Is it time to stop being called a coach, and be called a manager?

It occurs to me that modern day head coaches do far more off field activities than they do hands on coaching.

Teams regularly sign 4/5 + players in the off season, and are constantly looking for alternative avenues to add to their player squad. They spend more time building a squad than they do developing a squad, and are far more like football managers than anything else at present.

With the climate rugby union is currently in, where loyalty has become rarer and rarer, and money determines all, why are we even still calling these guys coaches?

Toulon are a perfect example, in essence buying Heineken cup trophies against the culture that was in rugby at the time that developed squads with a balanced team would always beat a squad of mercenaries, where they have succeeded others have followed, and with the restructure and the wealth redistribution of euro rugby more money to English and French clubs means more signings and more grey areas to try to bend NGB rules.

So who do you want at the helm of your club? A guy who can identify a market weak spot, and purchase signings for squad development, or a guy who can utilise what he has, and create something internally?

Or does it matter? Does it all come down to what your club can spend?

I think the best obviously do a bit of both. Though you could say Toulon were/are a bunch of mercenaries they worked hard for each other and seemed to have a great blend in the squad. Bath are probably the biggest exponents of this in the Aviva and it's all going Pete Tong for them this year for reasons I don't know, the loss of an experienced loosehead and more relying on young Auterac (from Saracens), poor form of Ford, the whole Burgess mess.

Saracens are the best of both at the moment, lots of class players coming through their academy, some very astute signings of young players who should (and have so far) develop into something a lot better and some great signings to compliment. And all within budget...

Fanster


I think if there was more protection for clubs that develop their own players then it would encourage more academy effort.

London Irish and Newcastle are two clubs that have had excellent academies, bringing through plenty of players that have been snapped up by other clubs. Mainly two clubs.

Both are 11th and 12th in the league.

Exeter and Wasps have shown what good business acumen and astute dealings on the field can do.

Exeter are going from strength to strength, Wasps have rebuilt themselves as title contenders.

Shows the ability of Wasps development that they can lose B.Vunipola and replace him with Nathan Hughes.

If Wasps and Exeter are the "good guys" of the AP then of course Saracens and Bath are the "villains".

The thing about the Bath coaches, I don't really rate them. Ford is okay but that's it. He's not in my opinion top class.

As for Saracens they've had a balanced system as no 7 & 1/2 mentions. Not focussing just on youngsters, home grown but also not just on foreigners.

You need that blend of experience and youth. Of course Saracens have had the fortune to have significant financial backing but Sarries have picked players that have added significant value.

Being a big name doesn't guarantee success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2016%E2%80%9317_Aviva_Premiership_transfers

Astute signings can make a big difference. anyone can offer Carter or Pinaar zillions to join your club. It takes a real talent spotter to pick up somone who is unknown but has the skills to be a star - See Glasgow for the epitome of the latter approach. DTH, Matowalo and Tennassee Tam spring to mind

Toulon have put together a squad that gelled really well. Getting players like Wilkinson in at the beginning of their rise was a master-stroke in terms of instilling a team ethnic. These guys might be superstars, but they've had the best workrate and team spirit out of any side in European rugby. Similarly with Saracens.

Different 'clubs' have different approaches. Director of Rugby, Head Coach and Coach are not the same everywhere.

Cyril people forget that Toulon also made a canny signing by bringing in Bernard Laporte.

Laporte is a step up on Phillipe Saint Andre and most other French coaches.

His record is very good indeed. Numerous 6 nations titles with France, knocking the ABs out in 2007 RWC, semis in 2003 and 2007, French title with Stade Francais, 3 HCs and 1 French title with Toulon.

PSA has nowhere near the track record of Laporte. He's been dining off his AP win with Sale for years.

Cyril wrote:Toulon have put together a squad that gelled really well. Getting players like Wilkinson in at the beginning of their rise was a master-stroke in terms of instilling a team ethnic. These guys might be superstars, but they've had the best workrate and team spirit out of any side in European rugby. Similarly with Saracens.

Different 'clubs' have different approaches. Director of Rugby, Head Coach and Coach are not the same everywhere.

Well at Leicester we have:

DoR - Cockerill
Head Coach - Mauger
Coaches - Blaze, Murphy

In general the job title seems to match their responsibilities

I don't care what the guy who conducts the coaching baton on a team is called as long as he's the one talking before and after a game.

Actually, I do care a great deal what the guy is called.  He's called a Coach.  There is no need for a name change.  The man who runs the systems of play and strategies, the man who leads the training sessions and over-sees the rhythms and content of his assistants, the man who takes the hit when his side loses and takes some of the plaudits when they win... he's a coach.

So if a Manager is required, let him manage.  If a Director is needed, let him direct.  The Coach talks about the rugby - period.  The Office men stay in their offices and quit trying to steal the limelight with their words of wisdom on what their team 'is about', and stop sitting with or behind the Head Coaches on match day!  

I hate the preening self-regard of Directors/Managers who talk the big matchday talk as if it was them doing the coaching each week.  Shut the hell up guys and go sit down, relax, have a sandwich, drink a glass of milk, do some Feckin' thing.

Surely it's the CEO's job to deal with most of the off field stuff? Also the board of Directors and Chairman?

I would call Directors of Rugby still coaches. They are the ones who ultimately pick the gameplan, shape the clubs and do the team talks.

They aren't as hands on as others but they still make sure everything is running smoothly.

Manager is below Director in the business hierachy anyway.

Directors of Rugby are Directors not Managers.

Our DoR is responsible for team selection, recruitment etc. The Head Coach is the man in charge of day to day coaching of the players.