Doldrums

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

I guess it raises the question of how important coaching actually is… I distinctly remember feeling that (outside of Edwards who has a pretty wonderful record everywhere) Catt, Farrell and Lancaster were awful for most of their England careers. Now they’re involved in the Ireland system we think they’d be amazing for England.

My feeling is it has more to do with the Leinster/Ireland arrangement than it does the English coaches. Right place at the right time and all that…

[SixAndAHalf]

Just to clarify, 6 and a half, i don't WANT clubs to become touch rugby. It's just my understanding that amateur participation levels are nosediving. I see competitive touch as one way to people involved in clubs.

Having said that, i am sceptical of the viability of the traditional rugby club as an institution sadly. my experience is that too few want to have their social lives there. When I was playing in England, only the old boys and me (it helped that my house was round the corner) really seemed to want to spend time at the club after games. Last time I went down, it was clear that the hordes of minis and juniors and their parents were the beating heart and soul of the club.

We have an interesting situation at my club now in Sweden. There has been a concerted effort by several retired people to play touch seriously but the men's first team will have nothing to do with it. This is despite big training camps being put on, with 30 people coming from Stockholm. I realise it's fair enough that people prefer rugby to touch but the tragedy is that senior training is attended by on average of about a dozen people including retired and women. They have no rugby as it is, but they won't play touch. The club deserves to die, sadly.

My view is the reason for participation nosediving is primarily due to the time commitment required to play club rugby, which is basically every weekend from September through to March - no surprise many didn't come back post COVID given there are ample other options for entertainment nowadays. There was a much vaunted restructure (with a promise of less and more local games) but this didn't deliver much real change as it was effectively shelved to squeeze in a sponsored (Papa John's!) cup. Alongside this, the RFU does not market the community club game very well.

No denying junior sections of clubs are a huge contributor and this should be encouraged but I play at level 7 and our club house is full for a home game (and the same could be said for most away games).

It wouldn't surprise me if utopia for the RFU would be an American Football style structure where the pro game is contact and amateurs play touch - dealing with community clubs must be a bit of annoyance for the RFU which is why I think the amateur game should have it's own governing structure.

[Spiffy]

I guess it raises the question of how important coaching actually is… I distinctly remember feeling that (outside of Edwards who has a pretty wonderful record everywhere) Catt, Farrell and Lancaster were awful for most of their England careers. Now they’re involved in the Ireland system we think they’d be amazing for England.

My feeling is it has more to do with the Leinster/Ireland arrangement than it does the English coaches. Right place at the right time and all that…

Coaching is certainly important, and a good coach should be able to extract the very best of his squad. But successful teams are usually built around a nucleus of very good players. If you do not have such players, coaching will not make the team great. Every now and then a generation of top players appears at the same time, and half the work is already in place (England early 2000s; several All Black squads.) In their heyday, the dominant New Zealand teams would probably have dominated anyway, despite who was coaching them.
Part of England's current problems is simply the lack of really good players in several key positions, and you can't conjure them up out of the woodwork. They probably have enough likely lads coming through the League at the moment to set this right at some stage in the nearish future, provided they are given the right opportunities and the old guard is selectively culled.

[Mr Mwenda]

Just to clarify, 6 and a half, i don't WANT clubs to become touch rugby. It's just my understanding that amateur participation levels are nosediving. I see competitive touch as one way to people involved in clubs.

Having said that, i am sceptical of the viability of the traditional rugby club as an institution sadly. my experience is that too few want to have their social lives there. When I was playing in England, only the old boys and me (it helped that my house was round the corner) really seemed to want to spend time at the club after games. Last time I went down, it was clear that the hordes of minis and juniors and their parents were the beating heart and soul of the club.

We have an interesting situation at my club now in Sweden. There has been a concerted effort by several retired people to play touch seriously but the men's first team will have nothing to do with it. This is despite big training camps being put on, with 30 people coming from Stockholm. I realise it's fair enough that people prefer rugby to touch but the tragedy is that senior training is attended by on average of about a dozen people including retired and women. They have no rugby as it is, but they won't play touch. The club deserves to die, sadly.

My view is the reason for participation nosediving is primarily due to the time commitment required to play club rugby, which is basically every weekend from September through to March - no surprise many didn't come back post COVID given there are ample other options for entertainment nowadays. There was a much vaunted restructure (with a promise of less and more local games) but this didn't deliver much real change as it was effectively shelved to squeeze in a sponsored (Papa John's!) cup. Alongside this, the RFU does not market the community club game very well.

No denying junior sections of clubs are a huge contributor and this should be encouraged but I play at level 7 and our club house is full for a home game (and the same could be said for most away games).

It wouldn't surprise me if utopia for the RFU would be an American Football style structure where the pro game is contact and amateurs play touch - dealing with community clubs must be a bit of annoyance for the RFU which is why I think the amateur game should have it's own governing structure.

Sounds like we are largely in agreement then and I am glad your club is thriving. That heartens me. Interestingly, in this case of my hometown club, Lewes, the reduction in adult male player numbers seems (to my outsider perspective) to have been coterminous with a reduction in required commitment. The firsts have plummeted into county leagues, presumably much reducing the away trips and amount of training required.

[Banquo]

I guess it raises the question of how important coaching actually is… I distinctly remember feeling that (outside of Edwards who has a pretty wonderful record everywhere) Catt, Farrell and Lancaster were awful for most of their England careers. Now they’re involved in the Ireland system we think they’d be amazing for England.

My feeling is it has more to do with the Leinster/Ireland arrangement than it does the English coaches. Right place at the right time and all that…

Very (look at France), but you are right, what your starting point is does make a difference-- Catt, Farrell and Lancaster weren't experienced enough when they started, and they had inherited a squad in disarray.

Faz has made step change to the Ireland team from Schmidt with the same environment, give or take.

[Banquo]

Just to clarify, 6 and a half, i don't WANT clubs to become touch rugby. It's just my understanding that amateur participation levels are nosediving. I see competitive touch as one way to people involved in clubs.

Having said that, i am sceptical of the viability of the traditional rugby club as an institution sadly. my experience is that too few want to have their social lives there. When I was playing in England, only the old boys and me (it helped that my house was round the corner) really seemed to want to spend time at the club after games. Last time I went down, it was clear that the hordes of minis and juniors and their parents were the beating heart and soul of the club.

We have an interesting situation at my club now in Sweden. There has been a concerted effort by several retired people to play touch seriously but the men's first team will have nothing to do with it. This is despite big training camps being put on, with 30 people coming from Stockholm. I realise it's fair enough that people prefer rugby to touch but the tragedy is that senior training is attended by on average of about a dozen people including retired and women. They have no rugby as it is, but they won't play touch. The club deserves to die, sadly.

My view is the reason for participation nosediving is primarily due to the time commitment required to play club rugby, which is basically every weekend from September through to March - no surprise many didn't come back post COVID given there are ample other options for entertainment nowadays. There was a much vaunted restructure (with a promise of less and more local games) but this didn't deliver much real change as it was effectively shelved to squeeze in a sponsored (Papa John's!) cup. Alongside this, the RFU does not market the community club game very well.

No denying junior sections of clubs are a huge contributor and this should be encouraged but I play at level 7 and our club house is full for a home game (and the same could be said for most away games).

It wouldn't surprise me if utopia for the RFU would be an American Football style structure where the pro game is contact and amateurs play touch - dealing with community clubs must be a bit of annoyance for the RFU which is why I think the amateur game should have it's own governing structure.

Time and perceived risks (young lads actively being discouraged by parents), plus lack of volunteers willing to do the donkey work with 2nd and 3rd and 4th teams say.

Can I ask what you mean by community clubs though? and as a follow up, what could the RFU do to 'market them'?

At my NL1 club, the junior sides have all but disappeared (used to run 6 plus a colts team; now its 1st team, 3rd team equivalent and colts), but we have strong M and Y (inc girls) and women's section; the NL status acts like a bit of a black hole on the men's side. We do a ton in the community (also termed community rugby, bit misleading). But its seriously hard work, and expensive to do- most of the outreach and women's rugby loses a lot of money, the 1st team and coaches aren't vast sums but still sums....and having volunteers alongside paid staff can be pretty abrasive. Its just really difficult to keep it all going, and the junior sides are where we suffer...nobody has the time to chase around a dwindling pool of players who pick and choose when they can play.

[Oakboy]

I guess it raises the question of how important coaching actually is… I distinctly remember feeling that (outside of Edwards who has a pretty wonderful record everywhere) Catt, Farrell and Lancaster were awful for most of their England careers. Now they’re involved in the Ireland system we think they’d be amazing for England.

My feeling is it has more to do with the Leinster/Ireland arrangement than it does the English coaches. Right place at the right time and all that…

Coaching is certainly important, and a good coach should be able to extract the very best of his squad. But successful teams are usually built around a nucleus of very good players. If you do not have such players, coaching will not make the team great. Every now and then a generation of top players appears at the same time, and half the work is already in place (England early 2000s; several All Black squads.) In their heyday, the dominant New Zealand teams would probably have dominated anyway, despite who was coaching them.
Part of England's current problems is simply the lack of really good players in several key positions, and you can't conjure them up out of the woodwork. They probably have enough likely lads coming through the League at the moment to set this right at some stage in the nearish future, provided they are given the right opportunities and the old guard is selectively culled.

Agreed. There is the element of 'on the day', though. Getting a team to consistently turn up and give of its best for 80 minutes is a skill of its own for a head coach. Jones definitely did NOT have that for example - see the contrast in performances between SF and Final 2019, for example. It's not even the result, good or bad, necessarily, but putting the players on the pitch in the right frame of mind with the right preparation behind them time after time. I accept that we don't have individual candidates for a World XV but we have not been on song as a unit consistently for years (not weeks/months). We may not be entitled to expect wins every game. We ARE entitled to see the team as greater than the sum of its parts with 'fight' oozing through every vein. When was the last time Irish fans did NOT get that?

I remember Clough, after League and European Cup triumph with Notts Forest, being asked how many of his players were world class. 'None,' he replied, 'if you are referring to outfield players. T'other feller is.' (Peter Shilton, the goalkeeper.) His team was made up of rejects, disciplinary misfits and mavericks to a large extent with a few bits of quality (e.g. Trevor Francis). They ALL always turned up on the day, though.