England? What Now?

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:24:14:58:43 by Stuart Anderton.

Find the best coaches in the world, leg them decide. Don't shackle them with dictates like we need this type of second row or that. That would lead to a situation where you play hooper OR poecock just because it is written.

Good coaches know their rugby and don't need a set of rules that are well meaning but inflexible.

Read it again Dan -that is my advice to the Elite Director & coach. Of course they can choose as they wish.


PG

Don't let Lancaster anywhere near a playing team, get one of your list Baxter for example to work with World class head coach and to apply that to Saxons use Saxons as a bridge for coaches as well as players.

Quote:

Huxster
Don't let Lancaster anywhere near a playing team, get one of your list Baxter for example to work with World class head coach and to apply that to Saxons use Saxons as a bridge for coaches as well as players.

Oooh, I like that idea Huxster, gives them a flavour of the difficulties of international selection such as limited time with players, melding of different playing cultures without the attendant pressures - I'd add that they are given the brief that mistakes are both expected and welcome in the sense that they learn form them.

Good article, I agree with a lot in it.

If there are changes in management or not, I would like one thing to be taken forward over the next 4 years - a clear game plan in how the team is set up.

The head coach needs to know exactly the type of players he wants in each position to achieve the game plan they have set.

Test matches should not be used to try an find a game plan that suits. The coach should know what they want and how they will go about it.

Fine if you need to chop and change personnel to work out those individuals that can deliver the game plan and handle the pressure. These experiments are a necessity, just not during a tournament that you are targeting.

I despair at the number of times one personnel change alters the balance of; say a backline, or 8-9-10 connection. This shouldn't be so.

I feel we over complicate it with England.

Believing we have all these fantastic players that can alter their playing style to suit Plan A, B and C whenever we choose. Combining the variety of our club sides into one National side.

Plan A though is sometimes not concentrated on enough, mixed messages to players and muddled selections need to be eradicated.

I as a fan just want to be able to invest in England and get on board with however they chose to move on as a team, warts and all. Without worrying what is going to happen to our style and team selections one game to the next.

We do it with Bath, as amazing as our game style is, we know this opens us up to being picked off if we are not accurate enough. This is risk I buy into. I back our coaches and players as the game plan is clear.

I want to do the same with England.

Problem with the Saxons is they (barely) have one game a year at the moment.

Sounds like a plan

Here is a historical perspective from Dean Ryan:

[www.theguardian.com]

Agreed Hasta, but when they had meaningful fixtures each year they were a hatchery for future internationals - Thompson, Sheridan, Tait, Lewsey to name a few who played in RWC Finals, got their first representative starts in their matches.


PG



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:08:08:39:01 by P G Tips.

Have to agree with a majority of the article. Much has been said about replacing the current coaching team with candidates from around the world.

In order to do that the imposed criteria such as am English coach would have to be removed.

That means the current RFU structure has to change to facilitate that.

Is that a practical possibility, if not then a sensible outline for the future as outlined above falls at the first hurdle?

I would strongly buy into the last para, the RFU not the coaches should be developing basic skills like throwing, catching, mauling and scrummaging.

THE RFU should also be thinking out of the box, why not examine martial arts where standing in a strong stance feet apart are a basic skill, then deliver that to fast athletes to produce an English 'fetcher' like Hooper or McCaw.

We need a vision for English rugby from the RFU and a coaching team to deliver that vision on the field.

When was this criteria of only looking at an English coach put in place?
Is this why the short list 4 years ago consisted of 2 overseas coaches and 0 English ones?

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

It's not a written rule but a preference as I see it, presumably post 2011, it's also not rocket science to project that the recent reaffirmation of the 'players abroad policy' looks hypocritical if you pick a foreign coach.

A month ago Ian Ritchie stated he would shoulder the blame, so perhaps a non-english coach is on the cards if he goes.

Maybe we could get the Saxons playing the Churchill Cup again? Only this time get Georgia and Romania involved.

I still don't see how the short list from 4 years ago of Kirwan, Mallett and O'Sullivan means that there is any sort of policy of requiring an English head coach - Burt wasn't even on the short list before being appointed last time - he was just the cheap and easy option as the caretaker.

I also fail to see anything hypocritical about the non-selection of overseas based players to protect the Premiership; and the potential selection of a non-native-but-based-in-England head coach.

If we were refusing to pick non-native-but-based-in-England players, then that would be a difference matter; or for that matter if we were willing to pick a head coach who would base himself overseas, regardless of his nationality.

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

Simple answer - please name a foreign England coach.

Its there, but no-one wants to admit it.

A policy doesn't draw up a shortlist that ONLY includes foreigners.

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

I fully understand your point but doesn't the fact that they appointed someone not on that short list tell you something. I am not saying it is right, we will see, obviously the RFU are waiting for everything to die down before even commenting.

Shipwrecked

I think in the Lancaster case they saw two reasons:

* he was appointed as caretaker and got 4 wins, so they thought his system would work
* he was familiar with the development system, so knew all the potential future internationals in the queue (J Mallet admitted as much)

I doubt it had anything to do with "Policy"


PG



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:08:17:03:00 by P G Tips.

"he was familiar with the development system, so new all the potential future internationals in the queue "

I did wonder if that was part of his problem? He made decisions about the players based on what they were when not fully mature? Anyone's who has coached age group rugby I'd guess can see the danger there?

I'm not the only one to think there is a hidden agenda. How England can rebuild after the RWC

Maybe Dan, but I would count a number as successes - Brookes, Launchbury, Ford, Farrell, Watson, Joseph, Nowell among them.

Indeed, given that England won 3/4 in each of his 6N there were obviously plenty of good players fielded. The two big questions are: why could England NOT win a 6N and: after a very promising 2015 6N, why did the team fall so badly from the levels of February/March?


PG



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:08:21:21:58 by P G Tips.

What was promising about this years 6 nations?

Let's assume a victory over Scotland and Italy (Sorry Rampant). We lost to Ireland. We won one half against Wales, the other half we were poor.

The France game was good, but I think that's as much down to ditching the game plan and having to go for it.

We were patchy at best.

"Maybe Dan, but I would count a number as successes - Brookes, Launchbury, Ford, Farrell, Watson, Joseph, Nowell among them. "

I'd be very surprised if most of those hadn't made it anyway. Maybe not Nowell, but I think you're pushing it to call him a success. I think we've hampered Ford's play internationally rather than encouraged it and we dropped him when it mattered anyway.

Actually Dan I did not call him a success -it was the players that I named as successes.

I was answering your suggestion that he went wrong in making decisions about the players "based on what they were when not fully mature".

I do not think that is where he went wrong. Selection for specific games and particularly for the two big ones of this world cup are definitely on the charge sheet as faults in my opinion (as indeed is the balance of the World Cup squad). I do think though that the majority of the players he has chosen for England have been good players, but that his tactics have in many cases not been either consistent or the right ones for the occasion.


PG

Sorry, I can't see the difference between calling someone a success and naming a player as a success?

Dan

To help you understand, I did not say Lancaster was a success. I will quote again what I wrote:

" I would count a number as successes - Brookes, Launchbury, Ford, Farrell, Watson, Joseph, Nowell among them."

I was referring to the quality of the players.

Again - my argument is that his choice of players for the squad was not why he failed. How does that equate with calling him a success?


PG

I wasn't taking about Lancaster, nowell I'd say is a bit questionable as a success.

All very interesting chaps, but having read this mornings news with the details of Farrell's contretemps in the tunnel at half-time during the Oz match (where the Referee had so step between Farrell and the official) and Rowntree also making comments to an official - any sort of suggestion that these two could be anywhere near England from now on should be dismissed. Little wonder they have a ban today. They let their players down badly. What goes round comes round!

That Jonny Wilkinson has had his customary good World Cup. I wonder if he can be persuaded to get involved. Really talks sense.

Dilly dally hit the nail on he head very hard in fact.

After next weekend, England will be joined on the sidelines by France, Argentina, Scotland and Wales.

Their tournaments will have consisted of:

France beat Italy, Romania, Canada

Argentina beat Namibia, Georgia, Tonga

Scotland beat Samoa, Japan, USA

Wales beat England by the odd penalty in 7, Fiji by a whisker, Uruguay and should have beaten Australia in much the same fashion as England should have beaten Wales.


Will any of them be entitled to claim to have significantly outperformed England at the tournament?

If by some miracle, they are joined on the sidelines instead by NZ and/or South Africa, the record will show:

NZ beat Namibia, Georgia, Tonga, Argentina
SA beat Samoa, USA, Scotland

Same question applies.

Ireland yesterday were absolutely incredible. They and Australia, will, by the time the tournament is reduced to just 4 teams, be the only ones to have been faced by, let alone surmounted, more than one genuine challenge.

But it's no wonder the rest of the world thinks England is so arrogant - the fact that we are about to rip everything apart again, based on the fact that, for some reason, we should have won games against two teams ranked higher than us in the world, and against whom we have historic win/loss ratios of 50% or less.

An excellent sense of perspective there Opti, yet I still think that change will be needed as an outcome of our failure.

That is the opinion of one who thought (until this summer) that Lancaster was -on the whole- going in the right direction. I am particularly concerned by & perplexed at the drop in effectiveness of England's pack.


PG

Quote:

Optimist
After next weekend, England will be joined on the sidelines by France, Argentina, Scotland and Wales.
Their tournaments will have consisted of:

France beat Italy, Romania, Canada

Argentina beat Namibia, Georgia, Tonga

Scotland beat Samoa, Japan, USA

Wales beat England by the odd penalty in 7, Fiji by a whisker, Uruguay and should have beaten Australia in much the same fashion as England should have beaten Wales.


Will any of them be entitled to claim to have significantly outperformed England at the tournament?

If by some miracle, they are joined on the sidelines instead by NZ and/or South Africa, the record will show:

NZ beat Namibia, Georgia, Tonga, Argentina
SA beat Samoa, USA, Scotland

Same question applies.

Ireland yesterday were absolutely incredible. They and Australia, will, by the time the tournament is reduced to just 4 teams, be the only ones to have been faced by, let alone surmounted, more than one genuine challenge.

But it's no wonder the rest of the world thinks England is so arrogant - the fact that we are about to rip everything apart again, based on the fact that, for some reason, we should have won games against two teams ranked higher than us in the world, and against whom we have historic win/loss ratios of 50% or less.

hmm Optimist, looks like you are drifting back to the dark side

"mm Optimist, looks like you are drifting back to the dark side"

Ha, ha. I just feel honour-bound to fight to the bitter end having nailed my colours quite so unequivocally to Lancaster's mast.

If the RFU can manage an orderly transition to a nailed-on, A-list head coach I'll regard that as progress.

If, however, we end up with a 2,000 page review, Lancaster going, and then a messy period of courting a broad list of B-list possibles, I'll regard that as a waste of time.

If anything, I think they should give Lancaster another 6N, with a view to looking at a more gradual evolution towards the next WC cycle. As Cheika has proved, a genuine A-lister doesn't need 4 years anyway.

Right, but we *should* have beaten at least one of Wales or Australia at home. And, while they're both ranked above us now, they certainly weren't at the end of the 6 Nations (England were 4th, Wales 5th, Australia 6th), i.e. the last 'proper' game before the RWC. It's not like we lost to two teams miles above us (although Australia probably actually are).

The nearest I got to 'putting money on England' was after the first NZ summer test last year when, against every conceivable odds, we looked the better team for 65 minutes (that sounds strangely familiar!!) I went ahead and bought QF4 tickets. Funnily enough, that series, which started so promisingly, was the point at which Lancaster got himself in a muddle. Christ - if only Twelvetrees' offload had gone to (an England) hand!

Quote:

Optimist
The nearest I got to 'putting money on England' was after the first NZ summer test last year when, against every conceivable odds, we looked the better team for 65 minutes (that sounds strangely familiar!!) I went ahead and bought QF4 tickets. Funnily enough, that series, which started so promisingly, was the point at which Lancaster got himself in a muddle. Christ - if only Twelvetrees' offload had gone to (an England) hand!

Until very recently Australia were a bit like England, good in parts, didnt play a full 80 minutes, made stupid errors. Then they got a new coach and they have been transformed.

Admittedly they have got a nicer distribution of older and younger players than England, but Cheika has stormed ahead whilst Lancaster is @#$%& around and going nowhere.

I didnt think it was possible to do that so quickly.

I know what you're saying, but that seems like focusing on the backs problem again, when it's really the rapid regression of the pack that's been the problem.

And, well, I also have two tickets for QF4, so I feel your pain

"I didnt think it was possible to do that so quickly"

One of the reasons why England might benefit from leaving SL in place for another 6N, whilst having some very discreet discussions with an identified A-lister or two. Lancaster himself would understand perfectly well that he'd be on a final warning, so he could hardly complain if contingency were being organised.

Perhaps it's not realistic to have those discussions. These guys - by their nature complete egomaniacs - can't seem to help themselves from telling the media that they've been tapped up, even when they haven't!

THe pack has a lightweight at 2 and at lock to make up for 2's throwing in, Selection !!!!

Quote:

Huxster
THe pack has a lightweight at 2 and at lock to make up for 2's throwing in, Selection !!!!

Agreed. The knock-on effect of Hartley's exclusion (whether you think it was the right call or not) has perhaps had the biggest impact on England's WC. I can imagine the logic running through the selection meeting going along these lines:

Youngs is next in line, but he needs Parling for the lineout to work so let's sacrifice Big Dave's ballast (even though Youngs is a lightweight srummager). Webber is the only other available hooker with some international experience, so let's have him in as back-up even though he's completely out of form. We'll pick George as he's throwing well, scrummaging solidly and tearing it up in the loose in the AP...but we won't play him because he doesn't have experience and it would send out the wrong message to Youngs.

It feels as if all our subsequent problems have stemmed from the woeful front five platform.

The Jamie George thing probably annoys me more than any other selection point at this RWC. He should have been benching behind Youngs - and given the opportunity to come on and influence.

It seems clear that they had no plan for what to do if JJ got injured and spent so much time panicking about the change to triple-bosh that they forgot to focus on the poor performance of the pack.

Quote:

hasta
Right, but we *should* have beaten at least one of Wales or Australia at home. And, while they're both ranked above us now, they certainly weren't at the end of the 6 Nations (England were 4th, Wales 5th, Australia 6th), i.e. the last 'proper' game before the RWC. It's not like we lost to two teams miles above us (although Australia probably actually are).

On 13SEP2015 (immediately before the start of the RWC), the top 5 IRB World rankings were:

1 New Zealand 92.89
2 Australia 86.67
3 South Africa 85.15
4 England 85.04
5 Wales 84.63

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:13:03:28:25 by joethefanatic.

Any head coach should not be hands on, they should be setting direction and strategy. The specialist coaches below should be setting the tactics and coaching the style of play to achieve the goals. I think Lancaster should stay but the coaching team below him needs to be much more experienced for England to be successful. The question then is do we stick with what we've got and let them learn to win or do we sack them and buy in the experience we need.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

If Lancaster goes, then I can only envisage Catty surviving. If Lancaster somehow survives, then:

I think Farrell has to go irrespective of what happens above him, and even irrespective of what feedback is given by the players. The Ford/Farrell fly-half debate is so fundamental, and symbolic, to the direction that England go in and is such a genuine/live choice between two brilliant - in their own ways - fly-halves, that it's just not acceptable to have even the vaguest hint or possibility of self-interest.

Nobody disagreed very much with the selection of the forwards, so those problems come down squarely on the way they performed. So it's goodbye to Rowntree.

Catty's position, in my view, comes down to the feedback from the players. It's practically impossible to disentangle his ability to coach from the other factors at play. I find it hard to believe that his vote in selection meetings would have gone for a Farrell/Burgess/Barritt midfield - then again, if that's the case it's no good arguing 'my voice wasn't heard' - make it heard. (All complete conjecture, obviously).

Selection's an interesting thing, I really (even with hindsight) don't disagree with much of the 31. The problem was putting them into the 15 and 23.

There should be a complete clear-out of all four unless there's clear evidence that they can add value and work under the new coach. As much love as I have for Catty, being slightly less worse probably isn't good enough.

"Selection's an interesting thing, I really (even with hindsight) don't disagree with much of the 31. The problem was putting them into the 15 and 23"

I'm the same there - but i'd definitely put some hindsight into action and swap Goode out for Daly. Watson and Nowell provided ample full-back cover and Goode was never going to win us anything. Daly would have given us JJ like-for-like cover .... albeit entirely unproven at Int level.

One of the things that I think England have to do moving forward is to stop treating the likes of Italy, Samoa, possibly even Scotland, with quite so much respect. We always seem to pick our strongest teams for these games, rather than using them as an opportunity to learn something about, and give experience to, back-up players. This is something that NZ have no qualms about doing, and might have meant that Daly, or more obviously Slade, had dipped their toes in Test match waters ahead of the WC.

I was fine with Slade as the JJ replacement rather than Daly. It's just England decided not to trust him. I agree that Daly's a close like-for-like (if you want to not change your game plan). It's clear that Lancaster didn't trust Watson/Nowell to cover fullback at int level. I can understand that. I don't think Goode's that bad either.

Agree with all your points wrt Italy/Samoa/Scotland. Robshaw played all those games too - would have been a perfect time to try Kvesic/clark.

Possibly why we got second place 4 times instead of say a mix of results including a 1st

"Robshaw played all those games too - would have been a perfect time to try Kvesic/clark"

A Lancaster shortcomings was that he did sometimes seem to be a bit worried that, for example, resting Robshaw would show him something that he didn't really want to know. Same applies with not starting Ford/Slade/JJ for the Uruguay game.

Lancaster was wedded to Robshaw.

A few suggestions from a kiwi can be found in this open letter to the RFU and England fans

I really hope the French do them on Saturday...

Adopted players: 24/25 J Bayliss; [24] O Lawrence; [23] J Cokanasiga; [22] M Green; [21] A Watson; [20] T Faletau; [19] M V Vuuren; [18] T Faletau; [17] D Denton; [16] H. Agulla; [15] L Houston; [14] W Spencer; [13] F. Louw

Family . Community . Nation - [sdp.org.uk]

My mind's been going places without me lately - Bushfire The B52's

That 'open letter' is a subject of its own thread, Clarkey!

And very funny it is too. What would be even funnier, however, is the possibility of Wayne Barnes to take charge of NZ France rematch?

Full of lots of reminders of why we English aren't the only complete kn0bs in world rugby!

Quote:

Huxster
Lancaster was wedded to Robshaw.

Wow! That explains a lot

Yep - it's true. I was best man!

Quote:

Optimist
Yep - it's true. I was best man!

Not quite accurate - they actually managed to get Slammin Sam in to perform the role at short notice having heard about the brilliant job he'd done as godfather at a christening...

That's a complete myth Foot Up. The roles of 'best man' and 'godfather' are entirely different - there is no way that even Sam would have been able to adapt from one to the other in that timeframe.

You could always play Georgia and see if you can beat them.

Then take it from there.

I imagine a SH coach might help.

So Joe Schmidt. Not such a genius after all. Then again if England had lost Johnson, Wilkinson and Back in 2003, we'd have lost to Wales and it would be Clive who?

Maybe. To be honest the 2003 team went through a good many years of success, did they really never have any injuries to key players?

Quote:

Optimist
So Joe Schmidt. Not such a genius after all. Then again if England had lost Johnson, Wilkinson and Back in 2003, we'd have lost to Wales and it would be Clive who?

Good point, so much revolves around often just one result, does Ireland's loss, (when injury depleted) make them or Schmidt a bad team/coach. England's win in 2003 was a fragile one as evidenced by their post world cup form.

Recent events, just seem to reiterate how much luck plays a part when it gets to within a few points!

Their post-WC form was with basically a different team though.

Agreed Hasta, and that sort of reiterates my point.

Coaches have a narrow potential window of success.

I was struck by a discussion involving Xavier Rush about the setup in NZ.

The whole setup in NZ is centred on rugby from the bottom up, because the NZ union have control from the top to the bottom, everyone is coaching and playing to the same ultimate aim from start to finish. In fact it it so rugby orientated that according to Rush "they try for 5 years to see if kids can make it in ruby and if they can,t they go and play football"


I have been critical in other posts about the RFU and it's handling of the Lancaster situation any one who thinks a change of coach will change England's fortunes might be in for a disappointment, Don't get me wrong a top coach might win us the 6N a slam and even the RWC but tinkering at the top won't solve the problems at lower levels and it certainly won't solve anything long term.

In fact if a system had been in place in the first place then we might have had succession following 2003, in fact there is an argument that could be made that with a system the following coaches coaches might still have had success, after all were they all that bad?

1) Ringfence the Prem
2) Get coaches to coach skills rather than power
3) Improve pathways and links into schools/junior clubs

Simples

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

None of those things seem like trivial things:

"1) Ringfence the Prem "

never been convinced why this will help?

"2) Get coaches to coach skills rather than power "

Surely a balancing act that's hard to get right? we might need to shift in one direction by we need to be careful, its not like we looked massively more powerful than anyone.

"3) Improve pathways and links into schools/junior clubs "

Is that really simples? If so, people should be shot for not doing it.

Dan

"2) Get coaches to coach skills rather than power "

Surely a balancing act that's hard to get right? we might need to shift in one direction by we need to be careful, its not like we looked massively more powerful than anyone

Fair point.
Surely one of the (many) burning questions is why a pack which dominated all but Ireland in 6N 2015 were so lacking in dominance in the RWC? They were mostly drawn from the same group of players!


PG

Quote:

Rampant
1) Ringfence the Prem
2) Get coaches to coach skills rather than power
3) Improve pathways and links into schools/junior clubs

Simples

1. Don't. Just don't.

2. Didn't notice too much lack of power from Nonu or Savea.

3. Simples? Don't think so.

4. Get Eddie Jones.

5. If 4 isn't possible, go back in time 4 months; give Dylan Hartley one more 'last chance'; have a hooker who can scrummage and throw; pick a 2nd row who can scrummage; field an England team that dominates set-piece, dominates possession, dominates territory, wins penalties galore; beat Wales; grind Australia into the ground with all of above and win by a 50-metre Owen Farrell penalty in the last minute; accept 'free-pass' to final via Scotland and Argentina; lose to New Zealand; think to ourselves...'well that wasn't so bad'; praise Lancaster with the caveat that we'd actually really like to have beaten NZ too; hold a discreet review of everything concluding that SL needs to freshen up his coaching team by replacing Rowntree with Borthwick and Farrell with Shaun Edwards who will both whisper in SL's ear 'the culture is fine, let's develop a nasty edge of ruthlessness'; win 2019 World Cup.

Simples.

Might then have lost to Argentina Opti!


PG

Personally I disagree withy ring fencing the Premiership, as the potential to drop out adds a certain spice to a season, makes clubs try harder and improve, and of course gives those in the Championship and below the opportunity to better themselves and aspire to reaching the top, ala Exeter for example.

They have proved by developing their own players and building on that initial success with an attack minded, running game, with few expensive 'stars' what can be achieved. and rightly so if any Premiership club is not able to perform at the highest level. IMO, the threat of relegation means every club in the league is looking to improve and grow both on and off the pitch. No one can afford to stand still and should strengthen the league.

Strength and power is important but not to the detriment of basic skills, which IMV have deteriorated in the NH for some time.

Better coaching at schools and at junior club level is also badly needed.

If we had a team that dominated set piece and possession, why would we be getting rid of Rowntree?

1) Ringfence the league - to encourage players to attack and be experimental rather than defend and be scared to lose. Allow clubs to invest in infrastructure, youth and local talent.

Its worked with Super Rugby and its working with Pro12. My opinion will always be a ringfenced league will benefit rugby in England.


2) Skills v Power - Daly, Wade, Slade are examples of players that should be in England's 1XV. Amazingly skilful Kids are being dropped in favour of big brutes instead. A agree a balance is needed, but most of England's forwards have hands like feet

3) Pathways - links into point 1

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

I'll get back to you on that last week hasta.

Daly over JJ? Not saying he shouldn't be around...

1) Ringfence the league - to encourage players to attack and be experimental rather than defend and be scared to lose. Allow clubs to invest in infrastructure, youth and local talent.

Pretty much every year (excepting Exeter) the team from the championship goes down, sometimes its between 2 teams. Do you really think that the likes of N'hampton, Leicester, Sarries and Bath, and probably the next 4 from last year are mainly driven by fear of relegation?

Personally I dont care, I quite enjoy watching France and England with all their money and players getting ripped apart by skilful teams.

Nonu and Savea have both skills and power. Barritt and May have neither..

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

"1) Ringfence the league - to encourage players to attack and be experimental rather than defend and be scared to lose. "

So, because they are afraid to lose they play less effective rugby? That makes no sense. Even if it did, do ring fenced leagues really say "Go out there, throw the ball about, it doesn't matter if you lose, we're nowhere near the top?" and if they do you we want that?

"Allow clubs to invest in infrastructure, youth and local talent."

Organizations need to invest in their infrastructure. If they are not because of fear of failure then they are on a loser to begin with. Do you think we are not investing in these things?

"Its worked with Super Rugby and its working with Pro12."

Has it? The SH is undoubtedly stronger than the NH, but it seems a stretch to put that down to ring fencing. Its not like that is a new phenomenon.

It's fine if you don't care, but then don't post about it. Some people might by into a notion that would leave us poorer and for some very nebulous benefits, if any.

In terms of the relegation/expansion point. As of next season Super Rugby will have 18 teams, up from 10 on professional inception.

Glad to set aside our SL differences Dan and say, 'I wholeheartedly agree with every word of that'!!

No point going into the whole relegation debate again, but I think we can agree that removing the threat of getting relegated can help foster clubs playing more expansive rugby. Newcastle last year for example.

If you look at SuperRugby, the Highlanders bounced around the bottom of the league before developing a team that won them the title a few years later. If the league had relegation, that would never have happened.

Remove the threat of relegation from the money men and they invest more in infrastructure.

Relegation and Promotion is exciting, but it doesnt look like its helping the richest rugby nation in the world..

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

"I think we can agree that removing the threat of getting relegated can help foster clubs playing more expansive rugby."

nope. By expansive you seem to mean poor.

"f you look at SuperRugby, the Highlanders bounced around the bottom of the league before developing a team that won them the title a few years later. If the league had relegation, that would never have happened. "

you mean like at saints? Even Quins didn't seem that badly harmed.

"Remove the threat of relegation from the money men and they invest more in infrastructure. "

I'm sure they'd love the threat of failure removed, but life isn't like that. at least it shouldn't be.


"Relegation and Promotion is exciting, but it doesnt look like its helping the richest rugby nation in the world.."

But there's little suggesting it is the problem either. England wear white, maybe that's their problem?

Quote:

Rampant
No point going into the whole relegation debate again, but I think we can agree that removing the threat of getting relegated can help foster clubs playing more expansive rugby. Newcastle last year for example.

You really think we can agree that? despite all the disagreement on it every time the subject comes up, including in this thread?

Quote:

DanWiley
you mean like at saints? Even Quins didn't seem that badly harmed.

Not to mention Racing Metro, Toulon, Montpellier...

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:21:21:29:24 by Aidan.

None of the above have bounced back and forth. Comparison is better with Leeds, Welsh, Wuss, Brive, La Rochelle etc. I'd add Bristol, but they hardly seem relevant.

Yeah, but the example said look at this team that went nowhere and came good, that wouldn't happen in our system. Saints got relegated and came good, so it's just nonsense.

Saints owners had invested in the infrastructure and youth system.
London Welsh have done neither

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

And they would have done if they'd been ringfenced? To be honest, I'd say that Welsh, as a team that might well not be in the ring fenced league, would say "**** it, we're as big as we're going to get, we'll never be in the big leagues where the reward for investment comes, so why invest in anything?"

a team like Welsh have surely proven in 2 AP seasons that they cannot be used in the ringfencing argument -either for or against!


PG

On ringfencing I find myself sitting on the fence, pun intended, both sides of the arguement have me convinced.

Sorry, I've lost track - where are the goal posts now?

Are we looking for clubs who were relegated, but then came good? or have they been disallowed because they were relegated, so we need to find clubs who were knocking about the lower reaches of the top league, avoided relegation, and came good (sounds a bit like Bath TBH)?

Are we looking for clubs who have invested despite the threat of relegation (pretty much everyone in the Prem and T14) or are they discounted, and we have to find examples of clubs who can't afford to invest, and therefore fail to invest - but they would invest if there wasn't the threat of relegation, even though they'd still have no money to invest; so they'd just invest non-existent money instead?

Or are we back to it being self-evident and undeniable that ringfencing improves the quality of play, even though it's not self-evident, and is much denied?

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:22:10:44:48 by Aidan.

My support for ringfencing not only comes from allowing players/coaches to play more expansive rugby without the fear or risk of relegation, but also the development of clubs.

Some Clubs want to get bigger, develop and invest in the community, some like Welsh dont.

Since professionalism they have not invested in their stadium, they have not bothered to go into the community and develop supporters or youth players. They were happy where they were until fluking a place in the Prem. Moving to Oxford was a brave call, but they screwed that up because they continued to do nothing in the community.

Ringfencing for me isnt a punishment for the "have-nots". Its a timeout to get their act in order and put the foundations in place first. Then when its strong, the Prem can expand and include 1, 2 or 4 new clubs in 5 or so years time.

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

But there isn't much room from the prem too expand. You'd get Leeds and Bris up (I would guess) then that's it. That's it for the other Championship clubs, thanks for playing but you are now feeder clubs and that's all you'll every be.

Why will these small clubs, now that the door has been closed to them, suddenly go "we'd better our get houses in order so that IF one of the nominated prem clubs messes up and someone looses its franchise AND we happen to be in a good position at the time AND we grease the right palms of those that make the decisions AND our faces fit AND we're in with the right people AND we get that little bit of luck everyone needs they MIGHT let us up".

If they do think like that, why wouldn't they invest now when the way to get up is by playing good rugby.

I thik we'll get ring fencing but by another means, the requirements to goup will soon be out of reach of most of the Champ clubs soon enough.

I don't understand the 'all you'll ever be' point. Super Rugby has demonstrated clearly that expansion is possible.

It has hasta but its ring fenced until it chooses to expand, isn't it??

Why the concentration on London Welsh, who didn't bother trying to maximise their promotion?
What about championship clubs who do have that ambition, and already do do that groundwork? clubs like Bedford, or Pirates for example.

Why sacrifice the whole principal of a meritocracy just to encourage things that are unlikely to happen with ringfencing?

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

Quote:

Huxster
It has hasta but its ring fenced until it chooses to expand, isn't it??

More or less. The South African teams have had a sort of promotion/relegation for a couple of years. My point is that ring fencing clearly does not prohibit expansion. As Super Rugby welcomes Japan and Argentina, the Premiership could welcome Cornish Pirates and Rotherham.

So a ring fence with a gate that gets opened occasionally.

Where did I state that it is ringfenced forever? I didnt!
I said its ringfenced for a period of time, then the Championship club(s) can be "promoted" to the expanded Premiership once they have the infrastructure etc.

Its NOT a closed door as Hasta has explained.
The caveat is that the RFU/PremRugby would need to significantly increase the funding of the championship; moving the funding for parachute payments across as one option.

Aidan - The reason I call out Welsh is that I have personal experience of watching how incompetent and ignorant they are. I'd love to see a Cornish Pirates in the Prem, playing at the new Cornwall Stadium...once its built.


If I was a multi-millionaire and had a money burning a hole in my pocket for rugby, I'd invest in my local National League club with a view to organically growing it into a Premiership club in 5-10yrs. Think Exeter or Wuss but for Oxford, Lancaster, Cambridge, Canterbury, Carlisle, Norwich or Winchester.

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

And how many can you realistically add? Drop the LV and we could add a couple more teams, basically replacing some poor games with some other poor games. After that the doors shut until there's a reason to drop a team.

We could do conferences... and lose some long standing rivals for some teams that basically don't deserve to be there.


"Where did I state that it is ringfenced forever? "

Common sense says it will. You honestly believe they'll opened it once its closed? You poor arguments, such as they are, will still exist. "Keeping it closed allows us to invest and the Championship clubs can invest as well because..."


"If I was a multi-millionaire and had a money burning a hole in my pocket for rugby, I'd invest in my local National League club"

You'd be an idiot under a ring fenced system or not. But why can't you do that with promotion? Because you can't just buy your way into the prem?

How many? I'll leave that up the the powers that be. Ive no problem with conferences; I wouldnt be surprised if we have a British league at some point anyway.


Do I believe it will open up? Yes as thats what they've been saying all along. Also the RFU wont support a completely closed league as they want a regional franchised model and this is a great way of achieving this.

Promotion seems to have created investors looking to rush things. The 5yr open door timeframe, allows investors to take their time and invest correctly benefiting the club and community.

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

"Do I believe it will open up? Yes as thats what they've been saying all along."

Check your email, I believe you've won a Nigerian lottery.

"Promotion seems to have created investors looking to rush things."

What evidence have you got for that? I am mean are people rushing? Welsh maybe did, I can't see anyone else. Threats to remove promotion might cause people to rush. Even if it is true won't they be back rushing in 5 years?

Does the sun ever shine in Wiley-world?

Designed in Scotland | Made in the West Country

I'm having a ball, that doesn't mean I believe everything that I'm told.

With the final this weekend we are led to believe that, speculation and discussion will be rife next week.

Add to that the fact that Shaun Edwards is officially out of contract on 31st October, there is an interesting interview broadcast tonight.

Wherever he goes, Wales would be easier to beat without him !

Is Gatland's Law working? where does that put England's position on selecting players who are not part of England's club system.

With Leigh Halfpenny and Jonathon Davies are set to cancel the final year of their French contracts and Faletau having his wings clipped he seems to have got his way!

So who is right Australia or Wales?

Huh? Australia are still stricter on the "no overseas players" policy than Wales.
They're just allowed to select overseas players with more than 60 caps and who spent 8(?) years playing S15 in Aus before moving overseas.
Wales on the other hand are allowed to select anyone who moved before now; and any 2 other players Gatland wants to (rising annually).

Under Australia's rules, England would have suddenly been allowed to select... Toby Flood.

I actually really like the Aussie compromise.

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

It could be argued that Australia wrote the policy to fit the situation, I take it you prefer the status quo as far as England are concerned then. Or are you promoting an Ozzie solution but with different numbers for caps/years.

I think England should stick with our current policy, even if Australia win this afternoon!

Who said this about who?

“No 10s need to be playing consistently, to get a feel of a team and to know when to push what buttons. Some will say we took a punt on him but for us it was about giving him as long a run as we could. By his own admission he wasn’t anywhere near his best earlier this year but there was a belief [name] was the player for this tournament. Sometimes big players need the big-pressure moments to bring the best out of them.”




Answer: Ian Foster, AB's backs coach about Dan Carter

Perhaps Lancaster can read that and explain his selection strategy for the backs and Farrell v Ford in particular

"Some will say we took a punt on him"

Who - exactly - would accuse NZ of 'taking a punt' on a player with over 100 caps, and 1500 test points? What possible relevance could that have to Ford/Farrell?

And then there's the fact that Aaron Cruden and Beauden Barrett each have 35+ Test caps - so they could help Carter to get his fitness back up safe in the knowledge that back-up is in place.

One of the reasons NZ get players in key positions with multiple caps is because they don't subscribe to the ridiculous notion that, out of respect for the opposition, you've got to field your 'strongest XV'. I've said it for a while, but one of England's problems is that they're so terrified of appearing arrogant, that they don't even use games against Italy or Scotland to throw new players in.

A valid point Opti, however, the converse is that you should play 'sets of players' regularly so they get to play as a team.

England rarely play an unchanged team particularly in the backs where Farrell, Ford, Barritt, Burrell, Tuilagi , Roko and others have all had spells out with injury. SL's problem is that on their return he assumed they would have the same form as pre injury. We know that is wrong having found out the hard way.

Wales have an even bigger attritional injury problem. Need a solution to this or do we just play too much rugby?

"SL's problem is that on their return he assumed they would have the same form as pre injury"

Agree - made a couple of bad errors on that - Farrell and Barritt in particular.

"do we just play too much rugby?"

I think they do.

The other area England need to get ruthless is in their summer tours. The one to NZ in 2014 was just farcical - how come they dictated terms to us on that? They need our money; we need exposure to their playing standards. Which one of these 2 things talks?

Think you're missing the simpler point Opti - with that amount of back up experience to call on in reserve the ABs could have easily skipped over Carter as being out of form and needing to re-prove himself at the lower level

But no, kept faith and reaped the reward

On another issue though I certainly buy the evidence (on another thread) of surprisingly consistent selection since 2012 by SL but I guess it is like the 80:20 rule, the majority of SL's problems came from a minority of his decisions

Certainly agree that the games against Italy and Scotland were ideal opportunities for the likes of Slade and George

"the majority of SL's problems came from a minority of his decisions"

That's both you and Dan convincing me with the simplest of arguments now Gaz.

Quote:

On another issue though I certainly buy the evidence (on another thread) of surprisingly consistent selection since 2012 by SL but I guess it is like the 80:20 rule, the majority of SL's problems came from a minority of his decisions

Really excellent way of putting it.

Quote:

hasta

Quote:

On another issue though I certainly buy the evidence (on another thread) of surprisingly consistent selection since 2012 by SL but I guess it is like the 80:20 rule, the majority of SL's problems came from a minority of his decisions

Really excellent way of putting it.

And always true!
The issue with the backs is illustrative of SL's problems and ineptitude BUT IS NOT THE REASON WE LOST. We lost it up front: Scrummaging, lineouts, too many penalties, pathetic turnover record. This is not down to inconsistent selection but coaching and conditioning. If anything the selection was just consistently wrong. For that reason alone SL and the rest of them must go.

Quote:

jayeatman
And always true!
The issue with the backs is illustrative of SL's problems and ineptitude BUT IS NOT THE REASON WE LOST. We lost it up front: Scrummaging, lineouts, too many penalties, pathetic turnover record. This is not down to inconsistent selection but coaching and conditioning. If anything the selection was just consistently wrong. For that reason alone SL and the rest of them must go.

And a world class No 7 would have helped a lot - ah - but he would have upset the cosy team atmosphere that went on to - er - fail to get out of the group stages. Still they were a happy team!

Quote:

hemington

Quote:

jayeatman
And always true!
The issue with the backs is illustrative of SL's problems and ineptitude BUT IS NOT THE REASON WE LOST. We lost it up front: Scrummaging, lineouts, too many penalties, pathetic turnover record. This is not down to inconsistent selection but coaching and conditioning. If anything the selection was just consistently wrong. For that reason alone SL and the rest of them must go.

And a world class No 7 would have helped a lot - ah - but he would have upset the cosy team atmosphere that went on to - er - fail to get out of the group stages. Still they were a happy team!

Dont forget they also had a 'culture' that the ABs can only dream about

Yes a losing culture.

Cheika approached, no idea why he would do that rather than Australia

[www.theguardian.com]

£££

I can't believe that is anything other than a smokescreen. Surely it's Eddie they want?

...The Eagle?

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned this and maybe I'm missing something but if RFU go for a foreign head coach,wouldn't the media and foreign based England qualified players all go into a frenzy about the player residency rule, that surely would also have to go..

Regarding our lack of skills as a rugby nation. as one of if not the biggest union in the world we should be able to produce a senior team that is always there or there abouts in any competition.

However,England's problem over the years I'd say from what I've seen of youth rugby from club/county and pro academies is its too biased towards big is best, skills come second.
I heard stats from an academy head coach that show from youth, county through to academy most players picked for squads and games were from the older lads in the age group, ones that were (potentially up to nearly a years growth ahead of others) bigger and stronger. So potentially skilful players born in the last couple of months of their age group cut off seem to get passed over and don't make it on the ladder or "pathway" .
So its not surprising we have superb massive athletes playing for England, but don't always have the skill levels to beat the SH teams.

From 4 years old Kiwi's are running around with a rugby ball in their hands.

Would George Ford have made it if he was just a normal lad, whose dad didn't play/coach or have connections in Rugby League/union, just pitching up at the local rugby club as a 8 year old...We as England supporters and I'm sure the RFU would like to think so but I have serious doubts.
I've seen a youth player (U16) at an academy of a top Prem club who could hardly catch a ball, honestly I'm not joking. When you ask why's he in the squad you get "he's a unit with an engine we can teach him the skills"
I'm sorry its too late then!

This is where the problem with English Rugby lies, not in the elite coaches its too late by then to improve their skills(I do agree though that Lancaster and his team made a mess of selection which cost us getting out of the group) its grass roots player development and pathways that needs to be looked at long term. IMHO of course.

Quote:

Littlelen
Not sure if anyone has already mentioned this and maybe I'm missing something but if RFU go for a foreign head coach,wouldn't the media and foreign based England qualified players all go into a frenzy about the player residency rule, that surely would also have to go..

Without going into the rest of your (good) post.
Yes, it's been brought up before, and generally dismissed as a false equivalence.

A true equivalence would be home based, but overseas born players - which we've generally not had a problem with (we being the RFU, not individual fans looking at individual cases).

After all, no-one's suggested we hire a coach who continues to live overseas and only pops over for matches, and generally can't make it to training camps.

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

This one seems to come up a lot. From my personal experience which is based solely on my 14 year old son's exposure to coaching, I haven't really seen this.

Admittedly big boys have a clear advantage because they are stronger and those kids who develop faster are going to stand out, but like adult rugby the half backs and backs tend to be the smaller players.

Teams get picked on how they perform, not on how big they are, but as I say that clearly has an impact (a good biggun etc.)

I understand that in NZ they take this out of the equation to a degree by having age/weight grading, maybe we should be doing that here. I know the justification is that the South Sea Islanders grow bigger, faster, but it happens in any population.

Quote:

Littlelen
Regarding our lack of skills as a rugby nation. as one of if not the biggest union in the world we should be able to produce a senior team that is always there or there abouts in any competition.

In the competition that England play in most frequently, they have been second in the 6N four years running (twice on points difference). That seems to be "there or thereabouts" to me. In the RWC England (ranked 4) lost to Australia (ranked 2) and Wales (ranked 5). Although very disappointing (and I agree that the selection in the centres for the Wales match was very negative), the RWC results were really not surprising. If either of those results had happened in the quarters or semis, there wouldn't be much comment.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:11:09:19:45:02 by joethefanatic.

" no-one's suggested we hire a coach who continues to live overseas and only pops over for matches, and generally can't make it to training camps".

Aiden agree with that but lets face it if an English qualified player has in his contract he can attend all training camps and games for England but plays in France he's only an hours flight away...so is in effect no less available than an English based player.
I have no problem with a foreign head coach (if he's the best available) and I'd adjust the rule and have a cap of say 3 England qualified overseas based players who fit the criteria (of a suitable contract to allow them ), can be brought into the squad. This then also protects the Prem clubs from a player exodus and gives flexibility to selection.
But again sure someone else has thought of that.

Quote:

joethefanatic

Quote:

Littlelen
Regarding our lack of skills as a rugby nation. as one of if not the biggest union in the world we should be able to produce a senior team that is always there or there abouts in any competition.

In the competition that England play in most frequently, they have been second in the 6N four years running (twice on points difference). That seems to be "there or thereabouts" to me. In the RWC England (ranked 4) lost to Australia (ranked 2) and Wales (ranked 5). Although very disappointing (and I agree that the selection in the centres for the Wales match was very negative), the RWC results were really not surprising. If either of those results had happened in the quarters or semis, there wouldn't be much comment.

But at the end of the day with our numbers of players and resources, we should always be in the top three if not two in the world rankings. This is not arrogance but a simple fact. We have the biggest pool of players and the most money, there is something wrong in our development of players and I believe its been a concentration on size and strength at the expense of skills that holds us back.

Quote:

Littlelen

Quote:

joethefanatic

Quote:

Littlelen
Regarding our lack of skills as a rugby nation. as one of if not the biggest union in the world we should be able to produce a senior team that is always there or there abouts in any competition.

In the competition that England play in most frequently, they have been second in the 6N four years running (twice on points difference). That seems to be "there or thereabouts" to me. In the RWC England (ranked 4) lost to Australia (ranked 2) and Wales (ranked 5). Although very disappointing (and I agree that the selection in the centres for the Wales match was very negative), the RWC results were really not surprising. If either of those results had happened in the quarters or semis, there wouldn't be much comment.

But at the end of the day with our numbers of players and resources, we should always be in the top three if not two in the world rankings. This is not arrogance but a simple fact. We have the biggest pool of players and the most money, there is something wrong in our development of players and I believe its been a concentration on size and strength at the expense of skills that holds us back.

I think it is arrogance to expect to be at the top. We seem to equate numbers and money with a divine right to success but what if success is not driven by these factors? What if it is driven by resentment (the Celtic Nations) and fear of failure (New Zealand) and lack of other opportunities (the Pacific Nations)? I think England can be successful on a long term basis but money and numbers does not seem to me to be the right mental construct on which to achieve it.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Personally, I like the Aussie work around; I think there's is 60 caps and to have played in Aus for 8 consecutive years at some stage.
Call it 50 caps and I think it's a really good compromise, allowing your top talent to go and get some experience and pension plans elsewhere, whilst ensuring there's no particular player drain.



As for player numbers - it's another false equivalence I'm afraid - I strongly suspect that we have more overseas players on our books than any other union too, not to mention that our talent pyramid has a much lower base.
I'm 40, shit at rugby, and with knackered knees; but I could still play a dozen+ matches a year if I chose. I know from relatives that the only game time I'd get in France would be the odd pity-start or in an injury crisis; whilst in NZ I'd be laughed out of the club.

The important number is players at the elite end - where we have more than our celtic cousins, and a few more than the kiwis/aussies, but about the same as the Saffers and French. We have 12 teams; with about 2/3 being EQP; so about 8 teams worth of elite players; France have 14 teams, with about 55% FQP; so about 7-8 teams worth of elite players. Ireland/Wales have 4 teams at about 90%; Aus/NZ have 5 teams at 90% (and first call on the good athletes for NZ; and simply the best sporting culture overall for Aus), RSA have 8 teams at about 90%
This means that our 8th XV would be right up there, with only the Saffers and French able to challenge us; but if anything hinders our 1st XV as we don't get the concentration of talent (meaning club combinations who've played together a couple of hundred times), and we don't invest the same resources into the talent we have (see another thread about a month ago) for every Sexton Ireland produce they have a Madigan about 6 years behind; whilst for every Cipriani we produce, we have a Ford, Farrell, Burns, Myler or Flood we can turn to if the first one fails.


Please note - this is not the major problem facing English rugby, but is A problem - I can't remember now who said it, but England are comfortably the best at wasting talent (though the French are probably up there now)

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015:11:09:20:27:09 by Aidan.

Quote:

joethefanatic

Quote:

Littlelen

Quote:

joethefanatic

Quote:

Littlelen
Regarding our lack of skills as a rugby nation. as one of if not the biggest union in the world we should be able to produce a senior team that is always there or there abouts in any competition.

In the competition that England play in most frequently, they have been second in the 6N four years running (twice on points difference). That seems to be "there or thereabouts" to me. In the RWC England (ranked 4) lost to Australia (ranked 2) and Wales (ranked 5). Although very disappointing (and I agree that the selection in the centres for the Wales match was very negative), the RWC results were really not surprising. If either of those results had happened in the quarters or semis, there wouldn't be much comment.

But at the end of the day with our numbers of players and resources, we should always be in the top three if not two in the world rankings. This is not arrogance but a simple fact. We have the biggest pool of players and the most money, there is something wrong in our development of players and I believe its been a concentration on size and strength at the expense of skills that holds us back.

I think it is arrogance to expect to be at the top. We seem to equate numbers and money with a divine right to success but what if success is not driven by these factors? What if it is driven by resentment (the Celtic Nations) and fear of failure (New Zealand) and lack of other opportunities (the Pacific Nations)? I think England can be successful on a long term basis but money and numbers does not seem to me to be the right mental construct on which to achieve it.

By the way, I think the mental construct that is unique to England is "No one in the f***ing world likes us, everyone in the f***ing world wants to beat us more than anyone else. Well, you know what? F**k 'em all, we don't care." Hard to beat the balanced chip approach.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015:11:09:20:29:46 by joethefanatic.

"I think it is arrogance to expect to be at the top. We seem to equate numbers and money with a divine right to success but what if success is not driven by these factors? What if it is driven by resentment (the Celtic Nations) and fear of failure (New Zealand) and lack of other opportunities (the Pacific Nations)? I think England can be successful on a long term basis but money and numbers does not seem to me to be the right mental construct on which to achieve it."

I think if you take the emotion out of it then if you have the biggest player base and the most resources, you would should expect to be near the top consistently. That's just logic not arrogance.
That's not taking away anything from nations who do not have big player bases or funds, The celtic nations are not driven by resentment they love the game as we do and if you watch the All blacks they don't play with fear on the contrary, they play with confidence in their ability.

England given this have underperformed for a decade (with the odd spike).

"As for player numbers - it's another false equivalence I'm afraid - I strongly suspect that we have more overseas players on our books than any other union too, not to mention that our talent pyramid has a much lower base"

I'm talking about at mini and youth level not at the elite level , we should not need overseas players (though its great to have them) in the prem if the development of English players was such that more talented players progressed through.

Agree we have plenty of talent at elite level in the 10 position at the moment , but the lack of real depth in the forwards (which was one of the reasons we did not progress in the world cup) shows for me there is a problem with development (especially in skills) across the positions for English players. This must be addressed at mini and youth level rather than the elite level. Hand/eye coordination is pretty much set by the time your 8 , you can develop skills later of course but the players who start at a young age and continue to practice their skills (rather then spending too much time getting bigger in the gym) will always be of a higher level. I think this is where the kiwi's get it right.

Our elite players aren't taken directly from that large pool of mini and youth talent though.

I fully agree that we have a problem in turning promising youngsters into adults who've fulfilled their promise.
However, we don't lack depth in any position - we lack quality. Depth is irrelevant so long as both teams field the same number of players; many players of similar quality is an active hindrance.
I chose FH as an easy example; as was chosing Ireland to compare to - I could have done the same for any position, and I could have found examples from Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Australia or New Zealand.

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD

I think Len's point is though, on a very abstract level, if you pick from a larger population you are likely to get players with more raw talent (how that talent is processed is another thing). I think that just about holds as far as it goes. Imagine each player in a union is represented by a ball with a number on it representing that player's raw talent. The values on these balls is pretty much random. The bigger union, the more times you get to pick and the more likely you are to pick a high number.

Of course, that doesn't take into account that "football" and maybe just desire (what percentage of English kids dream of being Jonny Wilkinson compared to the percentage of kiwis who dream of being Dan Carter? I get the impression there might be more inspirational jobs in the Uk as well?) take that set of balls and removes the top 10% (and many less player as well).

Nor does it account for that fact that we DON'T choose from that pool of talent but pick an almost arbitrary subset of of it and select 80% of our players from that, who are very well drilled, but random in terms of raw talent.

The diamonds are bing mined. Then cut by the clubs just the idiots at TW1 are useless at polishing.

Presumably, you've not watched much Prem rugby this season.

Not exactly high quality stuff being played in the first 4 weeks.

A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything

RAEBURN SHIELD