England Rugby's strategic plan was/is too overambitious

I was reading an interesting blog from Johnny Beattie, who questioned Scotland rugby's strategic plan. The strategic plan left Beattie quite jaded and he found comfort in realising that over-ambition is not just a 'Scottish disease'.

An interesting blog, but the thing that got me jaded was the over-ambition polluting out from the England camp. The strategic plan from 2008 was to win the Six Nations four times (including two Grand Slams) and to win the RWC in 2011 and 2015.

The English rugby strategic plan 2008 to 2015 has as one of its targets "to win the World Cup in 2011 and 2015, and to win the Six Nations four times including two Grand Slams".

I put it to you, m'Lud, that they have already failed to make their rather ambitious targets. England were beaten by France in the quarter-final in 2011, and to think, they were supposed to win that tournament. Maybe nobody had told the opposition!

The problem is that as you sit in your room and write down your sporting targets and try to imagine your route to world domination, every other country in the world is trying to get better as well.

England won the 2011 Six nations on points difference, finished second in 2012 and did not make it past the 2011 RWC quarter final. I agree with Beattie. England should re-think their strategic plan. Morg's realistic strategic plan for England for between now and 2015:

1. Win at least one other Six Nations
2. Beat South Africa at home before the 2015 RWC
3. Get out of the group stages at the 2015 RWC
4. Get an English team into the Heinken Cup final before 2015

What would be your strategic plan be for England, or your own team for between now and 2015?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/johnbeattie/2012/06/are_scotland_smart_to_spell_ou.html

England: Win all future games up to and including RWC 2015 final

Barney McGrew did it wrote:England: Win all future games up to and including RWC 2015 final

+1

sugarNspikes wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:England: Win all future games up to and including RWC 2015 final

+1

+1

anything less is a fecking gutless cop out

Triangulation wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:England: Win all future games up to and including RWC 2015 final

+1

+1

anything less is a fecking gutless cop out

I'd argue that point 4 is no relation to the other 3 points because the first 3 points are all to do with the international team and the RFU whilst point 4 is a target for the clubs and those two entities are very seperate bodies.

Personally I'd want to see:

1. Win at least 1 more 6N before 2015 and to not finish lower than third in any.
2. Beat all of the SH teams at home at least once.
3. Semi finals at our own tournament is a minimum requirement.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:England: Win all future games up to and including RWC 2015 final

+1

Thats what NZ are aiming for. No team should be aiming for anything less.

Morgannwg wrote:I was reading an interesting blog from Johnny Beattie, who questioned Scotland rugby's strategic plan. The strategic plan left Beattie quite jaded and he found comfort in realising that over-ambition is not just a 'Scottish disease'.

An interesting blog, but the thing that got me jaded was the over-ambition polluting out from the England camp. The strategic plan from 2008 was to win the Six Nations four times (including two Grand Slams) and to win the RWC in 2011 and 2015.

The English rugby strategic plan 2008 to 2015 has as one of its targets "to win the World Cup in 2011 and 2015, and to win the Six Nations four times including two Grand Slams".

I put it to you, m'Lud, that they have already failed to make their rather ambitious targets. England were beaten by France in the quarter-final in 2011, and to think, they were supposed to win that tournament. Maybe nobody had told the opposition!

The problem is that as you sit in your room and write down your sporting targets and try to imagine your route to world domination, every other country in the world is trying to get better as well.

England won the 2011 Six nations on points difference, finished second in 2012 and did not make it past the 2011 RWC quarter final. I agree with Beattie. England should re-think their strategic plan. Morg's realistic strategic plan for England for between now and 2015:

1. Win at least one other Six Nations
2. Beat South Africa at home before the 2015 RWC
3. Get out of the group stages at the 2015 RWC
4. Get an English team into the Heinken Cup final before 2015

What would be your strategic plan be for England, or your own team for between now and 2015?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/johnbeattie/2012/06/are_scotland_smart_to_spell_ou.html

Wrong. We didn't win the 6N on points difference, we finished on 8 points and everybody else finished on either 6 or 2 points.

Englands plan for the future should be to build a team that can win against SA, AUS, NZ. After the Ais that is when the real work will begin. Begin building a team for the 6ns and beyond.

Yes it should be a plan to WIN THE 2015 RUGBY WORLD CUP. Especialy as it is taking part in England, what a better time to win it.

So lets not get a head of our selves at this point in time. shell we.

I am sure that Wales, Ireland and Scotland, yes Scotland hope one day that they could win a Rugby World Cup.

My strategic plan for Wales:

1. Get within the top 4 of IRB rankings before the RWC seedings are decided
2. Beat the 3 SH powerhouses at home (and away if possible) before 2015
3. Win another Six Nations before 2015
4. Get to the RWC final in 2015

Wales U20s:
1. Win an U20 Six Nations by 2015
2. Win a JWC championship by 2015
3. Keep producing the young guns (box ticked so far)

My strategic plan for New Zealand.

Win.

Everything.




Actually, I'd settle for winning all our home games, winning 2 of the next 4 Rugby Championships (and not finishing below 2nd), not losing to any of the Home Nations, and reaching the final in the RWC 2015 - no team's ever successfully defended the RWC, so managing that would be a bonus.

Has Gatland's strategic plan for Wales been published? I've not seen anything, but I would bet that a) there is one and b) it includes the ambition to beat Australia on the tour just gone.

Does that make it hopelessly optimistic? Or would I just be wumming?

It's not unrealistic or overambitious for any of the 5 or 6 top teams to set out a plan for winning the RWC. After all, that's what their public expects. Since rugby is a sport where a team can't sensibly plan on being mediocre and then peaking for a major tournament, any plan is likely to be based on winning a lot of matches and tournaments.

Whether or not a team can execute against a plan like that is another question, but the reason for having a plan is so that you know where you are against it. If it's ambitious and you're not hitting it, then at least you know you've got a problem.

Goals for springboks, beat the All Blacks, beat the All Blacks, Beat the All Blacks, you do that everything else comes naturally.

In seriousness, win 75% of our matches, the rest will fall in place.

Poorfour wrote:Has Gatland's strategic plan for Wales been published? I've not seen anything, but I would bet that a) there is one and b) it includes the ambition to beat Australia on the tour just gone.

Find that plan, and then get back to us.

Morgannwg wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Has Gatland's strategic plan for Wales been published? I've not seen anything, but I would bet that a) there is one and b) it includes the ambition to beat Australia on the tour just gone.

Find that plan, and then get back to us.

If you think Gatland would just let it be leaked, he's a dafter man than I thought. If you think it doesn't exist and it doesn't say something along those lines, then you're a dafter man than I thought.

Hey, here is a daft strategic plan for you:

"to win the World Cup in 2011 and 2015, and to win the Six Nations four times including two Grand Slams".

Take some time out to reflect on the failure. Then maybe you can look forward like the rest of us.

I've reflected on it.

Since it covered 2011 and 2015, I assume it's an 8 year plan. Winning both of those RWCs is a bit overambitious, but England would get flak whatever their RWC ambition. As top 6 nation, previous winner and 3 time finalist, an ambition of winning the RWC looks arrogant, but anything less looks defeatist. If it were your plan (trying to be serious and leaving aside schadenfreude, hindsight and any vestige of celtic bias), what would you have said?

Beyond that, winning the 6N 4 times in 8 years, with two of them being grand slams, does not seem unreasonable. France did it between 2003-2010, and Wales nearly did it between 2005-2012. So unless you think it's unreasonable for England to have an ambition to win anything, it's not daft at all.

Was it achievable? It might have been. There was a period in 2010-11 when it looked very possible for England to reassert some dominance in the 6N and start to challenge the SH. Two bad games (against South Africa, where they lost 3 players to injury in the first 10 minutes, and against Ireland, where they just didn't bring enough aggression and desire) destroyed their confidence and showed up Johnno's inexperience as a coach.

But why is it overambitious for a team that made the RWC final when well below par and has the playing resources that England has available to want to win stuff?

Morgannwg wrote:Hey, here is a daft strategic plan for you:

"to win the World Cup in 2011 and 2015, and to win the Six Nations four times including two Grand Slams".

Take some time out to reflect on the failure. Then maybe you can look forward like the rest of us.

Morgan

The team of 2012 is different to the team of 2011. Stewart Lancaster came in and cleared out the old guard and brought in in whole new team. Yes their was some of the 2011 team still in the 2012 team, but alot of them was players that was new to international play.

Since SL took over the England looks more promising, they are not the finished article by a long shot. But by the time 2015 rugby qorld cup comes about, well, you never know.

But like i said before.... England need time to come together as a team, and after the Ais, then the hard work will begin.

Morgannwg wrote:Hey, here is a daft strategic plan for you:

"to win the World Cup in 2011 and 2015, and to win the Six Nations four times including two Grand Slams".

Take some time out to reflect on the failure. Then maybe you can look forward like the rest of us.

I thought this sort of tosh was left on the old 606. I expect better from you Morgan.

Cleary to win both 2011 and 2015 RWC was a bit ambitious, but totally unrelaistic? No. To win your own home RWC surely has to be a positive aim. We've already won one 6N in that time frame, plus only just missed out on two others where we came 2nd. We still have three more Championships to go and could still feasibly achieve that. So where's this glaring over-ambition and 'traditional English arrogance'?

RWC2011 was dissapointing, but we had only just come off of beating OZ home and away (incidentally more than Wales has achieved) and winning a 6N. Also, beating Wales and Ireland in our warm-up matches. For whatever reason it fell apart tactically at the tournament, and the seeds of that were sewn in the loss to Wales and the MS. Where we completely dominated possession but failed to do sod all with it. Suffice to say it's not a great critique of a fairly creditible plan.

Surely this whole thread misses the point of the article? Taking England as they are my team, they could fail to improve at all between now and the 6 nations, but still get a Grand Slam if the opposition play badly in the big games. Yet we could improve massively and come 2nd/3rd if a couple of the other teams improve even more. So what is the point in using results as a sole indicator?

In terms of winning surely every team should try and win every game, otherwise what's the point? Doesn't mean anyone will succeed, but it seem odd to try and do less.

Getting the pro structure right, building support and player numbers, etc are much more within the control of the unions and will in the fullness of time get the results.

Poorfour wrote:I've reflected on it.

Since it covered 2011 and 2015, I assume it's an 8 year plan. Winning both of those RWCs is a bit overambitious, but England would get flak whatever their RWC ambition. As top 6 nation, previous winner and 3 time finalist, an ambition of winning the RWC looks arrogant, but anything less looks defeatist. If it were your plan (trying to be serious and leaving aside schadenfreude, hindsight and any vestige of celtic bias), what would you have said?

Beyond that, winning the 6N 4 times in 8 years, with two of them being grand slams, does not seem unreasonable. France did it between 2003-2010, and Wales nearly did it between 2005-2012. So unless you think it's unreasonable for England to have an ambition to win anything, it's not daft at all.

Was it achievable? It might have been. There was a period in 2010-11 when it looked very possible for England to reassert some dominance in the 6N and start to challenge the SH. Two bad games (against South Africa, where they lost 3 players to injury in the first 10 minutes, and against Ireland, where they just didn't bring enough aggression and desire) destroyed their confidence and showed up Johnno's inexperience as a coach.

But why is it overambitious for a team that made the RWC final when well below par and has the playing resources that England has available to want to win stuff?

There, we are seeing eye to eye. Because the bit I have bolded was my whole point. What would I have said? Well see the OP where I listed some strategic targets (I've done Wales' too).

The Six Nations? I'd say between now and 2015 another one is achievable given the opposition. Although England can still aim for all 3 up until then. It is pretty tight between four teams with Wales and England just out in front of Ireland and France in my opinion.

Now onto Scotlands strategic targets:

1. Beat Wales in the Six Nations before 2015
2. Beat Italy away from home before 2015
3. Get double figures in the try count (in the Six Nations) before 2015.

They should stick to simple achievable plans, like beating Australia.

Cumbrian wrote:

Wrong. We didn't win the 6N on points difference, we finished on 8 points and everybody else finished on either 6 or 2 points.

Surely thats ...points difference?

For England I would say (up to and including 2015)

1. Win 2 Six Nations, to include 1 Grand slam
2. Assuming Autumn internationals are the same format, to win 5 of the 9 games against OZ, SA, NZ.
3. Win the 3 other AI's
4. 2013 Tour to Argentina, Series win
5. 2014 Tour to NZ win one test and all midweek fixtures
6. All losses less than 9 points

Simple and realistic,expect to win every match they play,pointless playing otherwise.Reality they will probably have a 60% win rate versus NH sides,maybe 30% versus Sh tier one.RWC Semi-final appearence at least.

Well you are all missing the point of Beatties article ( whoch was about Scotland, but applies to any team)
What s the point in setting targets for what you are goign to win without setting targets on how its going to be acheived?

How about:
1) get clarity on who the england attack coach and then explain to them what wingers are
2) Keep Danny Care sober and/or Ben Youngs fit
3) Ensure the quality of non capped sanzars playing in the Jeff for 3 plus years is improved
4) Dangle carrots instead of pies infront of Ben Morgan
5) Stop picking Phil Dowson
6) Make Rob Andrew earn his crust and figure out a way of reducing the amount of games top level clubs play without bankrupting them or annoying the next tier too much

There is only 1 target in sport in every game and comp

W

and as PSBW points out stating it is pointless, it is stating the completely obvious. It is indicative of the wearisome corporation of all aspects of life that leads to some bureaucrat sending an email to SL saying ' we need to set targets for the annual report' etc etc

Indeed it is how any side believes it can and will achieve it's objective that needs to be scrutinised

In this case and in the case of Wales, teams on the cusp of achievement, it just creates a rod for the collective back which will then lead to constant niggling when teams like England and Wales fail to win everything, in the case of Scotland it might seem stupid to make grand statements about world cups but they have further to progress and i think it is a sign of confidence in the direction of travel.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:

Wrong. We didn't win the 6N on points difference, we finished on 8 points and everybody else finished on either 6 or 2 points.

Surely thats ...points difference?

I would say that's just an outright win. If England and say Wales had both been on 8 points, then England won due to the difference between points scored and allowed being higher than Wales' that is points difference. Just because it isn't a grand slam doesn't make it on points difference!

Morgannwg wrote:My strategic plan for Wales:

1. Get within the top 4 of IRB rankings before the RWC seedings are decided
2. Beat the 3 SH powerhouses at home (and away if possible) before 2015
3. Win another Six Nations before 2015
4. Get to the RWC final in 2015

(especially the bit in bold)

I'm going to disagree with most now.

Goals/targets are only usefull if acheivable. Hitting targets can be great encouragement and quantify improvement.

If your dull enough to say your goal is to Win, every team on the planet has fallen short! Every team has lost games over the last 12 months, EVERY team!

When setting targets you have to make them SMART, they have to be short and long term.

Lower tier teams need to set acheivable targets in order to catch up to top tier teams, as the NH has to do to catch the SH teams!

For example, Englands targets should never be to win, it should narrowed, and certain units/facets of play should be targeted. Have you ever heard the phrase look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves, this applies to rugby perfectly. When units improve their stats the rest of the team gets better areas to play in etc...

If I was in charge of English rugby I would definately put some focus on the club game, more success there helps the feeling of optimism around the game.

So...

1, 3 clubs to qualify from HC group directly before WC.
2, 4th spot come seedings time
3, target and win the 6N directly campaign pre WC!
4, Win the WC!

I'm sure SA had a goal to win the 2011 World Cup. I'm sure they also aimed to win their home games in the 3N.

Frankly, I think goal setting is more relevant for teams lower down the rankings. We all know the ABs go out to win every single match. It's an impossible goal but that's the impossible standard they and the public set them. So when they lose the 3N but win the World Cup do we feel satisfied and think our goals have been ticked off? Do we f...

But if you're struggling to win and you want to turn things round, setting challenging goals is a good way to focus your attention on something loftier than what you're currently achieving. It's no use setting achievable goals that don't allow much room for growth. You have to set the bar high because if you settle for something easy like lose to the ABs by 10, you`re rewarding failure and justifying it. England, Wales, Ireland and France are more or less in the same position. They need to jump up the rankings a little. To do that, they need to beat the SH big 3. If that's not part of their goal system, then there's something wrong with their vision of where they would like their teams to be.

Kia makes a great point, when you set that kind of standard you are always feeling disapointed!

But then you say the SH are the goals for the NH?! I disagree, they have been our goals for too long, we watch what your doing and try to emulate it, we are constantly playing catch up and I for one have had enough of lack of vision within Britain.

We need to be inspiring the rest of the world with our innovations, not peeking into others sessions to see what theyre doing!

Goal long term should be ranking no. 1 and WC win. I don't care who we have to beat, SH NH intergallactic it means little. We have to be the best team we can be, and if others are better we need to improve once again!

Focus on the SH teams puts them on a pedastill that makes it very difficult to get them down from. Shift the focus to quantifiable goals and forget about who you beat along the way.

Why aren't all teams aiming to win all future games up to and including the 2015 RWC?

Surely that should be the aim of everyone? Ok, you need to have a long term plan, set milestones along the way and assess at these times. Are we where we hoped we would be? Are we seeing the results we expect? (i.e. winning most of your internationals at a guess!) but do you think at a club level any team of any nation that truley wants to compete says 'hey, i guess half way up the table is ok? yeah? anyone?'.

That said, i found bluesmancometh made a few very good points that are in complete polar arguement to mine but that once every 4 years, you need to lay it all on the line and throw everything into winning .... everything!

thebluesmancometh wrote:

If I was in charge of English rugby I would definately put some focus on the club game, more success there helps the feeling of optimism around the game.

I agree with a lot of what you say about goals being achievable etc, but the above comment is complete disproved by Ireland at present.

Now I see why some countries are happy to be plucky losers and never win series in the SH, it's just ingrained into their thinking and way of life.

I'm glad England are aiming high and are over ambitious, as a paying customer I wouldn't expect anything less from my Countries professional players.

Thank God teams like England and France carry the NH flag against the SH Giants.

In my view goalsetting is the first step for any project, be it appointed as a Manager of a sales team or being a newly appointed head coach of a sports team.

When you consider goalsetting there need to be certain fundamentals.

The goal needs to be higher or an improvement on previous achievements.
The goal therefor must be challenging, it is no use to set a goal that won't shake things up or not bring a change in methodology or gameplan.

The goal though still needs to be achieveable, if not, no one will believe in the goal.

There also needs to be a time span to any particular goal.

Lastly the goal must be quantifyable or measurable.

It's no use to say in the next four years, we would like to win the Six Nations, RWC or Rugby Championship.

Rather say: our goal is to win the Six Nations next year (with all the fundamentals in mind)

Bluesman I see your point. But I'm not saying you have to emulate the game of the SH, whatever that is as NZ, Aus, SA all have different game plans.

To me the best preparation for a World Cup is beating everyone BEFORE the World Cup. You can ambush a few games but to get to the top you need to know deep down you're capable of beating everyone. Sadly, that kind of confidence invariably comes from beating everybody. If you look at all the World Cup winners, they weren't surprises out of the blue. They were form teams who had a proven track record against the big teams before the World Cup started. England and France have been capable of springing surprises on people but haven't been able to spring a few surprises together. To me it's no coincidence that England won in 2003 having won against all in 2002-3. So if your plan is to try to bring it all together in 2015, 2019 etc and not worry about what happens in between, it's a flawed plan right from the start. The ABs have shown that this plan is not foolproof either but it's certainly a safer bet than just placing all your World Cup eggs in one basket.

Kia

Just going back to your point of goal setting should only be for lesser sides, I'd tend to disagree to a point. There are always goals to be achieved.... even by NZ.

For NZ you could say… what goals do they need to achieve???? Well winning in SA regularly would be one. In RWC cycles they have won 2 times out of 5 from 04 -07 and 2 times out of 5 from 08-11.

Is that good enough???? For a team which has been the best side by a good margin in the world for 7-8 years you would expect more… and they would too. The odd win comes but more often than not SA turns them over at home. Not saying that NZ should win all the time but this is something no NZ side bar that in 96 have ever done…. Gone to SA and won regularly.
2 NZ sides have won the RWC in the last 25 years…. 1 NZ have won a series in SA in their entire history. Whilst these series are over for the time being, to put a string of wins together over a number of years would be a greater achievement than any home RWC win IMO.

I would bet Sean Fitzpatrick is more proud of winning the 96 series than he is of his 87 RWC winners medal.

He probably is fa0019 considering the teams NZ had to beat to win in 87 and winning the 96 series away in SA to get the duck off their back was a major achievement. Unfortunately it's difficult to see those games happening anymore.

I never said goal setting should only be for lesser sides. I'm sure part of the ABs successes are built on long-term and mid-term planning and of course there are things we can improve on like the SA record you point out. I just said it was more relevant for sides who are struggling for results. How do you turn narrow defeats into victories. To me goal setting is mapping out what you think you want to achieve that you are currently not capable of achieving. Sure NZ could improve their record away in SA but when you look at the overall number of 3N trophies for NZ, SA, and Oz it's difficult to feel short changed in that area. But somehow we always do! For the lesser sides, finding a way to improve that win ratio is more relevant in my view.

Goal setting only makes sense where a particular person or persons suffer/gain some physical consequence of meeting or failing that goal. For example SL could be set a goal of getting England to the RWC’15 final, where if he succeeds he gets offered a new contract and say a bonus of £100,000. And should he fail he gets no further contract (sacked) and no bonus. Maybe the same could be done for the RFU CEO. And the players could get some monetary bonus.

However, if ‘England’ are set the goal of the RWC’15 final, who’s going to be rewarded for achieving it: maybe all English people could get a tax rebate, or an extra bank holiday?

If ‘England’ fail a goal of getting a team to the HEC final, who’s going to be punished, and how? Or vice versa.

The collective ‘goal’ for a rugby team can only be to win all their games.

Personally I think all this national team goal setting is pseudo corporate flannel unless specific individuals are identified, and consequences made clear.

For example, Englands targets should never be to win, it should narrowed, and certain units/facets of play should be targeted. Have you ever heard the phrase look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves, this applies to rugby perfectly. When units improve their stats the rest of the team gets better areas to play in etc...


hmm that sounds familiar! oh yes, its what SCW did along with T-Cup

yes we should plan to lose more than we win so we cant be too disappointed.

Winning everything is impossible.

This is modern day sport, periodisation, targeting, goal setting, prioritising, tapering all contribute.

Look at NZ last season, prioritised the WC and threw the 3N away, the last ever 3N they threw away! As did SA to an extent.

Noone can win everything, you have to focus on what is most important to you and target that.

Cycles are huge in prof rugby, as in all sport, and you adjust your cycle, wether it be micro/meso/macro in order to peak at the time you want. The fact of the matter is NZ are the most consistant team in rugby, and the best this season arguably. They were not the best team last year, or 4 years ago, so IMO have not been the best team over the last X amount of years!

Sports is not a linear timeline, it's very much changing, and being the best and being the most consistant are 2 different things.

If I can use Usain Bolt as an example, he is the fastest man ever, but is not the fastest man this year, or the best sprinter this year, or the most consistent sprinter this year (so far) see my point?

How can something be 'too overambitious' it's either overambitious or too ambitious? Or is the OP saying that a little bit of overambition is fine but cross the line and you're doooooomed! Where is the line on overambition? Explain yourself man!

Don't get pedantic Carpe, you get the point!

IMO winning the WC is over ambitous for any NH side at present. Thats why you need to re set goals leading up to the next WC to bring that goal into contention.

I think we all got the point of the OP bluesman.

Well at least he's less suttle than some...

Triang

You make fun but thats exactly what SL did pre 6N, played England down, reported all problems, called it a clean up job and then set a goal of 2 wins minimum, 3 wins success.

IMO that is why he was the right man for the job, he played the media and the international game just right!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Don't get pedantic Carpe, you get the point!

IMO winning the WC is over ambitous for any NH side at present. Thats why you need to re set goals leading up to the next WC to bring that goal into contention.