RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:It wasn’t an exhaustive list - I just used those two as examples.

Lancaster had his time but I’d like to see some of those guys come back and take on broader head coach roles (when they’re ready) before they’re in the England conversation. Personally, I’m not wholly convinced a coach can go from being a defence or lineout specialist to have full accountability overnight.

definitely so, certainly need head coaching experience at 'lower levels' imo unless exceptional. The New Zealand model, again, is excellent- no matter what your reputation as a player (say) was, you have to earn your stripes, and its a planned progression as I understand it.

Thirded.

Jones’s new contract doesn’t prohibit him from coaching the 2012 Lions.

Speaking of which. Lovell Rugby currently have Lions shirts for £10:
https://www.lovell-rugby.co.uk/shop/col ... 65257fda51

I don't get the Borthwick thing just like I didn't get the Lancaster thing. As Eddie has said many times, the England job is one of the premier rugby management jobs in the world. Eddie constantly says that his only goal is to make us no1 in the world and win the world cup. I think the risk about 'developing' someone internally is totally unnecessary. We should always strive to hire the best person for the job, simple as that, to guarantee as far as possible the most success. Whether that's a foreigner or someone English and clearly outstanding like Baxter I don't care to be honest, I just want to see England winning every game. Borthwick seems like a MJ/Lancaster hybrid and there's no evidence to suggest that he could handle a big gig like the England job and there won't be over the next few years either, as he's only responsible for a part of it under EJ's leadership.

Timbo wrote:Personally, I’m not wholly convinced that English rugby wouldn’t be best served by leaving Baxter and McCall where they are to continue to develop and bring through lots of very talented English players.

If Baxter is the real deal and a 'special' coaching talent, he'd be far more beneficial to English rugby by managing the England team than managing Exeter, I can't see how one can seriously argue otherwise. But I do get your point.

Dasheragain wrote:

Timbo wrote:Personally, I’m not wholly convinced that English rugby wouldn’t be best served by leaving Baxter and McCall where they are to continue to develop and bring through lots of very talented English players.

If Baxter is the real deal and a 'special' coaching talent, he'd be far more beneficial to English rugby by managing the England team than managing Exeter, I can't see how one can seriously argue otherwise. But I do get your point.

Absolutely, but I don’t *know* that either are special coaching talents, or even how much coaching they actually do. The DOR role in English rugby has a strong man management and administrative element to it, which doesn’t necessarily qualify you for running the England team.

Timbo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:

Timbo wrote:Personally, I’m not wholly convinced that English rugby wouldn’t be best served by leaving Baxter and McCall where they are to continue to develop and bring through lots of very talented English players.

If Baxter is the real deal and a 'special' coaching talent, he'd be far more beneficial to English rugby by managing the England team than managing Exeter, I can't see how one can seriously argue otherwise. But I do get your point.

Absolutely, but I don’t *know* that either are special coaching talents, or even how much coaching they actually do. The DOR role in English rugby has a strong man management and administrative element to it, which doesn’t necessarily qualify you for running the England team.

I'm just talking about Baxter being the DOR, i.e. taking over from Eddie. He seems (not sure) that he's pretty hands on on the coaching side. Also, he could choose his own coaches and have the likes of Borthers under him, much like EJ has.

It makes me shudder to think of Borthwick as a DOR. I would suggest (again I can't say for sure) that Baxter must be a pretty good man manager. He has brought through young players who seem totally committed to the cause and don't all leave for other pastures. He's created a certain ethic there whereby they all seem happy, motivated and cohesive, much like EJ, Mcall or a Pochettino for instance. I would guess that to do what he's done in the way that he has, he must be a good man manager and administrator which would qualify him for DOR.

Timbo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:

Timbo wrote:Personally, I’m not wholly convinced that English rugby wouldn’t be best served by leaving Baxter and McCall where they are to continue to develop and bring through lots of very talented English players.

If Baxter is the real deal and a 'special' coaching talent, he'd be far more beneficial to English rugby by managing the England team than managing Exeter, I can't see how one can seriously argue otherwise. But I do get your point.

Absolutely, but I don’t *know* that either are special coaching talents, or even how much coaching they actually do. The DOR role in English rugby has a strong man management and administrative element to it, which doesn’t necessarily qualify you for running the England team.

aye, I was going to say the same about DORs, specifically in reference to Deano. They mean different things to different clubs, and hence perform different roles. I do think that the England Head Coach has to be exactly as it says on the tin- a genuinely talented coach, with the ability to do look at game planning, devise (new) tactics, and very importantly understand how to deliver the plans and tactics through coaching sessions with his team; also someone who isnt afraid to have very talented people working for him who are at the top of their field (conditioning, forwards loose play, set piece....whatever he thinks is needed and manageable).....plus be a great leader (selection should be a given )

Dasheragain wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:
If Baxter is the real deal and a 'special' coaching talent, he'd be far more beneficial to English rugby by managing the England team than managing Exeter, I can't see how one can seriously argue otherwise. But I do get your point.

Absolutely, but I don’t *know* that either are special coaching talents, or even how much coaching they actually do. The DOR role in English rugby has a strong man management and administrative element to it, which doesn’t necessarily qualify you for running the England team.

I'm just talking about Baxter being the DOR, i.e. taking over from Eddie. He seems (not sure) that he's pretty hands on on the coaching side. Also, he could choose his own coaches and have the likes of Borthers under him, much like EJ has.

It makes me shudder to think of Borthwick as a DOR. I would suggest (again I can't say for sure) that Baxter must be a pretty good man manager. He has brought through young players who seem totally committed to the cause and don't all leave for other pastures. He's created a certain ethic there whereby they all seem happy, motivated and cohesive, much like EJ, Mcall or a Pochettino for instance. I would guess that to do what he's done in the way that he has, he must be a good man manager and administrator which would qualify him for DOR.

Have to say, I don't think the England head coach should be a DOR ......which conjures up, in my mind, a very different picture to being an international head coach....and I don't think its a semantic, either.

Banquo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Absolutely, but I don’t *know* that either are special coaching talents, or even how much coaching they actually do. The DOR role in English rugby has a strong man management and administrative element to it, which doesn’t necessarily qualify you for running the England team.

I'm just talking about Baxter being the DOR, i.e. taking over from Eddie. He seems (not sure) that he's pretty hands on on the coaching side. Also, he could choose his own coaches and have the likes of Borthers under him, much like EJ has.

It makes me shudder to think of Borthwick as a DOR. I would suggest (again I can't say for sure) that Baxter must be a pretty good man manager. He has brought through young players who seem totally committed to the cause and don't all leave for other pastures. He's created a certain ethic there whereby they all seem happy, motivated and cohesive, much like EJ, Mcall or a Pochettino for instance. I would guess that to do what he's done in the way that he has, he must be a good man manager and administrator which would qualify him for DOR.

Have to say, I don't think the England head coach should be a DOR ......which conjures up, in my mind, a very different picture to being an international head coach....and I don't think its a semantic, either.

No I agree and I'm confused. Is Eddie Head Coach or DOR?

Eddie goes with the Lions, leaving the trainee to oversee most the day to day stuff for at least the summer tour, if not more, whilst Eddie is still on the books to advise.

Dasheragain wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:
I'm just talking about Baxter being the DOR, i.e. taking over from Eddie. He seems (not sure) that he's pretty hands on on the coaching side. Also, he could choose his own coaches and have the likes of Borthers under him, much like EJ has.

It makes me shudder to think of Borthwick as a DOR. I would suggest (again I can't say for sure) that Baxter must be a pretty good man manager. He has brought through young players who seem totally committed to the cause and don't all leave for other pastures. He's created a certain ethic there whereby they all seem happy, motivated and cohesive, much like EJ, Mcall or a Pochettino for instance. I would guess that to do what he's done in the way that he has, he must be a good man manager and administrator which would qualify him for DOR.

Have to say, I don't think the England head coach should be a DOR ......which conjures up, in my mind, a very different picture to being an international head coach....and I don't think its a semantic, either.

No I agree and I'm confused. Is Eddie Head Coach or DOR?

Head coach.

DOR in the RFU sense would be overseeing the whole elite system including age group, I think Andrew's old job, which doesnt exist any more. (I think)

Banquo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:

Banquo wrote: Have to say, I don't think the England head coach should be a DOR ......which conjures up, in my mind, a very different picture to being an international head coach....and I don't think its a semantic, either.

No I agree and I'm confused. Is Eddie Head Coach or DOR?

Head coach.

DOR in the RFU sense would be overseeing the whole elite system including age group, I think Andrew's old job, which doesnt exist any more. (I think)

Got it. My original point was that Baxter would be good at Eddie's job, so Head Coach, and I stand by that. Over Borthwick any day of the week.

Dasheragain wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Dasheragain wrote:
No I agree and I'm confused. Is Eddie Head Coach or DOR?

Head coach.

DOR in the RFU sense would be overseeing the whole elite system including age group, I think Andrew's old job, which doesnt exist any more. (I think)

Got it. My original point was that Baxter would be good at Eddie's job, so Head Coach, and I stand by that. Over Borthwick any day of the week.

Agreed.

Borthwick has international experience (teams and territory), evidently works well with EJ, possibly (I don't know) assisting EJ with premiership club liaison etc. and could slot immediately into the 2 year hand over period that is part of the EJ/RFU plan and there is no evidence that he couldn't step up to take on a wider remit than forwards coach.

Baxter has done excellent work at one domestic club and there is no evidence that he would be good at EJ's job.

At heart I like to think that Baxter would be an excellent England head coach whether in 2021 or at a later date, and I don't KNOW that Borthwick would be good, bad or indifferent, but at the moment I would suggest that Borthwick's credentials are superior to Baxter.

There was no evidence Burt couldn't take on a bigger role than advancing youngsters at the RFU, though history says you want some evidence they can. For me the key is in selection more than coaching, get that right and everything else gets easier.

Digby wrote:There was no evidence Burt couldn't take on a bigger role than advancing youngsters at the RFU, though history says you want some evidence they can. For me the key is in selection more than coaching, get that right and everything else gets easier.

I'd beg to differ, I might accept that they are equally important; good coaches should make the sum greater than the parts. Though in fairness, if you get the selection badly wrong, its hard to come back from there.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:There was no evidence Burt couldn't take on a bigger role than advancing youngsters at the RFU, though history says you want some evidence they can. For me the key is in selection more than coaching, get that right and everything else gets easier.

I'd beg to differ, I might accept that they are equally important; good coaches should make the sum greater than the parts.

I'm aware you place more emphasis on the coaching side. I would too in a club environment, but for me even with increased EPS access the test side derives the vast part of its performance from selection

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:There was no evidence Burt couldn't take on a bigger role than advancing youngsters at the RFU, though history says you want some evidence they can. For me the key is in selection more than coaching, get that right and everything else gets easier.

I'd beg to differ, I might accept that they are equally important; good coaches should make the sum greater than the parts.

I'm aware you place more emphasis on the coaching side. I would too in a club environment, but for me even with increased EPS access the test side derives the vast part of its performance from selection

I'd still disagree, not merely because I have coached. The head coach sets the tactics, and turns those into executables, and in England's case they have to assimilate the different styles and familiarity with different coaching techniques and game planning and make them into a cohesive set; I'd also argue, that even with a limited time, the head coach can identify development needs for players and work on them in camp in breakout sessions, as well as give them personal training/development plans. Gatland, for example. for better or worse, made a massive impact on Wales when he rocked up- developing a set of tactics and working with and developing individuals; the classic example, even though it was an intense exposure was the impact the coaches made on the 97 Lions tour, was where selection and coaching went hand in glove, and the coaches worked intensely on scrummaging, rucking, attacking in arrow heads, and defence patterns...all things that the players were almost learning anew. I'd also offer a minor example for England, where the defence we use in the backs was different from a lot of club defences- players have to be coached to adapt.

As I said, you need to get selection right and coach really well, and I'd place as much emphasis on both.

My 'rule of thumb' for a good coach (in the 'man in the stands' sense, whatever his title) is the ability to change things at half time for the better. Assuming that all the in-camp preparation has gone well and that the selection was more or less correct, there are still opposition-provoked scenarios where things go wrong and the quality coach can put his finger on it well enough to get things right for the second half, hopefully to the extent of winning.

IMO, Baxter has got that in spades, albeit at club level. I think he could transfer it to the international stage.

I have no idea whether Borthwick has got it but I'd not bet a fiver of Banquo's money on it, never mind a penny of my own.

Oakboy wrote:My 'rule of thumb' for a good coach (in the 'man in the stands' sense, whatever his title) is the ability to change things at half time for the better. Assuming that all the in-camp preparation has gone well and that the selection was more or less correct, there are still opposition-provoked scenarios where things go wrong and the quality coach can put his finger on it well enough to get things right for the second half, hopefully to the extent of winning.

IMO, Baxter has got that in spades, albeit at club level. I think he could transfer it to the international stage.

I have no idea whether Borthwick has got it but I'd not bet a fiver of Banquo's money on it, never mind a penny of my own.

My rule of thumb would be that the side react to the plans going wrong in near real time, but the half time test is reasonable as a basic. Mind, the oppo coach should also be doing the same.

Interesting point on Baxter- Chiefs really seem to have a very distinctive plan A, and I suspect Plan B is- keep your nerve and execute better.....Chiefs fans may have a different view.

Anyone know how long Cotter is tied to Montpol?

pandion wrote:Anyone know how long Cotter is tied to Montpol?

welcome....but is Cotter a good option, if that's the inference?

Banquo wrote:

pandion wrote:Anyone know how long Cotter is tied to Montpol?

welcome....but is Cotter a good option, if that's the inference?

He is but he wouldn’t accept a two year apprenticeship under Jones.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

pandion wrote:Anyone know how long Cotter is tied to Montpol?

welcome....but is Cotter a good option, if that's the inference?

He is but he wouldn’t accept a two year apprenticeship under Jones.

did he do a good job with Scotland?

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: welcome....but is Cotter a good option, if that's the inference?

He is but he wouldn’t accept a two year apprenticeship under Jones.

did he do a good job with Scotland?

I’d say so. Didn’t really have long enough to properly judge but they were certainly on the way up.