Quote: Winslade's Offload "Well I suppose all supporters needs would sit on a line with winning at one end and entertaining at the other. Everybody will think differently. Neutrals of course will not, they will wan't to see entertaining rugby, tightly contested, with a result only known on the 90 min hooter. I think I read an article in the Guardian a few weeks ago about Eddie Jones the Eng. RU coach visiting us to see how their game could be made more entertaining by increasing the number of tries. Despite the big crowds their games bring in for internationals, they are still painfully aware that it needs to be a spectacle and entertaining. So I hope / expect that in any job interview the need to develop entertaining rugby appears pretty high up.
I think if Wane does get the job we have a pretty good chance of success, and I suspect most people on here will feel more bullish than that . But of course as well as 'entertaining but lost', 'boring but won' there is also a third option of ' boring and lost'. But as Oz coaches are probably out at the moment (Covid and cost) that doesn't leave us with many viable options. I think Powell would put us consistently in the top 2-3 simply because he ensures the basic commitment and rugby are professionally delivered. I am not convinced he would win us the GF though. Wane could certainly win it, but it needs to be good to watch for my money.'"
I have never met a coach who doesn't put winning as the priority.
Some like to play attractive rugby as well but it is usually a secondary consideration. Some talk about it just to please speccies and press.
Nearly all supporters just want to win the big games but play lip service to being an attractive side it when the side is a few points up or playing a weak side. Coaches want their side to win. Some sides strength is moving the ball around at pace and some sides strength is grinding it out. Every coach I know plays to his strength. As for discussing "entertaining rugby" at interview ... it might be mentioned in polite conversation.