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.

No9 wrote:

Mind you, we may be better in Wales, but not squeeky clean. I refer to the so called fast tracking of Anscombe. I

Cuthbert

Oh. Because England is much more a melting pot of cultures than most other rugby playing nations.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dickson is Germany so you can whack him in the overseas along with Yarde. Myler is a league boy. If we can go back to the big Kenyan Simon Shaw job done. I've seen Morgans name thrown as foreign born as he nearly chose Wales as well, funny.

Well, quite. He's as Welsh as North and Warburton are English. Come to think of it, I'm technically Welsh, as my father was born in Cardiff. But his dad was a Scots civil engineer working on a project in Wales, so maybe I'm actually Scottish. And my mum's from Yorkshire, but grew up in Ulster and her dad played league for Wigan.

So I definitely shouldn't play rugby for England. Good job I was a cr*p player really. Shame about my kids, though. They show some promise.

Most of this stuff is just internet-enabled WUMming, anyway. I can't remember anyone ever criticising Mike Catt for not being English. Though I can remember plenty criticising him for not being good.

Touch harsh as at least North abd Warburton have a Welsh parent! All in jest though!

Pretty certain Warburton's parents are both English. He was an ardent England fan until his teens apparently. Why he's always said he's British first. Anyhow born and raised in Cardiff so no complaints with him. born and raised no matter who his parents were/are.

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

Apologies for being snappy earlier.

probably 2 or 3 big reasons as to why we have this range of talent
1) children/relatives of foreign players who came here during the early days of professionalism and have settled in this country
2) British economy goes up and down but its still (relatively) big, so there are plenty of immigrants anyway
3) Plenty of emmigration from Britain means that there are plenty of potential immigrants with blood ties

It would be interesting to see what a hypothetical welsh rugby team would look like at the times when the coal mines were booming. There would be plenty of Italians and English (and even Poles) alongside the local stock.

fa, think his mum is Welsh and he did support England according to his dad. He's Welsh though. More the point that Morgan isn't.

lostinwales wrote:

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

Apologies for being snappy earlier.

probably 2 or 3 big reasons as to why we have this range of talent
1) children/relatives of foreign players who came here during the early days of professionalism and have settled in this country
2) British economy goes up and down but its still (relatively) big, so there are plenty of immigrants anyway
3) Plenty of emmigration from Britain means that there are plenty of potential immigrants with blood ties

It would be interesting to see what a hypothetical welsh rugby team would look like at the times when the coal mines were booming. There would be plenty of Italians and English (and even Poles) alongside the local stock.

I think people also have to realise that rugby like cricket is still a colonial game.

Its played in AUS, NZ and SA. Check, check, check.

Loads of ex brits in all. Lots of people with dual nationalities.

Scotland have benefitted from New Zealand migration, Italy from Argentinian... had those welsh in Argentina moved 100 years later I'm sure their would be loads of them playing in the red jersey too.

Wait 10 years and see how many Aussies and Kiwis suddenly appear with the names van der Merwe, Kruger and Weise... trust me there will be a lot.

We live in a global world, its the way it is.

No 7&1/2 wrote:fa, think his mum is Welsh and he did support England according to his dad. He's Welsh though. More the point that Morgan isn't.

Yeah knew about his dad. Thought it was his parents i.e. both but will take your word for it. Yeah no complaints with Warburton. In fact I'm a big admirer of him not only as a player but as a chap too. I've always identified as Brit first, Scottish second as have my family so his stance is very much like my own.... albeit not like my son.... I've lost him, bokke to the core (perhaps in 20years time he will run out in Murrayfield mind in their latest scope???)

According to this they're both English (although not exactly the bastion of reliability it should be).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26472782

But he's Welsh.

HammerofThunor wrote:According to this they're both English (although not exactly the bastion of reliability it should be).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26472782

But he's Welsh.

“My dad was born in London, but his family were from the north hence the name Warburton,” he said. “My mum was born in Somerset but she had a Welsh mother and father so I’m pretty much 50/50.

I think pretty much what people have said before. Mum may have been born in England but identifies as Welsh given he said he was 50/50.

Who cares anyhow. Born and raised in Cardiff... its right he plays for Wales.

To take at least half the question seriously, England have good depth in that the difference between their first choice and back-up is minimal in most positions. Exceptions possibly at 7, because Robshaw has played there pretty much every game for 3 years, 9 because Care has developed ahead of Youngs and 13 because Manu is simply much better than any alternative (although Burrell showed up well in the last 6Ns).

A few positions (wing for example) where it's not so much 'strength in depth' as 'kind of good enough(ish) in depth', and we seem to be still trying to find the right combination.

As others have said, regarding the selection of 'non-English' players, Waldrom is the last one I had serious reservations about. Oh, other than that we poached the Vunipola brothers from Wales ;-)

Bathman_in_London wrote:

quinsforever wrote:from the RFU 2013 annual report, the numbers...in england we have...

2,500,000 rugby players
2,000 clubs
3,200 member schools
6,800 non-affiliated schools
200 colleges
130 universities
helped by 60,000+ volunteers

RFU invested GBP63.7m in operating the English game at all levels. a lot of that would be RFU payments to clubs to incentivise using english players, and academy funding.

Reading those figures, you would think that England should have a vast pool of players to chose from (and compared to some places we do). In reality those numbers just show that a lot of unfit people who like to run around a bit before having a beer do so, or that a lot of children are made to play it at schools.

Yes there is a broad base of amateurs in the country (although in London a huge number of those registered players aren't English) but there actual development pathway is pretty new and until recently didn't work at all. Now there is a better set up in terms of regional academies and the U20's etc. and I think we will start to see evidence of that in the coming years.

Having played for a few London & SE clubs over the years, I'd say between the likes of financial services, IT, academics, health, trades, hospitality & catering, something like a third of the clubs' players were made up of Boks, Kiwis, Aussies, Irish, Scots & French.  I'd also say that there was a sizeable proportion of the English registered 'players' who didn't and had no intention of donning shorts and heading on to the pitch, being registered for other club reasons.

The other thing to consider is a breakdown of the age groups and sexes.  There's a Wikipedia page that collects this for all rugby union nations. The IRB English info (dated 2012) puts the total number of players at 1,990,988.  Females make up 562,126 of those, and because all playing school children are registered (however serious they take it and also including children from abroad, which in private schools is another decent chunk) senior males only make up 131,399, again many of whom I would suggest aren't English or don't actually play.

The only truly relevant numbers to compare when looking at the top nations' potential international playing pools is the number of top level professionals, which for England is 70% of 12 clubs.

England players under 29 who are playing regularly in the AP for their team:

 1) Corbs (26), Marler (24), Vunipola (23), Barrington (24), Auterac (21)
 2) Hartley (28), Webber (28), Youngs (27), George (24), LCD,
 3) Cole (27), Brookes (24), Balmain (22), Thomas (23), Sinckler (21), Collier (23)
 4) Lawes (25), Attwood (27), Slater (26), Garvey (27), Matthews (23), Robson (28)
 5) Launchbury (23), Kruis (24), Kitchener (25), Stooke (21),
 6) Croft (28), Wood (27),  Clark (25), Gibson (24), Wallace (24)
 7) Robshaw (28), Fraser (25) Wray (23), Kvesic (22),
 8) Morgan (25),  Vunipola (21), Ewers (23),  
 9) Care (27), Youngs (25), Dickson(29), Robson (22), Cook (23)
10) Farrell (23), Ford (21), Cips (26), Burns (24), Salde (21)
12) Eastmond (25), TT (25), Burrell (26), Barritt (28), Hill (21), Geraghty (28), Allen (28)
13) Manu (23), Joesph (23), Daly (22), Trinder (25), Puirdy (20)
14) May(24), Yarde (22), Wade (23), Watson (20), Nowell (21), Ashton (27), Lewington (23), Sharples (25)
15)  Tait (28 can't beilive he is younger than Foden and brown), Goode (26), 

 Prob missed some if anyone wants to give some names.

 Also have the likes of Steele, Bristow, itoje, Woodburn, sloan etc etc who are promising youngster who are getting the odd game time

Welly wrote:England players under 29 who are playing regularly in the AP for their team:

 1) Corbs (26), Marler (24), Vunipola (23), Barrington (24), Auterac (21)
 2) Hartley (28), Webber (28), Youngs (27), George (24),
 3) Cole (27), Brookes (24), Balmain (22), Thomas (23), Sinckler (21), Collier (23)
 4) Lawes (25), Attwood (27), Slater (26), Garvey (27), Matthews (23), Robson (28)
 5) Launchbury (23), Kruis (24), Kitchener (25), Stooke (21),
 6) Croft (28), Wood (27),  Clark (25), Gibson (24), Wallace (24)
 7) Robshaw (28), Fraser (25) Wray (23), Kvesic (22),
 8) Morgan (25),  Vunipola (21), Ewers (23),  
 9) Care (27), Youngs (25), Dickson(29), Robson (22), Cook (23)
10) Farrell (23), Ford (21), Cips (26), Burns (24), Salde (21)
12) Eastmond (25), TT (25), Burrell (26), Barritt (28), Hill (21), Geraghty (28), Allen (28)
13) Manu (23), Joesph (23), Daly (22), Trinder (25), Puirdy (20)
14) May(24), Yarde (22), Wade (23), Watson (20), Nowell (21), Ashton (27), Lewington (23), Sharples (25)
15)  Tait (28 can't beilive he is younger than Foden and brown), Goode (26), 

 Prob missed some if anyone wants to give some names.

 Also have the likes of Steele, Bristow, itoje, Woodburn, sloan etc etc who are promising youngster who are getting the odd game time

That is all good, but how about rating them?

Sod that.

Some Exeter lads:

1. Moon (25)
2. Yeandle (24) + Cowan-Dickie (21) coming back from injury
3. Tomas Francis (22)
9. Chudley (26) + Lewis (25) coming back from injury

Welly wrote:Sod that.

Why not?

The topic is strebgth in depth, your list doesn't tell me who is good enough or has potential.

People take player numbers too seriously. 10000 players in Ireland does not mean 10000 players in South Africa.

It's all about who gets the first pick at the tree.

New Zealand is not simply some god of union. They are a small country blessed with talent but more importantly it's the number one sport in the nation. The game takes first pick of the talent youngsters.

In england rugby is well behind football. Well behind. Football players are often scouted pre 10. I imagine over half thx uk chaps on here on picked up a rugby ball at high school aged 11/12.

I once played with a kid who was brilliant, had it all but he had to stop aged 15 because he was told to concentrate in his football. He couldn't do both.

If aus played rugby as their first choice sport they would dominate. But union is something like the 4th favourite sport mainly played by private schools only in only certain parts too.

So when you say england has 2.5mm players. How many are older than 35? How many are social players who train once a year? How many are pre teen kids?

I am coming to the conclusion that we don't have strength in depth in most positions. I think we have adequacy in depth. In a tough attritional competition like the WC it might just be enough.

fa0019 wrote:People take player numbers too seriously. 10000 players in Ireland does not mean 10000 players in South Africa.

It's all about who gets the first pick at the tree.

New Zealand is not simply some god of union. They are a small country blessed with talent but more importantly it's the number one sport in the nation. The game takes first pick of the talent youngsters.

In england rugby is well behind football. Well behind. Football players are often scouted pre 10. I imagine over half thx uk chaps on here on picked up a rugby ball at high school aged 11/12.

I once played with a kid who was brilliant, had it all but he had to stop aged 15 because he was told to concentrate in his football. He couldn't do both.

If aus played rugby as their first choice sport they would dominate. But union is something like the 4th favourite sport mainly played by private schools only in only certain parts too.

So when you say england has 2.5mm players. How many are older than 35? How many are social players who train once a year? How many are pre teen kids?

What makes you think it's only like that in England though? You're talking as if you know the sporting culture of every single country... You don't.

The last time I checked the majority of England's 2.5m players were junior players. They manage them well too as every year they have some exceptional U18 and U20 teams.

this is a silly topic. tjhere seems to be a big gap between those who feel happy to comment/criticise the current state of English rugby based on their perceptions of the past state of English rugby.

there are more than 700 fully professional english players playing their trade in english rugby. thats a lot. plus academy players at the 13 academies. thats a lot.

and the Aviva has >70% of matchday squad appearances by English Qualified players last year.

combined with england winning the u20 world cup the last 2 years in a row and currently being unbeaten at u18 including beating SA in SA.

debate over. england have strength in depth. its obvious to anyone who has any real current knowledge of the RFU setup and the AP.

what we lack are top two in the world in many positions. ie, if people were asked to name their top 2 players in the world in every position on the pitch, i think we would genuinely struggle apart from having a decent shout at getting both the second rows (lawes and launchbury).

fa0019 wrote:People take player numbers too seriously. 10000 players in Ireland does not mean 10000 players in South Africa.

It's all about who gets the first pick at the tree.

New Zealand is not simply some god of union. They are a small country blessed with talent but more importantly it's the number one sport in the nation. The game takes first pick of the talent youngsters.

In england rugby is well behind football. Well behind. Football players are often scouted pre 10. I imagine over half thx uk chaps on here on picked up a rugby ball at high school aged 11/12.

I once played with a kid who was brilliant, had it all but he had to stop aged 15 because he was told to concentrate in his football. He couldn't do both.

If aus played rugby as their first choice sport they would dominate. But union is something like the 4th favourite sport mainly played by private schools only in only certain parts too.

So when you say england has 2.5mm players. How many are older than 35? How many are social players who train once a year? How many are pre teen kids?

this.

i have two boys. they are very young. but if they were equally talented at both sports, such that they had to give one up (which only happens to boys who are going to turn professional as its a part of their future contracts), i would encourage them to pursue football, even though i hate what the roundball game has become. the injury risk/concussion risk is far less. look at leicester with 22 of their current squad unavailable through injury. and there is also the issue of financial security. if a boy makes it to a championship team in football he will be paid better than the best paid rugby union player in the world. so if it were a choice of health and financial security vs the sport that i love, for my boys i would choose the former if they had an equal chance at success.

qf is spot on. I have a colleague at work whose son has just dropped out of an AP academy to go and play soccer at a US Ivy League uni. As he says, $50,000 of education is not something to turn down.

A top notch Premiership soccer player can earn almost as much in a year as a top notch rugby player can earn in a (much more dangerous) career. As long as that's the case, soccer will always have first call on the best talent.

My son loves rugby and shows some talent for it. He has zero talent for soccer as an outfield player, but he applies the same skills and bravery that make him a great tackler and he's a fairly decent goalkeeper. He's never likely to be tall enough to get scouted by a pro setup, so fortunately I should never have to tell him that it's the sensible route to follow and he should give up rugby.

My elder daughter is a few years behind him but is probably more innately talented. But she's also got a big boot, a good first touch and can send a throw in half-way across the pitch. If she can get her fitness and support play to the right point, she might have a shot at either sport. Fortunately for my sanity, the differential between women's football and women's rugby is actually in rugby's favour right now - being an Olympic sport helps a lot.

Right now I'm just imaging the thousands of England forwards over the years who could have had richer and risk-free careers as a goal-keeper in soccer.

TobyBryant wrote:Does it say something about the ability of the "culturally" or "indigenous" English to excel at the game? Or is there some other reason why they are so over looked both domestically and abroad?

I can name only Haskell, North and Cipriani in modern times who've been deemed good enough to play overseas, French club debacles aside.  Am I merely lacking knowledge?

Isn't that because we actually manage to keep our good players in our league until they hit retirement age and then they go to France?


Also, this mask lasted what, one week?!

The Saint wrote:

fa0019 wrote:People take player numbers too seriously. 10000 players in Ireland does not mean 10000 players in South Africa.

It's all about who gets the first pick at the tree.

New Zealand is not simply some god of union. They are a small country blessed with talent but more importantly it's the number one sport in the nation. The game takes first pick of the talent youngsters.

In england rugby is well behind football. Well behind. Football players are often scouted pre 10. I imagine over half thx uk chaps on here on picked up a rugby ball at high school aged 11/12.

I once played with a kid who was brilliant, had it all but he had to stop aged 15 because he was told to concentrate in his football. He couldn't do both.

If aus played rugby as their first choice sport they would dominate. But union is something like the 4th favourite sport mainly played by private schools only in only certain parts too.

So when you say england has 2.5mm players. How many are older than 35? How many are social players who train once a year? How many are pre teen kids?

What makes you think it's only like that in England though? You're talking as if you know the sporting culture of every single country... You don't.

The last time I checked the majority of England's 2.5m players were junior players. They manage them well too as every year they have some exceptional U18 and U20 teams.

I don't know the make up of all countries saint.

But I do know a few things....

In Scotland literally no one plays rugby bar those in tiny pockets or those which learn in high school, numbers are very low.

In England more play but they get at best second pick at the tree over other sports and most pick up the game aged 11-12.

In SA at least for whites and coloureds rugby is THE game. It just is. Yes there is cricket but rugby supersedes all. Kids play rugby aged 5 like little British kids play football at the same age. You just don't see it in the UK bar a few spots here and there.

From memory of other posters here in Ireland it's growing but way behind other sports too, football, Gaelic football, hurling etc. same issue as UK.

NZ has league which is growing but like SA it's no.1 is union. It matters. It matters when kids start and which of the natural sportsman type kids play.

From my own experience I always thought skill on skill at age grade that the welsh were superior to others (UK base only). Didn't mean English sides weren't better on the scoreboard, it's just that English juniors were more professional...  They were more physically developed, bigger etc and had larger depth. Take size out and for me the welsh were better and it kind of makes sense once they catch up physically that the gap reduces and even surpasses the England test team.

Go back to your school days. How many kids seem to dominate all the teams? There was probably af least 10 who played in the football team, the rugby team, the athletics team, the cricket team, the tennis team, the basketball team. It was the same faces right??? It was for me anyhow.

You could have taken the top 15 sportsman in my school year and made them play every sport vs the rest of the year...  Say the other 80 kids. I would say in my experience, in my school, in my year... They probably would have won most if not all the events... Even though the other sports had 80 to choose from and could swap players depending on the sport.

The key for rugby do to speak is making those 15 choose rugby over the others.

The Saint wrote:Right now I'm just imaging the thousands of England forwards over the years who could have had richer and risk-free careers as a goal-keeper in soccer.

You don't need to be massive to be a back. Take weight out of it.

What's the average height of pro backs???

5'10 for halfbacks
6'0- 6'1 for the rest

Given the game is run by your halfbacks and they often, often not always have average sizes be it wilkinson, carter, spencer, Townsend, lambie etc those chaps are average sized humans. Footballers are average sized humans too, some short, some tall, most what 5'8-6'0. Ie average.

Take out the 4 positions on the field where you'd be expected to be over 6'2

Lock
Lock
Blindside
Eight man

The rest it's rare players are over 6'2. There are many examples sure but take a collective look and the game isn't massive.

fa0019 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

fa0019 wrote:People take player numbers too seriously. 10000 players in Ireland does not mean 10000 players in South Africa.

It's all about who gets the first pick at the tree.

New Zealand is not simply some god of union. They are a small country blessed with talent but more importantly it's the number one sport in the nation. The game takes first pick of the talent youngsters.

In england rugby is well behind football. Well behind. Football players are often scouted pre 10. I imagine over half thx uk chaps on here on picked up a rugby ball at high school aged 11/12.

I once played with a kid who was brilliant, had it all but he had to stop aged 15 because he was told to concentrate in his football. He couldn't do both.

If aus played rugby as their first choice sport they would dominate. But union is something like the 4th favourite sport mainly played by private schools only in only certain parts too.

So when you say england has 2.5mm players. How many are older than 35? How many are social players who train once a year? How many are pre teen kids?

What makes you think it's only like that in England though? You're talking as if you know the sporting culture of every single country... You don't.

The last time I checked the majority of England's 2.5m players were junior players. They manage them well too as every year they have some exceptional U18 and U20 teams.

I don't know the make up of all countries saint.

But I do know a few things....

In Scotland literally no one plays rugby bar those in tiny pockets or those which learn in high school, numbers are very low.

In England more play but they get at best second pick at the tree over other sports and most pick up the game aged 11-12.

In SA at least for whites and coloureds rugby is THE game. It just is. Yes there is cricket but rugby supersedes all. Kids play rugby aged 5 like little British kids play football at the same age. You just don't see it in the UK bar a few spots here and there.

From memory of other posters here in Ireland it's growing but way behind other sports too, football, Gaelic football, hurling etc. same issue as UK.

NZ has league which is growing but like SA it's no.1 is union. It matters. It matters when kids start and which of the natural sportsman type kids play.

From my own experience I always thought skill on skill at age grade that the welsh were superior to others (UK base only). Didn't mean English sides weren't better on the scoreboard, it's just that English juniors were more professional...  They were more physically developed, bigger etc and had larger depth. Take size out and for me the welsh were better and it kind of makes sense once they catch up physically that the gap reduces and even surpasses the England test team.

Go back to your school days. How many kids seem to dominate all the teams? There was probably af least 10 who played in the football team, the rugby team, the athletics team, the cricket team, the tennis team, the basketball team. It was the same faces right??? It was for me anyhow.

You could have taken the top 15 sportsman in my school year and made them play every sport vs the rest of the year...  Say the other 80 kids. I would say in my experience, in my school, in my year... They probably would have won most if not all the events... Even though the other sports had 80 to choose from and could swap players depending on the sport.

The key for rugby do to speak is making those 15 choose rugby over the others.

In public schools, and in lots of state schools in the south west where I am from, rugby is the number one sport in England though

ChequeredJersey wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

fa0019 wrote:People take player numbers too seriously. 10000 players in Ireland does not mean 10000 players in South Africa.

It's all about who gets the first pick at the tree.

New Zealand is not simply some god of union. They are a small country blessed with talent but more importantly it's the number one sport in the nation. The game takes first pick of the talent youngsters.

In england rugby is well behind football. Well behind. Football players are often scouted pre 10. I imagine over half thx uk chaps on here on picked up a rugby ball at high school aged 11/12.

I once played with a kid who was brilliant, had it all but he had to stop aged 15 because he was told to concentrate in his football. He couldn't do both.

If aus played rugby as their first choice sport they would dominate. But union is something like the 4th favourite sport mainly played by private schools only in only certain parts too.

So when you say england has 2.5mm players. How many are older than 35? How many are social players who train once a year? How many are pre teen kids?

What makes you think it's only like that in England though? You're talking as if you know the sporting culture of every single country... You don't.

The last time I checked the majority of England's 2.5m players were junior players. They manage them well too as every year they have some exceptional U18 and U20 teams.

I don't know the make up of all countries saint.

But I do know a few things....

In Scotland literally no one plays rugby bar those in tiny pockets or those which learn in high school, numbers are very low.

In England more play but they get at best second pick at the tree over other sports and most pick up the game aged 11-12.

In SA at least for whites and coloureds rugby is THE game. It just is. Yes there is cricket but rugby supersedes all. Kids play rugby aged 5 like little British kids play football at the same age. You just don't see it in the UK bar a few spots here and there.

From memory of other posters here in Ireland it's growing but way behind other sports too, football, Gaelic football, hurling etc. same issue as UK.

NZ has league which is growing but like SA it's no.1 is union. It matters. It matters when kids start and which of the natural sportsman type kids play.

From my own experience I always thought skill on skill at age grade that the welsh were superior to others (UK base only). Didn't mean English sides weren't better on the scoreboard, it's just that English juniors were more professional...  They were more physically developed, bigger etc and had larger depth. Take size out and for me the welsh were better and it kind of makes sense once they catch up physically that the gap reduces and even surpasses the England test team.

Go back to your school days. How many kids seem to dominate all the teams? There was probably af least 10 who played in the football team, the rugby team, the athletics team, the cricket team, the tennis team, the basketball team. It was the same faces right??? It was for me anyhow.

You could have taken the top 15 sportsman in my school year and made them play every sport vs the rest of the year...  Say the other 80 kids. I would say in my experience, in my school, in my year... They probably would have won most if not all the events... Even though the other sports had 80 to choose from and could swap players depending on the sport.

The key for rugby do to speak is making those 15 choose rugby over the others.

In public schools, and in lots of state schools in the south west where I am from, rugby is the number one sport in England though

No.1 from what age?

In SA it's number 1 from 5 yrs.

No.1 from 11 only doesn't cut. Not when all the top talent are already in football academies.

As I said in some parts yeah I agree but for much of the country, it's a high school game introduction.

England have insane strength and depth, this has been proved time and time again because every new player that comes in is the worlds best in that position, coincidental? nope they just happen to replace the previous worlds best! I know as i said INSANE strength in depth.

The one thing about football though is although a player who even makes it to championship level will achieve riches beyond the dreams of most of us, there is a hell of a lot of competition, and most of that competition will get dumped by the football academies at 18 or whatever, often with no qualifications or anything to fall back on.

My nephew was on the books of a championship team as was as a kid, but dropped out on purpose because he has brains and thought it was a safer route. He now has a PhD in psycology and the family is very proud of him.

In rugby playing areas - mainly the home counties and south west - plenty of kids now pick up a rugby ball at 5 or 6 and play through the age grades on Sundays while playing soccer on Saturdays. The RFU scouts them at U13 and is working hard at finding kids from non-traditional backgrounds (for instance both Marler and Sinckler were comprehensive school kids found playing at Battersea Ironsides and pushed towards the Quins academy).

The trouble is, as my son's squad are finding, that we lose a few every year to football, and they are often among the better players. Our ambition as coaches is to keep a large enough group together that they can play 15-a-side - achievable, but challenging.

Can't imagine Marler being lost to football ever. Perhaps this might validate why England always churn out a decent world class pack but struggle to find flair pace and accuracy in the backs?

Marler is (or certainly was) pretty rapid and has very good hands and a step. Probably quicker than some backs we've put out frankly

He has a backs hair do. I'll give him that.

Poorfour wrote:In rugby playing areas - mainly the home counties and south west - plenty of kids now pick up a rugby ball at 5 or 6 and play through the age grades on Sundays while playing soccer on Saturdays.  The RFU scouts them at U13 and is working hard at finding kids from non-traditional backgrounds (for instance both Marler and Sinckler were comprehensive school kids found playing at Battersea Ironsides and pushed towards the Quins academy).

The trouble is, as my son's squad are finding, that we lose a few every year to football, and they are often among the better players. Our ambition as coaches is to keep a large enough group together that they can play 15-a-side - achievable, but challenging.

Exactly my point. It's been a while since I've seen junior rugby in the UK but I don't think it's changed that much in the last 20 years. Kids can play both at the beginning but eventually they are told to make a choice. My junior team lost 3 players to academies for other sports. How good were they at rugby... very, perhaps only one had a genuine shot at pro rugby and I know he came back eventually but at 19 or so. By then I think it was too late. He wasn't going to set the world on fire but that's not the point. I'm sure it happens all the time.

Look I'm not saying England are deprived... They have huge resources and given their youngsters do so well in the JRWC it shows they always have good players coming through. But and it's a huge but... I see youngsters in SA and it's at another level, it really is. Not the skill, the exposure, the age, the commitment.

Biltong wrote:

Welly wrote:England players under 29 who are playing regularly in the AP for their team:

 1) Corbs (26), Marler (24), Vunipola (23), Barrington (24), Auterac (21)
 2) Hartley (28), Webber (28), Youngs (27), George (24),
 3) Cole (27), Brookes (24), Balmain (22), Thomas (23), Sinckler (21), Collier (23)
 4) Lawes (25), Attwood (27), Slater (26), Garvey (27), Matthews (23), Robson (28)
 5) Launchbury (23), Kruis (24), Kitchener (25), Stooke (21),
 6) Croft (28), Wood (27),  Clark (25), Gibson (24), Wallace (24)
 7) Robshaw (28), Fraser (25) Wray (23), Kvesic (22),
 8) Morgan (25),  Vunipola (21), Ewers (23),  
 9) Care (27), Youngs (25), Dickson(29), Robson (22), Cook (23)
10) Farrell (23), Ford (21), Cips (26), Burns (24), Salde (21)
12) Eastmond (25), TT (25), Burrell (26), Barritt (28), Hill (21), Geraghty (28), Allen (28)
13) Manu (23), Joesph (23), Daly (22), Trinder (25), Puirdy (20)
14) May(24), Yarde (22), Wade (23), Watson (20), Nowell (21), Ashton (27), Lewington (23), Sharples (25)
15)  Tait (28 can't beilive he is younger than Foden and brown), Goode (26), 

 Prob missed some if anyone wants to give some names.

 Also have the likes of Steele, Bristow, itoje, Woodburn, sloan etc etc who are promising youngster who are getting the odd game time

That is all good, but how about rating them?

These are good players. Who would I really not want to see in the WC squad next year from this lot? About 12 of them. All of the rest I'd be pretty happy with - many of them were amongst the best in the world when they were at age-group level.

Who has the attributes to really move up to the highest level? Well quite a few have the potential - and hopefully over the next 12 months the side will be settled enough that some of them can get the game time to kick on. I hope at least some of Ewers, Clark, Ford, Slade, Yarde and Watson get good game-time, as I think they all have the potential to add something to the England side.

Overall England have excellent strength in depth, and it's only going to grow as English rugby continues to poor money and effort into youth rugby (remember only 1 defeat in all age-group rugby last season and plenty of players transitioning successfully from age-group to AP). If a talent like Burgess wants to chuck himself into the mix as well then so much the better (how about a 10, 12, 13 of Ford, Burgess and Slade as an interesting new combination).

just watched itoje captain sarries to victory against quins and win motm. lets add his name to the mix too. prob wont make it for this RWC, but after that, he's going to own the 6 jersey i reckon.

We'll be fine

I thought he was a lock?

He can play both. I think he'll be used as a lock

He played lock in the u20 RWC.

Did really well at 6 today though. Tackles, turnovers, carries. Looks much more if a 6 than lawes and launchbury who started at 6/7 before settling at lock.

Anyway. Strength in depth no doubt. Just need a few more stars.

Well Launchbury is out, so our strength in depth in the forwards will be tested a bit more now. Injured forwards:

1. Corbs, Vunipola
2. Youngs
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Parling
6. Croft

Itoje might be on the short side for a lock going forward, unless he is still growing. Awesome prospect though.

I think he'll be a lock too. Plenty of strength in depth in that area coming when you include Stooke, Matthews, Ellis etc.

He will be a 6 imo.

Either way, Itoje put in a huge shift today and had a big impact on the game. Impressive player. In a quieter way, Collier also played well - his third game in a row where he's come out on top against a much more vaunted scrum.

The way things are going our strength in depth is going to be sorely tested over the next few weeks.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:The way things are going our strength in depth is going to be sorely tested over the next few weeks.

Better to have your run of injuries now than next year I guess. The management will be thinking of the old Navy Seals adage of "no problems, just opportunities". This will give the next cabs off the rank the chance to strut their stuff and hopefully go ahead and push their way into the squad.

Welly wrote:England players under 29 who are playing regularly in the AP for their team:

 1) Corbs (26), Marler (24), Vunipola (23), Barrington (24), Auterac (21)
 2) Hartley (28), Webber (28), Youngs (27), George (24), LCD,
 3) Cole (27), Brookes (24), Balmain (22), Thomas (23), Sinckler (21), Collier (23)
 4) Lawes (25), Attwood (27), Slater (26), Garvey (27), Matthews (23), Robson (28)
 5) Launchbury (23), Kruis (24), Kitchener (25), Stooke (21),
 6) Croft (28), Wood (27),  Clark (25), Gibson (24), Wallace (24)
 7) Robshaw (28), Fraser (25) Wray (23), Kvesic (22),
 8) Morgan (25),  Vunipola (21), Ewers (23),  
 9) Care (27), Youngs (25), Dickson(29), Robson (22), Cook (23)
10) Farrell (23), Ford (21), Cips (26), Burns (24), Salde (21)
12) Eastmond (25), TT (25), Burrell (26), Barritt (28), Hill (21), Geraghty (28), Allen (28)
13) Manu (23), Joesph (23), Daly (22), Trinder (25), Puirdy (20)
14) May(24), Yarde (22), Wade (23), Watson (20), Nowell (21), Ashton (27), Lewington (23), Sharples (25)
15)  Tait (28 can't beilive he is younger than Foden and brown), Goode (26), 

 Prob missed some if anyone wants to give some names.

 Also have the likes of Steele, Bristow, itoje, Woodburn, sloan etc etc who are promising youngster who are getting the odd game time

Yes there are lots but how comfortable would you be with most of them facing the ABs?

Many of those players are very inexperienced and unproven at international level.

I can understand the current hype surrounding Itoje. He played very well against Quins. He was made captain which shows that Saracens want him to take on the mantle of leadership - could potentially be a future England captain in my opinion.

By the same vein, Beshocked, I doubt the All Blacks would be very comfortable taking an entirely young and second strong side to play a full strength England or France but we acknowledge their strength in depth