New Zealand provincial philosophy - interesting article

Monty Burnz

...from our friend Matt Williams. Could this be one of the key reasons for Kiwi international supremacy?

In New Zealand the philosophy is set by the national team coaches and the super franchises follow the national agenda. I have spoken with Wayne Smith on this issue. When he was national coach of New Zealand, at an annual meeting of the national team and Super team coaches, the national coach would present his philosophy and vision of how he planned his team to play.

Each Super team coach would then be asked to explain to the group an area of coaching from their team that season.

For example if Canterbury excelled at counter-attack, the Canterbury coach would explain the coaching processes he used to produce excellent counter-attack. This enriched the entire national coaching body. There were no secrets. No “province over country”. Any new process or tactic was shared and discussed. This meant all the teams improved.

Over several seasons New Zealand provinces developed a philosophy that was focused on the style required by their national team to win. This is tough for me to say, but at times, those bloody New Zealanders can be annoyingly smart.

shuffol

Thank god that doesnt happen here, could you imagine all the provinces trying to play like Ireland.

thomond2006

shuffol wrote: »

Thank god that doesnt happen here, could you imagine all the provinces trying to play like Ireland.

Delete this post now, don't give Kidney ideas.

Monty Burnz

Presumably the process works both ways though: "Leinster's superb passing attack - how do you guys do it? Ok, let's implement that in the other provinces and bring it into the Irish team's arsenal..."

irishbucsfan

It's just progressive management from Smith or whoever came up with it. We don't see any of that.

Although in fairness I believe Kidney goes down to each provinces trainingat times.

tolosenc

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Presumably the process works both ways though: "Leinster's superb passing attack - how do you guys do it? Ok, let's implement that in the other provinces and bring it into the Irish team's arsenal..."

Except here it would be more like "Why would you want to do that? Sure wouldn't it be better to just stuff it up the jumper and then kick it to the other team?"

its_phil

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Although in fairness I believe Kidney goes down to each provinces trainingat times.

He's also in direct contact with young players a couple of years before they even play for Ireland and even when they just come out of school giving directions to the clubs they play for on what to do with them.

Brian

Just imagine the province X fans being able to blame province Y's coach for their own poor performances! This subforum would be ... I was going to say a warzone, but I actually find the interprovincial whining hilarious.

Monty Burnz

Brian wrote: »

Just imagine the province X fans being able to blame province Y's coach for their own poor performances! This subforum would be ... I was going to say a warzone, but I actually find the interprovincial whining hilarious.

Yes, it's all very Melchester Rovers versus Liverpool City.

yimrsg

It's pointless as DK et al. don't/won't/can't implement any of the provincial sides tactics or style of play. Ireland's tactics seem to heavily involve the half backs being instructed to kick far more than they would for their province, no provincial sides would want to follow such archaic tactics. Foley's call up to the international side coaching resulted in Ireland using lineout mauls and doing them effectively. I'm sure if Schmidt/McLaughlin were involved in coaching the international setup there would be better attacking play.

That article just shows how poorly organised the IRFU is when it comes to coaching the international side.

totallegend

Monty Burnz wrote: »

...from our friend Matt Williams. Could this be one of the key reasons for Kiwi international supremacy?

That would be ignoring the fact that NZ were dominant long before professionalism and the current setup were introduced.

ray jay

My first reaction while reading this article was thank f*ck we don't do that here, but that assumes the philosophy is constructed without provincial input. Realistically, if the national and provincial coaching teams sat down and had an honest discussion about what tactics are worth using and what are garbage, we'd likely see an improvement in the national team.

Monty Burnz

totallegend wrote: »

That would be ignoring the fact that NZ were dominant long before professionalism and the current setup were introduced.

...and continue to dominate...

totallegend

Monty Burnz wrote: »

...and continue to dominate...

Fair point. I just thought the article came across a bit like;

• New Zealand are the best international team
• This is what New Zealand do at a provincial level
• Therefore we need to do the same

Which may or may not be correct. However, it does not explain why we also lag behind Australia, South Africa, France and Wales at international level.

Monty Burnz

totallegend wrote: »

Which may or may not be correct. However, it does not explain why we also lag behind Australia, South Africa, France and Wales at international level.

My diagnosis as to why we lag:

Australia: not a massive playing population, but union benefits from the popularity of league, the game is well managed, and they are acclimatised to NZ/SA standards by Super 15 and the Tri-Nations.

South Africa: player numbers, and culture - rugby is the GAA of white SA, without the competition of hurling, Gaelic football and soccer here

France: playing numbers

Wales: culture - again, a GAA comparison. But I have the sense that rugby is losing ground to soccer in Wales now.

Of course, the reasons are a hell of a lot more complex than that, but that's my 100 word explanation as I understand it...

Tox56

Whatever about player numbers and culture, I believe we have the players to compete, they just aren't being used effectively.