Lessons for England Rugby to learn from Cricket - No, really

I realise this is a rugby blog, and don't worry, it is about rugby. First though, an article about the England Cricket team:

LINK

The article is about the transition the England cricket team from bottom of the ICC test rankings to the number 1 team and it highlights the key points that have enabled this. I believe that many of these points could be taken on by the rugby team too.

1 - Making it a team, not XI/XV players having a jolly.

The rugby management are already trying to do this and I believe it is absolutely essential to becoming a top team. Good team work is especially important in rugby. I think they could (and perhaps should) go further than this though by incorporating number 2 on the list.

2 - Central contracts

This would require the RFU to not be a useless bag of ^&%( to achieve due to the battle between clubs and country. However, I believe it's really important. Take the examples of the cricket and of football. In cricket they have gone to the extreme of central contracts with some players playing almost exclusively for England. In football most players are more loyal to club than country and end up playing too much and with little commitment away from their clubs. Our cricket team I would rate somewhat higher than our football team, and I think this club/country battle is part of the reason. Central contracts would allow the RFU to keep closer tabs on how many games players play and they would be able to stop them playing if necessary. NZ uses this system (or a very similar one) very well, as does Ireland. It also allows the management to identify players with the most talent (though they may not necessarily be the best player yet) and to coach and support them to the highest level - I'm thinking players like Cipriani here. England rugby already have an agreement with the premiership clubs to release players, is this enough?

3 - All singing from the same song sheet, and know when to change the plan!

The manager, coaches and players need to all be following the same plan. The leaders (captain, coaches, line out caller, whatever) need to know the game plan and need to be of one mind when things aren't going to plan. This requires strong leadership on and off the pitch and for everyone to believe in the ideas the leaders are putting forward. Some times you get the feeling watching England play that the forwards coach and the backs coach are thinking slightly differently. In the cricket you can tell that everyone is thinking the same and that everyone believes in the strategies.

4 - Continuity of Selection

MJ is getting there, even if his initial selections weren't good enough (let's not get started on the centres!). What we really don't need however is massive changes at any point. After the world cup I expect new players to come in, but not 5 or 6 in one game! The Saxons team should be used properly and the talented youngsters allowed to gradually filter into the first XV. Again, the cricket team are doing this with the England Lions team (though this is the one area where perhaps they could improve).


Overall I think this England team are making progress on 1 3 and 4 - A stand out player (and a young one) will perhaps be made vice captain to then become captain in a year or two after the world cup to help with 3 and do a similar job to Alistair Cook. Obviously number 2 has not happened yet, but I think if it did then this would be the best way to get the other areas sorted.

Thoughts?

Pretty good article Screaming, as an outsider looking in it's hard to disagree with too many of your points.

Minor points.

2. The RFU agreement with the clubs is more than about extra release dates. they also have medical and training control over the players, limits to the number of games they can play, etc. What else would central contracts provide? And how would they go about doing it? I imagine that the PRL would blanket refuse to 'rent' players contracted to the RFU. What would they do then? If we went down the NZ/Ire path we would need to form some RFU owned teams to compete in the HEC/etc.

3. Since the backs were trying to play like forwards I'm not sure if this is happening

4. How is this not being done at the moment?

The only lesson to learn from what I see is that more foreign players are needed preferably South Africans and New Zealanders. How can anyone call that the England cricket team - It's absurd

Ruby

It's the England and Wales Cricket Team. And to be fair to them, English-born Alastair Cook made more runs against the Indian attack than the entire India batting line-up could make against the All-English-born attack in the first innings, so the Saffer players are just filler really.

Nice one Robbo on the filler bit, I'll tell Pietersen and Strauss that one. And I know its the E&W cricket team but my sentiments remain the same - The foreigners just dilute it for me and I find it all a little embarassing.

HammerofThunor wrote:Minor points.

2. The RFU agreement with the clubs is more than about extra release dates. they also have medical and training control over the players, limits to the number of games they can play, etc. What else would central contracts provide? And how would they go about doing it? I imagine that the PRL would blanket refuse to 'rent' players contracted to the RFU. What would they do then? If we went down the NZ/Ire path we would need to form some RFU owned teams to compete in the HEC/etc.

3. Since the backs were trying to play like forwards I'm not sure if this is happening

4. How is this not being done at the moment?

I didn't realise they could limit the games they played. I do think thought that the players often play club games when they are slightly injured because after all the club pays their wages, this would be avoided for one thing. The point of central contracting is to make it clear that England is the priority. In cricket the system is in place to make England the best side in the world and the WHOLE system is working towards it. In NZ the same is true for the rugby. You have a very good point that without RFU owned teams it could be difficult to implement and I'm not sure of a solution to this without getting rid of the club system (very unpopular and not ever going to happen!).

Given the control the RFU has over players, perhaps they are far nearer to a "cricket like" system than I realised.

I think the management are moving towards a very good system (we'll see in a few years time I guess).

As for the consistency of selection, I believe it is starting to happen (even if the initial selections may have been a trifle dodgy). It hasn't been so for long though (I remember Erinlie!) and I just hope that MJ sticks to his guns post world cup and GRADUALLY brings in youth. I also think he will do that.

As for the backs playing like forwards, maybe this is a new approach? Lets get rid of 10 man rugby and play 15 man rugby in the same style. It stops the other 5 getting cold if they just pack down too!

Ruby

If you look at each individual player, you can see that they all have a legitimate claim to playing for England, but it's a shame we aren't producing batsman in this country good enough to get into that line-up, Cook and Bell excepted. We do have some good English-born players coming through though, so hopefully this is an exception in the make-up of England teams, rather than the norm.

Anyway, back to the topic the RFU don't have that much control over when a player can play. I think they can bar an EPS player from playing if they think he is injured and they have to take enforced rests at given times (the club gets to choose which of 3 matchdays to rest the player on), but it's not quite as much control as central contracts.

Robbo, you make some great points in all honesty - I just think people are starting to panic a little too much after the Wales defeat. England just need to add some creativity to their midfield and they'll be fine. I think perhaps they have been getting too far ahead of themselves and setting themselves up for a fall again. It was a great result against Australia and a deserved 6 Nations for them. However, performances against Scotland, Ireland and SA were pretty dire but they seem to just get shoved under the carpet. There's not that much wrong with the chariot but a midfield should be on order along with Floods confidence needing ressurecting - Howzat!!!

I suppose my main point is that the cricket team has the entire club set up as a way of making England (and Wales) the best cricket team in the world. Football has it set up as the club system makes as much money as possible and sod the national team. Rugby is somewhere in-between.

In rugby I would say France are like England football, hence they cannot string more than 4 good games together and sometimes look entirely disinterested. NZ are like England cricket, with everyone in the whole nation trying to make NZ the best team in the world (and doing rather well at it).

RubyGuby wrote:Robbo, you make some great points in all honesty - I just think people are starting to panic a little too much after the Wales defeat. England just need to add some creativity to their midfield and they'll be fine. I think perhaps they have been getting too far ahead of themselves and setting themselves up for a fall again. It was a great result against Australia and a deserved 6 Nations for them. However, performances against Scotland, Ireland and SA were pretty dire but they seem to just get shoved under the carpet. There's not that much wrong with the chariot but a midfield should be on order along with Floods confidence needing ressurecting - Howzat!!!

Well said sir.

England are still quite inconsistent - their best is very good indeed (Aus home and away, Italy), average performances are good enough to get results (Wales, France in the 6Ns), but poor performances can see us still getting hammered (Ireland, South Africa).

Saturday was poor from the perspective of failing to take chances, but was not as poor as the Ireland or SA matches - we had plenty of ball and established good field position several times, but were just clueless at how to get the ball over the line (admitedly, Banahan trying to crash through Shane seemed a good idea at the time, and the little fella did really well to bring him to ground short of the line). Not sure though why our forwards find it so difficult to set a driving maul up these days - surely Johnno can get them to do that properly, as it was one of his great assets.

I do think thought that the players often play club games when they are slightly injured because after all the club pays their wages, this would be avoided for one thing.

The RFU can enforce an 'injured' player to be rested if their medical team think they shouldn't be played. It happened with Sackey a while back. Not sure if it's happened since then but it made the news because McGeechan was whining about it.

EDIT: Also I don't think the international side should be THE priority. It should be a balance between the two, which I think we have now. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the EPS deal is renogatiated. Have the clubs become reliant on the money? Does that provide the RFU more power? The International sides have been given slightly more training times (IRB enforced) since deal was made. My first preference in the World Cup, then English club rugby, then 6 nations, AI