What, if any, impact will the new French selection system have?

My understanding is France has entered the late 20th Century and finally given the selection of the national team to the coaches. Up until now there has been a national committee.

To me this means that the France is more likely to be able to develop a clear style and players. There is now one captain steering the ship, rather that a committee and all that entails. I think France may be able to come out of their shell in the next year or so.

Your thoughts.

Have they ever really been in a shell? I guess what you're driving at here is consistency.

The French, both at club level and international have never been desperately consistent it seems to be a national character of their rugby. I can't see that doing away with a selection committee is suddenly going to engender a consistent playing standard.

This is compounded by the fact that, to my knowledge there haven't been any glaring omissions from this selection committee in recent times. Let's bear in mind that this is a team which was beaten by a single point in the 2011 RWC Final by the No.1 team in World Rugby.

Giving Philippe 'free reign' over selection is not the answer to France's consistency problems, that's even if his selections were ever really hindered in the first place.

I still think its revolutionary compared to Rob Howley's eeenie, meeenie, mineey mo strategy

I think it will have an impact. There's no effectively one person leading the show. It means the coaching team have more control. I think it will mean they are much more likely to be able to pick players for a style of play. I see that the French use more players than everyone bar Argentina. It may make for more consistent selection.

Nation players used against RC and 6N teams in 2012
Argentina 53
Australia 40
England 42
France 48
Ireland 39
Italy 40
New Zealand 35
Scotland 36
South Africa 42
Wales 39

(source: scrum.com)

blackcanelion wrote:I think it will have an impact. There's no effectively one person leading the show. It means the coaching team have more control. I think it will mean they are much more likely to be able to pick players for a style of play. I see that the French use more players than everyone bar Argentina. It may make for more consistent selection.

Nation players used against RC and 6N teams in 2012
Argentina 53
Australia 40
England 42
France 48
Ireland 39
Italy 40
New Zealand 35
Scotland 36
South Africa 42
Wales 39

(source: scrum.com)

The implication is that previous coaches have been hamstrung by a selection committee foisting players on them that they didn't want to pick. I struggle to think of many instances where that sort of argument stands up to empirical evidence. If anything one could argue that the converse was true, that a coach such as Lieveremont picked far too many players, that he had too much input and control over selection!

To be honest I'm not sure. I'm just putting it out there. I would think it would be difficult for a number of reasons. But fair enough, I'll go with your take on it.

RubyGuby wrote:I still think its revolutionary compared to Rob Howley's eeenie, meeenie, mineey mo strategy

C/mon mate

Howley is not that complex a man...!

maestegmafia wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:I still think its revolutionary compared to Rob Howley's eeenie, meeenie, mineey mo strategy

C/mon mate

Howley is not that complex a man...!

You have a point

RubyGuby wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:I still think its revolutionary compared to Rob Howley's eeenie, meeenie, mineey mo strategy

C/mon mate

Howley is not that complex a man...!

You have a point

That said I never considered St. Andre to be a professor of anything not sponsored by Gaullois

I never thought Lievremont picked the team. I was convinced he got all the players to write their names down on a piece of paper, fold it up and place it in a bag.

He then employed a group of lion-tailed macaques ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-tailed_macaque ) to pick the names out at random, throw them at a wall covered with glue and the resulting names that stuck was the French 1st XXII.

Under the guidence of Philippe Saint-André I anticipate the French will be getting stronger and stronger.