England - the build-up and winning the World Cup at a canter

First topic message reminder :

Smith in the back field worked nicely against Ireland. We could interchange him and Steward on defensive duty but keep both in the backfield to receive kicks. Ford dropping in it one or the other has chased a kick up field.

I'd like to see if given a go as the attack does need an injection of something and the AB tactic isn't a bad one. Ruck speed and security needs a big upgrade though as that is the main element killing our attack.

king_carlos wrote:I thought that the ref asked them to look and they judged initial contact to be on the ball which was what the ref thought live as well.

Doc - SB at Tigers frequently started a match with one playmaker at 10 then finished with 2 playmakers. Be it Burns, Hegarty or latterly Atkinson at fullback. Or Gopperth at 12. He seems to like the extra playmaker as the game opens up. I don't think Smith should be considered out of position at 15 to start a game though.

The structure with Evans in the Six Nations and now WW lends itself to two playmakers but they have generally used one. Which makes little sense to be. They tried Smith-Farrell in 6N R1 but abandoned it after the loss to Scotland. I expect we would've seen Ford-Farrell in the warmups if not for Farrell getting banned.

I mean even if you think it's not worthy of consideration of a red, and I mentioned mitigation at the time, the response from the tmo to not mention a review even for a pen. Surprising.

If the initial contact was with the ball and no foul play why would they need to review it further?

If we're questioning citing I can't work out how the SA player that went straight head to head with the Welsh player (Dyer?) wasn't red ...

Heaf wrote:If the initial contact was with the ball and no foul play why would they need to review it further?

Cos he headbutted him. Initial contact from Ewels wasn't initially head on head it was body.

https://www.planetrugby.com/news/watch-joe-marler-could-add-to-englands-ban-woes-after-awful-tackle

From watching that one angle we have slowed down I'm really not sure it is head on head. It looks like initial contact is shoulder with the ball and Marler's head then passes by Tuisue's which doesn't suggest a big contact if there was head to head contact. With one angle it's hard to tell though. The bunker will have had multiple angles. Worth noting that Tuisue passed the HIA and came back on too. Whilst Marler didn't flinch and stays in the ruck. Which certainly doesn't suggest a massive head to head collision.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:If the initial contact was with the ball and no foul play why would they need to review it further?

Cos he headbutted him. Initial contact from Ewels wasn't initially head on head it was body.

You sound convinced - but I'm not sure what you're seeing that we're not ...

PS what has Ewels got to do with this?

king_carlos wrote:I thought that the ref asked them to look and they judged initial contact to be on the ball which was what the ref thought live as well.

Doc - SB at Tigers frequently started a match with one playmaker at 10 then finished with 2 playmakers. Be it Burns, Hegarty or latterly Atkinson at fullback. Or Gopperth at 12. He seems to like the extra playmaker as the game opens up. I don't think Smith should be considered out of position at 15 to start a game though.

The structure with Evans in the Six Nations and now WW lends itself to two playmakers but they have generally used one. Which makes little sense to be. They tried Smith-Farrell in 6N R1 but abandoned it after the loss to Scotland. I expect we would've seen Ford-Farrell in the warmups if not for Farrell getting banned.

Thanks, mate. The attack certainly looks like it could benefit from a second playmaker. But I think there is as much concern about having a dynamic attacking player on the pitch because it's clear England don't have one (or at least one they trust).

I'm not really sure why England opted not to stick with Nick Evans, he has (at least a little bit) more experience than Wigglesworth, and the attack he does coach is far more effective. England didn't look good but they certainly looked better with him in the coaching team.

yappysnap wrote:I'm not really sure why England opted not to stick with Nick Evans.

I thought Quins didn't want to release Evans for the World Cup.

Just listened to the BBC Rugby podcast with Chris Jones and Ugo Monye. Their discussion highlights that much debate about England right now is a post mortem of how we got here. Monye says he's taking flak for not being negative. However, he doesn't want to look back, he'd rather focus on what England can do to make the best out of a difficult situation for the upcoming tournament. Jones points out it's hard for England fans to jump straight into unconditional support, when it's clear the whole World Cup cycle has been wasted, and no-one at the RFU has offered a mea culpa.

Rugby Fan wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I'm not really sure why England opted not to stick with Nick Evans.

I thought Quins didn't want to release Evans for the World Cup.

Fair enough if that's the case, but I'm sure they could have negotiated to get him.

In hindsight, a very inexperienced coach with an even less experienced coaching team was a bad call by the RFU.

It's interesting how things have turned out, teams like Romania have managed to secure Vern Cotter as an assistant for the RWC, NZ have Schmidt, but England either opted not to bother with a big name over Borthwick or couldn't manage to swing anyone to help him.

yappysnap wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I'm not really sure why England opted not to stick with Nick Evans.

I thought Quins didn't want to release Evans for the World Cup.

Fair enough if that's the case, but I'm sure they could have negotiated to get him.

In hindsight, a very inexperienced coach with an even less experienced coaching team was a bad call by the RFU.

It's interesting how things have turned out, teams like Romania have managed to secure Vern Cotter as an assistant for the RWC, NZ have Schmidt, but England either opted not to bother with a big name over Borthwick or couldn't manage to swing anyone to help him.

Yeah Quins refused to release Evans again.

I'd have liked us to go in hard for Wisemantel as he's currently not doing anything. He's worked with Borthwick before but was concerned with being at home with his family more so maybe didn't fancy it.

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:If the initial contact was with the ball and no foul play why would they need to review it further?

Cos he headbutted him. Initial contact from Ewels wasn't initially head on head it was body.

You sound convinced - but I'm not sure what you're seeing that we're not ...

Re this and ewels it was both head on head. Whether you guys are convinced it's a foul or not it's a great example of another tackle made in an upright position that could very easily have been a red.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

yappysnap wrote:I'm not really sure why England opted not to stick with Nick Evans.

I thought Quins didn't want to release Evans for the World Cup.

Fair enough if that's the case, but I'm sure they could have negotiated to get him.

In hindsight, a very inexperienced coach with an even less experienced coaching team was a bad call by the RFU.

It's interesting how things have turned out, teams like Romania have managed to secure Vern Cotter as an assistant for the RWC, NZ have Schmidt, but England either opted not to bother with a big name over Borthwick or couldn't manage to swing anyone to help him.

Yeah Quins refused to release Evans again.

I'd have liked us to go in hard for Wisemantel as he's currently not doing anything. He's worked with Borthwick before but was concerned with being at home with his family more so maybe didn't fancy it.

Can't exactly force coaches into Borthwick, he's the main man and has the team he's picked.

I haven't listened to BBC Rugby pod yet, that's plan for gym this afternoon but if Monye says sun coming up tomorrow always check.

Positives? There are literally none for England. Let's be honest they should have lost 4 from 4 and Wales lost that one game rather than Eng winning it.
Truly dreadful tactics, defence, passing and catching. The bread and butter of any rugby player let alone a pro or an International.
OK a few of the games were wet but Fiji coped way better with wet ball than England did. No excuses for that, none.

I'd love to know what Cole brings to game. Hardly dominant in scrum and spends rest of match standing around with hands on hips.
Marler, another rash incident which could have seen a card.
Can't wait to see how Eng cope with Arg pack.

Lots of talk on here about coaching and it looks like players either not buying into what's being said by likes of Borthwick and co but to be honest the players also bear responsibility for what's gone on.
Every game so far England have started OK, even quite decent until opposition to have a purple patch and then it all goes t*ts up for Eng. Almost as if they have lost interest or motivation.
We're hearing all the right noises of course from coaches and players about working hard blah blah but proof of pudding is in eating.

I guess we see which England turn up in RWC but the way Samoa played against Ireland they wont be scared of Eng at all and it's not beyond realms of possibility Eng fail to get out of group, something which previously I'd dismissed as very unlikely.

As you can see, I'm upbeat this morning....

I found this interesting. I think you need to separate out the two issues. The structural ones in English rugby which needs a long term solution and the particular issues with the current team.
https://youtu.be/enHgXGWV7h4?feature=shared

I'm going to debate that England should have lost 4 from 4.  First, they actually played some of their best rugby of the warm ups to get back into that Wales game and deserve credit where it's due.  And, I could just as easily argue that England lost it with a few minutes of disciplinary insanity and/or failure to convert chances had the result gone the other way.  As it is they scored more points, were leading for most of the game, largely came out on top in the stats and deserved the win despite a wobble around the 60 minute mark.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the players. I don't really want to read too much into Ford's comments, I literally have no idea what players are supposed to say when dragged out before the media following a string of poor performances. But, his suggesting not all is going well in training is the closest I've heard a player come to suggesting the current approach isn't working (at least before a coach has been given the boot). If the players aren't happy with what the coaches are doing they might be more willing to rip up the script after tomorrow - i.e. when the squad is fixed with World Rugby and they can no longer be removed. I live in hope...

yappysnap wrote:
In hindsight, a very inexperienced coach with an even less experienced coaching team was a bad call by the RFU.

Why only in hindsight?! The RFU have form when it comes to picking unproven coaches. The only proven coach they've had in the last 20 odd years, was Jones - and despite our frustrations over the last 3 seasons he did a pretty good job until he imploded (as he seemingly always has done when left in post too long). I don't know if it's some kind of 'clever' attempt to save money, or a refusal to recruit coaches that may actually challenge them on the structural stuff needed to reliably develop top class players.

England have a lot of issues, but at least England are not Australia.

If anything Pool C is weaker than Pool D, England's pool. Pool C have no team capable of winning the tournament. Pool D have one.

As far as what we do now, it really is up to the senior players and coaches.

The players always said in public that they felt Eddie Jone's unstructured approach was close to paying off. No-one has really said anything similar about the current gameplan. Now that the World Cup squad has been named, players should feel a little more secure about their place.

Notwithstanding Jonny Sexton going to this Cup at 38, a number of these players probably won't make another tournament before they retire. Youngs, Care, Lawes, Tuilagi, Cole, Marler, May and Vunipola are the most likely. George, Daly, Farrell and Ford are also possibly in that category. That's a third of the squad who should think this might be their last  chance to feature on the biggest stage. Even if they don't fancy retiring, a poor performance in France will see the coaches looking elsewhere for playing talent.

There should, therefore, be enough voices in the camp to say whether they trust the current script, or need another approach to get them through the next few weeks. Borthwick has the same interest. He might have expected this World Cup to be a free hit. The reaction to a string of losses has raised doubts about whether he can marshall the troops, so he needs some results too.

formerly known as Sam wrote:
Yeah Quins refused to release Evans again.

I'd have liked us to go in hard for Wisemantel as he's currently not doing anything. He's worked with Borthwick before but was concerned with being at home with his family more so maybe didn't fancy it.

That's not quite what they said. They said that they'd support Evans joining England on a permanent basis - if that's what he wanted - but that they didn't think that releasing him just for the RWC (which is what was on offer) was viable for him or for Quins.

As for Marler's tackle, the ref explained at some length to the Fijian captain that the TMO did not find any clear evidence of head contact. Presumably the citing commissioner didn't change that view on review.

The defence is really worrying - during the 6N it was good in close quarters but so narrow that it was very easy to get around. It has now fixed that to some degree with the 13 pushing up to cut off the wide channels, but at the cost of leaving gaps near the rucks (two easy tries in two games have come from losing defensive connection one man out) and if the attackers do get wide the back three have not generally been fast enough to cover. Like most of us, I've got a lot of time for Kev Sinfield as a human being, but his defensive system is not working, and England are running out of time to fix it.

The only straw we can clutch at is that we still don't know what training workload Walters has them under. There has been a consistent pattern of England starting well and then fading badly in the second half, which is similar to how the Boks looked in their opening game in 2019. If England really hadn't tapered their training during the warm ups, we might expect them to improve somewhat before the Argentina game. But that's speculative, and it still won't fix some of the personnel issues.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:If the initial contact was with the ball and no foul play why would they need to review it further?

Cos he headbutted him. Initial contact from Ewels wasn't initially head on head it was body.

You sound convinced - but I'm not sure what you're seeing that we're not ...

Re this and ewels it was both head on head. Whether you guys are convinced it's a foul or not it's a great example of another tackle made in an upright position that could very easily have been a red.

Upright I'll give you - but I'm not seeing head contact in the admittedly poor and limited footage we've seen ... either way it seems cards in general in this warm-up period have been a complete farce/lottery, even more than usual .... I haven't seen the Barrett incident for example but there seems to have been a lot of questions around that one too.

Big wrote:I'm going to debate that England should have lost 4 from 4.  First, they actually played some of their best rugby of the warm ups to get back into that Wales game and deserve credit where it's due.  And, I could just as easily argue that England lost it with a few minutes of disciplinary insanity and/or failure to convert chances had the result gone the other way.  As it is they scored more points, were leading for most of the game, largely came out on top in the stats and deserved the win despite a wobble around the 60 minute mark.  

It will be interesting to see what happens with the players.  I don't really want to read too much into Ford's comments, I literally have no idea what players are supposed to say when dragged out before the media following a string of poor performances.  But, his suggesting not all is going well in training is the closest I've heard a player come to suggesting the current approach isn't working (at least before a coach has been given the boot).  If the players aren't happy with what the coaches are doing they might be more willing to rip up the script after tomorrow - i.e. when the squad is fixed with World Rugby and they can no longer be removed.  I live in hope...

Worth remembering that, whilst of course we know we have things bad, Wales are currently hopeless.

Any Wales worse than England? I think that's debateable to be honest. Both pretty terrible but as an England fan I don't think we're in any position to look down on Wales.

Anyway, I'm not interested really how good/bad other teams are. They could all be fantastic or utterly hopeless but as long as England are in current state then I'll concentrate my misery on them.

Remember, Gats and co say Wales will surprise a few people at the world cup. We've been purposely holding back....

mountain man wrote:Any Wales worse than England? I think that's debateable to be honest. Both pretty terrible but as an England fan I don't think we're in any position to look down on Wales.

Anyway, I'm not interested really how good/bad other teams are. They could all be fantastic or utterly hopeless but as long as England are in current state then I'll concentrate my misery on them.

It isn't any consolation but I believe they are. The main difference is that they are closer to the 'acceptance' phase than we are

Egg chasers did a good video on the demise of English rugby over the past twenty years. I think he hit the nail on the head and made some astute assumptions. Goes into detail about how since 1995 when the game went pro the Rfu has made blunder after blunder where as other nations and regions have grown the game. I did find myself agreeing to 90% of the rationale.

I would like the powers that be take have a plan that grows the grass roots game and defend rugby as a safe but challenging sport for all as well as reconnect with clubs out of the premiership cartel.

England have a lot of juniors playing the game, more than everyone else as far as I know - maybe not France but I haven't checked the data lately. Eng U18s and U20s are always highly competitive. I'm not sure where it could be going wrong for them, with all this in their favour.

Gym gymed and I listened to BBC pod and totally agree with Chris Jones assessment of where Eng are.

Three key areas of defence, scrum and kicking England are miles off and he cannot see how they beat Argentina there and I agree with that.
Doesn't mean they won't beat them on day but so far they are way off.

mikey_dragon wrote:England have a lot of juniors playing the game, more than everyone else as far as I know - maybe not France but I haven't checked the data lately. Eng U18s and U20s are always highly competitive. I'm not sure where it could be going wrong for them, with all this in their favour.

In comparison to where they should be we have dropped of significantly behind France. All of their u20 play in the second professional league which is streaks ahead of championship and a league structures. Our lads are green because they don't play in hard enough games for their academy. If we brought up the second tier to the same standard as France and put the youngsters into that competitive environment then we would be better. Our u18 look good but won't play proper rugby for a few seasons where their french counterparts will be busy developing in the men's game.

We also don't maximise state school players very well at all which doesn't allow different pathways for young talent. It's either academy or nothing and loads of kids just walk away when the academy route is closed to them. Our game is just not well run from the top I'm afraid.

Yoda wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:England have a lot of juniors playing the game, more than everyone else as far as I know - maybe not France but I haven't checked the data lately. Eng U18s and U20s are always highly competitive. I'm not sure where it could be going wrong for them, with all this in their favour.

In comparison to where they should be we have dropped of significantly behind France. All of their u20 play in the second professional league which is streaks ahead of championship and a league structures. Our lads are green because they don't play in hard enough games for their academy. If we brought up the second tier to the same standard as France and put the youngsters into that competitive environment then we would be better. Our u18 look good but won't play proper rugby for a few seasons where their french counterparts will be busy developing in the men's game.

We also don't maximise state school players very well at all which doesn't allow different pathways for young talent. It's either academy or nothing and loads of kids just walk away when the academy route is closed to them. Our game is just not well run from the top I'm afraid.

The BUCS system improving so much has offered a glimmer there for players who miss the academy boat to be fair. That is a tiny improvement we've seen to the pathways.

As discussed at length previously on this thread the rest has fallen apart. The Premiership is a shadow of the quality that it once was on a week to week basis. The highest quality games are close to what they were before. But the lowest quality games are a far worse standard and more frequent. P-shares and the inevitable ringfencing they were intended to cause are the root of that. The Championship has been defunded, cut off and left to rot. The leagues below it are poorly run.

The big bright side is the strong academy system that produces good U18 talent. That system was invested in heavily and largely runs well. That doesn't mean it's perfect. But it produces more than enough very talented rugby players to have a far better system. That talent can't develop though as the Premiership itself is poor then there's not much below it to bridge the gap between academy and senior rugby.

As said already my solution would be breaking up the RFU into three separate boards running the pro, semi-pro and amateur leagues. Will promotion and relegation throughout the system. The pro board would look after the Premiership and Championship as well as the England team. The top 2 leagues should be governed by voting from all in those leagues rather than shareholder clubs working as a cartel. That pro board should also have to develop a Premiership A-league akin to Espoirs in France that would have restrictions on players over 23-years-old. That's the cut off for players to be counted in the academy salary cap rather than an arbitrary age. That A-league would ensure the U18 talent keeps moving.

Amongst our talk of English rugby's demise I'm not sure if we've covered the RWC squad being finalised?

Mitchell in for JvP. May in for Watson. Daly remains but is recovering from a knee injury. Curry (ankle), Martin (knee) and Arundell (back spasm) are the others included but currently rehabbing. Billy and Faz serving bans.

Curry is the only member not to feature at all in the warmups. Which is a concern given he's probably our best player!

king_carlos wrote:

Yoda wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:England have a lot of juniors playing the game, more than everyone else as far as I know - maybe not France but I haven't checked the data lately. Eng U18s and U20s are always highly competitive. I'm not sure where it could be going wrong for them, with all this in their favour.

In comparison to where they should be we have dropped of significantly behind France. All of their u20 play in the second professional league which is streaks ahead of championship and a league structures. Our lads are green because they don't play in hard enough games for their academy. If we brought up the second tier to the same standard as France and put the youngsters into that competitive environment then we would be better. Our u18 look good but won't play proper rugby for a few seasons where their french counterparts will be busy developing in the men's game.

We also don't maximise state school players very well at all which doesn't allow different pathways for young talent. It's either academy or nothing and loads of kids just walk away when the academy route is closed to them. Our game is just not well run from the top I'm afraid.

The BUCS system improving so much has offered a glimmer there for players who miss the academy boat to be fair. That is a tiny improvement we've seen to the pathways.

As discussed at length previously on this thread the rest has fallen apart. The Premiership is a shadow of the quality that it once was on a week to week basis. The highest quality games are close to what they were before. But the lowest quality games are a far worse standard and more frequent. P-shares and the inevitable ringfencing they were intended to cause are the root of that. The Championship has been defunded, cut off and left to rot. The leagues below it are poorly run.

The big bright side is the strong academy system that produces good U18 talent. That system was invested in heavily and largely runs well. That doesn't mean it's perfect. But it produces more than enough very talented rugby players to have a far better system. That talent can't develop though as the Premiership itself is poor then there's not much below it to bridge the gap between academy and senior rugby.

As said already my solution would be breaking up the RFU into three separate boards running the pro, semi-pro and amateur leagues. Will promotion and relegation throughout the system. The pro board would look after the Premiership and Championship as well as the England team. The top 2 leagues should be governed by voting from all in those leagues rather than shareholder clubs working as a cartel. That pro board should also have to develop a Premiership A-league akin to Espoirs in France that would have restrictions on players over 23-years-old. That's the cut off for players to be counted in the academy salary cap rather than an arbitrary age. That A-league would ensure the U18 talent keeps moving.

Bridging the gap from u18 to seniors is the main thing I was highlighting. The French pro2 league is so much better than any academy league and like you say championship clubs have been badly neglected. Can't see any change soon.

I think we all agree the grass roots is the foundation of the sport in England and everywhere.  But Rugby in England, which I have said probably too many times, is poorly governed and the RFU as currently constituted is not fit for purpose.  I certainly agree the sport needs separately focused groups looking at the amateur game, the semi-pro game, and the pro game.  And they need to bring in experts who have a real vision and know how to get things done is pro sport.  It is OK if they come from other sport, simply because the expertise has not been valued in England and the cupboard is bare.  

I am not at all getting the connection between relegation and the performance on the pitch.  I do think the younger players need more exposure to higher levels of competition and more and better games than they get in the academies.  And there does need to be a coach academy that actually works.  And, whilst I am wishing for the nigh on impossible, some training for sport development and sport management.  Sport management is now an accepted course of study in many American universities.

How can we build  for the future without building in the basics up front.  The NFL (sorry, again) does this.  Why not us?

Doc...did you see the Eddie Hearns on the Haskell/Tinds rugby pod? He was asking who the rugby stars are? He said no rugby player is a household name. Only rugby fans know them. There is no promotion of our stars and you need stars to generate interest and money. He said that his model requires him to own the sport for him to be able to run it and promote it properly. Just like darts. Without that level of control he has no interest.

Irrespective of the merits of Eddie Hearn he had some good points about how badly the game is run and promoted. To add to your point above we need some real professionals to help sort this amazing game out. The split ownership between the RFU and Premiership Rugby/CVC really does not enable this to happen. I cannot foresee any great improvements happening anytime soon.

He was asking who the rugby stars are? He said no rugby player is a household name. Only rugby fans know them.

this so very much - and it applies in Scotland as well. there is no promotion of the sport at all hardly

15 years ago every Edinburgh game was on the side of the local buses. City centre billboards with the rugby players on. Free tickets for schools and so on. Now? Nothing

Poorfour wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:
Yeah Quins refused to release Evans again.

I'd have liked us to go in hard for Wisemantel as he's currently not doing anything. He's worked with Borthwick before but was concerned with being at home with his family more so maybe didn't fancy it.

That's not quite what they said. They said that they'd support Evans joining England on a permanent basis - if that's what he wanted - but that they didn't think that releasing him just for the RWC (which is what was on offer) was viable for him or for Quins.

As for Marler's tackle, the ref explained at some length to the Fijian captain that the TMO did not find any clear evidence of head contact. Presumably the citing commissioner didn't change that view on review.

The defence is really worrying - during the 6N it was good in close quarters but so narrow that it was very easy to get around. It has now fixed that to some degree with the 13 pushing up to cut off the wide channels, but at the cost of leaving gaps near the rucks (two easy tries in two games have come from losing defensive connection one man out) and if the attackers do get wide the back three have not generally been fast enough to cover. Like most of us, I've got a lot of time for Kev Sinfield as a human being, but his defensive system is not working, and England are running out of time to fix it.

The only straw we can clutch at is that we still don't know what training workload Walters has them under. There has been a consistent pattern of England starting well and then fading badly in the second half, which is similar to how the Boks looked in their opening game in 2019. If England really hadn't tapered their training during the warm ups, we might expect them to improve somewhat before the Argentina game. But that's speculative, and it still won't fix some of the personnel issues.

I think i've mentioned it before but there was a really good thread on the number of games a center combo needs together to gel. It's something like 10 games. We haven't even come close to that, this last game was another new partnership who'd never played together and unsurprisingly the defense there sucked.

Hopefully for the RWC we play Farrel/Tuilagi + Marchant which probably isn't our best combo, but is the most experienced and has the most time together. After the rwc whoever is coach needs to really settle on a centre combo quickly and give them game time.

hugehandoff wrote:Doc...did you see the Eddie Hearns on the Haskell/Tinds rugby pod? He was asking who the rugby stars are? He said no rugby player is a household name. Only rugby fans know them. There is no promotion of our stars and you need stars to generate interest and money. He said that his model requires him to own the sport for him to be able to run it and promote it properly. Just like darts. Without that level of control he has no interest.

Irrespective of the merits of Eddie Hearn he had some good points about how badly the game is run and promoted. To add to your point above we need some real professionals to help sort this amazing game out. The split ownership between the RFU and Premiership Rugby/CVC really does not enable this to happen. I cannot foresee any great improvements happening anytime soon.  

No, mate. I didn't see that podcast. But I will look it up and give it a watch. That is an awesome point about promoting our stars. I think it is another of the places where the RFU, PRL, and frankly World Rugby simply don't get the basics of sport management. Sport is entertainment and promoting the stars is also promoting the sport and our teams. And as you say, is what drives interest.

This is what the NFL learned in the 1960s and early 1970s and enabled them to become what it has become. From what I understand, the NBA was dying as a sport in the 1980s until they learned to embrace their stars, which saved the league, although their pendulum has swung too far. But still an object lesson. Major League Baseball became America's sport for over 100 years by doing exactly that. How many lessons do we need?

Mind boggling how little the stewards of our game understand what they need to do. Which to me is what makes them all amateurs. With our luck they would end up trying to promote a surly guy like Farrell instead of a more potentially interesting person like Marler (warts and all). And kill the game off.

Brilliant post!

[quote="yappysnap"]

Poorfour wrote:
I think i've mentioned it before but there was a really good thread on the number of games a center combo needs together to gel. It's something like 10 games. We haven't even come close to that, this last game was another new partnership who'd never played together and unsurprisingly the defense there sucked.

Hopefully for the RWC we play Farrel/Tuilagi + Marchant which probably isn't our best combo, but is the most experienced and has the most time together. After the rwc whoever is coach needs to really settle on a centre combo quickly and give them game time.

Good point - and outside of the front row and back three (both of whom have their own issues), none of England's combinations have played much together.

In the centres, based on what we've seen in the warm ups Marchant should start, both because he's been the most consistent performer and because he's smart and adaptable enough to work with whomever he's paired with. I'd prefer to see Lawrence at 12 - it's good to see Tuilagi fit but the trade off is that he seems to have lost some of his freakish power and Lawrence seemed to offer similar strength in the carry with greater versatility. The only exception to that would be if Marchant went to the wing in place of... well, any of the current wings. I just don't get why Malins in particular is picked so consistently; his kick chase is good (though he tends to knock the ball back more often than he catches it) but his defence has had lapses (the system notwithstanding) and he doesn't finish tries. (2 in 15 games vs 2 in 7 for Arundell, 35 in 72 for May and 12 in 12 for Cokanasiga - which is better than I had expected)

doctor_grey wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:Doc...did you see the Eddie Hearns on the Haskell/Tinds rugby pod? He was asking who the rugby stars are? He said no rugby player is a household name. Only rugby fans know them. There is no promotion of our stars and you need stars to generate interest and money. He said that his model requires him to own the sport for him to be able to run it and promote it properly. Just like darts. Without that level of control he has no interest.

Irrespective of the merits of Eddie Hearn he had some good points about how badly the game is run and promoted. To add to your point above we need some real professionals to help sort this amazing game out. The split ownership between the RFU and Premiership Rugby/CVC really does not enable this to happen. I cannot foresee any great improvements happening anytime soon.  

No, mate.  I didn't see that podcast.  But I will look it up and give it a watch.  That is an awesome point about promoting our stars.  I think it is another of the places where the RFU, PRL, and frankly World Rugby simply don't get the basics of sport management.  Sport is entertainment and promoting the stars is also promoting the sport and our teams.  And as you say, is what drives interest.

Most rugby executives grew up in an era when top international Test match players were household names, many given a profile boost by Lions tours. Gareth, JJ, JPR, Willie John. Even a Frenchman like Jean-Pierre Rives was pretty recognizable. Bill Beaumont was well-known enough to become a Question of Sport team captain. In the Carling era, Rory and Tony Underwood's mum was better-known to the public than most England players today. Come professionalism, Jonah Lomu was a big sporting name even outside rugby.

In short, the sport's administrators were complacent, and took that level of recognition, and public affection, for granted. There was little appreciation that these profiles depended on Test match rugby, with lower level players barely-known outside the clubhouse. And yet professional rugby is only viable with a profitable club, regional and provincial leagues. Even today, amid greater competition for eyeballs from other sports and fields of entertainment, the penny hasn't really dropped.

Paolo Odogwu touched on this just the other day:

“For a casual fan, if you flick on the TV, you are only going to pay attention for a couple of minutes,” Ododgwu adds. “Would you be more interested if you saw a length-of-the-field try or some exciting stuff? Even if you don’t understand the sport, you’d be like ‘what’s going on, this is crazy?’ Or [would you be interested] seeing someone setting up a box-kick, building a caterpillar and chasing?

“Obviously, the purists love everything. But they’re already fans. It’s about getting new people in. In this day and age, with TikTok and everything, people’s attention spans are so short. It takes one or two minutes before the channel changes. I don’t think teams have to change their playing style, but as long as there are five or six moments in a game where people go ‘wow, that was impressive, this is what rugby in this competition is like’, all it takes is for teams to clip up those moments and advertise them. That’s something that is done badly in rugby.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/08/29/paolo-odogwu-italy-style-suits-me-better-than-england/

TJ wrote:

He was asking who the rugby stars are? He said no rugby player is a household name. Only rugby fans know them.

this so very much - and it applies in Scotland as well.  there is no promotion of the sport at all hardly

15 years ago every Edinburgh game was on the side of the local buses.  City centre billboards with the rugby players on.  Free tickets for schools and so on.  Now? Nothing

The same was case pre 2003, people only got to know who Johnny Wilkinson and Johno were because Eng won RWC otherwise as now only those who follow rugby know who players are. Possibly some will know about Farrell seeing as he was in news when ban thing was going on but think we have to face it majority not interested.

Rugby is still in comparison to others a minority sport.

Which is why we need to win at all costs. And that means keeping Borthwick and tying him down for at least 2 world cup cycles. The rugby is already getting people to sit up and take note just like the cricket. You've got people reeking of jealousy like Odogwu talking about how he wishes he could have played rugby like us. Just keep this coaching team together for 12 years or so and everyone will be wanting to play rugby.

mountain man wrote:The same was case pre 2003, people only got to know who Johnny Wilkinson and Johno were because Eng won RWC otherwise as now only those who follow rugby know who players are.

That's really not true. A lot of 70's rugby players, particularly the Welsh, were household names, helped by the unprecedented success of the 1971 and 1974 Lions Tours. The 1971 Lions won the BBC Sports Team of the Year Award, which was the first award on the show for rugby, and the 1974 squad repeated the success. The 1980 Grand Slam saw England win the same Team Award. It also elevated Bill Beaumont, which is why he and Gareth Edwards both became Question of Sport Team Captains.

There was then a relatively quiet few years for the sport, which coincided with the decline of the Welsh team, and poor Lions tours in 1980 and 1983. This all started to change at the back end of the decade. 1987 was the first rugby World Cup. 1988 saw Carling's England start to click, with a win over Australia at Twickenham. 1989 was the Lions comeback win over Australia. 1990 was Scotland's Grand Slam, with the famous win over England (and another BBC Team of the Year award for rugby). 1991 was the second World Cup, with England in the final.

The sport got a big boost in national profile over those years, and even people who didn't follow rugby regularly were more familiar with some of the leading players than they are today.

That's impossible to quantify though. That's just your perception because you follow rugby so assume others will.

And football was pretty much in the doldrums during the 80s. You never know what's round the corner. As the Saudis etc start to pull more people into their league and the money drips away from the Premiership there may be more room for people's interests.

mountain man wrote:That's impossible to quantify though. That's just your perception because you follow rugby so assume others will.

It is possible to quantify. Look at those BBC Sports Team of the Year awards. No sign of rugby until the Lions win in 1971, then rugby teams won another four such awards up to 1993. That's all before professionalism, Jonah Lomu and Johnny Wilkinson. Rugby is a minority sport, and was back then too, However, it had a more prominent position in the national sporting consciousness.

Rugby Fan wrote:

mountain man wrote:That's impossible to quantify though. That's just your perception because you follow rugby so assume others will.

It is possible to quantify. Look at those BBC Sports Team of the Year awards. No sign of rugby until the Lions win in 1971, then rugby teams won another four such awards up to 1993. That's all before professionalism, Jonah Lomu and Johnny Wilkinson. Rugby is a minority sport, and was back then too, However, it had a more prominent position in the national sporting consciousness.

I agree that rugby has fewer household names now. There's an element of times changing in it as well though. Sports writers sometimes quip that Ian Botham was the 3rd most famous person in Britain at his peak after Queenie and Thatcher. It's slightly tongue in cheek but there is a reasonable argument he'd have been the most famous sportsman in Britain around that time. Which just wouldn't happen now. Even Flintoff wasn't in that realm. Freddie became a household name for sure but he wasn't more well known that several footballers, Olympic athletes, etc.

There's a lot more famous folk now. Some are famous for being infamous which is s**t. But some get fame because it's easier for less prominent sports to get seen in the modern world. Which is great. Alex Honnold is far more well known the prior leading climbers such as Royal Robbins, John Bachar, Lynn Hill, etc for instance.

That doesn't mean that rugby should roll over and accept it's a middle to upper class pursuit, behind a paywall and often followed by private school alumni who learned rugger at school. B*llocks to that. But it is worthy of consideration.

Similar to how I feel with declining men's amateur numbers. I do think that changing times and more pass times available to people now has to be considered when discussing why clubs that once had 4th and 5th teams now struggle to get a seconds. It shouldn't however be used as a catchall excuse for poor governance of the grassroots game. That discussion sometimes gets caught between extremes. Either people claim that times changing is nonsense and shouldn't be considered or administrators claim it's the cause and there's nothing to be done. The curse of our increasingly polarised society, sadly.

king_carlos wrote:
There's a lot more famous folk now. Some are famous for being infamous which is s**t. But some get fame because it's easier for less prominent sports to get seen in the modern world. Which is great. Alex Honnold is far more well known the prior leading climbers such as Royal Robbins, John Bachar, Lynn Hill, etc for instance.

I think it's always been the case that people become famous for achievements that the public can understand, but that doesn't necessarily map to the people who are famous within their field. The general public are aware of Hillary, Tenzing, Honnold and possibly Messner and Mallory, but the climbing community would probably rate the likes of Robbins, Bachar, Hill, Shipton, Scott & Bonington, and Marc-Andre Leclerc at least as high - but their achievements are less visible.

Likewise, Wilkinson, Johnson and Woodward are the instantly recognisable figures in English rugby, but the rugby community would probably see the likes of Hill and Greenwood as being at least as important (and having read the excellent One Team, you get an appreciation for how carefully the entire squad and coaching team was put together - including some very longsighted thinking around who they might need for particular positions, which is how the likes of Steve Thompson came into the squad.)

Heaf wrote:France great - shame about the annoying crowd objecting to any decision that doesn't go their way no matter how obviously correct ...

Bit of a strange comment, this is what home crowds do!

Fair and good post, Poorfour. Rugby's last superstar that was bigger than the sport was Lomu. Likely the biggest star the sport has had globally. I don't think it's a coincidence that Jonah happened just before the growth of the internet and the consequent explosion in how accessible things outside the mainstream became though.

At one time rugby was the most likely winter activity for blokes after football. The range of things available is now just so much broader. For society I think that's a brilliant thing. It represents a challenge for the traditional sports that didn't have to worry about competitors as much. Rugby has predictably dealt with the very poorly. Governance in rugby has always been slow and reactive though. Hence why it took years after the early NFL research and lawsuits for the boards to realise that another contact sport might be strolling into the same issues.