[2015 Six Nations] England

[Peat]

Farrell was predominantly a centre coming through the ranks but got his break at fly-half when whoevertheincumbentwas, Goode, and every other 10 Saracens had at that time broke. This was pre-Hodgson if memory serves. He was a genuinely awful player for everything but goal kicking and defence, but a further piece of luck attended him when both Flood and Hodgson got injured during that first 6N and he ended up at 10 for England. He was still playing a lot of centre for Saracens at this time, as they had brought Hodgson in at this stage, and they often played Farrell at 13 to accomodate him.

Mindyou, Tuilagi played against SA on the wing before he ever played for England and Goode was an age grade 10 who was always meant to be a 10 but got injured at the wrong moment... by the time they and Fazlet played there for England senior, no one really considered said positions their positions.

That said, I think most people get their pants too much in a twist about changing players' positions. Every coach does it, a lot of them work out and versatility is still a key part of match-day squads. Sometimes it doesn't work out - but people should be objecting to coaches getting too many wrong, or going for truly stupid options, not actually doing it. Lancaster's record is ok so far, it's very far from the biggest selectorial issue he has.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Mindyou, Tuilagi played against SA on the wing before he ever played for England.

Manu played 12 in that game.

Also regarding my previous comment yes it wasn't serious.

 

[Peat]

Manu played 12 in that game.

Also regarding my previous comment yes it wasn't serious.

Australia game! My bad.

 

[yaboyjj]

Why is everyone assuming that Watson moves to fullback if Brown is injured for the Ireland match? I'd place money on Lancaster recalling Goode instead imo (not that I agree with it)

 

[Raggs]

Do you think the coaching staff allow themselves to get taken in by the narrative rather than the facts? Like journalists and ourselves do?

The one getting me now is Haskells penalty record as an argument for Wood. In his last 4 England starts, he's given away 4 penalties, not bad for a backrow. In Woods last 4 England appearances (including Samoa bench) he's given away 8.

In their last 4 starts for their clubs in the AP, Hask has given away 3, Wood 5.

In the RCC, Haskell played 4 and conceded 4. Wood played 5 and conceded 5.

Now obviously not every penalty is equal, some are particularly brainless and pointless (throwing the ball away after going into touch etc), but Haskells record really isn't a stick that he should be beaten with, especially when Wood is the man being touted. And yet the narrative fits... do coaches feel this too, or are the cold hard facts presented to them enough?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Coaches create their own narratives - the best coaches can take a step back and allow themselves to look at their team/situation from an outsider's/neutral perspective.
Familiarity can, and often does, blind you to basic fundamental flaws (and advantages, too) in a team/player.

Tom Wood has latterly started to give away the sort of penalties Hask used to all the time.

I think the problem vis-a-vis the England coaches is that in their narrative, Tom Wood is a strong ball carrier.
When clearly, compared to the likes of Ewers, Haskell et al - he isn't... certainly not good enough to increase the effectiveness of Billy/Ben's carrying.

 

[goodNumber10]

Coaches create their own narratives - the best coaches can take a step back and allow themselves to look at their team/situation from an outsider's/neutral perspective.

do you mean they can step back remove emotion and look at it objectively?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Sort of - but it's not necessarily emotive... take the Tom Wood at 8 situation.

I think it was patently obvious to most people that he isn't even remotely suitable to play 8 at international level - but they couldn't see that for whatever reason.
Now, I think emotion (trust in Wood as a person) played a big role in the decision to play him there, but there also has to be a degree of conscious practical wrangling to come to the conclusion that it was a good idea.

 

[goodNumber10]

Sort of - but it's not necessarily emotive... take the Tom Wood at 8 situation.

I think it was patently obvious to most people that he isn't even remotely suitable to play 8 at international level - but they couldn't see that for whatever reason.
Now, I think emotion (trust in Wood as a person) played a big role in the decision to play him there, but there also has to be a degree of conscious practical wrangling to come to the conclusion that it was a good idea.

Yep, i think we're coming from the same place here.

As a coach you often have ideas that you can rationlise - "that guy Tom Wood, could be a good 8" for example, that you will persist with on the basis you think it will pay off. I imagine it's the same reasons we get frustrated by Fazlet over ford, or Barritt over Eastmond and so on.

Those are obviously the emotive decisions, and being able to step back and say "that just didn't work", without everyone else stepping in and saying "WTF dude?"

heheheh! if that all makes sense!

 

[Mumbles119]

Manu played 12 in that game.

Also regarding my previous comment yes it wasn't serious.

Sorry Tigs, missed the not serious part. All is well in TRF land again

 

[Peat]

To be fair... if Tom Wood was playing with SOB at 7 and Kaino at 6, he could play 8. Because the back row could work.

Croft-Robshaw-Wood with Croft just back from a really serious injury to boot, well, even at the time most people had doubts. Especially given the level of carriers elsewhere in the pack i.e. none.

But then, throughout his tenure, Lancaster has been very wishy-washy about playing guys who break tackles in the forwards. He just doesn't seem to rate it as important - and, frankly, that sort of bias is far more significant to Wood vs Haskell than any narrative. This is his best carrying pack to date and it's largely been forced on him through injury. Tbh, I'm beginning to see why he avoided doing so in some of the cases, but, you know, balance...

(plus Croft > Wood. Man, why Wood?)

 

[Every Time Ref]

Yep, i think we're coming from the same place here.

As a coach you often have ideas that you can rationlise - "that guy Tom Wood, could be a good 8" for example, that you will persist with on the basis you think it will pay off. I imagine it's the same reasons we get frustrated by Fazlet over ford, or Barritt over Eastmond and so on.

Those are obviously the emotive decisions, and being able to step back and say "that just didn't work", without everyone else stepping in and saying "WTF dude?"

heheheh! if that all makes sense!

I think maybe "emotive" is the wrong word, I would call it "instinctive". To be good at any skill, you need to have an instinctive understanding of it to some degree, even if it is something analytical or scientific - great scientific discoveries, for example, do not come from simply analysing data, they require a great leap of inspiration such as Newton's apple or Darwin's finches.

With apologies for the pseudointellectualism, rugby coaching is also a field where high levels of analysis are not enough and those leaps of inspiration are necessary to make decisions. Of course, not every idea which seems great turns out to be, so coaches then have to post-rationalise these ideas and see if the idea is actually sound. The problem is, post-rationalisation is inherently prone to bias, and I think that's the problem we're talking about here - starting from the position that "this is a great idea" and then looking at the evidence naturally leads to confirmation bias. But, never allowing yourself to start from that position cuts out any opportunity to be imaginative or creative. It's a fine balance which sometimes goes wrong, I guess.

 

[goodNumber10]

yep, agree with all of that

 

[Every Time Ref]

yep, agree with all of that

Starting my Level 2 coaching course on Sunday, I've had coaching theories and philosophies and the like buzzing around my head all week!

 

[Peat]

Starting my Level 2 coaching course on Sunday, I've had coaching theories and philosophies and the like buzzing around my head all week!

You read any of Greenwood's books? Found them a great aid in my brief venture into coaching.

I'd say, that in any case, instinct is analysis... it's simply when the brain does it so quickly and well, that you don't have any of the working out. Well. Hopefully well. Some people have bad instincts after all, and they're really difficult to coach.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

My hate of Lancaster is fuelled by his decisions such as wood at 8.

This is Tom wood who at the time was the best 6 playing on england and WHO HAD NEVER PLAYED 8 for the saints.

Why on earth would Lancaster think he would make a good 8? Bizarre.

Same with sticking with barritt and Farrell over others who are more talented.

He just doesn't make sensible choices.

 

[goodNumber10]

You read any of Greenwood's books? Found them a great aid in my brief venture into coaching.

I'd say, that in any case, instinct is analysis... it's simply when the brain does it so quickly and well, that you don't have any of the working out. Well. Hopefully well. Some people have bad instincts after all, and they're really difficult to coach.

I presume you're talking about Jim Greenwood of Loughborough?

 

[j'nuh]

I think maybe "emotive" is the wrong word, I would call it "instinctive". To be good at any skill, you need to have an instinctive understanding of it to some degree, even if it is something analytical or scientific - great scientific discoveries, for example, do not come from simply analysing data, they require a great leap of inspiration such as Newton's apple or Darwin's finches.

With apologies for the pseudointellectualism, rugby coaching is also a field where high levels of analysis are not enough and those leaps of inspiration are necessary to make decisions. Of course, not every idea which seems great turns out to be, so coaches then have to post-rationalise these ideas and see if the idea is actually sound. The problem is, post-rationalisation is inherently prone to bias, and I think that's the problem we're talking about here - starting from the position that "this is a great idea" and then looking at the evidence naturally leads to confirmation bias. But, never allowing yourself to start from that position cuts out any opportunity to be imaginative or creative. It's a fine balance which sometimes goes wrong, I guess.

There is a degree of experimentation that you can do on the international stage. You can play around with the backrow for balance. As Peat said, Wood at 8 wouldn't nearly be as bad if there was a ball carrying 6 and 7 alongside him. But the reason this works is that Wood is essentially a blindside with an 8 on his back. He doesn't have to adapt his game. The experiment is effectively over whether he can control the ball at the base of the scrum.

However, when he replaces the England 8, there's a level of carrying that goes missing that isn't filled. This is the type of experiment that is predictably going to go wrong. It assumes that Wood will suddenly improve his carrying game to be worthy of an international 8. It is never, ever going to happen in the brief time Lancaster has Wood for international periods. It's the type of experiment that needs to happen at club.

Brown/Foden on the wing didn't work, but I don't necessarily mind that experiment, as they have the skills. Tuilagi, on the other hand...

So yeah, experimentation isn't necessarily bad. But expecting a player to come up with skills that they don't have in order to adapt to a new position isn't quite so good.

 

[goodNumber10]

Starting my Level 2 coaching course on Sunday, I've had coaching theories and philosophies and the like buzzing around my head all week!

good course, i did IRB level 2 (as i'm in France), but it was delivered by the RFU guy who came over and did it.

Found it much more useful than my level 1 which whilst cool didn't really give me the foundations i was looking for (I coach adults and it felt more geared towards teaching kids).

 

[TheSaffycen]

My hate of Lancaster is fuelled by his decisions such as wood at 8.

This is Tom wood who at the time was the best 6 playing on england and WHO HAD NEVER PLAYED 8 for the saints.

Why on earth would Lancaster think he would make a good 8? Bizarre.

Same with sticking with barritt and Farrell over others who are more talented.

He just doesn't make sensible choices.

Wood at 8 was always going to be a poor choice, he has nothing to show that he would do well at 8. But Farrell and Barritt to me was because when he first took over he picked mainly the Sarries team, because they just won the prem. Now he probably should have changed them quicker but his game plan was kick-chase and strong defence. Farrell and Barritt are more talented than any other 10-12 at that game plan.