• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Youth coaching and game management philosophy - is this acceptable?

Justplay

Academy Player
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
3
Country Flag
UK
Club or Nation
Widnes
I am a UKCC Level 2 coach for both rugby codes and am a member of the coaching staff for an U18 club squad who are not playing "top tier" rugby. The league we are in is coming to an end and I recently received an e-mail from a fellow squad coach regarding the philosophy he would like to adopt for the final game of the season. What do forum members think of the philosophy? The e-mail is pasted below (club names removed):

Now we have come to the sharp end of the season and have one league game left. We are top and *** are second. *** have three games left, against *** and *** both away, and then against us at *** in the final league game of the season on 10th December. Whatever happens in the next two *** matches, the final match between us will be very important and could decide the winners of the league.

In light of this, everything that is done in training and matches between now and 10th December should be focussed on preparing the players for that match. At U18 we are competing to win therefore I want to give the squad the best chance of success. By this I include selecting our strongest possible squad from available players, and keeping the strongest possible players on the pitch for as long as possible for that final match.


The coach who wrote the e-mail above has already denied some youth players game time this season and last season by keeping them on the bench during games where he believed winning was more important than player participation. Does anyone think this philosophy is justified at youth level?
 
Hmm that this thread has attracted no replies or comments indicates that's it's a difficult conundrum with no readily available definitive answer. The stance taken by the coach here is wrong on the one hand, quite understandable on the other.

The desire to win and be successful is very understandable - but it doesn't sound like the coach has explained the rational of that approach to the group with all the implications that go with it. Positioning the objective to the group and gaining their commitment to that help immeasurably with player management and reduces disaffection.

The 'win win win' philosophy means some players will miss out on any game time, they will feel ostracised and alienated by that and will be gone pretty quickly. Whereas the participation approach - where shared game time or a player rotation situation is demonstrably more equitable. However, the team may not be as successful on the field - which some will not be in favour of.

Clearly there's no utopia. Is this coach's approach acceptable was the question. To me no it isn't, though I do understand why he's taking the approach - so I wouldn't be overly critical with the guy about it. My preference would be to use player rotation as first priority with results second - but that's just me
 
A difficult conundrum... NO. Wrong on the one hand... YES. Understandable... NO.
At least you eventually state that the approach isn't acceptable to you and I commend you for that.
Interestingly the Coach Development Manager of the national governing body does not find the approach acceptable either and he says in an e-mail to me that they are "considering ways to develop a better mindset, however it's a long process and will take time".

So to get back to your first point, it is not a difficult conundrum. What makes this subject difficult is the mindset of the individuals that the sport is attracting to become youth coaches. The biggest problem with youth sport is that it is run by too many adults with the wrong mindset. At least you appear to have the right mindset so keep up the good work and try to educate those that want to win at the expense of trying to develop every player within their squad by giving them all game time.
 
Hmm didnt realise I was being 'assessed' Just ole son! This is clearly very important to you as there's something of a moral outrage undertone in your thread. Whilst you and I share the philosophy of participation- and I would always speak out against the win at all costs mentality - I do understand why some favour it.

Having said that, I find myself agreeing with you on the mindset of coaches involved in youth rugby. I've coached youth rugby at club level and representative level, using the same philosophy for both. This was player rotation and always using the entire bench, irrespective of the result.

I have worked with coaches who do the exact opposite - seeing nothing wrong in getting players travelling 2 or 3 hours each way for a county away match, for them to sit out the entire game on the bench...?! This is especially unfair to the point of outrage when the outcome of the match is clearly set either way at say the hour mark. Sadly they don't get called to account for it - great shame.

On the subject of mindset - Eddie Jones declared that he has searched the country for a genuine open side and found none. Australia and Wales - have two world class 7s - we have none. It's not an accident. The reason is that genuine 7s have all been eliminated at county youth trials because of the size obsession endemic in English rugby.

I have seen a number of genuine 7s come to county trial over the years to be condemned as too small - and told 'you're not big enough to play in the back row, I suggest you go play hooker'. So coaches with little or no idea of what it takes to play upfront blithely recommend players not deemed suitable to their chosen position, to play in the front row...!! The rank stupidity of this is mind numbing.

The mindset of those asked to be coaches and or selectors is that big is always best - size conquers all. Genuine 7s by the very nature of the job are smaller stature players. For instance, the ability to get to ground and back up again quickly is a fundamental skill for the position - clearly a player of 5ft 10 will be better equipped to do that than one of 6ft 4. I've seen with immense dismay, small but highly skilled 7s - with the priceless and can't be coached ability to read the game - eliminated in favour of a bigger but less skilled back row forward selected as a 7 because he's big...! I've argued vehemently against this ignorant myopic stupidity - but the majority always had the big is best mindset.

This myopic ignorance and the lack of empathetic player management are the chief reasons I am no longer involved in coaching at county level.
 
Didn't want to appear too judgemental but you are right that I feel some moral outrage.

The squad I am involved with are not playing anywhere near county level and are classed as a "Tier 4" team. So all the more reason for everyone to get a game. At this level it is all about participation and developing every player in the squad - or at least it should be.

I too have seen coaches who see nothing wrong in getting players travelling 2 or 3 hours each way for an away match, for them to sit out the entire game on the bench - indeed I am working with two such individuals now.

Like you I have had enough of their attitude that is supported by the club even though I have forwarded them e-mails from the governing body that condemn their philosophy - time for me get out and let the lunatics take over the asylum.
 
Remember the expression 'the only thing needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing'? Whilst this issue can hardly be deemed evil, it is detrimental to the enjoyment and development of a significant number of players. If the problem is continually exposed and kept topical, then maybe there will be enough inclination at the RFU to actually do something about it. Clearly, condemnation emails aren't cutting it.

A re-education process is necessary and perhaps encouragement that parents become more involved with the philosophy of how age group rugby is run. Less developed players often get minimal game time because they're less able than other players - and focus is only on getting a W. The obvious problem is that less developed players will stay that way unless they're given game time. Sometimes, you have to show faith in these kids and be damned the result, sadly there are those who never do this.

In your case it seems to be an endemic problem and the coaches concerned show no inclination to deviate from the W at all costs approach. Usually the players being badly treated vote with their feet and either find another club or heaven forbid go play soccer. You're in RL country, so at least that's a good alternative. When players depart, if it's the odd one, makes no difference, but if 4 or 5 give it up as a bad job, then that can have an impact. There only has to be a few players out injured and suddenly there's hardly any bench cover - when previously there were always spare players.

That the club concerned are doing nothing about the issue is typical. It's not affecting the club per se, so the committee will see no reason to get involved. Were there some strongly worded letters addressed directly to the club chairman from the parents of disaffected players - then that would stir up something of a hornets nest. That would be an opportunity to lead the change in the asylum - rather than walk away?

Good luck with it - hope it improves.
 
Justplay, you neglect to say in your original post what approach to the season was agreed and by whom. If the majority of players agreed at the outset that giving everyone a run out was the main priority, then either the coaches should stick to this principle or convene another meeting to discuss whether to change the approach.

I would question the wisdom of entering a league if you don't want to encourage competitive spirit.

Lastly, I'd be surprised if there was a player in an U18s team who would put themselves getting a run out ahead of the team's best interests.

The cynic in me is tempted to suggest that your posts are motivated by the prospect of your son getting dropped!
 
Last edited:
Without this descending into an anti-England post, I wonder if this attitude is why you guys suck at sport? (Kidding, honest! My kids all grew up as teens in the UK and now one of them is headed to the next olympics, courtesy of UK sport, but representing NZ)

Growing up in NZ it was always acknowledged that it was the taking part that didn't count. All that mattered was the win. Not just to the coaches or the parents on the sideline, but to the players as well and believe me, kids are the most damning of a player that is pulling the rest of the team down. They have no filter.

There are ways to develop players and part of that is acknowledging that some are always going to be better than others - it's what spurred us on to try and try and try to get into the top team.

Its the reason Beauden Barrett sat patiently on the sidelines waiting his turn and when it was his turn, he shined.

I've never understood the mindset of 'give everyone a go' in a competition. If you want player development, you do that in the club, during training. But you also have to give everyone a chance to show what they can do - even the All Blacks still have 'possibles vs probables' games where the nearly men are given a chance to foot it with the incumbents. There's a damned good reason for that.

This is is part of the reason for European rugby's slump against the antipodes, in my opinion, that your coaches (not necessarily just the national coaches - club and rep and school coaches are just as guilty of this) are intent on picking comfortable/experience over new talent, in case they make a mistake. Also that talent isn't given the opportunity to shine and so that talent goes off and plays some other sport.

Always, always pick the best team. If little Johnny is discouraged by that then he is being let down by his coaches, who should be instilling mental toughness as well as the physical. Who should be instilling team play over individual, that you do what's best for the team, not for your personal glory.

In in my personal experience my son has been picking himself up for the last five years, getting knocked back by the NZOC every time for an Olympic scholarship. He was gutted every time, asking 'wtf do I have to do?', but then it happened. It's made such a difference to him from a financial and support perspective, but he kept his head throughout, even when he was really down he didn't give up, accepting that sometimes fair didn't come into it. He knew that if he kept on working and getting results, it would happen. He never moaned that it wasn't fair or that he deserved a go. Clearly he didn't meet the requirements, until he did.

He was a county U18 rugby rep in the U.K. and that was really tough, because he didn't go to a grammar school or public school, just the local comp. He didn't play for a 'name' team or an academy and more often than not, he sat on the bench while more favoured players got to run on. It was hard for him, but I think he wouldn't have valued the few times he got to play as much if he knew, deep down, that he had been given a run because it was his turn. When it was his turn, he made damned sure he gave it his all.

You have to ask yourself, why is it that four of the six nations are coached by antipodeans? They all came from an environment where you pick your best team on the day, not from one where you give everyone a go to be 'fair' or 'inclusive' or to 'develop'.

And sorry if this comes across as a 'look what my boy has done' post. It wasn't meant as such, just that I have personal experience of seeing a talented young player hit obstacles and overcome them. His identity will remain private, as will his chosen sport.
 
Lastly, I'd be surprised if there was a player in an U18s team who would put themselves getting a run out ahead of the team's best interests

In my experience of teen sport in the U.K., I would say that's exactly the attitude of many, and many parents.

And it comes down to the coaching - of expectations and teamwork - as much as skills. Some coaches are just crap and in it for their own self-aggrandisement. In my experience of dragging kids all over the world from the time they dropped out of their mother, nowhere more so than in the U.K. We've played competitive sport in NZ, Australia, UK, Ireland, and a little bit in France, but overwhelmingly our experience in the U.K. of coaching has been less than stellar. And it's not like we didn't give it a go - nealry fourteen years of it.

We arrived in 2000 with competitive rugby players, sofballers, swimmers and netballers (all reps in their age groups, following in their mothers footsteps) but within two years, two of them had given it away as the coaches seemed more interested in being 'the' coach or of picking their favoured little snowflake than in developing the kids or team. Moving to different clubs gave some respite, but sport in schools in the U.K. is dire and it's there that so many good kiwi sportsmen (and coaches) are made.

Look at the number of senior rugby coaches from nz that were school teachers and school coaches. Then there's Lancaster :D

I think that that is the inherent difference between the UK and SA, NZ and Oz... the whole attitude of the players is different and that is the result of the attitude of the coaches.

Im not sure if it's widely known outside of NZ but we are just as enthusiastic and committed to developing our coaches as we are our players. The programmes in place for junior sport coaches is incredible, whatever the sport. It probably has a lot to do with why we export so many coaches and trainers in so many sports, from such a tiny country.

I didnt see the same commitment in U.K. sport, except at the highest level, and that's great for your national team, but if you really want to be competitive, you need it right at the grass roots, with the five and six and seven and eight year olds - that's where the groundwork for sportsmanship and teamwork and honesty are laid.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't want to appear too judgemental but you are right that I feel some moral outrage.

The squad I am involved with are not playing anywhere near county level and are classed as a "Tier 4" team. So all the more reason for everyone to get a game. At this level it is all about participation and developing every player in the squad - or at least it should be.

I too have seen coaches who see nothing wrong in getting players travelling 2 or 3 hours each way for an away match, for them to sit out the entire game on the bench - indeed I am working with two such individuals now..

Sorry, I just can't agree with you. Development isn't done in competition, it's done in training. And if your coach isn't substituting his entire squad during the game, he's a blithering idiot. Not to see they all 'get a turn', but as a tactical game strategy.

If you don't have enough players for a ten-aside training session, train all your junior teams together. Sadly, it is usually the coaches egos that won't allow such a situation.

The biggest surprise when we moved to the uk was finding out that kids played rugby according to age, not weight. I grew up before that era and believe me, playing as a slight six-stone-nothing against a six-foot ten-stone fifteen-year-old proto-Lomu meant we needed to run faster! But things have changed and we adopted weight-grade junior rugby for exactly that reason and look where our teams are.

It seems you are unhappy that kids are being discouraged by not getting game time, and that's definitely a problem. If they are 'in the team' they should be getting game time. But you have to ask yourself why the coaches aren't giving them a run - is it that they will just take anyone and so have a squad of keen players and some that like playing, but aren't committed? How may junior teams are there in your club? Is there any pressure to make the team, or do you take everyone that shows any interest?
 
I personally have no problem with people lambasting British youth sports coaching. I tried football, I tried cricket, I tried rugby, and by and large I'd say we'd have underskilled coaches who rely on having everyone run around then hope the best players carry the team on the day. The idea of playing everyone as a strategy is alien.

And when that is the case, there is a certain obligation to give some game time (imo) to those turning up. I'm all for putting the team first but loyalty is a two way street. The average British youth sports team does very badly at that.

That said, for the last game of the year, with the league on the line? Just go and win it. If everyone's part of the team, that's what everyone wants. And if there's people who feel hard done by and not really part of the team, that's not the moment to rectify it.
 
That said, for the last game of the year, with the league on the line? Just go and win it. If everyone's part of the team, that's what everyone wants. And if there's people who feel hard done by and not really part of the team, that's not the moment to rectify it.

That's what I was getting at. By the time I was 16, I was the third best second row in the youth team I played for, in part because I was behind two good players, in part because I wasn't much cop. Just because I was pretty average didn't mean that I wasn't fiercely competitive, so accepted my place in the pecking order and went so far as telling a coach not to send me on in a tour friendly when I could see that both starters were having a good game. Maybe this attitude has changed in the intervening 20 or so years, within reason, I suppose things were fairly "old school" coaching wise. Ultimately, an individual who doesn't put the needs to the team above those of his own isn't much of a team player or asset to his team.

To reiterate my other point, if the raison d'etre of this team is to give everyone an equal crack of the whip, then sit in a circle in the bath and sing Kumbaya, then why enter a league?

@Zootalaws, your comments may make for tough reading, I don't think that anyone could dispute that they're honest and with perspective. I suspect that access to better coaching and a more cut throat, competitive ethos are part (there are plenty of others) of the reason that public schools are still a disproportionate breeding ground for sporting talent in this country.
 
Last edited:
See I always thought I'd improve the team when I got on :lol:

I don't think any youth team should be solely about winning or solely about being fair and giving everyone an equal crack of the whip. If they have no chance of winning, they probably won't turn up. But if players start to believe they're being treated unfairly, they stop turning up as well and are probably less committed to winning when they are there. A team gets burned by that less slowly and less surely, but it gets burned nevertheless once the injuries happen - or at that level, once the better players start getting poached. If I'd hung around my football team a couple of years longer, I'd have been starting because the academies took a lot of the players. My rugby club is surprisingly immune to having players poached - we're more likely to nick other people's reserves - but there's been attempts and cases where we're thought players were going (only for them to return).

But then, I quit the football team partially because I didn't have friends there. My rugby club is very tight knit socially. Friendship matters a lot here.
 
I personally have no problem with people lambasting British youth sports coaching. I tried football, I tried cricket, I tried rugby, and by and large I'd say we'd have underskilled coaches who rely on having everyone run around then hope the best players carry the team on the day. The idea of playing everyone as a strategy is alien.

And when that is the case, there is a certain obligation to give some game time (imo) to those turning up. I'm all for putting the team first but loyalty is a two way street. The average British youth sports team does very badly at that.

That said, for the last game of the year, with the league on the line? Just go and win it. If everyone's part of the team, that's what everyone wants. And if there's people who feel hard done by and not really part of the team, that's not the moment to rectify it.

Spot on.

Coaching is often left to those who least shy away from it, if you know what I mean, and then you can be left in the position of accepting mediocrity or poor coaching, nepotism and bullying just because that's all you've got.

Given the massive resources of rugby in the U.K., it always seemed unbalanced, that the academy players and the first team got all the resources and the very youngest and their coaches were given almost nothing.

If you ever venture down under, do it in rugby season and get yourself along on a Saturday morning to any club, anywhere in the country. I guarantee you you will be surprised at the professionalism and dedication and community support, even at a small rural club with bugger-all cash.

In my opinion, it all starts with the tiddlers. The way you treat them, and your unpaid volunteers, support workers, administrators, dictates the mettle of a club.

I know there are clubs in the U.K. that have that sort of ethic, but so often it's all about the money for the top team.
 
Coaching is often left to those who least shy away from it, if you know what I mean, and then you can be left in the position of accepting mediocrity or poor coaching, nepotism and bullying just because that's all you've got.

Very true. My local club were a bit slow on the uptake when it came to mini rugby, so I was in one of the lower age groups when the club set up a mini section. In our first season, we were coached by some willing dads fresh out of a coaching course. We were everybody's whipping boys. After a season or two, we fell into the hands of someone who had previously played for the first team and coached the colts and in less than a season were the team to beat in the county.

I've seen it argued elsewhere that a good bit of the trouble in England is that in clubs, there is a culture of dads coaching their son's age group. Obviously this makes practical sense, but in many cases, it can mean that players' skill sets outgrow their coaches' before long if they weren't bigger in the first place. I follow the point, but where else are coaches going to come from?
 
This topic has notably warmed up - especially with Zoot's contributions - which I find mildly uncomfortable reading, but value the validity and honesty of the points made - as well as how articulate the writing is.

The key point for me is the difference in culture between UK and NZ. As clarified by Zoot - the ethos in NZ is that it's all about winning - absolutely not the taking part. This we've seen at international level - the relentless approach of the AB's, their absolute commitment to winning even when it seems out of reach. The Ireland/NZ game in Dublin 2 years ago, the Irish had that won - in everybody's eyes apart from the AB's who proceeded to nick it off the Irish at literally the last second. Only the Kiwis could have done that - nobody else!

There are other examples - just as telling, but much less savoury. NZ do what it takes to win - whatever it takes, even when it's outside the laws of the game. The takeout of O'Driscoll in 2005, was a premeditated tactic to eliminate the clear danger man in the Lions ranks. Despite the howls of protest from Kiwis - it was a deliberate act. I'm sure the intention was to temporarily incapacitate O'Driscoll, but the take out was so well executed it ended his tour. Laughably, Graham Henry claimed not to see it (of course you didn't Graham...!) but for sure, had that been the Lions nobbling Dan Carter for a long injury layoff - there would have been monumental hell to pay. The mindset that goes with the win only mentality has been a significant reason why we're continually second best to NZ (plus their ability to execute key skills at pace and under pressure).

How many times have we seen a UK club marketing themselves to attract new players with the key line - 'NZ coach' ? How many clubs in NZ are coached by a Brit? It's likely to be on the short side of very few! My son played a season in NZ during his gap year, playing SH for University club (known as Varsity) in Auckland. He had a great time there. Whilst visiting I offered my coaching services to Varsity just as a polite help out/alternative approach perspective etc - they didn't want to know. They weren't rude - but they were indifferent, clearly feeling that RFU coaching badges held little merit.

As previously stated, when coaching at club level (much less so at county level)I have adopted a participation approach as first priority - with results as second consideration. This would be alien to NZ culture and is reasonably typical of us Brits for who it is about the taking part. There is also the typically British sense of fair play and treating people considerately. Zoot's point that player development should be a matter for training - and not on the field is partly meritorious - but it's very difficult to reproduce the intensity of match conditions in training.

Then there's use of the bench - this I find especially irritating. If the team is 30 points ahead or behind with 20 minutes left the result is settled, it's a perfect opportunity to give the whole bench some game time to try and develop them. However I've seen coaches refuse to do this continually - such coaches also tend to make (non-injury) substitutions with 1 or 2 minutes of time left...? What is the point of that FFS - the game is over.
 
I've seen lots of winning first youth sides in the UK.

The difference between us and them is we've got some pretty dumb ideas on how to win and, crucially, very little interest culturally in development. The latter can be seen across a lot of our sports.
 
This topic has notably warmed up - especially with Zoot's contributions - which I find mildly uncomfortable reading, but value the validity and honesty of the points made - as well as how articulate the writing is.

The key point for me is the difference in culture between UK and NZ. As clarified by Zoot - the ethos in NZ is that it's all about winning - absolutely not the taking part.

Probably because there are plenty of opportunities for people, kids and adults, to play in a game or series that IS just about taking part.

Every Saturday and Sunday morning, right across NZ there are friendly leagues played and enjoyed by those wanting a good social run-around, then there's a whole mess of touch, flag and other short forms of rugby that you and your kids can get involved in for fun.

Nearly every business I've ever worked in has social league rugby teams, mixed with mums and dads and teens all mixing it up together, for fun and inclusion. Mostly they are played in summer, thanks to our clement weather and long evenings. It rare that you pass a rugby field in NZ at any time of the year on any day of the week, that isn't being used by someone, for something. Can you say the same about U.K. sports fields? Kiwis play a lot of sport, it's in our nature. We still, for the main, allow our kids to run around unsupervised outside till it gets dark. Like it was when I was growing up in the UK in the early sixties. That being said, there's a lot of people that sit on the sofa and watch tv, just like every first-world country.

If you join a team that plays in a structured NZRFU competition, you are playing to win. Some take it less seriously than others.

O'Driscoll was on the end of a strong and illegal tackle. There was nothing premeditated about it. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
I've seen lots of winning first youth sides in the UK.

The difference between us and them is we've got some pretty dumb ideas on how to win and, crucially, very little interest culturally in development. The latter can be seen across a lot of our sports.

I agree.

Not to harp on about it, but my son, from an early age, was fixated on a particular sport he had seen as a kid on the olympics. He joined the RAF, in part, because they offered that sport. He trained and tried out and in his first year was second in the championship and won the inter-services ***le against the army, navy and marines (yes, I know they are navy, but they compete separately).

In his second year he swept the board, including inter-country forces competition.

He was thrilled to bits to find out that there were to be trials for the uk team. He applied and didn't even get to go to the trials. He didn't come from a university athletics background and so wasn't considered as even a viable candidate.

He approached the NZ association and they said he could have a go and afterwards, put him in the Europa cup competition, where he beat every British competitor in his first year.

Since that time he has moved on to the World Cup and is beating all but one British competitor, without any funding, without a coach, by doing it through hard graft. The uk association spends £4M pounds a year and has a support team of about 27 people. NZ has zero funding and one guy who organises the logistics of entering the competition, registration, etc.

This is not an isolated story - we hear time and again how elitist sport in the UK is and how it's more about the school or club you went to as it is about talent.

Nothing will change unless attitudes change.

On a related note, he is also a talented cyclist and before he joined the RAF he seriously considered track cycling. The organisations in Cardiff and Edinburgh were delighted and made it really easy for him to try out, with loaned equipment, a bit of coaching, etc. The difference in attitude by the mostly Celtic-run cycling associations and uk athletics is marked.

- - - Updated - - -

Very true. My local club were a bit slow on the uptake when it came to mini rugby, so I was in one of the lower age groups when the club set up a mini section. In our first season, we were coached by some willing dads fresh out of a coaching course. We were everybody's whipping boys. After a season or two, we fell into the hands of someone who had previously played for the first team and coached the colts and in less than a season were the team to beat in the county.

I've seen it argued elsewhere that a good bit of the trouble in England is that in clubs, there is a culture of dads coaching their son's age group. Obviously this makes practical sense, but in many cases, it can mean that players' skill sets outgrow their coaches' before long if they weren't bigger in the first place. I follow the point, but where else are coaches going to come from?

I think I didn't put it clearly enough. Youth grade coaches in NZ are mostly pulled from dads and teachers, the difference being that there is a huge organisation behind ensuring they are all on the same page with skills, methods, etc. The NZRFU really work to ensure every coach gets the tools they need to do their job.

Now we are seeing 'professionals' getting into the sport as a coach or referee right at the start. My young nephew was in the NZ schoolboys winning team this year, but his twin brother is starting out in coaching school. He's sixteen going on seventeen and is gettting the same level and intensity of training as his brother is, but as a coach/referee, rather than as a player. You will often see a young feller in the box at Div.1 and SR games, he's an intern, where he will be learning about timekeeping, injury management, video management, logistics, kit, strategy, communication, etc. Development, just like player development.

And it's not only in NZ, the NZRFU pretty much run the coach and referee training programs for the island unions - Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and the Cook Islands. There's a constant flow of coaches and referees from the islands coming to nz or training, symposiums, and vice versa, kiwis going to the islands in their holidays to give a hand with those home unions. Unsung and overlooked, except by those in the know. The ties that bind the Pacific nations with NZ are very strong - osmosis and synergistic, rather than co-opting or parasitic.

Its not a coincidence there are so many kiwi coaches all over the world. It's a sporting position, just like playing on the field itself.
 
Last edited:
O'Driscoll was on the end of a strong and illegal tackle. There was nothing premeditated about it. Get over it.[/QUOTE]

Well Zoot ole son, you have your opinion - and I have mine. A 'strong and illegal tackle' - a convenient watered down version of reality. It was a viscous, deliberate spear into the ground. As take outs go, they don't get to look more premeditated. Umaga and Mealamu knew exactly what they were doing. The Aussie touch judge had a ring side seat, but ran away like a frightened rabbit - very eager to distance himself from it. The Lions were incensed, which should have vented in the post match press interviews - but Alistair Campbell, supposedly there for his media skills, was worse than useless. And the Kiwis took the initiative, skilfully steering the spotlight away from the take out culprits - and onto Grewcock, who's suddenly the bad guy for apparently biting Mealamu's finger. Bod is out injured for 6 months and Mealamu has a mark on his finger...! A classic double stitch up - and those responsible get away with it scot free - a disreputable, sordid situation and very unacceptable
 
There, there, snowflake. Show us where the nasty black men touched you.
 

Latest posts

Top