RugbyRebels

Not a wholly unfair piece of pedantry, not a critical one for me as I simply don't think about football

Digby wrote:I get the RFU don't want to spend money. Nonetheless there are choices in this, and the RFU the coaches and indeed players are participatory in the choice they have made.

And to refine more there is also an elite coach out of league cannot know how rugby works, whether looking at the breakdown, set piece, kicking game, transition.... and how they map out the use of resources will bleed into all those areas and impact areas beyond their more specific remits. So we can say no coach in the premier league wants to release anyone, and we can assume this is a weird world in which all such possible coaches actually are tied into long contracts that would actually cost a chunk to get them out of, there's still coaches outside the premier league one could turn to

It might work, it just seems a very weird way to go about things to get much of one's initial exposure at the highest level (or with England for those wanting to make a witty remark)

I'm with you. As the cavalcade of rugby league stars coming and failing have shown, the two games have diverged enough that they're different sports. While expertise in one game is not utterly worthless in the other, it has to be marked with a massive asterisk.

Gleeson, I don't mind so much about, as he has served an apprenticeship with Wasps at least. But I'm worried that someone with very little understanding of a union attack is due to be set to try and stymie it. That's not to mention that defence in league comes from a game that stops still every tackle, whereas union had fluid breakdowns where attacks may be quick and frantic or they can be slower - calculated to try and suck in defenders. A union defensive coach going to league wouldn't be as good because half their knowledge would be useless and they wouldn't have specialised as league coaches do, but league defensive coach going to union is going to be fantastic at the things he knows while having massive great holes about attacks that he's never had to consider before.

He's going to be a doing a hell of a lot of learning on the job and frankly, I'm not keen on it. It is marginally better than hiring Guardiola, but I'd still prefer them to have signed an actual rugby union coach.

Puja

I like the idea of cockers being in the england camp.

Yeah that's the main bit I don't understand with running a league defence vs a union one. Line-speed and organisation is one thing but you'd think the breakdown between each phase completely changes how you're able to get players doing those things effectively.

Obviously there will be a massive crossover between forwards/breakdown/defensive coaches in most setups, but it does seem strange just how many high level positions get filled with league coaches.

There is a lot of thinking in league which union tends to be behind. Though that should always be caveated with the idea there are several big areas of our game they can complete ignore so they should be better given their smaller portfolio as it were. But you would think you'd need some crossover experience to the more faceted format, as is we seem to be going for some latest thinking, and are speculating we can take advantage

Raggs wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Raggs wrote:Apparently there were a lot of very experienced defence coaches lining up for the England spot, so I wouldn't say it was necessarily creativity.

I'd missed the rumour mill on this one. Who was available and in the mix?

Don't know, but saw this:

Meh if he doesn't want to flesh out the details I'll consider it attention seeking journo on social media. I'm sure there was one or two defence coaches with their CVs in the mix.

It's quite possible he knows some of the people involved, but perhaps doesn't know what their current employers would make either of it, or it going public

Digby wrote:It's quite possible he knows some of the people involved, but perhaps doesn't know what their current employers would make either of it, or it going public

Quite possibly but as the RFU don't will not buy coaches out of the contracts and the clubs won't release them then it makes his comment somewhat pointless. They only got the attack coach from Wasps because Mitchell went in the other direction.

Tbf to Mr Shaw, he’s a bit more than an attention seeking journo. He’d also probably get more attention if he did name some coaches.

And if one wanted attention you probably wouldn't speculate on defence coaches in rugby union, almost a dictionary definition who gives a toss.

As to the idea the RFU will not buy out contracts, maybe, but not all defence coaches will have a long contract ahead of them, and the RFU are still choosing along with coaches and players to spend a lot of money on things other than buying out a decent defence coach, so that's their choice

FKAS wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I think it was Ben Kay who talked about Cockerill’s great effect, but with massively diminishing returns, as the guy who gives everyone the hairdryer treatment. How that fits in with Eddie I have no idea, but perhaps it would be a great fit. Either way, a 2 year run before the World Cup might be about the limit before the novelty wears off.

I can imagine there are some pretty gruelling forwards sessions ahead. And Jngf say goodbye to any slim hopes of flowing linkplay in attack.

Somehow “who the fuck is this guy?” has become the default response regarding attack coaches.

Well we don't have an attack coach so we can't even ask who the random guy is.

Ben Kay has also said if you want to win next Saturday you hire Cockers. What went unsaid was that if you want to be winning in three or four years time... Cockers is well suited to international rugby as an assistant coach because he doesn't need to worry about developing or building, that's Eddie's job. Cockerill is going to be given a squad of players and a game plan and his job is just to make sure they win, that's what he's all about winning on the weekend.

I've said it for years Cockers big problem at Tigers was that he was promoted above his level. Tigers needed to hire someone with vision above Cockers and not keep trying to find and innovative attack/head coach to work underneath him. Eddie despite his faults is a man of vision, Cockers can just get on with the coaching.

Coulda fooled me der mate!

jngf wrote:Coulda fooled me der mate!

Low bar

(sorry, couldn't resist)

jngf wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I think it was Ben Kay who talked about Cockerill’s great effect, but with massively diminishing returns, as the guy who gives everyone the hairdryer treatment. How that fits in with Eddie I have no idea, but perhaps it would be a great fit. Either way, a 2 year run before the World Cup might be about the limit before the novelty wears off.

I can imagine there are some pretty gruelling forwards sessions ahead. And Jngf say goodbye to any slim hopes of flowing linkplay in attack.

Somehow “who the fuck is this guy?” has become the default response regarding attack coaches.

Well we don't have an attack coach so we can't even ask who the random guy is.

Ben Kay has also said if you want to win next Saturday you hire Cockers. What went unsaid was that if you want to be winning in three or four years time... Cockers is well suited to international rugby as an assistant coach because he doesn't need to worry about developing or building, that's Eddie's job. Cockerill is going to be given a squad of players and a game plan and his job is just to make sure they win, that's what he's all about winning on the weekend.

I've said it for years Cockers big problem at Tigers was that he was promoted above his level. Tigers needed to hire someone with vision above Cockers and not keep trying to find and innovative attack/head coach to work underneath him. Eddie despite his faults is a man of vision, Cockers can just get on with the coaching.

Coulda fooled me der mate!

Indeed, a true ‘man of vision’ would have picked Itoje at 8 and Simmonds at 7. Tom Curry? No thanks …

Sorry - couldn’t resist. I’ve missed you jngf.

Which Tyler wrote:

jngf wrote:Coulda fooled me der mate!

Low bar

A claim not even James Randi could debunk, and for a number of reasons

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Well we don't have an attack coach so we can't even ask who the random guy is.

Ben Kay has also said if you want to win next Saturday you hire Cockers. What went unsaid was that if you want to be winning in three or four years time... Cockers is well suited to international rugby as an assistant coach because he doesn't need to worry about developing or building, that's Eddie's job. Cockerill is going to be given a squad of players and a game plan and his job is just to make sure they win, that's what he's all about winning on the weekend.

I've said it for years Cockers big problem at Tigers was that he was promoted above his level. Tigers needed to hire someone with vision above Cockers and not keep trying to find and innovative attack/head coach to work underneath him. Eddie despite his faults is a man of vision, Cockers can just get on with the coaching.

Coulda fooled me der mate!

Indeed, a true ‘man of vision’ would have picked Itoje at 8 and Simmonds at 7. Tom Curry? No thanks …

Sorry - couldn’t resist. I’ve missed you jngf.

Feeling duly reciprocated Scrumhead