Will England ever dominate the world of rugby again?

http://richard-mills-sports.blogspot.com/2012/02/will-england-ever-dominate-world-of.html

If ya get the chance please give this a read and tell me what you think. Any feedback on here and also on the blog would be great as well as advice and criticisms. thanks.
role on saturday!!

Not until they break the chains of the all important club scene grip on the game.

2003 was a one off SCW took a 'team' over a period of years to become the best. he made no changes to the system, hence its return back to the doldrums.

NZ has the best template for bringing players through the correct path- full support, consistency and most of all- few barriers. Thats why they just keep coming through. England have the numbers, but sadly not the system to support internationals.

Same as money hungry football and why Man U is better than England, cos clubs are more important....

Henry has highlighted such a fear of losing that the team throws as many players around the ball as possible to keep anyone getting at it...then when they get to international level, where money isnt the driving factor, they all use their collective huddling round the ball tactics cos thats all they know what to do.

Running the ball and driving forward is a positive aspect of the game...not a negative one. how thats not obvious is mind boggling.

Have cake and eat it too syndrome...

Taylorman wrote:Not until they break the chains of the all important club scene grip on the game.

2003 was a one off SCW took a 'team' over a period of years to become the best. he made no changes to the system, hence its return back to the doldrums.

NZ has the best template for bringing players through the correct path- full support, consistency and most of all- few barriers. Thats why they just keep coming through. England have the numbers, but sadly not the system to support internationals.

Same as money hungry football and why Man U is better than England, cos clubs are more important....

Henry has highlighted such a fear of losing that the team throws as many players around the ball as possible to keep anyone getting at it...then when they get to international level, where money isnt the driving factor, they all use their collective huddling round the ball tactics cos thats all they know what to do.

Running the ball and driving forward is a positive aspect of the game...not a negative one. how thats not obvious is mind boggling.

Have cake and eat it too syndrome...

I agree with your points on club power in England, it is ridiculous.

But SCW had less to do with England winning their RWC than Rowell, Best and Cooke who did all the ground work turning England around. Created a massive pool of depth and experience, England's players won that world cup not Clive Woodward.

If england decide to go regional they can, but the club setup in my opinion is hampering their potential.

1. too many foreigners in their squads.
2. when teams qualify for the top european comp. the heineken cup, it is not their best players, but their best clubs.
3. Regional teams will pit their best players against one another.

That is why SA, OZ and NZ remian top, it is their best players that get contracted to the franchises.

In SA there are 14 provincial teams, and the best migrate to the top 5 franchises, the same happens in new zealand.

They will always have the potential to dominate, because they are the richest union and have the most players to choose from. Though the infrastructure hasnt realy supported the national team, and the conservative mindset of the coaches who have come in after SCW. I mean they kept picking Cueto, why?

biltongbek wrote:If england decide to go regional they can, but the club setup in my opinion is hampering their potential.

1. too many foreigners in their squads.
2. when teams qualify for the top european comp. the heineken cup, it is not their best players, but their best clubs.
3. Regional teams will pit their best players against one another.

That is why SA, OZ and NZ remian top, it is their best players that get contracted to the franchises.

In SA their are 14 provincial teams, and the best migrate to the top 5 franchises, the same happens in new zealand.

Your point about competitivity and minimal foreign players is key. Not many foreigners at any S15 franchise, certainly not over half a match day squad like in the AP

Will England ever dominate the world of rugby again?

Of Course they can...they just need to get a top class experienced manager to put us on the right track again...and use the resources available.

And getting a good selection panel in might be a help aswell!

maestegmafia wrote:

biltongbek wrote:If england decide to go regional they can, but the club setup in my opinion is hampering their potential.

1. too many foreigners in their squads.
2. when teams qualify for the top european comp. the heineken cup, it is not their best players, but their best clubs.
3. Regional teams will pit their best players against one another.

That is why SA, OZ and NZ remian top, it is their best players that get contracted to the franchises.

In SA their are 14 provincial teams, and the best migrate to the top 5 franchises, the same happens in new zealand.

Your point about competitivity and minimal foreign players is key. Not many foreigners at any S15 franchise, certainly not over half a match day squad like in the AP

You make it sound as if every team in the AP fields a team made up of over half non English players, which simply isn't true.

Equo Troiano wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

biltongbek wrote:If england decide to go regional they can, but the club setup in my opinion is hampering their potential.

1. too many foreigners in their squads.
2. when teams qualify for the top european comp. the heineken cup, it is not their best players, but their best clubs.
3. Regional teams will pit their best players against one another.

That is why SA, OZ and NZ remian top, it is their best players that get contracted to the franchises.

In SA their are 14 provincial teams, and the best migrate to the top 5 franchises, the same happens in new zealand.

Your point about competitivity and minimal foreign players is key. Not many foreigners at any S15 franchise, certainly not over half a match day squad like in the AP

You make it sound as if every team in the AP fields a team made up of over half non English players, which simply isn't true.

doesn't matter whether it is half or a quarter. The fact is when a team qualifies for the Heieneken cup there are two immediate negatives.

1. The foreign players in that team takes the place of an Englishman who doesn't get exposed to a higher level of competition.
2. You may have an English player not playing at the higher level of competition in his selected position, because his team didn't make it.

The solution is simple, let the top English players compete against one another at the highest level.

How else do you think Ireland, Wlaes and New Zealand with populations and player numbers less than a tenth the size of England can beat them?

Its the system.

england will never adopt a regional system, the club system is simply to intrenched in the culture of the game in this country.

The international game is not the be all and end all for many people, the top clubs are well supportred and the game is healthy in that respect. The clubs are focal points of their communities and encourage local participation in the sport.

England have to find another way of improving the national side, limiting the number of foreign players would be an option I'd consider, ensuring talented youngsters are given every opportunity to play at the highest level.

The club game is healthy economically and this contributes to the strength of the union as a whole, as a result there are plenty of well paid individuals at the RFU and if the england test side is not sucessful its not the structure of the game that is the problem...

HQ matt wrote:england will never adopt a regional system, the club system is simply to intrenched in the culture of the game in this country.

The international game is not the be all and end all for many people.

Well if that is the case, this question is a moot point.

Guys the England golden patch 1991 to 2003 was due to great players more than anything else.

That is the main thing England have lacked, certainly in such abundance as they previously had.

well odds on we will.

we have the amount of talent and talent pool to do it, the rfu makes the most money- get things right from the drawing board and everything gets better- basically the fact is england has more chance than any other team to dominate again

They may dominate it in the virtual world of playstation or xbox rugby games?

gnollbeast wrote:They may dominate it in the virtual world of playstation or xbox rugby games?

Which village are you depriving of an idiot?

Equo Troiano wrote:

gnollbeast wrote:They may dominate it in the virtual world of playstation or xbox rugby games?

Which village are you depriving of an idiot?

....................................... ........................................ ......................................

1) The foreigners issue is being addressed quite rapidly now...and there are far less journeymen in the league...aside ironically from my own Newcastle...but even that will change very soon. Far more academy players are coming through now.

2) The club structure is just fine....its a case of getting the right selections and togetherness.

3) Sorting out differences in reffering might be a cop out suggestion...for example its clear there are big differences in how the break down is reffed all over....and English players are definately suffering for it...so they need to learn how to adapt to differring styles...

My statement was more fact than assumption.

As long as the Tuilagi factory in Leicester doesn't get shut down and moved abroad I think England can still hope for a top 3 finish in the 6N every year.

gnollbeast wrote:My statement was more fact than assumption.

As long as the Tuilagi factory in Leicester doesn't get shut down and moved abroad I think England can still hope for a top 3 finish in the 6N every year.

You mean the Tuilagi factory that supplies just one player to the EPS? You're a genius, i've understimated your depth of knowledge..

Will England ever dominate the world of rugby again?

The puzzling thing here is the question assumes England actually dominated the world of rugby once in the past!!!! That's just plain stupid

I think England can become a strong rugby nation again.

The England U20s are one of the best teams in the world at their age level.

Also many of their players are getting very valuable AP and HC experience.

The difficulty England has is who out of the young prospects do you pick to develop?

English sides performed relatively badly in the HC but youngsters still picked up vital experience.

You would expect Quins,Saracens,Saints and Leicester to qualify again for the HC.

The AP will increase in competitiveness with Sale looking to revive themselves,Gloucester improving and Exeter making ground slowly but surely. Bath have financial muscle so should improve in time.

More needs to be done to help the likes of London Irish and London Wasps in particular who need their own rugby stadium.

Also Worcester and Newcastle which are two sides who will inevitably continue to struggle.

Also Worcester and Newcastle which are two sides who will inevitably continue to struggle.

Watch this space bonny lad!

thanks for this 606ers. Did you think it was a good article or well written? Or where I could improve perhaps?

Woodstock wrote:Will England ever dominate the world of rugby again?

The puzzling thing here is the question assumes England actually dominated the world of rugby once in the past!!!! That's just plain stupid

Its clear that England dominate world rugby from 2002/2003. They weren't favourites going into the 2003 world cup for no reason.

England is doing very well in cycling and rowing. They excel in another sport as close to my heart as rugby: triathlon. The Brownlee brothers are wiping out the dominance of Gomez and Christie Wellington has dominated Ironman racing in the women´s event (although she has recently announced she´s taking a year out from Ironman).

I bring this up to illustrate the fact that this dominance has not always been the case. But once you set up the right infrastructure with good coaching and top quality facilities and you have a clear plan in place, things can turn around very quickly. So of course England can dominate again. I for one will welcome the return of England to the top echelons of rugby. For too many years, a victory against England hasn´t tasted as sweet as a victory against France because it´s been so long as we have tasted the bitterness of defeat against England. There are of course other reasons I´d like to see England dominating again. A strong England would strengthen European rugby as no side is really standing out in the 6N in recent times and England have that ability to draw out their success, which in turn lifts the bar for the other teams in order to be able to beat them. France raise and lower the bar at will and Ireland and Wales have a nasty habit of knocking the bar over too often.

England has only been dominant in world terms for one brief spell in the early part of this century. Why would we expect that to change? The truth is that two nations have dominated world rugby pretty consistently for most of its history - NZ and SA, with brief interludes from the Aussies in the recent past. England has always had the advantages it has now in terms of player base and money.

England and France, together, dominated European rugby for about a decade and a half while the Celtic nations were particularly weak, spanning the end of the amateur era and the beginning of the pro era. Nowadays England is just one of the stronger European teams, and there is no particular reason to suppose that'll evolve into global dominance.

In fariness BlueNote it never said dominate the world of rugby for 50 years. Can England rise to the top again is another way of putting it. No reason why they can´t especially with a World Cup at home in 2015 and a great chance to top the rankings if they can win.

Lets hope not !

The club system is fine but it means I think ring fencing the top 14 clubs and ring fencing them from relegation, it means concentrating your best players in those clubs. Thats a political minefield, some clubs will miss out and it will mean some will have to go semi pro as the funding model would have to change. However I think the RFU are incapable of getting that past the bested interests of the member clubs. It took the poorest period in welsh rugby history to force the change through in wales. England havent sunk that far yet. If they had that structure the rest of us would be in trouble but it aint gonna happen.

maestegmafia wrote:Guys the England golden patch 1991 to 2003 was due to great players more than anything else.

That is the main thing England have lacked, certainly in such abundance as they previously had.

Yes thats correct but they have the numbers and the resources. Thats all you need. The rest is development.
Still comes back to Englands self defeating prophecy.

-Clubs bring in the money.
-To bring in the money they must win.
-To win they can't lose (hence the fear)
-The fear hinders development of players, particularly in attacking skills
-Lack of development of players means theres a Skills deficiency at the top level, so theyre brought in from outside where they werent 'corrupted' by the fear of losing syndrome
-Means less places for English players at the top level
-Means less quality players to select an English team from

And those that do get in are under developed and have the fear factor...no wonder these blokes struggle.

Its also why our players don't become better players after leaving here- they get tarred with the same brush.

Fortunately some go purely for the money and go to Japan or somewhere like that.

Of course they will they have too much going for them no to, the problem is they never really recovered after their World cup win and havent had a good coach or developed a good team in international rugby.

Their 6 Nations success havent been helped by Wales and Ireland finally organising themselves and catching England up.

Yes but compare the resources of the 3.... the numbers simply dont lie. If Wales or Ireland had the same players and bucks using their current strategies they'd be world beaters- no doubt about that.

Its gluttony gone too far...the King has eaten so much pork fat he can't move...

LuvSports! wrote:thanks for this 606ers. Did you think it was a good article or well written? Or where I could improve perhaps?

It created debate mate.

"Same as money hungry football and why Man U is better than England, cos clubs are more important...."

barcelona and spain.

italy also were a very good side when ther eteams were up there.

although there are arguments that club football can affect national sides, its really not exculsive at all

Will England ever dominate the world of rugby again?

No.

Next question.

KickAndChase wrote:Will England ever dominate the world of rugby again?

No.

Next question.

Well, that sorts it then.

Close the thread, nothing to see here.

biltongbek wrote:

KickAndChase wrote:Will England ever dominate the world of rugby again?

No.

Next question.

Well, that sorts it then.

Close the thread, nothing to see here.

Cheers.

Never is a long time,England have seldom been THE best side in the World.In 1935 the Boks were probably better,under Cooke and Rowell they were the best in Europe.Under Sir Clive for about a couple of years 2000-2 they were THE best,despite winning RWC 2003 and beating theAll Blacks they were still the Best,but not as good as they had been.
To be successful you need the support of the infrastructure,arguably the leagues
strengths.In Europe are Top14,Aviva,Celtic League as 1,2,3 ANY Test side is only as good as it`s roots.
England has far to many Overseas Players in there sides,which is often the key positions.Clubs want a bigger Salary Cap so they can import more players.
At grade,under20,A, levels England are good at least by NH standards,many Clubs have there own nurseries.I am not sure if the Franchise idea on the Welsh/Irish/Scottish lines works particularly well.Ireland has always been by Province,Scotland was mainly the Borders,Glasgow,and Edingburgh.
Wales always had a very good Club set up,I wonder if Wales Supporters think returning to it would improve the Test Side.
The comment Manchester United is better than England could apply to Arsenal,Chelsea,Liverpool as well.A couple of years ago before I retired a
work mate was crowing about Arsenal.On there undefeated Season,I asked him how many English players were there.He answered NONE,2003 could be like 1966 but it desn`t have to.
Patience and building a team to win things,it took Sir Clive 7 years and a failed RWC to do it.By contrast Graham Henry did it Twice creating the Best in the World either side of the RWC2007 .
England needs a Manager,an established Coaching set up,a team of scouts scouring the Country for players.
Lancaster has a blank sheet of paper,let him decide how he wants the Game played.Select teams and Captains who THINK and adapt to the game as it evolves and play accordingly.
There is NO right or wrong way to play a game,just Win some are talking about
bad weather tomorrow.
Do what the AllBlacks do keep the ball in hand,and only pass or kick when you have to.Its Cold and Wet in Wellington and Invercargill too.
What is needed is good players,with theMedia and fans supporting them NOT slagging them off all the time.
Players should play using basic skills and insticts,NOT like Robots .
People say England haven`t a Huge Pack,so what Scrums are a small part of the game.Scrummaging is about TECHNIQUE not just weight,some comments
were made about Charlie Hodgeson.
Good and bad,well the first half versus NZ Maori`s ,was the last time I saw him play.It was the best performance I have seen from an England fly half in years.

Taylorman wrote:Yes thats correct but they have the numbers and the resources. Thats all you need. The rest is development.
Still comes back to Englands self defeating prophecy.

-Clubs bring in the money.
-To bring in the money they must win.
-To win they can't lose (hence the fear)
-The fear hinders development of players, particularly in attacking skills
-Lack of development of players means theres a Skills deficiency at the top level, so theyre brought in from outside where they werent 'corrupted' by the fear of losing syndrome
-Means less places for English players at the top level
-Means less quality players to select an English team from

And those that do get in are under developed and have the fear factor...no wonder these blokes struggle.

Taylor, old boy, hope everything on your side of the oval shaped world is going swimmingly.

I don't find myself doing so very much, but I have to disagree with you. I have heard the same evil cycle quoted as the reason for England's poor performances over and over. So much so I do fear the Pygmalion Effect (the self fulfilling prophacy).

But the top teams in the Premeirship, with one highly notable exception do play a nice brand of Rugby. They know they will not be relegated and see a balanced and strong attack as the best way to reach the top 6 (Heineken Cup qualification) and then the top 4 (Premeirship playoffs). Saints, Quins, Gloucester, Tigers, Sale, London Irish and even Saracens average more than 20 points per game. And Saints, Tigers, Quins and London Irish average 24 or more. Most of those teams, Saracens being the exception, play either a nice balanced game or a bit more on the attacking side of the ledger. Saints probably the most up tempo of the lot. So with at least half the Premeirship teams playing without the 'fear of losing' that old misinformed notion is not true and is not the issue.

No doubts there are many issues at the root of England's problems. Starting with a season which is too long, something you are inching towards in SANZAR-land. The Premeirship is a draining competition. The player mismanagement bouncing between England/England Saxons and the clubs is terrible. Even the quality of some of the pitches is poor when the weather turns murky. If all that fixed things will improve markedly (but might be in fantasy land). But, even that doesn't guarantee anything. Still comes down to the players and coaching. But I highlight that to show there are other issues at hand. And the usual rhetoric about turgid play throughout the Premeirship is not true, and therefore, cannot be the cause of England's poor showing.

The simple truth is England have been poor, because, well, they have been poor. C'est finis.

the answer is yes. offcoiurse they will.

maybe the qurestion should be in our lifetime- in all probability they will- because they have the most players, the most money and the most fans!

if you have th resources you have more chance than any others.

however its also as much about the all blacks. the all blacks are a different kettle of fish, they live and breasth the game. they have taken our game of rugby and for some reason thought it was a religion, fair play- id rather worship a sport over a religion!

however it goes alot deeper when you have that much passion for the game, the welsh are close , but not quite close enough!

biltongbek wrote:

How else do you think Ireland, Wlaes and New Zealand with populations and player numbers less than a tenth the size of England can beat them?

Its the system.

I'm sure you meant to mention Australia who has a smaller playing pool than all these countries (with the exception of Wales).
Obviously it helps to have a large pool to choose from which helps promotes competition for places but when it's all said and done you can only have 15 blokes out there. We've all seen teams punch above their weight from time to time and teams that should be unstoppable have underachieved. As you said in another post Biltong, it's all in the top two inches. It's not how many players you have to choose from, it's how motivated the 15 are that are out there. To answer the question posed in the topic, they'll be back on top when they're driven enough to achieve it.