In the Times:
"John Barclay: Richard Cockerill made me dread training – he could drag England down
The new England forwards coach has only one gear, and that is aggressive shouting. His toxic approach lost its effectiveness over time, writes John Barclay
John Barclay, former Scotland captain
Thursday November 04 2021, 12.01am, The Times
When I read Owen Slot’s piece in The Times last Friday about what it’s like to work for Eddie Jones, my first thought was how things might develop now that Richard Cockerill is also involved with England. My experiences under the new England forwards coach lead me to conclude that he is cut from a very similar cloth to the Jones portrayed in the article.
At Edinburgh, Cockerill, too, could be “brutal, rude, aggressive” in his dealings with players and staff. There is clearly potential for him and Jones to end up going at each other. I do believe, however, that Cockerill could function well in a Test set-up, where the onus is on delivering extreme detail to very capable players in a concentrated burst.
Over a short period, his methods can be invigorating and sharpen you up. It’s when you are exposed to them for months and years at a time that they drain you and drag you down.
The eminent psychologist Robert Vallerand describes two types of passion: harmonious and obsessive. The former is collegiate and sustainable over time and therefore most often found in teams that repeat success; the latter is usually transactional and characterised by the “brutal” and “pressured”, with any benefits accrued attenuating and often reversing.
As an Edinburgh player, I would pull into Murrayfield each morning, park up, and dread the day that lay ahead. I wasn’t alone. Cockerill, 50, has no gears — his default, and only, approach is to rant and rave every day. He is obsessive. He hopes the players have the mental capacity and resilience to return stronger.
That style had a place, but to me it is a relic. Players are more reflective now; there are enough metrics to quantify their own performance and plenty of coaching opportunities to realise the necessary change.
They do not need a bad cop asking needlessly pointed questions and heaping on pressure; most good players, with the proper coaching, can ask those questions of themselves. They know when they’ve been good, they know when they’ve been bad and they know where they need to improve: if they don’t, they’re probably not right for your team.
I am not advocating some new age “safe place” approach to professional rugby training, but the hairdryer treatment is most impactful when it’s unexpected. When Mike Blair or Gregor Townsend — the present coaches of Edinburgh and Scotland, who are generally softly spoken — read the riot act, you take note. When coaches who scarcely lose their cool start shouting, it’s powerful. Sometimes you do need a bit of a rocket, but when the behaviour is normalised, it loses its desired effect and becomes toxic very soon after. Moreover, I have found that it is much more effective if the upbraiding comes from within the playing group. Good coaches know this.
Cockerill’s role as bad cop was invigorating in the short term but later dragged players down
Cockerill’s role as bad cop was invigorating in the short term but later dragged players down
REX FEATURES
I’m all for a hard environment, an uncomfortable environment where you train like Spartans — spending time under controlled pressure builds resilience and fosters an ability to solve problems. But there must also be a release from pressure, an ability to relax and connect emotionally with team-mates. In that kind of set-up, where there is a bit of trust and players are treated like adults, players will figure out themselves what is required and execute it.
How you are treated off the pitch will inevitably be reflected in how you play on it. If the environment is so suffocating and autocratic that players don’t feel empowered to make decisions, you end up thinking: “What will he want me to do?” rather than, “What should we do?” Sometimes it’s the same thing, but often it’s not. If you have purposefully eroded people’s ability to make decisions, you can’t expect them to think on their feet in the heat of battle.
To me this is best demonstrated by England last year. There is no doubt that Jones, 61, is a great coach — he has made huge improvements with England — but there’s a reason why most teams are now going with a more collaborative approach: you need only look as far as Harlequins’ revival for proof.
As a player, all you want to do is play for your club or country. With this kind of coach, direct questioning can lead to dire consequences, as I discovered with Scott Johnson, the Australian who coached Scotland from 2012 to 2014.
The morning after Scotland had lost 28-0 to South Africa in November 2013, he called me at 7am asking me to come down to the team room. All the coaching staff were sitting in a circle, and he made me sit in the middle while he showed clips of my errors from the previous evening’s match. I had recently had shoulder surgery but had played six games for Scarlets. There was absolutely no doubt I was good to go, but Johnson made a big show of saying: “I’m giving you this opportunity to admit you weren’t fit to play.”
I replied by asking if everyone else was also being brought down to justify their performance, we got into an argument and he never picked me for Scotland again. I didn’t win another cap for two years, by which time Vern Cotter was in charge.
I would dread coming to training under Johnson. It was the worst possible environment in terms of getting the best out of people; very similar to what Dylan Hartley describes in his book when discussing life under Jones.
It is in stark contrast to the culture that Townsend has built with Scotland, where the players feel like the coaches are only interested in helping them become the best version of themselves. There is full and unapologetic recognition that the best way of improving the collective is to invest in the individuals within it.
It is no surprise that the present Scotland squad is demonstrably the most successful of the professional era and much more besides. They are also very happy in their work — and the two are inextricably linked in team environments."
Topic: John Barclay on certain types of rugby coach (Read 879 times)
Always a Wasp