Englands Tour of NZ - The Politics

First topic message reminder :

This thread has become a political thread so we'll make it that.

HammerofThunor wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:My original point was simply to point out that there is more than one way of looking at this.

As far as I can tell it can be split two ways.

1) May is in May (RFU)

2) May is in June (NZRU)

  

Indeed there are two ways of looking at it. That being accepted, surely it then becomes about compromise, diplomacy etc..? Where's the diplomacy from NZRU?

The RFU have messed up and it begets belief that they're trying to blame the NZRU.

"Diplomacy"? You mean the NZRU should behave like submissive puppies and roll over te the RFU and sacrifice their club competition to suit te RFU because they don't want to sacrifice theirs?

It's arrogance if the highest order to suggest NZ are somehow inferior and should pander to the fools at the RFU who made this embarrassing error.

It's the IRB who confirmed the fixture and calendar not the NZRU.

I assume William and Catherine will sort this out. It's nice to see the reception their adoring New Zealand public is giving them

GloriousEmpire wrote:The RFU have messed up and it begets belief that they're trying to blame the NZRU.

"Diplomacy"? You mean the NZRU should behave like submissive puppies and roll over te the RFU and sacrifice their club competition to suit te RFU because they don't want to sacrifice theirs?

It's arrogance if the highest order to suggest NZ are somehow inferior and should pander to the fools at the RFU who made this embarrassing error.

It's the IRB who confirmed the fixture and calendar not the NZRU.

Call it a wild assumption GE but i'm assuming you don't work in the diplomatic core. If you want to be puerile and play the blame game then so be it. A more mature observer might feel that the matter has reached an impasse and the best way forward would be to find some sort of agreeable solution. Clearly that strikes a bit over your head and your tendency to wheel out xenophobic generalisations and slurs.

Unbelievable. No. The RFU have messed up. They are a business. They need to suck it up.

Suspect the NZRU should sue them for being unable to meet their obligations.

Watch out GE. You don't want to get banned (again) before the tour even starts!

Banned for what? Unions are required by the IRB to meet their commitments.
If England can't, then they should face financial penalty.

Ain't nothing about who plays in any contracts. Bit dim to been think there might be. England could send an u20 side if they chose to.

Clubs are making players available. Rfu is choosing not to use them.

Personally I think anyone missing the first test due to AP final should get a well earned summer break and be released by rfu from the entire tour. See what that does for interest and ticket sales and teach these insolent opus a lesson

Pups...

The Six Nations sides, including England, will meet every obligation required of them. Anyone bandying around the idea of broken commitments or financial penalties is demonstrating a surprisingly poor grasp of what has actually taken place. I refer them back to my earlier post detailing the order of events.

No-one - not the IRB, the NZRU or the ARU - has at any stage suggested moving the dates of the three Northern domestic finals. This has never been an argument about whether they take priority over Super Rugby.

The NZRU and ARU (not SANZAR, since South Africa are not party to the timetable request of those two unions) know that starting their respective three match series on the 7th June makes it impossible for the touring teams to field all their first choice players. They have never tried to seek an accommodation which allows otherwise.

I'm sure it's boring for most people on this thread that the same points need to be laboriously repeated.

quinsforever wrote:Ain't nothing about who plays in any contracts. Bit dim to been think there might be. England could send an u20 side if they chose to.

Clubs are making players available. Rfu is choosing not to use them.

Personally I think anyone missing the first test due to AP final should get a well earned summer break and be released by rfu from the entire tour. See what that does for interest and ticket sales and teach these insolent opus a lesson

Nope. You're wrong.

SANZAR issued this statement to raise awareness of the issue some time ago:

"SANZAR is committed to the continued globalisation of rugby. We have an obligation to the public and the game to provide high quality and competitive matches. This year's tours from the British Isles did nothing to further this and resulted in significantly reduced attendances and revenue.

"In the three years since the transition to professionalism, we have embraced this era and made major strides through competitions such as the Super rugby and Tri-Nations. This has seen the game prosper in our countries and has had a marked impact on attendances and television viewership.

"The same cannot be said of the game in the United Kingdom. We are committed to continuing this development by taking our game into new countries and introducing further innovations."

The Board agreed that no Super rugby teams will play in any tournament not under the control of SANZAR, including the European Cup or the proposed Welsh Rugby Union Trophy competition.

Instead, SANZAR will plan matches involving teams from countries such as Argentina, Italy, Western Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and the United States."

That was nearly 15 years ago...

What's changed? Not much in terms of the home nations honouring their moral obligations to tour in te spirit of genuine competition.

It's time for severe fines when the NH unions short change the SANZAR sides.

Getting back to the rugby rather than the politics!

Parling got his first game time since injury with 20 minutes from the bench in an overall poor Tigers performance with Manu often offering a one man threat.

Got to admit I'm becoming more convinced we wont see Wade on this tour given that Wasps now have at max 5 matches left for him to prove form and fitness if he returns this season. 3 games in the Jeff and a home semi in the Amlin on the 27th. Rapidly running out off time to prove himself ready for a tour of NZ though.

king_carlos wrote:Getting back to the rugby rather than the politics!.

Sadly though, King C, it is the rugby too. Even McGeechan points this out in his new Telegraph piece:

England are going to New Zealand this summer for three high-profile Tests, but they cannot pick their first-choice side in the opening Test in Auckland on June 7...It is madness.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10762349/Englands-summer-tour-to-New-Zealand-being-sabotaged-by-mad-selection-rules.html

With the facts surrounding this case so clear, the only reason the issue is being rehashed at all is because some can believe no ill of the NZRU and ARU, and would rather rewrite history to make it fit their own preconceptions.


Back to Parling, I see the Rugby Paper was recently talking up the claims of Michael Paterson, the Kiwi with the English dad. Since we already have Lawes, Launchbury, Attwood & Parling along with men like Slater, Kitchener, Clark and the unwanted Garvey, it won't be long before Lancaster is wondering whether to pick a team made up entirely of fifteen locks, or stick with fifteen full backs. Borthwick is even back in the news, winning plaudits for his club performances and pity for the way his England career ended.

This looks like being another instance where, barring injury, we are never going to know how good some players might be at international level if given a run in the England shirt.

Yeh right...... Obviously you have me. How could I have been so wrong and blind. It's all so obvious now. NZ and Australia ganged up with South Africa (Let's call them the axis of evil). The Axis then ganged up on the other 9 members of rugby committee and secretly conned (or forced)  them into signing their lives away (probably using evil mind control techniques). Knowing that the free world was protected by a knight dressed in white (one well known for his virtue, keeping agreements, not negotiating behind the backs of partners and taking others views into account), they concocted an evil plan of domination. They picked a time when they new the hero's elderly, kindly uncle would meet them, knowing very well that his frail health and failing memory would ensure the knight was ultimately entrapped. Realising that their opposition would crush them in a fair fight, they decided to hamstring them by kidnapping their players until the game was in motion. They managed to convince the rest of the world to join them and book all the worlds games at time that would affect everyone but the the evil men dressed in black and their accomplices dressed in green and gold). At the last minute one of axis and had a change of heart and gave the kindly good dragons a break (honestly, nothing to do with having to play on week four and 30 pieces of additional silver for the extra game up north). Luckily for the free world, the hero (all dressed in white) was onto them and backed up by the magical men in green the strode into battle with shining swords. If only evil didn't have such a strong hold. If only the axis hadn't bound the true and valiant hero's allies in lies and deceit they might have rescued them. But, alas, the power of the axis of evil was too strong. Our hero in white had to retreat back to his castle. But he made sure to proclaim this injustice so that no one would ever have to suffer again.

You don't need to make up any fairy stories, blackcanelion, I've already told you what happened. What's more, there's no other account which makes sense of how we got to this position.

Of course you are right again. I've just had to remind myself that evidence and logic must always mean that the RFU is right. Thanks for reminding me. I was bit worried that incidents like the non release of Samu Manoa from 2011 through 2012, and other players, might undermine the integrity of the release of test players by the premiership clubs. I thought Havelock-Allen QC's 2008 decision on player release might be pertinent, as might Damian Brown QC (legal adviser to Saints) published blog on the release rights of English vs Non English players in the premiership, but then I remembered your golden rules. What matters is that England is in the right and that this doesn't really affect England so it doesn't matter. Once I applied that logic to the evidence it all become perfectly clear.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Ain't nothing about who plays in any contracts. Bit dim to been think there might be. England could send an u20 side if they chose to.

Clubs are making players available. Rfu is choosing not to use them.

Personally I think anyone missing the first test due to AP final should get a well earned summer break and be released by rfu from the entire tour. See what that does for interest and ticket sales and teach these insolent opus a lesson

Nope. You're wrong.

SANZAR issued this statement to raise awareness of the issue some time ago:

"SANZAR is committed to the continued globalisation of rugby. We have an obligation to the public and the game to provide high quality and competitive matches. This year's tours from the British Isles did nothing to further this and resulted in significantly reduced attendances and revenue.

"In the three years since the transition to professionalism, we have embraced this era and made major strides through competitions such as the Super rugby and Tri-Nations. This has seen the game prosper in our countries and has had a marked impact on attendances and television viewership.

"The same cannot be said of the game in the United Kingdom. We are committed to continuing this development by taking our game into new countries and introducing further innovations."

The Board agreed that no Super rugby teams will play in any tournament not under the control of SANZAR, including the European Cup or the proposed Welsh Rugby Union Trophy competition.

Instead, SANZAR will plan matches involving teams from countries such as Argentina, Italy, Western Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and the United States."

That was nearly 15 years ago...

What's changed? Not much in terms of the home nations honouring their moral obligations to tour in te spirit of genuine competition.

It's time for severe fines when the NH unions short change the SANZAR sides.

What has changed is that NZ now think that the 7th is the second Saturday in June. Presumably they have moved to a six day week.

blackcanelion wrote:Of course you are right again. I've just had to remind myself that evidence and logic must always mean that the RFU is right. Thanks for reminding me. I was bit worried that incidents like the non release of Samu Manoa from 2011 through 2012, and other players, might undermine the integrity of the release of test players by the premiership clubs. I thought Havelock-Allen QC's 2008 decision on player release might be pertinent, as might Damian Brown QC (legal adviser to Saints) published blog on the release rights of English vs Non English players in the premiership, but then I remembered your golden rules. What matters is that England is in the right and that this doesn't really affect England so it doesn't matter. Once I applied that logic to the evidence it all become perfectly clear.

you know what - if you applied your "logic" and ignorance of facts to the NZRFU too you would find they are just as bad. Blackmailing Muppet is too kind a description of your holy and sainted organisation.

It seems to be going down the black and white lines again doesn't it.

Certain sides cant admit any faults within there own..

Its a combination of factors as it allways is. This is going the same way as the ERC debates

Anyways.... As fun as it is to wade through pages of this stiff could we not have a separate thread for the timing arguments?

Onto the players and Ford was pretty average on Sat, Twelvetrees to my mind outplayed him on Sat and Cipriani played better then both against Quins on Friday.

Other possibles: kvesic was anonymous while Wallace was very good partnering Robshaw. If we want a very different 13 then Trinder played well in a poor Glos backline.

LondonTiger wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Of course you are right again. I've just had to remind myself that evidence and logic must always mean that the RFU is right. Thanks for reminding me. I was bit worried that incidents like the non release of Samu Manoa from 2011 through 2012, and other players, might undermine the integrity of the release of test players by the premiership clubs. I thought Havelock-Allen QC's 2008 decision on player release might be pertinent, as might Damian Brown QC (legal adviser to Saints) published blog on the release rights of English vs Non English players in the premiership, but then I remembered your golden rules. What matters is that England is in the right and that this doesn't really affect England so it doesn't matter. Once I applied that logic to the evidence it all become perfectly clear.

you know what - if you applied your "logic" and ignorance of facts to the NZRFU too you would find they are just as bad. Blackmailing Muppet is too kind a description of your holy and sainted organisation.

The point as repeated throughout the threads was to show there's an alternative viewpoint. I assume you are talking about the NZRFU as the blackmailing muppet here, rather than me. This is being played out as an NZRFU vs RFU conflict. That's what's been put forward in the press and by a number of posters. It's convenient to do so. It paints a picture of poor old blighty being discriminated against by the horrible foreigners. To be sure there's enlightened self interest for all involved. But there's no way it's as simple as that. It's actually impossible for the situation as put forward by McGeechan to actually occur given the makeup and structure of the IRB. Add to that the long standing issues that an increasing number of national sides are having with the premiership and top 14 (e.g. Samoa, South Africa, USA, Fiji, Argentina and Wales) and it's already apparent that there's more at stake. Add to the mix that 7 host Nations independently set their dates on the same day and the only one that didn't has a very real benefit in programing a late start. Furthermore you have a number of these nations that will be affected as much as England. None of them are changing their dates.

I think you attribute to much power to the NZRFU. I'm not suggesting they are saints. NZ has it's issues just like everyone else. This all started with a one sided article that portrays England as victims of by implication underhand tactics by the NZRFU. I think I have the right to bring that into question.

yappysnap wrote:Anyways.... As fun as it is to wade through pages of this stiff could we not have a separate thread for the timing arguments?

Onto the players and Ford was pretty average on Sat, Twelvetrees to my mind outplayed him on Sat and Cipriani played better then both against Quins on Friday.

Other possibles: kvesic was anonymous while Wallace was very good partnering Robshaw. If we want a very different 13 then Trinder played well in a poor Glos backline.

So how do see the likely England 1st choice lineup (assuming everyone's available).

Agree Yappy, Ford was really poor yesterday. His kicking (from hand and tee) was well off and his defence terrible. I'd be very worried if we had to start him.

Kvesic has been poor all season, he's not currently good enough for the Int stage.

Positives? Eastmond played well, Rok looks a good option for one of the wing slots with Nowell not great. May continues to crab which is worrying and Yarde isn't playing again today.

At least we've got Mike Brown to fall back on.

Personally Ashton has to come back and start.

I would play Farrel , burrel and 36 and stick man u on the other wing.

I really like may and nowel.

But I think many would be a great option on a wing without losing burrels presence.

SL wants 36 in there and I can understand his reasons.

blackcanelion wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Anyways.... As fun as it is to wade through pages of this stiff could we not have a separate thread for the timing arguments?

Onto the players and Ford was pretty average on Sat, Twelvetrees to my mind outplayed him on Sat and Cipriani played better then both against Quins on Friday.

Other possibles: kvesic was anonymous while Wallace was very good partnering Robshaw. If we want a very different 13 then Trinder played well in a poor Glos backline.

So how do see the likely England 1st choice lineup (assuming everyone's available).

Fit and available is pretty much set in stone, certainly the pack anyway.

1. Corbisiero
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Billy V

9. Care
10. Farrell
11. Yarde
12. Twelvetrees
13. Tuilagi
14. Wade???
15. Brown

With a Saints/Sarries final seeming likely (possibly Tigers)

1. Marler
2. Youngs
3. Wilson
4. Launchbury
5. Attwood
6. Johnson
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

9. Care
10. Ford
11. May
12. Twelvetrees
13. Tuilagi
14. Yarde
15. Brown

2, 6 & 10 being the major concerns.

Ok here's a further question:

Do you think SL will chose to play a fast expansive game or opt for a slow more controlled game based around the set piece, position, possession and organised defence. The reason I ask is that over the last 20 years, with the exception of 2012, England have tended to successful against NZ when they've had a good setpiece, kicker and been able to control the tempo of the game (i.e. slow it down). I know that the current team intends to, and is capable of, playing a variety of ways. So what approach do you think he'll make.

If SL chooses a more limited game plan, will that affect selections?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Anyways.... As fun as it is to wade through pages of this stiff could we not have a separate thread for the timing arguments?

Onto the players and Ford was pretty average on Sat, Twelvetrees to my mind outplayed him on Sat and Cipriani played better then both against Quins on Friday.

Other possibles: kvesic was anonymous while Wallace was very good partnering Robshaw. If we want a very different 13 then Trinder played well in a poor Glos backline.

So how do see the likely England 1st choice lineup (assuming everyone's available).

Fit and available is pretty much set in stone, certainly the pack anyway.

1. Corbisiero
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Billy V

9. Care
10. Farrell
11. Yarde
12. Twelvetrees
13. Tuilagi
14. Wade???
15. Brown

With a Saints/Sarries final seeming likely (possibly Tigers)

1. Marler
2. Youngs
3. Wilson
4. Launchbury
5. Attwood
6. Johnson
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

9. Care
10. Ford
11. May
12. Twelvetrees
13. Tuilagi
14. Yarde
15. Brown

2, 6 & 10 being the major concerns.

I've always rated Yarde.

The second option may not be as bad as you think. There's a bit of a potential injury epidemic/form slump here at the moment.

Selections and play will be based on who is available first up.

Second game he will learn from the first and go from there.

Sl is a huge admierer of NZs style and expansive is how he ideally will want us to play.

I don't see him going defensive and set piece just fir the chance of a win. This is very much a development tour

I can't see our game plan changing hugely tbh. High tempo defense with a physical mobile pack seems to our style now. The backs are still a work in progress but we're getting there.

The pack is set in stone..

The backs are as you say available to change. But that is were the progress has been

In a perfect world with everybody available I'd fancy us to take at least one test.

The 1st test will be a 20+ win to NZ I think and we'll keep it within 10pts in the other 2. There's a chance we'll sneak the 2nd/3rd test but I think NZ will have too much personally.

Keeping the tests competitive will be an achievement but I don't think we're at the stage were we can expect to win.

I do expect 1 win. 3rd test.

I believe SL should be able to suss them out by then and have a full team out.

OK if its a close loss or a draw like we did in SA I could just about accept that as still moving forward.

Even though it is NZ we have to keep this upward curve going. We can match the kiwis and have done in the last two games . we are better know and I am not sure NZ are. So we have to show up and perform final test. That game with be the acid test

Is there really an upward curve? Or is it just Simpson's paradox at play?

You can look at the rankings if you want something tangible. Or you could just interpret what you see in play and also come to that conclusion

yappysnap wrote:Anyways.... As fun as it is to wade through pages of this stiff could we not have a separate thread for the timing arguments?

I'm happy with that idea.

mystiroakey wrote:You can look at the rankings if you want something tangible. Or you could just interpret what you see in play and also come to that conclusion

I believe Simpson's paradox may be at play in the rankings...if you think about it.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:You can look at the rankings if you want something tangible. Or you could just interpret what you see in play and also come to that conclusion

I believe Simpson's paradox may be at play in the rankings...if you think about it.

I've thought about it. Simpson's Paradox arises when a large set of data shows an apparent trend in one direction but if you split the data into smaller sets based on an additional or "confounding" variable it shows a trend in the opposite direction.

So what's the confounding variable? It can't be time, because we're talking about a trend over time. It could conceivably be performance against NH vs SH teams, but again that would generally show an upward trend against SH teams and be at worst flat against NH. I'm not sure what other variable you could use.

In any case, I doubt you could find a statistically significant pattern within the complete data set of England results, let alone within two distinct subsets.

So, how do you think Simpson's paradox applies here? What's your confounding variable?

I'm sure if you think it through it will come to you, as it came to me.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm sure if you think it through it will come to you, as it came to me.

No, I'm pretty sure it won't. Humour me. What's your logic?

Patersons name being popped around!

Second row is one of our strongest areas at the moment...can we not stick with English players rather than more foreigners. Lawes, Launchbury, Attwood, Slater, Kitchener, Barrow, Kruis, Stooke, Parling etc etc.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Patersons name being popped around!

Second row is one of our strongest areas at the moment...can we not stick with English players rather than more foreigners. Lawes, Launchbury, Attwood, Slater, Kitchener, Barrow, Kruis, Stooke, Parling etc etc.

Anything from the England management or just the player? Can't see him establishing himself ahead of the world cup and looking at his age and the amount of people coming through hardly fits with what we've seen from Lancaster planning ahead.

I hope not No 7...probably just the media bandwagon.

Our lock stable is very impressive, we dont need to look elsewhere.

Paterson is just media hype, he's no better then a good prem forward.

Thought Callum Clark had a poor game on the weekend, from his time in the EPS he'll be one of the one's to fill in if he's not involved in a final but that doesn't bode well. Wood as well had a game to forget and has been poor since coming back.

It's a worry that after the starting backrow the replacements are all either trying to find form or not getting selected.

Glad to hear that Yappy.

yappysnap wrote:Paterson is just media hype, he's no better then a good prem forward.

Thought Callum Clark had a poor game on the weekend, from his time in the EPS he'll be one of the one's to fill in if he's not involved in a final but that doesn't bode well. Wood as well had a game to forget and has been poor since coming back.

It's a worry that after the starting backrow the replacements are all either trying to find form or not getting selected.

I thought Wallace had one of his best games with Quins on Friday - working very well with Robshaw and even the Sharks fans conceded that it was Quins' breakdown play (for which Ward also deserves some credit) that made the difference.

I'll also take a minority position and say that I thought Kvesic played well for Gloucester in an otherwise unedifying game. Looked very busy and there was one turnover that was such a classic piece of back row play that I rewound it to show Poorfour Jr (who has an unusually fierce commitment to the tackle and ruck for one so young).

How much has Kvesics form this season been down to a poorer platform with the Gloucester pack and how much is just poor form individually.

Of all the 7's theres not many really making a big claim is there?

Wallace - Seemingly playing well.
Fraser - Had a bad season with injuries
Welch - Not international
Saull - No thanks.
Kvesic - Seemingly poor form most of the season..is he coming good?

S.Armitage - As i said on another thread...ill eat my hat if he ever makes the England squad again.

Wo else?

I'd prefer to play him at 6 rather than 7, but Fearns played 7 for Bath at the weekend. Not as good as his other backrow performances for Bath this season that I've caught, but despite coming off in the 68th min and serving 10mins of that in the bin, he still managed to make 3 more tackles (13) than any other player.

I'd be keen to see what he can offer on tour in a 20 shirt or in the mid-week as I think he'd be a good bench option for us. He regularly plays across all three backrow positions for his club, and in what I believe is his best position I think he would give us the more abrasive, carrying blindside that we don't currently possess (unless you look to play Vunipola or Ewers there).