English rugby strength in depth - Reality or just an illusion

First topic message reminder :

Simple question as posed in the title.

Has England got real strength in depth or not...

If they have, why keep poaching players from other nations, other sports.

I actually think that England do have strength in depth. However, how annoyed would you be if home grown talent is overlooked for Fijian Wingers, Samoan Centres, Tongan forwards and now a Yorkshire man who chose to play Rugby League in Australia. If I was English and playing first class rugby, I'd wonder why bother, as the chance of wearing the red rose would be limited by all the foreign imports.

Mind you, we may be better in Wales, but not squeaky clean. I refer to the so called fast tracking of Anscombe. I really hope he doesn't feature in the RWC Welsh squad as I'm fed up with Granny Gate 2...

Its got to be time the qualification rules are tightened again... Anyone else agree with me or completely disagree.

Lostinwales too short? Really? 6,5 is too short these days?

Chequeredjersey perhaps not but I think England's strength in depth is exaggerated.

There's a lot of potential players but not what I would call strength.

Look at 7 or 10 for example - significant drop in experience with no Farrell Jr or Robshaw.

Big question marks at centre and wings.

I wouldn't pick Farrell Jr at all for the AIs but inevitably he will play vs the ABs.

Wouldn't surprise me if he has a poor game.

beshocked wrote:Lostinwales too short? Really? 6,5 is too short these days?

Chequeredjersey perhaps not but I think England's strength in depth is exaggerated.

There's a lot of potential players but not what I would call strength.

Look at 7 or 10 for example - significant drop in experience with no Farrell Jr or Robshaw.

Big question marks at centre and wings.

Wasn't LostinWales talking of the player of the JRWC England captain who plays lock? 6'5 is pretty short for a lock.

Personally I don't think height is what really counts in lineouts these days (as long as your jumpers and lifters aren't small that is). If he was 6'6 I don't think anyone would say anything.

He is say 2 inches shorter than lawes but what is his reach? I imagine that's more important. Michael Phelps was 6'3 but had a wingspan of 6'7 so his arms were very long. It doesn't matter how high your head is... rather how high your arms are when you reach.

I would say Tom Croft is probably the best lineout jumper in the world when fit. Although we haven't seen him for a while so difficult to tell now. Not the tallest, still tall but his athletic and light frame with strong hands means he hardly ever loses a ball. He also only needs one lifter which means his jump is often well disguised.

Bekker at 6'10 on the other hand is so big that he needs massive lifters around him and is not the most agile. He's also a bad lineout caller.

Strength in depth is really hard to qualify, I did the exercise with South Africa the other day, I took local players only and tried to see who I wold consider good enough to be considered by Heyneke Meyer, I looked at youngsters in specific who shows great promise and even though Meyer won't even consider them for the RWC purely because he will want to build an experienced group of players and new caps will be extremely hard to come by in the next 8 tests, I couldn't get past 4 players in most positions.

Even then, I am sure my bias influenced me to some extent.

Realistically think if you get to three players per positions, especially in a country like SA you are close to the depth, going for four players per position is starting to stretch it.

Bullsbok wrote:Losing sight of the spirit in which the question was asked. NO ONE said they dont deserve to be playing for England because they were not born here. The question was how come , with the number of players England supposedly has, are/have they been a suprisingly high number of "foreigners" ie Players who could be said to have been eligible for a different country based on birth .

And once again i repeat i'm not questioning anyones eligibility thats not the point and is irrelevant here seeing as they've already played for england which makes them eligible

Reading back over the answers, I felt like I wanted to tackle Bullsbok's original question again.

I think the reason for the phenomenon of foreign players is primarily economic. Very simply, England is an attractive destination if you are a reasonably talented rugby player. Its economy is in better shape than most, wage levels (even given the salary cap) are higher than most other countries can offer, and the main financial competitor is France, which is more of a culture shock, requires that you learn a new language and in any case currently targets a different kind of player (full internationals rather than squad players).

If you are a promising young pro in South Africa or (less frequently) Australia, but not first or second in your position in the international pipeline, or you're a decent player in one of the Pacific Islands or smaller test nations, playing in England offers (comparatively) a lot of money for a relatively easy transition. By definition, the English clubs target the most promising players they can get, who will generally be the ones who didn't quite make the international cut in their home systems. As a result, England is a landing ground for a lot of talented young players.

At the other end of the scale, a fair number of English-born players are lost to rugby altogether because they can make more money playing football or in the City, and prior to about 2007, the English academy system wasn't really up and running so player development was haphazard.

The third factor is the post-war diaspora and or 1980s gap years, which means many young players in anglophone countries are the second- or first- descendants of British people who emigrated there in the 50s.

Put those together and you have a steady influx of potential EQPs who have been selected on the basis of their skills. Given all that would be surprising if some of them didn't break through into the England team - and if fans from their country of origin could resist observing that they were rejects from their own system.

However, we can already see the trend fading somewhat as more players come through the U20 system. There will always be scope for players to break through, but I'd expect there to be fewer gaps in the squad to fill.

Bu right now, I just wish the English press would STFU about Kieran Longbottom.

would be amazing wouldn't it.

An aussie prop rejected by the ARU to play for England.

It would be like an English glitzy flyhalf giving up on England and getting a call up by Michael Cheika.

I agree with poorfoor.

Its the circumstances of having a strong league which also pays well.

Say SA was where all the players flocked. I don't doubt you would see some players getting residency and getting call ups. There was no issue with Mtawarira at all. Stepped foot into SA as an adult, no one even raised an eyebrow.

The thing which protects SA and others is that a) the league is no competitive financially and b) there are only 5 teams and thus spots to non indigenous players are rare.

France and England have 12 and 14 teams respectively. That gives them a lot of allowances, spots on sides to fill and due to the colonial nature of the game, many 3N players who come to play in England have ancestry making them available.

Clive Woodward said in 2003 that the England third XV would be a competitive international side. The England second XV ran a full strength France very close but I think the drop off to the next squad of players would have been quite sharp. What Woodward really meant is that he felt confident reaching down to his third choice in a position, if his front line player and back up went down.

Strength in depth isn't just a question of the players available, it's also a matter of what environment they come into. In 2003, Woodward had a successful team where players moved in and out relatively seamlessly. He didn't have a settled midfield, a front row stalwart like Rowntree didn't even make his final squad, and he went through more options in his back three over the run up to 2003 than we perhaps recall today.

One of the few positives from the New Zealand tour is that the team in the First Test, with all the enforced changes - did better than most of us expected. I think that reflects well on the squad culture Lancaster has inculcated but they are a long way off from the confidence and coherence of Woodward's charges.

I reckon England have always had more impressive depth than a really impressive first 15, the exception being when they won the WC. Thats why they do well at world cups but dont really beat the best teams that much.

GunsGerms wrote:I reckon England have always had more impressive depth than a really impressive first 15, the exception being when they won the WC. Thats why they do well at world cups but dont really beat the best teams that much.

Aye. Large player pool tends to widen the pyramid rather than increase the peak, if that makes sense.

It does. Probably because the peak is used more in teams with less depth.

When you see the sort of skills be layed on in schoolboy rugby in NZ you soon see why numbers of registered players are irrelevant:

https://youtu.be/61Tu34PKcdo

That translates to exactly the sort of plays you see the all blacks pull. The off loads, the handling, the ability of the big men to link the backs, the spatial awareness and the ability to finish off a counter attack clinically. This is where it is bred. And until the rest of the world can match this intensity and ability at this age, then the gap will not close,

NZ are losing their grip on youth rugby as an American you should focus more on the English Welsh and SA. Who are the prospects from the USA coming through that you re hopeful for?

No 7&1/2 wrote:NZ are losing their grip on youth rugby as an American you should focus more on the English Welsh and SA. Who are the prospects from the USA coming through that you re hopeful for?

I think its more that we don't focus on that particular tournament as others have in the last few years. saw a discussion on it and they're not overly concerned. Our ITM comp is as strong as ever (most of those that turned out vs Japan, the Baabaas were playing mainly ITM) so its not as though they're not coming through.

Interesting match coming up. Since the 3rd England test, the AB's have largely struggled other than the Eden Park Oz match. Several AB positions are up in the air at the moment.

10- Carter, Cruden or Barrett to start?
6 - Messam or Kaino?
15- Dagg or B Smith, then
14- B Smith? Piatau?
12- SBW, Crotty, Fekitoa? Even DC at a pinch...

Hansen's made some very alternative selections for various reasons lately.

GunsGerms wrote:I reckon England have always had more impressive depth than a really impressive first 15, the exception being when they won the WC. Thats why they do well at world cups but dont really beat the best teams that much.

holy moly. i agree with guns. whatever next?

No 7&1/2 wrote:NZ are losing their grip on youth rugby as an American you should focus more on the English Welsh and SA. Who are the prospects from the USA coming through that you re hopeful for?

Why should I focus more on England Wales and SA? Interest in NZ rugby is at fever pitch amongst US fans after the recent visit. It's the best rugby in the world. We see European rugby as a poor cousin. It's just not as skilful and your record at the highest level proves that point.

TobyBryant wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:NZ are losing their grip on youth rugby as an American you should focus more on the English Welsh and SA. Who are the prospects from the USA coming through that you re hopeful for?

Why should I focus more on England Wales and SA? Interest in NZ rugby is at fever pitch amongst US fans after the recent visit.  It's the best rugby in the world. We see European rugby as a poor cousin. It's just not as skilful and your record at the highest level proves that point.

Given they couldn't even be bothered to check your own nationality when writing news articles it would suggest that's a little off the mark.

TobyBryant wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:NZ are losing their grip on youth rugby as an American you should focus more on the English Welsh and SA. Who are the prospects from the USA coming through that you re hopeful for?

Why should I focus more on England Wales and SA? Interest in NZ rugby is at fever pitch amongst US fans after the recent visit.  It's the best rugby in the world. We see European rugby as a poor cousin. It's just not as skilful and your record at the highest level proves that point.

Just trying to help an American out in regards rugby. If you're looking at the best youth teams at the moment NZ shouldn't be your focus. The best youth rugby in the world is probably in Europe at the moment.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:NZ are losing their grip on youth rugby as an American you should focus more on the English Welsh and SA. Who are the prospects from the USA coming through that you re hopeful for?

Why should I focus more on England Wales and SA? Interest in NZ rugby is at fever pitch amongst US fans after the recent visit.  It's the best rugby in the world. We see European rugby as a poor cousin. It's just not as skilful and your record at the highest level proves that point.

Just trying to help an American out in regards rugby. If you're looking at the best youth teams at the moment NZ shouldn't be your focus. The best youth rugby in the world is probably in Europe at the moment.

Judging by recent results a lot of it is wearing the red rose of England, it remains to be seen if we can make something of the potential that is obviously coming through.

TobyBryant wrote:When you see the sort of skills be layed on in schoolboy rugby in NZ you soon see why numbers of registered players are irrelevant:

https://youtu.be/61Tu34PKcdo

That translates to exactly the sort of plays you see the all blacks pull. The off loads, the handling, the ability of the big men to link the backs, the spatial awareness and the ability to finish off a counter attack clinically.  This is where it is bred. And until the rest of the world can match this intensity and ability at this age, then the gap will not close,

I watched the video. There was some nice passing but about three quarters of the clips were individual tries scored by someone haring up the touchline. I saw my nine year old score one just like that last weekend, albeit on a shorter pitch, and he did it while dragging a tackler behind him.

The video highlighted some decent individual skills but in only a couple of the highlights did we see concerted team plays. The English academies are highlighting exactly the same skills, and emphasising speed first and physical development later, and it's producing a generation of players at U20 who I believe could genuinely challenge their AB peers if their transition to the senior side is well handled.

I don't have a clips package, because English age grade rugby is only really televised when the representative teams play or for the Varsity Match, but it looks to me that the gap is closing. Ignore it if you like, but you may be surprised in 2019.

Playing numbers are far more relevant when you get to Age Group rugby. England should be good at this level. What is far more encouraging for us is that at the last couple of JWCs we have picked players well below the age limit who have looked more skilful than their NZ counterparts. Previously we have been competitive due to size and strength.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:NZ are losing their grip on youth rugby as an American you should focus more on the English Welsh and SA. Who are the prospects from the USA coming through that you re hopeful for?

Why should I focus more on England Wales and SA? Interest in NZ rugby is at fever pitch amongst US fans after the recent visit.  It's the best rugby in the world. We see European rugby as a poor cousin. It's just not as skilful and your record at the highest level proves that point.

Just trying to help an American out in regards rugby. If you're looking at the best youth teams at the moment NZ shouldn't be your focus. The best youth rugby in the world is probably in Europe at the moment.

If that were true then the cash rich clubs would be selecting European youth. They're not. They consistently contract up the hand offs from the Southern Hemisphere - the same demographic applies in international selection too. Evidence weighs heavily against your assertion.

No it doesn't. And the cash rich clubs by which i assume you mean the french aren't picknig up any youth but experienced professionals. Stick with rugby though and you may pick up some knowledge.

TobyBryant wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:NZ are losing their grip on youth rugby as an American you should focus more on the English Welsh and SA. Who are the prospects from the USA coming through that you re hopeful for?

Why should I focus more on England Wales and SA? Interest in NZ rugby is at fever pitch amongst US fans after the recent visit.  It's the best rugby in the world. We see European rugby as a poor cousin. It's just not as skilful and your record at the highest level proves that point.

Just trying to help an American out in regards rugby. If you're looking at the best youth teams at the moment NZ shouldn't be your focus. The best youth rugby in the world is probably in Europe at the moment.

If that were true then the cash rich clubs would be selecting European youth. They're not. They consistently contract up the hand offs from the Southern Hemisphere - the same demographic applies in international selection too.  Evidence weighs heavily against your assertion.

....ly offerings, Halloween has been and gone.

TobyBryant wrote:
If that were true then the cash rich clubs would be selecting European youth. They're not. They consistently contract up the hand offs from the Southern Hemisphere - the same demographic applies in international selection too.  Evidence weighs heavily against your assertion.

That would be what you'd expect if talent were the only determinant. But we also have economics. As I outlined above it's an attractive deal in both directions for an English team to pick up SH players who are just below international level. So you see a disproportionate number of them (and they get disproportionate coverage).

For your next trick you will prove black is white or one equals two?

Who are the young American propects you're looking forward to seeing?

TobyBryant wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TobyBryant wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:NZ are losing their grip on youth rugby as an American you should focus more on the English Welsh and SA. Who are the prospects from the USA coming through that you re hopeful for?

Why should I focus more on England Wales and SA? Interest in NZ rugby is at fever pitch amongst US fans after the recent visit.  It's the best rugby in the world. We see European rugby as a poor cousin. It's just not as skilful and your record at the highest level proves that point.

Just trying to help an American out in regards rugby. If you're looking at the best youth teams at the moment NZ shouldn't be your focus. The best youth rugby in the world is probably in Europe at the moment.

If that were true then the cash rich clubs would be selecting European youth. They're not. They consistently contract up the hand offs from the Southern Hemisphere - the same demographic applies in international selection too.  Evidence weighs heavily against your assertion.

There are many reasons why English and French clubs promote foreign players over youngsters.

You have 2 players, one is a seasoned pro, 28yr old say from AUS with 8 years SR behind him. He is available for all games throughout the season now he has retired from test rugby. Or the 19 year old, unproven European.

The 19 year old goes to U20 camp, you prefer to test him out in minor games first as the gap between pro and junior rugby is vast.

Which one is more likely to get the nod in the big games? It can even go to older more established indigenous players.

Say Dean Mumm and David Atwood? Lets say you had a chance to purchase both. Which would you choose (without saying oh Mumm is better/Atwood is better.. say they're equal). One will be on international duty some of the time playing up to 12 matches a year for the national side. He may get injured, will certainly get tired and can only be played in a certain number of matches.
Yes you'll get a salary rebate if he gets a elite squad position but is that as good as a player who is available all the time and one you yourself can manage on your own?

He must be referring to Eric Fry. Hes a loosehead prop who plays TH for the yanks.

He's one of those famous props who cant scrummage. He actually got flipped up in one game. He cant even get in our development team....

Yes the game in America is in good hands. How many Samoans etc in their side?

TobyBryant wrote:For your next trick you will prove black is white or one equals two?

whhhoooooooooooooooooo

and your next trick, a rise from the grave perhaps.

No need for tricks ghosty, it's as plain as your face, or it is to everyone but you.