I was reminded over the weekend just how prevalent the ‘runners’ have become on the rugby field. No, I’m not talking about the players themselves. I’m referring to the ‘trainers,’ who invade the field at every opportunity.
David Campese, The Roar
All they’re really trying to do, of course, is tell the players how to play the game and to pass on the coaches’ instructions.
The players, it seems, are no longer capable of thinking for themselves. Or they’re not ALLOWED to.
Look at the weekend.
In the Reds game there were even injured players with water bottles telling the players what to do! Why?
Perhaps it a case of over-coaching and enforcing control by the coaches or a lack of confidence and knowledge of the game from the players.
When Lucas went off and Genia moved to 10, you could see Quade Cooper literally trying to coach Genia in the position while he was desperately trying to get his breath back.
The modern player is having the game taken away from him. Coaches are telling them how to think, when to think, and what to think.
When we played, we had a physio, a doctor, a manager, and a coach. That was it.
There were no ‘runners’ because the coach trusted us to use our judgement and he knew we could communicate with each other as we were always on the same page.
And coaches were not allowed on the field.
At half-time, coaches would write a few things down and pass the note onto a reserve, who would pass it onto the captain. Then he would talk to the team about it.
It was all very simple. As it should be.
The message remains the same to this day: let the players play the game, don’t turn them into robots.
Which again all comes from rugby league!
I would love to see the power shift back to the players and see what the results would be: positive or negative?
While on the Reds, it must have been a bit frustrating for the Queensland crowd to see their team lose after trying so hard to make it back-to-back finals. But with the amount of injuries, it made it hard to go all the way.
To be honest, I don’t think it would have made much difference either way. Sometimes even the crowd can’t help get their team up.
The Reds were lucky to make the Semis. They weren’t the same team as last year.
It was disappointing to hear another coach criticise McKenzie for putting Genia at 10. But what choice did he have?
It really highlighted the problem in Australian rugby: we lack depth in our reserve of players. Once Lucas was injured, there were no appropriate players left to take his place.
What is happening to building grassroots development and promoting the game to the wider public and the juniors?
I feel like a stuck record on this and your eyes may glaze over when you hear me saying this again and again, but mark my words: the future of Australian rugby is in trouble.
Still, as it stands, every country gets a team in the semis.
The Brumbies were very much like Adam Scott: they lead all the way, but then went into their shell when the heat came on.
Those are the times when you’ve got to attack. As the old adage goes, attack really is the the best form of defense.
Never defend a lead or your team will struggle. But as a young team, they will great better over time. That’s if they don’t lose players to other unions.
But we have seen Hooper leaving already.
Hopefully lessons have been learned, so next year some Australian teams will be better prepared. Also, let’s hope that coaches will allow the players to take back the game and start controlling things.
Recommend this story.
elcamino
ROOILEEU
Tina
logan
Deon
Thomas_Bulls
garyj1-Bulls
Aldo
Amethyst
Methos The French Stormer
KingPaul
JT_BOKBEFOK!
trevormayhew
RUGGA_MIND
Pokkel
Quinn25
Marcel
namboer
moose
Jacques(Bunny)Somtimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits
Vernonimous
Pom in Joburg
Watte
niekie
Dante
Panther
Vetgesmeerde Blits
bryce_in_oz
Kozac
Blokkies
Number12_Lions
Brutus2
Lehe6
Estian Nortier
DavidS
johanleroux13
Morné
Tafelberg
pietstreak
Ollie
Koos
July 26th, 2012 at 5:34 am
Genia was not happy with the lecture he received from Copper. It is becoming a circus with the lastest trick is to distract the kicker by having an injured player near the kicking t. Saw this done a lot by Fiji in the 7′s.
You can hear calls from the side line by the trainers, offsides, offsides. They must not be allowed to interfere in the game at all. Let them give instructions but breaking very play with new intructions is crap.
There should be medical personal and thats it. No trainers should be allowed on the field at all. I have even seen a trainer question the ref . Samoa game.
Whatever we do please do not make the game shit rugby league. I know the aussies need to get a bigger player base but to change the game so rugby league boof head find it easier to play is bad news.
July 26th, 2012 at 6:28 am
“Those are the times when you’ve got to attack. As the old adage goes, attack really is the the best form of defense.”
These words should be used when introducing 2012 Super15 Rookie of the year…
Messerschmitt-Willie LeRoux.
Thanks Dave.
July 26th, 2012 at 9:37 am
Hey Dave
Just matter of interest…
Players do not get allowed to think for themselves anymore. All plays are called by one of the “leaders” and the players do as told.
It’s like yesterday’s moronic criticism of Morne Steyn “playing what he is comfortable with” – duuuhhh – players play what they are told to play.
If you don’t believe me go and check out PRIMARY SCHOOL RUGBY where the the coach dsignates a player, usually flyhalf or scrummie and this one called in a set of drilled plays that the coach has taught them and the players are permitted to play those plays alone.
The other players are just trained to play those plays alone. The entire game is as structured as an NFL “play”…
When I spoke to Wayne Taylor of the Lions earlier this year the scientific nature of this was demonstrated to me by the conditioning coach telling me that the players are conditioned to the specific plays that the coach wants to play. So not only are the players taught how to play and what to play but their fitness and conditioning matches the way the coach wants them to play.
Basically all you can criticize a player for is that he failed to play to the game plan the coach wanted.
Certain players are given more freedom than others, like Bryan Habana for instance but even Pieter De Villiers once said that Morne Steyn is a coach’s dream because he does exactly what he is told to… so don’t criticize the player… criticize the coach that tells him how to play.
July 26th, 2012 at 11:05 am
Reply to DavidS @ 9:37 am:
On the otherside, I am busy reading Victor Matfields book and it he he states that when PDV started as Bok coach he wanted to play heads up, expansive rugby.
Apparently the senior players had a meeting with him about it to say it was not a good idea. So basically the players couldn’t buy into it.
In fact VM says that during a training session he was captaining the B-team and went against the coaches directions to play into the gaps and changed the instructions to run into the defenders and setup a ruck instead.
July 26th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Reply to Ollie @ 11:05 am:
and he brags about it? Ai these Bulls hey!!
July 26th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 11:19 am:
He doesn’t really brag about it, just mentions it very factually. His book is not that well written in my view, very diary like.
What does stand out for me is how much behind the scenes stuff there is and how easily the players’ on field performance seems to be affected by things off field.
July 26th, 2012 at 11:27 am
The other thing that stands out is how there is a strong family feeling for the core players in the Bulls. It actually seems more important to VM than anything else. His whole heart is there.
July 26th, 2012 at 11:38 am
In SA the prime culprits of this has to be Rassie (at cheetahs) and Jake.
They wanted to eliminate the amount of mistakes players make and started programming every move.
I love watching under 14 and 15 rugby for the simple reason that they dont do ‘phase’ play. No ‘pods’ and no endless set moves off phase ball.
It really is like a different sport and one I much prefer to the official version employed by older teams right up to the Boks.
One simple rule change that can save rugby is if the laws make it illegal for a player that participates in a set piece (ie forwards) to be the first receiver with the 2nd phase ball.
This will ensure that for the first 2 phases backline players HAVE to handle the ball and use the space.
July 26th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 11:38 am:
Did you see my comment 4.
The PLAYERS don’t want it.
July 26th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 11:38 am:
I have tried both ways of coaching and found that the transition is when you get the best out of the team.
For example: We played a season of high risk, heads-up, unstructured rugby and the following season we decided to go to a more structured, low-risk game plan. As we brought in tzhe structure and the guys still have the heads-up ideas in them they played the best rugby until the structure started taking over. then the following season we flipped again and started with a more unstructured game and as the transition was taking place we played the better rugby.
Getting that combination of heads-up in a structure is the key IMO but a fine balance, especially at my level. Last season was structured so…
July 26th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 12:03 pm:
then find those who do! The way PdV did it has destroyed his carreer – going against what he believes to keep the best players. If he went the other way he might have failed as well but at least he would be able to say I did what I believed best. Now what do they say? Players coached the team (when successful) and he is at fault for the failures…
life as a coach is maar
July 26th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 12:03 pm:
thats exactly why the Boks wont be the best in the world again until every player from that era is no longer.
From Fransie to Bissie to younameit – that generation all revel in a structured setup of putting up endless phases by going to ground and making contact instead of ever looking to exploit space.
July 26th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 12:22 pm:
There will be a feast of unstructured rugby this year in December @ camps bay! It’s called touch rugby.
I’ll be there as well, but not for the rugby, EK WIL TIETE KYK!
July 26th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Reply to Welshbok die Brandwag @ 12:29 pm:
July 26th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Good one Campo, maybe the “suits” will also take notice of the pitch invasions and stop this annoying practice. It is noticeable that even the South African habit of taking the kicking tee out in one of those kids toy trucks has been dropped in favour of the kicking coach running out with it. Presumably because he can talk to the players while the truck can’t?
July 26th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
“Once Lucas was injured, there were no appropriate players left to take his place”.
So what was wrong with bringing the kiwi flyhalf Mike Harris in from centre, leaving Genia at scrumhalf where some would argue he is the world’s best and bringing on the guy who subbed for Harris at centre later anyway? Methinks McKenzie was panicked into a wrong decision by that impressive Shark attack.
July 26th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 12:22 pm:
I’m not sold on the unstructured rugby in the top levels approach. Off loading etc. yes, but not proper unstructured. I just don’t think the human body (mentally and physically) can do it for a season, it’s too intensive for a player to play it too long.
The sharks had the balance spot on in the first half against the refs, but they won’t be able to play like that against a very structured defensive team that easily.
July 26th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 12:05 pm:
July 26th, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Brendon I don’t know what Under 14′s you are watching because here with the primary school Valkies in Kempton the play is as structured as any other. The flyhalf of the 1st XV has code words and calls plays from breakdowns and players are taught to run different lines to trick opponent defences and even take contact to set up phased play.
Fact is the Australians and the Bokjs were by far the leaders in structured play. As far back as Kitch Christie and that Aussie coach of 1991, I think it was Bob Dwyer(?) the Boks and Aussies were structuring the way they played. If you read interviews with Joel Stransky of that time he even says that the Boks carefully planned for every game and targeted specific players to attack or defend against and ways to play. As an example Kitch apparently had James Small incessantly sscreaming at Lomu about how useless he was, whilst the Boks played a “from the outside” defence that starved Lomu of ball and forced him to cut inside where big Bok tacklers like Boere Thug Japie Mulder were waiting for him. THAT is what is structured.
Ollie
As I said in my meeting with the Lions conditioning coach Wayne Taylor earlier this year he explained that the players’ exercise routines and fitness levels and strength exercises, even diets are regulated by the game style and structure the coach requires from the team. This is a Kiwi.
Literally a player who cannot play within the structure, no matter whether SA, Aus or NZ, will never make it. If you read or interview with Robbie Deans from a few years ago, he told us that he facilitates the coaching and the players decide the structure they want to play in discussion with the coaches. Even the mighty Crusaders play in a set structure.
This heads up rugby stuff is childish nonsense. It simply cannot exist at pro levels.
July 27th, 2012 at 5:32 am
If two teams, of exactly equal talent, meet on a rugby field and one plays a well planned game, in which players have foreknowledge of the actions of their team-mates and all know what is expected from them, and the other team plays an individualistic game, where players decide on the fly what to do next, with little more instructions than keep your heads up, which team is most likely to win the match?
July 27th, 2012 at 5:36 am
An unstructured game is a luxury that can be afforded only by teams that play with a surplus of talent.
ie. The All Blacks in 95% of their matches.
July 27th, 2012 at 5:44 am
When a player makes an independent decision during a match he is essentially acting as an individual and not as a member of a team.
There is no I in team.
If two teams of equal talent meet and one’s actions are mostly guided by individualist on-field decisions and the other’s actions are mostly guided by pre-determined off-field decisions, which team is most likely to win?
July 27th, 2012 at 6:06 am
The outcome of a single match may be determined by numerous factors:
Luck,
the referee,
the weather,
the previous night’s pizza,
a talent differential,
the bounce of the ball or
a superior game-plan.
Most of these factors are random and varies from game to game and thus tend to cancel out. Over the course of a season (or five) the team that wins the championships, mostly do so because of two reasons only: Superior talent or a superior game-plan.
In domestic competitions, where teams have roughly equal access to the same player pool and roughly equal resources, over periods longer than the average player career the talent differentials will also equal out.
Then all that is left is the superior game-plan.
See what I’m getting at here?
Hint.
Which South African domestic team has been most consistently successful over a period spanning multiple decades?
July 27th, 2012 at 6:13 am
If we go by the relative number of Stormers and Sharks selected in the recent Bok teams, we have to conclude that the current Sharks team have significantly more talent than the current Stormers team.
At least in the opinion of the Bok coach and no one has insinuated that he a bias in this.
Then how did the Stormers make it to 1st place?
Game-plan?
July 27th, 2012 at 8:06 am
Additionally part of structure is developing a plan to firstly nullify the opposition strengths and attack their weaknesses. It also means identifying the strengths your team has and playing to them… I mean this heads up nonsense… halfway through the game your tiny wing realizes… “Hey the flyhalf is kicking up and unders for me to chase and here I am hanging back deep to get the ball down the line…” or two players try to tackle the opposition’s weaker player whilst their man tank in the backline is left unguarded…
So for instance if you go onto the field with no plan to exploit opposition weaknesses or stay away from their strengths you may end up with the 2007 Reds trying to use weight advantages trying to take on the Bulls physically… and lose by 90 points.
Then you also get the 2011 Crusaders who come to Cape Town realizing the Stormers let opposition play with the ball… so you give it to them and let them try and play and they fail because their entire game plan is based around letting the opposition tire itself against their defence… and you win. Why? Because you had a structure and a plan developed to nullify the opposition strengths and stuck to it as a team.
The team which plays with planning and structure as opposed to the “afkop hoender” style loses.
As I said before
My girls’ primary school kids are already making calls on plays and developing structures to play in.
July 27th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Well said Timeo
July 27th, 2012 at 8:39 am
Obviously its about striking a balance between a well practiced game plan and leaving open the possibility of taking advantage of on-field opportunities when they arise.
It was clear last week that the Reds team coaches didn’t have a lot of confidence in Genia at 10 so Quade was trying to coach him, which obviously did not work.
I personally think that its not as big a problem as people are making out. The fact is, this isnt 7s and you have a lot more structure. Some teams adapt better to changes in game plan than others, Nothing new there.
July 27th, 2012 at 10:12 am
There needs to be structure in defense and offense but clearly there needs to be unpredictable play that breaks the structure and keeps defenses guessing. Players need to recognise patterns but if the opp studies you they will read the plays.
Thats when you rely on physicality for dominance against two teams who play structured rugby. So if the flyhalf stands deep and is predicable then it easy to pick off.
You need both to be a good team, like the AB’s.
The Stormers could win this comp on been the most boring and unimaginative team who take the least risks. So if you support structure play but bitch about the stormers you are a knob.
I favour a huge dose of creation but would never ever want to see rugby just been sets of plays which is what is starting to happen with all the pitch invasions and instructions.
Personally I wanted Pdiddy to play open running rugby and back his style show us that it could be done but instead we followed some real conservative agendas and still lost. At least if he was his own man we could have known.
July 27th, 2012 at 10:18 am
Reply to Stormersboy @ 8:39 am:
Even in Sevens there is a lot of structure in playing.
As an example in last year’s matches that we played against the Fijians, when in possession the Boks incessantly sought contact to form mauls… which worked a wonder because we beat the Fijians all the time… although we seemed keen to lose to everyone else…
July 27th, 2012 at 10:28 am
don’t confuse heads-up with no structure. Some teams make the mistake to play too strictly to a structure so that they miss opportunities.
Stormers for example get some go forward and as the ball comes out of a ruck and they have an overlap the ball goes to a forward at 10 instead of the back-line to exploit the space out wide.
Play a structure but get the players to “think for themselves” and take opportunities when they present themselves. Also coach the players to be able to react as a unit to an opportunity.
July 27th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 10:28 am:
THAT is the fault of the players calling the play and NOT the structure.
What you are referring to is using your structure to intelligently exploit opposition weaknesses.
This is where Shields does not understand structure.
It does not mean being an automaton but rather using drilled structure to exploit opposition mistakes and weaknesses. It requires the plays called to be intelligent and suitable to the onfield situation.
This means when the Stormers have an overlap and the play caller calls say “Whiskey Een!” as the play the forward at ten steps back and the flyhalf slides the ball down the line. BUT it is up to the player in charge to call the play, otherwise you get overlaps not exploited. Don’t blame that on “structure”…. blame it on players not using the structure properly. Perhaps that is the reason why Peter Grant does not get a run with the Boks…
It is fallacious to say structure is not heads up rugby in fact because the coach drills a number of plays into the players and also places where a set number of plays would be applicable. Example… inside you goal line give the ball to Joe to skop it two miles upfield and don’t run it or whatever. You play your drilled calls as the situation demands. The pressure is on the decisionmaker at ruck time to make that call on the spot. This makes for slick moves that fools like Shields think are unstructured when in fact it was a move that has five breakdowns and results in an overlap to the left with wings facing opposition tight forwards and with space. It all looks beautifully unstructured but in truth the whole move was planned and properly drilled to look like an accident rather than a plan. BUT it is up to the players to see the situation.
Example was in 2005/6/7 with the Boks where against New Zealand they intentionally used ball carriers to run straight at McCaw and bury him under rucks for the whole game thus nullifying his ability to interfere at breakdowns by forcing him to tackle all the time. Everyone at the time was so annoyed at the way Jacques Cronje and Danie Rossouw incessantly “took contact” instead of “playing gaps” but the idea was to nullify a great All Blacks weapon and it worked mostly. Structure gives you that… and playing your structure intelligently does so more.
The truth is that players must be heads up to use their structure when the opportunity presents itself.