Peter Keen and Ian McGeechan lead performance review for RFU

Keen and McGeechan undertaking performance review
Pair are reporting to CEO Ian Ritchie as independent consultants


Two of the world’s leading names in high performance sport are working with the RFU to ensure England’s success at the highest level.

Former UK Sport Performance Director Peter Keen was the architect of the systems and processes that resulted in Great Britain’s 19 gold medals at the Beijing Olympics, and continued to oversee the performance pathways that delivered 29 golds and ensured huge success at London 2012, while Sir Ian McGeechan has coached the British & Irish Lions five times as well as leading London Wasps to Heineken Cup and Aviva Premiership titles.

The independent consultants are reporting to RFU Chief Executive Ian Ritchie as part of the RFU’s drive to make sure England teams have the foundations necessary for long-term success.

“I’m delighted we’ve got two outstanding individuals involved and this is a very positive move,” said Ritchie.

“We have one of the greatest rugby brains of modern times allied with one of the most respected performance experts Great Britain has produced, that experience of best practice at the very top of elite sport can only benefit us.

“Across the organisation we’re continually looking at how we can do things better. In this case that means the best performance pathways, support mechanisms and programmes which ultimately result in better England teams. I know they’re both very excited about their involvement and I’m looking forward to working with them closely.”

Reading between the lines they've indentified some deadwood but want some paper weight back up before they start firing people.

Could this be the end for Teflon man?

Squeaky bum time indeed!

Beware of being small minded on this one. SIM will be looking at a very broad spectrum of what it takes to make a winning team in today's highly competitive world where every country is trying to find and edge.

First I must applaud the new CEO Sir Ian Ritchie for commencing this review. He has the kahoonas to rock the boat in the RFU.

England rugby has been about selecting posh kids from expensive Rugby schools for far too long and bolstering them with a sprinkle of foreign mercenaries.

We need a nationwide development path to identify the the best talent and then bring them on.

Well don Ritchie and good luck to SIM. I can't wait to hear the outcome of this its been a long time coming.

Geech is one of the most over rated coaches in the league. I really don't think he gets the modern game and the way our sport is going

Why does every one seem to think that SIM will be good for England rugby?

Their is another thread calling for SCW, to be brought back into the England fold after what he did with the Olympics.

Will SIM be better for England than SCW?

I gues it is a matter of wait and see.

I note perhaps unsurprisingly that the focus here is on Sir Ian. There is however another man doing the review with him - Peter Keen - and as a cycling fanatic as well as a rugby fan that name carries a lot more weight to me. They guy is amazing, seriously, no amount of praise can do him justice.

For his history see this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/cycling/7534073.stm

...and believe me this is understating him, it details little of the battles he faced against the governing body and perceptions of those in the sport to get things going.

He is a guy that genuinely understands how elite sport and development works. At the time the article was written and until last year, he was head of UK sport (i.e. the body that funds Olympic sport in the UK and sets the targets) so has also played a major part in our current Olympic success. So, while Clive has been director of elite performance at the BOA and will be happy to take all the plaudits, Keen was the man who was ultimately responsible for the teams getting the right set up. He had to decide whether or not the set ups they had were really going to deliver, and how much funding they should get to do that - the buck stopped with him. Sir Clives role was much more one of support, guidance and advice (and I've no doubt he contributed a lot by those means) but as I understand it his direct powers were limited. Keen may not have been in his role up to the Olympics, but that in a sense is not really relevant. By the time he left the systems were in place, and that is his specialty.

The other thing that marks Keen out as perhaps the better man is that unlike Sir Clive he succeeded in leaving a legacy. He had to fight similar fights to Sir Clive - for example getting them to focus on winning on the track first (there was major resistance to that, as the road has always been considered the main event within cycling) and dropping the deadwood to get that genuinely elite set up. But. the set up he left behind didn't need him to continue. The charismatic Brailsford (who is in my opinion much more akin to Sir Clive) was able to take up the reins and carry on - though it is worth pointing out that he was still answerable to Keen in his role with UK sport until last year. In Sir Clives case the set up fell apart when he left, though in his defence that is also to do with greater resistance from the governing body. Keen probably had a tougher fight to get the ball rolling, but cycling had been much more starved of success before he came along so was perhaps quicker to embrace Keen's approach long term than the RFU were to adopt Sir Clive's after the world cup.

For me this is a fantastic pairing for the job. Geech knows his rugby, and Keen knows how an elite set up should work - add those together and you get a good mix. My only reservation is that both are amicable and softly spoken. If they have any criticism of the current set up I fear it would be written in a diplomatic manner that could leave wriggle room for those in charge at the RFU. The biggest chink of light is that Ritchie requested this, he must have known that Keen would give an honest appraisal (however softly spoken he may be) and must understand the potential implications of this - as stated by others perhaps he wants this report to use as leverage to get some dead wood out, it's not too soon if he does.

Thanks for that info Big. It makes some interesting reading and leaves me with a bit more hope for English rugby going forward.

Who knows maybe now we'll see some real change at the top of the rugby echelons rather then just in the middle.

Keen & SIM do indeed seem the perfect couple to conduct the review. That is an interesting insight above, however, I don't think most people were not directly comparing SCW with Keen.
It is of course an added bonus that Keen knows Woodward so well as there may be a recommendation by the review for a position which he may well fit.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Keen & SIM do indeed seem the perfect couple to conduct the review. That is an interesting insight above, however, I don't think most people were not directly comparing SCW with Keen.
It is of course an added bonus that Keen knows Woodward so well as there may be a recommendation by the review for a position which he may well fit.

That's fair enough (about it not being a direct comparison) and you may well be right (about the possible recommedation). I think there was a little bit of conflict reported initially between Keen and Woodward. However, I think a lot of that was really between the men above them, with the BOA wanting to wrestle power and funding from UK Sport and UK Sport trying to defend their position. I believe that in the end they both got on fairly well, and given that both are openly enthusiastic about sharing knowledge I'd be very surprised if they didn't share ideas on a few things in recent years. I've said in the past that I'd be happy to see Woodward back to finish the job he started, and that is very much true now. Squeaky may be feeling a little nervous that Ritchie has chose to commision this now, just as Woodward's role with the BOA is coming to an end.