Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

What Thomas came away with after first conversation with Diamond

(Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)

It’s for sure going to be a situation to watch unfold with intrigue, the appointment by Worcester of the no-nonsense Steve Diamond until the end of this season as their new lead rugby consultant operating above rookie head coach Jonathan Thomas and below director of rugby Alan Solomons. Sparks could well fly. As it stands, with Diamond only set to start work next Monday, all is very much sweetness and light.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ex-Sale director of rugby has broken bread with Thomas, the pair meeting in person and also holding a number of phone conversations as they lay the groundwork for the remaining winter months and beyond. Publicly, Thomas is portraying an enthusiastic reaction to the appointment.

Diamond’s reputation as a “refreshingly honest and direct” operator are characteristics that the ex-Wales Test back-rower has enjoyed across both his playing and early days coaching career, interacting with names such as Shaun Edwards, Warren Gatland and Pat Lam. And the early impression that Thomas has had off the back of his initial Diamond conversations has left him “really excited” about the coming weeks and months ahead. Only time will tell, though, the success or otherwise of this newly concocted partnership. 

Video Spacer

Guess the celebrity Rose | Karen Carney | England Rugby

Video Spacer

Guess the celebrity Rose | Karen Carney | England Rugby

In the eyes of Thomas, nothing has changed about the role he has been doing at Worcester since his promotion last January to head coach after he was initially recruited during the 2020 lockdown by Solomons from Bristol to be the defence coach. He quickly oversaw a massive overhaul to the playing roster, some 20-plus players exiting last summer and a whole heap of new recruits arriving in.

However, results have been difficult to come, the Warriors winning just two of the 21 Gallagher Premiership matches they have played with Thomas as their main man and the club has now acted, bringing in another layer of expertise by way of Diamond who will pick up the thread following this weekend’s away game at Newcastle.

How, though, did the need for Diamond at Worcester emerge and who made the first move? “Listen, I have got no idea, I don’t know the answer to that question,” said Thomas when quizzed by RugbyPass at his weekly media briefing. “All I do know is I was reporting to Alan and the owners and that was a private discussion that they had, but in terms of how it came about, I can’t answer that. 

“Myself and Steve have got some mutual friends, all of whom speak highly of him, but in terms of personal interactions, no (we don’t know each other). Obviously, I coached against him, but no I haven’t had any personal interactions (until now)… In the short term, he will stay down a few days a week. Steve’s appointment is until the end of the season and decisions will be made in due course.”

ADVERTISEMENT

It was last December when new Worcester recruit Diamond opted out at Sale after a lengthy stint in charge, a need to recharge the batteries at the core of that decision which was made after some bereavements in his family. How has he bounced back? “He had a real spring in his step when I met him,” confirmed Thomas. 

“The thing I came away with from the conversation I had with Steve was he has done his due diligence on the club and he recognises that there is a lot of good people, players and staff, at the club and he recognises there is a lot of good work going on and the biggest thing he said to me is with his experience he feels he can come in and add value. 

“Listen, the margins are small between success and failure. It is never huge and sometimes it is the variety and I guess the diverse characters that go into the melting pot that can help the whole and Steve can bring an approach and experience that can add value to Worcester.”

It was the recruitment of a planeload of South African players that eventually added steel to Sale and helped them up the Premiership table to where they are now a club annually contending to make the playoffs. Might that be a tactic Diamond will try and repeat at Worcester?

ADVERTISEMENT

“Do you want me to answer that? Listen, Steve isn’t in through the door yet so around recruitment he will definitely have input but in terms of our strategy around recruitment, there is not going to be wholesale changes for next season around what we are trying to achieve. 

“In terms of the value you can have in those discussions, myself and Steve along with Alan, we will have those discussions in the next few weeks and behind the scenes, there is already work being done around that. We have got a recruitment analyst in Simon Norris so there is already a lot of work that is going on and Steve coming in is going to be a great asset to assist in that process.

“Every club is different, the dynamic around every club is different so what works for one club doesn’t mean it will work for another club so Steve, when I spoke to him, was very respectful of what is going on and he will come in and just add value to the existing process that is already in place.”

Across the last ten months, Thomas has developed a reputation as an insightful rugby person at his media briefings, talking at length and keenly promoting the Worcester message. He insists the mechanics of his role as head coach on the Sixways shop floor hasn’t changed, that he is still responsible for the preparation of the team, the coaching programme and managing and leading the rugby department with the only difference being that he will now report to somebody different (Diamond and not Solomons).

Will he, though, continue to be the voice of the club or will Diamond feel the urge to court the media and start hosting the weekly Worcester briefings? “We haven’t had any discussions on that. Our strategy around media and our approach is a process that is ongoing and it is a discussion in terms of how we develop and how we deal with you guys is always something we are discussing behind the scenes. 

“That is something, along with all other aspects of the rugby programme and the behind the scenes recruitment, our identity, all of those things are always ongoing. That is something that will be discussed at another time.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 9 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

46 Go to comments
f
fl 24 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

46 Go to comments
J
JW 28 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Generally disagree with what? The possibility that they would get whitewashed, or the idea they shouldn't gain access until they're good enough?


I think the first is a fairly irrelevant view, decide on the second and then worry about the first. Personally I'd have had them in a third lvl comp with all the bottom dwellers of the leagues. I liked the idea of those league clubs resting their best players, and so being able to lift their standards in the league, though, so not against the idea that T2 sides go straight into Challenge Cup, but that will be a higher level with smaller comps and I think a bit too much for them (not having followed any of their games/performances mind you).

Because I don't think that having the possibility of a team finishing outside the quarter finals to qualify automatically will be a good idea. I'd rather have a team finishing 5th in their domestic league.

fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen.


The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime.

46 Go to comments
J
JW 46 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Well I was mainly referring to my thinking about the split, which was essentially each /3 rounded up, but reliant on WCs to add buffer.


You may have been going for just a 16 team league ranking cup?


But yes, those were just ideas for how to select WCs, all very arbitrary but I think more interesting in ways than just going down a list (say like fl's) of who is next in line. Indeed in my reply to you I hinted at say the 'URC' WC spot actually being given to the Ireland pool and taken away from the Welsh pool.


It's easy to think that is excluding, and making it even harder on, a poor performing country, but this is all in context of a 18 or 20 team comp where URC (at least to those teams in the URC) got 6 places, which Wales has one side lingering around, and you'd expect should make. Imagine the spice in that 6N game with Italy, or any other of the URC members though! Everyone talks about SA joining the 6N, so not sure it will be a problem, but it would be a fairly minor one imo.


But that's a structure of the leagues were instead of thinking how to get in at the top, I started from the bottom and thought that it best those teams doing qualify for anything. Then I thought the two comps should be identical in structure. So that's were an even split comes in with creating numbers, and the 'UEFA' model you suggest using in some manner, I thought could be used for the WC's (5 in my 20 team comp) instead of those ideas of mine you pointed out.


I see Jones has waded in like his normal self when it comes to SH teams. One thing I really like about his idea is the name change to the two competitions, to Cup and Shield. Oh, and home and away matches.

46 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Yes I was the one who suggested to use a UEFA style point. And I guessed, that based on the last 5 years we should start with 6 top14, 6 URC and 4 Prem."

Yes I am aware that you suggested it, but you then went on to say that we should initially start with a balance that clearly wasn't derived from that system. I'm not a mind reader, so how was I to work out that you'd arrived at that balance by dint of completely having failed to remember the history of the competition.


"Again, I was the one suggesting that, but you didn't like the outcome of that."

I have no issues with the outcome of that, I had an issue with a completely random allocation of teams that you plucked out of thin air.

Interestingly its you who now seem to be renouncing the UEFA style points system, because you don't like the outcome of reducing URC representation.


"4 teams for Top14, URC and Prem, 3 teams for other leagues and the last winner, what do you think?"

What about 4 each + 4 to the best performing teams in last years competition not to have otherwise qualified? Or what about a UEFA style system where places are allocated to leagues on the basis of their performance in previous years' competitions?

There's no point including Black Lion if they're just going to get whitewashed every year, which I think would be a possibility. At most I'd support 1 team from the Rugby Europe Super Cup, or the Russian Championship being included. Maybe the best placed non-Israeli team and the Russian winners could play off every year for the spot? But honestly I think its best if they stay limited to the Challenge Cup for now.

46 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Jamie Cudmore: I want to help rescue Canada from a 'slow agonising death' Jamie Cudmore: I want to help rescue Canada from a 'slow agonising death'
Search