RugbyRebels

As a non Bath fan, I just don't get it. Watching the Quinn's game today (I am a Quinn's fan) I can't believe there is a team that wouldn't win when faced with that defence. Two knock ons when scoring, fair enough, but Smith also left his kicking boots in the changing room and left probably more points out there than those two tries.

The thing that got me is we all know how good they are 'on paper', but I haven't really noticed anyone playing particularly poorly. I.e. you can have good players that play badly, but I haven't really seen that. Ok, maybe they haven't been playing to full ability, but you'd still think there'd be enough with that personnel.

So I suppose my question is, particularly to any bath fans, what needs to change? Because they shouldn't be where they are, pure and simple. Is it simply getting rid of Hooper? We've seen with Quinn's the impact that can have.

I’ve posted on this topic a lot.

The very questionable conclusion i’ve come to as that their tight five isn’t being nearly as effective as it needs to be, and that there are a few internationals in their backs who just aren’t pulling their weight. Lastly, there’s no leadership/questionable decision making by their half backs.

It’s odd though. On paper they look amazing

They can't even be bothered to catch bang average restarts. Something is seriously wrong they're settling for this rubbish, they're getting paid and that's enough, there's simply no ambition to be better

So is that just a hooper thing? Replace him and they'll be back on track?

Not sure I'll articulate this properly, but I see hooper as a poor man's Sanderson. I think both are 'modern' managers. I don't know how better to explain that to be honest, but I think Sanderson maybe has more substance behind that then hooper. Certainly from my experience (non rugby) there are those that think they can attach themselves to fashionable management techniques without having something to back that up, and they generally fail compared to those that actually understand why those techniques are popular and *can* work.

Is that the difference? Is that unfair?

Magic_sponge wrote:So is that just a hooper thing? Replace him and they'll be back on track?

Not sure I'll articulate this properly, but I see hooper as a poor man's Sanderson. I think both are 'modern' managers. I don't know how better to explain that to be honest, but I think Sanderson maybe has more substance behind that then hooper. Certainly from my experience (non rugby) there are those that think they can attach themselves to fashionable management techniques without having something to back that up, and they generally fail compared to those that actually understand why those techniques are popular and *can* work.

Is that the difference? Is that unfair?

I see Hooper as Geordan Murphy - club legend who talks a very good game and has consistently failed upwards until he's completely out of his depth, but whom it'd be awkward to fire because he's part of the furniture and keeps promising the good times are just around the corner.

Puja

Hooper was appointed more for his persona than his coaching ability. He does say the right things and has an affable manner but his coaching experience is very limited. The club took a punt on him. That might be fine if he had a rock solid team around him. I'm not sure he has. Hatley's reputation can hardly have been enhanced since returning and just who is running the defence and attack?
The leadership off the field has been lacking but goodness there are plenty of big name players in the squad who should be galvanising the team effort. They just look a bit too complacent for me at times, lacking a hard edge and sensible game management. Against that, some of the young players show considerable promise and the signing of Cipriani might well ignite their attacking play. He'll have plenty to work with.

fivepointer wrote:Hooper was appointed more for his persona than his coaching ability. He does say the right things and has an affable manner but his coaching experience is very limited. The club took a punt on him. That might be fine if he had a rock solid team around him. I'm not sure he has. Hatley's reputation can hardly have been enhanced since returning and just who is running the defence and attack?
The leadership off the field has been lacking but goodness there are plenty of big name players in the squad who should be galvanising the team effort. They just look a bit too complacent for me at times, lacking a hard edge and sensible game management. Against that, some of the young players show considerable promise and the signing of Cipriani might well ignite their attacking play. He'll have plenty to work with.

I don't think their attack is the big issue....their defence is the worst in the league just looking at points conceded.

Their attack was a big problem yesterday setting up some all too easy scores for Quins

Digby wrote:Their attack was a big problem yesterday setting up some all too easy scores for Quins

ah ok. But I think you know what I mean.

So bath more of a shower these days, eh?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Their attack was a big problem yesterday setting up some all too easy scores for Quins

ah ok. But I think you know what I mean.

I do. Whether it is a set piece, defence or attack thing I don't know. To begin with though there's surely an attitude problem that pervades all, from the owner down they're not delivering and it's been like this a long time. They almost stepped up under Meehan and under Ford, and played some very interesting rugby under both too, but it never lasted

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Their attack was a big problem yesterday setting up some all too easy scores for Quins

ah ok. But I think you know what I mean.

I do. Whether it is a set piece, defence or attack thing I don't know. To begin with though there's surely an attitude problem that pervades all, from the owner down they're not delivering and it's been like this a long time. They almost stepped up under Meehan and under Ford, and played some very interesting rugby under both too, but it never lasted

yup.

Only watched Bath a couple of times this season but I don't really understand how they want to play. The playoff contenders all have an indentity while Bath are trying to play a tight forward game and loose and fast at the same time. Thought that they were more effective in the winter when the rec was completely waterlogged and they tried to play as a big uncomplicated pack unit, but the results don't bear that out. It does feel that, like quin's, they'd benefit from a change at the top and someone to give them a clear plan, because the squad looks great on paper.

Have to say, it doesn't reflect that well on Spencer and Priestland though who should be helping steer the ship.

I wouldn’t say Quins and Bath are that comparable.

For the most part, Bath’s squad is considerably better.

Our first choice 23 at Quins is good. The rest of the squad is filler. Bath’s depth is far superior.

I think the lack of direction at Bath as already mentioned is the problem. Hooper, Harley and Charteris are all equipped to coach a direct game plan but the club seem to want to use the mass of talent in the backline so they are trying to play some sort of all action game plan that feels like the trying to run before they can walk. Something isn't working in the coaching set up and attack coach Dempsey is leaving at the end of the season.