Is there an issue with the Premiership and Top 14

First topic message reminder :

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.

Londontiger well that's where I disagree. If there are problems in the squad you look to fix them. A squad is not just about the XV or the 23 it's about the bigger picture.

Warm up games are an ideal time to augment the strength of a squad. Games in the 6 nations when there is higher pressure are more suited to picking more full strength teams.

England had an underpowered scrum and lineout, were getting beasted at the breakdown and had issues in the centre. Trying out new players in that situation in my opinion is not a bad thing. Of course it's about trying out the right new players - I have said many a time who I would have picked. You have to trust the squad and you never know - some players might step up if given the opportunities.

I personally feel like Lancaster trusted the wrong players.

I don't think the 6 nations which are effectively must win games are the best time to throw players in the deep end unless it's easier games like Italy and Scotland at home.

Of course in some cases it's necessary but it's not normal.

Best available and most potential sometimes blend into one. Player X could have a better club season than Player Y but there is no guarantee, player X will be picked.

In one case I know of two players at one club - both had good club seasons, one has more international experience but I personally think with the one with less international experience if given a chance at international level would outclass the other. Am I right?

Perhaps not but we won't know till the player with less international experience is picked. The lack of international experience will count against him till he's given a chance.

It goes back to identifying who you should give gametime to - I think the player with more international experience is competent enough but don't think he will ever stand out at international level. Also we will of course disagree when a player should be picked.

Scotland are now (apparently) the side to fear so would you wait to Italy or not think if the players are good enough give them a go?

The issue with the premiership is its teams can wilfully break the salary cap and not get punished as they are spinless. Club before country from now on gents. Your national team is screwed.
You can thank scarcenes

Relegation in the AP could be working against the national side. Relegation causes clubs to 'buy in' quality players mainly from abroad because the imperative is to win now. Not next year. Ditching relegation/promotion would allow clubs to work on developing home grown talent and be more supportive of the national team.

It's nice to see you've been reading my posts Gory

englandglory4ever wrote:Relegation in the AP could be working against the national side. Relegation causes clubs to 'buy in' quality players mainly from abroad because the imperative is to win now. Not next year. Ditching relegation/promotion would allow clubs to work on developing home grown talent and be more supportive of the national team.

It also causes teams to play negative defensive rugby sometimes - altho perhaps less in the last couple of years. I am not sure however ditching relagation will help nurture home talent - I think teams will still go for buying rather than developing players

I also think that Lancaster did blood / try enough players out. He can't try everyone out and he did give quite a few guys an opportunity. I think the real issue is he either bottled or got wrong the selections against both Aus and Wales. Too defensive, too "safety first" not enough "dare to be"

Let's be honest, the Rabo is a pretty poor spectacle and is a low quality league.

Do you want a strong league or a strong Int team? It seems it's hard to have both

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Let's be honest, the Rabo is a pretty poor spectacle and is a low quality league.

Do you want a strong league or a strong Int team? It seems it's hard to have both

You lost me after 'lets be honest'

munkian wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Let's be honest, the Rabo is a pretty poor spectacle and is a low quality league.

Do you want a strong league or a strong Int team? It seems it's hard to have both

You lost me after 'lets be honest'

To some extent Pooly is right but it allows players to develop which is the real issue here- yes. As a consequence Wales and Ireland have enjoyed relative success in the past 10 years. And to be fair the Irish provinces have done well in Europe. But yes the league is lower key and for me less threatening for young developing players who can evolve within this type of environment

It wasn't a dig, it's a fact.

The Rabo is a poor league as a standalone but it allows teams to concentrate on European rugby and providing fresh Int players.

The AP and T14 are high quality, attritional leagues. This isn't helping the national sides...

Dougal, are you confusing facts and opinions again ?

It's quite funny having a poster like Rubyguby continually puffing out his chest because Wales just about managed to scrape past an England side with one of the worst coaching setups in world rugby at the moment.

To be honest if Scotland,Ireland and Wales are supposedly the blueprint for international success we might as well give up now - yes they made the quarter finals but no further.

It's like fighting over whose going to get the first choice of scraps from the top table which the top SH sides currently sit at.

When you look at it - the RWC was poor for all the 6 nations teams.

I guess Scotland can claim to be the morale victors but they still lost to both to SA and Australia albeit unlucky vs the Aussies.

Wales will be dining off their win over England for years but it papers over the cracks in the limited Welsh side that yet again failed to beat a tri nations side.

Ireland being torn apart by Argentina also means that a strategic rethink is needed too. Far too much reliance on the likes of Sexton and O Connell.

At least with England we have the opportunity to get rid a very poor coaching group and employ some much superior coaches.

I think it looks worringly clear that English and French rugby is going down the same path to failure as the England football team. An ever stronger league year on year bolstered by more and more foreign players will spell utter and continued failure at the national level. Only a strict rule of a minimum number of EQPs in each squad can avert the inevitable. Yes the coaches got selection wrong here and there but basically the squad overall was no where near good enough to compete with the best. Far too many average players.

I think because the SRU has been in major trouble since the professional era, it's looking at grassroots properly as it's joined the party quite late. I think the other unions are guilty of ignoring this a bit, and just blocking players who don't play in the country, which is the most ridiculous policy imho.

Mark Dodson has made some questionable statements (although if that penalty hadn't gone over we definitely would have won the world cup obviously), but his rhetoric about grassroots is absolutely right. The lower divisions need good links with the pro sides. Success of club sides is also important to get interest in the game, look at Glasgow.

Scotland aren't blessed with a large pool, but actually when you look at it we punch well above our weight in the scale of things.

With the premiership, you just get the feeling there isn't very good links with the smaller division 1 and 2 sides. I think that's what's missing really. A proper school league system would help make it more accessable to all as well.

beshocked wrote:It's quite funny having a poster like Rubyguby continually puffing out his chest because Wales just about managed to scrape past an England side with one of the worst coaching setups in world rugby at the moment.

To be honest if Scotland,Ireland and Wales are supposedly the blueprint for international success we might as well give up now - yes they made the quarter finals but no further.

It's like fighting over whose going to get the first choice of scraps from the top table which the top SH sides currently sit at.

When you look at it - the RWC was poor for all the 6 nations teams.

I guess Scotland can claim to be the morale victors but they still lost to both to SA and Australia albeit unlucky vs the Aussies.

Wales will be dining off their win over England for years but it papers over the cracks in the limited Welsh side that yet again failed to beat a tri nations side.

Ireland being torn apart by Argentina also means that a strategic rethink is needed too. Far too much reliance on the likes of Sexton and O Connell.

At least with England we have the opportunity to get rid a very poor coaching group and employ some much superior coaches.

Ouch! I see the victory at Twickenham is still hurting. For what its worth beshocked the vast majority in Wales are pleased with their performance in the RWC given that an understrength side got out of a difficult group and IMO put up much better performances than we expected against Aus. and SA - For me there are lots of positives but I'm not going to bore you with them and to be fair to Gatland he hasn't used them as excuses and has pointed to our own inaccuracy during those games. As for pumping out chests, not sure where you're going with that as England and Wales tend to beat each other interchangeably - I can only assume the wounds are still raw. I'm happy with our development and the fact we introduced some young players to this level during the RWC. We will have the a lot of players missing in the 6 nations so hopefully an opportunity for some others.

Rubyguby England weren't good enough and deserved to lose to a Welsh side who found an extra level of passion to push them over the line. I don't feel like the ref robbed England, I feel it was simply that Wales wanted it more and did what they had to do. Still it was a very narrow win.

Funny that Wales keep bleating on about injuries, England didn't have either of their best 13s vs Wales, best hooker was missing and their two best players on the day - Billy and B.Youngs had to come off. You play with what you've got. England should have won. Not good enough.

Every team gets injuries but some milk it more than others.

If you want to be proud of two more losses to the tri nations then fair enough. I think Wales' RWC performance looks more impressive simply because you beat England but you shouldn't dwell on it too much as England are far away from being the benchmark.

If you're happy with your development, fair enough. I haven't seen much progression personally. A win over SA or Australia would have shown progession but still those tri nations are thorns in the side of Wales.

Just give it time Beshocked, you'll get there

A 2nd place 6 nations ranking will cheer him up no end I'm sure.

I think any fan of the French national team couldn't keep a straight face and say that the top 14 is working.

France have as an entity completely changed. Gone is the flair and guile and replaced by Bastareaud and Spedding.

Is there no place for a Clerc, Medard etc?

They have some incredible players though Picomoles, Dusatoir, Parra and Fofana could have compelling cases made for them being the best in the world in their respective positions.

However the amount of foreign players in their teams and league in general. Clubls like Toulon & Metro are reaping the benefits in the European championships but it is having a detrimental effect on their national team.

England's is a bit less clear cut in my view. I think the players and systems are in place and before the RWC England were a strong candidate to make it all the way.

Lancaster's ultra conservative game plan cost England dearly. However I do think England have some of the best players in the NH it's just the game plan that was working was changed for some reason which is a pity.

You could make a case for a number of the NH sides being the most disappointing. But I think Ireland just pip it (sorry). Realistically (and home jingoism aside) I think they were the side most likely to progress, yet they were given a bit of a lesson by arguably the poorest of the SH RC. Wales took their SH monkey to town and brought it back with them, but could reasonably argue they were most injury hit. England were on paper poorest but were definitely poorly managed. France have been poop for so long now I’m passed defending them. And Scotland just get the moral victory should they want it.

Can’t see why the AP & T14 set-up should be seen as having more of an issue than the Rabo re their test sides tbh.

Barney mcgew did it well said.

The difference is that England have a golden opportunity to drop Lancaster and co.

Ireland can't really sack Schmidt because if they do then who replaces him? O Shea or Mccall? Unlikely.

Gatland also will keep his place because at least he beat the English, despite not really taking Wales forward against the tri nations. Another false dawn for Wales.

Cotter will stay too but let's not forget he led Scotland to a wooden spoon, will need to improve Scotland's record in the 6 nations. I doubt a win over Italy will be enough to keep Scottish fans positive. Real opportunity first game up - England at Murrayfield, riding high from a good RWC in Scottish fans' opinion.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wasn't a dig, it's a fact.

The Rabo is a poor league as a standalone but it allows teams to concentrate on European rugby and providing fresh Int players.

The AP and T14 are high quality, attritional leagues. This isn't helping the national sides...

Nonsense - simple piffle. The pro 12 is a very good league with a lot of high standard rugby being played. I take it you never watch it? We did last year a comparative analysis of the pro 12 and the AP and surprisingly little could be found to separate them either in terms of tries per game etc or in terms of success for the teams in European competition

Why would Ireland want to sack Schmidt?  We're only beginning  

O'Shea?  Jesus, please...... He's one of the AP men who picked your Lancaster.  I'm sick listening to the man over the years as pundit during the 6Ns.  Nothing he ever says interests me.

Ireland more disappointing than England?  For me yes - a million times more disappointing.  To the outside critical world though, not on your life.

Ireland lost 'AWJ, Roberts, Warburton and Biggar' for a QF against an Argentina that had two weeks rest and are in the form of their lives....  
...yep, that computes with England losing a game they had already won against a Wales falling to injury like flies, and not being even in the game against Australia.

The most underperforming NH side (not that I personally care about this NH v SH crap) was England by a hefty margin.

TJ wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wasn't a dig, it's a fact.

The Rabo is a poor league as a standalone but it allows teams to concentrate on European rugby and providing fresh Int players.

The AP and T14 are high quality, attritional leagues. This isn't helping the national sides...

Nonsense - simple piffle.  The pro 12 is a very good league with a lot of high standard rugby being played.  I take it you never watch it?  We did last year a comparative analysis of the pro 12 and the AP and surprisingly little could be found to separate them either in terms of tries per game etc or in terms of success for the teams in European competition

You've obviously missed my point.

Tries per game doesn't represent the quality of a league, neither does European success (which I pointed to the Rabo teams doing well in). A lot of the sides put out in the Rabo would be smashed in the AP and T14, that isn't reflective of the clubs so to speak, more of the league. I watch the Rabo quite a bit tbh (if no other rugby is on), I wouldn't have an opinion if I didn't.

Still nonsense.  Which league has better sucess in the European cup?  Which teams won the various match up in the European cup?

And don't start with the rotation nonsense - again last year a simple bit of analysis showed there was virtually no difference between the leagues.

The main difference is each team supplies more players to their national sides and we continue to play thru the international windows. Glasgow have played 4 games missing 21 players!

Again, you've completely missed my point. Let's agree to disagree, this is getting tedious

I'm confused as to why people think either Scotland or Wales under performed!

Scotland were off the back of a wooden spoon and a total restructure, they targetted a quarter final match they had hampered with a ridiculous citing, then overturned and still pretty much beat Australia. Where is the underperforming?

Wales went into the tournament as odds on favourites to miss out on a quarter final, largley due to their injury concerns going in, and Englands home nation status. They not only managed to scrape through the group, but added to their injury debacle and performed admirably against 2 of the semi finalists with make shift backlines, hell they had to beat England with a third choice 9 playing wing!!!

Ireland have little excuse, except well losing 5 first team key figure heads for the quarter final match.

England were stranggled by the media, and pressure of hosting, but lets be honest it's not the first RWC they've really gone out of early doors under a cloud, and the trend is worrying.

I'd say

Wales - Performed as expected (qualified but little else)

Scotland - performed as expected (qualified but little else)

Ireland - under performed slightly

England - Under performed

Leaving the Top 14 out of it for the moment.  I don't believe there are major structural issues specific to the Premiership which are hindering the overall success of England Rugby.  The clubs are indeed developing English talent, and likely could do more.  To me the most critical aspect lacking is the deeper level of coordination between the Premiership clubs and the national body, a framework where both can survive and thrive as the interdisciplinary instutitions they truly are.  Clubs play with different styles and different coaching methods.  This brings out more varied skills and and players.  Blending those skills should deliver a better end product in the long run - under the right open coaching administration.  This takes some open and flexible thinking, clearly not an areas of strength with the current coaching regime.

On the other hand, English Rugby does not need to be goverend by the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Rugby, governed by a Central Committee, which is in turn goverend by a Politburo, with laws, methods, training enforced to build a great Rugby Worker's paradise where everyone is coached to play the same.  And national success is the worker's only goal.  

There are benefits to more than one playing model, and more than one business model for governance and managing Rugby.  The key for England and the Premiership is a new and proper working realtionship which maximises and aligns to a certan bit the playing, scheduling, salary compnsation, coaching, training, and medical approach benefits for both groups.  We don't want identakit players looking like clones (like effing cybermen coming off the commie production lines). Right now there is a realtionship which on paper is not too bad, but only enables the clubs and RFU to coexist and does not really address the critical issues to evolve from parallel organizations to the big picture view how to be true sporting and business partners.  Working together,  obtaining and maintaining within a looser framework but certainly not following one man's dogmatic or simplistic way of approach.  A little more big picture thinking and we have it.  

Club Rugby has not taken over in England, not by any stretch.  Thise who still harbour iron shards in their rectum after the last Euro club negotiation probably still harbour bitterness (no one was covered in glory in that little spat) and are probably the ones least abole to be convinced, but the reality this is the true way forwards, and it is coming.  And is where most of the discussions which don't include the word 'Lancaster' are headed.  Now.  One way or the 'tother, believe it is possible.

On the contrary it's likely only commie/central committee/politbureau/kgb types see only their way forward. But what has happened is club Rugby in HM's England are now moving faster (and blimey, so much effing noisier) than England/RFU, it gives the distorted impression of the current situation.  Have faith.  The cap busters will be flushed out will agree at last.  This is inevitable.  

Going back to the previous posts on this thread regarding numbers of players and coaching. I was utterly shocked on Friday, a new guy has joined the team I work with, we started talking rugby and it transpires that his nephew is bordering on age grade rugby for England, they live in the north and he has been signed by a certain club on the N.E. coast. He is a tight head prop, 6'1" and 17.5 stones at 16. He has been told he has to bulk up, he is not heavy enough!!!!!!!!!!

To say the least, I was gob smacked, he is 16, still growing and nobody knows what his natural weight will be in a couple of years, wanting 16 year olds to get to 18.5 stone in order to play age group rugby (admittedly U20) is ridiculous. Let him develop his skills, grow naturally and see what he becomes not encourage him to become an overweight gym monkey without skills or craft.

For gods sake, Marler is only 17.5 stone; okay a loose head, but he will naturally make 18-19 stone anyway.

Is it healthy to ask young kids to pour on that much weight at that age when they are still growing, might it not affect his bone growth?

This is probably the reason why our U20 do so well, they are full of un-natural specimens that cannot sustain the weight for long and when deprived of that advantage do not have the skills to go any further.

I am still shocked at what I was told, do the players that sign up to clubs and obey these regimes have any come back when they fins that at 20, with no skills outside of rugby, little experience of the real world and working for a living get tossed on the scrap heap as they can no longer bully their way through their chosen work?