Graham Lowe: Catch up, slow coach

COMMENT


The Kangaroos' clinical demolition of the Kiwis last weekend raised again the decades-old question - what is it that enables the Australians to shrug off the odd adversity to consistently maintain their position at the top of international league?

Their emphatic 20-point victory in the second Tri-Nations test cruelly extinguished the hopes of ordinary New Zealand league supporters that we had finally matched, and even surpassed, our great transtasman rivals.

So what makes the Aussies so consistently damn good? What enables them to absorb 120 minutes of passion and power from a formidable Kiwi side, and coolly step up another cog to win going away?

The answer lies back in the late 1970s when the Australian Rugby League kicked off a project which has been reaping the rewards of international dominance ever since.

The Aussie test team was always highly competitive and even then won far more internationals than they lost. But in the typical Australian manner, that was not good enough. They wanted total superiority in "their" game, and they set out to do it, not through player improvement, but in a major initiative aimed at coaches.

As a result, they established a new coaching scheme to supply a breed of coach equipped to handle and upgrade all areas of the game.

Every first grade coach in Sydney and Brisbane at the time embraced the revolutionary new scheme. They also began swapping ideas and studying the coaching methods of many European and American sports.

This was a major breakthrough in the development of league coaches, particularly at first grade level. Traditionally they were a secretive bunch always trying to get an edge over rival clubs and very protective of their own ideas. But new ideas flowed right through the game for coaches at all levels.

I was fortunate to be part of that project while coaching at Norths in Brisbane at the time. Like most of the other coaches around then, I could not foresee the enormous impact this coaching scheme would prove to have on the international game in general.

Wayne Bennett is the only coach still in the business from those early days, when he was coaching Brothers in Brisbane. Wayne is still a great advocate for, and example of, the Australian coaching scheme.

This is the major difference between the big three league-playing nations of New Zealand, Great Britain and Australia.

New Zealand has the players coming through the ranks but the same cannot be said for the calibre of its coaches. There is simply no credible coaching scheme run by experienced coaches for league in this country.

Coaches, like players and referees, need coaching and when the NZRL begins to understand this we may see a better development of coaches further down the track.

It's obvious the standard of coaching will have implications throughout the whole game.

New Kiwi sensation Sonny Bill Williams is a great example of what has been missing in the game in New Zealand. I'll wager if Sonny Bill had stayed in New Zealand he would not have developed into the player he is today. The reality is he has been superbly groomed and brought on by the Canterbury Bulldogs' system. I don't see that sort of guidance and support available in New Zealand for youngsters that Australia has had in place for nearly 40 years.

Any young player with aspirations of becoming another Sonny Bill would be foolish to turn down the opportunity to go into the Australian system.

Like New Zealand, the Brits have the players to beat Australia on Sunday morning if they play the right sort of game. But their system is facing a test as much as their test team is. Great Britain have always had tough and talented players but for many years their administrators have let them down.

In fact they have been guilty of adopting TV's Home and Away syndrome and thinking anyone with an Australian accent is better than they can produce themselves.

They have tried hard and spent a fortune trying to copy the Australian game but like the NZRL have missed the point - it's their coaching scheme that has been at fault.

I was surprised Louis Anderson, who was going well, was substituted in the first half even though he was replaced by Robbie Paul.

Paul would have been better suited at halfback playing a little wider where he would have had the opportunity to display his great attacking and kicking game.