England still winning the RWC at a canter - The quarter finals and beyond

First topic message reminder :

Carried on..............

Curry out for the season after a hip op.

Earl back for 6N is prediction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67488789

And Rapava-Ruskin.

dummy_half wrote:Hope Tyler Offiah has his Dad's pace and elusiveness...

He's meant to be absolutely rapid, was with the LI academy. I'd expect a few to be scrambling to add him.

Good to see Kepu Tuipulotu still there. Wales are very interested in him naturally. He grew up in Wales, his sister Sisilia plays for Wales. Their dad Sione played for Tonga in the 90s and 00s of course. Another very talented former LI academy player.

Such a blow to lose Curry. He was back into very good form in the KOs. If Earl doesn't make it back that will be the whole starting back row that did well in the RWC unavailable for the Six Nations.

If Marler is indeed retired then VRR would presumably have been next cab off the rank as well. He was in the early training squads over the summer. Such bad timing for him personally. It's easy to forget that he's 31 already. If Beno Obano can stay fit that might open a door.

Lozowski has done his ACL as well. That could mean Daly getting club game time at 13 or Hartley getting more exposure. The other option would be Lucio Cinti. At the moment his club career has been predominantly as a winger, then Argentina have mainly used him at 13.

When did Lozowski do that KC? Didn't hear...

So for Italy ?

6 Pearson
7 Underhill
8 Earl

No 7&1/2 wrote:1. True. But some don't thinknits a good change so tick!
2. Money. So kinda obvious.
3. That could be a very good thing.

Then I think you need to get to the RFU because this is how I think they would come down on this.  

To your points, if some at the RFU think it's a bad idea, and considering it's the RFU, the opposite is probably true.  But I think this is the kind of radical change which would require an RFU task force to evaluate the merits and recommend a study team to investigate details, the findings to be passed to a larger RFU conference, the final recommendation to be voted on in the year 2525 (if you are musically inclined).  

I think the RFU will also tie very closely their perceived stature of the Premiership to Rugby in England in general and would look at this as an admission, as well as telling the world, Rugby in England is not all that and perhaps less desirable.  I could - possibly - see them going for a Giteau Law or some variation (minimum 50 or 60 caps), but would not hold my breath.  

Regarding coaching, I believe players benefit from different coaching, it's up to the player what he/she does with it.  Where we are with our current coaching is another question, for better or worse.  But I think the RFU will want more control of their players rather than less.  

Again, I am coming from the standpoint that the RFU needs new leadership and direction, and a mandate for real action.  So expectations on my side for any positive change are a wee bit low.

dummy_half wrote:Hope Tyler Offiah has his Dad's pace and elusiveness...

But actually likes to get his jersey dirty.....

Geordie wrote:When did Lozowski do that KC? Didn't hear...

Against Quins. After Earl and Daly pulled out before KO. McFarland out until December. Hoskins out since the PRC with a broken thumb.  Segun out until December. Hunter-Hill also out long term after surgery on a warmup injury at Falcons. Now Lozowski. Decent injury list for Sarries.

It shows how far they are ahead of the pack really. They had significant absentees and absolutely pummelled Quins at The Stoop. Quins had missing players too of course. Murley and Kenningham are excellent players. Due to Lewies and Herbst being injured they didn't have specialist lock cover on the bench either, Lamb presumably would have covered. It was closer to full strength for Quins than Sarries though.

That's not me trying to kick Quins either. They were good for their win against Tigers at Welford Road the week before. Sarries convincingly beat Tigers at Allianz without getting out of second gear. It's just interesting how that gap emerges when Farrell, Itoje, George, etc come back in.

It feels pretty similar to last season. Sarries with all available are by a distance the best, their depth will be good enough to make the playoffs. Sale are then the next best drilled and are the team who look closest to matching Sarries physicality. Then there are a lot of teams who do some things well and other things pretty darn poorly.

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:1. True. But some don't thinknits a good change so tick!
2. Money. So kinda obvious.
3. That could be a very good thing.

Then I think you need to get to the RFU because this is how I think they would come down on this.  

To your points, if some at the RFU think it's a bad idea, and considering it's the RFU, the opposite is probably true.  But I think this is the kind of radical change which would require an RFU task force to evaluate the merits and recommend a study team to investigate details, the findings to be passed to a larger RFU conference, the final recommendation to be voted on in the year 2525 (if you are musically inclined).  

I think the RFU will also tie very closely their perceived stature of the Premiership to Rugby in England in general and would look at this as an admission, as well as telling the world, Rugby in England is not all that and perhaps less desirable.  I could - possibly - see them going for a Giteau Law or some variation (minimum 50 or 60 caps), but would not hold my breath.  

Regarding coaching, I believe players benefit from different coaching, it's up to the player what he/she does with it.  Where we are with our current coaching is another question, for better or worse.  But I think the RFU will want more control of their players rather than less.  

Again, I am coming from the standpoint that the RFU needs new leadership and direction, and a mandate for real action.  So expectations on my side for any positive change are a wee bit low.

Well the big change that is obviously being floated as rumour to some of the media is around the shared contracts, that will allow more control clearly. Once you've got that core part of the squad then perhaps others being based outside England is perhaps less of an issue there. Given that that sort of issue, a union in control of players when at their clubs, was a major sticking point for some supporters of the URC and saw that as making a mockery of the league then whichever way you cut it the view of Prem rugby is going to be affected.

I think there are some things they could do that will bring positives but it'll be 2025 onwards when we see the benefits.

Sounds like there's a risk that the 6Ns will be lost to free to air coverage. BBC sound as if they're going to withdraw from bidding for it when the rights next come up and ITV bosses doubting they can afford it alone. Think it may be tied up with the new comps that World Ruby announced too which may see all internationals in the UK moving to pay tv. Know that some MPs want to now protect it, guess it's up to Labour next year if there's time.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sounds like there's a risk that the 6Ns will be lost to free to air coverage. BBC sound as if they're going to withdraw from bidding for it when the rights next come up and ITV bosses doubting they can afford it alone. Think it may be tied up with the new comps that World Ruby announced too which may see all internationals in the UK moving to pay tv. Know that some MPs want to now protect it, guess it's up to Labour next year if there's time.

Losing free to air games would be a blow. The 6N is one of the big events for rugby union in this country because it's when those who don't follow rugby actually watch rugby. Take it away from free to air and people will simply forget about it and there's less chance of drawing in new players or supporters away from people who know the sport.

If you look at the Ashes, I don't particularly like cricket but used to keep an eye on that when it was on free to air. I didn't bother watching a minute of it this year. Despite it being a well covered event in the media I don't know any casual sports fans who watched much of it, cricket fans I know sought it out obviously and apparently it was quite good.

Rugby is more niche than cricket because it clashes with the football season, it would be spectacularly short sighted to miss out engaging the casual viewers. Particularly as the RFU try and get more kids into the sport, if anything they should be making more content available so that the younger generations can start identifying players and supporting them (American sports are brilliant at that).

The BBC doesn't have the 6N as a Group A sport so potentially could go behind paywall.

Situation at present :

Group A events - full live coverage must be offered.
This group includes the FA Cup Final, the Olympic and Paralympic
Games, and the Women’s Football World Cup European
Championships.

• Group B events - these can have live coverage on subscription
television provided that secondary coverage is offered to the free-toair broadcasters.
This group includes the Six Nations rugby union tournament, the
Ryder Cup, and cricket test matches played in England

Nowt to do with the beeb tbf, government decision.

Correct but it's government which decides what is and isn't A/B and informs broadcaster which in 6N case is BBC and last few years ITV as well.

Whether the government step in or not is only one aspect. The other is that the RFU should be pressuring the free to air channels to keep up their broadcasting packages. Much easier to grow the game if it's accessible.

But it's the sport governing bodies who decides who show it. They could choose a lower bid for free to air

Yeah it's not just the RFUs decision on it either. I believe I'm correct in saying that they're trying to tie some of the rights to the new world league thing in with this too, which starts to push the costs from broadcasters really high.

I see England have their obligatory Tuipolotu, too.

Lucas Schmid, in the U20s this year, is the son of former Canada captain Mike Schmid.

And im wondering if Patrick Hogg (Newcastle Falcons, Durham School), is any relation to Ally...

Sleightholme back playing and he looked excellent tingiht. If he stays fit then he' must be looked at for the squad. Aggressive, strong, fast and a try scorer.

Also got Reuben Logan at Saints, son of Kenny and Gabby. Plays/ed for England at U18 level, would qualify for all three nations. Already played one game for Saints and only 18.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Also got Reuben Logan at Saints, son of Kenny and Gabby. Plays/ed for England at U18 level, would qualify for all three nations. Already played one game for Saints and only 18.

Isn't be like 6ft5 and 18 stone already? The kid is a beast.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Also got Reuben Logan at Saints, son of Kenny and Gabby. Plays/ed for England at U18 level, would qualify for all three nations. Already played one game for Saints and only 18.

Isn't be like 6ft5 and 18 stone already? The kid is a beast.

Saints have him at 1.96m and 115kg.

Until very recently he was playing at centre. I would not want to be the 17 year old facing him. I saw some pictures of him with Kenny and Gabby, he absolutely dwarfs Kenny who was not exactly small for a winger in his day. Playing in the back row now, presumably has some pace if he was a centre so could be very very useful. Saints have a good record of bringing on youngsters through the academy, a high percentage of their team is home grown, but have to thank Wasps for Reuben.

Ah the promising Reuben Logan, I can't wait for Wales to cap him.

They're likely to be first in line.

mikey_dragon wrote:Ah the promising Reuben Logan, I can't wait for Wales to cap him.

They are probably the most in need.

I would have thought Scotland would be very interested as well, they are missing a big bruiser in their backrow.

It will be interesting to see who he picks if he gets to that standard, the country of his mother, the country his father or the country he was born and raised in. At least that would shut up both his parents trying to persuade him that their country is the right one.

At 18, he will be coming onto his early prime at the next RWC, at least with England he may have a hope of winning it, the others have very little chance as time as shown

We got a few players with promise in the back-row but need them to step up and prove it. I think SA are showing the way, you need a big blindside who is also a lineout option. It'll be interesting to see where he ends up. I'm also sure England don't want another Moriarty type thing.

mikey_dragon wrote:We got a few players with promise in the back-row but need them to step up and prove it. I think SA are showing the way, you need a big blindside who is also a lineout option. It'll be interesting to see where he ends up. I'm also sure England don't want another Moriarty type thing.

Wales rolling into the next world cup with the English developed Logan and Reffell then the South African number 8 Hanekom making up the backrow. Exeter trained Jenkins and Tshiunza in the second row. Just a question of where they'll borrow a front row from.

mikey_dragon wrote:We got a few players with promise in the back-row but need them to step up and prove it. I think SA are showing the way, you need a big blindside who is also a lineout option. It'll be interesting to see where he ends up. I'm also sure England don't want another Moriarty type thing.

Yikes. No we don't want to contemplate a player that average.

Serious note though england need to cap players early and at least take away the option whole they develop.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Serious note though england need to cap players early and at least take away the option whole they develop.

Bearing in mind if they hand out a single cap to someone age 20, if they receive no more interest thereafter then it only takes 3 years of not play international rugby before they can switch! The days of capturing youths early is gone i think which is no bad thing considering most folk within the UK would qualify playing for multiple countries!

Which is why it should be 10 years for residential qualification. Only got to look at how some teams - Scotland spring to mind - take advantage.

The 3 years and can play for another country if you qualify through parents etc is good idea in principle as it allows South Sea island players who were capped by NZ for example to play for home nation. Then of course you get situations like Dempsey who was capped by Australia and now plays for Scotland.
Not what law change was originally designed for but it's allowed so that's it.

Tramptastic wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Serious note though england need to cap players early and at least take away the option whole they develop.

Bearing in mind if they hand out a single cap to someone age 20, if they receive no more interest thereafter then it only takes 3 years of not play international rugby before they can switch! The days of capturing youths early is gone i think which is no bad thing considering most folk within the UK would qualify playing for multiple countries!

I'm thinking that that may help in some cases like Redpaths. Should have had him on the pitch for a few mins at the end of a game albeit he's been pretty much blighted by injury since.

mountain man wrote:Which is why it should be 10 years for residential qualification. Only got to look at how some teams - Scotland spring to mind - take advantage.

The 3 years and can play for another country if you qualify through parents etc is good idea in principle as it allows South Sea island players who were capped by NZ for example to play for home nation. Then of course you get situations like Dempsey who was capped by Australia and now plays for Scotland.
Not what law change was originally designed for but it's allowed so that's it.

It's only VDM and Nel ain't it? While we had Vunipola, Tuilagi, Cokanasiga?

I can't be arsed to trawl through all the history but I'm pretty sure more than 2.

Anyway, eligibility debate been overdone and then some. Laws are as is so unless changes made pointless rehashing it(even though I just did but hey ho).

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Which is why it should be 10 years for residential qualification. Only got to look at how some teams - Scotland spring to mind - take advantage.

The 3 years and can play for another country if you qualify through parents etc is good idea in principle as it allows South Sea island players who were capped by NZ for example to play for home nation. Then of course you get situations like Dempsey who was capped by Australia and now plays for Scotland.
Not what law change was originally designed for but it's allowed so that's it.

It's only VDM and Nel ain't it? While we had Vunipola, Tuilagi, Cokanasiga?

Everyone's had a few qualify on residency no point trying to compare. Scotland have had Shoeman, Shona, Dempsey etc as well. England have had Hape and Flutey etc.

No nation's union won't play that game, it's their job to get results. 5 years for residency now is entirely fair in my POV.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Which is why it should be 10 years for residential qualification. Only got to look at how some teams - Scotland spring to mind - take advantage.

The 3 years and can play for another country if you qualify through parents etc is good idea in principle as it allows South Sea island players who were capped by NZ for example to play for home nation. Then of course you get situations like Dempsey who was capped by Australia and now plays for Scotland.
Not what law change was originally designed for but it's allowed so that's it.

It's only VDM and Nel ain't it? While we had Vunipola, Tuilagi, Cokanasiga?

Just a few more:

Underhill is a Yank by birth
Rodd a Scot
Smith the Philippines

Ribbans is SA but he probably doesn't count anymore
VPR if he gets back is Georgian

Ribbans is one I missed from a residency perspective. Just wanted to give the balance that Scotland definitely have less than us. And yes for me as long as you're obeying the rules its all good.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Which is why it should be 10 years for residential qualification. Only got to look at how some teams - Scotland spring to mind - take advantage.

The 3 years and can play for another country if you qualify through parents etc is good idea in principle as it allows South Sea island players who were capped by NZ for example to play for home nation. Then of course you get situations like Dempsey who was capped by Australia and now plays for Scotland.
Not what law change was originally designed for but it's allowed so that's it.

It's only VDM and Nel ain't it? While we had Vunipola, Tuilagi, Cokanasiga?

Everyone's had a few qualify on residency no point trying to compare. Scotland have had Shoeman, Shona, Dempsey etc as well. England have had Hape and Flutey etc.

No nation's union won't play that game, it's their job to get results. 5 years for residency now is entirely fair in my POV.

There's always to my mind been quite a significant difference (at least morally) between the likes of Faletau or Vunipola, who cam to the country as kids and were developed through the national rugby structure, and the likes of Flutey who never really had a strong affiliation for England but saw a way to earn some international recognisiton and a higher salary. Both fall within the same rules, but they just feel a bit different.

The difference between us and Scotland and to an extent Wales, is that our foreign born tend to have come over here when very young, still children, whereas Scotland in particular, but this also applies to Wales and in particular Ireland, fill their ranks with players that were not only born abroad, but raised abroad and frequently learnt their rugby abroad. Ribbans came over here to work, not play rugby but he turned out to be rather good..............

Ireland have the most foreign born players of any of the 6N, even more than Italy, however to be fair, from the 2023 squad, only 4 qualify on residency,  2 on grandparents and 4 on parents, one other was born in Ireland but moved away aged 6 to Australia. Two more were born abroad but moved to Ireland at an early age.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Which is why it should be 10 years for residential qualification. Only got to look at how some teams - Scotland spring to mind - take advantage.

The 3 years and can play for another country if you qualify through parents etc is good idea in principle as it allows South Sea island players who were capped by NZ for example to play for home nation. Then of course you get situations like Dempsey who was capped by Australia and now plays for Scotland.
Not what law change was originally designed for but it's allowed so that's it.

It's only VDM and Nel ain't it? While we had Vunipola, Tuilagi, Cokanasiga?

VDM, Nel, Schoeman, Jaco Van der Walt, Sam Johnson; think most of the others are in via the parent or grandparent.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:The difference between us and Scotland and to an extent Wales, is that our foreign born tend to have come over here when very young, still children, whereas Scotland in particular, but this also applies to Wales and in particular Ireland, fill their ranks with players that were not only born abroad, but raised abroad and frequently learnt their rugby abroad. Ribbans came over here to work, not play rugby but he turned out to be rather good..............

Ireland have the most foreign born players of any of the 6N, even more than Italy, however to be fair, from the 2023 squad, only 4 qualify on residency,  2 on grandparents and 4 on parents, one other was born in Ireland but moved away aged 6 to Australia. Two more were born abroad but moved to Ireland at an early age.

I get that, but some just happen to be born elsewhere because of where their parents were working at the time. It's a bit silly to bring it up, unless of course it is the residency rule after the player has learnt their rugby elsewhere.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:Which is why it should be 10 years for residential qualification. Only got to look at how some teams - Scotland spring to mind - take advantage.

The 3 years and can play for another country if you qualify through parents etc is good idea in principle as it allows South Sea island players who were capped by NZ for example to play for home nation. Then of course you get situations like Dempsey who was capped by Australia and now plays for Scotland.
Not what law change was originally designed for but it's allowed so that's it.

It's only VDM and Nel ain't it? While we had Vunipola, Tuilagi, Cokanasiga?

Just a few more:

Underhill is a Yank by birth
Rodd a Scot
Smith the Philippines

Ribbans is SA but he probably doesn't count anymore
VPR if he gets back is Georgian

None of the three highlighted qualify on residency grounds, all through parents or grandparents, and all were developed through the English system. Ribbans also qualifies thorugh ancestry rather than residency, but to me does feel a bit more of a South African using the system to his advantage.

Interestingly, there is a former Northampton Saint playing for Ospreys (Max Nagy) who has been residing here for some time as a student. Ospreys are enquiring into whether he is now WQ. I think he is a bit average tbh, but Wales are desperate to create more depth at full-back.

mikey_dragon wrote:Interestingly, there is a former Northampton Saint playing for Ospreys (Max Nagy) who has been residing here for some time as a student. Ospreys are enquiring into whether he is now WQ. I think he is a bit average tbh, but Wales are desperate to create more depth at full-back.

Wasn't a similar question asked of Underhill back in the day? I don't know what was decided, if anything, about what counted as 'residence' in this case - pretty sure that when asked, Underhill had been a student in Wales for 3 years, but his parental home was in England. INce he signed for Ospreys and was living in Wales full time, the definition of residence became easier.

Just an example of why residence may sometimes not be that easy to define.

Uni counts towards residency if you move from your home to another country ie towards that first country, so would take quite some contortions for it to also count towards the new country.

Arundell scores again then, this time from full back.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Ireland have the most foreign born players of any of the 6N, even more than Italy, however to be fair, from the 2023 squad, only 4 qualify on residency,  2 on grandparents and 4 on parents, one other was born in Ireland but moved away aged 6 to Australia. Two more were born abroad but moved to Ireland at an early age.

Scotland are furthest ahead there by a mile.

Two Cents Rugby has done a really good job of breaking squads down for a while now. He does it by both "home born" and "home grown". So he looks at where they learnt their rugby as well as simply where their mum happened to be when they popped out. Below is the RWC video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrleDjsjyt4&t=575s

Scotland have been hovering around the 50% mark for both home born and home grown for a while now. Only two pro teams and so many former Premiership academy grads with Scottish ancestry playing a big role in that. Saffas who moved whilst SA domestic teams had worse funding being the other large part

Ireland were at 25/33 home born and 26/33 home grown at the RWC. Which is pretty good. The more controversial thing Ireland have done is target foreign players in key positions with IRFU contracts with the aim of them qualifying under residency. They've done it extremely well though. Aki, Lowe and Gibson-Park for instance. Stander previously of course.

I think the residency rules are correct at 5 years. Longer than that and you would have players who have lived somewhere long enough to gain citizenship not being eligible for their adopted country. Which I simply don't think is reasonable.

I would get rid of the grandparent rule. Other than that I think the eligibility rules are in a much better place now.