Is English Rugby dominance inevitable?

As a lifelong supporter of the Scottish Rugby Team this pains me to say it but is the eventual dominance of the England rugby team inevitable? Each year we moan when Scotland lose to the "Auld Enemy" but given the discrepancy in resources and population we've not done too badly.
For a long time to RFU have appeared to an outsider in many ways marginally more reliable than the FFR and a wee bit more forward thinking than the SRU, primarily presumably because they can. The resources available to English rugby dwarf any other nation except arguably South Africa, which seems riddled with political interference in sport which never ends well.
Of course this isn't some doomsday prediction for New Zealand's status in World Rugby, they have an enormous player base with quality all round however at the Junior Age groups the English are not just competing but beating them regularly, they have more money than anyone else and more players. Furthermore while TV companies now plow money into their leagues and the salary cap remains the money has to go somewhere and at the moment it seems to be going into development not only of players but also of infrastructure in which players thrive. Also there are 14 English clubs capable of matching any teams outside of France for wages, which is then furthered by the fact that French clubs now seem prepared to buy the older English players who's international careers have faultered leaving the English league a mix, much like the super 15, of internationals and ex-internationals. Now England appear to have sorted out their youth programmes it seems ominous for almost all else.

No.

I'll echo Hammer...no i don't think England dominance is a given.

Now if USA take it seriously..... That could be interesting....

They (big countries) also have disadvantages. For instance they go through more players which means the team usually have less experience than smaller sides.
It also means they've less time to build combinations and having more clubs doesn't help either.
They are always under more pressure to perform well and win.
Theres the power struggle between country and clubs to deal with and the clubs are out to look after number 1.
France are the best example of things going wrong.

126 games played between England and Wales the score is 56-58 with 12 draws...

How much more time do you think they will need to become dominant? Bearing in mind we've been playing each other since 1881!  
Apart from one brief period during the 90's they haven't been dominant at all, England should pretty much dominate all commonwealth sports, Union, League Cricket, yet they never do.

At the end of the day it's 15 against 15, unless Wales are playing Scotland in which case they often have men sent off or yellow carded, so it's all down to the day really.

No!

When team sizes are relative to the number of registered players we'll be in there.

Do you mean against Scotland? Maybe. The SRU has messed around and let other unions get such a large headstart in the professional era, other places are about 10-15 years ahead of you.

Against New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Ireland, Wales, France etc. etc. ...absolutely not

As a proud English rugby fan the answer is No! As long as it is 15 v 15 then the top tier nations will always be very very close!

However it is true that Englush rugby at all levels continues to grow and that this health may lead to marginal gains in the 1st team.

Dominant on the world stage no... Dominant commercially and at age group levels hell yes!!!

I don't think anyone at the top end of sport really believes you can buy consistent success. Financial resources will do a lot for you - and poorer teams can be at a serious disadvantage - but there's no guarantee.

Golf and tennis are big sports in Japan, with large player bases, rich domestic competitions, and numerous sponsors. However, even in Japan's financial heyday in the 80s, the country didn't produce many players who could cut it on the international circuit, let alone rise to the top.

If you manage to get everything aligned - coaching, finance, top athletes, and the right culture - then you have every chance of success. Some countries, through quirks of history, geography or national character, end up with two or three of those qualities already in the bag.

As an aside, if you also want to consider the nature vs nurture argument in sport, then I can recommend "The Sports Gene" by David Epstein

As far as English rugby is concerned, I think we have the financial resources, and are doing better at attracting top athletes to the sport, but our rugby culture is a work in progress, while our coaching record remains spotty.

No I doubt it. If nothing changes then probably. Why they have a relatively rich club competition and a large player base. Their national side has a working relationship with the clubs that allows for rest and development.

None of their opponents have all these advantages. France are disadvantaged in terms of player development, by the lack of club/country cooperation and influence of foreign players in top league. The Celtic counties and Italy are in a poorer competition, but can compete because the national/club competitions are more efficient and effective.

SA and most of the rest of the world can create talent, but bleed it Europe. Teams like Fiji and Samoa aren't going to be competitive given the lack of access to players. It limits SA's (and Argentina's) competitive. They can rely on the domestic and super rugby competitions to maintain a standard, but are a shadow of what they could be.

NZ and Australia are in a similar position, but additionally they have to cope with the NRL, which generates more income than any union club competition.

Having said that I don't think they will dominate in the long run because the rugby landscape will change. It only takes one relatively rich competition to start up (e.g. the US, Mainland Europe) and England could end up in a similar situation to everyone else, even if English clubs joined a larger competition. I think it's only a matter of time, primarily because the money involved in rugby is fairly small by international standards.

It is not impossible for England to become dominant, however there is more to it than just throwing money at it.

I often think too much money, too many clubs and too many numbers make it more challenging to find the best 30-45 players in a country.

One of the reasons I believe New Zealand gets it right is that it is easier to find a needle in a haystack that is one cubic meter big than finding a needle in 100 cubic meters.

coaching philosophies and sporting culture, outdoor lifestyle plays a huge part as well

I would say England rugby have been dominant over Scotland for some time.

Only 5 wins against England since 1986 -all at Murrayfield.

As for overall English rugby dominance - I doubt it. England do have the resources but haven't been able to utilise their resources effectively enough yet.

Biltong wrote:It is not impossible for England to become dominant, however there is more to it than just throwing money at it.

I often think too much money, too many clubs and too many numbers make it more challenging to find the best 30-45 players in a country.

One of the reasons I believe New Zealand gets it right is that it is easier to find a needle in a haystack that is one cubic meter big than finding a needle in 100 cubic meters.

coaching philosophies and sporting culture, outdoor lifestyle plays a huge part as well

Exactly. I think when you factor in the law of diminishing returns and compare England's domestic structure to NZ's or even Ireland's I don't see them ever being consistently dominant in the way the abs are.

SA are the side best placed to challenge NZ long term with England in with the next tier of Ireland, Wales, Australia and France imo.

I think strength in depth is overdone. It would only matter if England played a series against someone, and you had 1st v 1st, 2nd v 2nd, 3rd v 3rd and so on up to 6th v 6th for example. Then I would expect England to win the series. Probably 4-2 or 5-1 against most teams if not all. But 1st v 1sts? Doesn't matter. Strength in depth is irrelevant to me for the very top.

To back up what we're saying here, the England team in 2001 - 2003 was their most dominant of the professional era and also probably their most experienced. It was also packed with leaders and numerous players who captained teams. Thats not something you can buy. That team was a few years in the making and peaked for the 2003 world cup but after the 2003 world cup things went downhill. It just goes to show the balance needed to keep a team on top. NZ are the masters of this.


International rugby in general is getting more competitive and it remains to be seen what effect the exodus of players will have on the SH sides.

rodders wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is not impossible for England to become dominant, however there is more to it than just throwing money at it.

I often think too much money, too many clubs and too many numbers make it more challenging to find the best 30-45 players in a country.

One of the reasons I believe New Zealand gets it right is that it is easier to find a needle in a haystack that is one cubic meter big than finding a needle in 100 cubic meters.

coaching philosophies and sporting culture, outdoor lifestyle plays a huge part as well

Exactly. I think when you factor in the law of diminishing returns and compare England's domestic structure to NZ's or even Ireland's I don't see them ever being consistently dominant in the way the abs are.

SA are the side best placed to challenge NZ long term with England in with the next tier of Ireland, Wales, Australia and France imo.

I think that's underestimating what the English setup is now doing. If you look at the quality of players now coming out of the England U20s and how much say the RFU have in how they are used by their clubs and in their training, there's a significant improvement compared to where things were even 4 years ago.

The RFU was too slow to respond to professionalism and messed up its relationship with the clubs for the first 10 years or so. Clive Woodward succeeded despite the system rather than because of it. The current union to club agreement was essentially only introduced after the 2007 RWC and England have been learning to use it. Johnson's falling back on his 2003 stalwarts set the process back a few years and Lancaster said at the outset it would take until 2019 for the system and the player pipeline to be fully mature.

That said, the big weakness in the current system is that players are being overplayed. Until recently, the English salary cap hasn't kept up with the realities of the season and as squads have shrunk players have ended up playing more and getting injured more. The PRL is now sorting that out to some degree, but I think the next version of the EPS agreement probably needs to move more towards a "dual contract" situation where the financial input from the RFU is enough that they get a greater degree of control over the EPS players, and the right to demand that they are rested. I can see that happening - both sides of the equation are wealthier now and there's more money available to allow for larger squads.

England have yet to show that they can get it all right - at least not consistently - but you can see what they are trying to work towards. The U20s are producing players like Ford, Slade, Itoje and Clifford who very early in their careers look to have potential to eclipse the players who preceded them. The challenge now is to keep them fit and nurture a long career, rather than have them burn out.

Poorfour wrote:I think that's underestimating what the English setup is now doing. If you look at the quality of players now coming out of the England U20s and how much say the RFU have in how they are used by their clubs and in their training, there's a significant improvement compared to where things were even 4 years ago.

I'm not underestimating at all -I think they are doing a great job. But their system is still inferior to NZ and Irelands, which is understandable given the population and demographics. I just don't see them every being dominant over a prolonged period as NZ just have too many advantages and SA too with the way rugby is embedded into the culture.

Rugby in England is too tied to social status at the grass roots to ever be viewed in the same way - so irrespective of the pro set I just don't see that they can be up there.

If England were to become dominant it would already have happened and it hasn't because NZ are dominant.

England have too many resources, too much choice and too many players. Coupled with a new broom philosophy and no apparent development plan this means that instead of dominating they are treading water having made no progress since well before RWC 11.

The question is why are NZ dominant and i can't think of a pacific reason.

I can t think of a pacific reason either. I'm all at sea.

Is English Rugby dominance inevitable?
No.
We have Rob Andrew.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can t think of a pacific reason either. I'm all at sea.

Careful someone will spit out their dummy in a minute

Ireland has a similar population to Scotland but yet Ireland has actually dominated England in the 6 nations. 9 wins to 7.

The biggest threat with the English is their financial influence and as such as evidenced in the demise of the Heineken cut they can potentially flex their muscles and set their odds in their favour.

Guns 9-7 isn't exactly dominating.

You guys have pacific envy. That's cute

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can t think of a pacific reason either. I'm all at sea.

Careful someone will spit out their dummy in a minute

Its ok, it will float around until it lands on a Pacific island.

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can t think of a pacific reason either. I'm all at sea.

Careful someone will spit out their dummy in a minute

Its ok, it will float around until it lands on a Pacific island.

If it's a Tuilagi sized dummy, it may just end up in the Thames

rodders wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I think that's underestimating what the English setup is now doing. If you look at the quality of players now coming out of the England U20s and how much say the RFU have in how they are used by their clubs and in their training, there's a significant improvement compared to where things were even 4 years ago.

I'm not underestimating at all -I think they are doing a great job. But their system is still inferior to NZ and Irelands, which is understandable given the population and demographics. I just don't see them every being dominant over a prolonged period as NZ just have too many advantages and SA too with the way rugby is embedded into the culture.

Rugby in England is too tied to social status at the grass roots to ever be viewed in the same way - so irrespective of the pro set I just don't see that they can be up there.

I don't think the grass roots are the problem, even if you're right about the class connotations to an extent. The quality of England's u20 sides for the last few years has been outstanding so the players are there and are being spotted at a young age. The problem is at the professional end of things. Do we have the system to turn world-class u20 players into world class senior players? I'd agree with Poorfour that overplaying them is an issue, and I'm not sure that the odd weekend off that the EPS agreement provides is enough to solve it. I do think there's a dilution problem, in that the exceptional players are spread across more clubs and aren't playing and training with each other as much as would be ideal. Finally I think the conditions in the UK aren't necessarily conducive to developing skills for a lot of the season, whereas the ABs are playing attacking rugby on fast pitches the majority of the time.

That last point only applies to the ABs and doesn't explain why, given the disparity in resources and at u20 level, England haven't been able to separate themselves from Wales or Ireland where conditions are similar. The success of the u20 sides is a recent phenomenon so maybe over the course of the next decade England will start to pull away. It's also unclear whether the current settled Wales side, for example, is the product of an exceptional "pathway" or simply a freak generation. The drop off to the Welsh 2nd XV is massive as seen in the probables v possibles game last year, but it's arguable that an English 2nd XV would give the 1sts a serious run for their money. I think it will be a few years before we can see whether Wales do a better job than England at turning the cream of their u20 players into full internationals or whether they've just got an outstanding group at the moment. Similarly we might start to see whether English success at u20 level is simply a case of numbers rather than of exceptional quality.

To be fair talent is only one small jigsaw of international rugby. Even so national sides have the ability to qualify players through residency as well to strengthen their chances.

A massive amount still has to be factored into other areas. Game time management (where I still think some of England's best players are overplayed slightly), fitness, preparation time, coaching ability (including tactical planning), standard of competition those players are exposed too and a laundry list of other small but relevant factors.

France should in theory be the biggest threat to anyone in the world on the original OP thread. They have more money, bigger population, more professional clubs than anyone else and yet they are seriously failing partly because there is no clear pathway of progression. Instead clubs and the national side work against each other.

The problem with England having to bring players through is that it can lead to second season syndrome. A lot of England's current batch while you cant fault their abilities will come under far more analysis by teams. So its hard to gage if England will actually go into a long period of success over the next half decade.

Scotland by contrast got it fairly wrong when the game went professional. It's taken them a long time to sort out their professional game and with only having 2 pro teams are more limited than most of the smaller nations. The player base isn't quite there yet but the changes are coming. So I only see Scotland improving internationally as well.

Bottom line New Zealand have been the best side nationally for a long time now and in terms of skilled players I really don't buy into this hype they are more skilful than players produced elsewhere. What they do very well however is prepare, rest and transition players to international rugby better than anyone else. Factor in that historically playing in the Super 15 has always led them to breed fast thinking players who cope with a higher degree of speed better than anyone else. That's partly because they had to develop a structure as in terms of physicality they weren't ever going to overcome the SA by sheer strength. So they developed faster more mobile based attacking options to allow them to compete.

Its difficult to predict how the changes to Super rugby and the exodus of younger talent and more experienced sides will equate to the dominance Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have had over the last decade. Could make them stronger could make them weaker. However all this said I don't think anything points to England really becoming the international force made out by the OP.

Imo if we had complete central contracts where we could rest players and plan for the international season knowing we could call in extra time together, then we would consistently be top two. Dominate no but consistantly better.

Welshmushroom wrote:To be fair talent is only one small jigsaw of international rugby.  Even so national sides have the ability to qualify players through residency as well to strengthen their chances.  

A massive amount still has to be factored into other areas.  Game time management (where I still think some of England's best players are overplayed slightly), fitness, preparation time, coaching ability (including tactical planning), standard of competition those players are exposed too and a laundry list of other small but relevant factors.

France should in theory be the biggest threat to anyone in the world on the original OP thread.  They have more money, bigger population, more professional clubs than anyone else and yet they are seriously failing partly because there is no clear pathway of progression.  Instead clubs and the national side work against each other.

The problem with England having to bring players through is that it can lead to second season syndrome.  A lot of England's current batch while you cant fault their abilities will come under far more analysis by teams.  So its hard to gage if England will actually go into a long period of success over the next half decade.  

Scotland by contrast got it fairly wrong when the game went professional.  It's taken them a long time to sort out their professional game and with only having 2 pro teams are more limited than most of the smaller nations.  The player base isn't quite there yet but the changes are coming.  So I only see Scotland improving internationally as well.  

Bottom line New Zealand have been the best side nationally for a long time now and in terms of skilled players I really don't buy into this hype they are more skilful than players produced elsewhere.  What they do very well however is prepare, rest and transition players to international rugby better than anyone else.  Factor in that historically playing in the Super 15 has always led them to breed fast thinking players who cope with a higher degree of speed better than anyone else.  That's partly because they had to develop a structure as in terms of physicality they weren't ever going to overcome the SA by sheer strength.  So they developed faster more mobile based attacking options to allow them to compete.  

Its difficult to predict how the changes to Super rugby and the exodus of younger talent and more experienced sides will equate to the dominance Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have had over the last decade.  Could make them stronger could make them weaker.  However all this said I don't think anything points to England really becoming the international force made out by the OP.

I think the exodus can be good for our rugby the day SARU realises they need to eliminate overseas players from selection, there are masses of young talent in SA who don't get opportunities, and these guys are hungry, more skilled to play modern day rugby and more adventurous.

Our national coaches have an obsession when it comes to experienced players and holding onto them for their reputations, long after form has suffered

ebop wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can t think of a pacific reason either. I'm all at sea.

Careful someone will spit out their dummy in a minute

Its ok, it will float around until it lands on a Pacific island.

If it's a Tuilagi sized dummy, it may just end up in the Thames

Ah yes the one that got away, you must miss him terribly.

Gwlad wrote:

ebop wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can t think of a pacific reason either. I'm all at sea.

Careful someone will spit out their dummy in a minute

Its ok, it will float around until it lands on a Pacific island.

If it's a Tuilagi sized dummy, it may just end up in the Thames

Ah yes the one that got away, you must miss him terribly.

Not as much as England will in a few months.

I think that Tuilagi is a wonderful player - actually underrated by many on here - and that we'd be stronger with him as an option at 12, but he's been out of the frame for so much of the last 2 years that I don't think we'll actually notice his absence so much.

ebop wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

ebop wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can t think of a pacific reason either. I'm all at sea.

Careful someone will spit out their dummy in a minute

Its ok, it will float around until it lands on a Pacific island.

If it's a Tuilagi sized dummy, it may just end up in the Thames

Ah yes the one that got away, you must miss him terribly.

Not as much as England will in a few months.

Your are right, he is a one man team; imagine a whole team full of players like him, wow, they could dominate the entire world.

Gwlad wrote:

ebop wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

ebop wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I can t think of a pacific reason either. I'm all at sea.

Careful someone will spit out their dummy in a minute

Its ok, it will float around until it lands on a Pacific island.

If it's a Tuilagi sized dummy, it may just end up in the Thames

Ah yes the one that got away, you must miss him terribly.

Not as much as England will in a few months.

Your are right, he is a one man team; imagine a whole team full of players like him, wow, they could dominate the entire world.

You don't have to imagine it Gwlad. It's real, it exists, the team is called Samoa and they're ranked 9th. Given you have a BA (Hons) in psychology and are thus an expert on rugby. Can you outline where the majority of the Samoan rugby team were born and learnt their rugby. Go on Gwlad, be a sport.

Biltong wrote:It is not impossible for England to become dominant, however there is more to it than just throwing money at it.

I often think too much money, too many clubs and too many numbers make it more challenging to find the best 30-45 players in a country.

One of the reasons I believe New Zealand gets it right is that it is easier to find a needle in a haystack that is one cubic meter big than finding a needle in 100 cubic meters.

coaching philosophies and sporting culture, outdoor lifestyle plays a huge part as well

Glad to see you are back. In the words of Mark Twain, it appears reports of your exit were greatly exaggerated.

Cant see any reason for believing that Englands dominace over New Zealand might be inevitable. At the moment the record stands at England having 7 victories over the ABs who in turn have been victorious 32 times.

At no stage over the last 110 years that these two countries have been playing each other have England ever been equal or ahead on the win/loss table.

blackcanelion wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is not impossible for England to become dominant, however there is more to it than just throwing money at it.

I often think too much money, too many clubs and too many numbers make it more challenging to find the best 30-45 players in a country.

One of the reasons I believe New Zealand gets it right is that it is easier to find a needle in a haystack that is one cubic meter big than finding a needle in 100 cubic meters.

coaching philosophies and sporting culture, outdoor lifestyle plays a huge part as well

Glad to see you are back. In the words of Mark Twain, it appears reports of your exit were greatly exaggerated.

I never left here?

I have merely made the decision to engage less on sporting forums and stay away from unpleasant places

I can't see England dominating any time soon. What I think England fans can be confident of is that England will continue to improve for the next few years. We've come a long way since 2011 in terms of playing style, culture and strength in depth. But the squad, and most of the back-ups are relatively young and inexperienced.

Over the next few years, as the players gain experience, we should improve. The strength in depth will become more useful then, as it will help us maintain a high level which some other nations might only be able to manage when pretty much everyone is available. Also, the academies will continue to feed young players in but as the senior side matures you will increasingly need to be an exceptional player to get into the senior squad, which should also drive up the average quality.

So, in four years' time England will be notably stronger than they are today. That might be enough to move them ahead of Ireland and Wales, but it is difficult to see why a gap would open up with New Zealand or South Africa (and if the French ever get a grip they would be very dangerous).

Problem with looking at raw numbers, is that it tends to ignore the fact that unfortunately, the sporting conveyor belt isn't actually a conveyor belt. Talent just props up in the most random of places, with no set play. It's not as easy as, if you have 100, 000 registered players, you'll create 30 world class players. Interesting piece on NZ cricket I read, where four of the current NZ cricketers grew up within a a couple blocks from each other. That's freak, if you consider their levels of talent (ie four of the top, let's say, 50 players in the world lived in a 2km radius) but it's sport. Chuck in an All black, a few hockey players, and it appears that the secret to sporting success lies in living at the Bay of Plenty.

Having a lot of kids doing well at age group level is great and it's better to have them than not, but logically, if England produce 30 9/10 junior players every year, and Ireland produce 10, by the time the kids step onto the field as men, the match day squads will be exactly the same level.

As an aside, never EVER been convinced that the States will simply blow the world away when they take rugby seriously. For one, their big three sports can pay $25m a season, so will forever and ever snatch all the top talent. Second, they generally aren't very good at sports which the rest of the world actually care about. You'd think basketball, but given the financial disparity, it's like comparing Georgia and South Africa rugby wise.

England could become stronger if they get more money into the game. At the moment a good ball playing kid in England won't choose rugby but play soccer instead. If the rewards increase more might be tempted by the oval ball game.

The population demographic could also have more of an impact as players become homogenous clones - all big heavy men. Once skill becomes less important than size then countries with a big pool to pick from will inevitably become more dominant.

The Great Aukster wrote:England could become stronger if they get more money into the game. At the moment a good ball playing kid in England won't choose rugby but play soccer instead. If the rewards increase more might be tempted by the oval ball game.

The population demographic could also have more of an impact as players become homogenous clones - all big heavy men. Once skill becomes less important than size then countries with a big pool to pick from will inevitably become more dominant.

How much more do you need?! By far the biggest union, the most players and the greatest funding…yet nowhere near world dominance and punching way below weight. Unless you picked England up and dropped it down south somewhere near New Zealand so the spoils of geographical proximity to the great nursery of rugby could be equally exploited, i can't see any other way that a football mad nation would somehow change its number one sport.

kingraf wrote:Problem with looking at raw numbers, is that it tends to ignore the fact that unfortunately, the sporting conveyor belt isn't actually a conveyor belt. Talent just props up in the most random of places, with no set play. It's not as easy as, if you have 100, 000 registered players, you'll create 30 world class players. Interesting piece on NZ cricket I read, where four of the current NZ cricketers grew up within a a couple blocks from each other. That's freak, if you consider their levels of talent (ie four of the top, let's say, 50 players in the world lived in a 2km radius) but it's sport. Chuck in an All black, a few hockey players, and it appears that the secret to sporting success lies in living at the Bay of Plenty.

Having a lot of kids doing well at age group level is great and it's better to have them than not, but logically, if England produce 30 9/10 junior players every year, and Ireland produce 10, by the time the kids step onto the field as men, the match day squads will be exactly the same level.

As an aside, never EVER been convinced that the States will simply blow the world away when they take rugby seriously. For one, their big three sports can pay $25m a season, so will forever and ever snatch all the top talent. Second, they generally aren't very good at sports which the rest of the world actually care about. You'd think basketball, but given the financial disparity, it's like comparing Georgia and South Africa rugby wise.

Agree about the USA. I hear that they'll dominate rugby if they "take it seriously" (whatever that means) but it makes no sense. To get a good rugby system in place takes a lot of organisation and every case is difference. I think it's easier to organise the system in smaller countries like NZ but harder in bigger countries especially with the clubs in the way. Rugby is a complex game to develop players compared to other sports so if the right systems are not in place, things won't run efficiently.

With that (systems) in mind, the people who are best at that kind of thing are the Germans. After a few poor world cup results, they transformed their soccer structures and are now world champions.

The cricket example is a good one. I bet those cricketers got the right coaching from an early age so it wasn't a freak IMO. Look how NZ always produces the most skillful rugby players.

Are the most talented English football players built for rugby? They'd possibly develop different body shapes (ie muscles) if they started playing rugby instead of football at an early age. But it's hard to imagine Theo Walcott as a rugby winger. There wouldn't be too many potential props, number 8s or locks kicking about in English pro football. I think it's more to do with culture, expectation, history, legacy, priorities, organisation and coaching rather than player base that will prevent England from ever being the long-term dominant Union. Statistically, you'd think with the millions of registered players in England right now, not all of them are football rejects.

England need a 'pass it don't kick it' marketing campaign in its junior clubs. Until they loosen up and play with more verve at an early age from the get go, I can only see England ever playing catch up in the skills race at the senior level. Unless they think they can dominate with a brute force game. I know the English team have loosened up a bit, but flair still doesn't seem to be ingrained. I know it's a simplification, but this may be the small point of difference between top and near-top in the long-term.

ps. nice try Gwlad, mum not give you a hug this morning mate?

ebop wrote:Are the most talented English football players built for rugby? They'd possibly develop different body shapes (ie muscles) if they started playing rugby instead of football at an early age. But it's hard to imagine Theo Walcott as a rugby winger. There wouldn't be too many potential props, number 8s or locks kicking about in English pro football. I think it's more to do with culture, expectation, history, legacy, priorities, organisation and coaching rather than player base that will prevent England from ever being the long-term dominant Union. Statistically, you'd think with the millions of registered players in England right now, not all of them are football rejects.

England need a 'pass it don't kick it' marketing campaign in its junior clubs. Until they loosen up and play with more verve at an early age from the get go, I can only see England ever playing catch up in the skills race at the senior level. Unless they think they can dominate with a brute force game. I know the English team have loosened up a bit, but flair still doesn't seem to be ingrained. I know it's a simplification, but this may be the small point of difference between top and near-top in the long-term.

ps. nice try Gwlad, mum not give you a hug this morning mate?

I take it you haven't been watching the England U20's then

ebop wrote:...England need a 'pass it don't kick it' marketing campaign in its junior clubs...

I've heard that there's been far more focus on skills for a few years now. Results at junior level would tend to support that view, but you also hear the accusation of "gym monkey" being levelled by some of the old pros, so it's difficult to know from the outside.

lostinwales wrote:

ebop wrote:England need a 'pass it don't kick it' marketing campaign in its junior clubs.

I take it you haven't been watching the England U20's then

Nah, I haven't had a chance unfortunately.  

Are you saying they're already playing a dynamic open game?

Look forward to seeing them.

Don't get me wrong, England are formidable and will be there or thereabouts. But 'dominance' is a strong word. Even with the ABs >90% win record in recent years I would far from say they are dominating world rugby. Dominating implies big scores over teams over seasons and over most (or all) teams on a consistent basis. You just don't get that these days no matter who you are.

ebop wrote:Don't get me wrong, England are formidable and will be there or thereabouts. But 'dominance' is a strong word. Even with the ABs >90% win record in recent years I would far from say they are dominating world rugby. Dominating implies big scores over teams over seasons and over most (or all) teams on a consistent basis. You just don't get that these days no matter who you are.