Is there an issue with the Premiership and Top 14

Is the England and France implosion connected to their respective club competitions. I think it probably is. I suspect they play too much club rugby. The NFL, NRL and even Super rugby show show you don't have to play anywhere the number of games played in France or England to be profitable and sustainable. Thoughts.

Too much rugby?

I wouldn't think that's the main thing at all.  The biggest bluff about New Zealand in my opinion is that they have (or need) a coach (singular).  
Hansen is merely a front man.  The New Zealand team is a massive machine - countrywide - calculating constantly what is best for the side, where the best moves are, what tactics work best, which players have the most to give.  It's a system, and all club sides and coaches throughout the country have an input.

The issue up North is the kind of Professionalism that thinks more of club than International - that doesn't want to share ideas or strategies with the National side, that competes with International openly for the affections of the rugby watching public, and actively tries to weaken International itself because they believe it not to be a partner in increasing standards but a rival for the loyalty of highly paid players.

The All Blacks are a national machine - driven forcefully from within by all people involved in Rugby Union in that country.  In the North, the clubs are die-hard rivals to International.

SecretFly wrote:Too much rugby?

I wouldn't think that's the main thing at all.  The biggest bluff about New Zealand in my opinion is that they have (or need) a coach (singular).  
Hansen is merely a front man.  The New Zealand team is a massive machine - countrywide - calculating constantly what is best for the side, where the best moves are, what tactics work best, which players have the most to give.  It's a system, and all club sides and coaches throughout the country have an input.

The issue up North is the kind of Professionalism that thinks more of club than International - that doesn't want to share ideas or strategies with the National side, that competes with International openly for the affections of the rugby watching public, and actively tries to weaken International itself because they believe it not to be a partner in increasing standards but a rival for the loyalty of highly paid players.

The All Blacks are a national machine - driven forcefully from within by all people involved in Rugby Union in that country.  [b]In the North,[/b] England and France and possibly Wales the clubs are die-hard rivals to International.

Fixed that for you.

Fair question.

Eight years ago, England and France knocked Australia and New Zealand out of the Cup, despite being underdogs. That was a great hemisphere upset, and there was a line of thinking that the Heineken Cup toughened players up for knock-out rugby.

In truth, both matches could have gone the other way, so we might have drawn the wrong lessons based on too small a sample.

The truth is, over the last eight years, Six Nations sides have failed to make much of an impact. There was another argument that the World Cup is the only real stage where teams try to peak at the same time. However, Ireland famously beat Australia in the 2011 pool stages, but all the other head-to-heads went to the big three.

If games go to form, we could end this tournament with a situation that a Six Nations side has only once beaten Australia, South Africa or New Zealand in the course of two Cups.

Well I know the SH never thinks about us, DOD. So I didn't include us It saved time.

We all knows it's just England, France and Wales they care about.

Nobody loves us and we dont care...

blackcanelion wrote:Is the England and France implosion connected to their respective club competitions. I think it probably is. I suspect they play too much club rugby. The NFL, NRL and even Super rugby show show you don't have to play anywhere the number of games played in France or England to be profitable and sustainable. Thoughts.

First of all there is no "implosion", club rugby has already precedence in both countries. in the NH all the Unions were roundly put in their place with the new European Cup format placing more importance on Club than Union. Test rugby is in danger of following Test cricket in that it will become increasingly irrelevant because the money is increasingly in the club game.

Perhaps the Sh sides should consider what this means to their financial model?

The English players are rested as much as the Welsh or Irish (we're told this many times). So no, it's not too many games. There are plenty of rugby reasons for England not doing great (although they got knocked out by two tier one sides so not a massive shock). Pack unbalanced, unsettled centres. General inexperience in the backs.

It's more than that hammer though, isn't it?

Just look at the ranking system since inception.................. I mean that is just an unbelievable degree of total dominance of a sport shown by the All Blacks over the years. It's a stunning record, most especially when everyone says they're now on the Professionalism bandwagon, have roughly the same diets, the same training regimes, the same conditioning etc etc... And yet - the gap is still miles between New Zealand and the rest in real terms.

Yes, a win or two here or there, yes maybe a World Cup final win... but that's only glossing over the truth.

The truth is the gap is systemic. It's not going to be breached by pack balancing, proper centres or more experience for backs.

SecretFly wrote:It's more than that hammer though, isn't it?

Just look at the ranking system since inception..................  I mean that is just an unbelievable degree of total dominance of a sport shown by the All Blacks over the years.  It's a stunning record, most especially when everyone says they're now on the Professionalism bandwagon, have roughly the same diets, the same training regimes, the same conditioning etc etc...  And yet - the gap is still miles between New Zealand and the rest in real terms.

Yes, a win or two here or there, yes maybe a World Cup final win... but that's only glossing over the truth.

The truth is the gap is systemic.  It's not going to be breached by pack balancing, proper centres or more experience for backs.

I'm not so sure it is the same. I think NZ especially, but also Australia, South Africa, Ireland have a more centralised approach to the game and can work on the overall improvement of their limited resources. I suspect that Argentina, Scotland and Wales are on that journey to. My feeling about the Top 14 and Premiership in particular, is that the players development is controlled by conflicting agendas.

The Great Aukster wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Is the England and France implosion connected to their respective club competitions. I think it probably is. I suspect they play too much club rugby. The NFL, NRL and even Super rugby show show you don't have to play anywhere the number of games played in France or England to be profitable and sustainable. Thoughts.

First of all there is no "implosion", club rugby has already precedence in both countries. in the NH all the Unions were roundly put in their place with the new European Cup format placing more importance on Club than Union. Test rugby is in danger of following Test cricket in that it will become increasingly irrelevant because the money is increasingly in the club game.

Perhaps the Sh sides should consider what this means to their financial model?

It has little to do with their financial model and more to do with the available markets. Regardless of the financial model used, the market in the SH is significantly smaller, spread over vast areas and continents and much, much more travel is required.

There are conflicting agendas, yes.  That's the point.  
These clubs are privately owned and for the profit concerns of the owners.  
They care little about the overview of the 'National' game.  Indeed, given the number of SH players coming up to play with Superclubs here after the World Cup, it's quite obvious that concern for the requirements of International in these Nations is zero from clubs themselves (the bigger more ambitious ones anyway)

SH season: Super rugby > internationals/Domestic

NH season: leagues > (European) cup > internationals (AIs) > leagues > European cup > league > internationals (6 nations) > cup > leagues > internationals (end of season tour)
+ Every second year theres a world cup or Lions tour. Lions tours take place during the SH season but during the NH summer which should be a rest period.


The NH season is broken up way too much. The SH teams are like club sides because they spend about half a year together in one block and that allows greater cohesion and familiarity to be built up.

South Africa are a slight exception since many of their players play in Europe or Japan.

Part of the NZ advantage is its the number one sport - in England it is not. So all the best atheletes in NZ play rugby - in the UK some play football, some athletics, some rugby league

also the junior game - IIRC in NZ you play in groups according to your weight - so a big 9yr old may be playing with mainly 12 year olds - thus pre power is not enough - you learn skills as well. Here as its all age grade if you are bigger than your peers you never need to learn skillfull play as your size and power will see you thru - untill you reach adult level - when suddenly you don't have the skills of the ABs and you have ten years skills learning to catch up on

Also in England / France the league is king not internationals - and although its not as pronounced as it used to be in England the emphasis is on "not losing" rather than winning - so players are more cautious .

TJ, I cannot disagree more.

Whenever I hear someone say that NZ or SA or someone else is better because rugby is their number one sport I find it disingenuous.

Tell the hundreds of thousands of people in England because eugby is not their number one sport they won't be good enough to rule world rugby.

Come on, you have 20 times or more players in England playing rugby.

Do they also play footbal, Cricket and what else so rugby is a part time sport for them?

Biltong wrote:TJ, I cannot disagree more.

Whenever I hear someone say that NZ or SA or someone else is better because rugby is their number one sport I find it disingenuous.

Tell the hundreds of thousands of people in England because eugby is not their number one sport they won't be good enough to rule world rugby.

Come on, you have 20 times or more players in England playing rugby.

Do they also play footbal, Cricket and what else so rugby is a part time sport for them?

I think TJs point is valid. The sheer choice in sports in England means that all the sports do not get the best mix of talent. It affects football as much as Rugby, perhaps even more as the national football team often seems is missing the intelligent leader figures on the field, that you probably would get from the better performing schools. Achievement in Rugby is often paired with a good education. I think places like Germany, Brazil, NZ, SA (Afrikaans) dominate their national sports on an international level because they draw players from all sectors of their society. Football in particular in England draws its people from the non-elite sector, Rugby Union probably has a fairer mix but looses out to football in volume, and Rugby League gets the smallest pool in England to draw their players from.

I think this is the reason why USA will never compete in Rugby or football, and Brazil/Germany will never compete at Rugby.

BIUltong - If you are a big strong natural athelete in SA or even more so NZ you will ply rugby. IN the UK its much less likely as rugby is manily played in public ( IE posh fee paying) not state schools and you have many more sports to go into. So of the mythical " potential great rugby players" even tho England has many more of these people their chances of playing rugby are much much lower so we end up with less great rugby players as most of the guys with potential end up in other sports or doing none at all.

Biltong - there is also the point about age group rugby and a lack of basic skills.

TJ, your age group rugby has been better than SA or NZ in the last three years, that tells me there are more than enough "big strong" englishmen pLaying rugby.

If you want to ask me why I believe NZ are better than everyone else.


Coaching, from grass roots all the way to their national team

I'm a scots fan BTW - I got my "we" "them" and "yous" a bit confused in the posts.

Thats a good point tho - why does this not continue to the top? In this WC certainly NZ have been greater than the sum of thier parts, England less. Coaching and selection must be a part. Wales with far less resources match England.

Again I think a part of it comes down to the league as well - the style of play perhaps?

The issue is they are not as good as they would like to think and the Pro 12 has showcased the last couple of seasons the highest quality of Rugby, ie the one most similar to super rugby.

It's not a counter argument that England dominate age grade rugby, it's an argument for.

England age grade teams are more mature than others, the 'big kid' gets selected because of his physical prowess, then given superior training and support measure to make the gap bigger, when that physical advantage is lost in their early twenties they don't have the skill level to compete, and thus just become bigger and stronger and told that they will 'develop', but really they just catch up the physicality they didn't have originally.

I truly believe that age group rugby is where sheer weight of players has the most impact.

Compare Wales/Scotland to England. The drop off in quality from the starters in England's neighbours to the second/third/fourth choices is rather huge. England could probably field 4 or 5 teams of similar quality to each other.
(or maybe lack of quality )
As age group level England have enough players to create a squad of decent players. Wales and Scotland, for most years, have a handfull of really good players, but also a handful of quite poor ones just making up the numbers (not every year, but many). That affects the overall quality of the team quite significantly.

the development of the Academy system means the english palyers at age grade are well drilled, very fit and can thrive amongst the kids that make up their peers. however their actual skills and game understanding are less well developed. You coudl say that we develop U20 players to do well at U20 rugby. NZ for example develop U20 players to be good in senior rugby, and if they do well at U20s then that is an added bonus.

That's right - England is the Land of Giants where boys reach puberty before their 10th birthday.

Fanster wrote:It's not a counter argument that England dominate age grade rugby, it's an argument for.

England age grade teams are more mature than others, the 'big kid' gets selected because of his physical prowess, then given superior training and support measure to make the gap bigger, when that physical advantage is lost in their early twenties they don't have the skill level to compete, and thus just become bigger and stronger and told that they will 'develop', but really they just catch up the physicality they didn't have originally.

Yes - thats my point better presented.

Fanster wrote:It's not a counter argument that England dominate age grade rugby, it's an argument for.

England age grade teams are more mature than others, the 'big kid' gets selected because of his physical prowess, then given superior training and support measure to make the gap bigger, when that physical advantage is lost in their early twenties they don't have the skill level to compete, and thus just become bigger and stronger and told that they will 'develop', but really they just catch up the physicality they didn't have originally.

Very unfair. England haven't fielded monster packs recently Wales regularly have the bigger players.

TJ wrote:BIUltong - If you are a big strong natural athelete in SA or even more so NZ you will ply rugby.  IN the UK its much less likely as rugby is manily played in public ( IE posh fee paying) not state schools and you have many more sports to go into.  So of the mythical " potential great rugby players" even tho England has many more of these people their chances of playing rugby are much much lower so we end up with less great rugby players as most of the guys with potential end up in other sports or doing none at all.

This is not true of the 'U.K.' as a whole TJ. Rugby is a working class sport in Wales, played in state schools. I expect it's played in private schools here too, but we haven't got that many! It's played at local level by working class people too, not just posh or rich people. It might be different in other parts of the U.K.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:That's right - England is the Land of Giants where boys reach puberty before their 10th birthday.

No, but when selection policy is based around junior performance, in which physicality is king, then you are going to select the biggest and strongest (ie the most developed maturation wise) and give them the best prep you will be developing early maturing players, not the best players.

Everywhere outside of NZ do similar, it's jut that Englands massive junior player base, and superior finances make them better at it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:It's not a counter argument that England dominate age grade rugby, it's an argument for.

England age grade teams are more mature than others, the 'big kid' gets selected because of his physical prowess, then given superior training and support measure to make the gap bigger, when that physical advantage is lost in their early twenties they don't have the skill level to compete, and thus just become bigger and stronger and told that they will 'develop', but really they just catch up the physicality they didn't have originally.

Very unfair. England haven't fielded monster packs recently Wales regularly have the bigger players.

I'm not specifying England, we all do it, England have just been better at it with player pool and finances etc...

Griff wrote:

TJ wrote:BIUltong - If you are a big strong natural athelete in SA or even more so NZ you will ply rugby.  IN the UK its much less likely as rugby is manily played in public ( IE posh fee paying) not state schools and you have many more sports to go into.  So of the mythical " potential great rugby players" even tho England has many more of these people their chances of playing rugby are much much lower so we end up with less great rugby players as most of the guys with potential end up in other sports or doing none at all.

This is not true of the 'U.K.' as a whole TJ. Rugby is a working class sport in Wales, played in state schools. I expect it's played in private schools here too, but we haven't got that many! It's played at local level by working class people too, not just posh or rich people. It might be different in other parts of the U.K.

Lots of "working class" people play rugby in england. Junior clubs I have played at used to be made up of far more "labourers" than "professional" workers. However very few of them ever played at school.

But back to the original question, no I do not believe that england's failure to get out of the group is due to issues with the AP.

LondonTiger wrote:

Griff wrote:

TJ wrote:BIUltong - If you are a big strong natural athelete in SA or even more so NZ you will ply rugby.  IN the UK its much less likely as rugby is manily played in public ( IE posh fee paying) not state schools and you have many more sports to go into.  So of the mythical " potential great rugby players" even tho England has many more of these people their chances of playing rugby are much much lower so we end up with less great rugby players as most of the guys with potential end up in other sports or doing none at all.

This is not true of the 'U.K.' as a whole TJ. Rugby is a working class sport in Wales, played in state schools. I expect it's played in private schools here too, but we haven't got that many! It's played at local level by working class people too, not just posh or rich people. It might be different in other parts of the U.K.

Lots of "working class" people play rugby in england. Junior clubs I have played at used to be made up of far more "labourers" than "professional" workers. However very few of them ever played at school.

Tell TJ, not me! I can only speak for Wales where a) we don't have many 'posh fee paying schools' and b) rugby is played across state schools (not all, but most. Usually down to the teachers and their sporting interests, background and experience).

I don't think too much rugby is the issue, truth is the squads in England and France are huge, and rotation is a key part, no team uses the same team each week.
I think Secretfly nailed it on the head when he said club rugby takes priority over international rugby in England and France, so hence those teams suffer enough that Wales and Ireland who work the other way round can be competitive if not better.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:It's not a counter argument that England dominate age grade rugby, it's an argument for.

England age grade teams are more mature than others, the 'big kid' gets selected because of his physical prowess, then given superior training and support measure to make the gap bigger, when that physical advantage is lost in their early twenties they don't have the skill level to compete, and thus just become bigger and stronger and told that they will 'develop', but really they just catch up the physicality they didn't have originally.

Very unfair. England haven't fielded monster packs recently Wales regularly have the bigger players.

I'm not specifying England, we all do it, England have just been better at it with player pool and finances etc...

Physical attributes will always play a part in sport but for England at least its not the over riding factor thats all. Look at the youngsters coming through and their technique and skills are very good.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:It's not a counter argument that England dominate age grade rugby, it's an argument for.

England age grade teams are more mature than others, the 'big kid' gets selected because of his physical prowess, then given superior training and support measure to make the gap bigger, when that physical advantage is lost in their early twenties they don't have the skill level to compete, and thus just become bigger and stronger and told that they will 'develop', but really they just catch up the physicality they didn't have originally.

Very unfair. England haven't fielded monster packs recently Wales regularly have the bigger players.

I'm not specifying England, we all do it, England have just been better at it with player pool and finances etc...

Physical attributes will always play a part in sport but for England at least its not the over riding factor thats all. Look at the youngsters coming through and their technique and skills are very good.

If they are that good why are England, as with us all drafting players in to plug gaps they can't fill? Over the last 10 years England have been one of the nations happy to cap players who havn't come through their junior system, not because they are disloyal to their own system, but because head coaches want the most talented players, it's just that these are not necesarily coming through the system.

Look at Englands U20 to international cap ratio, I would suggest it's the lowest of tier 1 nations.

Fanster wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:That's right - England is the Land of Giants where boys reach puberty before their 10th birthday.

No, but when selection policy is based around junior performance, in which physicality is king, then you are going to select the biggest and strongest (ie the most developed maturation wise) and give them the best prep you will be developing early maturing players, not the best players.

Everywhere outside of NZ do similar, it's jut that Englands massive junior player base, and superior finances make them better at it.

This is a very fair point, when I played schools rugby we placed a lot of emphasise on size and strength which largely won us games, despite winning national championships none of them team progressed any further because we didn't have actual ability.

I have long held the belief that England are handicapped to some degree by our elite talent pool being spread across a multitude of sports, we might have more professional players than SANZA but our focus is entirely on 2/3 sports so the coaching takes a hit. New Zealand especially is geared almost entirely towards Rugby Union, it's part of the national identity and thusly the will to win and succeed is greater.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of English rugby players are grammar school educated rather than publicly educated.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:It's not a counter argument that England dominate age grade rugby, it's an argument for.

England age grade teams are more mature than others, the 'big kid' gets selected because of his physical prowess, then given superior training and support measure to make the gap bigger, when that physical advantage is lost in their early twenties they don't have the skill level to compete, and thus just become bigger and stronger and told that they will 'develop', but really they just catch up the physicality they didn't have originally.

Very unfair. England haven't fielded monster packs recently Wales regularly have the bigger players.

I'm not specifying England, we all do it, England have just been better at it with player pool and finances etc...

Physical attributes will always play a part in sport but for England at least its not the over riding factor thats all. Look at the youngsters coming through and their technique and skills are very good.

If they are that good why are England, as with us all drafting players in to plug gaps they can't fill? Over the last 10 years England have been one of the nations happy to cap players who havn't come through their junior system, not because they are disloyal to their own system, but because head coaches want the most talented players, it's just that these are not necesarily coming through the system.

Look at Englands U20 to international cap ratio, I would suggest it's the lowest of tier 1 nations.

Pretty much all internationals come through the u20s. A lot in the squad and team now. Don't really understand what you re trying to get at?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:That's right - England is the Land of Giants where boys reach puberty before their 10th birthday.

No, but when selection policy is based around junior performance, in which physicality is king, then you are going to select the biggest and strongest (ie the most developed maturation wise) and give them the best prep you will be developing early maturing players, not the best players.

Everywhere outside of NZ do similar, it's jut that Englands massive junior player base, and superior finances make them better at it.

This is a very fair point, when I played schools rugby we placed a lot of emphasise on size and strength which largely won us games, despite winning national championships none of them team progressed any further because we didn't have actual ability.

I have long held the belief that England are handicapped to some degree by our elite talent pool being spread across a multitude of sports, we might have more professional players than SANZA but our focus is entirely on 2/3 sports so the coaching takes a hit. New Zealand especially is geared almost entirely towards Rugby Union, it's part of the national identity and thusly the will to win and succeed is greater.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of English rugby players are grammar school educated rather than publicly educated.

It's the coveted poisoned chalice... No nation would turn down hving a player base like that, but it comes with it's own issues.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:It's not a counter argument that England dominate age grade rugby, it's an argument for.

England age grade teams are more mature than others, the 'big kid' gets selected because of his physical prowess, then given superior training and support measure to make the gap bigger, when that physical advantage is lost in their early twenties they don't have the skill level to compete, and thus just become bigger and stronger and told that they will 'develop', but really they just catch up the physicality they didn't have originally.

Very unfair. England haven't fielded monster packs recently Wales regularly have the bigger players.

I'm not specifying England, we all do it, England have just been better at it with player pool and finances etc...

Physical attributes will always play a part in sport but for England at least its not the over riding factor thats all. Look at the youngsters coming through and their technique and skills are very good.

If they are that good why are England, as with us all drafting players in to plug gaps they can't fill? Over the last 10 years England have been one of the nations happy to cap players who havn't come through their junior system, not because they are disloyal to their own system, but because head coaches want the most talented players, it's just that these are not necesarily coming through the system.

Look at Englands U20 to international cap ratio, I would suggest it's the lowest of tier 1 nations.

Pretty much all internationals come through the u20s. A lot in the squad and team now. Don't really understand what you re trying to get at?

Exactly, pretty much all internationals come through U20's, except a fair amount of the current England squad didn't play U20's rugby, and others came from other nations junior systems...

Fanster wrote:Look at Englands U20 to international cap ratio, I would suggest it's the lowest of tier 1 nations.

Not sure about that at all.

From the Squad that played at this RWC, the following team all played U20/21 for England:

Marler, Youngs, Brookes, Launchbury, Lawes, Robshaw, Haskell, BillyV, Youngs, Ford. May, Slade, Joseph, Watson, Brown

Also played for the U20/21s: Webber, George, Mako, Kruis, Wood(??), Care, Farrell, Goode, Nowell, Slade.



Do we promote youth quickly enough? Maybe not, but the vast majority of the above were not ancient when they made their debuts, while (before the 10000 yo Easter joined up) this was comfortably Englands youngest ever squad for a RWC

AFAIK Cole, Parling may not have played age group rugby. Not sure about wiggy. Barrit of course came from SA U21s and Burgess RL.

not really a fair amount

7.5

Front rowers alone...

Webber, T Youngs, Cole, Marler, and Wilson didn't play U20's?

Vunipola, Brookes both switched to England via other Junior systems

Leaving George the only product of Englands junior system?

Fanster wrote:7.5

Front rowers alone...

Webber, T Youngs, Cole, Marler, and Wilson didn't play U20's?

Vunipola, Brookes both switched to England via other Junior systems

Leaving George the only product of Englands junior system?

Actually not true. Only Cole may not have played for England at age grade. Brookes played for Ireland at U18s I believe but england at U20s - but was always in the England junior system.

LondonTiger wrote:

Fanster wrote:7.5

Front rowers alone...

Webber, T Youngs, Cole, Marler, and Wilson didn't play U20's?

Vunipola, Brookes both switched to England via other Junior systems

Leaving George the only product of Englands junior system?

Actually not true. Only Cole may not have played for England at age grade. Brookes played for Ireland at U18s I believe but england at U20s - but was always in the England junior system.

Brookes played Ireland school boys, U16 and U18, and was an IRFU project for 4 years? Is that really part of Englands junior system?

Even so, still not great reading, thats a huge amount of wasted resources on players who havn't made the grade

Brookes was at school in England, born in england to english parents and played for Cumbria at County Level. He did holiday in Ireland though .

Anyway are you accepting the innacuracies in your post? Cole is the only front row forward who may not have played for England U20/21.

Waste resources on who?

Also, is it being suggested that Dan Cole didn't play for England U20? If so...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/6451743.stm

And Brookes played for England U20

My apologies, their bios mention every game theyve played and none have U20 caps.

However the point still stands, we just have to move out of the front row... Barritt, Burgess.

So 2?

HammerofThunor wrote:Waste resources on who?

Also, is it being suggested that Dan Cole didn't play for England U20? If so...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/6451743.stm

And Brookes played for England U20

That was partly my fault HoT, as I was unable to remember him playing for England age group, unlike all the other front row guys and 90% of the squad.