Gordon D’Arcy: Coaching conundrum - have we lowered the rugby IQ of our players?

I recently had the pleasure of listening to my fellow Wexford man Billy Walsh speak about the transformation in Irish boxing during his time as national coach.

I found myself nodding in agreement as it struck a chord with my experiences as a player with Leinster and our pathway from underachievers to serial trophy winners. In truth, the inauspicious start to professionalism in Ireland showed little to suggest such a trophy-laden future was on the horizon.

Especially considering the IRFU was opposed to rugby union turning professional in 1995. But, despite that initial reluctance, they quickly appreciated that it was a fait accompli and, rather than stubbornly rail against it, introduced a system of centrally contracted players. It has proven to be a remarkably prescient decision to this day.

The union implemented other structural changes that were very beneficial including the establishing a national academy for promising young players, of which I was adjudged one. The man handed the responsibility of running it was Stephen Aboud, who became a good friend.

Gordon D’Arcy: Pecking order at outhalf is of national interest given Carbery's injury woes

---

Gordon D’Arcy: Irish rugby can’t change the past but we can do things differently

---

Gordon D’Arcy: Irish provinces adapting and excelling in chaotic Champions Cup

---

Gordon D’Arcy: No URC games during international window hit Leinster the hardest

---

He devised a pathway and companion syllabus for the development of elite young players and subsequently produced a similar structure around the development of indigenous Irish coaches; Leo Cullen, Cullie Tucker, Jimmy Duffy and Nigel Carolan are four who came through the accreditation process, while Noel McNamara was in his first year when Aboud was enticed to Italy.

He’s spent the last six years establishing and overseeing the development pathway for elite young players and coaches for the Italian Rugby Federation.

The progress made under his watch included recent victories over Ireland and England at Under-18 level – they have beaten Wales and Scotland too at several grades – and a win against the current Irish U-20s.

Italy doesn’t have a schools rugby system so promising young players are encouraged to join four regional academies and from there some will graduate to the professional franchises. One of the central tenets is that good coaches are vital in any elite development pathway.

The IRFU’s Elite Player Development is now classified under the heading Elite Player Identification and got me thinking about where coaching sits in the Irish system. I’m not sure coaching at underage levels in clubs and schools has evolved as much as it might have and that the desire to mimic the professional set-ups has often stifled the development of the individual.

My feeling is that we are producing 'white board players', who thrive in patterns and structure but struggle with basic problem-solving

To be an effective coach, there is a responsibility to encourage players to explore and challenge the game plan while at the same time getting them to respect and apply the fundamental principles of the game.

The formative years in any sport are so important in developmental terms; children resemble sponges soaking up direction without question or cynicism. That’s why it’s vital they are exposed to good coaching in an environment that is fun and that focuses on skills, encourages self-discovery and expression.

Coaching to win during the formative years shifts focus to results rather than performance and that is detrimental to how our players view the game. Winning is important, so is losing but surely at this age enjoyment should trump everything.

As a result of the way we are coaching today, my feeling is that we are producing ‘white board players’, who thrive in patterns and structure but struggle with basic problem-solving.

Encourage players

As long as you tell a player where to be, and that they will be picked if they repeat a process without question, they will do that because there is certainty in clarity and safety in reducing the potential for mistakes. This style of approach has put such high value on not making a mistake, that we have potentially lowered the rugby IQ of our players.

We see it time and time again, when patterned attack misfires, the defence eats them up. Why, because the defence is just as structured but much easier to ramp up. Attitude to making mistakes is fundamental to making the right decision; if we don’t have coaches that encourage players to try things, what hope do we have?

There will be something to learn in each and every mistake. Is it a good/bad decision or is it skill/execution related? Most professional players can in isolation pass, catch, tackle and kick but what separates one from another is choosing wisely from that menu in the live match environment when decisions have to be made in nanoseconds.

Understanding the decisions you make on a pitch, good and bad, helps you improve as a player. The sooner you appreciate that the quicker the progression. Mistakes are an integral part of the journey, an occasional side-effect of taking risks.

If you play by rote from a young age in teams that are heavily prescribed in terms of patterns, you are less likely to think in matches

Any logical person might assume that it is better for players to make these decisions as often as possible as young as possible, so when they hit the ‘playing to win’ portion of their career, they understand their range and capabilities. The question remains, is it the case?

If you watch Tadhg Beirne play, you can appreciate how well coached he was at some point(s) in his career to supplement his talent. Antoine Dupont demonstrated his precocious talent at Auch and Castres as a youngster, well schooled in the basics of his craft, before Toulouse invited him to become the player that he is; a superstar.

There is an often heard expression in field sports that suggests, 'you can't coach that' but a good coach can facilitate it. Look at the example of French outhalf Romain Ntamack and his decision to escape from his in-goal area in the victory over New Zealand.

Most players would have kicked the ball but Ntamack sized up the situation and decided to run, an action that was performed with such composure that you can tell it was not the first time he’d tried it.

It is really important to understand that his teammates and coaches trust him completely whether it worked or not, a trust earned and one that is inherently different from players that try to create without earning that trust first. In general terms creativity requires a solid platform. After all, you can’t fire a cannon from a canoe.

It’s not about throwing the ball around. Passing is a fundamental part of the game but knowing when and why that’s important. This is where a player’s rugby IQ comes into play. If you play by rote from a young age in teams that are heavily prescribed in terms of patterns, you are less likely to think in matches. You look but don’t see and the higher the level you play, the more that becomes a drawback.

We beat England’s 2003 World Cup winners – a massively physical side with a smattering of flair and a left-footed genius in Jonny Wilkinson – at Twickenham six months after their triumph, a first win for Ireland in London since 1994. Our game plan was simple, two wide passes, which was perfectly showcased in Girvan Dempsey’s try.

Training ground

The instructions were when, not if, we make a bust we would drag them to the nearest touchline and then look for quick width on the way back, two snappy passes cutting out almost their entire team. What was interesting when I look back was the lack of detail; let me explain.

The pattern was easy, wide to wide, which was replicated on the training ground numerous times. In each rep there would be a reasonable dollop of common sense as to who was resourcing rucks but just like in matches, line breaks happen, albeit a lot more back then and then instinct takes over. There isn’t a strictly defined methodology to move from x to y, just a need to get it there.

Ulster's inability to problem-solve in real time, to appreciate where the space was, to play the game in panorama was both striking and worrying

Players should respond to teammates’ movement and one of my favourite phrases from Geordan Murphy was “small talk on the run”. Players have been coached in this style since they picked up a ball, figuring out what to do on the pitch together.

An assumed level of rugby IQ was needed to survive or you looked out of place; missing a pass, being in the wrong place or just plain getting in the way. The way the game has evolved, finding a player with poor rugby instincts is harder because it has become more predictable.

Today if a player misses a ‘moment’ it is down to fitness or work-rate because the majority know where they are meant to be for almost every movement in a game and that includes open, or as we now call it, unstructured play.

The preference for the majority of teams is to ‘set-up’ phases from set-piece rather than attack even though this is when there is often the most space and the fewest defenders. Most players have been coached to know where they need to or should be on a pitch, and very few have decisions to make anymore.

Being well-drilled is not the same as being well-coached as was evident at Thomond Park last weekend. Ulster's inability to problem-solve in real time, to appreciate where the space was, to play the game in panorama was both striking and worrying.

The best coaches encourage players to take responsibility on the pitch. That should start at a young age. If it doesn’t then you get a lot of what you are watching in the modern game.