Coaches: do Refs only have it worse?

Before last year, and the performances of Nigel Owens in the big games of the year, you might have argued there wasn't an obvious choice for a standout ref. There seem a few more candidates for standout coaches but equally there seem to be plenty of coaches people love to hate.

It's very difficult to evaluate a coach's worth in rugby. When a team is going well, you get the comments such as 'my granny could coach them and they'd still win.' A perfect 14 from 14 and I'd wager there are some who think that NZ team didn't need coaching. They all knew what they had to do. From the opposite spectrum, there are teams like Scotland where you get comments such as 'my granny could coach that team better than Johnson... and she's dead'. In between you get teams like the Crusaders: just as the knives come out they turn in a stunning performance. Just as you think everything is back to expectations they put in a limp performance. The selections start getting questioned (this week Ellis and Dagg return and the front row get the boot. WTF?) and you start sharpening your GINZU 2000 collection.

Having followed the exploits of Atletico for a few seasons now, it is abundantly clear the worth of a good coach. Tactics, selections and instilling mental belief are all part of a coach's job. I see a coach like Schmidt and it's obvious he's impressed in his first year with a 6N win but the difficult second album awaits and if results don't continue or the consistency isn't there like it has been with Lancaster, then it won't take long for those criticisms to be voiced. Gatland has won consecutive championships but patience will wear thin if he achieves similar results to last year. Consistency is a double edged sword: it gains you a degree of leeway but it raises the expectations of the public on you. Look at Meyer: he's improved the Boks' European record and away record against Australia but how much leeway does that afford him over his inability to beat NZ?

When a team is going well, the players take the limelight. When it all goes pear shaped, the coach wears the brunt of the rotten tomatoes. The focus tends to not go on a player's error or team errors but on bench replacements - too early, not soon enough, lack of game awareness - team selections and tactics. Gatland gets the flak for Warrenball but the players don't share enough of the blame for not executing Warrenball correctly. It comes right in the 3rd Lions test and the focus goes on the 1st and 2nd tests.

It's very difficult to take a calm, objective look at how a coach is doing. When Steve Hansen was announced as the successor to Graham Henry, a few Welsh selectors were quick to remind the NZ posters how successful (or not) he had been with Wales. How much of that belief I saw against Ireland in the closing minutes can be attributed to the players or to the coach just as how much of that goal against Barcelona can be attributed to Simeone's half time talk or to the players? How much of the blame would've gone to Hansen if they hadn't achieved that perfect season? I suspect a similar response to NZ coaches who have failed at RWCs, albeit a much more diluted one.

How would you rate your current coach and what value do you think he adds to your team? In Hansen and his assistants I see a man who hasn't been afraid to make the difficult choices and who has successfully introduced a significant amount of younger players whilst blending that team with experience. Overall, I think he is a smart tactician who has risen to the occasion in the big matches and who has been able to get consistency from his players. There is a culture of belief and confidence in the side, which although can be attributed in part to the results of the team, I think deserves to be attributed to the coach and his team.

Loads of pre amble just to tell us Hansen is great. Oh NZ, i give up.

The question was rate your coach. Hansen is NZ's coach and I don't think he's done too badly, do you? How would you rate Gatland?

I think Stuart Lancaster, despite his lack of experience, has been very good for England.

England spent the post-2003 years wondering why we weren't as good as we were in 2003, and I think comparison's with Woodward and his team hurt all coaches and all teams thereafter.

Bringing Martin Johnson back was meant to be the turning point and, despite a Six Nations win and home and away victories against Australia, he never really took hold. He didn't play adventurous rugby, he received a few thrashings at the hands of the big teams and then there was the disappointing World Cup effort and everything that went with that.

Lancaster came in and did the right things immediately. He freshened up the coaching team and the playing staff. More importantly, he changed the culture. He made it mean something to play for England again. Nick "35k down the toilet" Easter hasn't had a look-in since that comment, Danny Care was immediately dropped for a series of incidents and Lancaster has stuck rigidly by the no foreign-based players policy (rather than Johnson who introduced it in theory). Meanwhile Lancaster tried to reconnect the players with the fans.

All this is all well and good, but if he wasn't progressing on the pitch he wouldn't still be in a job, and wouldn't be offered an opportunity to make these changes. As mentioned, Lancaster has a lack of experience and I think there is a bit of learning on the job. But he's changed the culture and the style of the team, he's brought through the new faces and he has wins against Australia and New Zealand, an away series win in Argentina and an away draw against South Africa. With the exception of a meaningless, end-of-series game against Wales (cough), I can't recall one of his sides getting thrashed.

Lancaster has now been in the job for 2 and half years though, and he does need to turn his intangible improvements into tangible results on the pitch, and I would think he'll be setting his sights on a home clean sweep in the Autumn (ahead of a home World Cup) and a Six Nations win in the spring, nothing less in my opinion. But for now, I think Lancaster has laid the foundations nicely, it's just time to build.

Unlike in amateur days the Coach is the head man of a circus,PRman,team doctor,team physio,plus a squad of sub coaches,fitness,kicking,scrummaging,forwards,backs,etc. he is
often selector as well.
Sir Clive Woodward in 1997-2004 was one of the first to adopt the money no object approach
he built in that period.
One of the most successful England sides of all time with a 71 % win record,in years 2001,2
and 3 they lost only a single game each season.
His reign coincided with a very talented group of players most of which became automatic
choices.
When you consider that it coincided with Australia`s best period in the pro era and SA`s
in decline,with NZ`s decline then rebuilding period.
His reign included Win/Loss ratios against the SH sides of _-6vNz,-1v Aus,+4 v SA over
the period.It is very creditable indeed.
What he failed to do was build for the future and when virtually the whole team retired
at once.England went into decline despite having capable Coaches in Robinson and
Ashton[especially].Johnson with no Coaching credentials at all was virtually a media
appointment.
Lancaster took over after a shake up among the SUITS,having spent a apprenticeship
with the Academy and A sides.
An excellent grounding he has had success relatively v NH sides but suffered badly v
SH ones[the odd couple excepted].
He is a very sensible man and is building squad depth nicely at the end of the year
after the NZ Tour,6Ns and AI`s we will be able to judge better.
Wales have had a pretty decent run with 3 Grand Slams in 5 years,Ireland have looked
very good then sometime blown up.
Scotland just don`t have the depth,France who can ever tell with them?
Meyer looks to be getting it together with SA unbeaten v NH sides recently,Australia
when they get a fully fit side who knows.
Hansen in the main inherited the majority of a great side 2015 will see a new coach
when NZ fail to win the RWC.
With Nz it`s a case of win games or your History as nearly occurred in 2009.

robbo when you look at the task Lancaster had in front of him appointed as caretaker coach, he has done an exceptional job. He has brought consistency to England which for a bit less than a decade had enjoyed very little. He has had injury problems but these might have forced his hand with selections like Brown and in the end that has helped, in general, strengthen England. There may be question marks over his use of the bench but from where he started and where England find themselves now, you can see a clear, forward progression.

It's interesting to see how coaches in the modern game get noticed. Sometimes when there is a concentration of talent domestically, you have to look overseas and make tactical choices. Unlike the players, there are much fewer positions to make yourself a name. Jake White has been in the international wilderness but he is doing a great job of reminding SARU what they're missing out on. Taking lowly or middle ranked Super sides and turning them into champion contenders is a sign this guy is not only an astute tactician but he must have motivational abilities to get the best out of his players. Hammett has always had a difficult time getting consistency from his Hurricanes side, but this article shows just how much Kiwi coaching talent there is out there and how it's very difficult to get yourself noticed: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/10070519/Snook-ABs-cap-an-advantage-for-coach-jobs