Should England expect to win Grand Slams?

[ncurd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31694050

Okay ignoring most of the article it's usual post loss/not thrashing Italy affair. It bring up an interesting question, I don't think England fans expect grand slams but since our last one we feel we've left ***les out there to be taken. Here's why

England: Games Won= 34, ***les = 1 ,Grand Slams = 0
France: Games Won= 37, ***les = 4, Grand Slams = 2
Ireland: Games Won= 35, ***les = 2, Grand Slams = 1
Wales: Games Won= 34, ***les = 4, Grand Slams = 2

Each team has played 55 games in that time.

So each team has won a similar amount of games, Ireland have probably been the most consistent throughout that entire time with England being poor throughout mid-2000's and France being exceptionally good in that period. However England have 5 of the second place trophy's in that period and if we say just this world cup cycle it's looking like were going to be second best throughout that period.

I wouldn't say England should expect more grand slams but along with Ireland they probably feel they should of won more ***les in recent times. I don't think either Wales or France in that period played in a way that made them clearly better than the others.

I think there has to be a question of why Lancaster's team can't get over the finish line. We can find excuses outplayed in this year and 2012, comprehensively beaten in 2013 and few insane bounces of a ball in 2014. However the simple fact is England keep loosing a match each year and then loosing because of a grand slam or points diffrence it really feel like we should be winning this more and for some reason we can't seam to find that winning mentality.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

When our coaches pick the wrong players. Pick poor bench choices and choose to coach our players to be rubbish at the breakdown I don't think we can ever expect to win a grand slam.

The English players play worse the longer they are in camp.

Lancasters bench choices continue to be wrong in every sense.

 

[Maverick1987]

When our coaches pick the wrong players. Pick poor bench choices and choose to coach our players to be rubbish at the breakdown I don't think we can ever expect to win a grand slam.

The English players play worse the longer they are in camp.

Lancasters bench choices continue to be wrong in every sense.

Yes yes and more yes on this . Although I can't believe I'm agreeing with a saint .....

 

[lucky number 7]

It should vary year to year according to the talent and application of that talent crossed with strategy from coaches.

Since Schmidt took over I've expected grand slams.And to be honest with the youth and talent in the team I'll probably expect them till he leaves.

Find a better coach and get more from your players by providing them with a solid gameplan they they all completely buy into then you'll win them not a bother.

 

[Maverick1987]

It should vary year to year according to the talent and application of that talent crossed with strategy from coaches.

Since Schmidt took over I've expected grand slams.And to be honest with the youth and talent in the team I'll probably expect them till he leaves.

Find a better coach and get more from your players by providing them with a solid gameplan they they all completely buy into then you'll win them not a bother.

The last paragraph of your quote is spot on imo . We definitely need a specific gameplan . We also need to be more flexible imo . When things aren't going right we should be looking to mix things up not blindly continuing with a plan that isn't working

 

[Tony Manx]

Yes they should based on depth And talent and something is soooooo wrong when they fail year after year!!!

 

[McTallshort]

No we shouldnt. Hope for: Yes, Expect: No.

The days of Will Carling and co are over, Professional Rugby has balanced things up, having loads of players to choose from is a red herring, having talented players to choose from and developing them correctly is key. I dont think England are doing badly at all given we are missing Lawes and Launchbury who seem central to the way Rowntree wants the pack to play, Morgan who is a much better 8 than Billy, no settled centre partnership (for various reasons) and we are currently trying to bed in a new fly half. Imagine if we had a settled 10 like Sexton? We would win the Grand Slam but we dont have him, its a talent gap does matter that we have 5/10/20 more fly halfs than Ireland, their current one is better than all ours. Wales have managed a few times to bludgen their way to grand slam wins and that works on occasion but not consistantly as would expain Gatlands boom and bust times as coach.

Nothing is given and I doubt any group of coaches would have managed to do any better than the current ones did.

 

[Maverick1987]

No we shouldnt. Hope for: Yes, Expect: No.

The days of Will Carling and co are over, Professional Rugby has balanced things up, having loads of players to choose from is a red herring, having talented players to choose from and developing them correctly is key. I dont think England are doing badly at all given we are missing Lawes and Launchbury who seem central to the way Rowntree wants the pack to play, Morgan who is a much better 8 than Billy, no settled centre partnership (for various reasons) and we are currently trying to bed in a new fly half. Imagine if we had a settled 10 like Sexton? We would win the Grand Slam but we dont have him, its a talent gap does matter that we have 5/10/20 more fly halfs than Ireland, their current one is better than all ours. Wales have managed a few times to bludgen their way to grand slam wins and that works on occasion but not consistantly as would expain Gatlands boom and bust times as coach.

Nothing is given and I doubt any group of coaches would have managed to do any better than the current ones did.

I can't agree that no coaches would have done better than the current group . If we had Joe Schmidt, Wayne Smith and Graham Rowntree maybe Shaun Edwards as defence coach I'd bet my mortgage on us being a better team considering the amount of time Lancaster and co have been in charge . I highly doubt these 4 coaches would have persisted with people like Ashton etc

I honestly believe we would be a far better team now if they were given the same time 2011-2015

 

[Peat]

It should be expected that a nation with England's rugby tradition, participation numbers and deep pockets will win Grand Slams fairly regularly - but that has never really been true with us. From 1925 to 1990 we won 3 grand slams. The success of 1991 to 2003 showed what the nation is capable of and should be attempting to do, but it's basically a blip in our history.

This current group of coaches and players probably shouldn't be expected to win Grand Slams regularly. Ultimately, there's not a lot to suggest they have that in them.

Tallshort is so completely right in which he says that having loads of players is a red herring. It's not about who has the best 100 players, it's about who has the best 15 - or 30, if you count players out injured and subs. Our participation numbers give us a solid chance of having an international worthy player in every shirt and it gives us plenty of players who *could* be the next big thing, but that doesn't guarantee they will. Especially not when we seem to be World Champions of wasting talent.

Yes, the player group would do better if we had world class coaches. That goes without saying. Very few teams do. The current coaching team would do better if you gave them world class players as well. There are, to repeat my new favourite mantra, simply too many people involved in England who fall short of being as good as their international counterparts by 2 or 3pc. Sooner or late that finds you out. You wouldn't need to replace all of them for England to start winning Grand Slams, I think, but in a lot of cases I'm not sure who replaces them that produces that extra bit.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Yes England should get Grand slams but we aren't. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say teams up their game against England more than any other team. The Welsh and Scots have a burning desire to beat us more than anyone else, the Irish and the French have us high on their list with only the Italians not really being that fired up when it comes to England games. I think this counts against England more than other teams. If all but 1 teams are desperately trying to up their game against you and all you need is 1 loss to lose the grand slam, you can sort of understand our problem.

However that doesn't counter the main issue, having a large player base counts for **** all if you have a poor selection policy.

 

[KAPman]

No.
That's it

Every team England have had since 2003 have not been good enough to win Grand Slams. The current crop of players they have now are as close to 2003, in terms of quality, they've had since. They are a growing bunch with alot of talent, but they just lack the experience and maturity to get over that line at the highest level. Stuart Lancaster has great strength in depth at his disposal but he needs to be focusing more on getting a settled team. Their pack looks good and mostly fairly settled, but he does chop and change the backline quite alot.
I think England will do well at the world cup though.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes England should get Grand slams but we aren't. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say teams up their game against England more than any other team. The Welsh and Scots have a burning desire to beat us more than anyone else, the Irish and the French have us high on their list with only the Italians not really being that fired up when it comes to England games. I think this counts against England more than other teams. If all but 1 teams are desperately trying to up their game against you and all you need is 1 loss to lose the grand slam, you can sort of understand our problem.

However that doesn't counter the main issue, having a large player base counts for **** all if you have a poor selection policy.

Why do England have that devine right over other nations?
It's really hard to win 5 consecutive games in a row at high level international rugby, and England have never been good enough to do it since 2003. This current crop of players have the talent, but lack the experience. The 2003 team were a team that learnt through experience and pain, learnt and grew from it.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Why do England have that devine right over other nations?
It's really hard to win 5 consecutive games in a row at high level international rugby, and England have never been good enough to do it since 2003. This current crop of players have the talent, but lack the experience. The 2003 team were a team that learnt through experience and pain, learnt and grew from it.

Who said anything about a divine right? With our player base and plenty of talent we SHOULD have got a grandslam since 2003. France, Ireland and Wales have all managed it since so why do you have such issue with the belief that we should also have managed it by now? We have won it once since then and have come 2nd 5 times. We are consistantly almost there but never quite making it. England are massively underperforming in the 6N. Every team bar Italy and Scotland has done better than us in terms of actually winning the damn thing.

 

[Peat]

However that doesn't counter the main issue, having a large player base counts for **** all if you have a poor selection policy.

It just doesn't really count for much at all.

Increasingly and increasingly, that's the opinion I'm coming to. If it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. Once your system can produce in adequate numbers to maintain a pool of a good 40 or so international standard rugby players at any one time, the rest is gravy.

Theoretically you have a better chance of uncovering immense players, but the reality is raw potential is nothing and learning is the key - and our biggest numbers possibly leads to us spreading our international caps more thinly, thus working against our aim. That's equally theoretical really.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

It just doesn't really count for much at all.

Increasingly and increasingly, that's the opinion I'm coming to. If it did, we wouldn't be in this situation. Once your system can produce in adequate numbers to maintain a pool of a good 40 or so international standard rugby players at any one time, the rest is gravy.

Theoretically you have a better chance of uncovering immense players, but the reality is raw potential is nothing and learning is the key - and our biggest numbers possibly leads to us spreading our international caps more thinly, thus working against our aim. That's equally theoretical really.

I agree with this.
If you subscribe to the view that sequential development through the ages, levels, grades etc, leads to the steady improvement of players - and the structure of rugby worldwide is predicated upon this view - you are effectively saying that that opportunities a player gets at each level affects their future trajectory. If an England U16 doesn't get an opportunity to play at U17, his chances of playing U19 are lessened.

England and France's problem is that regardless of player pool size, we have the same number of representative sides, and a similar number of yearly fixtures, as other top nations.
As you say Peat, we spread our caps more thinly; it's not as though we can field more players o the day than Ireland and Wales can.

In short I strongly believe that regardless of baseline potential, players are forged 'in battle' at the levels they are pitted at. Turning out for your country improves players more than turning out each week for your club. If we can't test players at the level we want, they will find that their potential is capped at a lower level. Unfortunately, one or games at international level is not enough to develop the player into a proper 'international class' player.
Therefore the ongoing challenge for Lancaster is, as we know well, is the tension between short and long term with players. Can you justify giving a longer period of 'grace' to allow Ed Slater to adapt to the International level and fulfill his potential, when on the bench you've got Graham Kitchener who may, we don't really know, turn out to have a higher ceiling?

It's certainly a task I don't envy. But it speaks of the need for genuinely robust estimations of player potential before they get to the international level. What we can't be doing is wasting time not knowing whether Rokoduguni, Yarde, May, Watson or Nowell is the potentially better player. The coaches job is to understand his players, evaluate their talent at the right level, and once you have that estimation , put a plan in place for their development which should not be allowed to change just because of one or two so-so performances.
Right now I'm not convinced that Lancasters mind is made up in advance regarding these players, and that's worrying. An example for me is that, taking the Johnny May dropping, I would suggest that there should not have been anything to surprise Lancaster when May started his international career. If you have potential concerns over his defence, why didn't you have them before the international level, and if you did have the, why weren't they addressed beforehand?

The biggest thing I object to is 1) (Incorrect) evaluation of a players potential and 2) Wasting time by flitting between options at international level.
Both will cost us in the end.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I agree with this.
If you subscribe to the view that sequential development through the ages, levels, grades etc, leads to the steady improvement of players - and the structure of rugby worldwide is predicated upon this view - you are effectively saying that that opportunities a player gets at each level affects their future trajectory. If an England U16 doesn't get an opportunity to play at U17, his chances of playing U19 are lessened.

England and France's problem is that regardless of player pool size, we have the same number of representative sides, and a similar number of yearly fixtures, as other top nations.
As you say Peat, we spread our caps more thinly; it's not as though we can field more players o the day than Ireland and Wales can.

In short I strongly believe that regardless of baseline potential, players are forged 'in battle' at the levels they are pitted at. Turning out for your country improves players more than turning out each week for your club. If we can't test players at the level we want, they will find that their potential is capped at a lower level. Unfortunately, one or games at international level is not enough to develop the player into a proper 'international class' player.
Therefore the ongoing challenge for Lancaster is, as we know well, is the tension between short and long term with players. Can you justify giving a longer period of 'grace' to allow Ed Slater to adapt to the International level and fulfill his potential, when on the bench you've got Graham Kitchener who may, we don't really know, turn out to have a higher ceiling?

It's certainly a task I don't envy. But it speaks of the need for genuinely robust estimations of player potential before they get to the international level. What we can't be doing is wasting time not knowing whether Rokoduguni, Yarde, May, Watson or Nowell is the potentially better player. The coaches job is to understand his players, evaluate their talent at the right level, and once you have that estimation , put a plan in place for their development which should not be allowed to change just because of one or two so-so performances.
Right now I'm not convinced that Lancasters mind is made up in advance regarding these players, and that's worrying. An example for me is that, taking the Johnny May dropping, I would suggest that there should not have been anything to surprise Lancaster when May started his international career. If you have potential concerns over his defence, why didn't you have them before the international level, and if you did have the, why weren't they addressed beforehand?

The biggest thing I object to is 1) (Incorrect) evaluation of a players potential and 2) Wasting time by flitting between options at international level.
Both will cost us in the end.

Do you think that England should work in strict four year cycles after each world cup? If at the end of the next World Cup Lancaster, or whoever may be in charge, should pick a base of about 40-45 players and pick his squads from these players. Obviously there will be a few bolters over the four years who would have to be picked but the importance should be focused on blooding players at international level and having them completely comfortable individually and in the combinations they are involved in.

Ireland, by accident, have done this the last four years. Compare the 22 that played in the QF of the last world cup:

15 Robert Kearney, 14 Tommy Bowe, 13 Brian O'Driscoll (captain), 12 Gordon D'Arcy, 11 Keith Earls, 10 Ronan O'Gara, 9 Conor Murray, 8 Jamie Heaslip, 7 Sean O'Brien, 6 Stephen Ferris, 5 Paul O'Connell, 4 Donncha O'Callaghan, 3 Mike Ross, 2 Rory Best/Sean Cronin, 1 Cian Healy
Replacements: 16 Sean Cronin/Damien Varley, 17 Tom Court, 18 Donnacha Ryan, 19 Denis Leamy, 20 Eoin Reddan, 21 Jonathan Sexton, 22 Andrew Trimble

6 of these players won't be involved this year, four having retired, and they left the squad at different intervals throughout the last four years from that being their last game for Ireland to playing as recently as they EOYT. 9 of these players are nailed on starters if fit, that means they have had 4+ years to prepare them for top class international rugby. These are the standard bearers for the bolters mentioned earlier. Looking at players who have earned their first cap in 2014, there is Robbie Henshaw, Jared Payne, Marty Moore and Jordi Murphy, all of these will be in a full strength 23 with the rest of the squad having at least 2 years international rugby under their belt. Completely by accident, and partly due to having a bad coach for two years, Ireland have the perfect balance of experience and freshness to their squad, the only problem being that they suffered for two years because of it. Add this to the fact that approximately 16 of the Irish 23 could make it to 2019 and the cycle looks to be in place again.

England on the other hand in their last RWC game:

England: Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Flood, Cueto, Wilkinson, Youngs, Stevens, Thompson, Cole, Deacon, Palmer, Croft, Moody, Easter.
Replacements: Wigglesworth for Wilkinson (65), Banahan for Youngs (65), Corbisiero for Stevens (49), Hartley for Thompson (56), Shaw for Deacon (49), Lawes for Croft (46), Haskell for Moody (63)

11 not going to be involved and 4ish nailed on starters? The consistency in selection hasn't been there for England in the last 4 years simply due to their player pool being to large and Lancaster not restricting it, obviously not an easy thing to do but something that must happen and the base will be there for the next four year cycle and could be destructive.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Do you think that England should work in strict four year cycles after each world cup? If at the end of the next World Cup Lancaster, or whoever may be in charge, should pick a base of about 40-45 players and pick his squads from these players. Obviously there will be a few bolters over the four years who would have to be picked but the importance should be focused on blooding players at international level and having them completely comfortable individually and in the combinations they are involved in.

Ireland, by accident, have done this the last four years. Compare the 22 that played in the QF of the last world cup:

15 Robert Kearney, 14 Tommy Bowe, 13 Brian O'Driscoll (captain), 12 Gordon D'Arcy, 11 Keith Earls, 10 Ronan O'Gara, 9 Conor Murray, 8 Jamie Heaslip, 7 Sean O'Brien, 6 Stephen Ferris, 5 Paul O'Connell, 4 Donncha O'Callaghan, 3 Mike Ross, 2 Rory Best/Sean Cronin, 1 Cian Healy
Replacements: 16 Sean Cronin/Damien Varley, 17 Tom Court, 18 Donnacha Ryan, 19 Denis Leamy, 20 Eoin Reddan, 21 Jonathan Sexton, 22 Andrew Trimble

6 of these players won't be involved this year, four having retired, and they left the squad at different intervals throughout the last four years from that being their last game for Ireland to playing as recently as they EOYT. 9 of these players are nailed on starters if fit, that means they have had 4+ years to prepare them for top class international rugby. These are the standard bearers for the bolters mentioned earlier. Looking at players who have earned their first cap in 2014, there is Robbie Henshaw, Jared Payne, Marty Moore and Jordi Murphy, all of these will be in a full strength 23 with the rest of the squad having at least 2 years international rugby under their belt. Completely by accident, and partly due to having a bad coach for two years, Ireland have the perfect balance of experience and freshness to their squad, the only problem being that they suffered for two years because of it. Add this to the fact that approximately 16 of the Irish 23 could make it to 2019 and the cycle looks to be in place again.

England on the other hand in their last RWC game:

England: Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Flood, Cueto, Wilkinson, Youngs, Stevens, Thompson, Cole, Deacon, Palmer, Croft, Moody, Easter.
Replacements: Wigglesworth for Wilkinson (65), Banahan for Youngs (65), Corbisiero for Stevens (49), Hartley for Thompson (56), Shaw for Deacon (49), Lawes for Croft (46), Haskell for Moody (63)

11 not going to be involved and 4ish nailed on starters? The consistency in selection hasn't been there for England in the last 4 years simply due to their player pool being to large and Lancaster not restricting it, obviously not an easy thing to do but something that must happen and the base will be there for the next four year cycle and could be destructive.

I suspect one of Lancasters problems is not of his own making, but is the pressure which comes with his role. He started in 2012 and was expected not only to buidl towards the 2015 world cup, but to win consistently, starting pretty much immediately. So he took fairly pragmatic decisions to include some players

In his first ever games for England under Lancaster against Scotland and Italy the following played in the match 23:

Tom Palmer
Mouritz Botha
Phil Dowson
David Strettle
Charlie Hodgson
Jordan Turner-Hall

None of whom really could ever have gone the distance with England (except Charlie who was in the 'twilight' of his international career)
So that's an example where he was probably pressed into prioritisng the short-term above the long-term. The house was not remotely in order when Lancaster came in to be fair

Going back to your question..I think that robust evaluations of the players with an international future need to take place early on (but maybe not 4 years early on). This would be a very sizeable bit of work for a new coaching team to understand 'what's on the menu' and obviously is subject to as many bolters as emerge - but it simply has to be done properly.

I think the 4 year cycle idea is good but has to be amenable to how much squad stability there was; Ireland knew that at time A, World cup 2011, they had X number of players who were proper internationals and would continue to be such by time B, World cup 2015. Thus they could be in a position to institute a 4 year cycle view of things.
For a pool of Englands size its arguable that 4 years is too large a period but in general, yes, I don't think its satisfactory to have a 'monthly rolling' view of your squad. The long term has to be at the foremost of his mind.

 

[profitius]

There are many levellers in international rugby.

There are disadvantages having many players to choose from. They get dropped more, are under more pressure, don't get as long to establish themselves and the cycle starts again.

The media hypes up the new guys and puts coaches under pressure to select the new guys. Its a cycle.

The culture of the team wouldn't be as strong as smaller nations. That's why Lancaster is trying so hard to bridge that gap but its artificial and should come naturally

In Gaelic football you have Cork and Kerry as neighbours. Kerrys record is much greater than Cork despite cork having much greater numbers. Its a massive sport in Kerry but hurling is the favourite sport in Cork they don't get the backing of the people like Kerry get.

 

[Peat]

In fairness, there is more to player development than international duty, both at age grades and senior level. Nothing else apart, it's just a finite part of a player's life; they spend far more with their clubs. If Tuilagi, to pick an example, is to develop a distributing game at international level, that probably can't happen without Leicester. Yes, you need international experience, and yes, you often see players make big improvements after being on international duty. But the clubs play a massive part.

And we have bigger problems in player development than too many players and not enough international opportunities, too much chopping and changing and not enough correct talent identification. We have a real issue, imo, in that the Premiership simply doesn't play its part. We see too many promising players with big technical flaws - too many players with decision making flaws - too many players who get frail under pressure. We are far from alone there, but it seems particularly problematic here.

And I'm not sure why it is. Maybe it's because we place too much emphasis on academy players attained physical maturity quickly and not enough on them attaining the right skillsets, technically and mentally. Maybe it's because we don't have as many internationals and strong teams scattered through our league. Maybe its because we play a style of rugby that differs too much from the rest of Europe on key areas (such as the breakdown). Maybe it's the short-termism and ugly rugby forced by relegation, or the downsides of sharing our sporting landscape with genuine contention for our collision merchant prospects, or we don't produce enough good English coaches or any combination of the above and a million and one other things. But if the international team - the tip of the pyramid - is not where it should be, you look down the rest of the pyramid for cracks. And I think English rugby has plenty.