Opinions

It is not an easy job being a professional coach - and especially not when you teams is not performing. Does that though give a coach the right to slam his players publically? Rugby Rugby columnist Jon Harris thinks not...
 
Dean Ryan and Phil Mooney were scathing in their comments about the performances of their charges, Mooney's even being compared to the infamous public attack on Gaffie du Toit by Nick Mallett after a drubbing of the Springboks by the All Blacks in Dunedin back in 1999.
 
Mooney, coach of Super 14 outfit the Reds, at the post match media conference used words such as "disgraceful" and "unacceptable" to describe his team's performance. Ryan appeared to lay the blame for his team's sound beating at the hands of Cardiff Blues in the EDF Cup Final squarely at the door of his players.

He said they had done well to reach the finals of various competitions but lacked the class to take the final step. He claimed to have backed players who when expected to have grabbed the opportunities presented, did not step up and make the grade.
 
What was interesting in both of the attacks is that the blame appears to be apportioned to the players, deflecting any attention of the inadequacies of the coaches. Is that fair? If rugby was as simple as the performance of the players, why then do coaches/managers enjoy such a high profile in the sport? Simply because the players are the instruments of the coach's craft. He orchestrates the symphony, and the end product is his. It is his to bask in the glory of success or to cower in shame.
 
The comparison of rugby to a business is a fair one. There is big money in the game, it has careers hanging in the balance and ultimately the goal is deliver a profit to the investors. The office bearers(management) and employees(players) have that responsibility. Just like in business, if an employee does not make the grade or buy into the vision of the company, then he or she is best suited to seek employment elsewhere. Non-performing staff members are jettisoned and replaced. Growth, development and success are sought at all times.
 
Do we see the CEO of a company chastising his staff at the announcement of the annual results? Is the lack of performance of the company blamed by the headman on his charges or does he publicly highlight the positives, while endeavouring to improve on the negatives?
 
The rantings of both these coaches smacks of pressure. Ryan, like most Premiership coaches is expected to deliver silverware. No trophy equates to a failure. Making a final and losing is just as bad as not even making the playoffs. It is a tough assignment, with high rewards and higher costs for failure.
 
Mooney's Reds are lying 13th and were comprehensively beaten by the struggling Lions. His disappointment at a result that should have been a victory is understandable, but is his attack on the players?
 
The harsh words should be kept for team meetings. The players more than anyone know that they did not perform well. No player comes off a pitch with a feeling of contentment when he has underperformed. The competitive spirit burns too strongly in players of this calibre to accept a defeat, much less one like either of these.
 
To publicly attack the players breaks down trust, and trust is an important ingredient in any relationship. Ryan in his attack said that the players were not good enough and that a clean sweep is necessary to launch another attempt at bringing home the trophies.

How do these players feel? It's unlikely that he will be able to make a clean sweep. Fire 25 or 30 players and get 30 others in to do the job? That's very naive. He'll need to bolster his squad where there are weaknesses, but the core of the team is likely to remain. Yet he has gone on record as saying they're not good enough. Next year he'll be telling them they're the best to get the best out of them. Can they trust him under those circumstances?
 
What is worse is that by blaming the players, the coach has exonerated himself in the analysis. There is a coach or mentor for just about every discipline or area of focus in rugby. Defence, attack, kicking, fitness, strength, even the mental side, it's all covered. Suddenly, in order to save his skin, the players are not good enough.
 
Ryan was quoted as saying "I fear for this industry - it's constantly about the jobs of Directors of Rugby." Herein lies his problem. The Directors of Rugby as said earlier are judged on the success of bringing home cups. Ryan clearly is under pressure and he had a lapse of self-control when he attacked the players. A lapse which cold cost him dearly if he does not repair it soon.
 
Mooney's vitriolic outburst had the same source, pressure. Yet they should be well-versed as coaches in dealing with the media. Do the spin but behind closed doors do what is necessary to correct the situation. The public is generally only interested in results, the reasons for a loss cloud the issue and is seldom seen in the correct context.
 
Both of these coaches let themselves down. They let their players down. Their employers will not terminate or extend their contracts based on what is said in the media. Instead results and the plan they submit will be considered. They erred in their attacks and they probably know it. Not for a moment is it being suggested that they were wrong in their assessments, the players have to shoulder blame, but that is their business, to be discussed within the confines of the four walls they choose.