User avatar
By patgadd
#36674
I don’t like negativity; when one of the usual crew starts moaning on here or on Twitter I usually ignore it, only occasionally rising to the bait and condemning their attitude.
After yesterday’s dismal performance, however, something needs to be said, and it’s this: time for change is a meaningless expression, a weasel phrase that is full of sound and fury and signifies nothing. T K Maxx say “always up to 60% off”. Well, 0% is up to 60%, and anyway, 60% off what?
At the first Meet the Coaches event in the fan zone, JT said that, for example, everybody now knows everybody else’s name, now matter where they are in the hierarchy. An excellent and laudable notion, but how many points does it add to the board?
The next meeting with the coaches was a couple of weeks ago, where the message was repeated along with a chart clearly prepared by somebody with a marketing qualification from Wyre Piddle University. It purported to show the “dark” and “light” areas of something, but I don’t think even JT fully understood it.
Those who attended the two meetings were impressed by the attitude, and genuinely believed that things would start to turn around. I still don’t doubt JT’s intentions, but can’t help thinking of the Emperor’s new clothes. We seem to be back in the same old pattern – how long before the “perennial bottom feeders” phrase is repeated in the press?
I don’t know the answer, but then I’m not a coach. Something is continuing to go wrong; please identify it, sort it and lose the hackneyed slogans.
A38, SixNineOne, Latecomer liked this
User avatar
By TeflonTed
#36681
Which is precisely why I won't join you at these coaches' evenings.

Not good for the blood pressure, heard it all before, and could write the script without attending.

And who is this particular philosopher TK Maxx you are quoting?

Does he pre-date Nietzsche?
User avatar
By patgadd
#37150
patgadd wrote:
Sun Oct 10, 2021 10:41 am
I don’t like negativity; when one of the usual crew starts moaning on here or on Twitter I usually ignore it, only occasionally rising to the bait and condemning their attitude.
After yesterday’s dismal performance, however, something needs to be said, and it’s this: time for change is a meaningless expression, a weasel phrase that is full of sound and fury and signifies nothing. T K Maxx say “always up to 60% off”. Well, 0% is up to 60%, and anyway, 60% off what?
At the first Meet the Coaches event in the fan zone, JT said that, for example, everybody now knows everybody else’s name, now matter where they are in the hierarchy. An excellent and laudable notion, but how many points does it add to the board?
The next meeting with the coaches was a couple of weeks ago, where the message was repeated along with a chart clearly prepared by somebody with a marketing qualification from Wyre Piddle University. It purported to show the “dark” and “light” areas of something, but I don’t think even JT fully understood it.
Those who attended the two meetings were impressed by the attitude, and genuinely believed that things would start to turn around. I still don’t doubt JT’s intentions, but can’t help thinking of the Emperor’s new clothes. We seem to be back in the same old pattern – how long before the “perennial bottom feeders” phrase is repeated in the press?
I don’t know the answer, but then I’m not a coach. Something is continuing to go wrong; please identify it, sort it and lose the hackneyed slogans.
Repeat con brio
User avatar
By TeflonTed
#37155
It’s a common form of therapy to take the issues that are concerning one and note them down. Not in any particular order, and not attempting to find solutions. It is held that the mere act of recording them acknowledges their existence, and provides comfort by the knowledge that at least they are being thought about.

* Our owners have vanished. After an initial pr driven burst of messages and videos they have disappeared. And it isn’t because they’re busy counting their money.

* Our team is grossly underperforming against even the modest potential of the sum of it’s parts. Yes we have 2 lions, yes we have a few Premiership level Ex-international decent players, but man for man across the board our players can’t compete. Searle v Ford…..Joke. Go through the positions and you’ll find a further 14 jokes.

* Where’s Ashton? The excuses are wearing thin.

* Where on earth has Ollie’s mojo gone? He’s certainly lost it.

* What must Sutherland and DvDM be thinking privately?

*Attendances will plummet from current already modest levels. Half the crowd yesterday had arrived via the M69.

* The very basics of the club’s official website are not being maintained. The scores of our last 2 games are still 0-0.

Other that that it’s going nicely. There’ll be an ice rink over the Christmas holidays. Jolly good.

I feel better now.
DaveAitch liked this
By DaveAitch
#37161
How do you get out of a slump? Leicester seem to have found the answer, so why can't Worcester? I think much of the reason is down to reputation. People expected Leicester to rise again, no one expects Worcester to*. The problem, it seems to me, is that the people within the Worcester setup don't really believe Worcester can do it. An air of uncertainty pervades, and the players seem to inherit this, season on season, however good they are when they arrive at Sixways.
So how do you get out of a slump? The winning formula is out there somewhere, and so is Ashton. All you need is a Brian Clough.


* Some will say that Worcester can't rise again as they have never been there in the first place.
User avatar
By patgadd
#37165
Warriors have created an even worse shambles than last year. The RFU has appointed an ex-public schoolboy to chair their Diversity and Inclusion group. World Rugby has delayed over the Erasmus rant until (they hope) most people have forgotten it. Other sports are beckoning me. Tiddlywinks, anyone?
By SimonG
#37169
patgadd wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:07 am
Warriors have created an even worse shambles than last year. The RFU has appointed an ex-public schoolboy to chair their Diversity and Inclusion group. World Rugby has delayed over the Erasmus rant until (they hope) most people have forgotten it. Other sports are beckoning me. Tiddlywinks, anyone?
... and the Cheats are back.

Lower level rugby may well be the answer.
By DaveAitch
#37174
patgadd wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:07 am
Warriors have created an even worse shambles than last year. The RFU has appointed an ex-public schoolboy to chair their Diversity and Inclusion group. World Rugby has delayed over the Erasmus rant until (they hope) most people have forgotten it. Other sports are beckoning me. Tiddlywinks, anyone?
Why should someone who has been to public school be any less able to head the group than someone who has been at school anywhere else?
User avatar
By west brom warrior
#37180
DaveAitch wrote:How do you get out of a slump? Leicester seem to have found the answer, so why can't Worcester?
Leicester have rugby dripping through the veins of the club, they knew why they faltered and they put together a plan that would help them get back up the league which they are currently executing. Our club hasn’t got rugby in its DNA it thought a few flashy Lions signings would paper over the cracks of a lightweight front 5, poor squad depth and a lack of any plan.
By Underdog
#37183
Positive: Bath are getting the treatment from sarries at home and have scored fewer points in the first half than we managed...

At least there's one side in the league potentially as hapless as us.
User avatar
By patgadd
#37186
DaveAitch wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:57 pm
Why should someone who has been to public school be any less able to head the group than someone who has been at school anywhere else?
That's a fair question DaveAitch, and I'll answer it honestly. I believe that the greatest problem with diversity and inclusion in rugby is not religion, sexual orientation, race or religion, but education. There has been a marked improvement since professionalism, but public schools still provide many more rugby players than state schools. It would seem logical to give the chairmanship to somebody with a state school background (for the record, I spent the years normally devoted to education wallowing around in a minor public school).
User avatar
By SixNineOne
#37206
Don’t worry, Ted, Bath will have turned their game round by then…
Bath are a real bogey team for us at Irish. Not only did they nick all our up and coming stars such as Jonathan Joseph and Anthony Watson a few years back (we have long memories), we always seem to draw Bath away as our last fixture of the season when they also consistently manage to beat us without playing well.
By dinogyro
#37217
patgadd wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:03 pm
DaveAitch wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:57 pm
Why should someone who has been to public school be any less able to head the group than someone who has been at school anywhere else?
That's a fair question DaveAitch, and I'll answer it honestly. I believe that the greatest problem with diversity and inclusion in rugby is not religion, sexual orientation, race or religion, but education. There has been a marked improvement since professionalism, but public schools still provide many more rugby players than state schools. It would seem logical to give the chairmanship to somebody with a state school background (for the record, I spent the years normally devoted to education wallowing around in a minor public school).
I agree with this. Rugby wasn't really promoted in state schools in my time (I am 56), although I know grammar schools in my area now do promote rugby. We must be missing a lot of potential fans and players.
By DaveAitch
#37219
Patgadd, thanks for reply above. I won't re-quote it, anyone can read above if necessary.

If someone is going to be appointed just on the basis that he or she didn't go to public school then should we not go the whole way and choose someone who is from, and still in, the most disadvantaged groups in all aspects?
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#37222
dinogyro wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:17 pm
I agree with this. Rugby wasn't really promoted in state schools in my time (I am 56), although I know grammar schools in my area now do promote rugby. We must be missing a lot of potential fans and players.
Must be a geographical thing. I'm 53 and all 6 state schools in my home town played Rugby and had for several years before I got there. (I have no idea if they still do)
User avatar
By patgadd
#37223
DaveAitch wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:12 pm
Patgadd, thanks for reply above. I won't re-quote it, anyone can read above if necessary.

If someone is going to be appointed just on the basis that he or she didn't go to public school then should we not go the whole way and choose someone who is from, and still in, the most disadvantaged groups in all aspects?
Again, you make a fair point, but I didn't suggest that someone be appointed just on the basis of which school they attended; it simply seems rather shortsighted that a question of privilege should be judged by one of the privileged! It's certainly an arguable point, but then that's the basis for this forum.
By BehindThePosts
#37257
This type of discussion is pervasive in many aspects of society these days, including the company I work for. It seems that the default position is that you have to be from one of the affected groups in order to lead the thinking on diversity and inclusion for whatever the subject matter is.

I don't subscribe to this train of thinking. The important thing is to ensure that all voices have the opportunity and space to be heard and given equal weight in the discussion.

In this case, I don't think it matters which type of school the chair attended. 'Privilege' in this case simply means that the person had a chance to play rugby at school. Does that mean they're less able to help state schools play rugby or more able?

For me, what matters is that whoever chairs is passionate about bringing more diversity in rugby, whether that means engaging state schools, minority groups, or something else to bring a more diverse cohort of players and supporters to the game.
SixNineOne liked this
User avatar
By TeflonTed
#37280
On a lighter note, I had no choice.

Being brought up exactly halfway between Swansea and Llanelli didn’t give much option.
By Underdog
#37287
BehindThePosts wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:49 pm
The important thing is to ensure that all voices have the opportunity and space to be heard and given equal weight in the discussion.

In this case, I don't think it matters which type of school the chair attended. 'Privilege' in this case simply means that the person had a chance to play rugby at school. Does that mean they're less able to help state schools play rugby or more able?
Speaking as a chippy state school type, I would argue that the equal weight issue is not helped by having yet another privately educated person in charge of this area of the sport. People with that background (granted, across a huge and varied spectrum) have had their voices heard plenty of times.

As to the second point, I think you're missing all of the other structural issues that allow those students to play rugby at school. The coaching, equipment, culture, tradition, competitive games, and the financial support at home to allow it to happen are all in much shorter supply for state school kids, and all have myriad impacts before they step foot on a rugby pitch.

You're absolutely right that someone privately educated is more than capable enough to inform themselves on those aspects, or even of simply surrounding themselves with people who have hands on experience of it. But, and I think this links to your idea that diversity efforts must be led by the groups most affected by them being a socially pervasive thing, I do think that this sort of affirmative action has a long term benefit - swinging the pendulum back across so that it ends up in the middle later. Maybe that's just me.

Privately, some of you may consider that to be an overly comprehensive answer.
Ospreys

Some info from Osprey supporters club via an excel[…]

Esperanto

Quins (A)

Agree with MW that the second one was pretty margi[…]

Fixture list

Thanks Ted, Ive subscribed