Some food for thought to the Mtchell knockers

Cape Town - Former England centre Jeremy Guscott believes John Mitchell will be a great asset to the Red Roses.

It appears a foregone conclusion that Mitchell will leave the Bulls, with several reports indicating that he will become England’s new defence coach, bringing a premature end to his tenure at the Bulls as his contract was due to only expire at the end of October 2019. (Reminds one of the huge blunder the hapless Guppves made when Lardy John smth fired Jake Whte!!!)

Guscott was part of the England team when Mitchell was brought on board as forwards coach by Clive Woodward in 1997.

“Mitchell will be more direct than what the players are used to - Kiwis tend not to flower stuff," Guscott wrote via a column for The Rugby Paper.

“The game is very simple to them and having a Kiwi coach will certainly up the skill levels of the players. I remember him going through drills of rucking, body positions, technique - he was very up on that and wanted the players to be the best so it was drill after drill after drill.”

Guscott added that he learnt a lot under Mitchell’s coaching.

“It was physical and intense but he made sure it wasn’t boring.”

According to Guscott, the current England side who are coached by Eddie Jones, lacks intensity.(Oaks, Jones benefited from having the tough Jake driving excellence. Jones has great creativity but lacks top flight discipline!)

“Mitchell will hopefully bring that missing intensity because he won’t allow standards to drop. It will be as intense, if not more so, in training as in a game. That is a Kiwi trait that he can bring to this side so the players will think the game won’t be as tough as training.”

Now 53, Guscott played 73 Tests for England between 1989 and 1999. He also played eight Tests for the British and Irish Lions.

He is well known among South African rugby fans for kicking the winning drop goal in the second Test at Kings Park which saw the Lions beat the Boks 18-15 and clinch the series in 1997.

Everyone knows the bulls modernized their play significantly but it was a work in progress. Mitchell should have been retained for his full contract.

No we see here a blunder like the one at the sharks when lardy John fired Jake.

i suspect for the same reason, the sharks and the lazy bulle hated the tough regimes imposed by Jake and Mitchell.

The Bools scum looked pretty good to me with Schoeman being a real find. Lineouts were fine as well. They lost some close matches and suffered as a result. Played some fine rugby during the season. Lots of promise but now who will they get to coach them. They possibly start again from scratch with a different philosophy.

As soon as the players start squealing its all too tough management fires the coach! Bulle needed to be whipped into shape wi th a tough minded coach supported by management. Ditto Sharks and Jake.

It's interesting to note that Jake was the assistant coach at the Sharks when they made the 2001 Super rugby final. As it was, Straeuli received all the plaudits and was found out. Jake went on to win a junior World Cup, Tri Nations and another World Cup for South Africa. I think Jake had a hand in their success. 

This is actually very similar to Muir in 2007. They hire Campese to coach the backs. They have an unusually effective campaign with an outstanding attack and finish atop the log. Muir receives all the plaudits and is elevated to backs coach under Peter. Campese was frozen out and the Sharks had many years of mediocre attack under Plumtree. 

Mitchell is a HUGE loss for the Bulls. He was implementing a different approach that does not rely on patterns and patterns and patterns and patterns and more patterns. The way South African School boy are coached since day 1. To accomplish that does take time (on average two seasons).

Already noticeable:

1. Improved handling and general skills
2. Improved fitness
3. Improved effort
4. More variation
5. More frequent decisions
6. Less brain-farts
   

1. To identify the additional options on the run
   
2. When to make the decision
3. What decision to make
4. A restructuring of the defence to adapt to a varying attack
5. All of the above requires a change in mindset relating to aspects that were pre-programmed for a period of many years. You will not change that overnight...
   

Those are good points Truth. The biggest gripes I have with Mitch is his awful man management skills. He is too fickle and is too stubborn. There are some aspects of his philosophy I'm not that into. 

I think this appointment with England was an attempt to work his way back into test rugby, perhaps with an eye on life post-Jones. I just can tell see those two meshing under pressure. Both are stubborn one-eyed mules. Both like to dictate to players. It'll be interesting, but I think Mitch had a better thing going at the Bulls. 

Mitch tried to make the Bulls play rugby.

The Sharks were m edia darlings who largely never had to face criticism. Lazy as they were average. Too much player power for too long. The Sharks didn't have the guts to do what the Brumbies did, and they've paid the price for it ever since. 

Mitch is too abstract in the implementation. He can't use what he has at hand, he needs to have everything in place and ready to execute his unrealistic vision. Jake used what was available and made it work. If the Bulls want to improve their skills, there are many other people they can consult. Tim Lane did a better job in a shorter span of time with much less.