" Building for the sodding World Cup!!!!"

Am i the only person getting fed up of hearing this now!

Surely you build a team for the present....and evolve through the years as i said on another thread - like building a jigsaw.

Ie Dowson might not be the No.8 at the next world cup but if he's the best option NOW then he plays and will be replaced when the challengers come through.

But theres 4 6 nations competitions between now and then...and you HAVE to try and win those...not just say ah we're not bothered we'll sacrifice them cos we're building for the sodding world cup!!!!

Not really in agreement with you there Geordie mate...!

I would have thought with ll the ageing players England have selected and their poor RWC last year that england might look to the future a bit more?

Will find out later today when Lancaster names his side.

Until the 2014 6N forget the WC and play your best team.

Even then do no more than bring in the squad the young players who look like prospects for Autumn 2015.

On the summer tour of 2014 take the best of them on tour and see which actually are ready.

Only be focused on the WC itself in the November internationals of 2014 and the the 6N of 2015.

The problem with selecting someone purely because they are young, and not the best, is that next year the next young un may be better. Evolution usually works better than revolution

Personally I am not sure dowson is the best option (irrespective of age0 but if Lancaster believes he is better than Morgan then he should play, and Morgan needs to improve to deserve a starting place.

But Mafia

You pick the best players NOW...not the youngest just because they're young.

The problem with Johnsons reign is that he picked players who simply were in decline like Moody etc...when Robshaw / Wood were proven to be fittest and strongest...this would have been evolving the squad...

Evolution not revolution...

"Evolution usually works better than revolution"

Wow great minds LT

Building for the world cup is fine in my opinion. But using it as an excuse to lose isn't.

Rotating a side to find the best combinations or give game time to second options is all necessary management in the modern game to counteract the impact of injuries and unfortunate suspensions and the like, but this needs to be done in the context of a tournament. Blood younger guys in games you plan to win anyway, give game time to the appropriate players who can enact a certain game plan, close a game out, spark something on attack, add accuracy to a line out, sure up a scrum, add impact in the loose, improve the kicking from hand game, slot the goals, bring on a drop goal specialist, or a more limited attacking player who is better in defense.

But let's not just pretend every time we lose it's in aid of a bigger picture. It's not sporting, it's not clever and it's a completely transparent ass blanket.

Fully in agreement with you Geordie.

IMO only a moron will pick players based purely with RWC 2015 in mind (like Lievremont in 2008).

If it is a 50-50 call by all means give it to the player who can contribute in the long run. But play your best players when possible.

I think most teams have found the right balance so far.

Im getting tired of hearing it too.
People forget that the seeding for the world cup will be done at the end of this year. England are currently 5th. So you want to win as many games as possible so you stay there!
Dowson adds great leadership and experience. The likes of Ben Morgan and Narraway will learn a lot from him.
But saying that England had to get rid of a lot of the old guard because they simply weren't good enough anymore. There is so much exciting young talent in England and it needs to be brought through.

I'm with Geordie on this one - building for this, building for that - It's a balance of bringing on players in the "here and now" and developing them irrespective of world cups - That's just some myth that's pumped around all the time - If England lose a number of games but unearth a few gems then it should be seen as being worthwhile and it will require tolerance from fans and media which is usually in short supply in english rugby where the expectations of both appear to be grossly out of touch with reality on occasion. Players like Farrell and Morgan will need time to adapt as already I can see many of these raw players being touted as the next Hill, Back and Dayglo! That's unlikely to happen so give them time and you may well unearth a Warburton or George North which would be progress.

gowales wrote:Im getting tired of hearing it too.
People forget that the seeding for the world cup will be done at the end of this year. England are currently 5th. So you want to win as many games as possible so you stay there!
Dowson adds great leadership and experience. The likes of Ben Morgan and Narraway will learn a lot from him.
But saying that England had to get rid of a lot of the old guard because they simply weren't good enough anymore. There is so much exciting young talent in England and it needs to be brought through.

Completely agree GW, and thats evolution...ie as i said above...both Robshaw and Wood were better than the declining out of form Moody...so one of them should have been played...thus developing the side bringing in the youngster everyone seems to crave..but also brining ina better player...

Its common sense to me...

I see both sides of the coin Geordie. To a degree England are doing far more reinvention for the future than everyone else.

Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Anyone know what time Englands team is announced?

I see no problem with looking ahead to such a major tournement. The last thing you want is to have older players, that wont be a part of the future setup playing on too long.

I believe in phasing out players gradually and bloodening new ones with an eye on the RWC. You dont want a team full of players that have very little international experience going in to a RWC.

Good article.

Some posters on here think there's an award for having the youngest average age for a side on the pitch. Whether that side is successful or not is seen as secondary. They seem to think that the future is the important thing and the present is just an annoyance. That future may never come.

Pick the best side available, with an eye on succession of players. Look ahead to major tournaments and try and plan for getting a settled side at the right time with 'some' experimentation in between. However, with injuries etc you are never likely to get a full side to pick from so players join the side and are tested anyway.

Luck and injuries often play a large part in players getting a chance.

eirebilly wrote:I see no problem with looking ahead to such a major tournement. The last thing you want is to have older players, that wont be a part of the future setup playing on too long.

I believe in phasing out players gradually and bloodening new ones with an eye on the RWC. You dont want a team full of players that have very little international experience going in to a RWC.

But Eirebilly that is a common sense natural development......meaning you should always have your strongest team out...with developing youngsters (the best ones) bring introduced gradually...Thats what the Kiwis do...and lets be fair they're the standard bearers for the game.

They also always have a perfectly good yet out of favor reserve in each position fishing on a river somewhere in case of emergency in the latter stages of a world cup.

It's quite sickening really.

Any coach that says that should be sacked. It is not for him to sacrifice ANY international game for some indistinct future benefit.

Aw your not wrong Mitey.....

Yes geordie but i like the idea of putting inexperrienced players in very early to see how they will play, even if the older player is in the better form. That will give the young player valuable experience and will also build strength in depth and good cover in the eventuality of injury.

I dont believe in always picking the strongest side every match.

eirebilly wrote:I see no problem with looking ahead to such a major tournement. The last thing you want is to have older players, that wont be a part of the future setup playing on too long.

I believe in phasing out players gradually and bloodening new ones with an eye on the RWC. You dont want a team full of players that have very little international experience going in to a RWC.

That's fair enough, but you don't have to do it all at once. With 22 man teams now effectively you can phase players in a lot easier now. Pick a team to win.

eirebilly wrote:Yes geordie but i like the idea of putting inexperrienced players in very early to see how they will play, even if the older player is in the better form. That will give the young player valuable experience and will also build strength in depth and good cover in the eventuality of injury.

I dont believe in always picking the strongest side every match.

That worked wonders for Matthew Tait.

Of course you dont do it all at once Glas, that would be silly.

I got shouted down on here because i made the mere suggestion that ROG should be phased out and Madigan or Keately given some valuable international experience....

miteyironpaw wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Yes geordie but i like the idea of putting inexperrienced players in very early to see how they will play, even if the older player is in the better form. That will give the young player valuable experience and will also build strength in depth and good cover in the eventuality of injury.

I dont believe in always picking the strongest side every match.

That worked wonders for Matthew Tait.

Gee thanks for that....... It doesnt work for everyplayer obviously.....

Tait was just mismanaged all along by England like many other talented players who, if they didn't shine early on were just discarded. Tait was just badly managed before going on to suffer with a severe form of post-traumatic Gavin Syndrome

Sorry Geordie, have to say i disagree somewhat. I think keeping players in positions without blooding youngsters who techniquely may be playing worse means you get horrible 'lost generations' and the inevitable fallow years us England fans have to endure.

Of course, the real gripe i have is that in a number of cases it seems to be the youngsters who are putting their hands up, but being overlooked for the old guard.

Lancaster's team depresses me beyond words. It neither 'builds for the future' nor rewards good form. Pitiful.

eirebilly wrote:Yes geordie but i like the idea of putting inexperrienced players in very early to see how they will play, even if the older player is in the better form. That will give the young player valuable experience and will also build strength in depth and good cover in the eventuality of injury.

I dont believe in always picking the strongest side every match.

You see this is where my arguement is....WHY do that??

If the older guy is in better form...you play him...so the team stands the best chance of winning, then bring the youngster off the bench for half an hour in the second half...and do this for a few games....thus he builds up some experience, but not in a critical starting spot.

I think NZ is definitely the model to follow. Henry phased out Rokocoko, So'oialo etc... A lot of other nations would have kept them in the squad for their 'experience' even though they weren't as good as the younger fellas coming through.

But at the same time Henry kept the good experienced players in

Hood83 wrote:Sorry Geordie, have to say i disagree somewhat. I think keeping players in positions without blooding youngsters who techniquely may be playing worse means you get horrible 'lost generations' and the inevitable fallow years us England fans have to endure.

Of course, the real gripe i have is that in a number of cases it seems to be the youngsters who are putting their hands up, but being overlooked for the old guard.

Lancaster's team depresses me beyond words. It neither 'builds for the future' nor rewards good form. Pitiful.

But you should be blooding youngsters...but not en masse...and not at the expense of players playing better.

Lewis Moody is the example i used. He was a senior who should have been dropped prior to the WC for one of two flankers who were much younger and playing far better than him. THat is poor management.

However had Simmon Shaw for example still been at his absolute peak at 38...then i would have played him, but with Attwood or whoever coming off the bench getting valuable gametime ready to slot straight in when we withdraw Shaw..

This way you should constantly have a mix of experienced players and youngsters starting out...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Yes geordie but i like the idea of putting inexperrienced players in very early to see how they will play, even if the older player is in the better form. That will give the young player valuable experience and will also build strength in depth and good cover in the eventuality of injury.

I dont believe in always picking the strongest side every match.

You see this is where my arguement is....WHY do that??

If the older guy is in better form...you play him...so the team stands the best chance of winning, then bring the youngster off the bench for half an hour in the second half...and do this for a few games....thus he builds up some experience, but not in a critical starting spot.

So you dont believe in picking a younger player to give him valuable international experience until an injury? if you are playing a weaker side, Italy for instance, do you not then think that is the ideal situation to blood an up and coming player? Coming on is one thing but starting a game is a different beast all together.

But then if you loose against Italy. Everyone will blame the loss on the youngster and his confidence might be shattered!

If you lose against Italy for bloodening 1 or 2 players then there is something majorly wrong with your side in the first place. I only used Italy as they are the weakest of the teams in the up and coming 6N.

GeordieFalcon wrote:
But you should be blooding youngsters...but not en masse...and not at the expense of players playing better.

Lewis Moody is the example i used. He was a senior who should have been dropped prior to the WC for one of two flankers who were much younger and playing far better than him. THat is poor management.

However had Simmon Shaw for example still been at his absolute peak at 38...then i would have played him, but with Attwood or whoever coming off the bench getting valuable gametime ready to slot straight in when we withdraw Shaw..

This way you should constantly have a mix of experienced players and youngsters starting out...

Agreed. Otherwise you're in a state of flux and when inexperienced players come in you can't really tell how good they are because half the side is different and there are no constants. It's like when a game breaks up in the 60th minute with multiple substitutions, combinations break down and you can't really tell who's performing.

Ideally, you're able to bring in a few players at a time.

Something that often gets ignored is when there's a good up-and-coming player knocking on the international door but doesn't get the game because the coach has injuries that need covering in other positions and he doesn't want to have to change too much of the side. So he plays it a bit safer. Seems unfair to the individual at the time, but probably makes better sense in terms of that particular game.

No pick your best team even against Italy...but then give a half to the new kids...

Only begin to START the youngsters when they are better than the older guys....

Its natural development....

Just take Ireland and the 10 position. You have the old master ROG and the younger master who is more than capable of leading the line in Sexton.

Why not phase ROG out and bring in Madigan or Keatley to give them some international experience with an eye of the later tours and giving them a start in them to see how they go. What will happen if ROG retires at the end of the year and Sexton gets injured before the start of the next 6N?

billy,

If ROG retires and then Sexton get injured we'll see ROG come back out of retirement (with a big grin on his face)

Are Madigan or Keatley potentially world class though?

Thats true Milk

gowales, i believe that Madigan and Keatley have the potential to be world class...

Madigan isn't ready - I am not sure Keatley ever will be.

Yes you do bring players in but it needs to be phased and control. Throwing players in at the deep end does nobody any favours.

To take other positional examples from Ireland:

Centres: Cave and McFadden are ready, O'Malley and Spence aren't
2nd Row: Tuohy and Ryan are ready
Front Row: Cronin is ready, Hagan and McAllister aren't
Wing: Kearney is ready, Zebo are Gilroy are not

I would add Caldwell to the 2nd row as well. Hes looked class when i've watched Bath this year.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Am i the only person getting fed up of hearing this now!

Surely you build a team for the present....and evolve through the years as i said on another thread - like building a jigsaw.

Ie Dowson might not be the No.8 at the next world cup but if he's the best option NOW then he plays and will be replaced when the challengers come through.

But theres 4 6 nations competitions between now and then...and you HAVE to try and win those...not just say ah we're not bothered we'll sacrifice them cos we're building for the sodding world cup!!!!

i agree that if a player is good enough to play at the time then he should...if he is there at the world cup then good thats a bonus..if not, it dosent matter....you pick a side to play the game that is upon you...you dont pick a side for games that are happening 4 years later!

Caldwell will not consider whilst he plays away.

The likes of Stephenson, McCarthy, Nagle, Toner, Barker will get a look in before he does

whilst he plays away

I though you lot could be puritanical but that takes the urine!

Caldwell and Sharples in the team would be up most peoples Streets IMO

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Sorry Geordie, have to say i disagree somewhat. I think keeping players in positions without blooding youngsters who techniquely may be playing worse means you get horrible 'lost generations' and the inevitable fallow years us England fans have to endure.

Of course, the real gripe i have is that in a number of cases it seems to be the youngsters who are putting their hands up, but being overlooked for the old guard.

Lancaster's team depresses me beyond words. It neither 'builds for the future' nor rewards good form. Pitiful.

But you should be blooding youngsters...but not en masse...and not at the expense of players playing better.

Lewis Moody is the example i used. He was a senior who should have been dropped prior to the WC for one of two flankers who were much younger and playing far better than him. THat is poor management.

However had Simmon Shaw for example still been at his absolute peak at 38...then i would have played him, but with Attwood or whoever coming off the bench getting valuable gametime ready to slot straight in when we withdraw Shaw..

This way you should constantly have a mix of experienced players and youngsters starting out...

Sorry, should have read your subsequent posts better. Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page

All sides would preferably like to hit form in a WC year but I agree, although some is banter this excuse is getting old fast. England post 2007 were the first to start using it...look what you've done

As a Welshman I'd be disappointed if we didn't start building ideal strength in depth for 2015 over the next three years, which would probably require a drastic improvement from the regions as an added difficulty. But I'd happily take a Grand Slam any year, it's simply not a case of 'the closer to the RWC, the better'. Anyway, I believe that part of building a side capable of competing for world honours is having them confirm to themselves that they can win big in any of the four years between World Cups. England won the 6N closer to last year's than France, Wales and Ireland did but that didn't become a reflection of which side would be better throughout.

If everyone "built" rugby would grow exceedingly dull, with tedious experiments plaguing any year but a WC year.

Maybe Newcastle should have built a team for the now and not the future.

but the answer is to try and do both, I'm happy with this team.

HERSH wrote:Maybe Newcastle should have built a team for the now and not the future.

but the answer is to try and do both, I'm happy with this team.

Now now! We are an exception to the rule...we are just cr$p

Rava is building for the World Cup, he's got the Ravenhill H & S contract.

Glas a du wrote:Rava is building for the World Cup, he's got the Ravenhill H & S contract.

Sure but he wont have it done in time