-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Steinberg [mailto:pjs17@PSU.EDU]
Sent: den 12 februari 2003 19:00
To: RUGBYCOACH@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: Getting fired and getting over it

This is a very common situation in the US, where many teams (especially collegiate) are fundamentally social clubs that play rugby. I always believe that we coach at the discretion of the players, and therefore we should coach to their goals and not ours. I have found it useful to have a goal setting meetingat the start of the season. This has done a number of things including allow me to see what the team wants, and then being able to hold them to their goals throughout the year. I still do this with one of my teams that has been nationally competitive for many years because they need to make the decision of what they want the team to do and then I can frame what their behavior and actions need to be to still be competitive.

If the team does not have the same goals as the coach then the coach has to make a decision. They can leave, they can coach to the players goals or they could work to change the culture of the team over time. To me this is a big challenge but possible. Teams evolve and coaches are key in that evolution and can guide the change. I have just started coaching a team that has traditionally been social, but has a core group of players that would like to move the team to a higher level. I coach this team differently than the team that is national caliber, but with the same effort. It will be interesting to see where the PLAYERS want the team to go, but it will take several years to change the culture if that is what they want.

This gets to a more fundamental question in US rugby, the clash between competitive and social goals. Most teams in the US are social in character. That is not to say that they are not competitive on the field, or that they are not successful, but that they exist for social reasons primarily. I have had a number of arguments with both players, coaches and administrators about whether developing a competitive team is good for the game. Their argument is that if you become competitive then you become elitist which by definition excludes people from the game. My argument is that if you are not competitive then you are excluding players that want to be competitive but do not get that need satisfied so they leave. It is possible to have both (that is a reason for running an A side and a B
side), but only if you provide what the competitive athlete needs as well as what the social player wants.

So how do you know if your team is competitive? Here is a checklist:

1) Selections are done on merit ONLY. Many teams I have coached and played with have selected the player that has been with the club for 10 years over the 21 year old who is the better athlete and player. This is fundamental if you want to build a competitive program, but you need to work with the selectors of your club to layout a selection policy at the beginning of the season. The older player also needs to understand their role in the team, and this needs to be explained. In fact this is what prevents many "teams" in the US becoming "clubs." (A club has people that are not current players in positions of responsibility within the club structure - therefore in the US most clubs are in fact teams).

2) Attendance at practice is a must for the top players. Your A side players need to be at practice 90% of the time. This means that they have arranged their time around rugby and indicates a commitment. The best way to get to this is to have numbers and depth and if players do not come to practice then their selection is jeopardized.

3) Fitness is another key indicator. Are players working on their strength and conditioning outside of practice? Or do you need to work them in practice because they are not doing what needs to be done. I make a deal with my teams, if they are doing the work outside we can spend more time playing at practice.

My belief is that if you look at rugby in the US, the successful programs have had one thing in common at all levels and that is continuity of coaching. Good coaches attract athletes, get them motivated and excited and the actual technical coaching side is probably less that 50% responsible for the success. Coaching transitions are really tough and often as coaches we fail because we do not have the same goals/direction as the players.

Ihave been through many coaching transitions so if anyone would like to contact me to discuss this I am very willing.

Cheers,

Pete