Do former internationals make better national coaches

Just wondering if former internationals make better coaches. In NZ we generally believe that you can't be an AB's coach if you haven't played for them. My feeling is no. I think they are probably the greatest specialist coaches. My feeling is that head coaches are in effect managers and there is no reason why people who haven't played at the very top can't be as good or better.

Here's some examples:
NZ
Sir Brian Lochore 1985–1987 Former All Black, ok as coach
Alex Wyllie 1988–1991 Former All Black, great coach
Laurie Mains 1992–1995 Former All Black, bloody aweful as coach
John Hart 1996–1999 very good coach coach
Wayne Smith 2000–2001 Former All Black, ok as coach
John Mitchell 2002–2003 Former All Black, good coach
Sir Graham Henry 2004–2011 great coach
Steve Hansen 1012- To early to say

Other coaches who i don't think represented their country as players include Lancaster, Ashton, Rowell and Cooke - England; Dwyer, Smith Jones, MacQuuen, Connelly - Australia, McIntosh, Christie, White De Villiers and Meyer - South Africa.

GH proved the theory slightly wrong. He had successes at everything he did. From Auckland grammar, Kelston boys, Auckland, Blues, AB's, some success with Wales and an awesome 2013 year with the Blues (bit premature but inevitable).

I think part of it is having the right people around you, obviously hard work, great vision, and on top of all that...a bit of luck.

I didnt like Mains to start with but the side he put out in the 95 world cup was possibly one of the best sides weve ever had- in the end he didnt have that one factor- luck. Something completely unforseen happened at the worst possible time. If not for that perhaps we'd be hailing him as one of the best.

clearly not when SL is showing what non internationals can do

It's not so much that former Test players make the best coaches, it's more that, these days, they have the best opportunities to take up those roles.

Lancaster aside, it's harder in the professional era for non-players to get involved at a senior managerial level. A lot of senior rugby people used to have a background in teaching, and others in business, but you can't really hold down that kind of job and also coach these days. You need to give up the day job to get more heavily involved, which can obviously be a risky proposition.

I don't think you have to be a former international to coach at the highest level but that label carries different connotations these days anyway. With squads being the size they are, and more Tests in the calendar, it's much easier for a half decent player to get named to some kind of representative team at least once.

The other day, I was looking at the CV of the Reds coach, Richard Graham. I have no memory of him at all in international competition but he made it to Australia A level and captained his country at sevens.

The world is changing. Development of coaches is much more professional now, and I think we are seeing the first generation of true coaching professionals emerge. What does matter is international exposure. I hadn't realised until recently how involved Lancaster was with Johnson's operation, which clearly made a difference in his ability to step up.

Dingo Deans? He's doing well with the convicts.

Fed Allen

SL got in with abit of luck and abit of faith.. he was only tempoary.. he didnt even win the 6n's yet still won over the whole fanbase and the RFU..

there was still a massive chance he wouldnt have become the coach...

I can see many pluses for internationals and non..

internationals might deserve it- they have been there and done it all at playing level..

but they may be more inclined to pick star players!!

the mindset of a non international must be very very different in that regard..

also the non international is in a way is starting the coaching role fresh(no bad habits learnt!!)

the obvious reason to appoint a non international - is that there are infinantly more non inteernationals available- therefore!! the chances are the better managers and coaches will be non internationals!!

Mystir, Wouldnt you have to judge it on the coaches who are the most successful, as in the highest percentage of victories?

how many non international players have coached at inetrantional level- is it a fair splt?

There are plenty of Non Internationals who have coached at International level. but when you look at a non International like Peter De Villiers coaching for South Africa, he was a nightmare, whereas former All Black Captain Fred Allen he coached the All Blacks for two years without one loss.

there have also been plenty of internationl playing coaches that have failed..

I think its all about the person-- but the notion of only picking internationl players to coach is clearly IMO wrong

I find it abslutely amazing that the thought process is still around that former player make the best coaches at all let alone international coaches!!

Coaching requires a whole different skillset to playing, and a lot of player skills are non transferable. Players generally get selected to coach if they have the respect of the younger team members and have been coached to a decent standard, but IMHO this is just a short term fix and without the years of experience, and fine tuning the former players tend to drift out of touch with the sport!!

Nobody would put a lottery winning milliionaire in charge of the treasury? I know that analogy is a bit off as players tend to earn their skillset, but they don't teach themselves, they are told what to do, like a lottery winner having a sharp financial aid.

International management isn't coaching at all these days, the coaching team around them is responsible for putting ideas and ethos into practice, the international manager is just that, he is the guy best placed to get the best out of what he has to work with. Man management and project management are the key skills IMHO and at what point do players develop these skills...

See the MJ experiment!

It helps if they have played top level that particular sport...but not essential...coaching requires different skills to playing.

Probably an exception rather than the rule....look at the Jose Mourinho...he's not done to bad for being Bobby Robsons "translator".

The likes of Henry, Mourinho, Ferguson, and many more who have proved succesfull without having played top flight in their sport have similar traits to those who have played top flight and have been succesfull though. My point is it should be those traits looked for in potential coaches, not just a simple question of playing top flight sport or not!

IMHO there are thousands of high quality coaches, and innovative coaches that do the job for free 3/4/5 times a week who would flourish given the opportunity and platform certain pro coaches get.

I once spoke to a top NFl coach who told me 'great coaches didn't just know how to win, but how to shape the future of the sport' There aren't many of them in Rugby these days!!

Do former internationals make good commentators?

Bit like coaches really. Very much depends on the individual. Just because you've played the game doesn't mean you have a clear vision of what it takes to win a game. I played flyhalf or first five as we say in NZ and I wouldn't have a clue what to do with the forwards otherwise whip their fat arses into shape and yell at them lots. (Not too disimilar to what I did in my playing days).

You have to have a clear vision of what your team wants to do. For that reason, I think Laurie Mains was not a bad coach. He was big on fitness in his early days and worked theteam off its socks like what Titch does in sevens because he had a clear vision that he wanted his team to run like demons and the 95 RWC saw the culmination of his work. That to me was a more impressive team than the 2007 version. John Mitchell is doing a good job now in SA but he lacked focus in his AB tenure.

You can see that vision in coaches like Jake White, Clive Woodward and Graham Henry and so far I think we can see the direction Steve Hansen want to move in. It doesn't matter whether they've played the game or not. What matters is their ability to transfer their vision inside their head and put it in the players' minds so they can put it into practice.

Then again you have coaches like Howley or Kidney who have a clear vision but it's pants as a vision and should be ignored at all costs.

Have tyo disagree a touch kia...

Woodward's tenure was a culmination of England being the first to apply a professional attitude to the game and being the first to impliment the LTAD model. By those standards Woodward was a visionary, but found it outside of the sport. His actual coaching ability is supposedly average, but his methods and ideas were revelutionary.

In todays game where players are at the peak of human evolution, strategies implimented around the world, and where every nation can use the web to find the very best methods to impliment I firmly believe the difference in the top teams are in the cultivating of talent.

I refuse to believe that the consistently best team over the last 70/80/100 years are so because of what they do at the top end of the game, I think it's what they do at the bottom end of the game that gives the platform for performers and coaches at the top end to be succesfull. The junior system implimented creates a talent pool, and no matter how good the coach is he can only use whats available to him, and unlike football where so many nations attempt so many different versions of the game/techniques for junior development Rugby has 2 strategies, an age grade structure or a size grade structure.

Howley was developed as a child in a poor environment, played in an amateur era, and has only ever coached at the highest levels in his nation, what experience has he built up, what thirst for knowledge does he have, and where has he developed all the attributes needed to be succesfull. Alarmingly Howleys coaching career is a testement to all that is wrong in UK rugby, he was lucky enough to have been selected by the right people at junior level, given too much opportunity to improve, then was lucky enough to be offered a job by a mate of his, then soon after promoted to international honours (by default because the WRU decided 4 professional coaching setups would yield enough coaching talent) then stumbled into one of the biggest jobs in world rugby because his boss has taken a better offer!!!

Sorry for the essay but Howleys coaching career is a joke!

Woodward was indeed different. He had an administrative vision rather than a coaching one. He also recognised the amazing talent he had at his disposal and made sure they played test after test with the same combinations. Perhaps it was fortuitous that his team didn't have serious injury concerns but being match fit probably helped their causes a lot.

He wasn't somebody who could offer a lot as a coach in terms of expertise but he did recognise how to develop a squad and have them in peak condition. For that he is a visionary in my book but for different reasons as to the othersto which I alluded so your qualification is valid.

As for Wales, I think they're being shortchanged with this Lions appointment for Gatland. Why on earth can'the do both? I'd be incensed if I were a Welsh fan. I liken it to Steve Hansen stopping his AB duties this year so he can coach a Barbarians tour to England in the autmn. Fn ridiculous! Gatland must have a darn good lawyer to get this cushy number.

Perhaps the question should be... should test match experience make a coach a better coach? If so I would say yes.

They are 2 different roles, a player and a coach but I believe knowing whats in their players minds, the pressure etc will make them better coaches.

However... that doesn't mean they will be automatically better than guys who were just not quite up to test standard but had a knack for coaching.

If a coach was naturally gifted then I would imagine its quite difficult to train players skills which they themselves think should just come naturally.

Glenn Hoddle in football is a good example. One of the most gifted European players of the 80s, his skill was sublime and was still apparently on show when he coached England. Apparently that didn't rub off well on the players who could not match his own high standards.

I still cant wrap my head around why Gatland needed to be away from the Welsh setup to do whatever it is he is doing for the Lions...is it even really a full time job? I mean honestly, on a daily basis what can they possibly be doing that is requiring a full day of commitment?
Hes not coaching anyone, I'm sure he has lots of people to delegate the organisational tasks to, so to me it seems like he just wanted a holiday from coaching Wales.

aucklandlaurie

I think its slightly wrong to say PDV was a nightmare. In the end he won a 3N title, a lions series, was cruely KO'd at the RWC'11 QFs and his record against NZ was 5 wins from 11... any recent coach got a better record against the ABs?

Rod McQueen perhaps... no one else.

He wasn't everyone's cup of tea and sometimes he did exceptionally bizarre things... but credit where is due, he achieved way more than people expected from him and gave him a chance for.

He wasn't a test international but given he played for Boland for 10 years (the top team coloured players could play for in the apartheid years) I don't doubt he would have been in the mix for a test cap had he been allowed to perform.

Dont think it really matters:

Declan Kidney was world coach of the year '09. SL is proving to be very good coach.

Dont think the great Bob Dwyer played international rugby either. maybe someone could correct me on that.

In football Rafa benitez and Jose Mourinho are up there with the best.

IronMike

The lions made it a prerequisite to get the job... probably due to Henry taking double the amount of Welshman as both Ireland and Scotland even though Wales was the worst performing team in that years 6N.

i.e. he was doing his own players a favour by giving them lions experience over more deserving players.

SCW sort of did the same with his RWC band but he'd been out the job by then... still had the same issues.

The highest Jake White got was first XV at Jeppe High School in Pretoria.... not famed for producing rugby players or having a great schools team.

fa0019 wrote:The highest Jake White got was first XV at Jeppe High School in Pretoria.... not famed for producing rugby players or having a great schools team.

Must say I never really rated Jake White as a great coach. Yes he won a WC but he had a stellar team and his record prior to that wasnt great.

I think Jake White did great things myself with SA.

Took SA from 6th in 2003 in the world to 1st and RWC winners.

Where they were were pretty bad with Rudolph and he quickly turned them around. He had good players yes but none of them were established stars before he took over... only percy who hadn't played test rugby in years.
A bit like England with Lancaster... he has talent but few stars before he took over.

Since then he has done very well with the brumbies... everyone looked at their side and thought they were no hopers but they've played some great rugby last year and surprised quite a few people... with no real stars either.

My suspicion, backed up by absolutely no evidence whatsoever, has always been that it's players with less natural talent for a particular element of the game, who've therefore had to work extremely hard at the technical minutiae of it to be successful, that would make the best coaches. Mike Brown would probably be a much better sprint coach than someone naturally faster than him, for example, as he's spent years doing extra specialist training on it to get himself up to international speed.

Graham Henry, Jake White, Peter De Villiers, Frank Hadden, Andy Robinson, Ian McGeechan and Jim Telfer were all school teachers. Any others?

Declan Kidney was a teacher. Jaysus imagine going into Jim Telfers class without your homework done.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Declan Kidney was a teacher. Jaysus imagine going into Jim Telfers class without your homework done.

Especially if you were English (too arrogant to bother) or Welsh (too lazy)

fa, Lancaster was a PE teacher in Wakefield, West Yorks. He was a decent club player with more than 100 caps for what is presently Carnegie and I think teaching skills lend themselves well to coaching and player development but they have to be augmented by something a bit special from the individual concerned. Lancaster recognised his talents in the development role pretty early on and coaching was always going to be his thing.

fa0019 wrote:Graham Henry, Jake White, Peter De Villiers, Frank Hadden, Andy Robinson, Ian McGeechan and Jim Telfer were all school teachers. Any others?

Carwyn James

The teacher thing makes sense. Its all about creating an environment for others to learn, the subject matter just tools of the trade.

The skill factor is inspiring and motivating others to take on whatevers offered and to use it, interpret it in whatever way they see fit.

GH didnt do a lot as a player but obviously saw at Auckland Grammar the potential for a teacher (coach) to get involved with teaching something a lot more interesting as a life choice.

What former internationals bring to the table is familiarity, experience, knowing what its like to win, lose, have pride in the jersey.

Merging the two skills is the key. Thats one thing GH managed to do. At the centre of his belief system with either Auckland or the AB's was the respect for the jersey. He never wore them on the field but he sure knew what it meant.

Interesting thread for example the All Blacks have had 23 coaches since 1949 only 4 or 5 have had less than a 67%win rate,most were 75% plus.
Some were great players others hardly featured as such some Vic Cavanagh Jr and Snr.Never played to a great Level BUT they were THE greatest innovators in the History of NZ Rugby post war WW2.Vic Jr certainly should have been an AB coach.
How do you judge a Coach win/loss record?,winning a RWC,builds for the future etc.
A Coach who is eventually successful but goes on to long etc.what was the quality of the opposition etc.
PDV was a RWC winner,a Lions winner,a good record versus the AllBlacks
but a average win loss ratio Success?
Jake White won a RWC but his overall record was poor Success?
John Mitchell had an 81% win record but failed to win a RWC Failure?
Sir Clive Woodward over a long period created arguably the best England side of all time.
He won 71% of his games won and lost a RWC ,had 2 wins and a draw versus the AllBlacks in 10 games.Lost a Lions tour badly including poor selections,left nothing in team building for the future.Success or failure?
In answer to the thread it is probably a case of ex players finding another job now.Often in the past the best coaches mever coached there Countries viz Carwyn James.

Having now read some of the comments a few thoughts,SCW was a great Manager ,a solid player an average Coach.BUT he was the first to have the money no object approach from the RFU.Players travelled first class,where in First Class hotels etc.everything that money could buy he had at his command.That certainly was`nt the case with previous England Coaches,how often is success built on.The Coach inheriting a successful team Laurie Mains
was an average player.BUT his win record was 67% low by the best AllBlack standards.BUT as 1996 proved maybe his side was the worlds best post 1995.
How much success that Fred Allen a great player/coach [agreed]down to inheriting the best side in the world.He was a great backs coach and had the advice of Vic CavanaghJr as forwards Coach there was none better.
He had the best OTHODOX backs side of his time every thing was created by the EXTRA man straight out of the coaching manuals.
How much reward is Stuart Lancaster getting from the work of Rob Andrew the teflon kid.HE did a lot at Academy and A team level to create the basis of youth experience and deserves at least some credit.

I don't think one rule fits all to be honest.

There is a big difference between being a player and being a coach where you have to inspire a team and prepare a game plan to nullify the opposition. Though ultimately it also depends on the players you have to use.

Personally I'd say Warren Gatland is the best coach in the World, simply because he has made every team he has coached play above themselves.

Connacht - joined Connacht as coach and guided them to the quarter finals of the Amlin Cup, this when Connacht were much lower down in the pecking order than they were now.

Ireland - After seeing what he did at Connacht he got the Ireland job. Normally Ireland would only win 1 game a year in the 5 nations but he helped turn it around and built a platform that is still there to this day. He also guided them to a win 25-27 in Paris in 2000.

Wasps - he then joined Wasps in 2002, when they were bottom of the Aviva Premiership and facing relegation, he turned them around, for the next 3 years he won the league 3 times in a row, the Amlin cup in 2003 and lV cup, along with the Heinaken cup in 2004.

Waikato - in 2005 he went home to New Zealand and joined Waikato where he won their first ever ITM Cup in 2006.

Wales - he joined Wales in 2007 guiding Wales to the grand slam on the first attempt, as well as taking Wales to the 2011 world cup semi finals, and winning another grand slam in 2012.

So yes ex players can be world class coaches, but also there are coaches like Graham Henry who werent All Blacks and they can be great too.

emack2 wrote:Having now read some of the comments a few thoughts,SCW was a great Manager ,a solid player an average Coach.

Sir Clive was a one trick pony, all he really did was copy the rugby league / NFL blue print for coaching, i.e. bring in a defense coach, bring in a kicking coach etc. and make coaching specialised, he didn't invent it but he basically saw what other professional sports did and specialised it in rugby Union.

Truth be told though with a team containing Martin Johnson, Richard Hill, Lawrence Dallaglio, Jason Leonard, Jason Robinson, Johnny Wilkinson, Matt Dawson etc, then really England should of won a lot more than 1 Grand Slam and a World Cup. They blew 3 grand slams by bottling it on the final game.

ermm. i THINK your being abit mean towards Sir clive.

To call hium a one trick poney because he was forward thinking enough to bring in other sports teachings is kinda silly. He pushed rugby forward..

Wasn't a bad trick though.... Personally I don't even think that was the most talented ENG side I've seen in my lifetime.

For me the early 90s team with a backrow of Clarke, Winterbottom and Richards supercedes the 03 world cup winning side in terms of talent.

Now that was a team which performed well inspite of ineffectual coaching.

all he really did was copy the rugby league / NFL blue print for coaching

Good coaching is good theft!! Then adding tried and tested methods tio impliment so, bring new ideas to the new concoction.

SCW brought versions of league, mixed with union techniques and implimented the firt LTAD plan seen in pro rugby, simple to say today but very risky and brave 11/12 years ago!!

same can be said for McGeechan

In 97 he brought in 5 or 6 ex. league guys into the lions squad who in terms of professionalism were scores ahead of their union teammates.

Without which we probably wouldn't have won the series.

Mgcheechan has been living off that since!

giving McGeechan credit he coached 4 lions teams and won 2 series... the other 2 were very close series also... the margins of defeat were miniscule (as were the victories.

Bar the 1st test in 97 he always messed up the 1st test... selection in 89,93 and 09 were crazy (not just in hindsight) but deserves a lot of credit (as do the players) in turning it around.

Not bad considering the teams played have always been better sides the those he has been choosing players from.

In reality the lions is a privaliged position, taking so much talent down under losing tests is a huge failure IMHO!!!

I am convinced that if I were to take a Lions tour I would win more often than not!!!

Since the end of WWII there have been 16 tours and only 4 wins. So a 25% win return. McGeechan's record is 50%.

The great hailed Graham Henry with quite possibly the strongest lions squad of since the 70s even came back with a series defeat. Its a lot more difficult then people envisage.

I don't doubt that collectively on paper the team should always be a match for the opposition.

However bringing together a team from strangers in 8 weeks and facing a well drilled and comfortable with each other side is an everest task.

If the best of the 3N were to join together in a NH tour playing say ENG and FRA in 3 match tests I would back the home sides for the very reason.

thebluesmancometh wrote:In reality the lions is a privaliged position, taking so much talent down under losing tests is a huge failure IMHO!!!

There are a lot of huge failures in Lions history then.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I am convinced that if I were to take a Lions tour I would win more often than not!!!

Those who can't, post on 606v2

hahahaha

I like it Cyril, would you fancy a crack at the Lions tour? Ofd course it's a dream job.

Mcgeechan became a sort of lions ambassader at times, and was known as a great lions coach, thats all my point was!

thebluesmancometh wrote:I like it Cyril, would you fancy a crack at the Lions tour? Ofd course it's a dream job.

No, because, like you, I'm not remotely qualified. We would both fail miserably.

You may not be but I am amply qualified!

I vote for you blues.. gats is a wrong un