England Rugby - what is needed for a successful future....
Discussion
I think O'Connor qualifies through his Grandmother but six and half a dozen.
The RFU have already said they won't change the policy of picking players who play their club rugby abroad. Lets be honest it's only really Armitage that is really worth going after and he'd be 34 (just) come the next world cup.
I think EJ's lack of knowlege of the English club game will help, clean slate. He'll start watching club games and seeing who he likes the looks of. I'll be interested to see who he'll go for at 10, back row, captain centres-pretty much the whole team.
I'd like to see Cips get a real run at 10 with Ford to gain more experience/develop. Farrell (and anyone else) to feature on form only, I can't see his dad remaining just sends the wrong message regardless.
Hopefully the backrow balance will finially be sorted. There is still the problem that we seem to have a lot of good if not outstanding backrow players to choose from, plus the list of specilist open sides is short. 8's Ben Morgan and Billy Vunipola are still probably the best we have, Nathan Hughes will qualify for England next year and can also cover flanker and lock. You've also got Josh Beaumont at Sale and a few other young prospects.
Blind sides. Robshaw should only be consider at 6 and I don't think he'll feature in EJ's plans, likewise Wood. I'd like to see Dave Ewers form Exeter get a run.
It will be an interesting 6N and summer tour to Australia!
The RFU have already said they won't change the policy of picking players who play their club rugby abroad. Lets be honest it's only really Armitage that is really worth going after and he'd be 34 (just) come the next world cup.
I think EJ's lack of knowlege of the English club game will help, clean slate. He'll start watching club games and seeing who he likes the looks of. I'll be interested to see who he'll go for at 10, back row, captain centres-pretty much the whole team.
I'd like to see Cips get a real run at 10 with Ford to gain more experience/develop. Farrell (and anyone else) to feature on form only, I can't see his dad remaining just sends the wrong message regardless.
Hopefully the backrow balance will finially be sorted. There is still the problem that we seem to have a lot of good if not outstanding backrow players to choose from, plus the list of specilist open sides is short. 8's Ben Morgan and Billy Vunipola are still probably the best we have, Nathan Hughes will qualify for England next year and can also cover flanker and lock. You've also got Josh Beaumont at Sale and a few other young prospects.
Blind sides. Robshaw should only be consider at 6 and I don't think he'll feature in EJ's plans, likewise Wood. I'd like to see Dave Ewers form Exeter get a run.
It will be an interesting 6N and summer tour to Australia!
So we've appointed the bloke who was in charge of the Australian team we beat to win the 2003 World Cup as our new coach; honestly hope he does well but rather than being a cause for celebration isn't the appointment just a depressing illustration of how badly we've lost our way over the last 12 years?
JNW1 said:
So we've appointed the bloke who was in charge of the Australian team we beat to win the 2003 World Cup as our new coach; honestly hope he does well but rather than being a cause for celebration isn't the appointment just a depressing illustration of how badly we've lost our way over the last 12 years?
A bounce of the ball the wrong way and they would have beaten us. And that was the best England team that there's ever been.a311 said:
...
The RFU have already said they won't change the policy of picking players who play their club rugby abroad. Lets be honest it's only really Armitage that is really worth going after and he'd be 34 (just) come the next world cup....
Regardless of who falls into that category now, this is bad news for two reasons.The RFU have already said they won't change the policy of picking players who play their club rugby abroad. Lets be honest it's only really Armitage that is really worth going after and he'd be 34 (just) come the next world cup....
(1) We should be picking the BEST players regardless of where they play their club rugby (the one caveat being that they must be team players).
(2) It suggests to me that Eddie may not get the call on what he ultimately needs to do the job. Interference from above will prevail.
If he can instil the same spirit in the England side as he did Japan, we should do well. But I guess we'll see what he can do...
JRM said:
Anyone but Eddie - only the RFU would hire a coach with a worse win percentage than the current one and call it progress!
I get the impression one lucky win in RWC and the RFU all swoon - there's no hope, especially if he brings Borthwick with him!!
I'm not sure a win rate comparison between coaching Japan and coaching England is particularly relevant, but if it is, then let's remember that Jones had a higher win rate percentage at the world cup than Lancaster did!I get the impression one lucky win in RWC and the RFU all swoon - there's no hope, especially if he brings Borthwick with him!!
Murph7355 said:
a311 said:
...
The RFU have already said they won't change the policy of picking players who play their club rugby abroad. Lets be honest it's only really Armitage that is really worth going after and he'd be 34 (just) come the next world cup....
Regardless of who falls into that category now, this is bad news for two reasons.The RFU have already said they won't change the policy of picking players who play their club rugby abroad. Lets be honest it's only really Armitage that is really worth going after and he'd be 34 (just) come the next world cup....
(1) We should be picking the BEST players regardless of where they play their club rugby (the one caveat being that they must be team players).
(2) It suggests to me that Eddie may not get the call on what he ultimately needs to do the job. Interference from above will prevail.
If he can instil the same spirit in the England side as he did Japan, we should do well. But I guess we'll see what he can do...
What we should be doing is creating an England structure which ensures that the BEST players never for one second even contemplate moving to France!
Being realistic, we're talking about one player here. Yes, Abendanon has been playing some good rugby, but even if he managed to edge Mike Brown out of the starting XV, the change would only be an incremental one, so in effect, everyone bemoaning the policy is saying they'd rather take the risk of all our best players buggering off to France, just so that Armitage can be picked.
How often do you ever hear Kiwis complaining that the All Blacks should abandon their policy? Never, because they have a structure which delivers victory, so it's a moot point. England needs to - and should be able to - do the same thing.
Kermit power said:
I disagree.
What we should be doing is creating an England structure which ensures that the BEST players never for one second even contemplate moving to France!
Being realistic, we're talking about one player here. Yes, Abendanon has been playing some good rugby, but even if he managed to edge Mike Brown out of the starting XV, the change would only be an incremental one, so in effect, everyone bemoaning the policy is saying they'd rather take the risk of all our best players buggering off to France, just so that Armitage can be picked.
How often do you ever hear Kiwis complaining that the All Blacks should abandon their policy? Never, because they have a structure which delivers victory, so it's a moot point. England needs to - and should be able to - do the same thing.
This.What we should be doing is creating an England structure which ensures that the BEST players never for one second even contemplate moving to France!
Being realistic, we're talking about one player here. Yes, Abendanon has been playing some good rugby, but even if he managed to edge Mike Brown out of the starting XV, the change would only be an incremental one, so in effect, everyone bemoaning the policy is saying they'd rather take the risk of all our best players buggering off to France, just so that Armitage can be picked.
How often do you ever hear Kiwis complaining that the All Blacks should abandon their policy? Never, because they have a structure which delivers victory, so it's a moot point. England needs to - and should be able to - do the same thing.
Joey Ramone said:
A bounce of the ball the wrong way and they would have beaten us. And that was the best England team that there's ever been.
to be fair some poor decisions by the ref made that a closer game than it should have been. All we can do is hope that Faz is removed, likewise Catt and that EJ instills the same pride that the Japanese have (though to be fair it's not comparing like with like)
irocfan said:
Joey Ramone said:
A bounce of the ball the wrong way and they would have beaten us. And that was the best England team that there's ever been.
to be fair some poor decisions by the ref made that a closer game than it should have been. Kermit power said:
...
What we should be doing is creating an England structure which ensures that the BEST players never for one second even contemplate moving to France!
...
Why does the national side need to get involved in this in that way? Why is the Premiership not able to compete?What we should be doing is creating an England structure which ensures that the BEST players never for one second even contemplate moving to France!
...
I would have thought Englishmen being able to play amongst the world's best players would be far better for the England team than forcing them to pick up their (reduced) pay cheque in the UK.
If our clubs become a sufficient breeding ground for world beating talent that the foreign clubs prepared to pay more for them come knocking, wouldn't that benefit everyone?
If the England structure helped encourage and train that talent, I would have thought that would be a significantly better way of applying their resources.
If the Premiership were swamped with foreign players such that proper English talent wasn't getting a look in, then I'd see the point a bit more (though would still think the Premiership should support that). But as it stands, it just puts an unnecessary barrier in the way for the future.
(As for the Kiwis....100s of reasons why they are a success and I suspect this is waaaaaay down the list).
Murph7355 said:
Why does the national side need to get involved in this in that way? Why is the Premiership not able to compete?
I would have thought Englishmen being able to play amongst the world's best players would be far better for the England team than forcing them to pick up their (reduced) pay cheque in the UK.
If our clubs become a sufficient breeding ground for world beating talent that the foreign clubs prepared to pay more for them come knocking, wouldn't that benefit everyone?
If the England structure helped encourage and train that talent, I would have thought that would be a significantly better way of applying their resources.
If the Premiership were swamped with foreign players such that proper English talent wasn't getting a look in, then I'd see the point a bit more (though would still think the Premiership should support that). But as it stands, it just puts an unnecessary barrier in the way for the future.
(As for the Kiwis....100s of reasons why they are a success and I suspect this is waaaaaay down the list).
I'm not sure what you mean by the Premiership being able to compete, but if you mean allowing them to scrap the salary cap, would you seriously want that? Look how screwed the French national system is as a result of their clubs buying in players. The French league is swamped with foreign players, just like the oikball premiership is here, and with similar results.I would have thought Englishmen being able to play amongst the world's best players would be far better for the England team than forcing them to pick up their (reduced) pay cheque in the UK.
If our clubs become a sufficient breeding ground for world beating talent that the foreign clubs prepared to pay more for them come knocking, wouldn't that benefit everyone?
If the England structure helped encourage and train that talent, I would have thought that would be a significantly better way of applying their resources.
If the Premiership were swamped with foreign players such that proper English talent wasn't getting a look in, then I'd see the point a bit more (though would still think the Premiership should support that). But as it stands, it just puts an unnecessary barrier in the way for the future.
(As for the Kiwis....100s of reasons why they are a success and I suspect this is waaaaaay down the list).
Our clubs already are a breeding ground for talent to the extent that foreign clubs come knocking. Do you really think the likes of Brown and Billy V haven't been approached by French clubs?
As for the Kiwis, if the policy of not selecting foreign based players is so far down their list, why would they bother having the policy in the first place?
Kermit power said:
I'm not sure what you mean by the Premiership being able to compete, but if you mean allowing them to scrap the salary cap, would you seriously want that? Look how screwed the French national system is as a result of their clubs buying in players. The French league is swamped with foreign players, just like the oikball premiership is here, and with similar results.
Our clubs already are a breeding ground for talent to the extent that foreign clubs come knocking. Do you really think the likes of Brown and Billy V haven't been approached by French clubs?
As for the Kiwis, if the policy of not selecting foreign based players is so far down their list, why would they bother having the policy in the first place?
IMO the problem with "oikball" is that the rules on foreign players at club level do not promote growing English talent. So the small number of English players that are even remotely good enough to compete with foreign players tend to get over-used/blown in terms of just how good they are. Which isn't a good thing. How many English players play for top drawer foreign club level sides.Our clubs already are a breeding ground for talent to the extent that foreign clubs come knocking. Do you really think the likes of Brown and Billy V haven't been approached by French clubs?
As for the Kiwis, if the policy of not selecting foreign based players is so far down their list, why would they bother having the policy in the first place?
That said, do you really think Roy Hodgson wouldn't pick an English Gareth Bale (if one existed) just because of where he plays club football? Of course he wouldn't - and hence in that respect I think "oikball" has a more sensible approach than rugby union (even if the end result isn't so dissimilar at present!).
Rugby union, AFAIK, does not have the same issue as the number of foreign players is already limited. So English players have all the opportunity necessary, That we're not good enough as a national side, to me, suggests that it's not a selection policy that's at fault, but our ability to get the most from the players we have access to (I struggle to think that with the volume of players we have access to we cannot find enough to compete at the highest level).
If English players are high up on the shopping lists of wealthy clubs, and that gives them the opportunity to play amongst the world's best, shouldn't that be embraced rather than scorned?
As for the French national system, the one thing you have always, always been able to guarantee from the French is inconsistency. It has nothing to do with the state of their club rugby.
Ditto the kiwis of that I would bet (though obviously have no actual clue what their own motivations are). I would bet that rugby union being their national sport is a much, much bigger factor. And the sense of pride with which they are taught to play - from the haka down. Though as good as they currently are, they have had a track record of choking at the wrong time too. So maybe even these things aren't a guarantee.
I just don't get how the selection policy is intended to help our club rugby or the national side. And fundamentally it doesn't seem to have reaped anything whatsoever in the last few years
Therefore why put an unnecessary hurdle in your way?Murph7355 said:
As for the French national system, the one thing you have always, always been able to guarantee from the French is inconsistency. It has nothing to do with the state of their club rugby.
There are pretty strong arguments out there that the salary cap and influx of foreign players is having an impact on the national side, and will continue to have a negative impact. I think there may be more French players in leagues outside of France in some of the top 14 sides.... The French sides also have a relatively poor approach to player welfare, squads are big enough just to bring another body in, so players are pushed rather than rested quite often.I'd imagine with the ability to buy players in it's quite difficult for a young French player to get a break into a side, I'm not sure how the French academies compare to the English but would be interested to know.
I really don't want to see the salary cap scrapped and for there to be a chance for the Guinness Premiership to go the way of Football and the French top 14 with too much money being splashed around on transfer fees. A bit like your Abramovich's of the football world quite a number of the French teams have wealthy owners and if they leave their money will leave with them leaving the clubs in deep s
t.Personally I think the best thing for the English national side is to keep young players playing in England, another positive step may be to introduce central contracts. Hell the RFU could buy a franchise and use that as a development platform.
Following some of EJ's comments over the weekend it'll be interesting to see what the club sides do in response.
His views on the scrum are somewhat against the views of many of the clubs in the league i.e. they don't encourage hookers to strike the ball, rather walk over the ball and hope for a penalty. He has said “To play an attacking game we need to dominate set piece and be smart using the ball. Japan used quick channel ball in the World Cup and it’s something England can do. I’m sure the hookers in England can strike. If they can’t strike they’re going to have to learn to strike.”
That'll have Youngs a bit worried I'd think!
His views on the scrum are somewhat against the views of many of the clubs in the league i.e. they don't encourage hookers to strike the ball, rather walk over the ball and hope for a penalty. He has said “To play an attacking game we need to dominate set piece and be smart using the ball. Japan used quick channel ball in the World Cup and it’s something England can do. I’m sure the hookers in England can strike. If they can’t strike they’re going to have to learn to strike.”
That'll have Youngs a bit worried I'd think!
Kermit power said:
If it's so meaningless, then why would the Kiwis have the policy? They're the best rugby nation by a country mile, yet they still feel the need to have a selection policy. Must be a reason for it!
As I mentioned, I suspect there are far bigger reasons for their success than their selection policy. (And their success has not been a given).Out of a sample of two countries who have that same selection policy, one was knocked out at the group stages despite home advantage. One won the world cup. You can read precisely sod all from that
a311 said:
There are pretty strong arguments out there that the salary cap and influx of foreign players is having an impact on the <French> national side...
I think that's a different argument though, I agree that it would (will) be a shame if rugby went the same way as football. But that looked somewhat inevitable the day the sport went "professional". It still does IMO.
I don't see it being a horrendous issue in this country as I don't see English (British) rugby union ever being able to afford football scale salaries. This comes back to it not being the national sport....(probably the biggest reason the kiwis do so well btw IMO).
But if another country can afford to throw money at the world's best players at club level, I still don't see why we would rule ourselves out of choosing those individuals. If someone's prepared to pay top dollar for them, why wouldn't we use their services for the national side for "free" (assuming they're not total twunts and unable to play a team game).
I still enjoy watching the French national side play. You never know what you're going to get. They are perfectly capable of beating the kiwis one day and losing to Italy the next. Which as a neutral makes them great value
Murph7355 said:
Kermit power said:
If it's so meaningless, then why would the Kiwis have the policy? They're the best rugby nation by a country mile, yet they still feel the need to have a selection policy. Must be a reason for it!
As I mentioned, I suspect there are far bigger reasons for their success than their selection policy. (And their success has not been a given).Out of a sample of two countries who have that same selection policy, one was knocked out at the group stages despite home advantage. One won the world cup. You can read precisely sod all from that
Murph7355 said:
But if another country can afford to throw money at the world's best players at club level, I still don't see why we would rule ourselves out of choosing those individuals. If someone's prepared to pay top dollar for them, why wouldn't we use their services for the national side for "free" (assuming they're not total twunts and unable to play a team game).
Because player welfare may be (and in France definitely is) much lower?Because you're less likely to get your players released when you want them?
Because it's easier to engage with the 7 or 8 Premiership clubs who might deliver players to the England squad and agree arrangements with all of them over players than it is to try and negotiate with clubs all over the world where your player is just one of a number of overseas players from multiple countries on their books?
Because if you really wanted them to be playing with the best players in the world, with the exception of a few Boks and a few very, very capped Aussies, you'd have to send them to New Zealand or possibly Australia, meaning that just getting them back for a training camp means 24+ hours travel in each direction, and a season which isn't aligned to ours?
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff