England's current position

It feels a little like London busses at the moment with England. For nearly 10 years we can't find for example an inside centre and now we have two. This scenario is repeated throughout our team in virtually all positions save for tight head prop.

My question is this : is our current good showing and promising level of depth in nearly all positions purely a cyclical thing (which will in time come to an end and expose us to more years of bleak misery).......


...... OR is it a structural thing which we can expect to continue into the indefinite future?

Really grateful for some intelligence here so that I can prepare myself psychologically, emotionally etc for what is to come!

I largely agree with you Triangulation. It does feel like suddenly, the England talent pool is larger tha it was a few seasons ago. Youngsters are now maturing who have benefitted from more professional environments, and it's great.

Regarding the cynical aspect of England potentially being exposed in a few years' time, I'm not too sure if it will happen. A large part of Lancaster's RFU mantra is strong youth development throughout the rugby playing tiers. Whilst someone with his love of the game and abundance of sense and understanding has such a large say in the game's development, I don't think we'll see the neglect that we have previously.

Mate, I get your question, but we haven't won anything yet.

Amongst many factors, I believe we are now seeing the benefits of the 2003 RWC. That stimulated a lot more interest in Rugby and now those young kids who decided to play Rugby 10 years ago are growing up. There is always variation in talent levels, but I think England is moving in the right direction.

However, I don't think that halo effecrt is limited to England. Rugby is growing and talent levels are on the up everywhere. Ireland in particular.

We felt very much the same as this after the RWC in 2011 and the GS in 2012 with a very young side. One or 2 key injuries combined with the fact that teams work you out the following season can make this a lot trickier than you think. Certainly room for cautious optimism but I would refrain from anything else at the moment as there is plenty of egg out there. Cole remains key to your developments

RubyGuby wrote:We felt very much the same as this after the RWC in 2011 and the GS in 2012 with a very young side. One or 2 key injuries combined with the fact that teams work you out the following season can make this a lot trickier than you think. Certainly room for cautious optimism but I would refrain from anything else at the moment as there is plenty of egg out there. Cole remains key to your developments

Definitely. We seriously need to start having a look at his back-ups. If he were suddenly to get injured for 6 months, England could be a a bad position. He's the cornerstone of our pack, and makes up one of the key members of England's spine. A lot of people give Wilson some grief, but I thought our scrum looked good against Ireland after the subs, and he always seems to perform well for Bath. God knows where all his 24 caps have come from though?!

Hard to call for definite this early - but I think there is a better chance of it being structural than in previous years.

Rob Andrew has long said that a big part of his role has been to put in place a player development pipeline that did not exist under Woodward; it may be that it is now bearing fruit.

Reasons to believe:
- Lancaster was responsible for the development of many of the players in his current squad when he was in his previous role, and now has responsibility for all elite player development
- The England U20s squad has until very recently been one of the best in the world - often second only to NZ
- Club academies are beginning to generate a steady stream of quality EQPs
- Clubs are incentivised for having EQPs and Academy players on their books
- The RFU player development department is casting its net wider and encouraging the clubs to look beyond traditional rugby schools for young players - it's slow, but it's starting to bear fruit
- Lancaster has put in place a performance culture and has shown that he's not afraid to try out young/inexperienced players or to drop players who've been successful but lost form. The problem of "senior" players blocking the way for more potent younger players (per 2011) is unlikely to happen again.

Reasons to worry:
- The U20s and Saxons have not gone so well since Lancaster stepped up
- There will always be a conflict between club and country over development priorities - no guarantee that the pipeline will produce players in the right positions

Poorfour wrote:Hard to call for definite this early - but I think there is a better chance of it being structural than in previous years.

Rob Andrew has long said that a big part of his role has been to put in place a player development pipeline that did not exist under Woodward; it may be that it is now bearing fruit.

Reasons to believe:
- Lancaster was responsible for the development of many of the players in his current squad when he was in his previous role, and now has responsibility for all elite player development
- The England U20s squad has until very recently been one of the best in the world - often second only to NZ
- Club academies are beginning to generate a steady stream of quality EQPs
- Clubs are incentivised for having EQPs and Academy players on their books
- The RFU player development department is casting its net wider and encouraging the clubs to look beyond traditional rugby schools for young players - it's slow, but it's starting to bear fruit
- Lancaster has put in place a performance culture and has shown that he's not afraid to try out young/inexperienced players or to drop players who've been successful but lost form. The problem of "senior" players blocking the way for more potent younger players (per 2011) is unlikely to happen again.

Reasons to worry:
- The U20s and Saxons have not gone so well since Lancaster stepped up
- There will always be a conflict between club and country over development priorities - no guarantee that the pipeline will produce players in the right positions

That could be just because they've lost Lancaster as their coach though. I'm also not sure how much training time they have together

Does a vinyard produce the exact same vintage wine each year despite following the same practices year upon year... with the slight changes to counter weather changes??

Of course not.

We're talking about a very few individuals here... How would IRE have done without BOD? Would they have replaced him with another player of equal measure if he decided rugby wasn't for him etc... doubtful.

The best thing a union can do is maximise their demographics, and optimise those which they have. By that, the chances of finding the next rugby star is enhanced but not guaranteed.

The only country that doesn't suffer from these swings are NZ.... why, partly due to them always seemingly being able to replace quality with quality but also because they're quite cut-throat in getting rid of established test players.

Wales success seemed to happen despite failures in the rest of the game. England at least partially because the rest of the English game seems healthy.

'The value of investments may go up and down'. We are at least going in the right direction for now.

Well, injuries can put a spanner in anything. But, I think in general we are all moving in the right direction, depth-wise. Even in Scotland, I think we are seeing some green shoots. If - and I know this is a big if - things keep moving in this direction, we might have the best, most competitive RWC yet.

RubyGuby wrote:We felt very much the same as this after the RWC in 2011 and the GS in 2012 with a very young side. One or 2 key injuries combined with the fact that teams work you out the following season can make this a lot trickier than you think. Certainly room for cautious optimism but I would refrain from anything else at the moment as there is plenty of egg out there. Cole remains key to your developments

Yes points taken. I am not getting ahead of myself at all. I do undersatdn that apparent depth can quickly be exposed. Perhaps the current situation is what should always be the position and the last 10 years represented a horrible horrible talent drought hopefully never to be repeated??

A major potential problem is the effect of Lions tour. Now im not saying well have 18 tourists or anything like that but in the past we've suffered from Lions tour burnout. It is well documented by the likes of Woodward and Robinson.

Anyway Lancaster has said that he has player rest issues in hand and i trust him completely.

Tri

While I understand the optimism in the short to medium term, it's always best to temper expectations with a dose of pessimism. Heck, look at what happened after 2003 - OK, it was always going to happen that Johnson, the back row and Greenwood would retire in the next couple of seasons, but we also effectively lost Woodman, Thompson and Wilkinson while Kay and Cohen lost form (in Cohen's case quite alarmingly), and as a consequence ended up with a side that was not even a shadow of its former self.

At the moment we appear to have a good and potentially very good first XV (and for the first time in ages I think if you asked this board to name their choices we'd get about 12 players picked consistently) and with decent backup in most positions bar tighthead and perhaps #8, but knock two or three players out of contention and I think we'd soon be back to having players around the team / squad who are simply not good enough for a team aiming to be in the elite of international rugby.

Players like BOD are always an exception. Mostly success is about some natural talent and a lot of development. One of the best things about the current England team is that we can see a process that is turning good players into better ones- e.g. a year ago nobody would have talked about Parling as a world beater/

I suspect NZ is probably so strong because they have good raw materials, they have a culture which allows them to spot the guys with some talent very early on - and that they are fantastic at developing the talent they find. I would suspect that if you took a lot of their players and brought them up in a different culture then even the ones that did take up rugby would not develop anything like as well as they have.

fa0019 wrote:Does a vinyard produce the exact same vintage wine each year despite following the same practices year upon year... with the slight changes to counter weather changes??

Of course not.

We're talking about a very few individuals here... How would IRE have done without BOD? Would they have replaced him with another player of equal measure if he decided rugby wasn't for him etc... doubtful.

The best thing a union can do is maximise their demographics, and optimise those which they have. By that, the chances of finding the next rugby star is enhanced but not guaranteed.

The only country that doesn't suffer from these swings are NZ.... why, partly due to them always seemingly being able to replace quality with quality but also because they're quite cut-throat in getting rid of established test players.

dummy_half wrote:Tri

While I understand the optimism in the short to medium term, it's always best to temper expectations with a dose of pessimism. Heck, look at what happened after 2003 - OK, it was always going to happen that Johnson, the back row and Greenwood would retire in the next couple of seasons, but we also effectively lost Woodman, Thompson and Wilkinson while Kay and Cohen lost form (in Cohen's case quite alarmingly), and as a consequence ended up with a side that was not even a shadow of its former self.

At the moment we appear to have a good and potentially very good first XV (and for the first time in ages I think if you asked this board to name their choices we'd get about 12 players picked consistently) and with decent backup in most positions bar tighthead and perhaps #8, but knock two or three players out of contention and I think we'd soon be back to having players around the team / squad who are simply not good enough for a team aiming to be in the elite of international rugby.

+1

Woodward was very unlucky that he lost not only the retirees but also had Wilkinson's endless string of injuries (though someone should have got him out of Newcastle far sooner) but also the injuries that effectively ended Richard Hill's international career and stopped players like Stuart Abbott ever developing to their full potential. If Hill had been able to play in the 2007 RWC, I think England might even have won it.

But he also didn't have any structure to bring new players through. That improved under the Long Form Agreement, EPS system and in what Johnno tried to do with bringing players through the Saxons - but ultimately failed when he fell back too much on old hands rather than trusting youth.

Lancaster seems to be approaching it differently. He has much more extensive knowledge of the potential players, much more willingness to drop players and is building a system of play into which players fit rather than trying to build a team around certain players. It has been impressive how the squad has adapted to injuries and how he's been able to bring new players through and have them perform quickly.

Early days, but it looks a much more robust model than before

Apart from Cole and Parling I'm not sure there's any position where an injury would cause serious problems, but you only need to look at Warburton's form over the last year to see that player development isn't necessarily a steady upwards curve into their late 20s. Encouraging to see where the squad is compared to when Johnson first took over though, which was a real mess. Fingers crossed that it is the academy and age-grade systems starting to work rather than just a freak generation of players.

It doesn't feel like a freak generation of players. Not least because for most positions there's a fan favourite who's not in the team and is being championed as an obvious replacement for the incumbent.

Also, at Quins, we have contenders coming through who are already starting to challenge our Saxons and EPS contingent. Marfo will push Marler; Gray and Buchanan are already jockeying for the Saxons spot (and Brooker will - we hope - be back in the mix once he's recovered from a bad injury); Matthews is a challenger to both Robson and Kohn; Wallace intends to push Robshaw back to 6 (good luck with that, mate); Karl Dickson, on form, is a rival for Care (though KD is off the boil right now); Casson and Hopper are vying directly with JTH and Lowe; Chisholm could really challenge Brown in a season or two.

I am sure that there are similar stories at Tigers and Sarries. At Wasps, the spate of retirements last year has meant that their next generation are already playing regularly and battle-hardened - it may be a couple of years before their next wave comes through.

Thanks for the excellent intelligence gentleman.

Please dont misunderstand me i'm not over confident or arrogant about the state of play im querrying the difference between where we are now and the dire dire state of things before MJ.

I'm given to understand that there has always been a ridiculously high attrition rate from Under age rep teams through to senior club and Senior international level.

I hope that is changeing.

Also if the same positive things are happening world wide in rugby then that is cause for celebration.

lostinwales wrote: I suspect NZ is probably so strong because they have good raw materials, they have a culture which allows them to spot the guys with some talent very early on - and that they are fantastic at developing the talent they find. I would suspect that if you took a lot of their players and brought them up in a different culture then even the ones that did take up rugby would not develop anything like as well as they have.

Lostin - NZ have a different training setup at youth level, the players are seperated into weight groups, not age groups and play against players with the same physical aspects as themselves. Meaning their focus is nearly ALWAYS on finding space, "playing with your head up" and ball skills. With Rugby being a huge part of their culture most of the physically talented specimens will turn to rugby rather than football etc. And unlike in the UK, they wont just be running through everyone who's the same age as them but a lot less physically developed.

I think until the rest of us learn from this then we wont be seeing a continuous belt of players who are comfortable at the highest level.

Countries with larger playing bases and more financial clout will always develop good players (by luck if nothing else) and as someone further up mentioned, you could well be seeing the knock-on effect of talented sporting youngsters taking up rugby after 2003.

England are always there or thereabouts at the top of the rugby tree along with the big SH 3 and France. They had a couple of years in the wilderness, but a lot of that was down to short-sightedness from previous coaches and regimes. The team wasn't evolved but rather stuck with until the majority would of had to take to the field with their zimmers.

I dont think you've got anything to worry about with a more level-headed coach currently who is big on development.

I think it a combination of getting the right structure in place and having a particularly good generation of players.

The sheer number of excellent young players breaking through at the same time is pretty unprecedented for us. I mean Tuilagi, Launchbury, Farrell, Ben Youngs, Marler, Kvesic, Vunipola, Joseph, Burns and Ford all played u20’s in the last 2-3 years and pretty soon the likes of Henry Thomas,Elliott Daly and Christian Wade will be added to that list too.

You could look at a team and say with a degree of confidence that at least half of them had a shot at international honours:

(Team that started the final last time we played the Baby Blacks)

1.Vunipola
2.Haywood
3.Thomas
4.Launchbury
5. Matthews
6. Jones
7. Kvesic
8. Gray

9. Cook
10 Ford

11. Wade
12. Farrell
13. Daly
14. Short
15. Ransom

In the future I think we will be nominating three or four with an outstanding shot of international honours and the rest (and this is crucial) will go on to have good professional domestic careers. I think we will rarely see players drop entirely off the map the way they used to.

For what it is worth, out of the current U20’s I would say are looking to go onto international honours are Kyle Sinkler, Luke Cowan-Dickie and Anthony Watson. Others have a chance, but I would be surprised if those listed don’t make it.

Comfort wrote:

lostinwales wrote: I suspect NZ is probably so strong because they have good raw materials, they have a culture which allows them to spot the guys with some talent very early on - and that they are fantastic at developing the talent they find. I would suspect that if you took a lot of their players and brought them up in a different culture then even the ones that did take up rugby would not develop anything like as well as they have.

Lostin - NZ have a different training setup at youth level, the players are seperated into weight groups, not age groups and play against players with the same physical aspects as themselves. Meaning their focus is nearly ALWAYS on finding space, "playing with your head up" and ball skills. With Rugby being a huge part of their culture most of the physically talented specimens will turn to rugby rather than football etc. And unlike in the UK, they wont just be running through everyone who's the same age as them but a lot less physically developed.

I think until the rest of us learn from this then we wont be seeing a continuous belt of players who are comfortable at the highest level.

Countries with larger playing bases and more financial clout will always develop good players (by luck if nothing else) and as someone further up mentioned, you could well be seeing the knock-on effect of talented sporting youngsters taking up rugby after 2003.

England are always there or thereabouts at the top of the rugby tree along with the big SH 3 and France. They had a couple of years in the wilderness, but a lot of that was down to short-sightedness from previous coaches and regimes. The team wasn't evolved but rather stuck with until the majority would of had to take to the field with their zimmers.

I dont think you've got anything to worry about with a more level-headed coach currently who is big on development.

I was weighed as a 12 year old. and that was in the 80s.

Tri, I think everyone is weighed, regularly.

England are on the cusp and on the edge at the same time...having achieved what no other team has managed in the autumn, they now go into each game as favourites and have to handle the pressure and expectation of that. One false move the Slam is gone and gone with it would be much of the veneer of composure we have now come to expect from England. Scratch the surface there does seem to be some real substance there, intelligent players and the sense that there are no superstars, just a strong team ethic and honest performances. A reflection of a great coach who has saved England from the Johnson era. If they complete an historic first slam in 10 years then it seems the world is their oyster but in terms of RWC I would say perhaps a year early and like any side they will have to manage the psychology of success. Whatever way you spin it, they are in good shape and well poised for a real crack at RWC 2015

bluestonevedder wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Hard to call for definite this early - but I think there is a better chance of it being structural than in previous years.

Rob Andrew has long said that a big part of his role has been to put in place a player development pipeline that did not exist under Woodward; it may be that it is now bearing fruit.

Reasons to believe:
- Lancaster was responsible for the development of many of the players in his current squad when he was in his previous role, and now has responsibility for all elite player development
- The England U20s squad has until very recently been one of the best in the world - often second only to NZ
- Club academies are beginning to generate a steady stream of quality EQPs
- Clubs are incentivised for having EQPs and Academy players on their books
- The RFU player development department is casting its net wider and encouraging the clubs to look beyond traditional rugby schools for young players - it's slow, but it's starting to bear fruit
- Lancaster has put in place a performance culture and has shown that he's not afraid to try out young/inexperienced players or to drop players who've been successful but lost form. The problem of "senior" players blocking the way for more potent younger players (per 2011) is unlikely to happen again.

Reasons to worry:
- The U20s and Saxons have not gone so well since Lancaster stepped up
- There will always be a conflict between club and country over development priorities - no guarantee that the pipeline will produce players in the right positions

That could be just because they've lost Lancaster as their coach though. I'm also not sure how much training time they have together

I wasn't impressed with the Saxons when Lancaster was incharge. The Saxons is where the thing about player base really comes into it and some of the pathetic performances were shocking. The Saxons were at their best when Mallinder was in charge (I think it was Mallider).

HammerofThunor wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Hard to call for definite this early - but I think there is a better chance of it being structural than in previous years.

Rob Andrew has long said that a big part of his role has been to put in place a player development pipeline that did not exist under Woodward; it may be that it is now bearing fruit.

Reasons to believe:
- Lancaster was responsible for the development of many of the players in his current squad when he was in his previous role, and now has responsibility for all elite player development
- The England U20s squad has until very recently been one of the best in the world - often second only to NZ
- Club academies are beginning to generate a steady stream of quality EQPs
- Clubs are incentivised for having EQPs and Academy players on their books
- The RFU player development department is casting its net wider and encouraging the clubs to look beyond traditional rugby schools for young players - it's slow, but it's starting to bear fruit
- Lancaster has put in place a performance culture and has shown that he's not afraid to try out young/inexperienced players or to drop players who've been successful but lost form. The problem of "senior" players blocking the way for more potent younger players (per 2011) is unlikely to happen again.

Reasons to worry:
- The U20s and Saxons have not gone so well since Lancaster stepped up
- There will always be a conflict between club and country over development priorities - no guarantee that the pipeline will produce players in the right positions

That could be just because they've lost Lancaster as their coach though. I'm also not sure how much training time they have together

I wasn't impressed with the Saxons when Lancaster was incharge. The Saxons is where the thing about player base really comes into it and some of the pathetic performances were shocking. The Saxons were at their best when Mallinder was in charge (I think it was Mallider).

Yeh, thinking about it, they weren't too successful with SL in charge. I think the problem at the moment is the lack of games, and time together. I was a big fan of the Churchill Cup, and thought it provided a really good base for players to show their skills on a semi-international stage. Now, it just seems the developmental team games are quite sporadic.

What it appears to me is that players are actually enjoying meeting up and being part of this squad. There seems to be a good spirit and more so the coaches and players know the plan and are buying into it. Players are improving..i think Owen Farrell is one who we ALL slated and who are slowly coming round to the idea he could actually be a good choice.

Under Johnson it often appeared that the coaches wanted different styles...and that team moral was woeful....it was clear that whilst with England players seemed to lose form quickly and looked jaded...

I think Lancs had a strategy and its been very much a case of lets fix things one step at a time.
1) Fix breakdown issues
2) Sort Defensive system
3)...etc etc

And i do believe what was said earlier that there is a system slowly developing that players can be brought into rather than the system being created around certain players.

There will be defeats, dissapointments still along the way...but it appears that they take this in their stride and use defeats positively.

I think Lancaster and his coaches deserve alot of credit..(and Mr Farrell also who has taken a lot of criticism) for creating this...and i for one was very sceptical...

last 2 games won using the same personnel with very different tactics - dominating the opposition both times.

Yes I know the Ireland game was close on the scoreboard - and Ireland looked dangerous at times (and in theory could have nicked it) But in practice England didnt let them have any penalty kicks in range in the first half, and smashed them physically to the extent that they were able to dominate points and possession while playing 14 vs 15

The Scots are looking good on paper - it will be interesting to see how they do in the remaining fixtures but there is a suggestion that again they are a good team that was smashed by England.

NZ has been discussed enough

As has been said there will be hiccups on the way but they will learn from those and things.

England are as strong as at any time since the RWC win and things are looking good.

The Saxons has also, I think, been changed by the EPS system. It's now a kind of holding pen for players who can be drawn into the full EPS squad in case of injury, as well as a place to develop up and coming players. As a result, it's neither one thing nor the other, and has really suffered from the loss of the Churchill cup.

However, I do think that with what we are seeing at the moment it will over time come to contain a pool of guys who are bought in to what England are doing and know that they are only one injury or loss of form away from having a chance to make an impact.

I in particular agree with the points over strength and depth mentioned above.

THere is a huge plus to unfortunate injury's to key men in your squad as it forces a coach and his team to look at the other options. In Wales we have had crisis after crisis and through that have turned up with some decent performers, Tipuric, Ken Owens, Craig Mitchell, Aaron Jarvis, Ryan Bevington, recently Coombs...! All good news. Recently you promoted Tom Youngs, he's done a gret job, as has Twelvetrees.

England are currently looking for a man to fill Morgans boots for the next few games. A few good lads are putting their hands up and that will strengthen the England squad more than anything else.

It might sound odd to say it but in reality losing Dan Cole for a season would do England a lot of good in the long run.

10 years ago, a bunch of young boys started senior school and watched in young awe as England beat all comers, became world no 1 and won the RWC away in Australia,beating the hosts. Fallow years of senior rugby followed. But the young lads in their thousands had already been inspired to start rugby rather than football, and to join the school rugby team. The best of them later joined the academies in their hundreds and a further select few were talent spotted by premiership clubs / academies.
These young men now in their early 20s have been brought through under 20 rugby system, and now by Lancaster into the senior side. The seedlings of 10 years ago are now bearing fruit in considerable depth fro Mr Lancaster.

gregortree wrote:10 years ago, a bunch of young boys started senior school and watched in young awe as England beat all comers, became world no 1 and won the RWC away in Australia,beating the hosts. Fallow years of senior rugby followed. But the young lads in their thousands had already been inspired to start rugby rather than football, and to join the school rugby team. The best of them later joined the academies in their hundreds and a further select few were talent spotted by premiership clubs / academies.
These young men now in their early 20s have been brought through under 20 rugby system, and now by Lancaster into the senior side. The seedlings of 10 years ago are now bearing fruit in considerable depth fro Mr Lancaster.

10 years ago I dont think Barritt, Tuilangi, Vunipolo and a few others were cheering England on, but I see your point

Is part of it the style that England play and the mindset within the squad? So although not all players are of the highest quality they all buy in to that style and know their place in the greater machine?

E.g. players who may only be as good as most other Internationals look and perform better because they find it easier to step in to their position and know their role's within the team?

RubyGuby wrote:

gregortree wrote:10 years ago, a bunch of young boys started senior school and watched in young awe as England beat all comers, became world no 1 and won the RWC away in Australia,beating the hosts. Fallow years of senior rugby followed. But the young lads in their thousands had already been inspired to start rugby rather than football, and to join the school rugby team. The best of them later joined the academies in their hundreds and a further select few were talent spotted by premiership clubs / academies.
These young men now in their early 20s have been brought through under 20 rugby system, and now by Lancaster into the senior side. The seedlings of 10 years ago are now bearing fruit in considerable depth fro Mr Lancaster.

10 years ago I dont think Barritt, Tuilangi, Vunipolo and a few others were cheering England on, but I see your point

yappysnap wrote:Is part of it the style that England play and the mindset within the squad? So although not all players are of the highest quality they all buy in to that style and know their place in the greater machine?

E.g. players who may only be as good as most other Internationals look and perform better because they find it easier to step in to their position and know their role's within the team?

I think that's true for many teams with a strong system, including (dare I say it) the ABs.

As for the RWC 2003 factor, it has a grain of truth to it but when you look at the range of ages in the squad and the emerging players it stretches from late 20s to very early 20s with a core around 24 to 26. We are perhaps watching a generation inspired by 03, but they are more the start of a stream than a one-off.

I'd say the current good showing is a structural thing, and the rest of considerable effort and investment by the clubs and by the RFU. The academy programme has been hugely successful at producing young players that the clubs actually want to play (remember when people used to say young English players never got a chance?), and the RFU continue to seek improvements: taking rugby into schools that don't play, changing the focus in junior rugby to be more about skills and less about strength, setting up an u18 league (the first time English rugby has ever had this, so this is the first time the best 16, 17 and 18 year old players actually get to regularly play against each other) which appears to have been a huge success in its inaugural year.

For whatever reason the u20s have fallen away as a team (and the Saxons are a right mess), but in terms of individuals you only have to see Mills and Robson looking far better for Gloucester than they did for the u20s in the summer of 2012 to see that the system is developing huge numbers of talented players.

Reliant on Cole? Yes, but we have Thomas, Collier, Sinkler, Knight, Balmain, Scott Wilson, Brookes, KPN and Swainson coming through to challenge him. This is unprecedented in English rugby history.

Of this year's u20 side Slade, Hill, Jennings, Stephenson, Watson, Nowell, Fowles, Sisi, Moriarty, Clifford, Barrow, Sinkler, LCD, Spurling, and Wilson all have the potential to play international rugby. There are probably others in the squad I haven't seen play yet too. In terms of ability I'd say it's up there with the 2011 side.

The fact England has a very good coaching team obviously helps too, and that is more cyclical. In terms of strength in depth, I think England are sorted for the forseeable future. This brings it's own problems though - e.g. do England give Wade, May or Yarde a run at international level first?

We didn't lack the players following the 2003 World Cup win - we got to the 2007 final after all - but we made abysmal selections, had some bad luck with injuries and the like (the death of Nick Duncombe was a terrible blow), and failed to develop properly the younger players who were coming through.

Lancaster is the first England manager since Geoff Cooke to be appointed after a World Cup, and the timing is important.

Between World Cups, England only have two summer tours with the full first choice squad. The third tour, usually Argentina, is during a Lions year and is always a bit of a mixed bag depending on who gets called up.

After 2003, Woodward stayed in charge for the next Six Nations and the New Zealand tour. After 2007, Brian Ashton was there for the 2008 Six Nations and, effectively, nobody was in charge for that year's tour to New Zealand. Martin Johnson had been appointed but only took over for the Autumn Internationals.

That's a lot of potential development time for a coaching team to miss. Johnson only had one real tour with England in 2010. In 2009, we didn't even do Argentina properly, because one of the games was at Old Trafford. As it turned out, the 2010 tour was one of the few bright spots in bringing the team together.

It's doubtful, given his record, that Andy Robinson would have made good use of the opportunity if Woodward had stepped down immediately after 2003 but he might have made some different choices.

In the end, however, it always seemed as if he felt as if he was against the clock as the matches ticked down to the 2007 World Cup. The way he handled Tait and Henry Paul meant that any player coming into the England set-up was under a ridiculous amount of pressure to perform immediately, or get dropped.

There's a rule of thumb that a World Cup winning team needs an average of over 600 caps. Until a less experienced team takes the title, that's what most managers will aim for. Robinson blew his chance to let new players gain experience and Brian Ashton obviously had no real opportunity to develop anyone (although he still managed to ignore Sinbad in one of the rare periods he was injury-free).

Martin Johnson had a better record at bringing on new people but he was always a bit behind on the clock too. Arguably, some of his better decisions - dropping Borthwick - came when circumstances forced his hand.

One Six Nations and a tour may not seem like a lot of Tests in total, but those post-World Cup matches are crucial in setting the tone for the subsequent campaign. Retirements inevitably open up places in most international squads so there's a brief moment when rugby is in flux more than usual.

If you don't blood new players at that point, then a manager has to be fairly bold in deciding to bring new players through in subsequent seasons because they won't get a lot of caps before the next World Cup comes around. If you subscribe to the 600+ cap theory, then this becomes an important consideration.

Lancaster was probably inclined to trust youth anyway but he was helped enormously by having that initial Six Nations and follow-up tour to South Africa. Robinson, Ashton and Johnson didn't get that opportunity and our development suffered. (Obviously, you aren't always going to be starting from scratch every four years so it's not just about blooding new players. It's just as important for your existing squad to keep moving forward).

Cumbrian,

In that U20 team...Ransom at 15. Is that the lad who played for Sarries v Exter last weekend? He looked very impressive.
Sarries academy is looking very strong aswell...

some of his better decisions - dropping Borthwick - came when circumstances forced his hand.

Rugby Fan...thats an interesting comment. Borthwick is still a world class lineout operator....so should Jono have built a stronger team around him to make up for his weaknesses (which i accept are substantial) OR do lineout guys still need to offer more than just that...ie Parling who offers some grit and runs well with the ball?

RubyGuby wrote:

gregortree wrote:10 years ago, a bunch of young boys started senior school and watched in young awe as England beat all comers, became world no 1 and won the RWC away in Australia,beating the hosts. Fallow years of senior rugby followed. But the young lads in their thousands had already been inspired to start rugby rather than football, and to join the school rugby team. The best of them later joined the academies in their hundreds and a further select few were talent spotted by premiership clubs / academies.
These young men now in their early 20s have been brought through under 20 rugby system, and now by Lancaster into the senior side. The seedlings of 10 years ago are now bearing fruit in considerable depth fro Mr Lancaster.

10 years ago I dont think Barritt, Tuilangi, Vunipolo and a few others were cheering England on, but I see your point

Thank you Ruby, I see yours too. I think Lancaster's England are unusually blessed with 'numbaahs' (thanks Jiffy) and he seems to be a coach who knows what to do with the depth of talent available. England's immense resources have been - fairly - a source of criticism in the past, now finally are becoming a source of strength.

Interesting question, GF, and one we could explore more generally: at International level, what matters more: selecting players who have no weaknesses, selecting players who have genuine strengths or selecting a balanced side where the side as a whole can compensate for any individual players' weaknesses?

A year ago, I'd have opted for the latter option and lamented the difficulty of putting together a properly balanced side, but the last few months have made me lean more towards the "no weaknesses" view. The England squad that is being lauded today is pretty much the same one that was labelled with the "plucky but limited" tag a year ago.

I was going to say that Lancaster has consistently selected at least the core of the team from players who have a huge work rate and few weaknesses in preference to players with exceptional talents. But actually, in a lot of cases he's done so because his hand has been forced by injury, and even with fully fit options the team has a mix of rounded players and game-breakers.

Parling, Robshaw, Wood, Farrell, Barritt and Brown have a low error count and a huge workrate and are balanced by Morgan, both Youngs (and Care), Tuilagi, Goode and Ashton who can be less secure but offer something out of the ordinary. In Cole, and potentially Launchbury and Twelvetrees, he's lucky to have players who offer both. (I'm tempted to put Robshaw in this third category as well, in that his workrate is in itself a game-changer. But I'll leave my quartered specs off for now). Corbisiero probably falls into the former camp, Marler is probably more the latter; either or both could join Cole given time.

But I guess the point is that there's a hard core to the team that is apt to get tarred with the "dependable" tag, who create space for the more obvious talents to shine. But it's interesting that people are beginning to notice the unflashy guys as well.

Thats very well put Poorfour...

Certainly it would account for players like Wade etc not being considered at the moment...as they would appear to have glaring weaknesses (at the moment) ie defensive positioning.

Its a method that appears to be working...

Examples would be..Parling v Borthwick.

Is Parling as good in the lineout...well possibly not..BUT in fairness to him, he has been on of the premier lineout operators in the recent AI's and has continued that form...through the 6n.

On the other hand...Parling offers excellent carrying, tackling and breakdown work...and work rate, much of which comes from his time at 6...something Launchbury also has benefitted from.

So as an all round package...Parling wins hands down.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Thats very well put Poorfour...

Certainly it would account for players like Wade etc not being considered at the moment...as they would appear to have glaring weaknesses (at the moment) ie defensive positioning.

Its a method that appears to be working...

Examples would be..Parling v Borthwick.

Is Parling as good in the lineout...well possibly not..BUT in fairness to him, he has been on of the premier lineout operators in the recent AI's and has continued that form...through the 6n.

On the other hand...Parling offers excellent carrying, tackling and breakdown work...and work rate, much of which comes from his time at 6...something Launchbury also has benefitted from.

So as an all round package...Parling wins hands down.

I agree, this is almost certainly borne out in Lancaster's selections. The promotion of the likes of Launchbury, Joseph, Barritt etc reflects the desire to put a low error count and solidity first. Launchbury is a great example he almost never seems to make a mistake, has a huge work-rate and makes his tackles. Yes he may not have the carrying capacity of a Garvey or Attwood but he's a player who performs under high pressure.

Wade will get his chance, I don't buy the idea that he's being overlooked that some profess. It's not so much his tackling but his defensive positioning that is at times questionable. What Lancs and Farrell want first and foremost is excellent defenders. Wood said post Ireland match that a lot of their spirit and game is built on defence. That seems to be No.1 priority.

36 was only promoted to the EPS because he was deemed to have improved his tackling and defence to a sufficient level to be acceptable. Many of us would have picked him prior to that for his passing game but Lancs wants to make sure the basics are done to a really high level a la the ABs.

Triangulation wrote:It feels a little like London busses at the moment with England. For nearly 10 years we can't find for example an inside centre and now we have two. This scenario is repeated throughout our team in virtually all positions save for tight head prop.

My question is this : is our current good showing and promising level of depth in nearly all positions purely a cyclical thing (which will in time come to an end and expose us to more years of bleak misery).......


...... OR is it a structural thing which we can expect to continue into the indefinite future?

Really grateful for some intelligence here so that I can prepare myself psychologically, emotionally etc for what is to come!

On the future front I do think it's a matter of structures that have been put in place over the past eight years or so coming to the fore. What we're seeing with Lancs in charge is the final piece in the puzzle. That is clear and obvious promotion through the age groups right up to the senior squad. It's vital that the U20s etc believe that they can break into the EPS if they work hard enough and I think we're at that stage.

Having faith in those coming through a system designed to make them better players from a young age is crucial. What's nice to see is Lancs recognising that and putting it into practice.

The difficulty we're going to have now is so many players pressing for inclusion. The temptation after a couple of bad games is to change someone but getting that balance between consistency of selection and reward for top performances is going to be huge.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Cumbrian,

In that U20 team...Ransom at 15. Is that the lad who played for Sarries v Exter last weekend? He looked very impressive.
Sarries academy is looking very strong aswell...

some of his better decisions - dropping Borthwick - came when circumstances forced his hand.

Rugby Fan...thats an interesting comment. Borthwick is still a world class lineout operator....so should Jono have built a stronger team around him to make up for his weaknesses (which i accept are substantial) OR do lineout guys still need to offer more than just that...ie Parling who offers some grit and runs well with the ball?

That's the fella, he is a very balanced runner, but a little light weight. I am tempering my interest in him because I have heard that he is Scots qualified and there have been enquiries.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Thats very well put Poorfour...

Certainly it would account for players like Wade etc not being considered at the moment...as they would appear to have glaring weaknesses (at the moment) ie defensive positioning.

Its a method that appears to be working...

Examples would be..Parling v Borthwick.

Is Parling as good in the lineout...well possibly not..BUT in fairness to him, he has been on of the premier lineout operators in the recent AI's and has continued that form...through the 6n.

On the other hand...Parling offers excellent carrying, tackling and breakdown work...and work rate, much of which comes from his time at 6...something Launchbury also has benefitted from.

So as an all round package...Parling wins hands down.

Geordiefalcon I don't think you realise how many tackles Borthwick makes. He makes a ridiculously high amount.I think last season he was top 5 total in the AP. This season he is one of the highest at Saracens. I would actually say Borthwick is probably one of the best tacklers in the AP.

Borthwick also is decent at the breakdown and exceptional workrate. Where he falls down is in the carrying department. He simply has never been good at getting over the gainline.

Beshocked...im aware he has a high workrate...but i wasnt aware of his tackling...so ill take that back. Interesting i never saw him as that strong at the breakdown...but ill take your opinon as a Sarries fan.

Yes... success is nice when it begins to happen.

As for the predictability into the future?

Wales.... France......................

The one thing going for England is that they are grim reapers when it comes to excellence by design rather than instinct... their (British) all over Olympics (English athletes providing the bulk of the effort!) rise and rise shows that when they put their 'lotto' money where their mouth is, they don't cut corners and clinically reap the benefits.

I suspects English rugby is just another branch ready to, and probably already getting, the kind of scientific and military precision backing that their Olympic sports now get continually. The English have become virtually obsessed with world dominance in a myriad of sports (only last week I heard that campaigners were saying kids didn't get enough PE/exercise at school. And that moan wasn't because of some good natured regard for the health benefits to the children themselves but blatantly targeted as a means of increasing success rates at events such as the Olympics well into the future)

So I suppose the backroom boys in suits at rugby union are also heavily involved in that more total all encompassing strategic and goverment backed effort - as of course success in sport (especially on a national level) is Money and Influence in even more 'serious' areas like Finance and Politics. And therefore, to answer Tri's question directly, I'd assume England's current solid advance is more structural than cyclical.

But we'll see how the structure shapes up in the coming months/years.

Chjw131 wrote:...
The difficulty we're going to have now is so many players pressing for inclusion. The temptation after a couple of bad games is to change someone but getting that balance between consistency of selection and reward for top performances is going to be huge.

I think thats hugely important and something that potentially we have suffered from a great deal in the past. very few players truly look the part from day one in internationals. The trick is to know when to persevere and when to change.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Beshocked...im aware he has a high workrate...but i wasnt aware of his tackling...so ill take that back. Interesting i never saw him as that strong at the breakdown...but ill take your opinon as a Sarries fan.

He was also particularly weak as Captain of England. An excuse for every occasion.

Borthwick was much talked up at club level - but what struck me was that when he finally missed an England game we didnt miss him at all.

beshocked wrote:Borthwick also is decent at the breakdown and exceptional workrate. Where he falls down is in the carrying department. He simply has never been good at getting over the gainline.

I think one of Borthwick's biggest issues is pace - he has absolutely none. It's his lack of pace and agility which prevents him from making any sort of telling carries. He's just too one dimensional when he has the ball, and can't make those sort of subtle adjustments or surprising bursts to get onto a weak shoulder and drive through.

Parling has that extra yard and is more agile, meaning he can play the game at a higher pace with more intensity, thus his breakdown work so far for England.

The modern day lock is both big but also quick and agile, almost playing as both lock and blindside. Look at players like Maestri, Etzebeth, Gray, Lawes and Whitelock. Massive men but also great athletes with freakish agility for men their size.

Borthwick just isn't a modern test lock. A great club servant and a perfect player for Sarries to have acquired. He's a team man through and through and a sound leader on the pitch. The fact that he's ought of the international equation, right so, is all the better for Sarries. He's at the right level.