• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England Post-WC discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
He came to play 12 but didn't gave the right attributes, Ford moves him to 6 and it sounded like he realised he would probably never make it at international level!

I think he hugely underestimated the skill required to play Rugby Union. You can just hit it up into contact like in league, you need more...

So annoyed that we lost Fearns!

Sale supporters, this young lad Sam James... Strictly a 13 or does he play 12 at all?
 
Last edited:
Dean Ryan slating the fundamentals of the league etc.

Whats the answer though?
Do we ringfence the two top divisions or the top division only?
Do we move to regions?
Do we increase the number of England training sessions? This means the Clubs need to be financially rewarded more.

Anything else?
 
Dean Ryan slating the fundamentals of the league etc.

Whats the answer though?
Do we ringfence the two top divisions or the top division only? Yes
Do we move to regions? Hell no
Do we increase the number of England training sessions? This means the Clubs need to be financially rewarded more. Possible

Anything else?

answers in bold
 
Dean Ryan slating the fundamentals of the league etc.

Whats the answer though?
Do we ringfence the two top divisions or the top division only?
Do we move to regions?
Do we increase the number of England training sessions? This means the Clubs need to be financially rewarded more.

Anything else?

Ring fencing won't change a thing. 2 or 3 teams play anti relegation rugby. The rest are already playing as if they don't fear relegation, it's still not skilful rugby though.
 
Ring fencing won't change a thing. 2 or 3 teams play anti relegation rugby. The rest are already playing as if they don't fear relegation, it's still not skilful rugby though.

Not sure I agree with that...London Welsh were rock bottom last season and the best rugby in years was being produced.
 
The AP is heading in the right direction, better pitches, better players.

To improve the AP we seriously need to look at the EQP payments. At the moment, if all well spread, we're looking at (at best) our 8th best player in each position, regularly turning out. The gap between 8th best and 1st choice is huge, and you'll struggle to improve the AP as a whole, when playing poor players.

I think I'd reduce the minimum number of EQP players required. Introduce a minimum salary for any non-eqp (to get rid of journeymen squad filler), and create a genuine A-league, not necessarily age restricted, but a player who has appeared in an AP game in the last week/2 weeks etc, cannot be picked.

That allows teams to get more players like Salvi, Smith, Piutau, North, Picamoles etc, whilst removing filler. Those filler positions can be replaced by the best championship players, and therefore give more of them a chance to step up and prove themselves (Guy Thompson for Wasps, Dickinson for Saints, Atkinson for Glaws have all in my mind shown they're more than capable at AP level if needed).

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure I agree with that...London Welsh were rock bottom last season and the best rugby in years was being produced.

And Sarries and Saints were nailed at the top, and producing not much more than forwards dominance. This year neither can seriously consider themselves ready for the drop, and again, both are producing dire rugby.

On the other end, Wuss and Falcons, as relegation favourites, have just played a very entertaining and expansive game, and both sides have stuck to that theory in previous games this season.
 
It's a mentality issue, probably a very subliminal one, which would explain why even teams who don't have a realistic chance of relegation are still quite conservative.
Guys just don't relish the running game in the same way. I cite this example alot but when England or Wales or a club have a penalty a few metres out and have the advantage, we relax; 90% of the time farrell or Biggar will put in a stupid cross-field kick which never works. Teams rarely seem to exert all their efforts towards scoring a try while they still have advantage - which is what they should do.

Going a bit philosophical I reckon this is partly about expectations. when we have that advantage we seem to be afraid of losing the opportunity of 3 points. Why? Ok, I know why but the evidence over many many thousands of rugby shows that most teams will not be able to avoid giving away reasonable numbers of penalties if you put them under enough pressure. The liklihood is that at the other end of the field you will give away a penalty and your work will have been cancelled out.

Just putting it out there but perhaps the Super Rugby mentality is that you cannot eradicate 3 pointers and that even the least skilled teams, as long as they are disciplined and diligent - read Sarracens - will be able to make you concede penalties. If everyone gives away penalties, then the only way to set yourself apart is do something different with the ball in hand.
 
Sorry if this becomes a long post, but my suggestion would be the following:

1) Make PRL and RFU stakeholders in each other's success. RFU to buy a stake in PRL, and PRL to be given a slice of the money generated by England rugby.

I would provide the RFU with a veto to ensure they can block decision which are harmful to the England team set up. Strict guidelines to be laid out for when and how the veto can be used.

RFU to use money from England revenue + proceeds from their stake in PRL to reward teams for producing EQP, in particular those that go on to play for England.

I.e. Ewells young Bath Lock plays for England. Bath receive funding from RFU as a contribution to his wages whilst he is with England. This would be a set amount, and as a former Bath academy player they would receive all the funds.

Anthony Watson plays for England, but a portion of the funds go to LI as well as Bath.

And contributions by RFU would be deducted from salary cap, in theory increasing the clubs spending power.

Further funding allocated dependant on caps obtain, trophies won. So if England win 6N or RWC, there would be a significant pay out for clubs.

RFU would also benefit from increased revenue if PRL clubs succeed.

2) Allocate Lower Leagues to AP teams

Can be done on a league basis, allows to academy players, or potential coaches to be developed. Money will go down to grass roots level, better facilities, better training. How low in the league structure it goes will need some discussion.
 
Sorry if this becomes a long post, but my suggestion would be the following:

1) Make PRL and RFU stakeholders in each other's success. RFU to buy a stake in PRL, and PRL to be given a slice of the money generated by England rugby.

I would provide the RFU with a veto to ensure they can block decision which are harmful to the England team set up. Strict guidelines to be laid out for when and how the veto can be used.

RFU to use money from England revenue + proceeds from their stake in PRL to reward teams for producing EQP, in particular those that go on to play for England.

I.e. Ewells young Bath Lock plays for England. Bath receive funding from RFU as a contribution to his wages whilst he is with England. This would be a set amount, and as a former Bath academy player they would receive all the funds.

Anthony Watson plays for England, but a portion of the funds go to LI as well as Bath.

And contributions by RFU would be deducted from salary cap, in theory increasing the clubs spending power.

Further funding allocated dependant on caps obtain, trophies won. So if England win 6N or RWC, there would be a significant pay out for clubs.

RFU would also benefit from increased revenue if PRL clubs succeed.

2) Allocate Lower Leagues to AP teams

Can be done on a league basis, allows to academy players, or potential coaches to be developed. Money will go down to grass roots level, better facilities, better training. How low in the league structure it goes will need some discussion.

Bloody maverick! who the hell do you think you are making suggestions like that! Common sense and English rugby are not meant to be joined in such a way. Please read the script!
 
Sorry if this becomes a long post, but my suggestion would be the following:

1) Make PRL and RFU stakeholders in each other's success. RFU to buy a stake in PRL, and PRL to be given a slice of the money generated by England rugby.

I would provide the RFU with a veto to ensure they can block decision which are harmful to the England team set up. Strict guidelines to be laid out for when and how the veto can be used.

RFU to use money from England revenue + proceeds from their stake in PRL to reward teams for producing EQP, in particular those that go on to play for England.

I.e. Ewells young Bath Lock plays for England. Bath receive funding from RFU as a contribution to his wages whilst he is with England. This would be a set amount, and as a former Bath academy player they would receive all the funds.

Anthony Watson plays for England, but a portion of the funds go to LI as well as Bath.

And contributions by RFU would be deducted from salary cap, in theory increasing the clubs spending power.

Further funding allocated dependant on caps obtain, trophies won. So if England win 6N or RWC, there would be a significant pay out for clubs.

RFU would also benefit from increased revenue if PRL clubs succeed.

2) Allocate Lower Leagues to AP teams

Can be done on a league basis, allows to academy players, or potential coaches to be developed. Money will go down to grass roots level, better facilities, better training. How low in the league structure it goes will need some discussion.

Good ideas.

On the highlighted part...the Falcons do this already.

Most players not in the direct 1st team squad are linked with either Tynedale or Blaydon. We also have lots of academy links to all the local clubs (as im sure most Prem clubs do through out the country.

Newcastle is probably the nearest the prem has to a "regional side" actually. If we can just sort out the few issues on the playing side then we'll be flying.
 
Then have several tiers of A league, select players from these leagues to play alongside academy players.

Then the club select a academy side to play in a national tournament, final at Twickers maybe.
 
If you remove relegation top teams will still play to get in the top 6 and top 4 so don't see how it would change much for them.
 
Then have several tiers of A league, select players from these leagues to play alongside academy players.

Then the club select a academy side to play in a national tournament, final at Twickers maybe.

Are there enough players around to do this? I've always assumed that the reason that the current A League only runs for the first half of the season is that clubs don't feel that they have sufficient squad depth to cope with both as the business end of the season approaches. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Exeter Chiefs have 44 players in their squad and 11 in their Academy. Meaning that they couldn't possibly field more than 2 sides. Along these lines, they couldn't possibly field an academy team.

The A League is better than nothing, and I stand to be corrected by members who regularly watch it, but I get the impression that the standard is variable (some teams taking it more seriously than others for whatever reason) and it has a bit of a pick-up game feel. I'm not sure that it really provides developing players with the competitive rugby that they need to improve.

It's a total pipe dream, but I believe that the New Zealand system is pretty close to being ideal - players are able to move up and down the pyramid very quickly until they find a level that suits their ability. Once they find that level, they play regular rugby for the same team, rather than chopping around from pillar to post. Look at what happened to Mike Stanley when he left Southend (level 4 of English rugby) to play in New Zealand.

On a slight tangent, I think I've asked the question before, but it's relevant here - the English Academy system is capable of producing U20 sides capable of competing with and beating the best sides in the world. What happens next that means relatively few of these players become internationals and more importantly world class players?
 
The players for the academy games, probably the wrong name, would be selected from the leagues containing amateur players. By championing the best and brightest we could improve the game and unearth a few gems at the same time.

A full A league would require much bigger squads than the teams currently have.

I just think we should do our best to improve the standard at all tiers of rugby. After all even internationals start off playing mini rugby for clubs.
 
The players for the academy games, probably the wrong name, would be selected from the leagues containing amateur players. By championing the best and brightest we could improve the game and unearth a few gems at the same time.

A full A league would require much bigger squads than the teams currently have.

I just think we should do our best to improve the standard at all tiers of rugby. After all even internationals start off playing mini rugby for clubs.

The vast majority of amateur players are way off academy standard. Those who are good enough are presumably playing amateur rugby for a reason (i.e. not wishing to make a further commitment to the game). The majority of semi-pro players who may be able to make the step up will be committed to their club. Even if players of a suitable standard could be found, it would lead to these games being of a variable standard and pick-up nature as I mentioned in my previous post. AFAIK there is a junior league already in place to provide game time for younger academy players and players from satellite academies (like Truro and Ivybridge in Exeter's case). I believe other talented youngsters have been invited to play in these games (e.g. Joel Matavesi).

As you say, an expanded A league would lead to increased squad sizes, which would lead to a reduction in standards further down the pyramid.

Changing the subject to EQP quotas (however they are enforced), is there any way of doing this that could withstand a legal challenge?
 
As stated academy probably the wrong word... More of a representative team shall we say...

Try and drive up the standards at both ends of the game...

As I understand it sport differs from normal employment provided it is part of the rules of the competition.

Overseas players are valuable though, I mean players like Louw at Bath will inspire and pass of skills and wisdom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top