England v. Ireland

[Oakboy]

If the Irish can declare a better plan in fewer words, our lot must be doing something wrong.

[pjm1]

If the Irish can declare a better plan in fewer words, our lot must be doing something wrong.

Declare and deliver, it would seem...

[Oakboy]

If the Irish can declare a better plan in fewer words, our lot must be doing something wrong.

Declare and deliver, it would seem...

How much is simply the process and result of appointing the right head coach?

[p/d]

If the Irish can declare a better plan in fewer words, our lot must be doing something wrong.

Declare and deliver, it would seem...

How much is simply the process and result of appointing the right head coach?

How much is simply the environment of ‘it’s the taking part that counts not the winning’

[Banquo]

oh, and PRL ....don't know where to start...

Yeah, it's all a bit of a buggers muddle, isn't it?

The RFU strategic objectives are laudable to an extent, but create a rod for their own back in being both too disparate and non-specific enough (at least as communicated*):

"Game objectives" are four-fold:

• enable positive player experiences on and off the field
• create the best possible high-performance system for England Rugby
• enhance player welfare to protect and support the wellbeing of players
• support clubs to sustain and grow themselves and to reflect society

And then there are another 4 "Driving objectives" focusing on diversity, inclusion and community connection. This means that out of 8 strategic objectives, we have 1/8 that is targeting "best possible high-performance system". Which itself is then broken down into two components:
1. develop effective and integrated pathways for players, coaches and match officials; and
2. influence and shape the game at domestic and international levels to ensure its long-term health and the success of our England teams

* I realise what we hear/see is only part of it, but in an entertainment industry, communicating your strategy and approach clearly to the paying public is pretty important.

Look at the number of words in this "strategy" and what tiny proportion of them actually relate to success on the field in England colours. I'm not disputing the benefits of balanced score cards (and the trick to that is the first word, which RFU appear to have forgotten) and increasing access, but that counts for little if nobody wants to watch the national team play.

Bringing it back on thread - somewhat - let's compare this to the IRFU strategic plan, which is about to be updated as it runs to 2023. "Our Mission" provides for five areas where IRFU are seeking to develop and grow the game:

• Excellence in performance
• Quality experiences
• Effective engagement
• Great people
• Strong leadership

This gets to the nub of what matters, a fair bit quicker. The ordering is, I'm sure, not accidental. Leaves nobody in any doubt what they're all about, and what success will be measured on.

QED.

Bit tomato, tomato to be honest, both a bit motherhood and apple pie and generic. Simpler is likely better, and they are executing better....in fairness on a much simpler and smaller system.

[pjm1]

Strategy plans often are. Especially those that are for external/public consumption. I'm in the process of looking at my firm's own one - hence the particular interest in how others define success - how clearly, and how much padding/qualifiers go around the easily measurable bits.

The effectiveness of a strategy or plan is in how it is delivered. Failure to deliver does not mean the plan was crap - it can be the execution that lets you down. That is the question for England - is our inability to deliver a failure of strategy or a failure of implementation? After 20 years of repeatedly failing to deliver, it feels like strategy itself must be held accountable.

For me the Irish counterpoint is really interesting. Yes, they've had success, but it has clearly not been accidental. Their success has been in identifying where they have strengths (simplicity of system, cost to run, strong school-club-province links) and where they have weaknesses (competitive pressure from GAA, limited total € resources, limited player resources). And finding ways to get around those constraints, over a sustained period and having everyone buy into the plan and where they aim to get to. It has worked, even if they haven't won a world cup (yet).

[Oakboy]

Declare and deliver, it would seem...

How much is simply the process and result of appointing the right head coach?

How much is simply the environment of ‘it’s the taking part that counts not the winning’

Same thing, really. Appoint a professional manager in an amateur fashion, leaving him to define his own achievement goals etc.

[Mellsblue]

This is starting to plumb the depths of the Bath stone quarry discussion.

[fivepointer]

Strategy plans often are. Especially those that are for external/public consumption. I'm in the process of looking at my firm's own one - hence the particular interest in how others define success - how clearly, and how much padding/qualifiers go around the easily measurable bits.

The effectiveness of a strategy or plan is in how it is delivered. Failure to deliver does not mean the plan was crap - it can be the execution that lets you down. That is the question for England - is our inability to deliver a failure of strategy or a failure of implementation? After 20 years of repeatedly failing to deliver, it feels like strategy itself must be held accountable.

For me the Irish counterpoint is really interesting. Yes, they've had success, but it has clearly not been accidental. Their success has been in identifying where they have strengths (simplicity of system, cost to run, strong school-club-province links) and where they have weaknesses (competitive pressure from GAA, limited total € resources, limited player resources). And finding ways to get around those constraints, over a sustained period and having everyone buy into the plan and where they aim to get to. It has worked, even if they haven't won a world cup (yet).

The Irish dont have Pro clubs. Much easier to streamline with the 4 provinces.

My feeling is that the problem in the English game is that not everyone is geared up to what should be the over riding objective: sustained success for the national side. Thats the thing that matters most and will drive the games development.

If the RFU & PRL can get to that understanding we might be able to move the game forward.

[Oakboy]

Strategy plans often are. Especially those that are for external/public consumption. I'm in the process of looking at my firm's own one - hence the particular interest in how others define success - how clearly, and how much padding/qualifiers go around the easily measurable bits.

The effectiveness of a strategy or plan is in how it is delivered. Failure to deliver does not mean the plan was crap - it can be the execution that lets you down. That is the question for England - is our inability to deliver a failure of strategy or a failure of implementation? After 20 years of repeatedly failing to deliver, it feels like strategy itself must be held accountable.

For me the Irish counterpoint is really interesting. Yes, they've had success, but it has clearly not been accidental. Their success has been in identifying where they have strengths (simplicity of system, cost to run, strong school-club-province links) and where they have weaknesses (competitive pressure from GAA, limited total € resources, limited player resources). And finding ways to get around those constraints, over a sustained period and having everyone buy into the plan and where they aim to get to. It has worked, even if they haven't won a world cup (yet).

The Irish dont have Pro clubs. Much easier to streamline with the 4 provinces.

My feeling is that the problem in the English game is that not everyone is geared up to what should be the over riding objective: sustained success for the national side. Thats the thing that matters most and will drive the games development.

If the RFU & PRL can get to that understanding we might be able to move the game forward.

Agreed. The message of 3 clubs going under seems not to have concentrated minds as it should.

[p/d]

This is starting to plumb the depths of the Bath stone quarry discussion.

There was a Bath quarry discussion!!!!

[Puja]

This is starting to plumb the depths of the Bath stone quarry discussion.

There was a Bath quarry discussion!!!!

You missed a belting time: http://rugbyrebels.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=6353

I note that there has been absolutely no movement on the stadium whatsoever since that thread was posted. There'll be another design come out in 9 months time, just to keep us keen without them ever building anything.

Puja

[p/d]

This is starting to plumb the depths of the Bath stone quarry discussion.

There was a Bath quarry discussion!!!!

You missed a belting time: http://rugbyrebels.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=6353

I note that there has been absolutely no movement on the stadium whatsoever since that thread was posted. There'll be another design come out in 9 months time, just to keep us keen without them ever building anything.

Puja

Thanks Puja. A bit of a slow burn, but gathered momentum once FKAS tabled the notion to chemically remove the natural patina from this lovely freestone that stands proud on the surrounding buildings.

[Mikey Brown]

I'd stopped really paying attention to the endless squad updates and missed that Murley is now out. No idea if he's injured or genuinely behind Muir/Roebuck now. I know the choice of 4th and 5th wings is probably the least important issue in the whole squad, but there we go. Seems odd Roebuck didn't get a runout vs Portugal really.

[Oakboy]

I'd stopped really paying attention to the endless squad updates and missed that Murley is now out. No idea if he's injured or genuinely behind Muir/Roebuck now. I know the choice of 4th and 5th wings is probably the least important issue in the whole squad, but there we go. Seems odd Roebuck didn't get a runout vs Portugal really.

Odd too that Tuilagi is there unless he's going to start v Ireland - maybe with Lawrence at 13? Assuming that Mitchell and Marcus start, and Freeman keeps a wing shirt does Daly miss out if IFW gets in? Probably, Steward back at 15?

[FKAS]

Manu was in the squad pre Scotland game and not used.

Given Ireland like a hard running 12 and it's not traditional to have a red card in this fixture selecting Manu at 12 makes sense.

[Banquo]

Strategy plans often are. Especially those that are for external/public consumption. I'm in the process of looking at my firm's own one - hence the particular interest in how others define success - how clearly, and how much padding/qualifiers go around the easily measurable bits.

The effectiveness of a strategy or plan is in how it is delivered. Failure to deliver does not mean the plan was crap - it can be the execution that lets you down. That is the question for England - is our inability to deliver a failure of strategy or a failure of implementation? After 20 years of repeatedly failing to deliver, it feels like strategy itself must be held accountable.

For me the Irish counterpoint is really interesting. Yes, they've had success, but it has clearly not been accidental. Their success has been in identifying where they have strengths (simplicity of system, cost to run, strong school-club-province links) and where they have weaknesses (competitive pressure from GAA, limited total € resources, limited player resources). And finding ways to get around those constraints, over a sustained period and having everyone buy into the plan and where they aim to get to. It has worked, even if they haven't won a world cup (yet).

Straplines don't equal strategy (or plan) for me, and ideally your strategy should make sense externally and internally. Equally your strategy and your plan are two complementary but different entities. Totally agree on execution- many places I've worked at, say...we tried that, didn't work, bad idea. Digging under, nearly always a good idea, badly executed.

[Puja]

Leaked team being reported as:

Genge
George
Cole
Itoje
Chessum
Martin
Underhill
Earl

Mitchell
Ford
Feyi-Waboso
Lawrence
Slade
Freeman
Furbank

With MSmith replacing FSmith on the bench.

I still don't want Slade there, but I appreciate he's probably a fixture for now. Would rather keep Roots and put Chessum on the bench for Martin, but there we are. The selection could be worse.

Puja

[p/d]

Mail reporting the same but Chessum and Martin switched

[p/d]

I would be starting CCS whatever

[FKAS]

Be harsh on Roots he's been steady at 6. Not sure Furbank is a good choice against the Irish kicking game but hopefully I'm wrong. I'd agree re ditching Slade as well.

[p/d]

Being steady really isn’t good enough though.

[FKAS]

Being steady really isn’t good enough though.

He's done a lot of good work in the right, carried pretty well and bar a couple of dim penalties hasn't made many mistakes. Not really set the world alight but no England player really has.

[p/d]

Being steady really isn’t good enough though.

He's done a lot of good work in the right, carried pretty well and bar a couple of dim penalties hasn't made many mistakes. Not really set the world alight but no England player really has.

Not having a go at him, but he needed to be ‘un droppable’ to keep Martin or CCS out

[FKAS]

Being steady really isn’t good enough though.

He's done a lot of good work in the right, carried pretty well and bar a couple of dim penalties hasn't made many mistakes. Not really set the world alight but no England player really has.

Not having a go at him, but he needed to be ‘un droppable’ to keep Martin or CCS out

I'm a big fan of George Martin but still think he's a bit of an unpolished diamond still and will probably be better in the second row given how good he appears to be at scrum time in behind the tighthead.

CCS has looked very good so far but I'm not sure whether that's because the opposition are tiring or not when he comes off the bench. Up against Ireland would be a particularly brutal way to find out. I'd actually prefer to see Roots remain in the backrow if CCS was brought in and sacrifice one of the opensides so that CCS can do more of the carrying role that Earl has been doing as opposed to smashing up the middle like Roots.