Scotland confirm selection back-up plan for Fiji contest

You mentioned coaches were older around the mid-2010’s compared to the mid-2000’s. Robson was well above the average age you’ve given for those periods even in the 90’s when in his pomp. Also, comparing coaches - and their experiences, achievements - at different ages is unstable. It’s not a valid way to compare and tends to torpedo your own logic when you do compare them on equal terms. I can see why you don’t like doing it.

You still haven’t answered why Kiss could be a risker appointment? With his near 25 years coaching at club, provincial, junior and senior test level? His highly decorated background in Rugby League and the obvious fit that would have for the Aussie national job. You speak plenty but actually say so very little.

Yes, to be fair you don’t seem quite as unstable on this thread as you do on the other!

You’re right that he has kept abreast of trends in the game - arguably he has actually continued to predict trends ahead of them happening - but there’s more to coaching than just that. I wonder if he’d be best off in an analysis or consultancy role?

But yeah, you are right that the hiring boards will learn the lessons - I just think the lesson they’ll learn from the last few years of test rugby is that it is better to appoint younger managers! Obviously if Jones has a resurgence with Japan, and Mick Byrne continues to do a great job with Fiji, then people will learn from that - but at the moment that remains a hypothetical.

Obv the ppl who appoint team managers/head coaches are teh ones who will learn the lessons, if they don’t know them already.

I’m not remotely upset. I’ve even avoided the passive aggression of using emoji’s, like a real healthy adult.

I’ve no problem with you having an opinion! Just not sure why you bothered debating that opinion when you’re so upset by me responding to what you said.

“You’ve missed that Mourinho’s early start in football was as a translator for Bobby Robson (ironically a much older manager at the time!).”

I was actually aware of that. I didn’t mention it because it wasn’t relevant to the fact that Mourinho - aged 52 - had more experience than Arteta does at 43. It also isn’t ironic that Bobby Robson was a much older manager at the time - it actually confirms by point that a lot of the top football managers used to be older than they are today.

“You suggested that Les Kiss would not be suited to an international coaching role because of his age profile…that seemed to relate to rugby”

That did relate to rugby. Let me walk you through the thread…

NB suggested that Les Kiss should become Australia head coach in 2027.

I said: “Given the drop off so many top coaches seem to experience as they get older (e.g. Jones, Gatland) Kiss could be a riskier appointment than you’d think!”

NB said: “Drawing a parallel with the NFL and NBA, plenty of coaches stay well into their 70’s”

I said: “Not all sports are going the same way though” then gave the example of football.

The example of football was introduced in order to make the point that the age profile of managers is not the same in every sport. If you had read the thread you were replying to you would know this!

Personally my opinion is that Earl is a better 7 than an 8. I’ve quite literally no idea why that seems to be such a problem for you.

You’ve missed that Mourinho’s early start in football was as a translator for Bobby Robson (ironically a much older manager at the time!). He started in 2000 aged 37 as an assistant. Arteta started at 37 as a paid up manager. Rather than being a translator, he was Peps understudy. His tutelage belied his young age and gave him a few years under his belt before moving in to management.

You suggested that Les Kiss would not be suited to an international coaching role because of his age profile…that seemed to relate to rugby no matter how unsubstantiated a point it is.

Personally my opinion is that you can’t select players solely on the basis of their individual win rates!

I don’t think the recent failures of Gatland & Jones were due to them being undervalued by their employers or the wider rugby public. Is that what you are suggesting?