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.

Fanster wrote:

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...

ok slightly different from us picking biggest rather than best but you mean Barritt and Burgess?

LondonTiger wrote:

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.

Well 4 from 30 players isn't 10% its nearer 20%.

My point is if we go over the last 10 years of English rugby there are some nightmare decisions on players to convert to play for England.

Englih age grade rugby has been dominant for years, and until very recently it's always been a size issue.

Look at the Kiwi's, they aren't particularly big, they aren't any more explosive, or conditioned than the NH teams, but they have an instinctive skill set that they perform under pressure, with great accuracy that noone else can, why is this if we are all doing the me things from 18 years old and up?

100 years of rugby dominnce isnt a coincidence.

It's actually closer to 10% than 20% but there is something awfully reaffirming seeing someone squirm this way and that when they've been proved wrong.

Fanster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

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.

Well 4 from 30 players isn't 10% its nearer 20%.

My point is if we go over the last 10 years of English rugby there are some nightmare decisions on players to convert to play for England.

Englih age grade rugby has been dominant for years, and until very recently it's always been a size issue.

Look at the Kiwi's, they aren't particularly big, they aren't any more explosive, or conditioned than the NH teams, but they have an instinctive skill set that they perform under pressure, with great accuracy that noone else can, why is this if we are all doing the me things from 18 years old and up?

100 years of rugby dominnce isnt a coincidence.

The size thing isn't true also by dominant you mean England won in 2013 and 2014 with the majority going to NZ? Skill set is rarely instinctive its taught.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

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.

Well 4 from 30 players isn't 10% its nearer 20%.

My point is if we go over the last 10 years of English rugby there are some nightmare decisions on players to convert to play for England.

Englih age grade rugby has been dominant for years, and until very recently it's always been a size issue.

Look at the Kiwi's, they aren't particularly big, they aren't any more explosive, or conditioned than the NH teams, but they have an instinctive skill set that they perform under pressure, with great accuracy that noone else can, why is this if we are all doing the me things from 18 years old and up?

100 years of rugby dominnce isnt a coincidence.

The size thing isn't true also by dominant you mean England won in 2013 and 2014 with the majority going to NZ? Skill set is rarely instinctive its taught.

It's coached to become instinctive! Sorry when I mentioned dominance I thought you were talking Wales v England head to head.

PS a skill isn't a skill until you can perform it, consistently, under pressure, with regular success. Thats the issue with NH rugby, we think we're skillfull but can't execute during high pressure games, meaning we are not skillfull at all.

Fine so it comes back to th recent England youth classes looking for technique over size. Credit where its due the youth set up looks good now.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fine so it comes back to th recent England youth classes looking for technique over size. Credit where its due the youth set up looks good now.

This was never an attack on England, don't be so precious, it's about a British / Home nation / NH issue.

We select juniors based on performance at the ages of around 14, where there are too many pre pubescent boys competing with post pubesent boys, which gives the illsion of talent at the early stage.

A recent study (Non published sadly) showed that in a professional academy (in England) there is one key factor in U16 players...

82% (I think) were born in the first 3 months of the academic year (September October November), meaning the earlier in the year your born (Your competitive age grade) the bigger advantage you had in being selected for age grade rugby.

Weirdly of the huge bias of players born in the first 3 months of the academic year, not many go on to professional rugby, and infact it's those born later in the year who go on to international rugby

(None of this proved obviously)

No problem just wanted to pick apart the fact that England pick more 'mature' players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No problem just wanted to pick apart the fact that England pick more 'mature' players.

How many times do I have to say that we all do it, England are just better at it, before you understand this is not an attack on English rugby, I'm from London for god sake.

Fanster wrote:Weirdly of the huge bias of players born in the first 3 months of the academic year, not many go on to professional rugby, and infact it's those born later in the year who go on to international rugby

(None of this proved obviously)

So are you saying that the majority of international players were born in 9 out of 12 months. That IS weird. Why wasn't it published? Poor quality?

I've said no problem just took your initial post to say something you possibly didn't mean. Chill.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Fanster wrote:Weirdly of the huge bias of players born in the first 3 months of the academic year, not many go on to professional rugby, and infact it's those born later in the year who go on to international rugby

(None of this proved obviously)

So are you saying that the majority of international players were born in 9 out of 12 months. That IS weird. Why wasn't it published? Poor quality?

Can you read? Of the larger quantity of players in academies (or the academy studied) it could be deduced that maturation is an unofficial selection policy, but doesn't stand the player in good stead long term as most don't make pro rugby, even less international rugby, and those who do wouldn't be of the larger quantity of players born in the first 3 months of the year.

You said the study looked at one professional academy and found that guys born in Sept, Oct and Nov, dominated. You then said that international players tended to be born later in the year (the other 9 months).

So we have an unpublished study that looked at a single academy (over what period? At single point of time? Over several years?) which is therefore pretty meaningless. The only point of value is that more international players are born outside of Sept-Nov.

Yeah, because its expressly not designed to produce successful international teams. It's actually competing with international rugby on every level and the people running some of the biggest English and French clubs want club rugby to overtake international rugby in terms of interest and become the main showcase for the sport. So no surprise it's having a negative effect on our international teams!

We should be playing a maximum of 18/20 club games a season with almost no players who are not eligible for the country they are playing in. We need less matches, played at a higher intensity, exposing the best homegrown talent to the highest level of rugby.

So the French model and the English model are the antithesis of what is needed to breed successful test teams. They need to be taken on and defeated or we can look forward to seeing the SH teams disappear over the horizon. We need to restructure our entire season and they are not going to agree with that.

HammerofThunor wrote:You said the study looked at one professional academy and found that guys born in Sept, Oct and Nov, dominated. You then said that international players tended to be born later in the year (the other 9 months).

So we have an unpublished study that looked at a single academy (over what period? At single point of time? Over several years?) which is therefore pretty meaningless. The only point of value is that more international players are born outside of Sept-Nov.

It's like talking to a spare tyre...

Please educate what your 'unpublished study' is supposed to say. Such a shame it's unpublished otherwise I could read it (depending on cost) and try and figure out what the hell your point is this time.

Edit: tell you what, I'll give you a hand and go through the Premiership academies and pull out the birth months.

This isn't about just the prem but nh vs sh as well remember.

Well for the Tigers 2013/14 (DOB aren't provided for all players especially for more recent ones), there were as many with Aug births as for Nov. Although Sep-Nov saw the most births, there were on about 5% more on Dec-Feb. There was a lull in Apr-Jul but not anywhere near as massive as suggested. Looked at a few more club sites but didn't have much in the way of info.

No there is no problem, but maybe we played too many games before the RWC.

I don't think we can really judge England's age grade system until 2019. The current setup is only 10 years old and it's only now producing a stream of players who are ready for senior rugby.

I have friends with sons in the academy system, and they look down on the players 4-5 years ahead of them as having a lack of all-round skills and understanding of the game.

England and Wales recently moved to a new mini-rugby setup that emphasises skills and late specialisation over power. Ireland are doing something similar; don't know about Scotland. We haven't moved to weight grade yet, but otherwise it's a pretty good system.

It will only be when we see the generation of which Ford and Farrell are the first senior breakthroughs playing together that we will know if it worked.

However, when you look at young players like Itoje, Nowell, Slade and Sinckler (a fullback converted to tighthead), it gives you hope. Clifford's performance in the Barbarians game is a good example: 15 tackles and 2 turnovers at 7, but also made a try, scored a try and rescued two moves by picking passes off his ankles while running in the backline. Enough players with that breadth of skills and England will be OK.

All of which said, I do feel that dual contracts for internationals, a global season (or at least one with a simpler NH structure) and harmonisation of refereeing styles between NH and SH would all help.

The difference between NZ and England is that NZ start at the earliest age 5-10 mixed sex`s
non contact.By weight on half size pitches often coached by Mum`s and Dad`s with a level
at least ITM or even former All Blacks.
The whole system from there to age Groups,7`s,ITM,Super,up to Test Level they all
support the National side.They don`t pick players not in country[for obvious reasons]
There Super sides are ring fenced to a very few non -qualified players]
On Central contracts the National Coach says whether a player be rested,tried in a
different position,.If returning from injury or off form ITM/7`s are used as tools to
get them up to speed.
As an example post 2007 RWC when they lost a whole squad after it they based the
squad on top 2 Super sides.Almost seamlessly carrying on.
England could indeed field something like 6 sides of almost equal worth if anything
that maybe part of  the problem too many players.
Take your top 2 sides in Premier League ring fence them only qualified players allowed.
Centrally contract the players ask Coaches to play whatever ways  you want your test
side to play.You then have pool of roughly 80 players reading from the same song sheet.

emack2 wrote:The difference between NZ and England is that NZ start at the earliest age 5-10 mixed sex`s
non contact.By weight on half size pitches often coached by Mum`s and Dad`s with a level
at least ITM or even former All Blacks.
The whole system from there to age Groups,7`s,ITM,Super,up to Test Level they all
support the National side.They don`t pick players not in country[for obvious reasons]
There Super sides are ring fenced to a very few non -qualified players]
On Central contracts the National Coach says whether a player be rested,tried in a
different position,.If returning from injury or off form ITM/7`s are used as tools to
get them up to speed.
As an example post 2007 RWC when they lost a whole squad after it they based the
squad on top 2 Super sides.Almost seamlessly carrying on.
England could indeed field something like 6 sides of almost equal worth if anything
that maybe part of  the problem too many players.
Take your top 2 sides in Premier League ring fence them only qualified players allowed.
Centrally contract the players ask Coaches to play whatever ways  you want your test
side to play.You then have pool of roughly 80 players reading from the same song sheet.

I'm not sure. There's definitely more than enough talent up north. Picamoles was a best yesterday. Fofana is electric on his feet. I'm not sure rugby's as popular down here as it used to be. Professionalism is driving many kids out early and social side of things doesn't seem to be there as it used to be.

My suspicion with England and France is it's structural. Clubs need to be part of the solution, but I think they are part of the problem. The big question for me is whether people want change and, if so, will clubs and unions buy into it. I suspect not.

Yes I think there is a huge problem. Its not about the number of games played but more about the quality of games played. The S16 seem to play at a much higher intensity with refs that allow the game to flow and on pitches that aren't bogged down with mud. SH players are much more used to playing quicker and for longer. Their skills and decision making under pressure and at speed are therefore better. Our refs need to look the other way sometimes in order to allow the game to flow.

Good point about referee's. Another reason for the slower game is obviously the weather but moving the whole season is probably a non-starter, although it's something I think should be looked at. Without knowing anything about sports science it seems intuitive to me that less games would also help with raising the intensity.

I'd like to see the three big league's to halve their number of regular season games and follow it with a European Cup that is played from start to finish. It would be played closer to summer conditions and in one high intensity block, which would go some way to replicating what the Super Rugby teams get. But how do you convince private clubs to halve their gate money to help their international teams? The unions would have to reimburse them in a big way for that to happen. But it would be worth it.

FecklessRogue wrote:Good point about referee's. Another reason for the slower game is obviously the weather but moving the whole season is probably a non-starter, although it's something I think should be looked at. Without knowing anything about sports science it seems intuitive to me that less games would also help with raising the intensity.

I'd like to see the three big league's to halve their number of regular season games and follow it with a European Cup that is played from start to finish. It would be played closer to summer conditions and in one high intensity block, which would go some way to replicating what the Super Rugby teams get. But how do you convince private clubs to halve their gate money to help their international teams? The unions would have to reimburse them in a big way for that to happen. But it would be worth it.

I'm not sure you need home and away games against each team. NFL, NRL, super rugby and ITM don't do it. Not sure about the Currie Cup. I think think you are right about the owners. The reality is TV rights are a bigger money spinner than gates. If someone can convince the broadcaster the product is better they can pressure the clubs.

LondonTiger wrote: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.

Really?

The PRL have the RFU by the balls. They control the English game and have a huge effect on Wales Ireland and acotland too.

They changed the European cup to suit their wishes by holding us all to ransom, they govern when your players AE available for England duty and they want a list of who will be required well before the squad convenes, when we are not allowed any acces to our English based players until World Rugbys governing laws force them.

The PRL is comprised of the wealthiest club owners and they set a precedent based on finance, not on rugby.

As long as some tv channel buy their product for as much money as possible they do not care about the game, development, or how competitive a nation is outside of their competition.

They are having a massive effect on European rugby. I am amazed that you deny this?

How do they have a huge affect on Wales, Ireland and Scotland?

maestegmafia wrote:

LondonTiger wrote: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.

Really?

The PRL have the RFU by the balls. They control the English game and have a huge effect on Wales Ireland and acotland too.

They changed the European cup to suit their wishes by holding us all to ransom, they govern when your players AE available for England duty and they want a list of who will be required well before the squad convenes, when we are not allowed any acces to our English based players until World Rugbys governing laws force them.

The PRL is comprised of the wealthiest club owners and they set a precedent based on finance, not on rugby.

As long as some tv channel buy their product for as much money as possible they do not care about the game, development, or how competitive a nation is outside of their competition.

They are having a massive effect on European rugby. I am amazed that you deny this?

Theres a deal for the core England squad to be released for an extended time. I fail to see how that agreement is a bad thing for club or country.

maestegmafia wrote:The PRL have the RFU by the balls. They control the English game and have a huge effect on Wales Ireland and acotland too.

Not really, the only power the PRL has is given to them, temporarily, by the RFU and needs repeated renewal.

They changed the European cup to suit their wishes by holding us all to ransom, they govern when your players AE available for England duty and they want a list of who will be required well before the squad convenes, when we are not allowed any acces to our English based players until World Rugbys governing laws force them.

The changes to the European cup were minor (as we were told after it was all done). But that could have easily been stopped by not having them in the competition. They govern when players are available OUTSIDE the IRB window. They ask (and the RFU agreed) for the EPS squad so they can plan their season. The PRL refused to release players for other unions outside the IRB window, unless there was dialogue between them. Before the last World Cup Scottish and Pacific Islander players were released early because there was dialogue. The Welsh weren't because there wasn't. This year the Welsh players were released early...because there was dialogue from World Rugby. Insurance is key.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-rugby-world-cup-training-9366569

The PRL is comprised of the wealthiest club owners and they set a precedent based on finance, not on rugby.

I don't really understand this bit. It's comprised of a representative from each member club. Not all are owns, not even sure the majority are. Not really sure what you mean by "set a precedent based on finance". Perhaps it doesn't what one of us thinks it means.

As long as some tv channel buy their product for as much money as possible they do not care about the game, development, or how competitive a nation is outside of their competition.

Really? What this based on? Some vague and non-specific FACTS?

They are having a massive effect on European rugby. I am amazed that you deny this?

Of course they do. They represent a significant chunk of the professional clubs in Europe (more than exist in total in the other home nations). However LT said that our failure at the World Cup wasn't because of the premiership.

bedfordwelsh wrote:How do they have a huge affect on Wales, Ireland and Scotland?

You might have noticed the huge changes they made to the euro comp to suit their needs and their income.

Restricting use of neq players based in England from international access when we want them, based on their agreement made with the RFU. 

Fining clubs that agree to contracts that release players to deter clubs from agreeing contracts with international access.

emack2 wrote:The difference between NZ and England is that NZ start at the earliest age 5-10 mixed sex`s
non contact.By weight on half size pitches often coached by Mum`s and Dad`s with a level
at least ITM or even former All Blacks.
The whole system from there to age Groups,7`s,ITM,Super,up to Test Level they all
support the National side.They don`t pick players not in country[for obvious reasons]
There Super sides are ring fenced to a very few non -qualified players]
On Central contracts the National Coach says whether a player be rested,tried in a
different position,.If returning from injury or off form ITM/7`s are used as tools to
get them up to speed.
As an example post 2007 RWC when they lost a whole squad after it they based the
squad on top 2 Super sides.Almost seamlessly carrying on.
England could indeed field something like 6 sides of almost equal worth if anything
that maybe part of  the problem too many players.
Take your top 2 sides in Premier League ring fence them only qualified players allowed.
Centrally contract the players ask Coaches to play whatever ways  you want your test
side to play.You then have pool of roughly 80 players reading from the same song sheet.

To be fair, I would suspect most countries start at that age. They certainly do in primary school in england

My nephews in England all play. I've had a few interesting discussions. My take on sport in NZ is that generally it's easier to do and there is more opportunity. My eleven year old trained twice a week. They warmed up an hour before the game and played a full pitch for an hour. That's for the club. Age group reps included another game (the second practice was age group). The kids that are playing for school have further trainings.  I gather that's more than nephews get.

In wellington at least we don't seem to have as much competition for grounds, which means more time playing.

Its not too much, its too many average games.

Guys in England will play what maybe 15 games in the premiership, maybe 5 games of HC (if in a HC team).

In the SH guys will play 15 games of SR, maybe 5 games of domestic league rugby (in AUS none and NZ unlikely).

Too many average games, too few high intensity ones... the flip side of the SH.

Yes there are problems but I think English clubs are slowly getting their act together.

Sides who are less attacking are being forced to adapt. Leicester's lack of bite was exposed last season and have hired Aaron Mauger to work on it. Saracens' attacking game has improved since Andy Farrell has left their club and last season scored almost as many tries as Bath and Saints. Exeter are a side that likes to attack. Bath and Saints are sides who have been doing well in attack.

Attacking is being encouraged.

Yes there are worries like Leicester and Quins having more foreign imports and a high amount at Saracens but as long as youngsters grow then it's not too bad.

From a Saracens perspective, the academy has had a good representation in the last few years in the U20s and the players are coming through - players like Fraser,Goode,George,Kruis,Farrell and now the younger generation like Itoje.

The Saracens core of the pack is now EQ - the Vunipola bros,George,Itoje,Kruis,Wray and Fraser. All ex England U20s.

Will be interesting to see how the Saracens backline evolves because there are some players with the right encouragement could add another dimension to the Saracens backline. Moving away from non pacy backs like Wigglesworth,Farrell and Barritt to a faster one.

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.

The English U20s teams do look bigger than there Welsh counterparts... the Welsh players skill levels seem more finely tuned though.

Munkian not sure I agree with that. Plenty of skilled English U20s. It's not just Englishmen running over their Welsh counterparts.

munkian 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.

The English U20s teams do look bigger than there Welsh counterparts... the Welsh players skill levels seem more finely tuned though.

In the match that England played against Wales in the JWC the commentator stated that the Welsh pack was heavier than the English pack on average by 3kg per player. Yet we still get the 'England are bigger' line. I believe in actual fact England had one of the lighter packs in the tournament.

blackcanelion wrote:My nephews in England all play. I've had a few interesting discussions. My take on sport in NZ is that generally it's easier to do and there is more opportunity. My eleven year old trained twice a week. They warmed up an hour before the game and played a full pitch for an hour. That's for the club. Age group reps included another game (the second practice was age group). The kids that are playing for school have further trainings.  I gather that's more than nephews get.

In wellington at least we don't seem to have as much competition for grounds, which means more time playing.

I think that's probably part of it. Even when I was playing in Italy there was a lot more training than I ever had here. Three two hour sessions a week, plus pre-match sessions. And after a warm up the sessions were almost all focused on rugby skills - you were expected to look after your own fitness, making sure you turned up fit enough for training and matches. Standard fare for the clubs I've been at here is one evening doing strength/fitness and one on skills. That's all at complete amateur level, and I'm sure if I'd played at a higher level there would have been higher expectations - but even so, if you don't get it right young it's much harder to get it right later.

I'm also a big believer in the NZ approach to grouping by size. I hit 6'4'' at 13 and stopped growing at that point. For years I was massive compared to my peers and didn't need to learn any skills - I could just run at the defence, drag three or four tacklers along for a few yards, and offload to the next player. By the time I joined a senior set up everyone else had caught up physically, and I learnt more by way of skills in the first season than I had in the previous 10. Now, I know I would never have had the talent to play at a pro level regardless of when I started - but I can easily imagine that some of those that have gone pro had similar experiences, and delayed development of their actual rugby skills as a result.

BUT despite all that, to some extent I think we need to wait and see with the English system. The academy set up hasn't been in place long enough for us to have a generation of gnarly old pros that came via that route, and until we get to that point it's hard to definitively say that it has failed. U20 success has been delivered, and we have a lot of depth. We have masses of players at decent international standard, albeit none I would call world class. I suspect some adjustment to the system to get players to make that last step up is required - but then I would hope they have been reviewing and tweaking the system in the period it has been running. And as beshocked points out a lot of very talented young players are being churned out - just need to see if they can make that step from international to world class that seems to have evaded their predecessors.

Big stating the obvious I would say England's biggest problem has been the transition phase from U20s to international level.

Personally I think our U20s have been consistently stronger than the Welsh U20s for the last few years yet it was the Welsh senior side that beat the English senior side at Twickenham.

Big you do bring up the biggest problem, England face - a large player pool means who do you identify as better than the rest? Who do you promote? Do you stick with what you've got or look for the next big thing?

Personally this is another reason why I would sack Lancaster and co - I think they got this area wrong in the RWC and warm ups.

Picking Ford in the 6 nations but not starting him in the key RWC matches. Backing Nowell to the hilt in 2014 yet not trusting him in the RWC, having the likes of Slade,Goode and George in the 31 but just giving them scraps of gametime. Messing round Burgess - picking him at 12 instead of 6. Not trying out Ksevic etc.

Most of us have favourites, some logical, some not. My natural bias is of course towards Saracens players. I have my own opinions on who I think has the most potential but then again you have so many other voices who would champion another player.

Turning potential into proven ability can only be done with game time but that's of course a limited commodity. Then you have the club game where youngsters have to fight with foreigners in a competitive environment.

It's not easy but it's the coaches' job to do that well.

Do the best for those with potential just have to force their way up or is it best to give them a helping hand?

For me the under 20's success has little to no bearing on International success at senior level. Its the sheer volume of players that remains integral to success at that level. Coming back to the OP I think both these leagues have a win at all cost mentality which in my opinion stifles development and creativity and as a consequence coaches are reluctant to give young developing players increasing opportunities to adapt to this level. The Rabo is far more low key with no relegation etc. and I think young players have more opportunity to develop and express themselves in this league without fear of "failing" as opposed to the powerful Aviva where one mistake can be costly.

RubyGuby wrote:For me the under 20's success has little to no bearing on International success at senior level. Its the sheer volume of players that remains integral to success at that level. Coming back to the OP I think both these leagues have a win at all cost mentality which in my opinion stifles development and creativity and as a consequence coaches are reluctant to give young developing players increasing opportunities to adapt to this level. The Rabo is far more low key with no relegation etc. and I think young players have more opportunity to develop and express themselves in this league without fear of "failing" as opposed to the powerful Aviva where one mistake can be costly.

How did the so called creativity of the Rabo work out in the quarter finals of the RWC?

beshocked wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:For me the under 20's success has little to no bearing on International success at senior level. Its the sheer volume of players that remains integral to success at that level. Coming back to the OP I think both these leagues have a win at all cost mentality which in my opinion stifles development and creativity and as a consequence coaches are reluctant to give young developing players increasing opportunities to adapt to this level. The Rabo is far more low key with no relegation etc. and I think young players have more opportunity to develop and express themselves in this league without fear of "failing" as opposed to the powerful Aviva where one mistake can be costly.

How did the so called creativity of the Rabo work out in the quarter finals of the RWC?

Maybe the fact that all 3 country's from the Rabo were represented there is an indication of the so called creativity. However, none of them deserved to go further.

Poorfour wrote:However, when you look at young players like Itoje, Nowell, Slade and Sinckler (a fullback converted to tighthead), it gives you hope.

Sinckler was a fullback? He's built like a brick poophouse!

beshocked wrote:
Big you do bring up the biggest problem, England face - a large player pool means who do you identify as better than the rest? Who do you promote? Do you stick with what you've got or look for the next big thing?

...

Do the best for those with potential just  have to force their way up or is it best to give them a helping hand?

This is just my stance, but for me you just have to pick the best players at the time you are picking. If a player has amazing potential, I don't think you should say "I'll pick them, because if they can improve on x, y and z, they'll be world class", I think the coach should be saying "Go away and work on x, y and z, and you'll be world class and will probably get in the team." The England coaches should then be working with them and their clubs (as well as through the Saxons) to help them develop whatever skills they are lacking, but I don't think anyone should get a free pass into the team. Even if we get sucked into this idea that it's all about the next world cup, surely we want players who respond well to that pressure otherwise what's the point? The opposition aren't going to go easy on you because you have potential, either you have what it takes and win or don't and lose.

Big well that's where I disagree. Of course it depends on the context and the player.

RWC warm ups IMO are a perfect opportunity to try out new players, experiment a bit but at least if things don't go quite right you have players you can fall back upon. If you don't experiment a bit then you don't know if you could unearth someone better.

Easier opponents are also another good time to try out new players.

I agree with you - no one should get a free pass but most players with so called amazing potential must have done something to warrant that accolade.

A player cannot develop if not given sufficient game time at the right time. It's like anything you learn more if you're given opportunities. It's about balance too of course.

I don't think throwing players too much into the deep end is the right way to go about it - something I feel that Lancaster has been guilty of.

Also I don't believe with sticking with something that is failing though sometimes it's hard to tell whether it's the system or the player to blame.

Its not the full story, but I do think that private ownership in the AP and Top-14 is at least partly to blame. Teams like Australia and NZ, with Union-controlled regions and central contracts, can focus all of their resources on the national side, while England and France have conflicting priorities, and need to balance the needs of the clubs, with the needs of the nation. As well as finance, European Qualification and Relegation are all concerns which affect the approach that AP clubs will take in terms of selection (e.g. too many foreigners in decision-making positions), gameplan, etc, which then feeds into the national team.

The larger story for me, in England at least, is the extreme conservatism inherent within English Rugby culture, both on and off the pitch. On the pitch, England can, and do, produce highly-skilled players - Joseph or Watson for example, but the coaching and game plans tend to limit them, whereas in the southern hemisphere they'd be encouraged and given more licence to create. Off the pitch there is an extreme resistance to change or to the challenging of the existing Hierarchy within the sport. Things which are good for the half-dozen or so "Big Clubs", are considered good for the sport as a whole at every level without a need for debate, while Will Carling's "57 old farts" still control the RFU. The AP is more popular than ever, but doesn't seem to have done much of a job of growing the game beyond its traditional strongholds.

If I were wishlisting, I'd love to see England adopt a regional structure, but that will never happen, so I'll settle for ditching the Rugby League coaches, players and gameplans at the national and club levels, and encouraging a more open style of play at both levels also, perhaps by ringfencing the AP, so clubs can plan long-term, and not worry about relegation. We also need to schedule more games against SH opposition, perhaps even clubs vs Super Rugby games. It wouldn't hurt if some younger players spent a year or two in the SH before coming back.

beshocked wrote:RWC warm ups IMO are a perfect opportunity to try out new players, experiment a bit but at least if things don't go quite right you have players you can fall back upon.

I will never, ever agree with this. It is far too late to be trying to unearth new players at the warm up stage. They are purely for getting the squad in the right place to open the tournament. That means making sure the first choice XV have enough minutes to shake of rust and play together, whilst also having the odd head to head with 50/50 players.


The first 6Ns of the cycle is an ideal time to try new things, and the first 3 summer tours. Even then I never believe you should select someone merely because they have potential (which we have seen with LCD for example). They shoudl be doing enough at club level to warrant selection. There are lots of players with potential - perhaps 20 so far untried from the last two U20s years.

I think beshocked that we are perhaps answering slightly different questions me responding to do you pick the player with the most potential or the best available, and you the player with the most potential or the incumbent. For the record I'm not saying you should stick with the incumbent, but rather that a talented newcomer needs to earn the right by showing at club level and in training that they are better. For example I think Kvesic should have been played, not because he has potential but because I thought he was the best available 7 - likewise George given a run when Hartley was out.

In a sense Kvesic seems to be a good example of why not to pick someone purely on potential. On the face of it he was picked too early, dropped because he didn't immediately play like a superstar - and is now being ignored despite being the best English 7 available (yes, I appreciate it's subjective and only my opinion, but at the very least few would dispute that he is playing better now than in previous years yet the England management who were interested previously now seem to have lost interest).

I take the point that some things can only be learnt by getting the experience - and if we are in a position that a player has everything but experience then that should be taken into account. But right now the skills that are lacking aren't things that players need to be playing international rugby to learn. Do our players need to be playing international rugby to learn how to jackal for the ball? Or improve their distribution skills? Or whatever else... if players have potential and are learning quickly then they will be the best in their position soon enough, and (I think) all the better for having to earn their place.

The French and English leagues mean more to the clubs and this seems to distract from the Internatiional set-up, I think it's that simple.