There has been plenty of talk recently about England’s coaching and management succession post-World Cup. It has taken place informally but the questions raised are interesting when you try to form an opinion on what needs to come after Steve Borthwick. This is where conventional logic and free thinking collide. What emerges must not only fulfil the primary requirement of making England as successful as possible, but must also achieve this within a framework that supports other recognised issues.
You should pick the best person for the job, irrespective of where they come from. This is a simple proposition, but its validity depends on your definition of what is best and that has more facets than you would initially realise. For example, when Eddie Jones was appointed as England’s head coach, there were protestations that coaches with better CVs had been overlooked. This clamour failed to acknowledge that, of all the names touted, only Jones and Jake White, the 2007 World Cup-winning Springbok coach, were available and wanted to do the job. Much of the discussion was otiose because of that simple practicality.
Some will say that already having coached a World Cup-winning team is the best qualification going, but given the rapid advances made by modern rugby, after how long does that seemingly unassailable attribute wane, or does it never go away? Moreover, if you make this the absolute qualifier, how does any talented, modern coach overcome this hurdle? If that were the case, what does it do for the coaching pathway in England? Such a requirement would effectively mean that all English coaching talent would have to move elsewhere and gain success before they became preferred for the top job of their own country.
Whoever eventually makes the decisions must answer what I call the “all in, all out” conundrum. A version of this arises in most sports, as it has become part of English sporting culture. Do you give the head honcho the freedom to bring in all his picks in the other management and coaching positions? There is a lot of force behind this approach because who would want to be judged without having full control over their operation? On the other hand, this method is costly because you must deal with redundancies and new contracts. In big business you do not get rid of the whole board and senior managers just because you get a new CEO. Those further down the structure would argue that it is unfair to penalise them – why can the new outfit not simply accommodate a person who is doing their job well?
Whichever route you take on “all in, all out”, the results are uncertain. Sometimes a totally fresh approach can invigorate a squad and every coaching regime’s effectiveness has a natural time limit, after which it shows diminishing returns. Alternatively, the lack of continuity regarding squad contact can remove familiar anchor points, not just in terms of the tactical approach to the game and training, but also regarding the emotional resonance within a squad. Good coaches need to be effective relationship managers if they are to have anything other than short-term success. Ruling through fear, and the “Great Man” theory of leadership only works in restricted contexts. Like it or not, modern players are different and respond differently.
The list of conundrums to solve is too long to set out every nuance, so I will point out a final consideration – one that is central to every coach’s journey. At what point do you decide that a unit coach or an assistant coach is ready to take the jump to being in charge of the whole shooting match? Every successful manager or coach has faced this issue on their ascension to the top of their profession, but neither they nor the people who appointed them could be certain that they were ready to take that step. There is simply no way to solve this problem without a degree of unevidenced faith.
Andy Farrell, John Mitchell, Ronan O’Gara and Phil Dowson will come up in discussions, as will the cases of Lee Blackett, Sam Vesty and even Stuart Lancaster. Whoever is chosen, I believe that two central tenets of management and coaching must prevail. First, the job of selection is far more important than any tactical acumen. Secondly, both northern and southern hemisphere input is required in the management and coaching teams.