Coaches Double Jobbing

At the start of the season it was announced that defence guru Shaun Edwards was taking charge of the defensive coordination with London Irish. Due to his involvement with Wales (and no doubt with the British and Irish Lions team) he said he would only be available part time.

Rather than the vast improvement from London Irish, they actually have the worst defensive record in the entire league -even worse than London Welsh or Sale Sharks.

Im not sure what they expected. I cant see how anyone doing half a job could be all that effective. I see also that the Irish National Team are operating with no attack/backs coach or indeed no scrum coach - they have Les Kiss double jobbing with Leinster scrum coach Grey Feek helping out now and then - is it any coincidence that the scrum and our attack patterns are probably our weakest areas.

Nobody wants to see the Clive Woodward Lions 2005 style where you had as many bloody coaches as players but equally having a suitable backroom is important.

Leinster survived with a part time scrum coach and no defence coach for the last 2 years (Joe Schmidt has been double jobbing for the last couple of years on attack and defence).

Isn't Edwards doing a lot more with Wales than just the Senior international team?

Sin é wrote:Joe Schmidt has been double jobbing for the last couple of years on attack and defence

A very good point. Leinster have the worst defensive record in the league this season. They have shipped 18 tries in 5 games. In fact no team in England has done worse. I would have to check but I think only Mont de Marsan have done worse they them.

Sin é.... we're all creatures of habit on this one, I'll admit. I say my bit, you say yours... a few more guys will join in with their usual bits.

But maybe - just maybe..... even Lord Joe, blessings be upon him .... is beginning to feel the strain of too many hats?

You can argue that's it (the double jobbing) is doable...but you can never argue that every coach can do it, that every coach is suited to trying it or that it is as legitmate a set-up (especially at International) as having dedicated coaches.

If it's cost cutting, then its a risk that I suppose pays off for a time (Joe) but sometimes doesn't function at all (Ireland)

Stag

You make valid points and it could be hard to argue for the 'part rime' roles, but IMO teams play to their personell first and foremost (or should do) and base a gameplan around what weapons they have.

In Irish's case part of their problem is playing quality, they are a weak prem squad at present (bottom half at least) and the coaches can only work with what theyve got. Of course this doesn't help when the coaching staff work hard to put in place playing structures, and the defence coach turns up once or twice a week to put his expertice into use, this may just be going against the usual game strategies. In Wales case it worked because of a total comitment and structure put in place, Gatland wanted Edwards to put in place a defencive system to base the gameplan around, low risk high reward, keep kicking long, have confidence in the system and fitness levels to cope.

For Ireland it's pretty simple, with Healy and Best in the front row, and the dynamism of Heaslip, SOB, POM etc combined with a lack of force in the boiler room the scrum is never going to be destructive. In this case I'd say a full time scrum coach is probably not needed, borrowing the best of the provinces coachs part time would be enough. Lets be honest, every forward receives scrum coaching week in week out, and little changes from a club scrum to an international scrum (except the options taken after)

The Attack/backs coach is a whole different ball game, is Kidney taking charge of that? who determines what the backs are doing?
This is where Irelands problems lie, Leinster have such a large advantage over so many teams when going forward, especially on turnover ball it's amazing to think of how toothless the Irish team is at times. I'd have no problem stepping into the Irish job and saying 'right, how is it they are working so effectively?' then replicate that with their Irish internationals and the 'best of the rest' kind of thing, with a focus on the key foreign players in the Leinster team Ala Gatland picking O's + 2 early on.

This may not go down well with some initially but it'll give the Irish team a stepping stone to a place they have never been before and always tried to get to, Leinster's dominance and attacking prowess on the international scene.

Sadly I think the Irish system has worked against them in recent years and players who were match winners and Irish legends are leaving massive holes behind them, BOD, POC etc...

I think Joe Schmidt has a much heavier workload than Les Kiss. I believe Greg Feek is now double jobbing as Defence & Scrum coach!

Ireland's attack has been fine - its defence (and having small centres) is the major problem. Munster's attack has improved a lot since Downey arrived.

Not last week it never!!

Is that a Downey for Ireland call???

I don't think Irelands defence is bad, everyone concedes on the int stage, but they do tend to struggle with their platform, this puts the defence under pressure.

I think if you want to be the best then you need to use every advantage, this would include a scrum coach to make the most of that and then individual backs/attack/defence coaches.

If you want to be fairly average and just plod along then yes you can cut corners and double job coaches etc

Edwards for me is on borrowed team, by the end of this season if not before he's going to need to make a choice on his future, is he an Int coach or a club coach? As frankly he really can't be both.

yappysnap wrote:Edwards for me is on borrowed team, by the end of this season if not before he's going to need to make a choice on his future, is he an Int coach or a club coach? As frankly he really can't be both.

I agree with this. I think the issue of double jobbing is more prevelant when guys are doing both club and country rather than two roles within one club.

Ireland also dumped Oz out of the WC due to outstanding defence. So can't be doing too bad there.

I'd say it'd def their attack that struggles, just look at the Baabaa game earlier in the year.

red_stag wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Edwards for me is on borrowed team, by the end of this season if not before he's going to need to make a choice on his future, is he an Int coach or a club coach? As frankly he really can't be both.

I agree with this. I think the issue of double jobbing is more prevelant when guys are doing both club and country rather than two roles within one club.

It also doesn't help him in particular that he's built his career on a specific brand of confrontational defence which can win games on its own. Since he started doubling jobbing we have seen this less and less.

I understand (Ozzy mentioned this on the podcast this week) that Edwards is only spending 1 day a week at LI. Is that really enough to sharpen the defence - presumeably the players can do defensive drills when he's not there, but it can't be ideal without his feedback.

Granted LI are also struggling with their attack (sorry Ozzy)

thebluesmancometh wrote:Not last week it never!!

Is that a Downey for Ireland call???

I don't think Irelands defence is bad, everyone concedes on the int stage, but they do tend to struggle with their platform, this puts the defence under pressure.

Downey didn't start last weekend. Casey Laulala was 12 with Earls at 13 (never played together before).

Up against international class defences, Schmidt coached Leinster struggle. Leinster haven't scored a try against Munster in the last 3/4 games

1 day a week??

In reality though if he impliments a system and uses other coaches to oversee the implimentaion and interventions then it shouldn't make that much of a difference how often he's there. Over the course of a season his input should've given the full time coaches the tools to use.

Although Edwards is kind of consulting rather than employing his defencive systems right now, should he be paid a consultancy fee instead of a wage?

In LI's case though, surely having one of the best for one day a week is better than having 100 poor coaches 15 hours a day 7 days a week?!

Sin

Was just having a bit of a wind up mate. Is that Leinster havn't scored a try for 3 or 4 games? or they havn't scored a try in the last 3/4's of the last game?

thebluesmancometh wrote:Sin

Was just having a bit of a wind up mate. Is that Leinster havn't scored a try for 3 or 4 games? or they havn't scored a try in the last 3/4's of the last game?

I know

They have not scored a try (even though they have won the last 2 games) in I think the last 4 games!

They also struggle to score trys against the Ospreys & Clermont.

Edit: Just to compare some of the defences in the Magners for last season.

Tries for / Tries against
Leinster: 48/28
Ospreys: 44/22
Munster: 45/27

Cardiff: 43/45
Edinburgh: 42/65
Ulster: 53/41

A massive difference defence wise between the Top 3 clubs there and the Bottom 3. Ulster have really upped their game this year.

Ulster:

So basically abbrassive packs then? with a strong set peice?

thebluesmancometh wrote:So basically abbrassive packs then? with a strong set peice?

Munster's pack was poor last year (losing Wally, Leamy & Coughlan), but even the kids stopped from scoring! Its defence organisation and commitment.

They were light of experience but the guys who came in were still a Munster mould, they weren't as strong but definately not poor.

What percentage of 80 minutes should you devote to defensive organisation?

As often as a good attacking side attacks you?
Or do you actually invite the opposition to attack by doing the kick down field when under no pressure to do so?

Which is it? And how much time does a successful side devote to it?

thebluesmancometh wrote:They were light of experience but the guys who came in were still a Munster mould, they weren't as strong but definately not poor.

Definately in the same mould (as in commitment), but don't have the same physicality to get the team going forward. CJ Stander will be a very useful addition.

All good questions fly, but all depend on the gameplan and situation IMO.

If you ship tries for fun early in the season you have to refocus and reassess, same before and after tougher HC games.

Depending on playing roster, coaches abilities, coaching numbers, and club ethos...

Thats what I love about rugby, you can have played the games since a young age, represented you club, country, isle, then coached for 30 more years and your opinions is worth exactly the same as a novice looking at the game with a fresh perspective, there is no right answer, only the right questions!

SecretFly wrote:What percentage of 80 minutes should you devote to defensive organisation?

As often as a good attacking side attacks you?
Or do you actually invite the opposition to attack by doing the kick down field when under no pressure to do so?

Which is it? And how much time does a successful side devote to it?

When the opposition have the ball, everyone should be defending. Ireland beat Australia in the world cup with its defence. Wales beat Ireland with their defence in the world cup. Leinster probably won their first HCup with their defence.

Sin

I'd say the best form of defence is attack, when you have the ball the opposition can't attack, so in essence you are defending, even if you are not going anywhere in attack.

Thats some of the theory going around at the moment, even a toothless attack is better than the best defence!!

Hmm yes and no bluesman. The best form of defence is to retain the ball and control the territory and posession I'd say.

Attacking in the wrong areas of the field or with slow ball is likely lead to turn overs.

For example the ABs do use a kicking game a lot, especially when they have slow ball. They'll kick deep and allow the opposition to run at them, knowing that once the ball carrier is isolated they'll commit numbers to th ruck and turn them over.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

I'd say the best form of defence is attack, when you have the ball the opposition can't attack, so in essence you are defending, even if you are not going anywhere in attack.

Word for word, I agree. Didn't think I'd hear it being said though. "Even if you are not going anywhere in attack" attack is still keeping the opposition from attacking you (ie, it's using up those initial 80 minutes of attack time the opposition have to play with)

I'm not saying there isn't a place for 'traditional' defending - as in being without the ball, because of a strong opposition or because you've decided to kick it back their way as a strategy for isolating a few of them. But to clinically rely on defence as a method of keeping down an opposition's scoring potential (and to commit yourself to too many minutes in defence), and to champion that strategy because of the truth in the maxim that defence wins games is interpreting the maxim incorrectly.

Also, "when the opposition have the ball everyone should be defending" is exactly the trait I see in the Irish set-up that I complain about more than any other. You can't say that attack is 'fine' in Ireland if the ritual is to hover in no-man's-land where you're too scripted in the ultimate need to defend that you lack the fluidity to risk attack. Ireland don't attack with constant fluidity because too many mixed messages are demanding that the players don't risk defence to attack. So attacking players lose or never gain support players to their right or to their left to sustain an attack as the fear of losing possession stifles the adventures.

rodders wrote:Hmm yes and no bluesman. The best form of defence is to retain the ball and control the territory and posession I'd say.

Attacking in the wrong areas of the field or with slow ball is likely lead to turn overs.

For example the ABs do use a kicking game a lot, especially when they have slow ball. They'll kick deep and allow the opposition to run at them, knowing that once the ball carrier is isolated they'll commit numbers to th ruck and turn them over.

bang on rods.

Now if we had a Pocock/McCaw/Warburton we'd be nearly able to cope with a small midfield (talking about No. 7s - Martyn Williams was seen in Limerick last week having dinner with POC, ROG & Casey. Whats Martyn Williams doing now anyone know)?

Rodders you've misread what Ive said.

At no point did I mean that you hold onto ball in and around your own 22, theres always a need for a kicking game.

My point is that a lot of theory surrounding some prof clubs now is reduction of defencive time coupled with increased ball retention time. Sacrifice attacking intent for defencive structure, even when you have the ball. The higher the risk attacking play the more chance of ball loss, whereas a larger number of low risk attacking plays = more chance of points (if that makes sense). The end result is less points per game and less attractive rugby to fans, but in reality a fan will take more wins less throwing the ball around any day of the week.

Also the AB kicking game is much more complex than just hitting the back 3 and isolating them. They never kick without a structured chase (unless no one is at home and an fragmented chase is as likely to regain the ball as a fragmented defencive line) also the kick chase ethos relies on the AB line getting beyond the reload of the opposing pack. They do run differing chase strategies possibly pre determined by feild position or kicker/signal.