Sir Graham Henry criticises England approach

[nickdnz]

The All Blacks' World Cup-winning coach Graham Henry has described England as "world champions at wasting talent" and as playing a game based on fear.
Henry guided New Zealand to victory last October in stark contrast to England who endured a miserable World Cup, crashing out in the quarter-finals with their campaign marred by a number of off-field incidents.
Henry believes England have good attacking players but questions whether they can ever fulfil their potential as long as they persist with their present approach.
He told therugbysite.com that England has top-drawer attacking players but they are seldom used.
"It sometimes seem that England are world champions at wasting talent.
"At national level and at club level English teams are far too worried about securing possession.
"No wonder England had trouble scoring tries against the better teams at the World Cup."
He singled out Ben Foden, Chris Ashton and Delon Armitage as players who have impressed him but believes they may never reach their potential.
"A country with over a million players should be the best team in the world and England's potential in the backs is as good as it has ever been.
"But how frustrated those players must get in a white shirt.
"England and the English clubs played a game based on fear and a generation of promising backs are dying on their feet.
"That has to change."

I have to say, while it's not a new sentiment it is pretty eloquently put. Certainly sums up much of the SH's opinion of English rugby. Wondering what others think, and if this may well change under Lancaster.

 

[Teh Mite]

We have over a million players now? That number is rising quicker then the total who claimed to be at Thommond in '78.

He has something of a point. But then again we have the stuffy old farts who are more bothered about winning the next game the corporate sponsors then developing for the future. Lancaster will come a cropper because of this, England are not the national side rather then the free advertising for RFU PLC. John Steele was axed because he tried to change this.

 

[Peat]

First off, the registered player list and actual player list are massively different, as anyone familiar with the subject knows. Just throwing it out there.

Second, we all know it, it's not exactly news.

Thirdly, the real thing - can Lancaster change it? It's as much about the quality of player as tactics and emphasis. His squad is better than Johnson's WC squad for that, but its not amazing. Personally, my guess is he's going to go fairly conservative and play territory. England really need to develop something better in the tight five and centres before we really cut loose.

 

[gingergenius]

Henry's right. Not to say England don't do a lot of the game very well, because they do, but world cups are won by teams that are outstanding all round, and yes there are a lot of bright sparks in the English game who never achieve their potential. Let's hope the likes of Burns don't go the way of Lamb, Cipriani and Geraghty...

 

[smartcooky]

Think GH is right on the money here, and I also think that they are the masters of inconsistent selections.

England seem to have a lot of indecision about who should be playing at 10. We have seen England ******* about with the 10 Jersey for far too long; Ollie Barkley, Andy Goode, Jonny Wilkinson, Toby Flood, Charlie Hodgson, Peter Richards (sub), Jamie Noon (sub) Shane Geraghty, Danny Cipriani , Paul Grayson, Mike Catt and Dave Walder, and probably even more I can't think of. That's 12 players in the vital pivot position in 7 years.

I think they just need to pick Toby Flood at 10, and stick with him for now, although I believe George Ford is the future for England in that position. Not many 17 years olds would be capable of playing such a vital position in an Under 20 side, but he did for England in the Junior Six Nations, starting every game in the competition. In doing so, he won MOTM awards vs France, Ireland and Scotland.

I was mightily impressed with the way Ford played at the recent U20 World Cup, and even though he played in a losing team to New Zealand in the final, he beat out New Zealanders Luke Whitelock and Sam Cane for the IRB Junior Player of the Year award, and well deserved IMO.

 

[Peat]

smartcooky - Hold your horses there. Wilkinson was our anointed 10, but always got injured. Flood is now our anointed 10, but he too is injured. The likes of Richards and Noon probably filled in there as subs due to injury problems during a game which I think has very little to do with the issue and shouldn't be counted. Using them to accuse England of inconsistency of selection would be like me turning around and saying the fact NZ used 4 fly-halves in the WC shows that they're inconsistent in selection as well. Slightly pedantically, neither Grayson or Walder have played for England in the last 7 years. So in fact that's 8 I'll accept, which doesn't compare too badly to the 6 used by the All-Blacks in the same period to my knowledge.

There has been a fair bit of inconsistency in selection, but a lot of it has been dictated by injuries (3 head coaches in the period doesn't help either) and it is nowhere near as bad as you're suggesting.

Also Ford kicked away far too much ball in that final.

 

[Tomsey]

I agree with Graham Henry and disagree with everything peat says. I have been saying for years that the RFU hierarchy being to scared to allow the English rugby team to play attacking has been their achilles heal. As Henry says there is a large numbers of rugby players in England and there is large numbers of very talented attacking rugby players but somehow players like Matt Banahan are still allowed to play on the wing for for England when there are players like Chris Ashton sitting in the stands.
England have always had a decent forward pack and scrum so they shouldn't have any problem setting the platform for an attacking backline to go nuts.
As for what peat says: according to the IRB there are 37835 registered rugby players in New Zealand. Some sources suggest that there are as many as 1,182,602 in England. Even if those stats are way off they are still WAY higher than New Zealand and likely the highest in the world. That is the point Graham was making.
As far as England's inconsistency in flyhalf selection I have to agree with smartcooky (there is a first time for everything). Granted there has been a lot of injuries over the years but the when was the last time they gave a young or newly blooded number 10 time to establish themselves. The amount of times players have been given a shot through injury only to be tossed on the scrap heap in favor of tried and failed older players like Hodgson or Goode is beyond a joke. If the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result then the RFU should be commited.
Also so what if Ford kicked away too much possession in the final. He won 3 best on ground awards during the 6 nations and won under 20 player of the year. He is only 17. Kicking too much in one game can't erase all those accolades.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Surley the international team is just a group of club players who play similar to one of the club teams yet england will never play an attacking style when none of the players do week in week out.

A premership is whats to blame for the lack of attacking options at international level, since tigers, sarriers & Saints play a forward power game the international team will never move away from that.

The only hope is quins, yet when they meet some real power they just get blown away. I think we should have tigers/saints/sarriers forwards and quins backs. I know that wouldn't work with player quality ect but the premership in general is just not an attacking game.

 

[Teh Mite]

The "million players" argument is lazy and getting boring. There are 12 top flight clubs, averaging 40% English players, of squad sizes around about 35 players. That makes the pool actually closer to 170 players.

"a million players"? Pah. That makes me prime for a call up, bad knees, buggered shoulder and all.

 

[cyRil]

That number is rising quicker then the total who claimed to be at Thommond in '78.

Mite's Thomond jibe has always been a favourite of mine

 

[smartcooky]

The "million players" argument is lazy and getting boring. There are 12 top flight clubs, averaging 40% English players, of squad sizes around about 35 players. That makes the pool actually closer to 170 players.

"a million players"? Pah. That makes me prime for a call up, bad knees, buggered shoulder and all.

The point is not that England has however many hundreds of thousands (or a million) of players to choose from. Its the overall playing numbers that determine how many top echelon players you have the potential to end up with. Only a certain percentage will rise to the top, like cream in a container.

Lets say you have a pint of full cream milk, and 100 ml of cream rises to the top. If you have a gallon of the same full cream milk under the same conditions, you'll get 800 ml of cream rising to the top. The greater your player base (more milk), the more potential top echelon players (more cream) you should have. Its straight-out statistical probability. Same applies in any work place. If you have 25 staff, then your chances of you having enough people to put together half-decent rugby team are pretty slim, but if you have 5000 staff, then your chances of achieving this are dramatically increased; if you have 50,000 staff, you are likely to have the makings of a Provincial/Club team in there.

Also, anyone who thinks that British rugby teams in general are incapable of playing exciting running rugby needs to sit themselves down in front of a TV and watch Munster v Saints in the Heineken Cup this year....80 points in 80 minutes; you can't ask for much more than that!!

 

[Seaton]

Also, anyone who thinks that British rugby teams in general are incapable of playing exciting running rugby needs to sit themselves down in front of a TV and watch Munster v Saints in the Heineken Cup this year....80 points in 80 minutes; you can't ask for much more than that!!

So there is one British team that can play running rugby. Care to name another?

I know it is pointless doing this 'white colour thing when it still appeats on the latest comment thingymajig, but anyway: Yes I know I R being pedantic.

 

[welshglory]

Edinburgh, Scarlets, Blues (when Parks isn't playing) Gloucester, Harlequins, London Irish (when they're on form), Sale, Leinster, Ulster

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Also, anyone who thinks that British rugby teams in general are incapable of playing exciting running rugby needs to sit themselves down in front of a TV and watch Munster v Saints in the Heineken Cup this year....80 points in 80 minutes; you can't ask for much more than that!!

Hope you're not confusing Munster with being a British team. That'd be like asking is New Zealand a state of Australia.

Anyway, we all know Leinster are the west Brit Irish team!

EDIT - Brian Ashton had a good article in the Telegraph last week. He pointed a large part of the blame on England's current failures as being coaching problems. When a talent is identified at an early age, he's put on a program to bulk him up and not enough emphasis is placed on nurturing and improving his skill levels.

 

[Saintjay]

Italy have more registered players than Wales and Scotland so based on the more players theory they should be beating them on a regular basis.

Ireland have more than Italy, Scotland and Wales combined so again they prehaps should have won a world cup by now.

It seems obvious registered numbers do not equal winning.

The figures do take into account registered tag, mini and junior sections. I can't say what the figures are like in other countries but lots of the English clubs that I know, have hugh well attended tag and mini's sections. The numbers playing are double and treble those that play senior rugby.

 

[Seaton]

Italy have more registered players than Wales and Scotland so based on the more players theory they should be beating them on a regular basis.

Ireland have more than Italy, Scotland and Wales combined so again they prehaps should have won a world cup by now.

It seems obvious registered numbers do not equal winning.

The figures do take into account registered tag, mini and junior sections. I can't say what the figures are like in other countries but lots of the English clubs that I know, have hugh well attended tag and mini's sections. The numbers playing are double and treble those that play senior rugby.

They may not equal winning, but they are a huge factor inthe equation.

My new favourite quote, "An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamposts. For support rather than illumination..."

 

[Peat]

I agree with Graham Henry and disagree with everything peat says. I have been saying for years that the RFU hierarchy being to scared to allow the English rugby team to play attacking has been their achilles heal. As Henry says there is a large numbers of rugby players in England and there is large numbers of very talented attacking rugby players but somehow players like Matt Banahan are still allowed to play on the wing for for England when there are players like Chris Ashton sitting in the stands.
England have always had a decent forward pack and scrum so they shouldn't have any problem setting the platform for an attacking backline to go nuts.

Not always actually. Recently our pack has been full of slow shambolic pensioners with most of the youth being concentrated in the wrong place; the props. So our scrum has been no more than decent, and getting quick ball has been nigh-impossible considering the players selected. There has not been a decent attacking platform. Summer/Autumn2010/6N2011 is the closest we've had to one for a while, and lo and behold our best set of results for a while. But that was a rarity in a period of pack weakness/mis-selection.

And yes, the English management have done some chronic mis-selection in the backs. No argument there. Not certain we do have the centres even when everything is selected right though.

As for what peat says: according to the IRB there are 37835 registered rugby players in New Zealand. Some sources suggest that there are as many as 1,182,602 in England. Even if those stats are way off they are still WAY higher than New Zealand and likely the highest in the world. That is the point Graham was making.

I was just saying the stats are wrong as a point of academic interest. Which they are, and anyone with a reasonable knowledge of English rugby knows that.

Even when thinned out to making sense, we still probably have more rugby players than NZ, or anyone else for that matter. Even then, it's not a very good statistic to use; I know the cream rising to the top arguments, but I don't think our 50-something year old third team prop is playing much of a part in raising rugby standards in English rugby.

A better statistic would be the number of professional clubs. England has more of these than anyone bar France at a guess - but then again, as mentioned, we have a lot of foreigners here; I'd guess only 35pc of registered Premiership players are foreign myself. But then again, there's a fair bit of dross there too, and particularly in the level below. But it would be a far better statistic for making the point about England's superior playing numbers.

Even then though, I don't think it honestly tells the tale of the situation of rugby in England; we may have superior numbers, but we have no rugby culture, and it is questionable how much of those superior numbers are genuinely channelled at rugby and given an opportunity to play at the highest level (I am digressing massively from the main point here). The statistic I would like to see is; how many schools in England make rugby a main sport (and properly a main sport), and how many rugby clubs in England offer minis-coaching of a worthwhile standard. Because that is what determines numbers at the most important stage of the process, when they are young and learning their core skills. I'm guessing England still leads the world, but I also reckon the lead probably drops quite a lot here. Shame no one's got those statistics.

In short; Henry's right that we've got more players, but he picked a bad stat to prove it, and that any point about England's depth in player numbers needs to be balanced against the standard and amount of coaching given to our youngsters.

As far as England's inconsistency in flyhalf selection I have to agree with smartcooky (there is a first time for everything). Granted there has been a lot of injuries over the years but the when was the last time they gave a young or newly blooded number 10 time to establish themselves. The amount of times players have been given a shot through injury only to be tossed on the scrap heap in favor of tried and failed older players like Hodgson or Goode is beyond a joke. If the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result then the RFU should be commited.

Flood/Cipriani. We tried to give Cipriani time to establish himself, but a) he kept getting injured and b) the boy turned out to be a gigantic ******. Flood we gave time to and it worked. There hasn't really been any English fly-half whose domestic form merited a go (maaaaaybe Lamb) since Cipriani, so we couldn't really hand out chances, until now, when Farrell and Burns are starting to make cases for themselves. Expect one of them to get a chance in the next couple of years.

Also so what if Ford kicked away too much possession in the final. He won 3 best on ground awards during the 6 nations and won under 20 player of the year. He is only 17. Kicking too much in one game can't erase all those accolades.

That was lazy shorthand for he shouldn't have got the award. Cane was better, plus in England's own pack Thomas, Launchbury and Kvesic were also all better (during the JWC at least).

It's also lazy shorthand for if you want to see England's attacking problems, then look no further than a very talented fly-half getting ball on a platter with an incredible array of talent outside him kicking away so much ball. It's a cultural thing, yo.

You'll notice I've never disagreed there's a problem. Just that people are making bad arguments and looking at the wrong things to explain it. If people really want to see where inconsistency of selection has hurt England's attack, look at the centres.

 

[Teh Mite]

If Lamb had stuck with Gloucester instead of being ruined by Booth and Catt he'd likely have made the test jersey his own by now. He's playing his best rugby for a long time now but is still not a patch on his days in a Cherry and White shirt.

 

[Saintjay]

They may not equal winning, but they are a huge factor inthe equation.

My new favourite quote, "An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamposts. For support rather than illumination..."

That is where the factor is flawed and as is the equation of more players equals more sucess.

Logic would say it should be the case, real life tells a different story otherwise New Zealand in theory should be rubbish.

The debate as why a small nation of people could be so dominant at a sport has raged for ages, with no end of reasons as to why that is.

 

[gingergenius]

More players only mean greater national success to an extent.

The only way that theory is in any way viable is if you believe that, from a population, a certain percentage possess special abilities. Therefore, the larger the population, the greater chance that you'll unearth people of special abilities.

But this is ********, in the real world. I don't believe for one second that there are a very small, finite number of people who can develop into 'world class rugby players'. There are a lot of people with this potential. UK, Ireland, France, New Zealand etc. all have a culture in which athletic ability is, generally, discovered. People who are outstandingly talented will be pushed further, because that is the system in which we live. If they don't want to/ other factors, then that's their problem, and in 9 out of 10 cases will mean they don't have the mental skills required. The only thing that the sport of rugby can lose outstanding individuals to is other sports.

The difference between a player who is professional and one who is not is HUGE. A professional player has all their life to bulk up, get fit, bond as a team, work on tactics, work on their skills. Let's assume, therefore, that 4 professional Irish sides are going to contain far better athletes than ANY of the so-called millions of casual rugby players who play in England. And based on my previous argument, the chances are all of them will be very talented players anyway.

So, the only fair comparison would be to compare professional player numbers - of which England probably has more than the average, but when you consider other factors (for example talent being spread across 12 teams than 2, then it's not actually that bad.

And here is also why the likes of Mouritz Botha and Riki Flutey can play to a much higher level for England and not in their home countries. Because they possess the talent, the ability, but English rugby has given the opportunity to play at the highest level and truly hone their skills. If you sent, for example, George Kruis (young Saracens 2nd row) to WP, give him a few years to learn his trade, make the Stormers squad and play well for one of the best teams in the country for a few seasons, a few more years and injuries to some of SA's top locks, then it's not improbable he'd be picked for the Springboks. And then everyone in England could say 'George who? that guy who was on the Saracens bench? Haw haw isn't Saffa rugby inferior'...