The Gap

First topic message reminder :

More evidence today that we in the NH are drifting further into irrelevance.

A B-side for NSW found gaping holes in the lions and again showed that even a regional Australian side in a country with notorious lack of depth can outwit us and play with ferver and panache that we just can't match.

Lets face it; a SANZAR representative team playing a British club who were resting their national reps would be smashed off the park without the visitors breaking sweat.

This following the misery of our NH representative World Cup finalists being dismantled And humiliatingly nilled by a youthful and rebuilding AB side resting their stars.

And that followed the development Wales side being humbled by Minnows Japan!

To top it off Samoa destroy Italy by a cricket score and now we can watch Scotland embarrassed in South Africa!

Really only England flying the flag for NH depth and emerging talent with their successful tour in Argentina.

No not ironic at all. but rather that if the under 20s are the best players in the British Isles then Gatty should have selected a team of 19 year olds.

profitius wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:My point proven last night - the second tier of best players from the Lions constituents are second best to the second tier of players from one super rugby franchise - and I expect the same applies to the first tier.

Ironic then that England and Wales made it to the JWC final...

How many of those players Profitius playing the final will make full internationals in your opinion??? Maybe 5.

Even at that age it certainly favours size over skill... short term great, long term not so great.

Its not a full proof indicator into how successful the future will be as some players of that age are already test players, certain positions take years to properly develop i.e. prop, and also a given year doesn't take into account year on year quality... how do we not know that teams x number of years ago were better?
To be a test player you have to be the best of players in say a 15 year age period... these guys just have to be the best of a single year or two.

fa0019 wrote:

profitius wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:My point proven last night - the second tier of best players from the Lions constituents are second best to the second tier of players from one super rugby franchise - and I expect the same applies to the first tier.

Ironic then that England and Wales made it to the JWC final...

How many of those players Profitius playing the final will make full internationals in your opinion??? Maybe 5.

Even at that age it certainly favours size over skill... short term great, long term not so great.

Its not a full proof indicator into how successful the future will be as some players of that age are already test players, certain positions take years to properly develop i.e. prop, and also a given year doesn't take into account year on year quality... how do we not know that teams x number of years ago were better?
To be a test player you have to be the best of players in say a 15 year age period... these guys just have to be the best of a single year or two.

Its not a full indicator but NZ were the dominant team for the first 4 or 5 years since this competition started. Not many teams could even live with them never mind beat them. NZ's senior side is still the best team in the world, coincidence? I think not. If other teams are catching up at U20 level then its only a matter of time before that gap closes.

And its not just about size. The technical ability of the other teams at U20 level is high. The Aussies despite not having great playing numbers, always stayed ahead of NH teams by producing players of high technical ability. Against Ireland they were second best in that department and they had the bigger, more physical team. Its another little indicator of change.

AUS, IRE and SA generally bat way below their weight in junior rugby. England will be in their 4th final in 6 tournaments on the other hand.

fa0019 wrote:AUS, IRE and SA generally bat way below their weight in junior rugby. England will be in their 4th final in 6 tournaments on the other hand.

How many did they win thoough? Its also the first all NH final.

You're right about Aus and SA batting below their weight at this level but Australia finish 8th last year and 7th or 8th this year which should be worrying for a top 3 nation. As for Ireland, it was a team without many star players but overall the quality was the best yet. The provinces are still importing average players to plug gaps in their squads but that'll stop in a few years because theres enough players being produced to fill gaps and strengthen squads.


As always NZ are the best indicator and it looks like the gap is closing between them and the rest.


Another point I'd like to make to the op is Munsters seconds beat Australia a few years back. They ran NZ close and Leicesters seconds beat South Africa. You can't judge one off matches.

Not only made it to the U20 RWC Final but beat NZ and SA in the semis to get there.

Are we seeing the dawn of a new era where the NH is bringing through better players than the SH?

Will this transfer into the senior teams?

In Wales case probably, in Englands possibly, seems to be working at the moment.

The RFU and English teams have been investing in academies for some time now. 

Leicester have always seemed to be able to pull an academy lad in to replace an ageing or injured star, seemingly since the dawn of time, but other teams are catching up. 

There was definitely a problem where imports and older players were getting in the way of bringing academy players through but this is changing. Sarries, Wasps, Gloucester and Quins are all now regularly producing academy graduates who have gone on to first team or international level. From memory, both Youngs, Cole, Croft, Burns, Wade, May, both Vunipolae, Farrell, Goode, Marler, Robshaw, Monye and Brown are all ex-academy. Launchbury was dropped from Quins academy (and the kid they kept in his place, Charlie Matthews, may yet prove to be the right choice once he's learned how to use his frame), and there are a good few others who look likely to break through - potentially by 2015.

The challenge for Wales is going to be having enough strength in depth to cover what is currently a young-ish but injury-prone squad that currently has a potentially world-beating First XV but drops off rapidly when they lose some first choice players.

The challenge for England is going to be to find the right combinations from the talent available, give enough players experience to be ready for 2015, and develop depth in the remaining areas of weakness (the priorities are probably No 8 - most of all - TH and IC; in most other position we have at least 3 players who look international class).

How do people see the coaching situation? We may have an improved young playing pool in the North but do we also have the coaching talent, or are we likely to be relying on overseas coaches.

We weren't far off having all four Home Unions managed by foreign coaches. Is the improvement at junior level also a sign that we have started to learn how to nurture our coaches too now?

Intersting Rugby Fan

I never really thought about it but had Lancaster not had a decent start to his 6N in 2012 I think Mallett would have come in and it would have been an all foreign home nations coaching staff... although Mallett is as close to an Englishman as you can get for being a "foreigner".... born in England, raised in SA, educated in England, split adult life between England and SA.... probably more English then South African to be honest.

Scarpia wrote:I wonder how well the Brumbies would have played with a No10 who's not a No10 and three players who had arrived at the club the previous day - including one, aged 36, who has not played at a 1st class level for nearly two years. Add to that a hooker who probably played his worst game in living memory.[wow][/wow][hide]

---

You can only beat the team the opposition puts out. If Gatland had insufficient players to make a decent second team despite the apparent resources in his disposal then it only serves to make my point, surely.

JWC results def show promise. Wales topped their group and beat SA in semis, Ireland beat Aus and were within a score against NZ in their group, England were within a score against SA in the group and beat NZ well in the semis, even France were within a score against SA.

As always, it's how those groups are developed that really counts but the future is bright at the moment. The Lions debacle against the Brumbies was an aberration due to management, nothing more.

Good discussion re the outlook the Junior levels might have on the uppers/ the gap.

At face value it has to be a good thing. NZ has definitely, and in no uncertain terms, benefited from its youth development programme as most of the latest AB's tend to have come from the JWC- too many to name in fact.

In terms of the impact on the main side the gap will only close if the transition to the main side is solid. In NZ we are good at getting all our rugby anything sides to at least on par with the best world wide whether it be junior, women, sevens, and most importantly the AB's.

Your 6N series is a great kick starter for this tourmnament and if theres one thing we could do better it would be to have a similar underlying Rugby Championship under 20's format. Then our combinations at the main tournament will have been that much more honed, as currently they sort it all when they get there.

Our losses the last two years will not go un-noticed by our rugby hiererchy and I'm picking pre tournament matches of some description will feature highly in the feedback.

Very good effort by both Wales and England to make this final...has to provide a good feeling about the future up there.

I don't think that player wise in regards to skills it makes a difference
But knowing you have beaten players on the other team before will go a long way to help ireland and wales get those tight games over the line at senior level in the next couple of years.

Regards munster and leicester beating national teams it comes down to thrur belief that they really can beat anyone at home regardless of reputation

The other thing about the age game is that its sometimes about peaking as a player. Not all great players are necessarily at the top when 18 or 19. Some mature or aspire to play at the top a little later. Frank Bunce was a good example where he sat happily playing at Centre for Manukau Rovers for years with the odd Auckland game behind Stanley but at about 30 went on to become one of the best in the world at the time.

So just like not all Juniors will make the test sides, the Juniors won't necessarily have the best potentials either. So its a guide, albeit a very good one, particularly if it signifies a trend- i.e The improved SA, English and Welsh efforts last two years.

.....And....its here next year...

So we want it back! This was always a temporary arrangement...

The wins by Wales and England are good for the game as whole. Competition is good.

From an NZ supporters view I'm not sure what to make of it. The first option is that standard is obviously increasing. The regular age group competition, involvement and development of academies in Europe is always going to improve the game there.

Neither of the last two years teams seem to have had the x factor that previous teams have had and have struggled to assert themselves.

A few thoughts from me on trends that worry me in the NZ game.
1. the loss of coaches. There's a significant loss of coaches overseas ebery year. Gibb's (the assistant coach under 20's and coach of Waikato) is the latest to leave (to Ospreys). The system relies on having quality players.

2. The loss of players. There is a drift of players overseas, even at this young age. Australia and Europe being desitinations. But a bigger threat is league at the moment. The NRL is relatively cash rich and takes a lot of talent (e.g. Roger Tuivasa Shek played with some of the under 20 players that repped NZ this year (only 1 player in the NZ secondary schools is still playing union - his first year playing league was 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTgirYn0zxY).

3. We may have to change our approach. it's still a development tool.  As a general rule players only play one year in the under 20's and we don't have age rep games at younger ages.

4. We probably need to make more effort to contract players at younger ages to keep them in the game. Many of the top young players come from poor backgrounds. They follow the money.