England Rugby - what is needed for a successful future....
Discussion
One thing that would help the England team would be deciding how they want to play.
All the big 3 SH teams have their style of play and play the same way all the way down through their levels. This means that when a player is called up he just needs to keep doing what he does week in week out for his club/district/super14 side.
All the big 3 SH teams have their style of play and play the same way all the way down through their levels. This means that when a player is called up he just needs to keep doing what he does week in week out for his club/district/super14 side.
DocJock said:
One thing that would help the England team would be deciding how they want to play.
That would be the apt place to start, then pick your players to suit. Picking the backrow that they did and trying to play a wide and loose game against AUSTRALIA was madness. Turned over a dozen times in the first half? No f
king st!In fact for that reason alone the coaches should probably walk. Then again I'm Welsh, so personally I hope Andrew & co retain their posts and the RFU appoints another no-hoper for a few more years
0000 said:
I think it would go a long way if we just picked the best (at Union) players, regardless of what they do off the pitch (within reason), whether they play in France or who their daddy is. Then, on the whole, stick with them even as their form comes and goes, invest in them, give them consistent experience. Churn the subs bench as much as you like for the next two or three years looking for new talent.
Find them some more friendlies against southern hemisphere teams too.
No no no no NO!!!! Find them some more friendlies against southern hemisphere teams too.
What is it with people wanting to bring in French based players just because of Steffan bloody Armitage????
You do it for one, you've got to do it for all, then everyone can bugger off to wherever pays them the most, and pretty soon we've lost all control, and English clubs struggle to develop the next generation of talent because they've got nobody decent to test themelves against.
How often do you hear calls for the All Blacks to allow players based overseas?
DJRC said:
Yes. I thought I made that argument already a few days ago? No, wait? I did.
Pick any dominant All Black team you want. Feel free, any. At any point in their history. Check the Pack. Its that simple. We can start with the current one if you like and how they secure their own ball at the set pieces and how they use the breakdown, going forwards and in aggressive defence. EVERYTHING the current All Black team does starts with their Pack controlling/competing up front, inc. letting their back 3 runners loose from ball thats been kicked away by a scrum or fly half under pressure in the opposition half.
The AB's dont even have a dominant Pack, they have one that competes and controls their own balls. Again - they secure and control their own ball from set piece. They v rarely lose their own set pieces and fight to establish parity on opposition put in. That always means secure and stable ball for them to attack with and aggressive defence to force turn overs and opposition defensive errors.
Rugby is a very very simple game and its rules are almost laid in stone and EVERY successful team in its history has basically followed them.
Set piece domination. Any All Black team at any point in history? Ok, AB vs Eng 1995 'dominated'up front or beaten by high pace, high skill and hugely powerful rugby, personified by Lomu. Pick any dominant All Black team you want. Feel free, any. At any point in their history. Check the Pack. Its that simple. We can start with the current one if you like and how they secure their own ball at the set pieces and how they use the breakdown, going forwards and in aggressive defence. EVERYTHING the current All Black team does starts with their Pack controlling/competing up front, inc. letting their back 3 runners loose from ball thats been kicked away by a scrum or fly half under pressure in the opposition half.
The AB's dont even have a dominant Pack, they have one that competes and controls their own balls. Again - they secure and control their own ball from set piece. They v rarely lose their own set pieces and fight to establish parity on opposition put in. That always means secure and stable ball for them to attack with and aggressive defence to force turn overs and opposition defensive errors.
Rugby is a very very simple game and its rules are almost laid in stone and EVERY successful team in its history has basically followed them.
AB winning the RWC in 2011, 'dominated' the French pack, don't think so
Oh hang on you now say they don't have a dominant pack....and this is where I agree entirely with you about rarely losing their own set piece and an utter commitment to an aggressive defence and taking of chances but the big difference is the relative rugby intelligence showed by the ABs and Aus. We may have heart and a degree of bosh but we are not a 'clever' team.
So we agree on some things, we do need a more powerful pack, we need more dynamism and then we have the backs to make the difference in the space and time the pack provide. But a rerun of the late 80's/early 90's is not possible.
What we don't have are the players to make a dominant pack and simply rely on blasting everyone off the pitch.
and more snippets coming out (this time via ESPN)
England presented a united front throughout the build up to the World Cup, but a flashpoint between Danny Cipriani and attacking skills coach Mike Catt occurred the day before the final 31-man squad was announced.
Shortly after being informed he was to be cut, a disappointed Cipriani was told to resume training and when his effort level was perceived to be below that required, he received a dressing down from Catt.
A row erupted and Cipriani received support from the players, who deemed Catt's response to be too personal.
Seriously?? We all know DC can be a bit of a knob BUT he does seem to have really hauled his attitude around. You'd have thought that to be told "you're out" would be quite devastating and cut him some slack and/or a human touch applied.
I must admit that the more I read about things the more that it seems as if this has been a clusterfk - I'll repeat that I actually have nothing against Sam B but he shouldn't have been rushed in the way he was. If squad unity is one of the major reasons for not getting in the fat Armitage then surely even a 3 year old could work out that bringing in a nobody with poor rugby skills (in terms of union) wasn't going to win massive support.
We may not have had harbour jumping or dwarf throwing but this would appear to not be a good place to be
England presented a united front throughout the build up to the World Cup, but a flashpoint between Danny Cipriani and attacking skills coach Mike Catt occurred the day before the final 31-man squad was announced.
Shortly after being informed he was to be cut, a disappointed Cipriani was told to resume training and when his effort level was perceived to be below that required, he received a dressing down from Catt.
A row erupted and Cipriani received support from the players, who deemed Catt's response to be too personal.
Seriously?? We all know DC can be a bit of a knob BUT he does seem to have really hauled his attitude around. You'd have thought that to be told "you're out" would be quite devastating and cut him some slack and/or a human touch applied.
I must admit that the more I read about things the more that it seems as if this has been a clusterf
k - I'll repeat that I actually have nothing against Sam B but he shouldn't have been rushed in the way he was. If squad unity is one of the major reasons for not getting in the fat Armitage then surely even a 3 year old could work out that bringing in a nobody with poor rugby skills (in terms of union) wasn't going to win massive support. We may not have had harbour jumping or dwarf throwing but this would appear to not be a good place to be
What do we need?
Not this!!!
I am absolutely gobsmacked! Lancaster is seriously blaming inexperience, and bringing in more inexperienced players?????? Who the fk bought them in????
What a complete bloody numpty!
Not this!!!
I am absolutely gobsmacked! Lancaster is seriously blaming inexperience, and bringing in more inexperienced players?????? Who the f
k bought them in????What a complete bloody numpty!
Kermit power said:
What do we need?
Not this!!!
I am absolutely gobsmacked! Lancaster is seriously blaming inexperience, and bringing in more inexperienced players?????? Who the fk bought them in????
What a complete bloody numpty!
As I said in the other thread, it's BS.Not this!!!
I am absolutely gobsmacked! Lancaster is seriously blaming inexperience, and bringing in more inexperienced players?????? Who the f
k bought them in????What a complete bloody numpty!
The starting fifteen vs Australia averaged 32 caps. That is not inexperienced so they are either rubbish or thick (or both).
DocJock said:
As I said in the other thread, it's BS.
The starting fifteen vs Australia averaged 32 caps. That is not inexperienced so they are either rubbish or thick (or both).
They are thick. Very thick. They also lack initiative. And there is a fundamental lack of additional leadership, leaving Robshaw to take responsibility for everything. Johnson had Dallaglio, Hill, Wilkinson, Leonard, Greenwood and Dawson to turn to. Robshaw has Lawes, Farrell, Barritt, Brown and Cole. There's just no comparison whatsoever.The starting fifteen vs Australia averaged 32 caps. That is not inexperienced so they are either rubbish or thick (or both).
DocJock said:
Kermit power said:
What do we need?
Not this!!!
I am absolutely gobsmacked! Lancaster is seriously blaming inexperience, and bringing in more inexperienced players?????? Who the fk bought them in????
What a complete bloody numpty!
As I said in the other thread, it's BS.Not this!!!
I am absolutely gobsmacked! Lancaster is seriously blaming inexperience, and bringing in more inexperienced players?????? Who the f
k bought them in????What a complete bloody numpty!
The starting fifteen vs Australia averaged 32 caps. That is not inexperienced so they are either rubbish or thick (or both).
From 10 to 15, our starting players averaged just 25 caps between them, and over half of those are split between Farrell and Brown.
Beyond that, there's experience in terms of the number of international caps the players have, then there's experience in terms of the number of games they've actually played together, in the same positions.
We definitely did lack experience, in the centres in particular, but also on the wings, but Lancaster can't bemoan that when it's his own f
king fault cos he keeps chopping and changing his lineup!!I take your point about time I together in the centres.
The wings are both into double figures of caps and have been in the international setup for a couple years at least. When would you say they cease to be inexperienced?
What about the front row? Well over 100 caps between them. Still very poor.
Robshaw? 39 caps, mostly as captain but still ishowing no signs of leadership or decision making.
To further scorn Lancaster's 'inexperience' excuse, they played their best rugby when Ford came on and he's the least experienced of the lot bar Burgess.
The wings are both into double figures of caps and have been in the international setup for a couple years at least. When would you say they cease to be inexperienced?
What about the front row? Well over 100 caps between them. Still very poor.
Robshaw? 39 caps, mostly as captain but still ishowing no signs of leadership or decision making.
To further scorn Lancaster's 'inexperience' excuse, they played their best rugby when Ford came on and he's the least experienced of the lot bar Burgess.
DocJock said:
I take your point about time I together in the centres.
The wings are both into double figures of caps and have been in the international setup for a couple years at least. When would you say they cease to be inexperienced?
What about the front row? Well over 100 caps between them. Still very poor.
Robshaw? 39 caps, mostly as captain but still ishowing no signs of leadership or decision making.
To further scorn Lancaster's 'inexperience' excuse, they played their best rugby when Ford came on and he's the least experienced of the lot bar Burgess.
That's because Ford is possibly the most naturally gifted rugby player that England has produced since Guscott's heyday. Joseph is the only other player on the pitch with the same sort of instinct. And Slade has it too, but was deemed surplus to requirements. Because God forbid you actually have three instinctive rugby players from 10-13.The wings are both into double figures of caps and have been in the international setup for a couple years at least. When would you say they cease to be inexperienced?
What about the front row? Well over 100 caps between them. Still very poor.
Robshaw? 39 caps, mostly as captain but still ishowing no signs of leadership or decision making.
To further scorn Lancaster's 'inexperience' excuse, they played their best rugby when Ford came on and he's the least experienced of the lot bar Burgess.
DocJock said:
I take your point about time I together in the centres.
The wings are both into double figures of caps and have been in the international setup for a couple years at least. When would you say they cease to be inexperienced?
When they've had a run of games with the same set of backs inside them? Obviously none of the team are inexperienced rugby players in the widest sense of the word - most of them have probably been playing since they were 6 - but can you really consider them to be experienced as England players when there's a different 9-10-12-13 every time they put their boots on?The wings are both into double figures of caps and have been in the international setup for a couple years at least. When would you say they cease to be inexperienced?
Someone posted an interesting article on the RWC thread by Gordon D'Arcy (iirc) talking about the challenges of having to quickly adapt to the different styles of Ronan O'Gara feeding him ball at country level and Felipe Contemponi at club level. He only had to cope with two people, each within a regular routine. Poor old May, Nowell, Watson, Wade, Brown (!) or whomever else Lancaster saw fit to stick on a wing had to contend with God only knows how many different people inside them at country level alone, never mind at club level! What chance have they got of picking up proper experience like that?
DocJock said:
What about the front row? Well over 100 caps between them. Still very poor.
Robshaw? 39 caps, mostly as captain but still ishowing no signs of leadership or decision making.
Oh, no argument there. The pack were crap, and they're the ones with the experience in the team. The problem there, to my mind, is that Lancaster picks players who are good at the highly visible stuff - ball-carrying props, lineout specialist locks, etc, without checking to see if they're any good at the first part of the job first.Robshaw? 39 caps, mostly as captain but still ishowing no signs of leadership or decision making.
DocJock said:
To further scorn Lancaster's 'inexperience' excuse, they played their best rugby when Ford came on and he's the least experienced of the lot bar Burgess.
As has been said, occasionally inate natural talent will out, and not even the worst coaching team can snuff it out. Unfortunately, we don't have 23 such players, or even 15 of them!Joey Ramone said:
That's because Ford is possibly the most naturally gifted rugby player that England has produced since Guscott's heyday. Joseph is the only other player on the pitch with the same sort of instinct. And Slade has it too, but was deemed surplus to requirements. Because God forbid you actually have three instinctive rugby players from 10-13.
I'd actually disagree with that he is certainly up there but I'd argue that Cips is more naturally gifted. I'd say what Ford has is a head that's more tightly screwed onDJRC said:
Yes. I thought I made that argument already a few days ago? No, wait? I did.
Pick any dominant All Black team you want. Feel free, any. At any point in their history. Check the Pack. Its that simple. We can start with the current one if you like and how they secure their own ball at the set pieces and how they use the breakdown, going forwards and in aggressive defence. EVERYTHING the current All Black team does starts with their Pack controlling/competing up front, inc. letting their back 3 runners loose from ball thats been kicked away by a scrum or fly half under pressure in the opposition half.
The AB's dont even have a dominant Pack, they have one that competes and controls their own balls. Again - they secure and control their own ball from set piece. They v rarely lose their own set pieces and fight to establish parity on opposition put in. That always means secure and stable ball for them to attack with and aggressive defence to force turn overs and opposition defensive errors. Look at SA stats in the lineout - IIRC they have won every single lineout on their throw in the WRC.
Rugby is a very very simple game and its rules are almost laid in stone and EVERY successful team in its history has basically followed them.
As a Saffer, I have to agree.Pick any dominant All Black team you want. Feel free, any. At any point in their history. Check the Pack. Its that simple. We can start with the current one if you like and how they secure their own ball at the set pieces and how they use the breakdown, going forwards and in aggressive defence. EVERYTHING the current All Black team does starts with their Pack controlling/competing up front, inc. letting their back 3 runners loose from ball thats been kicked away by a scrum or fly half under pressure in the opposition half.
The AB's dont even have a dominant Pack, they have one that competes and controls their own balls. Again - they secure and control their own ball from set piece. They v rarely lose their own set pieces and fight to establish parity on opposition put in. That always means secure and stable ball for them to attack with and aggressive defence to force turn overs and opposition defensive errors. Look at SA stats in the lineout - IIRC they have won every single lineout on their throw in the WRC.
Rugby is a very very simple game and its rules are almost laid in stone and EVERY successful team in its history has basically followed them.
The key to the modern Southern Hemisphere game is the breakdown, both in terms of securing it and the speed and by implication, slowing down opposition ball. Coupled with securing your own scrum and lineout ball ie the basics of forward play.
Because of NZ supreme confidence at the breakdown, they are masters of exploiting opposition weakness in broken play. ie they can let loose their back 3 who are lethal. Their other major strength is the ability to play for 85 minutes, something which SA were unable to do in recent matches against Australia and NZ where they managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. ditto England vs Wales
Pocock singlehandedly blew South Africa away in 2011 RWC quarterfinal - sure we can argue which side of the law he was playing but South Africa moaned at the ref instead of adapting to the situation. they lost. Cheika spent the last 12 months rebuilding the forward pack especially the front 5 and against some advice and opinions, stuck with both Hooper and Pocock.
From where I sit, two things struck me about England going into the WRC. loose forward trio (as a unit) are miles behind those of SA, Australia and NZ and the inability to choose a settled backline. Oh and the obvious lack of plan B when Marler's scrummaging was pinged by the ref.
For what it's worth, has anybody commented on the fact that both Australia and South Africa quietly changed their policies to allow overseas based players to play int he WRC.
Edited by arguti on Wednesday 7th October 10:25
for all the bending of their rules though if fat Armitage was a Saffa or crim he'd still not have been able to play for them due to not enough caps. I have absolutely no sympathy for him at this point in as much as he knew what the situation was and he decided that money was more important than caps (I don't blame the guy TBH!!), then he went and re-signed....
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff