Re: England v. Ireland
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:19 pm
If the Irish can declare a better plan in fewer words, our lot must be doing something wrong.
Declare and deliver, it would seem...
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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:29 pmYeah, 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: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:
- 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
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: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.
- Excellence in performance
- Quality experiences
- Effective engagement
- Great people
- Strong leadership
QED.
The Irish dont have Pro clubs. Much easier to streamline with the 4 provinces.pjm1 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 5:06 pm 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).
Agreed. The message of 3 clubs going under seems not to have concentrated minds as it should.fivepointer wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 7:35 pmThe Irish dont have Pro clubs. Much easier to streamline with the 4 provinces.pjm1 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 5:06 pm 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).
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.
You missed a belting time: http://rugbyrebels.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=6353
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.Puja wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:05 amYou 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
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?Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 8:40 am 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.
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.pjm1 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 5:06 pm 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).
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.p/d wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 10:10 pmNot having a go at him, but he needed to be ‘un droppable’ to keep Martin or CCS out