Is English Rugby dominance inevitable?

First topic message reminder :

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.

ebop wrote:

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.

Unfortunately I only managed to catch England playing Wales on S4C but what really struck me was the passing between the backs, in that a) they were actually passing b) the passes were not being dropped and c) they weren't all easy passes

Quite frankly as a long time England supporter I do know we can traditionally do a lot of damage when passes actually stick, but that can be an all too rare occurrence. To be honest seeing a) and b) happening anything else is a bonus

Gwlad wrote:

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.

Did you not see that bit Gwlad?

Or are you rolling your eyes because I don't think the ABs dominate world rugby even with their pretty good win rate?

I'm not sure dominate is the right word.

Frustrate.

English rugby's ability to frustrate is inevitable, ever present and downright unsporting!

England are always about. They might not be always at the top of their game, they might not be always winning 6Ns, they might be going through dips when new coaches don't meet expectation etc. But they have such resources that they seldom suffer the major dips that coaching or player 'limitations' can often force on smaller nations.

England - even in a down period for them, when the press is feeding on negatives and the fans are talking about all the alternatives that could be tried out but are being criminally ignored by the coaches - even in those periods they're competitive enough to make life and lists and placings in competitions much more difficult to achieve.

England are an eternal frustration that just won't go away and have a bloody dark period of dungeon doom like the bloody rest of us!

am with EBOP, USA dominates basketball as they pretty much win everything they want. that's what real dominance is. All Blacks record is obviously very good but they still lose (very occasionnaly) games (as opposed to almost never).

Just to put a different perspective, I think that what England are mainly missing is a winning habit. They are rarely uncompetitive, but at this point they can still be thrown off their game and don't have that ability to conjure a win from somewhere.

That takes time to develop. Woodward only managed it in 2003, after nearly 6 years in charge, and that was with a group of players who were so experienced that the SH teams jokingly referred to the pack as Dad's Army. And then it got lost again because there was no continuity or system for bringing new players through.

There is now a system, and on the evidence of the U20s over the last few years it's beginning to work. They've only had a couple of games since 2011 where they haven't had a chance to win - even against Ireland they had two tries disallowed, either of which could have turned the game.

But they were disallowed, and the game didn't turn. England haven't yet developed that knack of finding the points from somewhere when they need them. If they ever do, there's a good chance that they could maintain it, and with it a firm grip on a top 3 position in the rankings.

Its also worth adding that because of the rates at which they mature (outside of freaks like Launchbury or Itoje) and the longevity of the incumbents there is a lag between the new academy backs coming through and the new forwards. 

I don't think we have seen the full impact of the benefits of our academy system yet.

It would seem to be inevitable if that England U20s display I saw last night was anything to go by.

I think English ruby is progressing but I cannot see international dominance on the horizon at the moment.  Maybe to some extent Scotland has regressed and the Welsh domestic picture is not totally bright though at International level they do quite well.

English rugby has a structure problem which in way limits the expansion possible - that is generally rugby union does not flourish, with some exceptions, in the major urban cities. Think of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, etc. even Bristol, Southampton.  Even in London teams are being squeezed out - London Irish, Wasps, London Welsh not longer play in London.

The south West is very much a stronghold disproportionate to its population but crowds are not massive (Exeter, Bath, Bristol, Gloucester, Worcester)

Image how strong English rugby would be if the teams were based in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, etc. with attendances of 30,000+

Biltong wrote:Guns 9-7 isn't exactly dominating.

It is a superior record to Englands. I think that you could reasonably argue that that means they have been dominant when it comes to the head to head. Dominant can mean whatever you want it to really.

It's been the golden years for Ireland over England, don't think anyone can deny that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's been the golden years for Ireland over England, don't think anyone can deny that.

In fairness England were a good bit off their best for quite a few of those years.