Fixing Scottish rugby

A series that is currently running in the Herald:

Scottish Rugby: The Key Questions, part one

by Kevin Ferrie, Senior Sports Writer
Tuesday 22 April 2014

The context

All pro rugby is about for Scotland is closing the gap. For about 10 years we did that, maybe longer, but we've lost our way, which is why we need to re-structure the pro teams to make us more efficient.

For the Irish, their foreigners are the icing on their already baked cake but we're not at that level yet. Our targets for our national team should be to win 90% of our lineouts, 90% of scrums, make 90% of tackles. These are targets that are going to make us better. A lofty, distant goal is a ridiculous distraction.

I had this argument the last time the strategic target was set. I won't even go into how laughable these strategic planning meetings were when you've got people who are not involved in rugby saying I think we should be third in the Six Nations, then someone else says that's not ambitious enough, I think we should be second in the Six Nations . . . oh, bugger that, I think we should be winning the Six Nations, and people are standing up and clapping.

Then we came to world rankings and someone would say let's be in the top eight . . . no, the top four.

What's wrong with saying the national team's target is to prepare to win the match on Saturday? If we do that every Saturday then we will win the World Cup. So someone says, 'oh, all right, let's say we're going to win the World Cup.'

Even the All Blacks don't say they're going to win the World Cup. They say they're going to be the best team they can be or something like that. Why can't we say that?

How did we get here?

When I was Edinburgh coach and when I was Scotland coach I was never completely certain of what the purpose of the pro teams was, because it varied from one minute to the next.

If you go back to the beginning, the four regional teams was the obvious place to start. Why did we start that way? Because we had the foresight to understand that, if we didn't do it, with our playing resources, we could easily slide off the edge.

At that time, in the late 1990s, other teams - especially the Six Nations teams - were beginning to harness their resources. With the ball in play for 40 minutes instead of 20 it was harder for the underdog to have his day and we were starting to be beaten by 40, 50 and sometimes 60 points in that era.

My first experience of pro rugby was when we took Caley Reds to Treviso and Pau; we got absolutely stuffed so we were miles off. That, as much as any reason, was why we had to stick with pro rugby. Forget all the club v district argument; let's hope that's been put to bed.

Yet when I heard at the end of that year that we were cutting from four teams to two, I thought it was a disaster. The reason for it was we weren't professional at the time. We had a blank template and we weren't sure what was happening.

When we were four and cut to two for financial reasons I disagreed again because we weren't training professionally at the time, so we could continue to sustain the four districts as semi-pro teams and what would happen was that the cream would rise and maybe one team would go under.

Somebody would recruit the best players, somebody would get some sponsorship, somebody would get on a roll in terms of results, but that should have happened organically.

Then, when we were down to two teams with the budgets we had, I wasn't in favour of it going to three purely because I knew we were going to lose players and I wasn't going to be given a budget to do anything about it.

By the same token I didn't want to drop from three to two. Once we'd [gone for three teams], let's show some consistency and courage of our convictions for a spell. I know we have to react to a changing environment, but we went from three to two without the budgets [of the surviving two teams being increased].

That's when I began to fall out with them [Murrayfield's top brass].

Where are we now? We have had a change of leadership at the top and suddenly we went from not being able to afford money for our pro teams to being able to afford it. I don't know whether the financial situation changed that much or it was simply a change of attitude. However, my firm belief now, having been round the houses a fair bit and seen professional clubs operate around the world, is that we're in a position that, if we're going to do it, we have to do it right.

What needs to happen?

We now seem to have the money so we have to run a two-team set-up with reserve teams. My advice back in the day was that [professional] reserve teams should have been playing in the British & Irish Cup rather than the clubs.

This is the area where the pro game has to rub up against the club game and you will need club players to supplement the pro team second XVs. Somehow we have to get back to the days of 1997 when I went to Stirling County and asked them for Jim McLaren to play for Caley Reds when they had a first division match and they said they were absolutely delighted for the boy. We've lost that.

The whole British & Irish Cup, which was never suited to our clubs, was an appeasement to two or three loud voices in our top clubs which are semi-professional.

People want us to reintroduce a third professional team but the trouble with that is you will have more foreigners coming in to make that team successful. Then it's all about the success of that team; it's not about where it sits.

The purpose of the pro teams is to make Scotland, the national flagship, more competitive. The proviso is that it doesn't work unless the teams are winning matches because you cannot have players from two losing teams arriving on the international stage expecting to beat players if they're losing to them week-in, week-out. So we have to ensure that these teams are successful, but also packed with homegrown players.

imported players

My own simple criteria would be that there must be no foreigners at two [hooker], nine [scrum-half] and 10 [stand-off] because, if you have foreigners there you are blocking the very narrow filter. You can have them in other positions [without] compromising the national team.

It seems so straightforward the minute you say that the whole focus of your 70 to 80 development officers around the country turns to making sure these guys are up to speed.

Eddie Pollock runs a very effective skills coaching structure at junior level but, by coming out with that statement, you are putting pressure on them to produce the players for these positions.

two or three teams?

The money should go into second XVs [at Edinburgh and Glasgow Warriors] rather than [creating] a third professional team at this juncture. That is also where your recruitment of foreigners comes in because, if you just recruit cheaper players to compete for positions rather than [going after] top-quality players, you don't get the same level of advice and assistance for our players who need it because they come from a less competitive environment.

People like Todd Blackadder [the former All Black who played for Edinburgh a decade ago] have folklore-type status because they were able to deliver to our young lads who had not come through anything like the environment he had come through. It's about getting the right characters in.

That's where Sean Lineen was so good at Glasgow Warriors. For example, he signed Daryl Gibson who didn't play very well but was hugely influential, so was a great signing. Through his knowledge of the Scottish game, Sean developed the knack of knowing exactly what our pro teams needed.

How can you expect Michael Bradley [the Irishman who coached Edinburgh] or Alan Solomons [Edinburgh's current South African coach] to know that having not been through what Sean's been through?

The importance of the understanding of where players come from, the domestic game and what is required to turn them into a really competitive outfit is vital.

It's different from Ireland where their junior structure is producing quality players. Coaches can come in assuming a level of player and game understanding.

The same goes for hiring the best young talent. Lineen completely outmanoeuvred Michael Bradley for all the best young players [in the Scottish game].

In the same way, when I was recruiting against Kiwi Searancke and Tony Gilbert [the New Zealanders who were in charge of Glasgow at the time], in one year I got Rory Lawson and Mike Blair, Al Kellock and Ally Hogg, Tom Philip and Dougie Hall; all the very best players in the age-group team that year, because the other guys didn't know [the Scottish scene].

how to combat this?

When it comes to the pro teams, you need a person in charge of recruitment for both teams. Some people might say that's not very competitive but someone has to keep an eye on the national team, and the pro team coaches should go to him for recruitment.

Bradley was a top-quality coach but he had never previously been given a pot of money to spend and his assessment of the situation was that our [Edinburgh's] first team reached the semi-final of the Heineken Cup and was a rock solid, top-quality team. He wasn't aware that some of them were on the wane, that some had over-performed during that run and he wasn't sure about who should come and who should go.

That's where you need a more experienced figure well-versed in Scottish rugby. Let's get the detail of what the director of rugby does and what his role is going to be. Why is the detail of that role not transparent?

You also need to ensure you keep a quorum of our international players in the country so you can continue the core training in between Six Nations matches. People say let them go and play elsewhere. It will help them. Well, yes and no. You have to be strategic about who you are willing to allow to leave.

Also:

Hadden outlines strategy to take Scottish rugby forward

by Kevin Ferrie, Senior Sports Writer
Tuesday 22 April 2014

Frank Hadden has highlighted the urgent need for unique solutions to be found to Scotland's problems if the national rugby team is to have any chance of regaining its status among the global elite.

Speaking exclusively to Herald Sport at the end of another miserable season for the national team, the former Scotland coach, who has worked at all levels across the world, has outlined how a "laughable" approach to strategic planning ultimately led to claims that the World Cup can be won next year.

Rather than apportioning blame, Hadden's aim is to highlight constructively the fundamental changes that need to be made to the professional teams, the junior structure and in the provision of the right facilities to help Scottish teams to be competitive.

Hadden's answers include funding second XVs for Glasgow and Edinburgh, rather than establishing a third pro team, and the appointment of someone to allocate talent as needed between the two city sides.

Having coached every national team from under-16 upwards, as well as the Caledonia Reds and Edinburgh pro teams, nobody understands better the nature of the internal politics involved, but Hadden stresses how essential it is that the various departments work towards the greater good. "It wouldn't be good for us if we only tried to fix one of these things," Hadden explains.

"It would be nice to have a facilities strategy, but in isolation from a competitive junior structure that would allow us to get the full value from it we would not be maximising the opportunity to make real ground. Likewise, the pro team restructuring is integral to the junior restructuring so that the pathway is created."

And a long one:

Frank Hadden interview. Part II: What must be done to make sure junior rugby produces the best possible senior pros?

by Kevin Ferrie, Senior Sports Writer
Wednesday 23 April 2014

On day two of his analysis of what needs to be done to save Scottish international rugby former national coach Frank Hadden explains the need to make the most of its raw material, drawn from a tiny talent pool.

Having coached in Australian and English schools rugby in the '80s, then had the longest involvement of any coach in the Scottish professional game before, more recently, travelling the globe as a coaching consultant, Hadden has campaigned for many years for changes to the Scottish youth system.

A breakthrough seemed to have occurred some four years ago when Scottish Rugby Union member clubs instructed their staff - through a motion at their annual meeting - to introduce an integrated youth and schools league competition to ensure that the best young players are nurtured in a genuinely competitive environment.

The SRU has failed to act on those instructions and the fortunes of Scotland's national team have continued to decline with failure to reach the knockout stages of a World Cup for the first time, followed by a double "whitewash" year of 2012 in the Six Nations and the autumn Tests. Since then 11 more defeats have been recorded in 16 Test matches.

Here Hadden explains why it is so overdue that the motion passed by Scotland's rugby clubs be acted upon.

HOW did SCOTTISH RUGBY lose ITS ADVANTAGE?

In the '80s and '90s we were unique in the world of rugby in having national senior leagues in our competitive structure. That gave us an edge on other countries.

At the same time, our schools rugby was no less intense than anywhere else and, in fact, in some of our private schools, where the whole school was forced to stand on the touchlines [for a first XV match], there was an intensity which was inspirational for a 12-year-old arriving at the school.

When I went [with High School of Dundee] to our first big game against Fettes in '83, the run from the changing room to the pitch was lined by baying Fettesians just a yard from you.

Now all the schools games [at various age groups] are played at the same time, so the first XV game has no greater kudos attached to it than any other game.

Meanwhile, every other country has national, professional leagues and development programmes and are properly harnessing far greater resources at senior level.

HOW FAR has our JUNIOR RUGBY FALLEN BEHIND?

I recently organised some matches for a visiting Australian school which started playing league rugby in the 1890s. The first was against an East Lothian Select, an area that is doing really good things in rugby in my opinion and is real rugby territory, with small communities that are enthusiastic about the game.

Although the Australian school team was full of 16 or 17-year-olds, we knew how good they would be and East Lothian pulled in some 'ringers' who are playing RBS Premier rugby: a centre, a winger and a back-row. Physically, we were more than a match for them, if anything slightly bigger and were just as enthusiastic and just as committed.

However, the fundamental difference, when the Australians were playing their first game of the season, is that the error count was far greater in the Scots team because they weren't used to playing under the pressure the Australians put them under, whereas the Australians were comfortable under that level of pressure, having done so since they were 11 years old.

As a result of the intensity of the game they had been brought up in, along with skill sets that were slightly broader man for man than our guys (who, technically, had some good things about them), [they had the edge]. The difference is their environment, because they [the Scottish players] would be perfectly capable of playing at the level the Australians were playing at.

If you speak to guys who coach our age-group sides, [they will tell you that] the problem is they are not just mismatched in terms of size and weight, it's their ability to train accurately, precisely and effectively in preparation for the event.

That comes down to a breadth of skill sets and also simply being used to the intensity because, elsewhere, every game from 11 years old is an big game.

WHAT IS MEANT BY 'INTENSITY' IN DEVELOPMENT TERMS?

Some people are unsure what intensity is. It is [having to] operate with less time and space than you would in a game that doesn't have it [intensity], so your decision making is put under a lot more pressure and you have to make decisions a lot more quickly. We've got to understand that a lot of our players get representative honours without walking over broken glass.

When I was teaching in England I was brought into a state school just outside Leeds to start rugby. Eventually we got to a level where we got guys challenging for representative honours and two of them were selected for England Under-16s. In order to get there, they had to play a Leeds trial and play for Leeds; a West Yorkshire trial and play for West Yorkshire; a Yorkshire trial and play for Yorkshire; a North of England trial and play for North of England; then an England trial.

The countries we are competing against at international level, the advantage they have is the intensity of their junior structure. People refer to the Irish model, to which we are frequently compared, and the significant number of foreign coaches they have at the top of their game with David Nucifora having been appointed as their new director of rugby as another foreigner.

Why can't we do the same?

Why can't we just copy other countries wholesale?

Having been to Ireland and seen them operate for so many years, [I can say] they are operating at a totally different level from us and are putting the icing on the top of their cake. Our cake isn't even baked yet. When we bring in guys like Tony Gilbert [as coach at Borders Reivers), Kiwi Searancke [at Glasgow Warriors], even Matt Williams [as national team coach], who have worked at an extremely high level, they tend to be surprised by what they're confronted with and consequently have a bit of difficulty maximising what they're confronted with. It's so different [from what they are used to].

The more I travel, the more I realise we are a unique environment that requires unique solutions, not solutions being used elsewhere in environments that are so different from us.

Some say you need to build from the top down, others say from the bottom up. My view is that you have to do both at once.

why is junior rugby not competitive enough?

In the late 90s, I was involved in a group tasked with creating a more competitive structure in schools. We came up with a template then went to the independent schools headmasters to try to get them to accept. It got lost in confusion between the SRU pathway and a competitive league structure, which was a separate issue.

We need to make that competitive environment happen, but the SRU don't believe it can be done, because they otherwise wouldn't be concentrating purely on academies as the way forward.

Those academies do the best they can with the expertise they have available and what they are trying to do is worthwhile, in putting together resources for coaches.

However, providing the instruction manual with bells and whistles on it in isolation, without the competitive structure, while it is going to be better than we've got, is not going to be effective in the development of players.

The thing about a competitive structure is that it's not just players who get better, it's coaches who get forced to improve because nobody wants to be last, and you start to go the extra yard.

In 1989, when I was working in Australia, the schoolboys of Nudgee College were doing 12 or 13 sessions a week. Their coach said his ambition was to make all the other coaches put away their golf clubs.

That's what I wanted to do when I came back to Merchiston. I wanted to try, by beating them so frequently, to make everybody want to improve, but the trouble is what happened in Scotland was it made them want to stop playing us. They told us we took it too seriously. How are we going to go anywhere with that attitude?

Now that they are employing former professional coaches who are bringing players in on scholarships, the private schools would say they are taking it seriously.

Yet they are [only] paying lip service to it because, without a competitive structure, you are not actually pursuing the excellence that probably appears somewhere in your mission statement.

WHY are CONVENTIONAL SOLUTIONS NOT WORKING?

If you take the more competitive structure at junior level, the massive ambition of the SRU was to increase the numbers playing the game.

For a long time I've realised that, if you look at the junior game throughout the world, increasing our numbers isn't going to get us any closer to people like Wales or Ireland, because the difference in numbers is so massive.

Time spent on missionary work looks impressive and I know this from my experience working with HSBC throughout Asia.

Instead of getting to the core of coaching in the countries I went to, it was inevitable that I would have to go to an orphanage because that would be the front-page picture.

For all that it was marvellous to see the work being done at the orphanage they were never going to be a power in rugby in that country.

That maybe sounds a bit crass but it's also why I wouldn't go to parts of our bigger cities where the sport is completely alien, to try to develop rugby. I would, however, go to places like Trinity [in Edinburgh] where they are trying really hard.

Wherever they're already playing is where I'd harness all our efforts to ensure that existing enthusiasm helps maximise our resources.

When I was Scotland coach a school once won a prize for me to go and coach them and it was at a time when we had just appointed sports coordinators in schools to organise teams. Their target was to introduce teams and this school was organising rugby, football and all sorts of teams; well done them.

Yet the standard was abysmal because they weren't properly coached; there wasn't a proper competitive structure for them to go into; there was no decent opposition for them to play against. It was paying lip service to the game.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

The template we created in the 90s started local and went to play-offs. Some will say that's what the Scottish Schools Cup provides but the trouble with that is it only provides intensity of rugby for those who reach the semi-final and final and then only in a couple of matches. That is why we need an integrated youth and schools competition.

You do it all within the first school term, when the weather's still reasonable. In Australia the season was much shorter, but there is massive benefit in that because you can get commitment that you can't get in a club set-up which goes from July to May. The clubs are against a shorter season because of the bar takings, but that is not relevant to youth rugby.

There needs to be a clear pathway from the 10-year-old boy to the national team. You want him to see a clear competitive route through, inter-school and inter-club rugby leading to regional competition, then to regional academies all under the umbrella of the two professional sides.

There are three important cut-off areas in the developmental areas. One of the big drop-off areas in every country is around the age of 15. We need to try to encourage from under-14 upwards that we've got a competitive structure that you really don't want to miss out on.

All the stuff you have done up until now is leading you here and it is going to be exciting. I heard Sean Lineen [the Scotland under-21 coach] talking about the fact that we've got to get the regional age-group competition back on again to give these kids who are going to be playing for Scotland the opportunity of stepping up a level.

Fundamentally a short, sharp youth league structure over the first school term is the way forward. It requires incredibly strong leadership to get the school and youth club age groups matched, which is an issue in itself.

Then your best school and youth teams should be playing off in local groups, broken up depending on how many there are in each.

That feeds towards a national level where they operate at their level with the top four in each district playing off against one another, the next four in each district doing likewise.

Your local competition runs to half-term and then you continue to play throughout the term at a level that suits you best. It's absolutely optional that if you don't want to play in it you don't join, but you could insist that the players who will be involved in Scotland age grade teams will be selected from this competition. You've got to be careful but you also have to be bold.

It's time to give this a chance. The key is getting the age grouping right. Is it under-18, under-16 or under-15? I would go for all three but maybe to begin with it should only be under-15 and under-18.

CAN IT BE DONE?

It [depends on] how you sell it and how much effort you put into it. I believe it can be sold if the will is there. That said, one of the things the private schools always say is what about our traditional fixtures, but the traditional fixtures in 1983 are not the traditional fixtures now because the small boarding schools have fallen off the edge of a cliff. Things change and this anticipates the changing panorama.

You can still play your local games that have existed for however long in the first part of the season, however until we're offering a more competitive set-up we'll never know how well we can harness the potential of our young players.

I'd throw in every penny we have in getting schools to take up rugby.  This game is about numbers. The more chaps we get playing the sport in school, the higher the chance we will get quality players coming through. That in itself will hopefully boost interest from fans too.

At the moment scottish rugby is very regional based and still a upper-middle sport for most. Yet, Rugby isn't an expensive sport to play.

Getting more players into the game is the single biggest investment return we will see in the sport. Additionally you can influence a hell of a lot more potential players and fans  by providing basic kit and funding, rather that then spending the same sum on say 40 individuals with the aim of improving their productivity by say 4%.

Geet the sport in primary schools... to compete with football you can't allow the best sportsman to already be signed up to football academies giving you the best of the rest.  Follow the USA model who target youth development in key regions. They already have more kids involved than Scotland.... in 10-20years time without any changes expect Scotland to start losing to the USA.

You have to have a lot of balls to play this game though... Spending a lot of resources on something that has a very long investment  return period is not easy.

so short version - the structure in Scotland is broken from top down, and needs to be addressed from bottom up?

LondonTiger wrote:so short version - the structure in Scotland is broken from top down, and needs to be addressed from bottom up?

yup

we've been saying this for years.  We need grassroots rugby to be the priority.  We need to get more kids playing more rugby.

We need that message to get into the thick skulls of the Murrayfield blazer brigade though!

We also need folk to stop bleating on about a third pro team.  The money needs spent on youth rugby, not chucking another team of average players into the fray to get humped every week or two.

Very informative, thanks for sharing. It always appears that Scottish Rugby is dead from the waist down but clearly there are people within the game who have spotted solutions and are trying to implement these for the greater good of the Scottish game. Good luck!

You're very welcome, mintie

Frank Hadden never quite struck me as the right man to be Head Coach of Scotland - but exactly the sort of man to be in charge of the SRU.

LondonTiger wrote:Frank Hadden never quite struck me as the right man to be Head Coach of Scotland - but exactly the sort of man to be in charge of the SRU.

good grief no!!!

Auld franky would be great at being in charge of youth rugby but he's not the kinda guy to look after anything financial or business-like

Do many of the old guard have much to do with the current SRU..either in a coaching capacity or in being an ambassador trying to take the sport round the schools to encourage participation...

I mean the likes of Doddie, the Hastings, Gary Armstrong, TOny Stanger, Finlay, Jeffrey etc etc .

tigertattie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:so short version - the structure in Scotland is broken from top down, and needs to be addressed from bottom up?

yup

we've been saying this for years.  We need grassroots rugby to be the priority.  We need to get more kids playing more rugby.

We need that message to get into the thick skulls of the Murrayfield blazer brigade though!

We also need folk to stop bleating on about a third pro team.  The money needs spent on youth rugby, not chucking another team of average players into the fray to get humped every week or two.

I thought the key message was to focus on quality rather than quantity at age group levels in order to increase the exposure of youngsters to higher intensity rugby games.

rugby is an odd game. Its not like football where at 7/8 you can tell which chaps are talented, which aren't.

Those good at 12 i.e. the 6'4 freaks of nature are not necessarily the ones who will be good at 18.

Scottish rugby is renowned for dismissing young chaps because they simply don't fit their ideal size and fail to realise that kids grow at different rates. Its stone age selection.

It's both Mr whocares

there is no point having a small pool of quality players or a large pool of crap players. You need a decent pool of decent players.

The problem that we have in youth rugby is too many barriers and divisions.  Schools dont talk/work with clubs and vise-versa. When I was playing for my school and club there was almost a distain from one team to the other.  I felt dirty playing for two teams. The club (at this age level) played on a Sunday and the School played on a Sat morning. When I went up into under 16s the club played on a Sat afternoon. I tried playing two games of rugby in one day for a while but it's just knackering. I eventually stopped playing for the school as the club had prospects for playing adult rugby. In essence the two teams were against each other rather than working together.

The issue around quality of rugby was further compromised because both outfits had no scope to improve the level of rugby I played.  Both club and school played the same games against the same teams every year.  The club format had an end of season final where the two "top" teams in the league played each other in a grand final sort of game.  But the team we played were still from the local area. We never got to play against an arguablely better team at any stage in the season. Even colts rugby had us playing the same teams every single season.  It wasn't until I played adult level rugby that I started playing against teams form other regions.

The youth format needs some serious work!

thanks for the insight Tigertattie   

looks difficult to have both club and school rugby at young level. I believe in most countries there is either one or the other. Ireland and SA grassroot seems to be built around schools while in France there is only clubs.
one thing is for sure you need to have a clear path on how school/club youngsters feed into the next level be it regional or national (in France it is national where the most promising youngsters spend a few month every other year at FFR base camp which provide them with education etc).

And today's third and final piece from Capt Haddock in the Hoorald:

[b]Frank Hadden interview. Part III: Artificial surfaces preferable to pitch battles[/]b

by Kevin Ferrie, Senior Sports Writer
Thursday 24 April 2014

In the third and final part of his assessment of what needs to be done to save Scottish international rugby, Frank Hadden concentrates on facilities and the need for a joined-up approach.

While there is always discussion in Scotland about the difficulty generated by playing outdoor sports in hostile weather, the former national coach - drawing on 40 years' coaching experience during which he has worked all over the world - believes the solution lies more in improving what is underfoot than what is overhead.

He believes, though, that there is little point in addressing any one of his themes of the past three days - the need to set the right priorities for Scotland's professional teams and re-structure them accordingly; the introduction of a properly competitive junior set-up; improved facilities - in isolation.

WHY BETTER FACILITIES ARE NECESSARY

Since I came back from working in Asia as a consultant for HSBC, I have coached everywhere in Scotland, from Currie to Caithness and from Boroughmuir to Bannockburn at schools, clubs, you name it. If someone asks me I say 'no trouble at all'. I don't take a penny for it - sometimes maybe a round of golf - I go there and it means you see the facilities people are using, and they are just appalling.

COMPARISONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

When I was coaching in Australia, it rained once during the rugby season. It was a downpour in midweek and the pitch was still firm at the weekend. On those surfaces, you can do all sorts of things with your feet and your hands that you can't do in our conditions.

By contrast, on the dry day in a Scottish winter, the ground will still be soggy which also means the ball will be wet. For me that is a critical element in the breadth of the skill-set of your international players.

There are other issues emerging now. When they play Super Rugby in the evening in the Southern Hemisphere, for example, they have to deal with the dew, which means a wet ball, while the wettest ball I can remember us having to deal with in international rugby was at the Millennium Stadium with the roof shut. The condensation soaked the grass because they kept the roof shut too long. Getting the surface right for practice is conducive to greater handling skill and foot movement, though.

In this country one of the things we have talked about a lot is rucking; Jim Telfer was in the vanguard and was right at that time. Now they talk about the breakdown and the clear-out, but what I would like to talk about more is the accuracy of the passing and the footwork prior to the contact which gives you the extra couple of yards which makes the clear-out a doddle.

The Irish are bloody good at that. Guys like Jamie Heaslip, Sean O'Brien and Cian Healy, their ball carriers, have all got great feet. They're not just direct runners - in Ireland [conditions] are even wetter than here - so a long time ago they started building Prunty pitches, named after a farmer in Northern Ireland. I looked into it for our country and the cost of the type of sand required was extortionate, whereas the Irish were getting cheap sand.

THE DAMASCUS MOMENT

It was 2007 that I first saw an all-weather surface that was suitable for rugby, at the Hong Kong Football Club where I was coaching the Penguins in a Tens competition. I was amazed. Japan played Hong Kong in an international on it. Then we went to the sevens on the Saturday which were played on grass and there were people slipping all over the place, whereas the standard of play on the all-weather surface had been absolutely phenomenal.

The top eight teams were mainly Kiwi players in pre-season ahead of their provincial competition and the standard of player was incredibly high. The more you go to the Southern Hemisphere, the more you realise that key to their development is first of all their junior structure, but secondly their underfoot conditions.

I've coached outside in Scotland for about 40 years and actually our overhead conditions aren't that bad, but our underfoot conditions are especially bad if you're training in the dark under floodlights. Unless you can train and practise at tempo, you can't expect suddenly to switch that on at the weekend.

We've got one [artificial pitch] at Dunbar and the back fields at Murrayfield have this sandy soil that offers fantastic conditions throughout the year, but even better than that is all-weather.

THE NEED FOR BETTER PLANNING

We built the first one at the back of Murrayfield not out of design, but because we got the funds because Murrayfield was to be used as a flood plain and the bit of ground we sold for the trams. We needed surfaces that were a bit firmer for cars to go on [when it's used as] the car park.

The Murrayfield pitch doesn't [suit training] that well because it's on a flood plain, so it actually gets frozen off but, anywhere with proper drainage, you can play [on these pitches] right throughout the winter because it doesn't matter how cold it is, the water just disappears and you have a dry ball and some lovely fresh days to play on. You can play back-to-back matches, starting at nine o'clock in the morning.

ANSWERING THE CRITICS

We've got these surfaces, but people are a bit wary about them, whereas New Zealanders, who were playing on them for the first time in Hong Kong, weren't wary about them at all and took to it immediately.

People worry about whether it will be worse for knee injuries but American Football has been using artificial surfaces for God knows how long. You get injuries on any surfaces, including grass.

From a rugby perspective you get really unusual bounces, but that makes it more exciting and it's the same as playing on hard pitches. However, the game awareness they [New Zealanders] have from their junior rugby means they instinctively know when to be in the back field to deal with that and, as a result, they are also quite comfortable under the high ball and know what to do next.

FACILITY FUNDING

I think the development officer structure is split into 12 areas. If you were to start with a priority of having one artificial pitch in each district it would provide a training centre for elite training throughout the year and a place where, in really bad weather, you can schedule matches back-to-back.

We need a plan to develop these surfaces and my suggestion would be to target about a dozen, building them one a year, that you put out to tender to the clubs and offer a grant. So it's not going to cost you £12m in total and, in any case, you do it one a year and there might be some grant-aid available. It should be a national priority rather than a rugby priority. The facilities in France are so much better because [they are a result] of government spending.

The government attitude to sport is so different. It took me a while to discover that Britain alone in the developed world spends three times more on the arts than it does on sport. It is usually the other way around, including in France where you wouldn't say they were short on the cultural side either.

The one thing the London Olympics did was to highlight the needs for improved facilities, because it's expected that we pay for these things privately, which is what our rugby clubs have to do. These are community matters and there must be half a dozen football clubs using them now as well.

WHY CHANGES TO PRO TEAMS, JUNIOR SET-UP AND FACILITIES MUST ALL BE DEALT WITH SIMULTANEOUSLY

You don't attack the thing from the bottom up or the top down; you have to be looking at it from all levels and one of the glues that will hold it all together is facilities. Yet the SRU has produced a document called The Way Forward and there are five things listed as priorities and not one of them is facilities.

It wouldn't be good for us if we only tried to fix one of these things. It would be nice to have a facilities strategy, but in isolation from a competitive junior structure that would allow us to get the full value from it we would not be maximising the opportunity to make real ground. Likewise the pro team re-structuring is integral to the junior re-structuring so that the pathway is created. It's all part of the incentive scheme.

Our coaches will get better very quickly with better facilities and a competitive structure to enthuse them.
/

boo hoo, it rains during the rugby season... well change your season then for juniors? Make it a summer sport and generate skills. Its not like a scottish summer is akin to Dubai now is it. Shock horror... if you change it to a summer sports, perhaps, just perhaps less kids will be involved with football and will be able to play rugby too... giving us the chance to snatch some young talents who otherwise would not have been able to play.

People think it doesn't rain in South Africa... jokes. When it rains in SA, you know about it.

Here is a weather comparison of Edinburgh and some SH cities famed for their rugby

Edinburgh - 124 days of rain per year. 704 inches per year.

Cape Town - 103 days of rain per year. 575 inches per year.
Durban - 130 days of rain per year. 1009 inches per year.
Port Elizabeth - 112 days of rain per year. 624 inches per year.
Johannesburg - 99 days of rain per year. 713 inches per year.
Sydney - 143 days of rain per year. 1213 inches per year.
Auckland - 136 days of rain per year. 1212 inches per year.
Christchurch - 129 days of rain per year. 615 inches per year.

Says it all really. Excuses excuses. Don't complain... do something about it.

tigertattie wrote:It's both Mr whocares

there is no point having a small pool of quality players or a large pool of crap players. You need a decent pool of decent players.

The problem that we have in youth rugby is too many barriers and divisions.  Schools dont talk/work with clubs and vise-versa. When I was playing for my school and club there was almost a distain from one team to the other.  I felt dirty playing for two teams. The club (at this age level) played on a Sunday and the School played on a Sat morning. When I went up into under 16s the club played on a Sat afternoon. I tried playing two games of rugby in one day for a while but it's just knackering. I eventually stopped playing for the school as the club had prospects for playing adult rugby. In essence the two teams were against each other rather than working together.

The issue around quality of rugby was further compromised because both outfits had no scope to improve the level of rugby I played.  Both club and school played the same games against the same teams every year.  The club format had an end of season final where the two "top" teams in the league played each other in a grand final sort of game.  But the team we played were still from the local area. We never got to play against an arguablely better team at any stage in the season. Even colts rugby had us playing the same teams every single season.  It wasn't until I played adult level rugby that I started playing against teams form other regions.

The youth format needs some serious work!

I was the same tattie -school training Tuesday and Thursday, club training Thursday after school training. School game Saturday morning, club game Saturday afternoon! It was bloody knackering and can't have helped playing numbers. It was a state school and there was little communication between the school and club coaches, even though it was pretty much the same players and the club coaches were watching the school game in the morning anyway!

Not sure what the solution to that is though, as both games need to be played at the weekend.

Speaking as someone who identifies as English but is descended from a line of Scots, I find it very sad to see the current state of Scottish pro rugby. I grew up watching the triumphs of 84 and 90, and cheering for bold Scottish tactics over more stolid English play, and I have always wondered how that magic was so comprehensively lost.

Thanks for posting these - it's a compelling analysis of the root of the problem and the possibilities for fixing it. I do hope the SRU can find a way out of its current mess and get a properly functioning set up going.

It will take time - it's taken England, with all its resources, until now to have a system that looks sustainable for the long run - and even now it's not proven. But it's worth persisting with.

fa0019 wrote:I'd throw in every penny we have in getting schools to take up rugby.  This game is about numbers. The more chaps we get playing the sport in school, the higher the chance we will get quality players coming through. That in itself will hopefully boost interest from fans too.

At the moment scottish rugby is very regional based and still a upper-middle sport for most. Yet, Rugby isn't an expensive sport to play.

Getting more players into the game is the single biggest investment return we will see in the sport. Additionally you can influence a hell of a lot more potential players and fans  by providing basic kit and funding, rather that then spending the same sum on say 40 individuals with the aim of improving their productivity by say 4%.

Geet the sport in primary schools... to compete with football you can't allow the best sportsman to already be signed up to football academies giving you the best of the rest.  Follow the USA model who target youth development in key regions. They already have more kids involved than Scotland.... in 10-20years time without any changes expect Scotland to start losing to the USA.

You have to have a lot of balls to play this game though... Spending a lot of resources on something that has a very long investment  return period is not easy.

I'd throw in every penny we have in getting schools to take up rugby yes yes and more yes   

I think NZ have a good model, where clubs are linked to schools. I think it is up to 11 they play for the club, then from 11 - 16 or 17 they play for the school then go back to the club.

I could be a bit off with the ages, but you get the jist

Schools and youth rugby is the way to go in the long term and the NZ/SA models are the ones to follow:
Close links between club and school rugby - the two do not have to compete, be mutually exclusive, or even take place at the same time.
Get the clubs into schools that can't offer rugby for whatever reason and get the kids into the rugby club on the weekend.
Look to the NZ model concerning sides based on weight/height rather than age grade, nothing is going to put a slow grower off rugby more than being smashed every time by a kid the same age who just happens to be two stone heavier and a foot taller.
Market rugby as a postive choice, especially in the urban areas, get School of Hard Knocks type teams set up in Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh, etc. to reach kids and adults who would not normally get involved. I know this sounds horrible but sell the "rugby values".
Addition - and set rugby as an inclusive sport - not a tribal one for Tims and Huns - look towards the Irish example for that.

How much do we pay our rugby development officers?

They really need to be develpoing more rugby in schools! We have a development officer in our county but we also have a school that has no rugby team! What on earth is the reaosn for that?

And it's not number. Schools can combine if they need to.  We have two clubs in our area where for whatever reason, one age group didn't have the numbers so the two clubs have "merged" for that age group

Bugger all, and the one for my area is partly funded by my rugby club!

He must be doing 70 hours a week but is on 18k or so.

That was a good read. Good ideas from Hadden too.

One thing that stands out - and which I agree with - is the need to come up with a specific plan that benefits Scottish rugby. Its not about copying Ireland, NZ, England or Wales etc but about finding a way for Scotland.


Don't get me wrong, they can take the best ideas from every nation but they then have to 'bake their own cake' with the ingredients.


There are steps involved and Scotland must get the lower steps right before they move on to higher steps. Theres so much to take into account that you need some very clever people running Scottish rugby. Whether or not they're just money men I don't know but that could be a problem.

From the Hoorald:

Rugby Park favourite to host match with Tonga

Alasdair Reid, Rugby reporter
Friday 2 May 2014

International rugby is to return to the west of Scotland with Kilmarnock FC's appositely named Rugby Park being lined up as the venue for Scotland's autumn Test with Tonga.

Although the deal has yet to be concluded between the club and the Scottish Rugby Union, Herald Sport understands that negotiations aimed at bringing the November 22 match to the Ayrshire town are now at an advanced stage.

Murrayfield officials are keen to capitalise on rugby's rising profile in the west at a time when Glasgow Warriors are riding high in the RaboDirect PRO12, the Emirates Airline Glasgow Sevens are about to take place at Scotstoun and the Commonwealth Games sevens event is to be staged at Ibrox in August.

In recent seasons, Scotland have established a pattern of playing the most low-key of their three autumn internationals outside Edinburgh. Pittodrie has hosted three games in the past six years - the most recent being the 2012 loss to Tonga which led to the departure of coach Andy Robinson - but a potential clash with European football dates may rule the Aberdeen ground out this year.

Only a handful of international matches have been held in the west in the past and, while a number of other grounds have been considered, it is believed that a combination of ease of access, an 18,000 capacity and modern facilities at Rugby Park make it the front-runner to stage the Tonga game. Scotland's other two autumn internationals, against Argentina and New Zealand, will take place at Murrayfield on November 8 and 15 respectively.

Let's face it, they're not going to play Tonga in Aberdeen after what happened last time!   

the 7's, now Autumn internationals, you lot wont be happy till the 6ns are played on the wrong side of the M8 eh!