What's the answer to England's woes?

by englandglory4ever Thu 24 Nov 2011, 7:30 pm

Right. We've all had a moan or sat back in abject despair at the shenanigans at the RWC and RFU but what is the answer?

For me its simple. The players obviously did not put their all in to the on-field activities at the RWC and for some years haven't really performed well whoever they were. Neither did they take any notice of the coaches. Nothing new here as we understand the players took things in to their own hands in RWC07. So what's the answer?

Quite simply the players are not contracted to England and therefore to be called up is only good for a little extra pin money. The players must be working for their real bosses. The one's who pay their wages and can hire and fire them. Only then will they take it seriously enough and sit up and take note. Until England understand this then nothing will improve believe me. It won't matter one jot who the coaching team is. The 'business' model is seriously flawed.

by emack2 Fri 25 Nov 2011, 3:52 am

I am an Anglo- Scot,and a devout ALL BLACKS fan BUT I am also passionate about my native Countries Rugby too.
Firstly get a settled RFU,have EVERYONE involved in the future of England be elected from Scratch.
It has been made easier by Martin Johnsons resignation,chances are he would have been chopped anyway.Hind sight is a wonderful thing be
honest with yourselves,England has`nt been a good team since 2003 on
a regular basis.RWC 2007 was an anomaly.Players like Jonny Wilkinson has had so many injuries there not the same players who is?
Now every one from Teflon Man down ,has to reapply for his job and justify the last eight years.
To be perfectly frank Martin Johnson should not have been appointed Manager[not Head Coach].Media Pressure forced a Figure head on England without a decent back up to the RFU`s shame.
The leaked Review makes wonderful media Headlines but turns my stomach,Players blaming Coaches.Coaches blaming Players,the RFU blaming every one but them selves,and Mr .Teflon saying don`t blame me.
THE REVIEW should have been undertaken by the NEW RFU,not a knee Jerk reaction.
In Hindsight Tindall should have been sent home,NOT for the incident concerned but because he was now a member of the royal family.
A godsend for Media Hounds which had a disruptive influence on the team spirit.
Players being interested in maximising there finacial assets? thats the Nature of the beast.Capped early 20`s gone by 32 unless your VERY good.
Agents tapping up Players in RWC is common practice,Hence the All Blacks
getting most of there players contracted pre -RWC[unlike 2007].
Neither Steele or Ashton should have been sacked,Johnson if he had a fault was loyalty to his players and Coaches.
Maybe the Coaches[some of them] should have gone when he took over,maybe some of the players too.
Two wins versus the Walla bies plus the 6Ns playing flowing Rugby seemed to be a step forward.
BUT come RWC its back to Forward orientated game,plus defence the old match winning formula.Where it broke down was the inability to kick Goals to win matches.
The Scrum Coach was excellent,Goal Kicking Coach has been ok pre RWC.A Defence Coach who conceded less tries than nearly any other in the RWC must have got something right.
Is it a case of the wrong Selection.Coaches can`t Coach or Players can`t execute properly.
So in short fire the lot,including the Teflon Kid,and start interviewing people who want and can do the job.
Get the right Managers/Coaches and build from there,England have made a massive Profit.They have solid A and age group players,plus a good base of players now.
Get a squad of abou t 40 together do the basics right,and build from there.
Simple is best,THE best side on the Planet do the basics well at pace,England wear the Black shirt.
Time they lived up to it too,a Caretaker Coaching team will probably in place for 6Ns .

by Glas a du Fri 25 Nov 2011, 6:23 am

Go back to basics. A forwards dominated coach to pick a forwards dominated team to play a forwards dominated style.

I suggest Deano.

by offload Fri 25 Nov 2011, 8:07 am

In a word, LEADERSHIP. It's the foundation of every great endeavour. England have a talent pool to envy so its about getting the best from it.

The RFU needs outstanding leadership from the CEO down, on and off the field. Get that right and England will always be near the top of world rugby.

by TJ1 Fri 25 Nov 2011, 8:15 am

Glas a du wrote:Go back to basics. A forwards dominated coach to pick a forwards dominated team to play a forwards dominated style.

I suggest Deano.

And never win anything of significance again?

the game has moved on from2003. This is one of the lessons the RFU needs to learn.

by OzT Fri 25 Nov 2011, 9:30 am

Needs a 95% plus kicker for that strategy to work, the forwards one.

by doctor_grey Fri 25 Nov 2011, 9:43 am

offload wrote:In a word, LEADERSHIP. It's the foundation of every great endeavour. England have a talent pool to envy so its about getting the best from it.
The RFU needs outstanding leadership from the CEO down, on and off the field. Get that right and England will always be near the top of world rugby.

Offload, I am a big believer in proper leadership. If the RFU is a rudderless (or politically battling) ship, everything starts to fail. Which it seems to be. Almost makes it a tribute to MJ that he was successful against OZ last year and won the 6N this season. But I completely agree. this is point number one for the RFU. A leader, and a leader with the cojones to do what he thinks is right.

Glas a du wrote:Go back to basics. A forwards dominated coach to pick a forwards dominated team to play a forwards dominated style.
I suggest Deano.

Dean Ryan, yes, Dean Richards, for me, is beyond pennance/redemption. But, I actually agree with your point, and I think that can work. But I am not sure England have the front row lads to make this work. Sheridan is one injury away from hanging up his boots, Cole has the go forwards push of am amoeba. Stevens lost his edge. Corbs has potential, but is a work in progress. Marler, for such a big guy, doesn't have the push either. Maybe all those silly haircuts robs him of some strength?

by HERSH Fri 25 Nov 2011, 9:55 am

TJ wrote:
Glas a du wrote:Go back to basics. A forwards dominated coach to pick a forwards dominated team to play a forwards dominated style.

I suggest Deano.

And never win anything of significance again?

the game has moved on from2003. This is one of the lessons the RFU needs to learn.

You Sir are so wrong, look at the last non event final, it was tuck it up your jumper stuff something England used to be very good at and can be again, ok it's not as exciting to some fans but to others its the only way to play International rugby in the NH.

As for Ryan or Richards (why not both) in the short term it might work well as they would certainly get the younger players more disciplined both on and off the field.

by maestegmafia Fri 25 Nov 2011, 9:57 am

The whole of English Rugby needs to focus on playing Rugby rather than making profit.

Everything in the English game is geared towards making the most cash. I think the players smell the insincerity of it all and become accustomed.

Every other major rugby playing country bar England and France has a national club/provincial set up that is geared towards improving the national team. The respective national bodies un-equivicoly run the game in those countries with no one else to answer to.

What England have created serves the clubs and the club owners far more than it does the England team. Central contracting wont help if you have a few thousand star foreigners stopping English players getting experience, developing and getting selected, getting game time and a fan culture that gets panicky because the two top Scrumhalves (thinking de Kock and Wigglesworth) are injured and they dont want to see a young England youth player representing their club in big games at halfback. How is that under 20 going to move from the England youth set up to the British and Irish Lions if he doesn't get any opportunities?

England should be successful, Andrew is completely right, their is a massive and wealthy fan base to support the game, to buy the tickets, the shirts, to take little Jonny to rugby practice, to help buy a local side new kit, to organise better facilities at the club. Fans turn out in their thousands to watch the premiership games. And more so for England Matches.

With that amount of support from the Grass Roots of the mini rugby to the England team there is no way the game should fail to produce top winning sides all. Maybe Hansen is right and England and England's fans have to stop wall papering over the cracks and take a good look at the structure underneath.

I wrote this because I am a rugby fan. But I bet most of the English posters who read this will deride it as a Welshman sticking his nose in and I will be chastised from pillar to post for it but I think I have some valid points.

by OzT Fri 25 Nov 2011, 9:58 am

"as they would certainly get the younger players more disciplined both on and off the field."...

Wel; I am not too sure, respect is something that's hard to pin down. You'd thought, well I did anyway, no one would have messed with MJ on or off the field, but it seems like he was pretty much trampled all over in NZ, dispite his awesome rep when he was a player, no respect there it looks like

by doctor_grey Fri 25 Nov 2011, 10:08 am

But maesteg,
The clubs predated professionalism, and have been terrifically successful (in the macro sense only). They are the lifeblood of English Rugby. So the business model in England must be different than the franchises/regions in the Super 15 and in Ireland/Wales/Scotland. Doesn't mean it can't work, but that a different business model is needed.

I see directly the relationship between the grass roots clubs and RFU is, and has been good, long before Rob Andrew. The problem I see is how the clubs/RFU handle the real promising youngsters, and aslo how they work together to make the clubs better while also making England better.

This is the sticking point. Improving the clubs and improving England are not incompatable. But not everyone on both sides have truly digested this. And this notion has really not changed, either in the clubs or at the RFU. That is a big part of the solution.

by maestegmafia Fri 25 Nov 2011, 10:35 am

Dr Gray

In my view I do not think England should move away from club rugby and their league promotion/relegation system, it works well, most importantly it is what the fans want.

But the clubs have been given far too much leeway by the RFU. Those promising youngsters need an environment to play in that is competitive and not have players in their way that will future restrict the progress of the England team.

by emack2 Fri 25 Nov 2011, 10:56 am

At club level,England compete problem is since 2003 everyone expects miracles.There are Players out there,maybe in fact TOO many but so often players are picked.England have a bad game and go back to the comfort Blanket.
It is simplistic saying some thing like Stevens is no longer the force he was,he`s 38 no one goes on for ever.
A solid pack who can do the basics is a must,Scrum.Lineout,Maul,Breakdown etc.
Pointless having good backs if they never get the ball,Campese pointed out
with OZ the have Great finishers on the Wing but never see the ball.
The New Law changes could be significant,no PAUSE at the Scrum,5 seconds to clear ball from base of Ruck.
Return to the Maul Law circa 1987,when maul is stopped team going forward gets the Scrum feed.
I wonder if the All Blacks will revive there driving Maul,that was so succcessful1987-91THAT was a GREAT Mauling side.

by Glas a du Fri 25 Nov 2011, 11:06 am

emack2 wrote:At club level,England compete problem is since 2003 everyone expects miracles.There are Players out there,maybe in fact TOO many but so often players are picked.England have a bad game and go back to the comfort Blanket.
It is simplistic saying some thing like Stevens is no longer the force he was,he`s 38 no one goes on for ever.
A solid pack who can do the basics is a must,Scrum.Lineout,Maul,Breakdown etc.
Pointless having good backs if they never get the ball,Campese pointed out
with OZ the have Great finishers on the Wing but never see the ball.
The New Law changes could be significant,no PAUSE at the Scrum,5 seconds to clear ball from base of Ruck.
Return to the Maul Law circa 1987,when maul is stopped team going forward gets the Scrum feed.
I wonder if the All Blacks will revive there driving Maul,that was so succcessful1987-91THAT was a GREAT Mauling side.

Agree absolutely with all of that. The 87-91 All Black rolling maul was not up your jumper run the clock down etc. it was an attacking weapon which required skill and co-ordination. It was truly a rolling maul as well as it went from side to side. If the opposition piled in to try and stop it it would roll away from the point of the drive. I hated it at the time, but I was 15 in 91, now I'm older I can appreciate the art and craft of it. I think those rule changes are a must Mack.

by emack2 Fri 25 Nov 2011, 3:41 pm

A few odd points,over the years a lot of ill informed comments have been
made about the 1987 All Blacks and the RWC.
First that it does`nt count because the Boks were`nt there,and that presumeably.On the strength of the Cavaliers tour the Boks would have won it instead.
The Cavaliers tour despite losing the Test Series,only lost one Provincial Match.BY SA v NZ post 1956 THAT would have been considered a Highly successful one by the away side.
The Boks had they toured NZ in a full tour would probably have lost the Series the Norm post 1956.
The 1987 side was Some of the Cavaliers plus the Baby Blacks who lost the "battle of Nantes versus France 1986.
That they were Professional in a world of Amateurs,TRUE but only in there preparations NOT in a monetary sense.[THAT was true of ALL SA/NZ sides post 1905-6]
Andy Daltons 1987 RWC Cup winners[NOT David Kirk`s] made the ultimate sacrifice.
Abandoning the beloved Ruck,for the driving Maul,no side has done it better since.
Giving an answer to the lie all Blacks can`t Maul,they could and did as there
predecessors had before them.
Driving teams back maybe 25-30 metres,then winning the following Scrum before feeding backs.
Like Kirwin.Gallagher,and Craig Green,there record of a nearly 4 year unbeaten run.Is unique among RWC winners.

by Knowsit17 Fri 25 Nov 2011, 6:31 pm

I can think of several answers, unfortunately they all play for other teams Whistle

Seriously though, the cure for England? Teach the players how to act professionally off the field as well as on it. For this better disciplinary measures will have to be employed and for that the RFU panel is probably going to have to be replaced. Simple chain of reasoning imo.

by senghenydd1913 Fri 25 Nov 2011, 7:26 pm

takes a quick look over the parapet to see if Officer Dibble aka stlowe is not around policing the board
an English pal of mine who's son plays junior rugby in Hampshire is not allowed by his coaches to do anything on the field other than that which his "coaches" have pre-ordainded before the game-how can that be healthy for a youngster to express himself?-now I'm not saying that,as an example, that is one of the causes of Englands current woes but it does seem to be an example of perhaps the whole coaching ethos needs to be looked at.

by Shifty Fri 25 Nov 2011, 8:06 pm

I think England are determined to destroy themselves to be honest all this has resulted from panicing and the press creating storms in tea cups any chance they have got.

Ok so lets look at what's happened this year...
Won the 6 Nations, Beat Wales in Cardiff, smashed Italy, Beat France easily at Twickenham, beat Scotland easily. had an off day in Ireland, played 5 won 4!

Overpowered Wales in Twickenham pre world cup, and did everything but win in Cardiff in the return leg. Then avenged the earlier loss to Ireland.

Overpowered Argentina in the World Cup who only play to spoil and frustrate, a big score was never realistic because of the hatred Argentina have for England.
Smashed Romania and Georgia off the park, beat a determined Scotland, before losing a close game to France.

13 Games played in 2011
10 games won!
3 games lost.

Now look at Wales, they lost as many games in the world Cup as England have in the entire year!

ok so lets now have a look at the "scandals"

1) the captain has a bit of a dance with a blonde who hes known for years in a nightclub. England makes a fuss, his wife doesn't really mind and is mature enough to trust him. Nothing story, press stirring for the fun of it.

2) Most of the kickers are missing their kicks at the World Cup, several complain about the quality and weight of the match day balls. England try and find a suitable ball and try and let johnny use it for kicks but aren't allowed. A bit naughty but judging by the way kickers are struggling then there is something wrong with the quality of the match day balls, you can;t blame England for trying work around it.
Nothing story, press stirring for the fun of it.

3) James Haskell, Dylan Hartley and Chris Ashton have a bit of banter with a female hotel worker after she leaves her walkie-talkie in their hotel room.

The daft bint shouldn't of been so careless. I mean she's just after a bit of attention from the press and making a fuss over nothing.
Nothing story, press stirring for the fun of it.

4) Tuilagi and his Samoan brother both get fined for using the wrong mouth guards.... yeah big news, lol.

5) Tuilagi realises he is a Samoan after all and jumps from a ferry to swim back to Samoa, he realises he has forgotten his water wings and swims to the harbour instead. He is arrested and reminded that he can't now play for Samoa so must stay with England.

I mean seriously England... your determined to rip yourselves to pieces over nothing. This is Tuesday evening for Welsh rugby. The English press are always determined to destroy any chance the English football team has of doing well in football, now it seems it wants to do the same in rugby. The real issue is the RFU needs to learn to toughen up and learn not to implode when the press sensationalise non stories and stir the pot.
England have collapsed like a line of dominos for no real reason.

10 wins in 13 games is a bloody good season to be honest, and England V France is a 50/50 game so why over react to it?

by niwatts Fri 25 Nov 2011, 8:14 pm

senghenydd1913, from the leaks it sounds more like rather than being too prescriptive a gameplan they weren't given one at all, and a 22yo halfback with a handful of caps had to come up with the plays.

by emack2 Fri 25 Nov 2011, 10:19 pm

Wake up and smell the roses,this is the era of "Scoops",there is ,and has been a steady stream of leaks.About England and the RWC,SOMEONE has made lots of money selling snippets to Murdochs Empire.
IF the whole report had been published in the Times not just dribbling the juicy bits for a quick Headline.
DON`T turn this thread into a Wales bashing or England bashing thread.
Today every one has mobile phones,with cameras/recorders in them.Players of the field have never been monks,whoever they played for
and there is ALWAYS someone out for a quick buck to sell the story.
When you get quotes saying a bit of scandal about Tindall is worth $100,000 NZ.it makes you think.
For the Record,England had a good year.making up for MANY dire ones.If your Honest JW is no longer worth his place in a team picked to move the ball,distribution never his biggest asset.
NO team found Argentina easy,because they played the arch type RWC style game.Wales pre RWC,England,Scotland,and NZ ALL had trouble with putting them away.
AS to players not being allowed to express themselves on the field,THAT is down to Coaching.
I f it`s any comfort NZ and SA sides in the past of being just overcoached robots.
Pre RWC they had a gameplan based on Flood,and his distributive skills,come RWC.
All the Hype England for the cup,2003 casts a long shadow,2007 was a fluke[at least on the 4 years form 2003-7].
2011 was NEVER an option,Semi-Final at best,Goal Kicking the Ball was the same forevery one.
England had hardly any games where the weather mattered,Scotland hardly any in dry condition s.
Want a best solution ,get THE best Coaches/Players available keep them TOGETHER for 4 years .
2011 is past,2015 to come Jim Mallinder as Head Coach,Rowntree as Scrum Coaches.John Kirwan as backs Coach build from there[i`d prefer he was in the AB mix but that seems unlikely].
Kirwan has built fairly successful sides out of far lesser resources than England have.
They could do worse than make him Head Coach,and let him pick his own coaching team.
HE at least would have no truck with" Squeekky" undermoning him to make his own job look good.

by atuakiwikiwi Fri 25 Nov 2011, 10:47 pm

AlynDavies wrote:
2) Most of the kickers are missing their kicks at the World Cup, several complain about the quality and weight of the match day balls. England try and find a suitable ball and try and let johnny use it for kicks but aren't allowed. A bit naughty but judging by the way kickers are struggling then there is something wrong with the quality of the match day balls, you can;t blame England for trying work around it.
Nothing story, press stirring for the fun of it.

I agree with your sentiment in general, but have to take issue with this point.

Piri Weepu went into the final on 91% accuracy. He missed a few in the final granted, but had pulled a groin muscle in the warm ups and being Piri, so many 80 minuters in a row were starting to take their toll. But still, 91%.

All of the South African kickers were on song.

Even old Stephen Donald, the man who was held accountable for so many AB last gasp losses nailed a decent nudge to win the RWC.

JW was out of form - perhaps he mentally lost it, but he was serious cack with his kicking, and it can't all have been the ball.

Anyone with any exposure to any serious level of rugby knows that ball switching is a no-no, and frankly England were lucky to get away with this one on their "internal review".

I was saddened to see someone like JW sullying his reputation with the sour-grapsey attack on the ball post RWC. It was beneath him.

by TycroesOsprey Sat 26 Nov 2011, 12:23 am

I will say this, Ive slagged Haskell and Ashton badly for their role in walkytalkygate, but from all the stuff coming out I have to admit they were far more innocent than I was giving them credit for.

by Hood83 Sat 26 Nov 2011, 4:18 pm

TycroesOsprey wrote:I will say this, Ive slagged Haskell and Ashton badly for their role in walkytalkygate, but from all the stuff coming out I have to admit they were far more innocent than I was giving them credit for.

There was a concerted effort by both the NZ and British media to make England's time in NZ as difficult as possible.

Walkygate was clearly a money spinner for the woman involved, and everyone piled in. Appaling.

Haskell, Ashton and Hartley are absolute idiots and clearly, far too immature, but i'm glad Haskell is suing the maid if she's completely fabricated it all. More power to him.

by gowales Mon 28 Nov 2011, 4:33 am

RWC balls were crap. The Question is why do they change the ball especially for the world cup. Marketing. Its not to improve teams performance, your kidding yourself if you believe that Love sacks. They just wanted a nice Spanking new ball so they could put the world cup logo on it and sell loads.
The balls used outside of the world cup seem to be fine, no one has a problem. Then all of a sudden in this world cup and the last world cup top goal kickers do have problems, this isn't just a coincidence. I've seen the ball myself and its harder to kick because of the shape of it.

Anyway, back to England. It seems to me like there wasn't much of a problem with the way England was playing or with the scandal side of things either.

Things have been MASSIVELY sensationalised by the press and fickle fans.

Remember that they were in a pool with Scotland, Argentina, Romania and Georgia, any other team except for probably the AB's would struggle to score tries and play expansive rugby in a pool like that. They got to a quater final and lost to France who went on to be losing finalists, most would say the deserving champions on the day. England are not a bad side and once the RFU is sorted and the press stops printing one sided stories damning the team then there are quality players in England. Oh and another thing England has never played attacking rugby, they had players that could in 2003 but even they didn't, its simply not England's style.

by Gatts Mon 28 Nov 2011, 7:11 am

gowales wrote:RWC balls were crap. The Question is why do they change the ball especially for the world cup. Marketing. Its not to improve teams performance, your kidding yourself if you believe that Love sacks. They just wanted a nice Spanking new ball so they could put the world cup logo on it and sell loads.
The balls used outside of the world cup seem to be fine, no one has a problem. Then all of a sudden in this world cup and the last world cup top goal kickers do have problems, this isn't just a coincidence. I've seen the ball myself and its harder to kick because of the shape of it.

Anyway, back to England. It seems to me like there wasn't much of a problem with the way England was playing or with the scandal side of things either.

Things have been MASSIVELY sensationalised by the press and fickle fans.

Remember that they were in a pool with Scotland, Argentina, Romania and Georgia, any other team except for probably the AB's would struggle to score tries and play expansive rugby in a pool like that. They got to a quater final and lost to France who went on to be losing finalists, most would say the deserving champions on the day. England are not a bad side and once the RFU is sorted and the press stops printing one sided stories damning the team then there are quality players in England. Oh and another thing England has never played attacking rugby, they had players that could in 2003 but even they didn't, its simply not England's style.

I totally disagree, as Thommo said, they stabbed themselves in the belly not the back. All the off field stuff destroyed their campaign

by maestegmafia Mon 28 Nov 2011, 7:20 am

Hood83 wrote:
TycroesOsprey wrote:I will say this, Ive slagged Haskell and Ashton badly for their role in walkytalkygate, but from all the stuff coming out I have to admit they were far more innocent than I was giving them credit for.

There was a concerted effort by both the NZ and British media to make England's time in NZ as difficult as possible.

Walkygate was clearly a money spinner for the woman involved, and everyone piled in. Appaling.

Haskell, Ashton and Hartley are absolute idiots and clearly, far too immature, but i'm glad Haskell is suing the maid if she's completely fabricated it all. More power to him.

You can read the transcript online on the telegraph website.

by Gatts Mon 28 Nov 2011, 7:26 am

Jake White will be new coach

by bathmad Mon 28 Nov 2011, 9:50 am

Forget everything that has gone on before. Clean the slate, and pick the best players who are on form, and go from there. My guess is at least half the old EPS won't make the squad.

by cabbagesandbrussels Mon 28 Nov 2011, 4:10 pm

AlynDavies wrote:I think England are determined to destroy themselves to be honest all this has resulted from panicing and the press creating storms in tea cups any chance they have got.

Ok so lets look at what's happened this year...
Won the 6 Nations, Beat Wales in Cardiff, smashed Italy, Beat France easily at Twickenham, beat Scotland easily. had an off day in Ireland, played 5 won 4!

Overpowered Wales in Twickenham pre world cup, and did everything but win in Cardiff in the return leg. Then avenged the earlier loss to Ireland.

Overpowered Argentina in the World Cup who only play to spoil and frustrate, a big score was never realistic because of the hatred Argentina have for England.
Smashed Romania and Georgia off the park, beat a determined Scotland, before losing a close game to France.

13 Games played in 2011
10 games won!
3 games lost.

Now look at Wales, they lost as many games in the world Cup as England have in the entire year!

ok so lets now have a look at the "scandals"

1) the captain has a bit of a dance with a blonde who hes known for years in a nightclub. England makes a fuss, his wife doesn't really mind and is mature enough to trust him. Nothing story, press stirring for the fun of it.

2) Most of the kickers are missing their kicks at the World Cup, several complain about the quality and weight of the match day balls. England try and find a suitable ball and try and let johnny use it for kicks but aren't allowed. A bit naughty but judging by the way kickers are struggling then there is something wrong with the quality of the match day balls, you can;t blame England for trying work around it.
Nothing story, press stirring for the fun of it.

3) James Haskell, Dylan Hartley and Chris Ashton have a bit of banter with a female hotel worker after she leaves her walkie-talkie in their hotel room.

The daft bint shouldn't of been so careless. I mean she's just after a bit of attention from the press and making a fuss over nothing.
Nothing story, press stirring for the fun of it.

4) Tuilagi and his Samoan brother both get fined for using the wrong mouth guards.... yeah big news, lol.

5) Tuilagi realises he is a Samoan after all and jumps from a ferry to swim back to Samoa, he realises he has forgotten his water wings and swims to the harbour instead. He is arrested and reminded that he can't now play for Samoa so must stay with England.

I mean seriously England... your determined to rip yourselves to pieces over nothing. This is Tuesday evening for Welsh rugby. The English press are always determined to destroy any chance the English football team has of doing well in football, now it seems it wants to do the same in rugby. The real issue is the RFU needs to learn to toughen up and learn not to implode when the press sensationalise non stories and stir the pot.
England have collapsed like a line of dominos for no real reason.

10 wins in 13 games is a bloody good season to be honest, and England V France is a 50/50 game so why over react to it?

I bloody loved reading this. It makes me feel things arent actually that bad and that I have been seduced by the British press.

Bloody love it.

by cabbagesandbrussels Mon 28 Nov 2011, 4:12 pm

gowales wrote: Oh and another thing England has never played attacking rugby, they had players that could in 2003 but even they didn't, its simply not England's style.

That is total cr@p. In the run-up to the 2003 RWC, (when we won the Grand Slam) we were scoring tries all over the place.

by kiakahaaotearoa Mon 28 Nov 2011, 4:19 pm

England are the 6N champs. Let´s not forget that. Whilst their RWC was disappointing, they are not the only 6N side to experience that. France got to the final and were unlucky not to win it but looked far from convincing beforehand. Ireland looked ominous and then never got going against Wales. Scotland was a familiar tale of should´ve, could´ve didn´t quite damn this beer tastes dangerously good.

England have had a public exposing of their structural frailties built on a bed of Andrew´s kitty litter but the players remain largely the same. Certainly no need for doom and gloom. There are serious problems to address but in terms of the impact on how England will go in the new year is perhaps getting blown out of proportion.

by gowales Mon 28 Nov 2011, 5:53 pm

cabbagesandbrussels wrote:
gowales wrote: Oh and another thing England has never played attacking rugby, they had players that could in 2003 but even they didn't, its simply not England's style.

That is total cr@p. In the run-up to the 2003 RWC, (when we won the Grand Slam) we were scoring tries all over the place.

You were scoring tries through pace and ability but you weren't playing flawless expansive attacking rugby which most England fans seem to be demanding now.

by Totallybiasedscarlet Mon 28 Nov 2011, 6:24 pm

cabbagesandbrussels wrote:
gowales wrote: Oh and another thing England has never played attacking rugby, they had players that could in 2003 but even they didn't, its simply not England's style.

That is total cr@p. In the run-up to the 2003 RWC, (when we won the Grand Slam) we were scoring tries all over the place.

True, and you had a very effective 3/4's

Dawson
Wilko

Catt
Greenwood

That was the key. Your playmaker was Catt. You need to get that 9/10/12 axis right or forget it.

by englandglory4ever Mon 28 Nov 2011, 7:29 pm

I'd like to see the RFU set up something like 8 regional franchises in England obviously with 8 regional coaching teams. I think the model is starting to work for Wales and Ireland and they have a far smaller pool of players to choose from. Then consider a combined British and Irish league.

by Turkster Mon 28 Nov 2011, 7:37 pm

amazing that England can actually have too much choice. Erm

when you look at England youth and under-20 sides when they finally do sort it out with the seniors they'll be a nightmare to play against judging by all the talent coming through, long may the RFU's demise continue in that case.

by Gatts Mon 28 Nov 2011, 7:58 pm

am embarassment of riches Turkster and no one capable it seems of marshaling all that talent, certainly not the current regime.

An RFU spring is required

by atuakiwikiwi Mon 28 Nov 2011, 8:42 pm

cabbagesandbrussels wrote:
gowales wrote: Oh and another thing England has never played attacking rugby, they had players that could in 2003 but even they didn't, its simply not England's style.

That is total cr@p. In the run-up to the 2003 RWC, (when we won the Grand Slam) we were scoring tries all over the place.

Not against quality opposition. SCW made sure England Played plenty of minnows to collect "records" of circumstance.

by cabbagesandbrussels Tue 29 Nov 2011, 9:27 am

gowales wrote:
cabbagesandbrussels wrote:
gowales wrote: Oh and another thing England has never played attacking rugby, they had players that could in 2003 but even they didn't, its simply not England's style.

That is total cr@p. In the run-up to the 2003 RWC, (when we won the Grand Slam) we were scoring tries all over the place.

You were scoring tries through pace and ability but you weren't playing flawless expansive attacking rugby which most England fans seem to be demanding now.

I'm sorry, flawless, expansive, attacking rugby is only something Wales are allowed to play...silly me.

by cabbagesandbrussels Tue 29 Nov 2011, 9:28 am

atuakiwikiwi wrote:
cabbagesandbrussels wrote:
gowales wrote: Oh and another thing England has never played attacking rugby, they had players that could in 2003 but even they didn't, its simply not England's style.

That is total cr@p. In the run-up to the 2003 RWC, (when we won the Grand Slam) we were scoring tries all over the place.

Not against quality opposition. SCW made sure England Played plenty of minnows to collect "records" of circumstance.

Yes I remember beating the minnows of the SH before we brought Bill home....

by bluestonevedder Tue 29 Nov 2011, 10:08 am

cabbagesandbrussels wrote: Yes I remember beating the minnows of the SH before we brought Bill home....

by atuakiwikiwi Tue 29 Nov 2011, 11:21 am

We were talking about the tries England scored prior to 2003. Against the super-powers they played 10 man up-your-jumper stuff. Lying all over the ball and largely exploiting the removal of rucking from the game.

It took the IRB far to long to adjust the law interpretations to force the defending team to allow quick ball in the absence of the ability to dig it out by force.

Since quick ball has been back on the menu, England have gone down hill steadily.

by Welshmushroom Wed 30 Nov 2011, 11:17 am

I totally aggree with you Englandglory4ever.

The whole EPS system is utter rubbish. Why should england be forced to select 64 players which they can only amend during certain periods or injury. That just breads a culture for which players will feel guranteed of their selection. Surely given Englands massive contirbution to club rugby and its wealth it should be able to select a squad of 32 based entirely on form and get access whenever they need them.

In fairness the PRL dont help the situation either as the RFU can't even address their clubs as individuals and we have already seen that some clubs dont see eye to eye on issues.

Clubs are totally self focused on their own goals and have no real interest in developing players for England. Infact some even go as far as saying producing players for England puts them at a disadvantage to others.

There is this urban myth that quality foreigners are required to perform well at European level. Look at the success Munster, Leicester, Leinster & Tolouse with their own countrymen.

The biggest problem i see is that England take far to long to bring players through to International Rugby. They already have developed at U20 level but by the time most these youngsters see their first caps they are 25 odd. Keep in mind Jerry Collins for example had already bagged 50 caps by that age.

However there are more pressing concerns in English Rugby. Ex-Players dont really have any place in the running of a Union. Can they add to the playing side of the game? Yes. Youth Development Officers? Yes. In truth though the CEO of the Union should be a top qualified business proffessional. The RFU has Rob Andrew. We had the same problems in Wales (and still do in some cases) but the appointment of R. Lewis changed all that.

The problem though as the OP pointed out is that even if a new CEO and Coach are found the problems lie with the system. Which then raises the question, even if they realize the issues, do they really have the power to affect the change as needed? Probably not.

Some posters have hinted England should move to 8 teams in the league. The country has enough support to probably support that number but in terms of keeping quality condensed 8 is to much on the playing front. You're probably looking at 5 realistically with just English players only or maybe a foreign limit.

by maestegmafia Wed 30 Nov 2011, 11:22 am

Good Post Mushroom...!

by Red Right Wed 30 Nov 2011, 11:48 am

As I'm a newbie I can't post any links for 7 days Cry

, there's an interesting take on the whole review process on todays Irish Times - by Alan Quinlan - it gives an idea of a players perspective - the araticle is titled
"I feel bad for Martin Johnson in all of this"

by maestegmafia Wed 30 Nov 2011, 11:59 am

Red Right

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/1130/1224308334790.html?via=rel

"What really struck me about all the comments that came out of the English review was that there was very little said about the players themselves. They seemed to have opinions about John Wells and Brian Smith, about the RFU, about their training pitch and game plans and a whole load of stuff. But with one or two exceptions, there was hardly anything about the people who actually walked onto the pitch to perform."

"That’s what amazed me most about what came out of the English review.

Everything was so negative and so personalised when it came to the coaches. There was a really dismissive tone to some of the things they wrote. Like saying these coaches were out of their depth, that there must be at a least 20 coaches in the Premiership who’d be better. That’s going way beyond constructive criticism. And again, it’s just an opinion. There are no facts to back it up.

In all of this, I feel bad for Martin Johnson. Here’s a man you could have nothing but respect for and yet this review shows that he was in charge of players who just didn’t show him enough respect. He was loyal to them and they repaid him like this.

The England players let themselves down in New Zealand by behaving childishly and having very little discipline off the field. They were living in a bubble over there and a few of them thought they were superstars. That was the opinion the general public had of them, it was the perception they were giving out.

Now maybe that’s unfair but opinions can be like that. They won’t always be fair.

Nobody should know that better than the England players who contributed so negatively to the review."

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Nov 2011, 12:39 pm

Welshmushroom wrote:I totally aggree with you Englandglory4ever.

The whole EPS system is utter rubbish. Why should england be forced to select 64 players which they can only amend during certain periods or injury. That just breads a culture for which players will feel guranteed of their selection. Surely given Englands massive contirbution to club rugby and its wealth it should be able to select a squad of 32 based entirely on form and get access whenever they need them.

Well no. The 32/64 players are those that have the extra release dates, rest periods and some control over training and medical issues throughout the year. One of the points of it is that it forces some consistency. Before the 6 nations you can have 5 changes and in the past players have been freely swapped out if they're playing poorly. Really not a problem. Even on top of that the 6 nations/AI squads can be freely selected as normal, it just makes sense to pick from the 32 with the extra time.

In fairness the PRL dont help the situation either as the RFU can't even address their clubs as individuals and we have already seen that some clubs dont see eye to eye on issues.

Clubs are totally self focused on their own goals and have no real interest in developing players for England. Infact some even go as far as saying producing players for England puts them at a disadvantage to others.

There is this urban myth that quality foreigners are required to perform well at European level. Look at the success Munster, Leicester, Leinster & Tolouse with their own countrymen.

Do you really think those sides didn't have quality foriegners?

The biggest problem i see is that England take far to long to bring players through to International Rugby. They already have developed at U20 level but by the time most these youngsters see their first caps they are 25 odd. Keep in mind Jerry Collins for example had already bagged 50 caps by that age.

Ok, let's actually look at the current squad [~approx. age first capped]

Dylan Hartley 25 (34 caps) ~22
Dan Cole 24 (23 caps) ~21
Alex Corbisiero 23 (10 caps) ~22
David Wilson 26 (19 caps) ~24

Not bad for front row where experience is considered very important

Courtney Lawes 22 (13 caps) ~20
Tom Croft 26 (31 caps) ~22
James Haskell 26 (42 caps) ~22
Ben Youngs 22 (17 caps) ~20
Toby Flood 26 (46 caps) ~21
Ben Foden 26 (22 caps) ~24 (once he stopped trying to be a scrum half)
Chris Ashton 24 (18 caps) ~22
Manusamoa Tuilagi 20 (7 caps) ~19
Matt Banahan 24 (16 caps) ~22

Those seem to be reasonable times to start capping. Granted some are late starters (Tom Wood but he used to play for Worcester, he got capped after moving to Saints rather than hitting 25)

However there are more pressing concerns in English Rugby. Ex-Players dont really have any place in the running of a Union. Can they add to the playing side of the game? Yes. Youth Development Officers? Yes. In truth though the CEO of the Union should be a top qualified business proffessional. The RFU has Rob Andrew. We had the same problems in Wales (and still do in some cases) but the appointment of R. Lewis changed all that.

I wish I had £1 for every complaint about R. Lewis and the way he runs the WRU. His demand for more games to make money resulted in the Welsh regions and the WRU in court. It's only after a massive financial settlement that things are rosy with the Welsh Regional Rugby (WRR). How is this different to England? Even then the best thing they did was appoint a decent Defence coach.

The problem though as the OP pointed out is that even if a new CEO and Coach are found the problems lie with the system. Which then raises the question, even if they realize the issues, do they really have the power to affect the change as needed? Probably not.

Some posters have hinted England should move to 8 teams in the league. The country has enough support to probably support that number but in terms of keeping quality condensed 8 is to much on the playing front. You're probably looking at 5 realistically with just English players only or maybe a foreign limit.

There are enough English players getting game time week in week out to fill about 7 teams (8 easily with a limit of 5 NEQ players per squad). But not many people want this as the supposed benefit for the international squad wouldn't outweigh the detriment to the domestic game (which is actually pretty important to a lot of people).

EDIT: If I haven't directly responded to anything it's because I pretty much agree

by Welshmushroom Wed 30 Nov 2011, 2:15 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
Welshmushroom wrote:I totally aggree with you Englandglory4ever.

The whole EPS system is utter rubbish. Why should england be forced to select 64 players which they can only amend during certain periods or injury. That just breads a culture for which players will feel guranteed of their selection. Surely given Englands massive contirbution to club rugby and its wealth it should be able to select a squad of 32 based entirely on form and get access whenever they need them.

Well no. The 32/64 players are those that have the extra release dates, rest periods and some control over training and medical issues throughout the year. One of the points of it is that it forces some consistency. Before the 6 nations you can have 5 changes and in the past players have been freely swapped out if they're playing poorly. Really not a problem. Even on top of that the 6 nations/AI squads can be freely selected as normal, it just makes sense to pick from the 32 with the extra time.

I guess my point on this shouldnt England be able to call up anyone for extra release period. I appreciate the clubs view on this but it just cant be right that essentially if your not on a predetermined list that you are not properly prepared and looked after for International matches.

In fairness the PRL dont help the situation either as the RFU can't even address their clubs as individuals and we have already seen that some clubs dont see eye to eye on issues.

Clubs are totally self focused on their own goals and have no real interest in developing players for England. Infact some even go as far as saying producing players for England puts them at a disadvantage to others.

There is this urban myth that quality foreigners are required to perform well at European level. Look at the success Munster, Leicester, Leinster & Tolouse with their own countrymen.

Do you really think those sides didn't have quality foriegners?

The key word you used is quality. Sure they do but the Irish are limited on Non Irish qualified. Take a look at Sale for example are there really any "quality" foreigners in there (Keep in mind they have a roster of 50% non english)?

The biggest problem i see is that England take far to long to bring players through to International Rugby. They already have developed at U20 level but by the time most these youngsters see their first caps they are 25 odd. Keep in mind Jerry Collins for example had already bagged 50 caps by that age.

Ok, let's actually look at the current squad [~approx. age first capped]

Dylan Hartley 25 (34 caps) ~22
Dan Cole 24 (23 caps) ~21
Alex Corbisiero 23 (10 caps) ~22
David Wilson 26 (19 caps) ~24

Not bad for front row where experience is considered very important

Courtney Lawes 22 (13 caps) ~20
Tom Croft 26 (31 caps) ~22
James Haskell 26 (42 caps) ~22
Ben Youngs 22 (17 caps) ~20
Toby Flood 26 (46 caps) ~21
Ben Foden 26 (22 caps) ~24 (once he stopped trying to be a scrum half)
Chris Ashton 24 (18 caps) ~22
Manusamoa Tuilagi 20 (7 caps) ~19
Matt Banahan 24 (16 caps) ~22

Those seem to be reasonable times to start capping. Granted some are late starters (Tom Wood but he used to play for Worcester, he got capped after moving to Saints rather than hitting 25).

Thats 14 Players you have managed to list. Which reinforces my point. 2/3 of the squad only had one World Cup in them. Thats an awful lot of places to fill for the next coach coming in.

However there are more pressing concerns in English Rugby. Ex-Players dont really have any place in the running of a Union. Can they add to the playing side of the game? Yes. Youth Development Officers? Yes. In truth though the CEO of the Union should be a top qualified business proffessional. The RFU has Rob Andrew. We had the same problems in Wales (and still do in some cases) but the appointment of R. Lewis changed all that.

I wish I had £1 for every complaint about R. Lewis and the way he runs the WRU. His demand for more games to make money resulted in the Welsh regions and the WRU in court. It's only after a massive financial settlement that things are rosy with the Welsh Regional Rugby (WRR). How is this different to England? Even then the best thing they did was appoint a decent Defence coach.

I really have rated R. Lewis. I wasn't slating him in the slightest. He was the best signing we made at the WRU. He certanly has put better structures in place and has not shirked his responsibilities. He has erradicated the old boys mentality that has plagued the WRU for decades.

The problem though as the OP pointed out is that even if a new CEO and Coach are found the problems lie with the system. Which then raises the question, even if they realize the issues, do they really have the power to affect the change as needed? Probably not.

Some posters have hinted England should move to 8 teams in the league. The country has enough support to probably support that number but in terms of keeping quality condensed 8 is to much on the playing front. You're probably looking at 5 realistically with just English players only or maybe a foreign limit.

There are enough English players getting game time week in week out to fill about 7 teams (8 easily with a limit of 5 NEQ players per squad). But not many people want this as the supposed benefit for the international squad wouldn't outweigh the detriment to the domestic game (which is actually pretty important to a lot of people)..

I know what you are saying. But I believe each team should at least have 2 quality players if not 3 in each position. So Squads should be around 45 players if not more. That way each squad has the best chance to be successful domestically, in Europe and it creates genuine competition within the squad. No player should be guranteed his shirt at club level which i believe is the case in the Premiership at the moment.

Back to my point, at 45 players per squad for 5 teams that would be 225 English Players. And thats more than is already playing in England if you remove all the non qualified's and SH pensioners. So at 5 that would present a tough challenge. The key is to provide compeition and success at club level not just international. If for example sides like Newcastle, Sale, etc can never realistically win anything and dont really provide International players what is their purpose for existence?

EDIT: If I haven't directly responded to anything it's because I pretty much agree

by **LondonTiger** Wed 30 Nov 2011, 2:45 pm

Welshmushroom wrote:[Thats 14 Players you have managed to list. Which reinforces my point. 2/3 of the squad only had one World Cup in them. Thats an awful lot of places to fill for the next coach coming in.

Huh?
If you add Joe Simpson, who was also in the squad, to those 14 then 50% of the World Cup squad will be 30 or younger come the next World Cup.
Most of the other members had played in at least one World Cup. Frankly the mix of young and experienced players was pretty good - just were not used all that well.

Back to my point, at 45 players per squad for 5 teams that would be 225 English Players. And thats more than is already playing in England if you remove all the non qualified's and SH pensioners. So at 5 that would present a tough challenge. The key is to provide compeition and success at club level not just international. If for example sides like Newcastle, Sale, etc can never realistically win anything and dont really provide International players what is their purpose for existence?

What competition would these 5 teams play in?
On any one week only 75 players would start for their team, and a pile just kicking their heels.

by Welshmushroom Wed 30 Nov 2011, 3:23 pm

Hi London Tiger,

1) Joe Simpson wasn't capped before the WC so it would be hardly fair to include him at any rate. I would argue most of those 14 showed a severe loss at form after the 6 nations this year. Flood and Ashton are good examples of this. You could include Youngs and Banahan in this as well. I would argue a lot of the players which went on the tour had clearly been selected on reputation because even some of the senior players didnt have form going into the WC. It just boiled to a lack of choices in the end which is never a good thing when selecting a squad.

2) Honestly - 5 Teams would find it difficult playing themselves. Problem is that given the HC agreement they couldnt even really join the Rabbo sides either. In terms of playing numbers injury will probably will cost you 20%-33% of your roster at any rate. I appreciate what you are saying that only a third would be starting but I would argue thats a right they have to earn. It would also rule out players not being prepared for matches or overplayed either.

The biggest epidemic in English Club Rugby is that in key positions there just are not enough English players playing. Take 10 for example. Flood lost form and Wilko was past it. It basically left no options for the England team. Its all about options for England.

I know that every club in England in the top 2 divisions would probably object to that change though so it will never happen.

by stlowe Wed 30 Nov 2011, 9:02 pm

For fans that make up the lifeblood of a country's support, club rugby is just as, if not more important than international. Everything stems from club rugby and it should never be sacrificed. Quite aside from which, shrinking the premier league wouldn't achieve the results being speculated and 5 teams wouldn't be enough to hold sway over it's geographic area and population hubs.

by Sponsored content