England v France,23/02/13

[Jbobo]

And you seem to forget (read: ignore) that 3/4s of the England team are drawn from only 7% (3.5 million) of the population.

Does that not just prove his point? Do you think the Wales team is drawn from the entire population or something?

 

[Crapspray]

I know that Patcheys original comment was just a joke but still, this speaks for itself. Its a few years old but still.

So a graph proving population and player base have nothing to do with results? Erm... QED.

 

[Patchey]

Hell of an interesting graph though. I love graphs.

 

[Conal]

So a graph proving population and player base have nothing to do with results? Erm... QED.

while it would be arrogant to argue a direct correlation.
player numbers are a factor well in producing good players. combined with other factors like culture coaching etc they effect results

 

[Big Ewis]

well wtvr, "mediocre" or not, I don't want to start another fight-debate on semantics, I'm an easy going guy...but England has not impressed (at least me), they don't look threatening on attack, don't have any consistency on attack...they're not exactly pouring in 5 or 6 tries in this tournament like they used to, and if it wasn't for that Tuilagi you have on the team who constantly breaks through a million tackles every game, you wouldn't see the opposition 22 it seems. And I'm not exaggerating.
Surely for English fans that's not an acceptable notion to welcome, so that alone will spur lively reactions but it's very close to the truth...
A whole lot of 3-pointers in the last 2 matches...

 

[Tony Manx]

And I'm not exaggerating...

............but getting boring now!!

 

[Groundhog]

So a graph proving population and player base have nothing to do with results? Erm... QED.

Well it's a response to your comment regarding player numbers. Naturally a large pool of players means you'll have access to more talent. Now as Conal said Coaching is an entirely different story, but yes you have the player count, you should have the players.

 

[Crapspray]

while it would be arrogant to argue a direct correlation.
player numbers are a factor well in producing good players. combined with other factors like culture coaching etc they effect results

Yes, but as there is no clear correlation, nor even one anywhere near, then it's a terrible basis for an argument. Player base and population are both obviously a very small element of sporting success. China and India won 94 of 962 medals, less than 10%, at the London Olympics despite their combined population equal to over 33% of the world's (2.55 of 7billion).

 

[Patchey]

well wtvr, "mediocre" or not, I don't want to start another fight-debate on semantics, I'm an easy going guy...but England has not impressed (at least me), they don't look threatening on attack, don't have any consistency on attack...they're not exactly pouring in 5 or 6 tries in this tournament like they used to, and if it wasn't for that Tuilagi you have on the team who constantly breaks through a million tackles every game, you wouldn't see the opposition 22 it seems. And I'm not exaggerating.
Surely for English fans that's not an acceptable notion to welcome, so that alone will spur lively reactions but it's very close to the truth...
A whole lot of 3-pointers in the last 2 matches...

I'm perfectly capable of admitting England's faults. You're right, we often don't look threatening on attack. We could also be more precise when we do have some go forward, be more consistent at the line out and, in specific regard to the France game (seeing as this is the thread for that game) stop trying to tackle at should height. Tuilagi is our main runner in the backs but he comes into his own when we're already in the 22 and is rarely responsible for getting England there. That is more down to tactical kicking, which admittedly isn't the most exciting aspect of rugby but it would seem is an integral aspect of the modern game, as are 3 pointers...

I'm going to stop giving out now and go watch the Wales game with a brew.

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

Yes, but as there is no clear correlation, nor even one anywhere near, then it's a terrible basis for an argument. Player base and population are both obviously a very small element of sporting success. China and India won 94 of 962 medals, less than 10%, at the London Olympics despite their combined population equal to over 33% of the world's (2.55 of 7billion).

India? You're joking right? - oh I forgot, India have all the hi-tech facilities and powerful athletes. It's a bloody 3rd world nation.

No anywhere near? Right, the more people you have playing the sport the larger pool you have to choose from and the more chance of talent. There's nothing complicated about that.

By your logic, how come Luxemburg don't have a really good rugby team, or soccer, or anything for that matter?

 

[Largejanner]

But what you're doing is hyping England up based on 6 Nations performances, when really for the last few years, they haven't been playing like a top tier nation. They've just started performing in the last year or two. This team is good, who knows they may be world beaters, but you have nothing to base it on. They've beaten whats been put in front of them, but it's been a horribly under-form French team, and a crippled Irish team. This doesn't make them World Beaters, and they still have a lot to prove.

I honestly believe England are on the way back, history dictates that means we will competing with the worlds best, time will tell on that though I guess with the current England team.
Ireland and Wales are the best they have ever been in the professional era, and so far they have not been world class, ....fact.

 

[Aristodemus]

While we may not be the dominant force in RU, we are hardly a failure. This century we have two WC finals, one win, three victories over NZ, nine over Aus, seven over SA, five 6N ***les (if you include this year) and are one of only three teams to be ranked one in the world. We cant hope to compare to NZ but we are not too bad

 

[Crapspray]

...you have the player count, you should have the players.

Except the graph showed that it's not a factor in success. The IRB's rankings as of now are not supportive of that graph. So you're basing your argument of having a large numbers of players being conducive to success on what exactly? QED.

India? You're joking right? - oh I forgot, India have all the hi-tech facilities and powerful athletes. It's a bloody 3rd world nation.

Exactly! It's got bugger all or incredibly little to do with how many players/athletes/humans. Far more important is what you do with them. That's my bloody point.

 

[big ginger 8]

Qed

 

[SelimNiai]

QEII

Why wont it let me post that in all caps? Ruins the joke.

Ahha, got it

 

[Groundhog]

Right I'll say it again. I'm responding to one particular argument, that the English team draw from only a small percentage of the population. This small percentage far outweighs any other nation. YES I believe that a large population should produce talented players, but I never said it has a correlation to success. I said other factors such as coaching concern much of a countries success, and also the popularity of rugby.
Q.E.D

I honestly believe England are on the way back, history dictates that means we will competing with the worlds best, time will tell on that though I guess with the current England team.
Ireland and Wales are the best they have ever been in the professional era, and so far they have not been world class, ....fact.

Once again, I don't disagree that England may be coming back, but you're jumping the gun. We're three rounds into this tournament, England are comfortably ahead. This does not mean they're world beaters. I really don't accept past achievements as a reason for future success.

 

[Peat]

Peat, although reading through your posts I often agree with you, not sure I totally do on this one. England haven't just had one game. Oddly they've played in a way pretty much mirroring their opposition in each of the last 4 matches - they've just somehow managed to beat what's put in front of them each time. Do you really think they played the same game against the ABs as they did, or even tried to do, against Ireland? Or were as frantic (guess that's the right word) against Scotland as they were against France? No they aren't the finished article - far from it, but they are moving forwards, they are far from just being England, or however Yoe wants to put it.

Regarding athletes (or I guess you mean kind of stars - all these guys are athletes these days) I'm not sure that's the only way forward. I'm not harking back to 2003 saying they're that good, but it makes an interesting comparison. Where I personally think we're a tad behind that particular 'high point' is really in the back 3 but that's about it. The guys we've got are far from 'weak links' in the chain, but I'm not sure they have the all round game that combines defence AND attack that the likes of Ben Cohen (in his day) Jason Robinson and Josh Lewsey had. I think the forwards are pretty good now (when they play in their correct positions - Lawes is a far better lock than flanker). In the back row I'd like to see Tom Croft back in the fray as his work rate is awsome (and he really is an athlete) but I think we've got a fairly useful open side at the moment. Oposition teams seem to be rating Ben Morgan pretty highly - they're not tackling him too successfully anyway. The scrum halves aren't bad and can completely hold their own, seen some good brakes, not bad delivery at times and invariably taking out the opposing 8 if he picks up. We've got a few decent 10s, debatable if the best is on the park but he's not half bad and his hits in defence are a bonus. Centres, no we haven't quite found a 'Greenwood' with the rugby brain to put those outside him in space but in Manu you frankly don't need to. Did anyone else notice him blast through Bastareaud on more than one occasion. If you're looking for an 'athlete' look no further. As a team they're pretty good but as individuals they're not too shabby either.

I think the only place that England differ from some other teams is that they build based on a strong defence and move on from there, they're also out thinking the opposition. Barritt is a strong part of that ideal. It's not a bad way of building a rugby team, it seems to be working so far anyway.

Must not post directly after night shifts...

We've varied our tactics, yes; but our strengths, the things we do very well, they have not changed. Our strengths are the mental and tactical side of the game, the breakdown and applying constant pressure in defence. The manner in which we've used the ball has differed, and has technically never been right at the very top imo - even against New Zealand we made some tries a lot harder than they needed to be and squandered a few others to boot. Does that make sense? Every game we play has the same stamp. We have consistently been very good in defence. We have consistently been working really hard to pressurise the opposition into mistakes and to then exploit them, from Chargedown Charlie to the way we swallowed up O'Gara. The breakdown has been a big thing under Lancaster, it's taken time to put right, but you can tell he's been concentrating on it and it's been really fantastic in the recent big wings.

What I think Yoe is saying, what I read that rang a bell with me, is that a huge amount of our success has come from being able to restrict the opposition, and that a lot of our scoring is coming directly from the opposition mistakes we force. We don't create a huge amount of scores ourselves in terms of phases and inventive backs play. I do not think this is as big a flaw as he does and what we do well is a massive part of being a succesful rugby team. But it is a flaw and we're not the complete team until it happens regularly and I look forwards to us being a complete team.

When I talk about athletes, I'm talking about guys who have the out and out pace and power that can really unpick teams and make a huge impact in the loose. If you looked at yesterday's team - who I was mainly talking about - it was fairly one-paced by international standards. Although, yeah, you could talk about stars, as by and large it ends up being the same thing. Personally I thought the 2003 team had a huge amount of guys with stuff like that, and it still compares very well - particularly in the back three! You mention Croft and Morgan, those are the sort of players I'm talking about. Put them back in the back-row and I think all of a sudden you get a huge life in try-scoring capability. Tuilagi is great, but he's close to a lone voice in the outside backs at the moment. The back three needs retooling. I'd like to find Barritt plus. And if Burns can come through and take Farrell's place, that's another line-breaker. The potential is there.

I'd certainly agree how we're building the team is a good way, it's going great and I'm feeling very optimistic - this is the next step. Throw in a May, get Burns involved, have Vunipola offering the constant ball-carrying alternative to Morgan and all of a sudden - the danger goes up. And we get even better. That's what we should be looking to do. Maintain everything we've built and add to it. Again, make sense? I rather get the feeling we're agreeing but expressing it in very different ways.

 

[nosevi]

Peat, yes think we are. A good first step to build on.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Right I'll say it again. I'm responding to one particular argument, that the English team draw from only a small percentage of the population. This small percentage far outweighs any other nation. YES I believe that a large population should produce talented players, but I never said it has a correlation to success. I said other factors such as coaching concern much of a countries success, and also the popularity of rugby.

This is where we'll disagree, I think the main factor affecting how many objectively talented players are produced by any given number of people is how popular said sport is.
Look at Jamaica in sprinting, Brazil/Portugal/Spain in football, eastern Europe in strength sports and New Zealand in rugby.
Those countries all dominate their sports despite having miniscule populations in comparison to teams they are playing against, the reason for that is the number of athletes who play the most popular sport in preference of less popular ones.

 

[Groundhog]

This is where we'll disagree, I think the main factor affecting how many objectively talented players are produced by any given number of people is how popular said sport is.
Look at Jamaica in sprinting, Brazil/Portugal/Spain in football, eastern Europe in strength sports and New Zealand in rugby.
Those countries all dominate their sports despite having miniscule populations in comparison to teams they are playing against, the reason for that is the number of athletes who play the most popular sport in preference of less popular ones.

Now I don't think we do disagree, I think you're misunderstanding me. In relation to countries like New Zealand where there is a small population with huge success at rugby. I feel they are a combination of high playing numbers (pretty high given the percentage of the population who play it) excellent coaching from a young age, and the huge popularity of the game in New Zealand, giving the game huge financial support.