Before the advent of GPS in monitoring, the first foray into ascertaining rugby workloads was time motion analysis.
It was facilitated through post-match video and estimating what each player was doing, how far they were going and how long they were doing it for.
The most famous study was completed over the 2000 Super Rugby season. While I don’t recall the exact figures, one of the findings was that tight forwards in rugby only sprinted for around 70 metres per game. The rest of their time was spent at low repetitive speed.
At the time there was some misconception about energy system function. Accordingly, recommendations for conditioning the tight forwards – because sprinting was negligible as a proportion of their entire work – was to do most of it at the same pace they conducted in a game.
From late 2001 until the World Cup in 2003, Australia’s tight five players were consistently blown off the park by opposition teams. Why? There are a number of factors, but two contributing reasons are articulated below.
• Conditioning was based on the average measurements in the time-motion study – not the peak
• The big stat (the five to eight kilometres spent at slow pace) drowned out the small stat (70 metres at high speed). However, in terms of performance in the game, the small stat was the most important
This is akin to a phenomenon highlighted in research as attentional blindness. The experiment highlighted below demonstrates this.
In this case, it was blindness to the key 70 metres metric – blinded in part by the stat screaming out, that is five to eight kilometres at slow pace, but also by the wrong assumption that the body’s energy systems kicked in suddenly, switching the previous energy system off.
Accordingly, there was an assumption that training had to occur under the anaerobic threshold in order to increase aerobic capacity. The reality is all energy systems (globally aerobic and anaerobic) are operating conjunctively. They’re just operating at different ratios.
So slow, long conditioning unfortunately didn’t help the ten to 20 two-metre to five-metre bursts contributing to the 70 metres, which were imperative for being dominant in collisions. Further, as opposition teams got fitter and faster, they moved around the field quicker. Consequently, conditioning at average speeds resulted in getting to situations slower than the opposition.
Athletic performance legend – Vern Gambetta said: “Train slow, be slow. Train fast, be fast”.
As mentioned in my previous article, I assisted a mate of mine with some research for his PhD.
His research used the lens of a well-known business model –the Burke-Litwin model – to normatively define why five organisations were able to consistently achieve world-class performance across multiple Olympic cycles, while the other 45 couldn’t.
The model consists of three transformational components and nine transactional. A key finding was that the top five were all expertly coach-led.
For my minimal part in the research, we looked to interview a range of rugby coaches to ascertain whether the research was normative across sports.
A recommendation contributing to understanding the environment (transformational component) that an organisation operates within was to ascertain historically all the commonalities between teams that won in a specific sport and competition. There are some massive caveats, which I’ll address in the next section.
The strategy was to then find key gaps and identify which could be closed the quickest. This achieves the quick wins. But to achieve sustained performance, the organisation should also be ticking away at more long-term solutions.
The first caveat is while cohesion and time played together seems to be all the go at the moment, it isn’t new research. Further, there’s significantly more to it than those two factors. Cohesion metrics are absolutely a way for a new coach to forecast to key stakeholders the timespan expected to achieve success without intervention. It also informs recruitment strategy to plug experience gaps.
But in line with ‘conditioning for averages’ and accurate reading of data highlighted in the first part of the article, it isn’t a strategy that develops consistency in world-class performance. It just gets you to a certain level. Further, the data isn’t normative.
To my knowledge, the first Australian organisation to conduct this type of research was the Hawthorn AFL club led by then director of coaching David Parkin. It led to their first premiership in the current cycle (2008).
However, consistency in overall performance didn’t occur until quality execution in all the other components of the system was achieved. It was also why they were still able to win two more premierships of their 2013-15 three-peat after losing their best player Lance Franklin to key rivals Sydney.
It wasn’t the first time Parkin utilised key metrics to inform strategy. When Carlton coach, he identified a key performance indicator around what he termed sacrificial acts relating specifically to Carlton’s game.
If Carlton players performed so many sacrificial acts in a game (say 60), they won. If they performed only one less, they lost. In a rugby context, the Crusaders partly based their Crusaders man philosophy on this concept.
I was asked to present a summary of findings and recommendations of this research to a coaching research group at the University of Queensland in late 2011. One of the people in the group was Dr Vince Kelly.
Kelly, prior to entering academia, carved out a successful career in the highest echelons of high performance, athletic performance and consultancy roles with the Queensland Academy of Sport, Auckland Blues, Western Force, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Brisbane Broncos, Fiji RFU, NRL, FFA and many others.
Kelly, at the end of my presentation, quite rightly questioned the value of the achieving commonality method, described above, as a lone strategy.
Paraphrased, his words were: “In my experience when organisations utilise this method as overarching strategy, it can lead to lazy coaching and abrogation of responsibility… We’re not going to be successful until these things are in place.”
So, while the coach or coaching team challenge the players to get better, they don’t themselves analyse how they can fast track the process. It just becomes about doing the same thing over and over again waiting or hoping for the benefits of time in the saddle and as part of the cavalry to kick in.
Kelly elaborated that while he understood the metric as a starting point, the aim of a performance team should always be to beat the metrics.
Consequently, the risk is that performance becomes more about recruiting than development. Whereas it should be a combination of both – particularly in a small market country like Australia. It was sage advice from someone that had been at the coalface of both performance and research for some time.
Some recent quotes point to the fact that the current provinces have moved away from our traditional development strengths.
In an article with Brad Thorn, The Australian wrote: “The ‘physicality’ and ‘skill-sets’ New Zealand sides had honed throughout their strong provincial competition was leaving Australian rugby a step behind”.
(Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
The Canberra Times quoted Laurie Fisher saying: “What we are lacking is not skill related. We’ve just got to up our physicality, up our intent, up our aggression, up our desire and again there’s nothing technical about that”.
The article continued: “When asked about how the side were addressing the lacking intent, desire, and physicality at training, Fisher said, ‘it all came down to the individual player come Saturday’.”
Skill sets and physicality aren’t honed in matches – they’re executed in matches. They’re honed in training. Competition provides the context and the need to get better. Players aren’t going through matches thinking about how they need to pass or tackle or how physical they’re going to be. The capacity of their mental faculties are on reading cues in and around their game plan. They’re not honing – they’re executing. Effective training provides the honing.
But we’re finding this at the moment, which again relates to the training for averages point above. I’ve stated this previously. It’s a weakness in Australian rugby. Well over 80 per cent of training is 15 on 15. This is not training for the peak demands of the game. It’s not training for teams that bring greater line speed, athleticism, and skill.
You’re essentially training against the next best 15 in your club or squad. What players get away with in terms of poor technique or physical application against their B team during the week, they don’t get away with against better opposition on the weekend. The best coaches in any sport work out ways to make aspects of training harder than the game. Design it such that the need for better skill execution and greater physical demands are implicitly required.
I’m not suggesting teams put 15 versus 15 in the bin. It’s still a fundamentally important part of training. But the contextual needs of both Saturday and what is required to maximise team and individual potential need to be addressed weekly.
Otherwise, teams end up just operating week to week and I question whether there is a long-term vision for how the game could be played guiding and accounting process. Australian sport historically has led in developing world-class performers from a small population base, but not for some time.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
In rugby alone, blind Freddy can see that our skills aren’t up to international standard and if there’s a stat that says otherwise, we’re blindly reading the wrong stat.
Too much focus is on cohesion, combinations, and structure and not enough on the core elements that both enhance these components but also lead in new ways of preparation.
In a previous article, I spoke of coach accountability as a value set that will get people to follow and address instantaneously key issues. I highlighted fool’s gold of success in programs without context and the fact that this can place the blinkers over effectively comparing apples with apples. Based on this, two of the best coaches in history would never have been given opportunity.
All highlight the importance of workplace learning. I also provided in the comments a video link to part of an interview with Ewen McKenzie that provides some insight into the leadership required for the roles.
Australia has some wonderful coaches that should be considered for the available head coaching positions, all with contextual experience and success.
With all five provinces largely structuring operations the same way, I don’t believe applicants from within current Super Rugby teams have the relevant experience. The exception would be Jim McKay.
The Australian sports market is full and is contracting financially. Coaches that have the attributes and contextual experience to lead in this environment are Mick Byrne, Nick Stiles, Damien Hill, Bill Millard, Andy Friend, Darren Coleman, Stephen Larkham, Nick Scrivener and Jim McKay.
The next article will deal with the whys.
Skip
Leahry, I appreciate you taking the time to provide such a comprehensive answer. There is so much you have said that I would like to drill down on. However, this isn't the forum. The challenge I see for CLA and let's say a more context-based coaching, (Not ignoring your point on the need for instruction depending on where the player is on the development continuum.) How do we move the concept from Academia to the laymen (that's me) and how do we get coaches to implement it.
Leahry
Roar Rookie
There's 3 levels of CLA. You manipulate Task, Organism and Environment. Most people only manipulate task. Which if I can quote Frans Bosch who is one of the leaders in this space and has been a big part of Wales' success over the past Decade and was also a key consultant with Eddie Jones in Japan "...Task can only be varied a limited number of times before the practice material becomes forced and meaningless. Varying the environment then offers a solution, by greatly increasing the number of meaningful versions. Changing the organism is still hardly used as a deliberate strategy" 'Task' and 'Environment' outside of the body are used, but what's generally missing is organisation in the body. If there isn't a clear 'End Point' i.e. outcome in terms of the way that the body moves - when players play games or decision-making activities, they aren't forced to make the necessary adjustments in the body from where effective technique will emerge. Key's to all of this are 'Start' and 'End' point. So if we go back to the point regarding "...My understanding of CLA (please correct me if I am wrong) that skill execution is a dynamic system and individuals will perform these skills differently due many factors such as Physic, Experience etc. That skill execution will evolve from playing games, not from instruction." It's not wrong, but the skill acquisition experts in this space aren't clear with it - which may also be part of the reason why it has been a hard sell. Multi-Variant skill sports like rugby - there's often no clear 'End-Point' or 'Outcome' that is meaningful with Skill Execution. As a result if you go to just 'Games-Based' Coaching - 'Task' & partly 'Environment' - because there's so much going on - the body never learns to adjust it's state to be more effective. I.e. adaptable body positions that can react and respond to any situation. Again if I can quote Bosch (and the reason I am quoting him is that he is the only Skill Acq. expert that I have come across that has been able to explain the full continuum). "...The better the body technique, the greater the demands on sensory information (Reading). That is why it is a good idea to keep working on body technique even at top-flight level....Body posture & resulting possibilities act as a filter for what can be observed: you can't see what you can't execute". Further the differences that they talk about need to be within a bandwidth for implicit body learning to occur - if the bandwidth is too big - connections won't be made. Mick states the same thing - "If you don't have the skill - you won't see the option!". To go back to the Punch Pass. There's 'Task', 'Environment' & 'Organism' and it's CLA because in the standing version for instance - with the ball on the outside hip (Start Position) the player can't counter-move the arms to generate lower body generated pass action. Clear 'end point' (Finish Thumbs together hands pointing at target). Now the implicit differences come within the way the body organises to get the execution - because it's got to work out how to get from a point where it can't get power the way it normally does and straight to that finish point & this is where the implicit CLA organism learning specifically occurs. So while the instructions about Start & End point were are generally very explicit it was to generate implicit learning in the body getting the ball from the hip to end point. Now, where the mistake is often made & I have seen this at elite level - is that players just do the standing version of the pass over and over again - then wonder why when they go to a 15 v 15 situation - there's no transfer. Again the difference is too big. So for example if I did just 2 executions of the standing - then moved to 2 executions walking just before my inside or outside foot hits the ground - then jogging, then at full speed timed with time added for passes not hitting the mark or dropped passes etc. Then place it into 3v1 situation where the defender is defending differently every time - before then moving to a game again with the focus on the player being able to pass when they needed to rather than when their inside foot is on the ground (99.9% of passers in world rugby - kiwi's are the only ones that can do it - because the practice it). Then we fast track transfer because each time I change the start point - when to execute while moving - the body has to work out how to organise itself to do it. What generally emerges from this is Co-contractions - which are both protective but also allow the body to react instictively when environment changes. So if I just refer back to Mick's Habit Change (it's largely 'organism' CLA - still has environment and task and these can also be manipulated by changing the weight of the ball etc.). But probably one thing that needed greater explanation in the demonstrations was that you've got to keep challenging it by increasing specificity and by changing the organism so that it's not done from the same 'state' over and over again. The other ways are by using contextual interference i.e. do the standing punch pass - then go to punch wrap (again only few repetitions) then back to walking punch pass etc. etc. Now the key with this is that by going and doing a completely different activity the body's physiology changes - the punch wrap may have pre-fatigued the forearm muscles - so the body's state has changed - so that when you come back to the walking punch pass - the body has to 'self-organise' again to get to the end point - and this is where the learning can occur. You can also go from punch pass to game that emphasises the importance of the punch pass & this is the key. Unfortunately it's a sciencey area so can be difficult to understand and better education particularly for Coaches is needed in this space. But accept for guys like the guys I mentioned above - Peter Ryan (Defence Coach) is another one who is excellent and has conducted some studies with Tim Gabbett on Tackle technique. It's not well understood. But very refreshing to hear guys like yourself and the guys who mentioned it above that are and have moved down this path. Mick when he explains it uses a Cognitive Skill Acquisition Theory - which isn't wrong it's just a different way of explaining it - but probably doesn't go into the intricacies of what is implicitly being developed and doesn't link it to Dynamic Systems. While the Dynamic Systems Skill Acquisition experts - very few have done their research in a Rugby Space which is contextually different to a lot sports that don't have the skill and movement variety that Rugby has. There is who has Coached Ric Shuttleworth - but I find that he confuses the hell out of me and I have a background in this space and I find the Ric doesn't emphasise the 'organism' enough which I think actually contributed to England's performance in the World Cup Final. For example Ben Young's passing action changed completely in the final. Particularly in the instance when he through the ball over the sideline. Which suggests the Choking phenomenon where under huge stress physiology changed and without the body having embedded implicit technique ineffective movement actions where over emphasised. But that's me just joining the dots. The final point is the 'Why' of developing the punch pass. With linespeed defence being so dominant and because most people (do to the running action) will only pass when their inside foot is on the ground. Therefore - they can only pass a certain direction every second step. As a result a player will either pass early or carry. The other reason is if we develop the punch motion - a player can carry the ball in the centre of the body and have all options available - Pass either way - Carry - or kick. The aim then is to get the ball into each of those positions based on the reads/calls within one step. This then provides players with a genuine triple threat and takes away the advantages of linespeed defence. Hopefully that provides some explanation. Cheers Mate NL
Skip
Leahry, I did a few workshops with Mick Byrne and have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I would have thought his approach is the opposite of CLA. Mick was prescriptive, focused on specific pattern movement and practice skill in isolation. e.g His Punch pass drill. My understanding of CLA (please correct me if I am wrong) that skill execution is a dynamic system and individuals will perform these skills differently due many factors such as Physic, Experience etc. That skill execution will evolve from playing games, not from instruction. Damon Emtage was before his time as a coach. He was a devotee of Pier Villepreux , which leaned towards CLA. That is providing context and replicating game situations to develop common decision making. I honestly think that teaching coaches about CLA and how to coach is the quickest way to improve our game. Especially for player enjoyment at a junior level. You only have to look at the success IRFU and Nick Winkelman are having. Keep up the great work
Charlie Turner
Guest
Fascinating read Leahry. There's a lot more to coaching in the modern era than applying methods acquired by rote during an (ex)players career. This article along with your others are well worth bookmarking. Thank's.
Leahry
Roar Rookie
Yep absolutely - Gilbert Enoka (mental skills coach) was a big part of - initially the Crusaders - then the All Blacks. Culture was huge and has since been copied by many - i.e sweeping the sheds after the game etc. Probably the best part of their culture I think was the ability to debate without being insecure and taking it personally. But when they came to a solution - even if there was still disagreement - it was disagree and commit. The other part which is the umbrella vision - better people make better All Blacks! The Coaching group of Henry, Smith, Hansen and Byrne were all very different in personality and views. But they wanted that as they knew the diversity would give them a better outcome. But in order to operate in that environment you everyone has to have high emotional intelligence. This continued after Henry retired and Hansen took over as Head Coach.
Ex force fan
Guest
Spot on Rhys
Leahry
Roar Rookie
Dick didn't retire - O'Neil sacked him apparently at the request of then QRU powerbroker Leo Williams. It was a terrible decision that O'Neil tried to back track on in his biography. But the damage was done. Not sure why Williams wanted Dick out or if it is in fact true as the only record appears to be in O'Neils biography and we'll never know because he's since passed on (Williams). Warren Robilliard continued it at least still with an Australian flavour - but he was forced out around 2010. The degradation probably started around 2005 I reckon - but that's just my opinion - don't have any data to back that up. We lost a lot of IP in this space that wasn't unfortunately bottled - Dick, Boxhead O'Shea, Bob Hitchcock, Alec Evans. Plenty of others that I can't think of specifically at the moment. Then from 2010 it has since just been following World Rugby accreditations to the letter. Unfortunate and sad.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Geez I didn't know that. Think he has gone on to Leicester Tigers now.. The dude is developing quite a rugby CV.
Leahry
Roar Rookie
Yep absolutely - it's a little known fact also that Aled was the Strength Coach at the Brumbies from late 2011 to mid 2012 and the players said they had never felt stronger. Quality guy and a quality operator.
Leahry
Roar Rookie
Fair points mate.
ethan
Guest
The article and now comments section has been a fantastic read mate. We all know the definition of madness, and the state of affairs is worse than even imagined - which was bad to begin with - if Australian Rugby has learnt nothing over the last decade. Keep raising that voice of yours and speaking up. We need it.
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
Great article mate and some really interesting points. I’ll be interested in seeing how the culture of the team comes into it as I think changing the culture has been a great help to NZ. I also think there’s not enough done on the mental skills and especially the skills needed to make good decisions under pressure. Both Richie McCaw and Dan Carter say their game at the top was extended for a couple of years because of them work done in helping their mental skills. I think both of these are areas really missing here in Australia
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
The major strength of NZ Rugby today is its coaching.. Excellence at all levels.. When Jake White announced the inclusion 2006 of Eddie Jones into his coaching staff we all felt a sense of confidence.. Aussie coaches thanks to the legacy of Bob Dwyer in particular had huge be grudging respect here...Im a big believer in coaches and their influence...
PeterK
Roar Guru
Aust had a national coaching set up from 1972-1995 lead by Dick Marks. It was funded by rothmans. Marks retired, Rothmans stopped funding it. J O'Neil after a short time decided to stop funding it and dismantled it and did not replace it with anything. Incredibly short sighted by JO'Neil.
Ducky
Guest
When is it too late to change though Leahry? I think your summation is great but the time to make 11th how fixes has come and gone. Too many fans have been lost and participation is dwindling. The average Australian Super rugby team these days is no better than our worst of previous eras. There are also no marketable players beyond a couple of poached NRL wingers. Cameron Clyne flying all over the world first class paying bonuses to the worst CEO in Australian Sport all while Rome was burning. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Just saying.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
I always saw Australian coaches as your single biggest advantage in World Rugby 80s and 90s….Now your head coach is a Kiwi.. Others caught up Peter or?
Sinclair Whitbourne
Roar Rookie
I found the Palmer interviews quite interesting and I do think it is important to look at what can we measure and how do we measure, but I wondered if this evidently extremely astute thinker wasn't dumbing things down to make an impact. I think cohesion is important but it can also be a negative, as we saw in the decline of the very cohesive Brumbies from 2004 and in the Wallabies from around 2002. Cohesion can also equal echo-chamber, closed shop and closed minds. I did like Palmer's point that changing coaches, changing players is not a solution that tends to work in and of itself and can, in fact, reinforce poor long term performance. Also, cohesion around a flawed game plan can be an issue. I fear that this may apply to Thorn's QLD, whilst I acknowledge the many good things he has done. I would say something similar for Larkham's time at the Brumbies, where I felt they became a caricature of Jake White's exciting team. Still, I do like people such as Dan Palmer, who throw out a challenge to people's thinking. He was a pretty fine scrum coach, too. How are you reading Thorn's QLD side? Hard to be too critical of a premiership winning side, of course - evidence that they are doing a lot of things pretty well, at the least.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Interesting post.. I know that Rassie Erasmus gave Aled Walters the Ex Munster and then Bok conditioning coach with a huge amount of credit for SAs win in the WC.. Absolutely key was Erasmus sentiment.
Rhys Bosley
Roar Pro
Perhaps Thorn knows something that the rest of us don’t, but if not his quote served the purpose of getting his view on the public record. If RA deems the NRC unaffordable, coaches like Thorn will be quite entitled to counter that the high performance outcomes that only extra competitive rugby can bring, unachievable. In other words, if you break it Hamish, it’s yours. Given that all RA need to do is to ignore a bunch of entitled amateur clubs in Sydney rugby and make reasonable governance concessions to a Western Australian billionaire, I wouldn’t want to be them when the “told you so” inevitably comes.
Leahry
Roar Rookie
Hoy, Agree whole heartedly. Rod Kafer tried to re-establish the National Coaching Strategy and even got Dick Marks, Bob Dwyer involved. McQueen and Alan Jones declined to be involved - he presented the strategy to the board and thought it was ratified only to find out that the Head of Community Rugby - who I might add has never played or coached a game of rugby wanted it under his banner of responsibility and campaigned for it to stay under Community Rugby. Rod recognising that he was on a hiding to nothing quickly moved on and out of Rugby. That was in 2018. What has been done since to move coaching forward - nothing - the same World Rugby based accreditation courses that haven't worked for almost 15 years. At least when Warren Robilliard drove Coach Development after Marks - the Strategy was still Australian and still driven by Australian expertise - of which we had a fair bit - particularly at the AIS etc. But since Warren was forced out of the role - we've had nothing but ad hoc strategy and just simply adopted World Rugby Courses.