Move over Eddie Jones, Mark McCall for England!

First topic message reminder :

I'm considering changing the moniker to band wagon jumper starter?

Obviously McCall should now be recognised as the best coach in northern hemisphere rugby (fair play to Dai). The only one realistically capable of of challenging Hansen (huge tangent here, but in all the debate about how good the AB's are it does amaze me that nobody appears to rightly attribute the magnificent contribution of Hansen who has been apart of their panel since I was a small boy and I think is their kingpin or keystone, call or what you like, but he is the master of their ship and therefore its not so surprising that they've continued on this wonderful run playing his 'rugby of the gods' - just a thought) and so without further a do I here by pronounce the said Mark McCall as the next England rugby coach - regardless if he wants it or not!

Jones will take them so far but McCall will deliver the prize.

Not misrepresenting you said yourself you put Diamond on the same level - you called him one of the best.

I can separate top coaches. Diamond is clearly below.

England won the 6 nations game and lost the RWC game. The huge difference was the result and the scoreboard at the end.

Yes it's the win that matters most to me. It's not the same as the RWC because we won. England just about held on. You are right though that it was a near miss and any mistakes cannot be ignored even if t was a win.

Need to sharpen up substitutions agreed but I am going to be more lenient in a victory.

So who are your top 5 prem coaches who you rate as exactly as good as each other beshocked?

And yes like I said you only want to judge on the result hence it becomes difficult to discuss anything.

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon not sure I am convinced, we've seen Borthwick as England captain, I think it's fair to say he was not well received. Could you imagine Borthwick talking to the press?

This backroom job suits Borthwick because he's a grafter, intelligent and has good attention to detail. He's not a PR man though. You need to say the right things to the press even if it's just hyperbole. He's added value though both to Japan and England but in a specific role.

I think that was more to the fact that he wasn't the most dynamic player and was following on from a previous Captain in that position....a certain Mr Johnson! Ive always heard that he was a very good captain at club level.

Noone actually knows the influence he has as a coach? He maybe exceptional??

No 7&1/2 wrote:So who are your top 5 prem coaches who you rate as exactly as good as each other beshocked?

And yes like I said you only want to judge on the result hence it becomes difficult to discuss anything.

I had this discussion with Beshocked. About top players who play for lower clubs not getting recognition because the clubs don't win despite the individual player playing consistently well.

Trying to go back to some of the substance of the debate...

Woodward actually went so far as to tell Robinson "you don't want to be England manager - what you want is the job you've already got as Head Coach", and I think he was right. Robinson was a very good coach but lacked the qualities to be a successful manager - most obviously as a selector.

Likewise, viewing Borthwick's coaching prospects through the lens of his England captaincy is like assessing Ben Affleck's directing ability solely on the basis of his acting. It's two different skill sets. To offer a good counter example: Martin Johnson was England's most successful ever captain, but wasn't - ultimately - a great manager.

If anything, the reasons given for having Borthwick as a captain - his attention to detail and the respect he earned from the players and coaches - probably translate well into a coaching arena, whereas the things he was weaker at, like being seen to be a vocal leader, may well be less relevant. A coach only has to be listened to off the pitch.

I do think McCall has many of the characteristics to make a great international coach. But I'd want him - or anyone - to spend some time learning the international ropes before being handed the reins of England.

Based on England's past experience, I would say that an England manager [1] should have been part of an international coaching team that has gone through the RWC and preferably the full RWC cycle before taking on the top job. We saw from Johnson and Lancaster what happens when they don't have that experience. Henry and Hansen provide an interesting counterpoint.

I'd also say that it's highly preferable that the manager should have managed an international team prior to coaching England, or at least shown some skill in selection, club relationships, coaching appointments etc. Ashton and Robinson didn't, and it didn't work out.

The alternative would be to have someone act as a mentor to a less experienced manager - for instance if Eddie stayed on in a consultant role (similar to the one he played with Jake White). But I'd be nervous at handing the reins to a first time international coach, especially given it looks like England are finally building towards something.

[1] I'll use the term to distinguish the top job from the Andy Robinson lead technical coach role

I think a lot of it will depend on how Eddie leaves England. If we go up and down between now and the World Cup and then crash out at the QFs or worse, then there's a case for a clear-out and new direction, as what we have isn't producing good results.

If we get another couple of Championships and a WC semi (or better) and then Jones leaves in 2019, there's an argument to say we haven't had it as good for 16 years, therefore we want to keep as much as the same ideas as possible, just continue to improve it. That's when your succession plan can be used.

Would anyone have been happy if after 2015, Lancaster went and Farrell, Catt and Rowntree had continued as the coaching team?

Actually, I would have been happy to see Lancaster stay, with someone like Eddie, Geech or perhaps Venter as a mentor/sounding board.

The manner of England's RWC exit made that untenable, but Lancaster did a lot of good stuff in terms of player and pipeline development that was ultimately undermined by a bit of tactical naivety (particularly the breakdown and his use of the bench), some gambles that didn't pay off (reshaping the pack in the pre-RWC camp, Burgess, hoping Billy and Ben were fit when they weren't) and failing to win the media battle (the Aussie scrum was cheating as much as England's and more blatantly, but Cheika completely hoodwinked the pundits and refs).

Those are precisely the things Eddie had fixed before the end of the 6N.

I suspect how we perceive Eddie's reign will hinge on a small number of things. He will be judged on a few crunch games each year - South Africa this year, NZ when we play them, Ireland and Wales away games in the 6N. He needs to show that he can solve the problems at 7 and 12 (though - once fit - there are enough candidates emerging and he's shown sufficient creativity in stop gap solutions that this is less of a worry than it was).

And - the big one - he needs to maintain the current intensity within the squad without burning out the players. The best barometer of that is probably the spine (who - interestingly - are also his captain and VCs. Hadn't spotted that before) - Hartley, Kruis, Billy, Faz and Brown. Three young but heavily worked players and two older but intense ones. If he can keep them all on the boil, it suggests the squad's in good shape. If they start to break down, he's probably overdone it.

robbo277 No. Farrell,Catt and Rowntree weren't good enough either. We do not know how much influence each coaching staff had but a complete clear out was the right call.

Poorfour it wasn't all bad from Lancaster, I agree but a coach IMO is generally measured on results. Lancaster would have had some credit in the bank if he had won a GS.

Lancaster will always have his staunch supporters though. Believing that a loss was the same as a win.

You make an important point about Jones' spine hence why it's important to give George and LCD more responsibility at hooker. George and LCD lack Hartley's experience at international level but need to be trusted by Jones.

Lancaster relied heavily on Hartley as his starter and this meant that when Hartley was out, Lancaster put too much trust in T.Youngs.

I of course still believe that one reason Lancaster failed in the RWC is he put too much trust in certain players and not enough in others.

Jones was fortunate that certain players have stayed fit during his tenure but inevitably injuries will happen so back up players need to be given more gametime.

2nd row options as a whole need honing - we've got 4 good locks but need to make it so partnerships are comfortable - not just Kruis-Itoje but maybe Lawes-Itoje or Kruis-Launchbury, Launchbury-Lawes etc.

At 12, if Slade is seen as the back up to Farrell he needs gametime in the AIs that's obvious.

7 is the hardest to fix.

Its amazing how good a coach you are when you can lose a player like Jacques Burger and then buy Schalk Burger and he's all forgotten. Talent spotting aside coaching a national team is very different from coaching clubs.
Nations have no budgets, you can't simply rectify a lack of quality in your flank department by turning on the TV and looking at some kiwi, saffa, aussie in the JRWC (CJ Stander), at the end of their career (Schalk Burger) or just one step below test level (Brad Barritt) etc and throwing them a few quid.

That said Sarries are now a good outfit and should be applauded. They have a nice mix of kids and bought experience.

I would say whilst they do generate good youngsters from prior knowledge its not quite at genius levels. They sign up so many kids, they have so many programs going on and its often a case of success by throwing 50 junior academy contracts to kids and then allowing them to fight it out for the 5 pro contracts. I used to play with a guy who was ruined by their system, he didn't play a single game for 3 years as whilst they paid for his university studies he wasn't quite good enough for the top side. Another premiership side actually offered him an academy spot midway through his Sarries nightmare but couldn't pay his uni fees (all backdated too) so he was stuck and had to turn them down. Ended up in the 4th tier playing glorified saturday club rugby. He was far better than that but never recovered.

Offering to pay a kids uni fees these days is as good as any pro contract considering the numbers involved.
While you're mate didn't quite make it fa - Id say he still did quite well out of it.

Talent spotting is getting younger and younger these days - but there needs to be a limit for Rugby. I don't think we will ever see the rugby equivalent of that 7yr old wonder kid signed to a top soccer team. But there does seem to be a lot of movement and youth player development groups that are all part of the pipeline for future international recognition - hopefully.

propdavid_london wrote:Offering to pay a kids uni fees these days is as good as any pro contract considering the numbers involved.  
While you're mate didn't quite make it fa - Id say he still did quite well out of it.

Talent spotting is getting younger and younger these days - but there needs to be a limit for Rugby.  I don't think we will ever see the rugby equivalent of that 7yr old wonder kid signed to a top soccer team. But there does seem to be a lot of movement and youth player development groups that are all part of the pipeline for future international recognition - hopefully.

Today yes, £9k is madness on stilts but in those days it wasn't that much yet still too much for most people to say, no thanks. In fact I think if I'm correct he would have had to have left his uni course too as it was a sponsored one (Brunel if I recall). I think that was the other main reason... and probably more than the fees repayment.

propdavid_london wrote:Offering to pay a kids uni fees these days is as good as any pro contract considering the numbers involved.  
While you're mate didn't quite make it fa - Id say he still did quite well out of it.

Talent spotting is getting younger and younger these days - but there needs to be a limit for Rugby.  I don't think we will ever see the rugby equivalent of that 7yr old wonder kid signed to a top soccer team. But there does seem to be a lot of movement and youth player development groups that are all part of the pipeline for future international recognition - hopefully.

As of this year the RFU's Age Grade rugby system has come into play across both clubs and schools, and is specifically designed to keep as many kids playing and developing skills for as long as possible. You can't spot rugby talent as early as you can with many sports, because there's so much to learn. The Age Grade system introduces the skills gradually and encourages late specialisation. A stated aim is to stop kids dropping out of playing.

While there's stuff I disagree with in the system, it has a lot of good features. Players develop at different rates and this helps. At my club, we've seen kids go from stars at tag to also-rans in contact to back again as they get more used to the physical stuff, and players who started out as average tag players emerging as the contact area gets more complicated.

The big issue is the lack of a weight grading mechanism, so that you will still get kids who haven't yet hit their growth spurts playing alongside kids who are approaching adult size. I'd rather see something that defined the bands outside of which kids should consider playing with kids more their own size.

Its like 9k a semester now isn't it? Kids leaving with +30k in loans - minimum (not sure the tuition has improved to merit the price hikes - but that's another debate)

There are many twists and turns in a young players development - its nice to see that most clubs academy kids are also being encouraged to stay on and study at the same time - planning for the future and player welfare. Everyone knows its a short career if you can get to that level so there needs to be planning even at a starting age.

Anyway - this is a bit off topic. It was an interesting statement, I think from Baxter that England hasn't employed a national head coach drawn from the home club head coach pool for a number of years.

Correct me if I am wrong - was Woodward not a Bath DoR before England came calling? So too was Robinson?

One thing I would highlight is paying for mini's rugby. My friend has kids in London and is charged £150 a year for his kids to play. All this for rugby which is run by parents, materials are minimal and yet with 40+ kids registered per year the £6k income is hugely disproportionate to the cost.

How are they meant to get kids from poor families. £150 may not sound a lot but for kids from poor families its not an option. I know football costs a lot too but rugby never used to be like this.
In my day coaching was run by dads for free or older players looking to develop their coaching. We were never charged a penny and got a free meal come game day.

Off topic sorry but its ridiculous. The talent pool from non rugby families is huge in most countries yet same issues apply. If you apply financial constraints on families they won't be attracted to the game and you'll lose the few to other sports/genuine potentials won't get introduced to the game in time.

Woodward and Robinson had coached in England, though I think Woodward's most recent coaching appointment before England was in Australia. Since he bridges the amateur and professional eras, anyone prior to Woodward is from a very different context.

So then you have:
Woodward - had coached in England, came from Australia
Robinson - had coached in England, came from England setup
Ashton - had coached in England, came from England setup
Johnson - had never coached, came from retirement as a player
Lancaster - had coached in England, came from Saxons
Jones - had coached in England, had coached Australia, South Africa and Japan...

You cant work with kids no without getting checked - IS it CRB? That costs money, insurance etc etc.
I assume that's what the reason is for the expense - people don't go into mini rugby for a profit and from what I have seen parents still get involved - its just the way it is at the moment.

The real way to improve playing numbers is for Rugby to become a mainstream sport in schools. Not just the occasional state school and private schools - but all schools 'girls and boys'.

Woodward was London Irish coach in AP and 2nd tier. Then was Robinson' no.2 at bath before becoming number 1 for about 6 months.

All this before he joined England as coach.

I suppose Baxter was referring to the current crop of DoRs then.

propdavid_london wrote:You cant work with kids no without getting checked - IS it CRB? That costs money, insurance etc etc.
I assume that's what the reason is for the expense - people don't go into mini rugby for a profit and from what I have seen parents still get involved - its just the way it is at the moment.  

The real way to improve playing numbers is for Rugby to become a mainstream sport in schools.  Not just the occasional state school and private schools - but all schools 'girls and boys'.

From what I understand he goes along informally and helps out in drills. I imagine the main coach and perhaps a few have CRB but I know he went along one day simply as a dad and was thrown a ball when they needed more people to take drills.

£6k to run a weekly pitchside class? Say 10 balls, a few tags and straps and cones. £6k a year. No way does that cost £6k a year. Kids don't use changing rooms, showers, flood lights.

Not for profit perhaps but its not for profit for the whole club I assume... as in the money is pushed into the club elsewhere as in the  senior side and transportation costs etc, electricity bill of club and the whole 9 yards.

fa0019 wrote:One thing I would highlight is paying for mini's rugby. My friend has kids in London and is charged £150 a year for his kids to play. All this for rugby which is run by parents, materials are minimal and yet with 40+ kids registered per year the £6k income is hugely disproportionate to the cost.

We charge something similar at our club. It's not ridiculous. It covers rent of the ground, insurance, having a paramedic on site for all training and matches, equipment (balls, bibs, cones, tackle pads, shelter for when we go to tournaments), trophies and the end of season dinner for players.

I'll see if I can get a breakdown but I am sure we're not making a big surplus every year.

propdavid_london wrote:I suppose Baxter was referring to the current crop of DoRs then.

No what he meant was they hadnt drawn one direct from a Jeff club without them going via foreign job or subordinate England role first.

All the recent ones prior to Jones were essentially "jobs for the boys"

Aside form the possible lack of quality options at the right time (Dean Richards was being touted but that thing happened) theres a number of reasons for that:
1- The agreement they have to not poach coaches. The same one that led to Wales poachin Sean Edwards
2- Despite the claims to the contrary they do have some vague succession planning sort of well not really in place kind of maybe ..well they at least know that people "learn the rope" (aka "grease the right poles") and get to know Rob Andrew by being part of the set up
3- Too many people though Brian Ashton was "a good idea" on the grounds that Ian Balshaw scored more than one try in a game for Bath once.
4- Jeff jobs and international jobs are different, and having some experience in international rugby is important. Possibly.
5- People already with jobs in the England set up are likely to have gone to the right schools ( or taught at them).
6- The Jeff is dominated by foreign coaches ( possibly)
7- They just didnt think Baxter was ready no matter how much he cries about it

Poorfour wrote:

fa0019 wrote:One thing I would highlight is paying for mini's rugby. My friend has kids in London and is charged £150 a year for his kids to play. All this for rugby which is run by parents, materials are minimal and yet with 40+ kids registered per year the £6k income is hugely disproportionate to the cost.

We charge something similar at our club. It's not ridiculous. It covers rent of the ground, insurance, having a paramedic on site for all training and matches, equipment (balls, bibs, cones, tackle pads, shelter for when we go to tournaments), trophies and the end of season dinner for players.

I'll see if I can get a breakdown but I am sure we're not making a big surplus every year.

The thing is, these kids won't be playing games for 2 years. This is U6 rugby when its barely above kindergarten. I can see some reason when they travel etc (albeit in my day it was all done by dad's taxi)

Oh, and CRB checks for the coaches, RFU registration fees, training for the coaches and refs.

Training's quite a big deal. The bigger courses are a couple of hundred quid and at the very least the head coach from each age group is supposed to be trained up the the right level, and each age group is supposed to supply a couple of qualified refs for every tournament. For instance, I've done: Rugby Ready, Level 1 Coaching Children Rugby Union, Entry Level Refereeing Award, First Aid (refreshed every couple of years), Scrum Factory and at some point soon I will have to do Level 2 Coaching for the 15 man game.

To manage an age group of 30 kids you need 4-5 coaches - at least 3 on any given day, but in practice you need a couple of extra because not everyone can make every week, and it's not reasonable to expect them to pay for their own training since it benefits all the kids.

We've also recently taken to having a couple of professional coaches on retainer to freshen up what we do and introduce some new ideas, and that's making a difference but it costs money.

fa0019 wrote:

The thing is, these kids won't be playing games for 2 years. This is U6 rugby when its barely above kindergarten. I can see some reason when they travel etc (albeit in my day it was all done by dad's taxi)

We start at U7, because that's when tournaments start. We don't organise travel to away sessions and tournaments. We do pay the tournament entry fees and, as I say, insurance. At U6 it's obviously not supposed to be contact, but collisions and injuries do happen, so you still need insurance and first aid.

Would you really be happy sending your own kid to a club that wasn't insured, hadn't done CRB checks, didn't have first aiders or trained coaches and (therefore) wasn't registered with the RFU?

Poorfour wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

The thing is, these kids won't be playing games for 2 years. This is U6 rugby when its barely above kindergarten. I can see some reason when they travel etc (albeit in my day it was all done by dad's taxi)

We start at U7, because that's when tournaments start. We don't organise travel to away sessions and tournaments. We do pay the tournament entry fees and, as I say, insurance. At U6 it's obviously not supposed to be contact, but collisions and injuries do happen, so you still need insurance and first aid.

Would you really be happy sending your own kid to a club that wasn't insured, hadn't done CRB checks, didn't have first aiders or trained coaches and (therefore) wasn't registered with the RFU?

I appreciate its not free but asking kids to pay perhaps £5-£10 a session is only going to be affordable to certain individuals and that was my issue. In most nations the sport is one played often by those who are better off and its a worry that its still be used as an method of social exclusion (almost certainly without intention). Anyhow, I will agree to that I don't think clubs are making any money from it... but perhaps charging certain individuals less and certain more.

That is starting to get more political now Fa.
How would some people feel if they pay £150 and another family only £50...
I am sure that 'like at university' there are schemes where people can apply for hardship bursaries etc.
Underprivileged children all seem to get priority places at schools, playgroups, university places so I am sure there is some scheme out there that would cover sports club expenses.

We are way off topic now though - but very interesting discussion - perhaps we should have a new thread?

propdavid_london wrote:That is starting to get more political now Fa.  
How would some people feel if they pay £150 and another family only £50...
I am sure that 'like at university' there are schemes where people can apply for hardship bursaries etc.
Underprivileged children all seem to get priority places at schools, playgroups, university places so I am sure there is some scheme out there that would cover sports club expenses.

We are way off topic now though - but very interesting discussion - perhaps we should have a new thread?  

I know what you're saying, in SA rugby costs too and sure a little political but even from a rugby standpoint the game will only advance once it comes out of its middle class mainframe. But anyhow it was just a little comment to show how difficult these things are.. both clubs, players, families, unions the lot.

Our season is about 30 weeks. £5 per week is a pint and a half a week. Two Starbucks coffees. A McDonald's 99p happy meal for a family of five.

You're really saying that it's unreasonable to ask parents to pay that much for their children to have all the things I've listed?

Child benefit, by the way, is £20.50 for the first child and £13.55 for each subsequent one, as long as you earn less than £50k. So the government actually hands out money that you could choose to spend on this.

Whether you think it's reasonable or not, where the heck else do you think the money is coming from?

Poorfour wrote:Our season is about 30 weeks. £5 per week is a pint and a half a week. Two Starbucks coffees. A McDonald's 99p happy meal for a family of five.

You're really saying that it's unreasonable to ask parents to pay that much for their children to have all the things I've listed?

Child benefit, by the way, is £20.50 for the first child and £13.55 for each subsequent one, as long as you earn less than £50k. So the government actually hands out money that you could choose to spend on this.

Whether you think it's reasonable or not, where the heck else do you think the money is coming from?

From what I understand its paid upfront for the season. £150 isn't a lot to some but its a lot to a lot of people. Got 3 kids, that's £450 upfront. That's big money for people and as I said before for a sport which isn't renown for their social inclusion... I imagine (no proof hands up) it may be a deal breaker between little jonny/will/martin taking up the sport or not.

I'm not being this socialist hawk here... just saying I can see it being a real turn off for hard up families.

Joking here - pick your favourite child and pay for that one
Or hold auditions.

beshocked wrote:robbo277 No. Farrell,Catt and Rowntree weren't good enough either. We do not know how much influence each coaching staff had but a complete clear out was the right call.

Poorfour it wasn't all bad from Lancaster, I agree but a coach IMO is generally measured on results. Lancaster would have had some credit in the bank if he had won a GS.

Lancaster will always have his staunch supporters though. Believing that a loss was the same as a win.

You make an important point about Jones' spine hence why it's important to give George and LCD more responsibility at hooker. George and LCD lack Hartley's experience at international level but need to be trusted by Jones.

Lancaster relied heavily on Hartley as his starter and this meant that when Hartley was out, Lancaster put too much trust in T.Youngs.

I of course still believe that one reason Lancaster failed in the RWC is he put too much trust in certain players and not enough in others.

Jones was fortunate that certain players have stayed fit during his tenure but inevitably injuries will happen so back up players need to be given more gametime.

2nd row options as a whole need honing - we've got 4 good locks but need to make it so partnerships are comfortable - not just Kruis-Itoje but maybe Lawes-Itoje or Kruis-Launchbury, Launchbury-Lawes etc.

At 12, if Slade is seen as the back up to Farrell he needs gametime in the AIs that's obvious.

7 is the hardest to fix.

I'm still not sure about Rowntree....he seems to be having a very positive effect on Quins. Sinkler is thriving! And their scrum seems much stronger. Maybe a coincidence...maybe not....