It's all the pro 14s fault...

[Donny osmond]

Apparently.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/its-the- ... g-results/

Interesting article on the importance of cohesion and stability in team select but also in bringing players thru a system.

Lots to think about in there...
1. Toonies tombola; how much does his rotation hurt his teams?
2. Does a system that offers 'stability' actually produce good players or just automatons that struggle as soon as they are out of the system that developed them?
3. What price creativity?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Cameo]

Interesting, thanks for sharing. On your points:

1. I think he has tried to chop and change less at international level as he learnt a bit early on. At Glasgow, I think he would say (with some justification) he was going for the Leinster model - “We did a study and the academy’s main driver is not the strength of the kids coming through the system. It’s the stability of the team above it.” i.e. when your systems are well oiled and winning it is easier to bring in new players

2. Good question - I suppose point a is that maybe it doesn't matter. Point b might be that they can learn a little bit from the experience and that few percent might be the difference.

3. Yep, I like all the analysis but (even more so in football), you do wonder if it takes the fun out of it for players and fans. But then, Finn Russell

[Donny osmond]

I'm generally wary of trying to find any definitive conclusions, so I think the analysis is interesting and gives some good pointers without necessarily providing a concrete path to success.

It may be illuminating when used as a prism to view coaches like Gatland, who took teams like Wales and the Lions to great heights by using simple, set structures wherein everyone knows their role intimately, but at the expense perhaps of some creativity.

It also puts me in mind of guys I used to okay alongside, and I played in just about the worst league in Scotland, who had played at a semi-decent level in their day but down in our league they weren't really anything special.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[switchskier]

Interesting article. Of course there's always unexpected consequences when you try apply this type of analysis but it does suggest that:

- if thinking purely about the Scottish team then we should have one head coach implementing a set style of play and systems across both of the pro teams and the academies.
- that anyone playing outside of Scotland will have to be exceptional to break in (helps explain the baffling Hutchinson omission)
- that there would be more limited returns than we perhaps assume from setting up a third pro team

[Cameo]

Interesting article. Of course there's always unexpected consequences when you try apply this type of analysis but it does suggest that:

- if thinking purely about the Scottish team then we should have one head coach implementing a set style of play and systems across both of the pro teams and the academies.
- that anyone playing outside of Scotland will have to be exceptional to break in (helps explain the baffling Hutchinson omission)
- that there would be more limited returns than we perhaps assume from setting up a third pro team

Just three comments:

1. It's my worry about Cockerill. Less so this year as Scotland are playing a more conservative game but previously I wondered whether the Edinburgh pack were used to the game we were trying to play.

2. I wanted Hutchison playing but not sure him being on the bench was baffling - he'd wasn't quite at his early season peak and we have options at 13 now.

3. On the third team maybe but at the moment we have to rely too often on people not playing at all or who have barely played pro rugby. Too many teams might not help but I think at least 4 would be the optimum.