RugbyRebels

fivepointer wrote:I'm a big admirer of Baxter. Think he's done an outstanding job at Exeter, making small changes and constantly moving the team forward. I think his record of developing players stands against anyone else quite frankly. He can manage players and get them playing effectively. Plus, he is refreshingly honest and straightforward.
Does that make him the next England coach? Probably not as one club men are really not the ideal sort to take on the national job. He has to move away from Exeter to broaden his horizons, and prove that he can work in a different environment and under a different owner.
I'm not sure he sees himself as being anywhere else right now, so the England question may not be in his consideration.

Conversely, he has previously stated that he is not interested in any sort of supplementary international role. As he is most unlikely to consider working for any other club, England's choice with him would appear to be appoint him directly from his current Exeter job or look elsewhere.

My own view is that he's English and he's a gifted manager/motivator. He has a brain capable of structured, strategic, long-term team-building. I believe he could do as good a job for England (on a higher plateau) as he has done at Exeter. I would trust him to make steady progress and ultimately get the best out of the available English players. Also, and importantly, I think he could attract the right sort of coaching crew and get them all singing from the same hymn sheet.

All that probably means the blazers will probably never appoint him. Mind you, their record is not exactly unblemished.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:Think Digby put it best.

Now, this is heresy.

They're the new Saints, though we're yet to see if the can develop their game which Saints didn't manage whereas Sarries have (albeit to poor effect in Europe)

Worth noting in all this how much the Exeter starting XV has changed in the least two seasons (even just the last season) Vs say Saracens

I’d take him over Jones. Mind you Banquo would be a preference to Jones, rigid midfield or not.

And Mells....Liberty bloody X!!!

I think Baxter has done an amazing job so far but he real challenge is for them to keep developing.

They’re not underdogs any more and while their game plan is hard to stop, it is one dimensional and they’re lacking an obvious plan B.

In fairness to Baxter, I think there is evidence to suggest he’s trying to do that. Sam Simmonds is a very different type of player to Waldrom and Joe Simmonds looks to have a bit more creativity/running game than Steenson ever did. Add in the signing of Cordero and there are the makings of a more exciting Exeter side coming through. A fit Devoto would also offer a lot more variety in midfield than Hill or Whitten too.

On the other hand ... Cuthbert ... WTF?

Steenson literally only just showed a better running game from 10

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I'm a big admirer of Baxter. Think he's done an outstanding job at Exeter, making small changes and constantly moving the team forward. I think his record of developing players stands against anyone else quite frankly. He can manage players and get them playing effectively. Plus, he is refreshingly honest and straightforward.
Does that make him the next England coach? Probably not as one club men are really not the ideal sort to take on the national job. He has to move away from Exeter to broaden his horizons, and prove that he can work in a different environment and under a different owner.
I'm not sure he sees himself as being anywhere else right now, so the England question may not be in his consideration.

Conversely, he has previously stated that he is not interested in any sort of supplementary international role. As he is most unlikely to consider working for any other club, England's choice with him would appear to be appoint him directly from his current Exeter job or look elsewhere.

My own view is that he's English and he's a gifted manager/motivator. He has a brain capable of structured, strategic, long-term team-building. I believe he could do as good a job for England (on a higher plateau) as he has done at Exeter. I would trust him to make steady progress and ultimately get the best out of the available English players. Also, and importantly, I think he could attract the right sort of coaching crew and get them all singing from the same hymn sheet.

All that probably means the blazers will probably never appoint him. Mind you, their record is not exactly unblemished.

Consistently getting us to the stage of major triumphs than losing it in the vital game? Isn't that why we didn't like Lancaster?

p/d wrote:I’d take him over Jones. Mind you Banquo would be a preference to Jones, rigid midfield or not.

And Mells....Liberty bloody X!!!

At his age, I doubt Banquo gets a rigid midfield anymore. Not unless he sees a picture of Jessica Taylor, that is.

Mellsblue wrote:

p/d wrote:I’d take him over Jones. Mind you Banquo would be a preference to Jones, rigid midfield or not.

And Mells....Liberty bloody X!!!

At his age, I doubt Banquo gets a rigid midfield anymore. Not unless he sees a picture of Jessica Taylor, that is.

Nah! Banquo can think rigid even at his age.

Peat wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I'm a big admirer of Baxter. Think he's done an outstanding job at Exeter, making small changes and constantly moving the team forward. I think his record of developing players stands against anyone else quite frankly. He can manage players and get them playing effectively. Plus, he is refreshingly honest and straightforward.
Does that make him the next England coach? Probably not as one club men are really not the ideal sort to take on the national job. He has to move away from Exeter to broaden his horizons, and prove that he can work in a different environment and under a different owner.
I'm not sure he sees himself as being anywhere else right now, so the England question may not be in his consideration.

Conversely, he has previously stated that he is not interested in any sort of supplementary international role. As he is most unlikely to consider working for any other club, England's choice with him would appear to be appoint him directly from his current Exeter job or look elsewhere.

My own view is that he's English and he's a gifted manager/motivator. He has a brain capable of structured, strategic, long-term team-building. I believe he could do as good a job for England (on a higher plateau) as he has done at Exeter. I would trust him to make steady progress and ultimately get the best out of the available English players. Also, and importantly, I think he could attract the right sort of coaching crew and get them all singing from the same hymn sheet.

All that probably means the blazers will probably never appoint him. Mind you, their record is not exactly unblemished.

Consistently getting us to the stage of major triumphs than losing it in the vital game? Isn't that why we didn't like Lancaster?

Very vaguely but the devil is in the detail. Baxter would get more out of any team than Burt, IMO.

Listening to Ben Ryan on the Times podcast. Five mins in and I want him involved. I wonder if he’d have a year as attack coach? It goes against everything he says about wanting to be top dog with carte blanche to run things, but 12/14 months, a World Cup and then get out might tempt him.

He agrees that Baxter/Exeter are limited and need to expand their game. He also waxes lyrical about the Sarries set-up - which is a bit strange given he spent the proceeding minute saying that there is too much emphasis on systems and it is stifling the best players. Finished up by saying they are better than England.

Oakboy wrote:

Peat wrote: Consistently getting us to the stage of major triumphs than losing it in the vital game? Isn't that why we didn't like Lancaster?

Very vaguely but the devil is in the detail. Baxter would get more out of any team than Burt, IMO.

I might agree with you if Baxter could start getting major final victories out of his team on a regular basis and Lancaster hadn't just been a major part of a double.

Mellsblue wrote:Listening to Ben Ryan on the Times podcast. Five mins in and I want him involved. I wonder if he’d have a year as attack coach? It goes against everything he says about wanting to be top dog with carte blanche to run things, but 12/14 months, a World Cup and then get out might tempt him.

He agrees that Baxter/Exeter are limited and need to expand their game. He also waxes lyrical about the Sarries set-up - which is a bit strange given he spent the proceeding minute saying that there is too much emphasis on systems and it is stifling the best players. Finished up by saying they are better than England.

Sarries are though much less reliant on systems in attack Vs 2-3 seasons back. It's mow much more with 9 and 10 to move the ball to where the space is (or will be)

Peat wrote:

twitchy wrote:On to the next flavour of the month it is then. Who is up next?

Nobody, which is the problem. I think a lot of people haven't been completely sold on Baxter for a while, but he's been the only remotely credible English candidate for the role for a loooong time. That is assuming you believe the RFU wouldn't touch Dean Richards with a bargepole.

Arf.....if Deano dont fancy it.....I bet Cockers would grab it and smash it. TB fair he is putting together a decent coaching CV.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Listening to Ben Ryan on the Times podcast. Five mins in and I want him involved. I wonder if he’d have a year as attack coach? It goes against everything he says about wanting to be top dog with carte blanche to run things, but 12/14 months, a World Cup and then get out might tempt him.

He agrees that Baxter/Exeter are limited and need to expand their game. He also waxes lyrical about the Sarries set-up - which is a bit strange given he spent the proceeding minute saying that there is too much emphasis on systems and it is stifling the best players. Finished up by saying they are better than England.

Sarries are though much less reliant on systems in attack Vs 2-3 seasons back. It's mow much more with 9 and 10 to move the ball to where the space is (or will be)

I'm not going to cite any evidence at all but I just...feel.....Ben Ryan should either get involved in another top, high profile, possibly English role.....as he is beginning to cultivate this Guru, "lets get a reaction from.....rent a quote..." image. He seemed to do some very good stuff with some talented 7's players, for quite a while.....didnt dominate - but thats the nature of the game at international 7's.

Maybe i'm saying put up or shut up. But I would like him to actually put up first as I think he could be pretty good somewhere.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Listening to Ben Ryan on the Times podcast. Five mins in and I want him involved. I wonder if he’d have a year as attack coach? It goes against everything he says about wanting to be top dog with carte blanche to run things, but 12/14 months, a World Cup and then get out might tempt him.

He agrees that Baxter/Exeter are limited and need to expand their game. He also waxes lyrical about the Sarries set-up - which is a bit strange given he spent the proceeding minute saying that there is too much emphasis on systems and it is stifling the best players. Finished up by saying they are better than England.

Sarries are though much less reliant on systems in attack Vs 2-3 seasons back. It's mow much more with 9 and 10 to move the ball to where the space is (or will be)

Indeed they are, but Ryan was saying even those teams who declare they play ‘heads up rugby’ are overly structured. He used Daly at Wasps as an example of someone who is constrained by systems.

Mellsblue wrote:Listening to Ben Ryan on the Times podcast. Five mins in and I want him involved. I wonder if he’d have a year as attack coach? It goes against everything he says about wanting to be top dog with carte blanche to run things, but 12/14 months, a World Cup and then get out might tempt him.

He agrees that Baxter/Exeter are limited and need to expand their game. He also waxes lyrical about the Sarries set-up - which is a bit strange given he spent the proceeding minute saying that there is too much emphasis on systems and it is stifling the best players. Finished up by saying they are better than England.

He should be involved, even if he does look like the love child of Ann Robinson & Charles Dance

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Listening to Ben Ryan on the Times podcast. Five mins in and I want him involved. I wonder if he’d have a year as attack coach? It goes against everything he says about wanting to be top dog with carte blanche to run things, but 12/14 months, a World Cup and then get out might tempt him.

He agrees that Baxter/Exeter are limited and need to expand their game. He also waxes lyrical about the Sarries set-up - which is a bit strange given he spent the proceeding minute saying that there is too much emphasis on systems and it is stifling the best players. Finished up by saying they are better than England.

Sarries are though much less reliant on systems in attack Vs 2-3 seasons back. It's mow much more with 9 and 10 to move the ball to where the space is (or will be)

Indeed they are, but Ryan was saying even those teams who declare they play ‘heads up rugby’ are overly structured. He used Daly at Wasps as an example of someone who is constrained by systems.

If I was an AP club I wouldn't let Ryan loose on an attack game just based on the idea he doesn't like pods, wants much quicker linebreaks and more decision making

How are we defining things? For me a system is basically prescriptive attacking plays, where everyone knows who's going to get the ball next. Whereas a structure has everyone knowing what the running lines should be (maybe not the individual players, but forwards/backs), but the choice as to which option to take (carry, pass 1/2/3, kick) is open for the player to choose. A solid structure allows the likes of Cips to make those no look passes whilst actively looking at a now "dummy" runner to fix defenses, because he knows where another player will be. Having no structure would detract from that.

If every player was a Cips, Eastmond or Le Roux (to draw on Wasps' pool), then you could perhaps get away with a bit less structure still, but being honest, they really aren't, and not having a structure in place is going to see knackered tighthead wandering around the pitch getting in the way more often.

I suspect in 7s it's far simpler to do things on the fly, there's more space and therefore time, to consider your next option, there's also normally fewer options to consider.

I don't really draw a distinction between system/structure, though the looser it gets he harder support gets . And it's that which would worry me listening to Ryan, how much are all the players going to be decision makers?

It's all very well saying he wants more/earlier linebreaks but if a defence doesn't crumble you'd lose structure and all too often not have dragged a back three around giving you no decent kicking options so what then when you don't want to run or kick? (As ever ball carriers will help a recovery, but only so much if the support just isn't there)

So I'd like to see Ryan work somewhere other than my team in the first instant is my thinking

Depends how much leeway you give him. I’m not suggesting you bring him in to the England and let him loose with all his wildest fantasies. However, give him a remit and let him be a bit disruptive. It might be exactly what this coaching set-up needs.

Much like I'd like to see Baxter do some international stuff that isn't England head coach first, I'd like to see Ryan achieve something in XVs before giving him any serious XVs coaching/strategy position.

Fair enough. I just think we need someone who can be a bit radical and challenge Jones. It would be a risk but something is needed to shake things up. Hopefully, SA will show that can be done with the current group, and Gustard’s replacement will add to that. By most account the temp attack coach has challenged Jones when they’ve previously worked together and hasn’t ruled out a permanent contract. Fingers crossed he’s a success this summer.

I think to make it worth hiring Ryan you'd have to let him have a huge say on the attack game and not just have him as a glorified skills coach. I'm happy for any AP side to take such a plunge, just not England for now

One area I do agree with Ryan is our frankly pathetic return on securing talent from state schools

Digby wrote:One area I do agree with Ryan is our frankly pathetic return on securing talent from state schools

It is an issue but I think with academies spreading their nets it’ll get better. If you look at the current squad and EPS regulars it’s not as bad as some people would have you believe, especially if you include rugby scholarships:
All the looseheads, LCD, Cole, Sinckler, Lawes, Billy, Care, Cips, Ford, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Nowell. There will be more as I’m not sure on quite a few.