Ditch the Saxons

I was reading my latest edition of Rugby World and there was an article on what the RFU had to do. Some points were great, some were tripe. Some were interesting talking points such as this one.

The Saxons should be removed as it isn't needed.

How do English feel about that?

How about we ditch the senior side instead?

The M1 motorway isn't actually needed but its nice to have.

I'd say the M1 is needed if you intend to ever travel from the Midlands down to London in anything less than a day. Let alone travelling northwards.

The Saxons is providing players ready for the senior team. It's a helpful tool in allowing the coaches to access players not ready for the EPS and see how they perform in an international style enviroment. What were the given reasons for cutting it?

Yes lets ditch the Development side..that generally performs better than the 1st team.

Stupid suggestion...

Dont see the point in ditching the Saxons. In Wales we desperately need an A side to help develope players and get them to step up from regional to international level.

If they ditch the Saxons they can use the money to provide enhanced hospitality to RFU grandees.

More seriously the Saxons is a fantastic stepping stone and should be kept. I would have them playing more matches - perhaps even against Tier 2 European countries. Difficult to do though when we keep running the AP during international release periods.

What was the reasoning (in the RW article) behind ditching the Saxons?

It's not like the RFU have a finance problem which is why many other national sides don't have development/A sides.

I can't think of any reason to ditch them but, of course, there could be improvements in terms of the transition of players from Saxons to senior squad etc.

The Saxons are a really good way to let young and upcoming players know that they are in the thoughts of the national coaches, it also gives them a taste of what it’s like to play for the shirt. IMO it could be disastrous if the Saxons were binned. Did they give their reasoning for the suggestion Stag?

Oops, beat me to it SafeAsMilk.

SafeAsMilk wrote:What was the reasoning (in the RW article) behind ditching the Saxons

The following is a quote:

"The team is a waste of time and money, as its not developing future England player. The Aviva Premiership clubs are doing that. Look at Luke Narraway. He led the Saxons well last May, but saw Thomas Waldrom - who has never played for the Saxons - get on the plane to New Zealand. Its not a pathway to the top. Either disband it or else make it an exclusive U25 side*. The money saved could go into Rob Andrews excellent England Qualified Players Scheme".




*This U25 thing is a theme throughout the article. It suggests no back over the age of 27 should be allowed to represent England and anyone under 25 be given "preferential treatment".

It's not that the Saxons isn't needed, it's that it is already redundant.

Churchill Cup has been axed, and there's only been 2 "6N" fixtures in recent years - Saxons have only had two competitive games each year, in the CC final and the Wolfhounds in the winter (with due respect to Italy A).

To my mind it is essential that there is a stepping stone in English rugby from Club to International, not only to distill playing talent, but also to try out and practice combinations. Was it three seasons ago that England named an AI team in which 9 - 13 had never played together ever, not even at age grade?

With the emphasis on summer tours now moving towards extended squads to play midweek teams, I can't see how competitive A games can be achieved beyond those. Perhaps midweek A games during AI's (if PRL can be subdued). Summer tours to PI's would be good, but to East Europe or North America wouldn't be particularly competitive. A full "6N" chedule would be ideal, but with Pro12 now playing through the window as well as AP and T14, I doubt that opponents could be found.

Personally, I'd like to see a resurrection of the senior Divisional representative teams, perhaps in an end of season championship alongside the AP playoffs as a start. It would start a civil war between RFU and PRL, and if it ends up with Divisional teams entering HC instead of clubs, all the better.

red_stag wrote:I was reading my latest edition of Rugby World and there was an article on what the RFU had to do. Some points were great, some were tripe. Some were interesting talking points such as this one.

The Saxons should be removed as it isn't needed.

How do English feel about that?

No chance of revealing the by-line author Staggy?

As as far as I can see everyone that doesn't have an 'A'-team wants one...

Article written by Paul Mogan. Its a 12 step plan for redeeming the RFU

I think the Saxons is and always was a very good thing. It gets players playing together earlier thanthey would at full international level. Building these understandings is very important i feel.

But why cant that be achieved with age group teams?

I am just old fashioned i guess laurie, i just like the idea of Saxons teams and feel that their worth is important to gelling players at the final step before full international exposure.

red_stag wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:What was the reasoning (in the RW article) behind ditching the Saxons

The following is a quote:

"The team is a waste of time and money, as its not developing future England player. The Aviva Premiership clubs are doing that. Look at Luke Narraway. He led the Saxons well last May, but saw Thomas Waldrom - who has never played for the Saxons - get on the plane to New Zealand. Its not a pathway to the top. Either disband it or else make it an exclusive U25 side*. The money saved could go into Rob Andrews excellent England Qualified Players Scheme".

*This U25 thing is a theme throughout the article. It suggests no back over the age of 27 should be allowed to represent England and anyone under 25 be given "preferential treatment".

Erm...lets get it clear...this is not a fault of the Saxons...its a fault of the Selection policies of our former manager...policies that have been widely criticised on this and other sites....

England have done really well at most age group rugby and the Saxons. The OP has a point that was referenced also by Fran Cotton today in the newspapers. It is this. NZ have always hoovered up their young talent and nutured them in to the senior side. England have not and have relied almost exclusively on the AP clubs. This structural problem is under review at the RFU NOW. I hope they have the nous to deal with it.

I'm not convinced that having players in an extra team regime achieves a great deal.
One thing that New Zealanders rave about after playing in the UK is the fact that the one team plays together for so long under the one coaching regime,across a number of competitions.Whereas in Nz they can be in a Provincial squad a super xv squad and if your lucky enough aN International squad and with each different squad you have to adjust to different coaching methods and styles.
And the dumb ones think its great because you dont have to remember a whole lot of different calls for moves.

But why cant that be achieved with age group teams?.

Age group teams don't always pick up late developers. For example Billy Twelvetrees had not represented England at any level before the Saxons. The Saxons allowed the England coaching staff to have a good luck at him and see what he could offer short term and long term.

Look at Luke Narraway. He led the Saxons well last May, but saw Thomas Waldrom - who has never played for the Saxons - get on the plane to New Zealand.

Erm... how many Saxons games did he actually play in? I think it was errr... none. He shared the captaincy with Crane but Narraway pulled out with a back injury and Crane soldiered on before going for a foot operation in the summer. Crane was therefore not fit for selection and injury concerns surrounding Narraway. Waldrom was at least fit and had won awards for his performances.

We cant ditch the Saxons - The Churchill Cup (when in N.America) is in my top 5 stag doo destinations list!

England do well at Age group and Saxons level mainly because of the volume of players rather than quality.

So for each year group we may well produce 50 players of a reasonable standard but struggle to identify the 3 or 4 players who can go on to be real stars. Which is all you need to have a strong senior team.

For reference the following played in the 2008 U20 Final:

Noah Cato (Saracens); Mark Odejobi (London Wasps), Luke Eves (Bristol Rugby), Jordan Turner-Hall (Harlequins), Miles Benjamin (Worcester Warriors), Alex Goode (Saracens), Joe Simpson (London Wasps); Nathan Catt (Bath Rugby), Joe Gray (Northampton Saints), Alex Corbisiero (London Irish), Ben Thomas (Saracens), Gregor Gillanders (Leicester Tigers), Jon Fisher (London Irish), Calum Clark (Leeds Carnegie), Hugo Ellis (London Wasps, captain). Replacements: Scott Freer (Leeds Carnegie), Billy Moss (Bath Rugby), Scott Hobson (Cornish Pirates), Matthew Cox (Worcester Warriors), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers), Rob Miller (Newcastle Falcons), Seb Stegmann (Harlequins).

Some of those players listed by London tiger are in and around the England squad (eg, JTH, Simpson, Corbs, Youngs) but many I've never heard of. So is this the real problem? Too many allowed to drift off in to the ether and never mentioned again? I think it is!

englandglory4ever wrote:Some of those players listed by London tiger are in and around the England squad (eg, JTH, Simpson, Corbs, Youngs) but many I've never heard of. So is this the real problem? Too many allowed to drift off in to the ether and never mentioned again? I think it is!

No. Absolutely not. If you concentrate on the players now in or on the verge of the full England side from that list which was only three years ago, then that would represent a good conversion rate from U20's to full internationals.

Wouldnt it be better to look at how many England players have come through the England system rather than through club rugby/league/south africa
PDJ is the ultimate RFU laboratory rat, hes only been a fringe England player so far.
England have had a problem converting successful age group sides in to genuine top class international talents. I suspect part of this could vbe a tendancy at all levels for young players to be selected on size and physicality, a concentration on these aspects when mismatches are easier and a lack of focus on basic skills training first. It is becoming a cliche to say that, but its hard to think of any other reason. Its quite easy to find kids who are big and physicaly devleoped enough to bully other sides at an age group level, but in adult rugby they need the skills as well when they are up against players just as big who spent their youth focusing on chucking the ball around.
I dont know how true it is, but its a theory that in England we are lacking players at this age with good ball playing skills, and having those i8snt teh key ingredient to getting into an academy

I agree with that biscuit,

That 2008 team demolished Ireland because of physicality. But I posted at the time that the Irish boys would come back to bite us.

englandglory4ever wrote:Some of those players listed by London tiger are in and around the England squad (eg, JTH, Simpson, Corbs, Youngs) but many I've never heard of. So is this the real problem? Too many allowed to drift off in to the ether and never mentioned again? I think it is!

I wouldn’t say that too many of them have drifted away. A good number are first team regulars in the Premiership squads.

15. Noah Cato (Northampton) - 4 Premiership appearances this season
14. Mark Odejobi (No Idea!)-
13. Luke Eves (Newcastle) - 8 appearances
12. Jordan Turner-Hall (Harlequins) - 9 appearances
11. Miles Benjamin (Worcester)- 10 appearances
10. Alex Goode (Saracens)- 10 appearances
09. Joe Simpson (Wasps)- World Cup Squad

01. Nathan Catt (Bath) - 6 Appearances
02. Joe Gray (Harlequins)-9 appearances
03. Alex Corbisiero (London Irish)- England WC squad
04. Ben Thomas (No idea)
05. Greg Gillanders (Bedford) - A stalwart.
06. Jon Fisher (Bedford)- Not sure, he always looked a good player for London Irish though.
07. Callum Clarke (Northampton)- 8 appearances
08. Hugo Ellis (N.G. Dragons)- 4 Appearances

16. Scott Freer (Leeds)- 8 appearances
17. Billy Moss (On Loan Bristol)
18. Scott Hobson (Bath)- Horrific injury
19. Matt Cox (Gloucester)- 4 appearances
20. Ben Youngs (Leicester)- England WC squad
21. Rob Miller (Sale)- 9 appearances
22. Seb Steggman (Harlequins)- 6 appearances


The only players to really disappear from my radar off that list are; Ben Thomas, Mark Odejobi and Hugo Ellis.

Even the players currently in the Championship; Jon Fisher (Bedford), Billy Moss (On loan at Bristol), Greg Gillanders (Bedford) and Scott Freer (Leeds) have made decent starts to their professional careers.

So about half are top division regular players (albeit in a WC year), half of those have been in or around the england squad, 3 are likely to be in the EPS.
One them has made his mark as a top international.

Going back to the previous point its interesting to note its two of the smallest players and the technical scrummager who made the WC squad.

PSW's points are valid. The 2008/9/10 teams were very strong on physicality but low on skill. That 2008 team was hammered by NZ in the final.


Another one of the problems with a high player base is that every year you have a pile of "Next Big Things" and the last lot are dumped.

Take Noah Cato - he was going to be an enormous star, but drifted out of the Sarries squads and is now a long way down teh list at Saints.

Or Jordan Turner-Hall. He was going to be a superstar and back in the 2008/9 season Stuart Barnes wanted him straight in the England team, only problem was at the time he was a straight line crash ball centre who could not pass. (yes he has improved).

i could go on and on

Don't ditch the Saxons but ditch the selection policies. Waldrom should have never been on the plane and the majority of England fans online seemed to also think that. Also I don't get why England either pick old players such as Mike Tindall and insist that any promising young star must have a few games for the Saxons. That seems to be getting them nowhere. Fans say "He's playing very well week in week out but isn't ready for England yet. A few games for the Saxons and he should be." Excuse me how the f**k do you know that a first time international player won't shine around the best full time international players in England?

Waldrom should not have gone - but that is because of his mode of eligibility not his ability. He was the best No 8 in the premiership last year.

As to young players - yes they should get their chance - but how long before you then want the next promising 20 something in the team.

The following players are all young enough to be under 30 at the 2015 World Cup and have all been touted at some point as the next big thing in the centre:

Matthew Tait, Anthony Allen, Dominick Waldouck, Shane Geraghty, Jordan Turner Hall, George Lowe, Henry Trinder, Jonny May, Brad Barritt, Owen Farrell, Manu Tuilagi, Billy Twelvetrees, Tom Casson, Matt Hopper, Guy Armitage, Luke Eves and god knows how many more I have forgotten. Oh and some guy called Fitzpatrick from Newcastle who I have to admit is new to me.

Yes Tindall/Hape/Banahan (another man who is only 25 or so) were not great choices, but other than Barritt (who should have gone) and Tuilagi none of the rest were in the sort of form last year to demand selection.

The job for the new coaches is to decide which of the promising players have the ability and character to make the step up. Some they can see in training, but game time means much more - hence why i believe in teh Saxons.

but many I've never heard of. So is this the real problem?

That some players will just fall away and not step up and make the grade. It happens at every level and with every nation. Some players have a great skill base but reach the ceiling of ability younger and so stand out less and less as time goes by. Others are late developers and reach their peak far later and so don't make age group teams. Injuries also play a part as do coaches and attitudes of players. It's impossible to maintain a 23 man team all the way from under 18 to full international.

How much time did Tuilagi spend in the Saxons/age grade sides?
How much time did he spend at a younger age getting rugby kicked into him by his family and genetics?
The lad had the skill levels of a typical British pro when he was at the Tigers academy.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:England have had a problem converting successful age group sides in to genuine top class international talents. I suspect part of this could vbe a tendancy at all levels for young players to be selected on size and physicality, a concentration on these aspects when mismatches are easier and a lack of focus on basic skills training first. I dont know how true it is, but its a theory that in England we are lacking players at this age with good ball playing skills, and having those i8snt teh key ingredient to getting into an academy

I think this is untrue. Engand have only been producing decent age-group sides for the past 5 or so years. It takes time for a successful age-group programme to translate to the national team, but the players are coming through now in great numbers. I would expect the next EPS to be dominated by players who have been through the age-groups.

The 2008 side wasn't a bad group, but was inferior to all the u20 sides which have come since. Here's the 2009 squad:

Forwards (14)
Bob Baker (London Wasps)
Calum Clark (Leeds Carnegie)
James Clark (London Irish)
Carl Fearns (Sale Sharks)
James Gaskell (Sale Sharks)
Jamie George (Saracens)
Graham Kitchener (Worcester Warriors)
Shaun Knight (Gloucester Rugby)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Ben Moon (Exeter Chiefs)
Josh Ovens (Bath Rugby)
Dan Williams (Gloucester Rugby)
Chris York (Harlequins)

Backs (12)

Tom Casson (Saracens)
Rory Clegg (Newcastle Falcons)
Luke Eves (Bristol Rugby)
Tom Homer London Irish)
Dave Lewis (Gloucester Rugby)
George Lowe (Harlequins)
Rob Miller (Newcastle Falcons)
Charlie Sharples (Gloucester Rugby)
Seb Stegmann (Harlequins)
Henry Trinder (Gloucester Rugby)
Greig Tonks (Leicester Tigers)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

James Clark and Dan Williams have disappeared, Knight and, to a lesser degree Ovens, hasn't made much progress, but the others in that squad has gone on to be regularly involved in the AP. There's no lack of basic skills there either. I also disagree that England base their age-group success on physical strength, particularly in the last 3 years.

This year I'd expect the following u20 side this year:

Cowan-Dickie (or Ethan Waller)
Spurling
Sinkler
Barrow
Tworney
Kvesic/Nutley
Walker/Kvesic/Nutley (fantastic to have 3 genuine options)
Vunipola
Spencer
Ford/Heathcote
Elliot
Addison
Daly
Yarde
Nowell/Ransom

Apart from the front 5 there is a lot of AP experience there already for an u20 side, and you could hardly say the backs are about physical power, Yarde possibly excepted.

At the present time,England are in a state of flux,decisions are being made
that make sense at last.At least on the playing side of things,BUT the RFU itself is just in self perpetuation mode.
A New CEO ,replaces the old,Blackett is ignored or overuled,ANOTHER Review reporting in mid 2013 at the AGM.The same old Blazers,with there perks and £250,000 bonuses remain.UNTIL this is sorted out and a professional structure set up.People like Nick Mallett or Wayne Smith will be loathe to take on things.
The Interim Coaching Panel is being built on NZ lines ,a Manager who deals with all the Non -Playing Duties and Team Discipline,plus a Press officer[at least in NZ]then 3 equal Coaches with a nominal Head Coach.Players having 7 or 8 Leaders among the Squads.
Presumeably,a new Forwards Coach will be added,then IF the interim is successful then they may become permanent ones too.
THE most significant fact is NEITHER Lancaster or Farrell have much top Coaching experience.What they have had is a few Saxons gamesplus Saracens.
NOW hopefully we have a clean slate,Wilkinson,Tindall,Moody,Thompson,Stevens,Shaw no matter if they are still playing well are the past.
2003 is gone but casts a long Shadow,one which started in 1994 and there were a lot of losses along the way.
At Club level.,A Level,Age Group,Sevens England are still a Force,SHOULD the Saxons be scrapped NO!!!
Not as long as There are Tournaments like a 5Ns or Churchill Cup to Contest.For all his faults,and they are many SQUEEKY has at least got the development right.
The SH no longer contest Churchill or Pacific Cups as they once used to,B teams just form to meet Touring Sides usually for finacial Reasons.
The Super 15 is a more than adquate step up from Domestic comps like ITM or Currie Cup.Where the various 7`s and age limit Squads form a third layer.

"Oh and some guy called Fitzpatrick from Newcastle who I have to admit is new to me."

London Tiger, I dont think he is going to make England to be honest...he is impressing for us however playing a very physical game at 12...he's 6'1 and about 17st. He shows a little intelligence though for example in defence knowing when to bosh someone and when to rip the ball...which he did about 3 times against toulon on Friday...

He's 24...so a late developer...but IF...and its a big IF he keeps this form up...possibly a Saxons call to see how he handles it. But i wouldnt look further for the moment...

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yes lets ditch the Development side..that generally performs better than the 1st team.

Stupid suggestion...

Yes, but that was exactly the problem with Wales A when it existed. The National side were 'building for the future' selecting youngsters before they were ready and deselecting experienced players as they were unlikely to be playing in the next world cup (and losing), whilst the A team picked a side to win every match, including the said oldies, and had a better record than the National side.