JEREMY GUSCOTT
OUTSPOKEN AND UNMISSABLE… EVERY WEEK
THE appointment of Martin Gleeson as England's new attack coach could be a really astute move. Given the impact that Rugby League coaches who have crossed over have had on defence in Rugby Union over the last 15 years it could be a good choice, because it makes sense to have a League mind in attack to try and unlock those same defences.
Australian Rugby League has been considered the best in the world in terms of big defence, but it is also noticeable that some wonderful tries are scored from tight positions out wide that they have worked hard to create.
That was not my way as a player because we were introduced in my career to the thinking of Jean-Pierre Villepreux, the former French full-back who coached Toulouse. He introduced us to the idea that moves that you usually tried in the opposition 22 could be even more effective if you tried them from your own 22 – especially as the other team were not expecting them. He opened another channel of thinking, and hopefully Gleeson will do the same for the current England team.
It will be interesting to see if Gleeson and Harlequins fly-half Marcus Smith can get on the same page, because Smith is much more Rugby Union than Rugby League in the way he plays heads-up rugby. I think that League is more structured, and therefore for England to be at their best, the two main attacking minds must be on the same page. When I was coached by Ian McGeechan and Brian Ashton we all thought the same way in terms of how we could move the opposition around and catch them offguard – and attacking play works best when you have that level of understanding and cohesion.
One thing Gleeson will have to come to terms with is the difference in quality of passing between League and Union. In League you see how much they prize possession of the ball and how precision the passing is, whereas in Premiership rugby you can see how we restrict ourselves in attack because of the lack of passing accuracy.
It is a really important factor, because without quality passing it is very hard to attack well. Execution is everything, and it will be very interesting to see the impression that Gleeson has on the mindset of the England players in attack.
It is hard to believe that England will not continue to be heavily influenced by Owen Farrell, mainly because he is the incumbent captain, and his determination and mental strength should get him back to where he needs to be. The other factor is that Eddie Jones is wholly invested in Farrell, and has been throughout his time as England head coach.
“Will Gleeson find an understanding with Smith or go for the securer option of Farrell?”
It would be good if Farrell can listen to Smith, be open to hearing something new, and adopt something of his philosophy, because England have to recapture what they had in 2016 when they won the Grand Slam and a tour of Australia, and also found again in their run before and during the 2019 World Cup. He has to help them find a blend to marry the bits that made them successful then, with the attacking mindset of the new crop of players Jones is bringing in.
One of the biggest questions is whether Gleeson finds an understanding with Smith, or whether he goes for the securer option of Farrell at fly-half.
If I think of football, rugby, hockey, netball and most other team sports, you are looking to create space, because then you can attack. Essentially you are trying to manipulate the defence and outmanoeuvre it – and the way in which you manipulate a Rugby League defence is very similar to that now in Rugby Union, and the two years that Gleeson had at Wasps will have served him well in putting theory from League into practice in Union.
Gleeson said that Shaun Edwards had a big influence on him coming to Union. They are both from Wigan, and Gleeson says he used to visit Edwards when he was in Wales and watch tapes to analyse ways of trying to outwit defences. Edwards has proved himself multiple times as a defence coach, but I'm sure he could be just as good an attack coach.
I remember saying when Phil Larder first joined England from League that he should have an input into our attack as well as defence, but England were not quite ready to switch coaching roles in the same way that New Zealand did a few years later when the attack and defence coaches swapped places.
As attack coach, it would be intriguing to tap into the mind of a player like Smith, and from my experience the best coaches have been the ones who've listened first and then given you rinse-andrepeat drills – but with variations in pace – which challenge you continuously to adapt to find space and manipulate the defence. Gleeson has talked about wanting England to play with skill, pace and power.
Well, England have all three: the skill of Smith, the power of Manu Tuilagi, and the pace of players like Jonny May, Anthony Watson and Adam Radwan – so he has the tools. Now he has to select the right ones for the job.
What I can say for sure is that if I was playing 13 and had the choice of Farrell or Tuilagi at 12, then I would pick Tuilagi all day long. My feeling is that Tuilagi at inside centre is also a really good foil for Smith, and if you then add a fit Joe Cokanasiga coming off his wing the whole world could open up for England.
However, I could be wrong, because England have been successful with Farrell at 12 – but for me this season Farrell either starts at fly-half, or he's on the bench.
The other newcomer to the coaching team is Richard Cockerill as a forwards coach. I get the impression that he is very much to the point and straightforward as a communicator, and will put huge emphasis on effort and accuracy.
During his time as a player and coach at Leicester they were very methodical at set-piece and ruck and maul, and the emphasis in the forwards will be practice, and more practice, in order to get better.
These days we tend to overcomplicate, and his message will be to work hard on the foundations.
We all like being spoken to in a certain way as players, and coaches usually work out who needs what in terms of carrot and stick.
I particularly liked a no-nonsense approach from coaches who communicate clearly what they want a couple of times – which should be enough – and then you go and practise it.
I think Cockerill's from that school, and to a large extent players will probably have to adapt to him rather than the other way round.
You need a lot of energy, and Cockerill brought a lot of that as a player to the Tigers and England, and will do the same as a coach.
You generally see an uplift when a new coach comes in, and I expect to see the pack perform well and accurately.
Cockerill is hugely competitive, and when you look at what he and Gleeson have to work with in terms of playing ability, there is no reason not to be optimistic.
