and quick learning from him. For the next game Van Gisbergen is not the answer, he offers little in defence above Varndell, and Varndell was not England's problem. I don't think Varndell would have improved by going to the US, he would still lack confidence the first time he faced a top team. This way I hope he will look at the tape see the step on Tuquiri, and the options he missed, then next week vrooooommm.

There was no major catastrophe at fullback, so it still falls in to the “potential” category. Balshaw has the potential to be our best fullback, so we need to persist on this tour. As our only real alternative here, excluding Voyce who is better on the wing, is Van Gisbergen and I would see little benefit of trying him above Balshaw. We know that Lewsey is on hand for later matches but we need an option to cover his loss of form or injury. If things work out with Balshaw we will be in a very strong position, at worst I think he will remain in contention for a wing spot.

So finally my changes are slight:
Jones in for Deacon, Kay on the bench.
Walshe in and Bemand to the bench.
Abbott on the bench for Noon, to be used at 40-50 minutes.

World Cup Draw

Just looking through the world cup draw and predict a French win.

The top three teams from the pools of five teams, current world ranking in brackets. Neither Italy or Argentina have qualified yet but I expect them to.
Pool A – SA(2), Eng(6), Samoa(10)
Pool B – Australia(4), Wales(7), Fiji(11)
Pool C – NZ(1), Scotland(8), Italy(12)
Pool D – France(3), Ireland(5), Argentina(9)

Quarters:
B1 v A2
C1 v D2

A1 v B2
D1 v C2

The top two quarters play each other in one semi, and the bottom two quarters play each other in the other semi.

I expect the pools will follow their world ranking; England to lose to SA in the Pool and Argentina to lose out in their pool.

Quarter Finals:
Australia to lose to England
New Zealand to beat Ireland
SA to beat Wales
France to beat Scotland

Semi Finals:
England to lose to New Zealand
SA to lose to France

France to beat New Zealand in front of their home crowd.

England Captain

I feel England need to get the right captain before they can pick the players. Corry has showed o that he does not have the tactical nous to win a game, and this is not an attack on Corry the player. I am looking back and thinking how Johnson was great at getting the team to do the right thing at the right time, confirmed by their loss of direction when he was absent. The managerial deficiencies have also been well analysed, but I believe the England players didn't know what to do, then in Europe Leicester and Sale were clueless.
I don't think Corry (as captain) was great during these games. I feel that these games were won when the players started playing and stopped doing what they were told. I don't blame Corry alone for England or Leicesters failings, there are other players and coaches who must carry some responsibility. Both England and Leicester have a plan and stick to it thoughtlessly, but in the great European comebacks the Leicester players just started running and got the result, but it was by accident not design. A good captain would have spotted the problems earlier and kept Leicester ahead or closer, thus reducing the need for great comebacks. I believe that Johnson gave a clear sense of how to win the game, and it is this direction that is missing.

The captain shouldn't really be able to dictate so much, all players should know what to do, but a failing of the English game for many years has been it's excessive discipline in only doing what was agreed before hand, and only changing when told to.


As for other premiership options, I have seen Reagan provide great direction for Bristol but I don't think he has a future with England. Cornwell lead the U21 side but he has a lot to prove as a player.
Being sure of selection is a big problem, unless we go for a Mike Brearley solution (Am I showing my age?) Vyvyan has impressed many times, but I am not quite convinced, maybe if Saracens keep going upwards in the league. Borthwick has been on the pitch during many England farces so I am not convinced by his leadership.

It is an interesting side debate; whether the captain should be a forward or a back. I remember one ref who said he would pay more attention to someone getting up from a ruck or maul than a guy running in from 40 metres away. I also think forwards by default have first shout on what happens with the ball, Carling was always at the mercy of the forwards. On the other side Umaga gets what he wants. Dewi Morris made a good point on the Rugby Club (no seriously) he thought it might be good to have Charlie Hodgson as captain so he could demand the ball. Another left field option is Perry, he captained England A (to a loss, I think I defeated myself there), but may be Paul Hodgson should be scrum half anyway. Last season I thought Hooper did a superb job with Leeds from the second row, but have seen little to back that up this season.

It seemed that there is some consensus around three players:
Keep Corry as he is the best we have (or at least best of a bad bunch) or pick Sanderson or Borthwick, on balance I will go with Sanderson with Vickery as an option if in full form and Sanderson injured.