Who Would Sign Dean Richards?

I noticed on the Falcons thread talk that Richards should maybe be replaced if Newcastle are (as expected), relegated.

This got me wandering, would any one else take him? Falcons took a bit of a gamble with him initially after his ban from rugby, and imo it's paid off, he's built the framework for a Prem team, and put in place the body of a good squad. Money and support are lacking and he perhaps can't do more now.

Before Falcons he turned Harlequins from a mediocre relegation side to a hard nosed Euro competitor. He gave them a tough combative edge, brought through now club legends like Easter, Nev and Monye. He was also the main cause of the worst event to happen in the pro club history and brought a lot of damage to the club name. This ruined any chance of Int coaching, which was being talked up.

Before that at Tigers and in France he'd done very well too and shown he could be a successful head coach and manager.


So would any other club take him? Has he been forgiven for past events and could he move on from a relatively obscure, struggling, northern club to something the same or perhaps better?

I’m sure Dragons would have him. But I’m sure he can do better than us.

Do you think the WRU would care about his past?

Bath should be sniffing around and they should be after Gatland and Edwards.

Just can't see the point in sticking with Stuart Hooper, we deserve better.

There was a thread a few weeks ago put up that referenced Dean Richards and some recent pronouncements of his (at least I assumed they were quite recent) as regards cheating/ as regards everyone doing it in the past, according to him/ as regards him heavily intimating that England International used it during a specific WC.
Now for a present rugby coach to be saying such interesting things as regards direct references to direct practical activity operating in the practical business of rugby, two things come to mind.

1. He's still not going to be an all that popular face within the rugby biz fraternity.... and certainly not the International wing of it now. The clubs might have personal views of a coach not keeping possible transgressions in-shop but I think they'd be even more concerned that their coach would always be asked awkward questions from time to time during any tenure. He's a coach with baggage so he'll always be a go to man for journalists should any dodgy dealings arise anywhere in any league he'd be part of. That would constantly risk bringing bad publicity the way of the club that hired him. He would always be front and centre as person of interest for comment (even if not remotely involved in any shenanigans himself)
2. Social media don't seem to want to handle the darker issues of practical rugby played on the field either as the thread I'm referring to - which dealt with a genuine news story that dealt with a genuine rumbling issue in practical week to week rugby; the belief that cheating hasn't really gone away - was pulled minutes after it appeared.

The less people want to discuss, or give the tools of discussion, to the topic of cheating ( either through in-game trickery or doping) the more blatant and apparent it becomes that there is a real underlying issue there that people fear is all too real. So better to censor the legitimate discussion of it and hope it all goes out of the minds of followers again.

So Richards was a fall guy. He wasn't alone in the tricks, and I'm sure new versions of tricks continue ( I personally have no doubt). Richards was unlucky in that he got caught and it couldn't be concealed at the time. Does that make him suddenly a good chap who was hard done by when others were also trickstering at the time? Nope. But perhaps his best role to date, his most valuable role... might be for him now to elaborate on the details of the specifics of the past and perhaps force more whistleblowers to the surface - either to defend themselves with evidence or admit that cheating went to the highest organisational levels within clubs or countries.
Admitting the blunt truth of the past might better bring about a genuine examination of the present, the territory that most interests and concerns me.

Im in two minds over Dean. We need answers and a change in tactics or they need to ensure the tactics are implemented a whole lot better than they have been this season.

1.
Why have things imploded so horribly after last season.

2.Why have so many promising youngsters been given barely any gametime this season?
E.g
Kibirige came in for a few games scored a bundle of tries then was unceremoniously dropped.
Uzokwe is a big carrying back row...built very like Stefon Armitgae. Hes been pulling up trees in the A games, and hell he may not be ready for the prem...but why not have a look at him alongside Wilson and Welch or Hardie , Graham etc.
Radwan has simply disappeared when our game is crying out for pure speed!!
William's benched for Matavesi when we're crying out for a runner at 12!
Questions about whether they are ready or not is irrelevant if they dont get a chance to show.

3.
What is the purpose of the atrocious tactics.

4.
How is he going to fix it.

Sone of those were similar to issues he had when at Quins Geordie, I feel like Dean is great for building culture, signing rough diamonds and looking at the big picture. But he needs very good subordinates to do tactics and slection, all the smaller bits. Same as most managers.

He is definitely conservative, with slection, seems to be a Leicester thing not trusting academy players.

TightHEAD wrote:Bath should be sniffing around and they should be after Gatland and Edwards.

Just can't see the point in sticking with Stuart Hooper, we deserve better.

Some one like Richards is exactly what Bath need. You have the squad, he'd knock them into something cohesive. I wonder how hed get on with Bruce...

SecretFly wrote:There was a thread a few weeks ago  put up that referenced Dean Richards and some recent pronouncements of his (at least I assumed they were quite recent) as regards cheating/ as regards everyone doing it in the past, according to him/ as regards him heavily intimating that England International used it during a specific WC.
Now for a present rugby coach to be saying such interesting things as regards direct references to direct practical activity operating in the practical business of rugby, two things come to mind.

1.  He's still not going to be an all that popular face within the rugby biz fraternity.... and certainly not the International wing of it now.  The clubs might have personal views of a coach not keeping possible transgressions in-shop but I think they'd be even more concerned that their coach would always be asked awkward questions from time to time during any tenure.  He's a coach with baggage so he'll always be a go to man for journalists should any dodgy dealings arise anywhere in any league he'd be part of.  That would constantly risk bringing bad publicity the way of the club that hired him.  He would always be front and centre as person of interest for comment (even if not remotely involved in any shenanigans himself)
2.  Social media don't seem to want to handle the darker issues of practical rugby played on the field either as the thread I'm referring to - which dealt with a genuine news story that dealt with a genuine rumbling issue in practical week to week rugby; the belief that cheating hasn't really gone away - was pulled minutes after it appeared.

The less people want to discuss, or give the tools of discussion, to the topic of cheating ( either through in-game trickery or doping) the more blatant and apparent it becomes that there is a real underlying issue there that people fear is all too real.  So better to censor the legitimate discussion of it and hope it all goes out of the minds of followers again.

So Richards was a fall guy.  He wasn't alone in the tricks, and I'm sure new versions of tricks continue ( I personally have no doubt).  Richards was unlucky in that he got caught and it couldn't be concealed at the time.  Does that make him suddenly a good chap who was hard done by when others were also trickstering at the time?  Nope.  But perhaps his best role to date, his most valuable role... might be for him now to elaborate on the details of the specifics of the past and perhaps force more whistleblowers to the surface - either to defend themselves with evidence or admit that cheating went to the highest organisational levels within clubs or countries.
Admitting the blunt truth of the past might better bring about a genuine examination of the present, the territory that most interests and concerns me.

The cheating surely still happens in different ways.

When Bloodgate occured the RFU/PRL obv didnt want a fuss as they got that well known investigator, Dallaglio to conduct an exhaustive interview of a few blokes who swore blind theyd seen very little, honest. All good, we can sleep easy now.

yappysnap wrote:Sone of those were similar to issues he had when at Quins Geordie, I feel like Dean is great for building culture, signing rough diamonds and looking at the big picture. But he needs very good subordinates to do tactics and slection, all the smaller bits. Same as most managers.

He is definitely conservative, with slection, seems to be a Leicester thing not trusting academy players.

Yes Yappy. He seems to have have his favourites and he's loathe to try some of the younger lads unless hes absolutely 1000% sure they're ready which often means they get overlooked for senior players which can be negative.

yappysnap wrote:Sone of those were similar to issues he had when at Quins Geordie, I feel like Dean is great for building culture, signing rough diamonds and looking at the big picture. But he needs very good subordinates to do tactics and slection, all the smaller bits. Same as most managers.

He is definitely conservative, with slection, seems to be a Leicester thing not trusting academy players.

It was some time after that, that Tigers academy stopped being given opportunity and that it stagnated through lack of care or investment. Richards and then Howard both built teams around a core of local talent (not all of which came through the academy). It was in the Cockers/MOC years the academy lads had to look elsewhere unless they were obviously international players of the future.

He has brought players through Sam a good number of them...its just theres many others that he doesnt. fans just wonder what the reasons are?

That's probably the biggest thing with Dean..total lack of communication. So fans get frustrated and start making up assumptions.

GeordieFalcon wrote:He has brought players through Sam a good number of them...its just theres many others that he doesnt. fans just wonder what the reasons are?

That's probably the biggest thing with Dean..total lack of communication.  So fans get frustrated and start making up assumptions.

Lack of communication is certainly a Tigers trait. Murphy is a bit more open but in the Cockers days and before everything was very much tight lipped.

Simon Cohen summed up our problems well when he said MOC was a coach "focussed on winning on Saturday", which was both his biggest strength and weakness. Cockers was similar. It was all about the short term and not what would happen after.

Haha well maybe this is part of Dean's future plans for the club.

Get relegated and rebuild