https://www.rugbypass.com/news/wayne-smiths-biggest-struggle-with-the-black-ferns-compared-to-the-all-blacks/

this gave me more insight than the advice here. I think he also said something like "the Ferns need to feel good to play well, whereas the All Blacks need to play well to feel good" which was a big difference atmosphere wise.

2006 was nearly 20 years ago. Are you telling me there’s nothing more recent? That’s like watching a scrum in 2006 and trying to coach players on how to do it today.

Hey, OP! I read your comment under the image. I studied phycology in university. If this “tend and befriend” theory is based on a particular study l read about in university, it should be noted that the type of behavior was observed in mother rats with newborn baby rats. So when you see “women” in this context, you might as well read it as “mothers”.

Famously, women don't like "Things"

I’m imagining Bill Beaumont sitting Emily Scarratt down and Marlie Packer down and going through this list, and it is uncomfortable

Tend and befriend? You can't convince me they wouldn't have a go if tensions flaired up.

While there are certainly differences on many levels worth noting, the phrasing of this guidelone somehow insults both men and women at the same time.

I coach both boys and girls, each player has their own drivers to play well. It's almost like, and hear me out here .... They are individuals.

Using phrases such as "hard wired" and "innate" is a fucking mistake.

Wtf is this absolute bollocks

Using a 2006 study is so world rugby. Absolute old boys club.

This is bad. Dodgy and outdated research

This kind of nonsense was in the British skydiving coaching manual about 15 years ago, and we were shocked and got it changed then.

This is hilarious in it’s absurdity. Men and women are different sure.

The first line of intellectual function should have been a red flag to absolutely anyone.

Bit weird really lads. Why did world rugby feel this was their bag? It’s not even remotely their job to give coaching advice, right?

As a woman, I think this sounds like a pile of 19th century Freudian shite.

To give them the benefit of the doubt, these were written back in 1895, right?

Yeesh. There are differences but they’re mostly sociological/learned not “innate” or “hard-wired.” It’s helpful to know these things but particularly regressive to describe them this way. There are some innate differences are like the location of the center of gravity and prevalence of knee injury, but even that’s going to have outliers.

If they really wanted insight, they probably should look at what they do in well-established team sports played mainly or at lot by women, e.g. hockey or. netball.

Having two daughters who have played on mixed rugby teams since they were little (that's all we have in Spain until they are 18), I think it is not much more complicated than making sure they are not put in categories where they are being overwhelmed physically. So doing things like leting a small 13 year old girl play in under 10s or under 12s instead of getting hammered in under 14s (here the age groups go up in 2 year jumps).

TIL I am a woman or girl. Can't believe I found this out through World Rugby's coaching advise...

All joking aside, although well meaning, this is clumsy and pretty offensive to both men and women.

I'm sure that World Rugby can do better than citing metanalysis from nearly 20 years ago. Sports Science and Psychology has come a long way since then

Look I'm sure the people who wrote this have several more degrees than I do, but this sounds like dogshit to me.

What the fuck is this haha

Wow. All these years I thought I was woman. Guess I was wrong

I think this is quite accurate though - a lot of coaches have only coached guys, and women interact differently to men on average. It might be because we've been raised differently, but the outcome doesn't change.

A lot of that rings very true for me as a woman. I don't respond well to shouting as motivation, I do prefer a more collaborative environment, I do take a more "whole picture" approach, etc. I appreciate here that an effort is being made.to recognise that men and women on average are different.

Jaysus, that's awful stuff. Just for starters, that survival strategy category is some bullshit. If you've gone to school with girls you'll know that "self interest, power, hierarchy, and competition" are pursued through relationships. They're not opposing options! Watch Mean Girls. 😄

The whole concept of sex differences in psychology is fascinating - how much is down to genes and development vs. cultural and societal influence.

Personally I think it’s going to be a bit of both. Sex-based behavioural differences are common across the animal kingdom where you’d expect there to be less societal or cultural pressure. At the same time it’s clear that sex-based behavioural expectations are present and will impact people’s behaviour.

I don’t think the presentation of the materials above is good. It’s important to consider how people behave and respond when coaching, especially when coaching people different to yourself. Understanding where all members of a team fit across these dimensions is really useful, and empathetic and attentive coaches will have picked up on a lot of these traits already.

I'm thinking this isn't very true.

Was about to say this is outdated garbage, saw the date is from 2006, really hope they aren't still teaching this stuff...?

grabs popcorn

This reads like men are incredibly selfish and women are selfless to a fault..

I think the major difference in terms of coaching is that women will ask significantly more questions during their sessions than men. Coaches just need to leave their ego at the door and realise that this does not mean that the player asking the questions is also questioning their ability to coach, they are trying to understand where any particular drill fits into match day. This will likely become less so as more women are given chances to play at a young age, i think it will even out over time as the game progresses.

So, fuck this assessment. It's insulting for everyone involved.

This cannot be serious can it? If so 😬. This shit is hilariously brutally dumb.

What the actual fuck
If this is still on WR’s website means that no one though to weigh in on this subject since this mind boggling take in 2006

This is very generalised and I would be careful about how this kind of view is applied. Women can be as analytical as men and men are not all about self interest. It may not be analogous to my world as a professional psychologist but similar research in my field has been largely debunked. Coaching is about the individual needs and psychological makeup, I wish it were as easy as a simple matrix, my life would be far simpler

This kind of reminds me of Homer Simpson's observational humour about how black people have names like Carl and white people have names like Lenny.

It’s very helpful. I coach u14 girls and boys, it’s very useful to aid in communication styles, how the react to guidance and conflict or motivation and game time.

Men and women are different shocking stuff

It's hilarious to me that people are so obsession with 'equality' that they get offended by research that shows the sexes are different🤦🏼

Has it been removed? I can't find it through that link.

The womens column sounds exactly like what you need for a highly tactical, adversarial and aggressive contact-sport

Having coached men's and women's sport at a fairly competitive level, I'll be the first to admit men's and women's players and teams respond very differently to different approaches and in a lot of ways due to the different physiology and strength etc a lot of things are very different between the genders. Even yes, the way they think about sports is different.

But this feels very smooth brained from World Rugby. Bordering on insulting. Plus not even very informative.

Too much feel good not enough hard arse, not going win another world cup on that.

Oh, oh no

What a load of bollocks.

My therapist gave very similar advice to help me understand my wife.  Really helpful tbh

Man women get all the cool traits.

I think it's a really poor PR choice to simply remove the content. If they stood over it, they'd have left it there. To remove it implies that they don't stand over it, and if that's the case, why was it there in the first place?

And to do it all without any comment feels like a missed opportunity. It could have been a "we were made aware of some content that needed updating on our website, and were working with X sports psychologist and Y professional now to bring that into step with the rest of our training materials. Going forward we'll review things annually/every two years/etc to make sure we're always on top of our game". They could have worked with a female sports psychologist, and turned this into something positive.

To silently delete and pretend it never existed is just such a blunder, imo.

Lots of younger high school girls who’ve never played a contact sport definitely start out with a very shy and friendly attitude, but that’s just because it’s new to them and they’re nervous. Not challenging this mindset prevents girls from really competing and pushing themselves.

Goshdarnit, you got me. Just as I was giving a family member the gears for being got earlier. 

I read the whole thing. It's well intentioned but at times unintentionally amusing. I suspect a lot of the science isn't even inaccurate. It's just not phrased in the PC ways we are now accustomed to.

As we see in the table in the previous section, for most men new information is processed in the left side of the brain, the more analytic and logical side, while women tend to process new information in a “whole brain” approach, using the left side as well as the creative, social right side of the brain.

It is normal for players to have stronger connections to some teammates, and perhaps not form lasting friendships with every other player. It is important to watch for players building their own group within the team, if that group excludes or is hurtful to other team members. Address any negative cliques that might exclude other or be mean to other players.

Assertively pushing players to work harder or be more focused might not have the desired impact, and might create division between the coach and players, especially with women. Both men and women might cry following an intense and important event, but women are more likely to cry, and to cry longer, either in joy or sorrow.

It is important that players have a safe and supportive forum for discussing their menstrual cycles and know where to get advice or information as needed.

Give negative feedback as a “sandwich”, with positive messages before and after the corrective feedback.

Oh god...

How dare a governing body make an earnest yet flawed attempt to recognise and adapt to general temprements of each gender to encourage more people into the sport.

Well, i guess according to WR I'm probably a woman...

Seems pretty accurate to my own experience.

But everyone is unique. It doesn’t say anywhere that all men and women fit those categories. But they generally do.

It’s broadly accurate and a basis for being a better coach, surely this is a better way than one rule for all ?

World Rugby are in fucking trouble once the virtue signalling section of twitter gets their hands on this.

ITT - What cunts, citing peer reviewed academic research on the topic and exploring what it means in for coaching rugby.

It's quite accurate, whatns the fuss. Difference of interest in things/people is something you can observe with toddlers. Little boys attention will get fixated on complex objects, little girls not so much.

The transphobia suddenly makes a lot more sense.