Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
"England has the quantity, but Wales has the quality". Discuss.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 1046813" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>Exactly, I'm not entirely sure what Cruz thinks I'm saying - but it seems to be almost the precise opposite of what I'm trying to say.</p><p></p><p>Take FH.</p><p>If Cipriani doesn't make it, we call up Farrell, if he doesn't make it, we call up Ford, if he doesn't make it, we call up Simmonds, if he doesn't make it we call up Smith, if he doesn't make it, we call up Umaga, if he doesn't make it...</p><p>If you look at just the U20s this year; we've got Smith, Atkinson, Bailey and Matthews - all in one year group of age-group rugby, all have the potential to be regular internationals. Who do we invest time, training, money and caps in? Do you pick one and invest in him? do you give all 4 a quarter of the investment? what do you do if one makes a mistake (or even doesn't, but isn't the media darling? or plays for a club too far from London?). They're likely to feel insecure, disposable, fearful of their place; unwilling to play what's in front of them in case they make a mistake and get replaced.</p><p>Look at Ireland, Wales or Scotland; and they'll have 1-2 player in a 4-year period who are likely to make it; and it's a no-brainer as to who to invest in. They feel secure, loved and confident, allowed to try things without fear of being replaced.</p><p></p><p>Go back a decade; when you've got Sexton, Sexton or Sexton to invest in - guess who gets invested in? guess who gets the next batch of matches if he hits a run of poor form?</p><p>Alternatively, you've got Cipriani, Farrell or Ford - who gets the investment? who gets trusted with the next batch of matches following a poor run?</p><p></p><p>Cipriani i actually a really good example of this - essentially discarded for being awkward to work with. Had he come from a nation with less depth, do we really think he'd have been replaced so easily? or do you think he'd have been mentored (from before it became an issue) better, trusted, shown the love, and kept in the team?</p><p></p><p>I'm NOT saying that the drop off between starter and bencher is too great - I'm saying it's too small; as is the drop off between bencher and 3rd choice pushing from behind; and that it's often a judgment call as to who to trust and invest in.</p><p></p><p>I'm saying that our league structure is a pillar, not a pyramid; the top talent can float up into... 12 teams; whilst the next-best float into... erm... 12 teams; whilst those for whom semi-pro is the upper limit of their capability can drift into.... 12 teams.</p><p>Have 8 teams in the top league; 12 in the second; 20-odd (split by conference / region) in the 3rd; and there's more of a pyramidal structure; those top 8 teams will all be playing better rugby, against better opposition than in a league of 12. By playing better rugby against better opposition, you can better weed out the small differences between the top players week-in week-out.</p><p>IMO there are plenty of other advantages to this as well, but again, this isn't the thread to go into the detail of my proposal (which, FTR, doesn't involve any franchises at all).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 1046813, member: 73592"] Exactly, I'm not entirely sure what Cruz thinks I'm saying - but it seems to be almost the precise opposite of what I'm trying to say. Take FH. If Cipriani doesn't make it, we call up Farrell, if he doesn't make it, we call up Ford, if he doesn't make it, we call up Simmonds, if he doesn't make it we call up Smith, if he doesn't make it, we call up Umaga, if he doesn't make it... If you look at just the U20s this year; we've got Smith, Atkinson, Bailey and Matthews - all in one year group of age-group rugby, all have the potential to be regular internationals. Who do we invest time, training, money and caps in? Do you pick one and invest in him? do you give all 4 a quarter of the investment? what do you do if one makes a mistake (or even doesn't, but isn't the media darling? or plays for a club too far from London?). They're likely to feel insecure, disposable, fearful of their place; unwilling to play what's in front of them in case they make a mistake and get replaced. Look at Ireland, Wales or Scotland; and they'll have 1-2 player in a 4-year period who are likely to make it; and it's a no-brainer as to who to invest in. They feel secure, loved and confident, allowed to try things without fear of being replaced. Go back a decade; when you've got Sexton, Sexton or Sexton to invest in - guess who gets invested in? guess who gets the next batch of matches if he hits a run of poor form? Alternatively, you've got Cipriani, Farrell or Ford - who gets the investment? who gets trusted with the next batch of matches following a poor run? Cipriani i actually a really good example of this - essentially discarded for being awkward to work with. Had he come from a nation with less depth, do we really think he'd have been replaced so easily? or do you think he'd have been mentored (from before it became an issue) better, trusted, shown the love, and kept in the team? I'm NOT saying that the drop off between starter and bencher is too great - I'm saying it's too small; as is the drop off between bencher and 3rd choice pushing from behind; and that it's often a judgment call as to who to trust and invest in. I'm saying that our league structure is a pillar, not a pyramid; the top talent can float up into... 12 teams; whilst the next-best float into... erm... 12 teams; whilst those for whom semi-pro is the upper limit of their capability can drift into.... 12 teams. Have 8 teams in the top league; 12 in the second; 20-odd (split by conference / region) in the 3rd; and there's more of a pyramidal structure; those top 8 teams will all be playing better rugby, against better opposition than in a league of 12. By playing better rugby against better opposition, you can better weed out the small differences between the top players week-in week-out. IMO there are plenty of other advantages to this as well, but again, this isn't the thread to go into the detail of my proposal (which, FTR, doesn't involve any franchises at all). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
"England has the quantity, but Wales has the quality". Discuss.
Top