Creativity stifling Over-management

There's a guy I employ who is an utter waster of a human being. He seems to be actively trying to destroy himself as some kind of personal Olympic sport.

He's fickle, random, unreliable in terms of showing up regularly. He pretty much is unmanageable. The rupeni Caucaunibuca of my world.

But he's a total legend. A genius of the rarely found variety. Problem solving skills second to none and with a staggeringly diverse knowledge of mathematics, history, literature and general knowledge.

I look at guys like Kurtley Beale, SBW, Israel Dagg, joc, ma'a nonu and see many parallels (maybe axe the general knowledge and maths).

In professional rugby era I wonder if tangential imperatives such as "being a role model" and the sanity management dogma that afflicts the un-gifted hold these guys back.

Dagg, for example is being drawn over te coals for his sleeping pills and vodka stint. But who remembers he played a blinder afterwards? Setting up the match changing try with typical unrepeatable brilliance?

Should rugby managers do more to protect the personal lives of this avant garde enigmatic over achievers rather than try to hammer them into conventionally acceptable drones?

If izzy can reproduce that form again then let's load him up with Xanax and gin every Wednesday I say.

while you are focussing more on the media aspect, from my personal experience professional teams and their development squads spend too much time stifling the creativity out of players. Coaches now focus on size before skill and making sure teams follow the gameplan, and while if everyone is on song and fit etc the gameplan may prove to be successful but now when its not going to plan, players often struggle to cope with the change and adapt. That is why for me you can see the players who have been through the academy system and those who haven't, such as Liam Williams. Academies have tactics and moves for every scenario and this in my opinion can inhibit players ability to think and adapt to changes in the game, and stops them playing "heads up" rugby.

I don't know if this is different in the SH but for me it is a fundamental problem certainly in wales from my perspective of previously being a member of the regional age squads and different trials etc.

Jordan Williams is apparently very lazy in terms of work ethic in training and numbers in the gym (weak) but he is unbelievably talented.

Some managers wont like that, they would rather reward players for the effort shown in training rather than who the better player is, some managers do the opposite.

And if Rugby managers are anything like managers in places outside of rugby, some can be so far up their own ass they refuse to acknowledge when they make a terrible decision.

Yes - like this:

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD09xx/EWD966.html

It's a fine line GE. Different strokes for different people is a handy tool (sorry about the unfortunate mixed metaphors) for managers to have. Henry found over the years that his grumpy, disciplinarian headmaster persona didn't work on players like Nonu. He couldn't say like he did to McCaw, go out there and be the best player on the field. He had to stress the family aspect of the team and would say to Nonu go out there and play the best you can do for your team.

Where you can get into murky waters is when other people find out the so-called favourable treatment of others and realise that it doesn't apply to you. You haven't fired this waste of space because he obviously has his uses. But what happens if somebody does a lot less trivial and you chew that person out for it? Izzy gets to mix sleeping pills, vodka and nicotine so long as it produces Voodoo magic but is that condoning that behaviour for everybody? What's good for the Izz is good for the gander? And how do you qualify brilliance? How would you rate JOC over the Lions tests for instance?

Rugby is a team sport. Treat certain individuals too differently and it's difficult to build those team standards and dynamics. Be too draconian and you stifle individual talent. Like I said a fine line, but go too far in the one direction and you either have anarchy like the Wallabies were heading towards or a climate of fear where you're too scared to try something out.

Take the example of Danny Care. Loose cannon that was dropped from the squad for a drinking problem. Taken back under SL's wing and had a blinder of a 6N tournament. It'd be interesting to hear what words were spoken to him and how the other players accepted him back into the fold because it would appear the balance was just right.

I think there is a big difference between the standards of behaviour you expect off the field, and the standards you set on it. These guys are professional sportsmen in the public eye and they should be setting an example. A player who needs to act like a [insert word of choice here] off the field doesn't really belong in the professional game. The days when Deano and John Jeffrey could kick the Calcutta Cup down the street after beers were fun, but they're gone. It's not that players can't have beers or a bit of fun, but they need to know where the line is.

The danger with tolerating bad behaviour off the field is that it's a slippery slope. Tolerate it for one player, and others will expect the same tolerance, and eventually it will damage the team. The English players at RWC2011 didn't actually do anything that reprehensible, but Johnson didn't control it before it got out of hand and it clearly affected the team's performance.

I think Lancaster was very lucky in Care's misdemeanours. Care was one of "his" Leeds players and clearly a contender for the squad. His behaviour crossed a line, and Lancaster responded in the right way - and set a standard for everyone else. He's been rewarded with a team that is becoming greater than the sum of its parts and whose performances are very consistent.

On the field is a little different. A coach needs to decide whether a maverick adds more to the team than he takes away. The modern game is so structured that a player who plays for himself and not his team mates is going to be hard to accommodate. Again, what Lancaster's done with Care is interesting - England prioritised systems over creativity for the first two years, until the system was well-established, but now he and Catt seem to have given the players licence to play what they see - and Care's creativity is now additive to the team rather than random.

Cipriani is another good example - Steve Diamond seems to have got him to a point where he is doing the required work for the team and using his creativity at the right times.

Disagree. Sportsmen should be sportsmen, not flag bearers for societal norms. They are the elite, a little eccentricity should be expected and special standards applied.

Not when you're a paid sportsman. Mother Theresa no but certain standards are required. If I can't turn up for work with a hangover then nor should they. The fact that I do doesn't make it right for them.

A professional sportsmen image is in the public eye, therefore even when they're off the field they are still representing their club/country and have to maintain a professional conduct. Its the price you pay and their salaries are reflective of that burden.

Its actually the same as anyone in a high position of a well respected company, see the recent example of the CEO of Mozilla under preassure to resign due to donating his money to an anti gay rights group. There was nothing illegal about it, it was his views not his company's but it made them look bad and they did not want that bad PR.

No I don't buy that. It's popularised dogma. It's holding back some of the brightest and best.

Change your perception, don't try to change the genius.

I'm just playing devils advocate for discussions sake, I wouldn't mind an eccentric character as long as he does what's required and isn't too difficult to work with. Because you have to think from the point of view of the team as well, if everyone except one person is on song then it could make things a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

Yeah me too. Let's agree to agree.

GloriousEmpire wrote:No I don't buy that. It's popularised dogma. It's holding back some of the brightest and best.

Change your perception, don't try to change the genius.

Such a niaive view from soemone clearly not involved with rugby!

There are a few key issues you are clearly imssing...

1/ Issy has not been a renegade all his life, he's worked superbly hard, and been extremely dedicated in his persuit of pro rugby, then as he got there he worked very hard to become top of the tree. The reports of his current issues do not highlight this to the hundreds of thousands of impressional kids who look up to him as a role model, the idea that you can do whatever you want and still become succesfull in life is a dangerous one to propose to children world wide!!!

2/ Professional rugby players are played an inflated wage because of the popularity of the sport, and the numbers of people who watch and enjoy it, not very many would select their teams result over the life lessons taught to their children, there is a reason for Jonny Wilkinsons huge popularity, success and endorseenmts!

When it comes to players off field antics a precedent should be set and every player held to it, no matter what level their perforamnce is! If you honestly want Dagg to be hoped up on painkillers and booze every week you need your head tested, not only for the example it sets, but for team unity, and the boy hisself's welfare, clearly you give not a jot about Dagg, as long as he keeps performing like a work horse for your team, and that is the most anti rugby train of thought I have ever heard!

The problem is not the understandable behaviour it's the media's pejorative description and macabre skew of interest.

The players are fine. It's the media - and why? Because that's what the public are interested in.

That's why I'm saying - change your attitude and don't knock the players.

I'm not naive, and don't patronise me.

You telling me your comment on hopping Isreal Dagg up on painkillers and booze every week isn't niaive?

Your not telling people to change their attitude, your telling them to ignore human nature, never going to happen! thats niaivity to it's core!

A lot of players are clearly not fine, running into a Japanese shopping centre half naked holding a knife isn't fine, assaulting members of the public isn't fine, destroying party venues isn't fine. The term 'The players are fine' is clearly niaive!

I don't think so. Expecting players living in a different world to normal people to behave like normal people is naive.

Separate things here. The individual over the team etc is a noraml part of a coaches decision and I'm sure we've all seen instances go either way. The pills example of Dagg not so much, coaches/managers/staff have a responsibility to help their players as much as anything. This is dangerous!

Sleeping pills and alcohol is nothing more than the effect of drinking red bull and vodka to be honest. Depending on the sleeping pills - however during a contest the sort of relaxants that would be legal are fairly tame.

Nothing more than addressing anxiety by self medicating. It's hardly surprising that Dagg and Jane played with the most freedom the next weekend having worked through their issues with this small freedom.

butterfingers wrote:You telling me your comment on hopping Isreal Dagg up on painkillers and booze every week isn't niaive?

Your not telling people to change their attitude, your telling them to ignore human nature, never going to happen! thats niaivity to it's core!

A lot of players are clearly not fine, running into a Japanese shopping centre half naked holding a knife isn't fine, assaulting members of the public isn't fine, destroying party venues isn't fine. The term 'The players are fine' is clearly niaive!

no its not fine but it is certainly the exception. For every player that runs naked into a mall there are thousands that don't. Fact is society is generally ok in all walks of life but every establishment has its exceptions, its bad apples, and its just a matter of managing them. There are those who are primarily creative AND toe the party line. the Crudens, Habanas, Le Rouxs etc all make things happen out of nothing in the same way that there are non creative players also going out on binges.

I think the link between creativity and following the norm off the field is being poorly illustrated here. In any case Dagg's night out was prior to the Canada game wasn't it? Not the same week as the semi surely.

GloriousEmpire wrote:There's a guy I employ who is an utter waster of a human being. He seems to be actively trying to destroy himself as some kind of personal Olympic sport.

He's fickle, random, unreliable in terms of showing up regularly. He pretty much is unmanageable. The rupeni Caucaunibuca of my world.

But he's a total legend. A genius of the rarely found variety. Problem solving skills second to none and with a staggeringly diverse knowledge of mathematics, history, literature and general knowledge.

I look at guys like Kurtley Beale, SBW, Israel Dagg, joc, ma'a nonu and see many parallels (maybe axe the general knowledge and maths).

In professional rugby era I wonder if tangential imperatives such as "being a role model" and the sanity management dogma that afflicts the un-gifted hold these guys back.

Dagg, for example is being drawn over te coals for his sleeping pills and vodka stint. But who remembers he played a blinder afterwards? Setting up the match changing try with typical unrepeatable brilliance?

Should rugby managers do more to protect the personal lives of this avant garde enigmatic over achievers rather than try to hammer them into conventionally acceptable drones?

If izzy can reproduce that form again then let's load him up with Xanax and gin every Wednesday I say.

I've just got the point of this post.   

It's a riddle. That guy you 'employ', it's you!   

How do I pick up my prize?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Sleeping pills and alcohol is nothing more than the effect of drinking red bull and vodka to be honest. Depending on the sleeping pills - however during a contest the sort of relaxants that would be legal are fairly tame.

Nothing more than addressing anxiety by self medicating. It's hardly surprising that Dagg and Jane played with the most freedom the next weekend having worked through their issues with this small freedom.

WUM then. Fair enough.

IronMike wrote:Jordan Williams is apparently very lazy in terms of work ethic in training and numbers in the gym (weak) but he is unbelievably talented.

Some managers wont like that, they would rather reward players for the effort shown in training rather than who the better player is, some managers do the opposite.

And if Rugby managers are anything like managers in places outside of rugby, some can be so far up their own ass they refuse to acknowledge when they make a terrible decision.

If Jordan Williams or any other player wants to make it at the top as a professional rugby player then he will need to pull his finger our and start doing more at training and in the gym. Talent alone was enough when the game was amateur but not any longer.

He certainly has talent but his tackling can be a real liability, a bit more effort in training is clearly needed.