World cup cycles

First topic message reminder :

till trying to get my head around where teams are at. My thoughts are that it's hard to judge this early in the cycle. It's becoming more pronounced each world cup that there are issues post world cup. Things that affect the first 2-3 tournaments/tours include:
New management
Players burnout (Players playing in the Northern club season following the world cup) and injuries
Player retirement (affects all nations, but is an additional issue for southern teams  who lose players early due to payouts from European clubs)
I feel there's probably a bedding in period of up to a year before we see how teams are positioning themselves.

Here's my thoughts on NZ.

Management essentially remained the same. However, there have been changes in attack and defensive strategies.
Burnout hasn't been an issue.
Retirement: The loss of a significant portion of last years team was offset through the incorporation of younger players into the team through rotation. If there was an issue it's been the loss of midfield to injuries on the back of retirements and the olympics. I think pretty much all of the centres have been unavailable at one point or another (with the possible exception of Fekitoa). Things were particularly dire in the first two games of the year.

Your thoughts on your own nation?

11 injured players? Not sure where that comes from.

I think only Haskell and Clifford are definitely ruled out. There are questions over Marler, Kruis, Care and Farrell. Who else is supposed to be injured?

Poorfour wrote:11 injured players? Not sure where that comes from.

I think only Haskell and Clifford are definitely ruled out. There are questions over Marler, Kruis, Care and Farrell. Who else is supposed to be injured?

I don't think Hartley has played much. Nowell is out and Brown is playing but recovering from a spell in hospital with an infection. I could be wrong but believe JJ has missed a game or two also.

That figure may be related to people in the wider squad like May and Burrell (or even just qualified 'possibles' - you never know with those kinds of stats)

ebop wrote:Fair point

But you neither have evidence that says missing three June junket tests in a four year cycle impacts team development

What about the replacement players

Is that development?

There are about three separate conversations taking place on this thread, so sorry ebop to drag you into arguing a minor point.

My quarrel has only even been with those who argue the Lions is an unrivalled development ground for Home Nations players. That doesn't require me to provide any evidence myself, only to judge the evidence of anyone making the claim. I've yet to see anything convincing. I'm not demanding you provide that evidence, because, like Laurie, I suspect you aren't arguing that broader point.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

profitius wrote:
Ireland are passing the ball more but they still play with a lack of width, go from ruck to ruck and of course the players are afraid to offload the ball. BOD even mentioned that about Schmidt. That's why those matches were low scoring.


The SA series showed promise but in the 3rd game the Boks looked very comfortable in defence.

They wouldn't have looked so comfortable if Jackson didn't butcher a 4 on 2 or if Marshall hadn't made a forward pass following his excellent line break in the first half.Execution, not attitude.(That's not to be overly harsh on these players,they both were excellent on the tour but if we want to start beating the best then we have to nail every chance)

How comfortable did England look in Twickenham,if I remember correctly Henshaw and van der Fleer both got over the line but a foot in touch and a TMO that just couldn't see the ball that probably was touched down foiled us.Also Dillane made a great line break but passed too early to van der Flier allowing Mike Brown the chance to haul him down,had Dillane fixed his man there's another try gone.Execution,not attitude.

We'll see how they go in november. Ask most other fans and its between Ireland and Wales for the title of the most predictable attacking game in the last few years.

profitius wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

profitius wrote:
Ireland are passing the ball more but they still play with a lack of width, go from ruck to ruck and of course the players are afraid to offload the ball. BOD even mentioned that about Schmidt. That's why those matches were low scoring.


The SA series showed promise but in the 3rd game the Boks looked very comfortable in defence.

They wouldn't have looked so comfortable if Jackson didn't butcher a 4 on 2 or if Marshall hadn't made a forward pass following his excellent line break in the first half.Execution, not attitude.(That's not to be overly harsh on these players,they both were excellent on the tour but if we want to start beating the best then we have to nail every chance)

How comfortable did England look in Twickenham,if I remember correctly Henshaw and van der Fleer both got over the line but a foot in touch and a TMO that just couldn't see the ball that probably was touched down foiled us.Also Dillane made a great line break but passed too early to van der Flier allowing Mike Brown the chance to haul him down,had Dillane fixed his man there's another try gone.Execution,not attitude.

We'll see how they go in november. Ask most other fans and its between Ireland and Wales for the title of the most predictable attacking game in the last few years.

Since we only changed our approach this year and it's taking time to get the new approach bedded in then I can see why some people would have that impression.

profitius wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

profitius wrote:
Ireland are passing the ball more but they still play with a lack of width, go from ruck to ruck and of course the players are afraid to offload the ball. BOD even mentioned that about Schmidt. That's why those matches were low scoring.


The SA series showed promise but in the 3rd game the Boks looked very comfortable in defence.

They wouldn't have looked so comfortable if Jackson didn't butcher a 4 on 2 or if Marshall hadn't made a forward pass following his excellent line break in the first half.Execution, not attitude.(That's not to be overly harsh on these players,they both were excellent on the tour but if we want to start beating the best then we have to nail every chance)

How comfortable did England look in Twickenham,if I remember correctly Henshaw and van der Fleer both got over the line but a foot in touch and a TMO that just couldn't see the ball that probably was touched down foiled us.Also Dillane made a great line break but passed too early to van der Flier allowing Mike Brown the chance to haul him down,had Dillane fixed his man there's another try gone.Execution,not attitude.

We'll see how they go in november. Ask most other fans and its between Ireland and Wales for the title of the most predictable attacking game in the last few years.

What of SA? Or Scotland? Or Italy? I mean England/Aus/NZ/Arg are pretty exciting to watch. Only two of those have been winning much despite the excitement.

Irish rugby suits a fairly negative style. Winning the two 'joint' championships proves it.

Cyril wrote:Irish rugby suits a fairly negative style. Winning the two 'joint' championships proves it.

Why does it?

Fair dues RugbyFan and lostinwales, you make some good points about Lions players being away from their national teams that I've never really considered from your perspective.

Cyril wrote:Irish rugby suits a fairly negative style. Winning the two 'joint' championships proves it.

Awe. I thought you were warming to us, Cyril?

Oh well I tried my best on the auld charm offensive.....

...back to the war, I suppose...

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:Irish rugby suits a fairly negative style. Winning the two 'joint' championships proves it.

Awe.  I thought you were warming to us, Cyril?

Oh well I tried my best on the auld charm offensive.....

...back to the war, I suppose...

Hah, I was paraphrasing emack

Going back to the Lions thing, looking for evidence from the 2013 tour, I think Mako, Parling and Farrell came back noticeably better players, while the tour seemed to break Corbisiero, Croft and Manu, probably don't have more than a handful of caps between them in the following 3 years.

The other players came back about on par with where they left: the Youngs brothers, Cole, the inexplicably picked Stevens and the late calls (Barritt, Twelvetrees, Wade).