[2015 RWC] Warm Up Match: England vs France (15/08/2015)

[TobesHodges]

Even Scotland had a B team back line..

 

[ShonH]

Really? Look at Wales last week and Ireland this week - our seconds did pretty well compared.

1. England is not Wales. England is attempting to be a World Cup contender while Wales is along for the ride. Wales has 4 "alleged" top level teams while England has an entire league (likely the 2nd best league in the world) at the highest level.
2. France is not Ireland. France is among the more pathetic sides currently while Ireland is ranked two in the world and is the reigning 6 Nations champion. Though I do expect France to have a better showing than Wales in the Cup.

Are you really satisfied with the showing from the forwards?

 

[ZeroTwo]

Even Scotland had a B team back line..

To be fair, they might now be our A team back line. It's not that settled for us!

 

[ncurd]

Try telling the Welsh fans they aren't contenders....

Am I happy with the way the forwards played? Not really but out of those who played only Wood & Parling are possibly starters who played badly Mako and Morgan were pretty good for what they played.

Most teams can't field two seperate 23's who can compete. NZ are probably the only ones. The fact we managed to hold on against a top French team after 3 months off actually speaks volumes for our strength and depth. If that was our first team of forwards I think we'd be worried but at the end of the day we won.

 

[ShonH]

Try telling the Welsh fans they aren't contenders....

Am I happy with the way the forwards played? Not really but out of those who played only Wood & Parling are possibly starters who played badly Mako and Morgan were pretty good for what they played.

Most teams can't field two seperate 23's who can compete. NZ are probably the only ones. The fact we managed to hold on against a top French team after 3 months off actually speaks volumes for our strength and depth. If that was our first team of forwards I think we'd be worried but at the end of the day we won.

I hope you are correct and I have stated that I may have a different perspective after next week. I will reserve final prognosis till next week. England has the most players and the most high level teams. England should have more depth than every team in the world by a significant margin.

As far as the Welsh go: If the baby is ugly, the baby is ugly.

 

[TobesHodges]

To be fair, they might now be our A team back line. It's not that settled for us!

Russell, Hogg, Seymour, Dunbar, all to good to leave out, even though vernon had a good game, Cotters got to believe Scotland have another gear, otherwise your "best" team just lost to a B with a few A's Ireland team..

 

[ZeroTwo]

Russell, Hogg, Seymour, Dunbar, all to good to leave out, even though vernon had a good game, Cotters got to believe Scotland have another gear, otherwise your "best" team just lost to a B with a few A's Ireland team..

Yeah but it's a team that also showed some exciting rugby with good decision making for a bunch of lads with very few caps. Putting three tries past that Ireland back line isn't to be thrown away. Still, I'm looking for a good wc showing now.

 

[Thingimubob]

1. England is not Wales. England is attempting to be a World Cup contender while Wales is along for the ride. Wales has 4 "alleged" top level teams while England has an entire league (likely the 2nd best league in the world) at the highest level.
2. France is not Ireland. France is among the more pathetic sides currently while Ireland is ranked two in the world and is the reigning 6 Nations champion. Though I do expect France to have a better showing than Wales in the Cup.

Are you really satisfied with the showing from the forwards?

Yupp. Not like we've won more Grandslams / 6 Nations in the last 10 years than anyone else, or reached the world cup semi's 4 years ago... We're definitely not "just along for the ride"

 

[goodNumber10]

England has the most players and the most high level teams. England should have more depth than every team in the world by a significant margin

This is such a myth, more doesn't equal better, more equals more.

Until this year at seniors England had two more teams playing at Elite level then Wales and Ireland (with possibly a 7th dependent on an end of season play off), so that's two more players per position than Wales and Ireland if those positions are filled by English qualified players, and is the exact same as NZ and SA who have far superior development systems to England (though we're getting better as our U20's have shown).

 

[TobesHodges]

This is such a myth, more doesn't equal better, more equals more.

Until this year at seniors England had two more teams playing at Elite level then Wales and Ireland (with possibly a 7th dependent on an end of season play off), so that's two more players per position than Wales and Ireland if those positions are filled by English qualified players, and is the exact same as NZ and SA who have far superior development systems to England (though we're getting better as our U20's have shown).

Agree, the reason we are getting more depth in English rugby is years of progress at grass roots level, we have to applaud the ERFU for that, like GN10 said our u20's are showing the raw progress and the fact we are catching NZ up in this department. It sounds a bit extreme but the next step is Primary Schooling, at the moment still the main sport is football and cricket. I can't say for Kiwi's because I don't live there, but I can imagine their given a rugby ball at a primary school first PE lesson (can a kiwi confirm?), I believe it does make a difference..

 

[ratsapprentice]

Entirely agree - numbers of players area great indicator of potential for any given country.

The difficulty is in figuring out what the number of players who actually have professional aspirations is - England's proportion of it's total number is relatively very low.
Also a massive factor is the prestige/monetary draw in each country - in England it's also relatively quite low thanks to Football's domination.

 

[ShonH]

This is such a myth, more doesn't equal better, more equals more.

Until this year at seniors England had two more teams playing at Elite level then Wales and Ireland (with possibly a 7th dependent on an end of season play off), so that's two more players per position than Wales and Ireland if those positions are filled by English qualified players, and is the exact same as NZ and SA who have far superior development systems to England (though we're getting better as our U20's have shown).

For the sake of discussion lets define "elite teams". For me elite teams would include Guiness Pro 12, Aviva Premiership, Super Rugby, etc. There is a case that not all participants in this league are "elite" but they all compete on the highest level excluding international play. The numbers are clearly evident in the number of Premiership teams in England vs. the number of Pro 12 teams in Wales. In addition, few would argue with a straight face that as a whole the Pro 12 is on par with the Premiership. The fan draw for Premiership is exponentially higher than that of Pro 12 which is another indicator of resources. Regardless of whether or not soccer may be higher on the totem pole, rugby has the greatest draw in England with the most interest of any country in the world.

Even NZ can barely fill a stadium for the championship of Super Rugby. In terms of sheer potential England leads the world. Obviously this has not always been the case as exampled in Wales beating England in 6 Nations this year. This is an indictment upon the talent development as opposed to the talent pool.

 

[ZeroTwo]

For the sake of discussion lets define "elite teams". For me elite teams would include Guiness Pro 12, Aviva Premiership, Super Rugby, etc. There is a case that not all participants in this league are "elite" but they all compete on the highest level excluding international play. The numbers are clearly evident in the number of Premiership teams in England vs. the number of Pro 12 teams in Wales. In addition, few would argue with a straight face that as a whole the Pro 12 is on par with the Premiership. The fan draw for Premiership is exponentially higher than that of Pro 12 which is another indicator of resources. Regardless of whether or not soccer may be higher on the totem pole, rugby has the greatest draw in England with the most interest of any country in the world.

Even NZ can barely fill a stadium for the championship of Super Rugby. In terms of sheer potential England leads the world. Obviously this has not always been the case as exampled in Wales beating England in 6 Nations this year. This is an indictment upon the talent development as opposed to the talent pool.

I get your point and really do see where you're coming from but England beat Wales this year. 16-21.

 

[nickdnz]

I can't say for Kiwi's because I don't live there, but I can imagine their given a rugby ball at a primary school first PE lesson (can a kiwi confirm?), I believe it does make a difference..

Generally I would say rugby being played would be more of a lunch-time thing. I played in a schools touch-rugby tournament at primary, but all other junior rugby tends to be through clubs (which in fairness ususally are promoted at schools).

My school managed to ban bull-rush etc because of potential harm to kids..

 

[ShonH]

I get your point and really do see where you're coming from but England beat Wales this year. 16-21.

Correct, take out Wales and put in Ireland. Got mixed up. But Wales has had success against England in recent years. You could make the same case with Ireland. Do you agree with the principle?

 

[ZeroTwo]

Correct, take out Wales and put in Ireland. Got mixed up. But Wales has had success against England in recent years.

Agreed. I think the point you're trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if there is more players, more money, more clubs and larger support in a country for rugby then they should be rights be better at it. I agree. The fanatical enthusiasm for rugby in NZ counters their lack of numbers for instance though. However England clearly needed to sort out something that was going awry. I think the kids who started playing rugby after the 2003 world cup are coming through and the RFU has sorted some institutional problems (not all though) and this has helped some.

 

[ShonH]

Agreed. I think the point you're trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if there is more players, more money, more clubs and larger support in a country for rugby then they should be rights be better at it. I agree. The fanatical enthusiasm for rugby in NZ counters their lack of numbers for instance though. However England clearly needed to sort out something that was going awry. I think the kids who started playing rugby after the 2003 world cup are coming through and the RFU has sorted some institutional problems (not all though) and this has helped some.

My belief/expectation is that every match that England plays should be theirs to lose. The goal of English rugby should be domination. All of the pieces are there including both financial and athletic resources. I have been hoping that this cup would show the desired trend. The game yesterday took the air out of my sails.

 

[ZeroTwo]

My belief/expectation is that every match that England plays should be theirs to lose. The goal of English rugby should be domination. All of the pieces are there including both financial and athletic resources. I have been hoping that this cup would show the desired trend. The game yesterday took the air out of my sails.

I completely understand that. A lot of people are going to point out why that ISN'T the case and there are some good mitigating factors.

However, as you say, England has the resources to far outplay their current standard in my personal opinion. Although I'm not on the Board at the RFU so not an expert by any means. Just day dreaming about what it should be won't get us anywhere unfortunately.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

My belief/expectation is that every match that England plays should be theirs to lose. The goal of English rugby should be domination. All of the pieces are there including both financial and athletic resources. I have been hoping that this cup would show the desired trend. The game yesterday took the air out of my sails.

Larger populations are something with a diminishing effect. Larger populations require larger scouting ability and you can reach a point where the only benefit to a larger population is the possibility of finding freaks who are beyond what anyone could be. Ultimately the main benefit to a larger population is squad depth, not a better first squad. What makes the first squad better is down to the system, not the population. This is show by the olympics where, despite the USA and China winning the most medals, they are actually poor compared to their resources available.

 

[ShonH]

Larger populations are something with a diminishing effect. Larger populations require larger scouting ability and you can reach a point where the only benefit to a larger population is the possibility of finding freaks who are beyond what anyone could be. Ultimately the main benefit to a larger population is squad depth, not a better first squad. What makes the first squad better is down to the system, not the population. This is show by the olympics where, despite the USA and China winning the most medals, they are actually poor compared to their resources available.

And who wins the most? Your point is invalidated in that the USA wins the most in the Olympics(because the USA has the most resources, money and talent). BTW, Olympic events are generally way down the list in the USA. The events that have professional sports feature domination by the USA. To counter your point I will submit USA 7s. Rugby is only able to draw table scraps in terms of the talent pool in the US. Now that 7s is an Olympic sport the 7s team is receiving resources from the US Olympic developmental program and new visibility. USA 7s has now been able to draw some football rejects and is beginning to outclass the rest of the world in athleticism. USA will likely be a favorite in the Olympics next summer. All because the USA has more speed and strength than any country in the world without debate. Watch some NFL training camp video and you will see the greatest athletes in the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Larger populations are something with a diminishing effect. Larger populations require larger scouting ability and you can reach a point where the only benefit to a larger population is the possibility of finding freaks who are beyond what anyone could be. Ultimately the main benefit to a larger population is squad depth, not a better first squad. What makes the first squad better is down to the system, not the population. This is show by the olympics where, despite the USA and China winning the most medals, they are actually poor compared to their resources available.

One other point: you are not judged on how you did with what you have. You are judged on whether or not you win the championship.