The Autopsy thread: Which England team members are for the chopping block?

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Brown is not too old for the next World Cup.

We really should just worry about trying to win the 6N for the next 2 or 3 years and worry about the WC closer to the time.

We will be in a far better position if the team are used to winning big games.

As it happens though, in most cases the young players are also the best so there isn't much of a trade off.

He will be like 34 next World Cup.

 

[Peat]

Have to say, that even after doing a massive blog post on the subject of overseas players (SUBTLE PLUG), I'm still not utterly sure what I think of the Armitage/France thing, but there's two things I'd say...

1) Rule's not getting changed.
2) Players go to France because they're getting picked and there's only a problem if the coach is a fool and lets the wrong players go, or changes his mind once they're there

Seriously though, every country is doing protectionism, rail at the whole world for doing it and not just England.

Also, Hulkster is right, it's time to win some shizzle and let the squad develop from that rather than getting fixated on the next disaster.

 

[TobesHodges]

I really don't get the obsession with France based players.
There are 4(? Delon, Steffon, Flood, Bendy) who could be in with a shout but only one of those is clearly better than the incumbent, but then we've players that, if they keep progressing, will surpass them.
It's not worth the damage it would do to the English club system, and the inevitable clashing of heads with the French moneymen.

If strettle was available would you have used him? Probably the best English winger under the high ball and is by far the best English box kick chaser.
And of course is tearing it up in Clermont colours, seems to have a bit more muscle and a bit more pace.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Well the RFU is wrong to make that rule, what about restraint of trade, if you were offered a job somewhere in Europe for double your current salary would you not be tempted ?

I agree with you that the "rule" should be up for discussion like any other and the point about restraint of trade is a good one, I'm not sure it would survive a serious legal challenge (another egg on face situation for the RFU legal department?). I'm not quite sure your analogy works though - if you or I move abroad to earn more money that's all that we are doing. If an England rugby player does it, it's not all he is doing - he's also making it clear where his priorities lie.

Changing this rule at a late juncture could have been exceedingly divisive within the camp. If you were an England player who had turned down the opportunity to double your salary in order to remain eligible for your country, how would you feel when all of a sudden someone who chose the money before the change of international caps turns up and is given the best of both worlds.

FWIW, I'm sure that Armitage earns good money in France, possibly more than any English club would have been able to offer him, but I don't think it's fair to imply that this was his sole motivation. As a fluent French speaker, the choice between living in the south of France, playing with genuine superstars, picking up silverware and living in Reading, playing in an average AP side, I'd say that a move to Toulon would be worth a pay cut!

 

[TW27BA]

Well the RFU is wrong to make that rule, what about restraint of trade, if you were offered a job somewhere in Europe for double your current salary would you not be tempted ?

That would depend on whether I wanted to play for my country more than take that higher salary. The players know the rules, which I don't personally agree with, and have to decide accordingly.
Interestingly, Australia lifted their ban on selecting overseas players and it's worked out well for them.

 

[YoungScud]

I'm not sure you can argue restraint of trade. The RFU, whether they're right or wrong on this issue, aren't stopping anyone plying their trade. Selection policy for a national side can't ever be anything but discretionary in favour of the governing body. If it wasn't, I could picture a scenario whereby players might go to court, trying to prove that someone else was selected over them, even though their playing record is stronger, bringing experts to court to prove they're the better player. Bit of a nightmare scenario, that. Furthermore, it's not as if any player moving abroad doesn't know the policy, as RedruthFC said.

 

[PacDuran]

Brown is not too old for the next World Cup.

We really should just worry about trying to win the 6N for the next 2 or 3 years and worry about the WC closer to the time.

We will be in a far better position if the team are used to winning big games.

As it happens though, in most cases the young players are also the best so there isn't much of a trade off.

Maybe not too old strictly speaking but would you really want someone as slow as he already is (times 4 years) to be the starting full back?

 

[Atco]

I agree with you that the "rule" should be up for discussion like any other and the point about restraint of trade is a good one, I'm not sure it would survive a serious legal challenge (another egg on face situation for the RFU legal department?). I'm not quite sure your analogy works though - if you or I move abroad to earn more money that's all that we are doing. If an England rugby player does it, it's not all he is doing - he's also making it clear where his priorities lie.

Changing this rule at a late juncture could have been exceedingly divisive within the camp. If you were an England player who had turned down the opportunity to double your salary in order to remain eligible for your country, how would you feel when all of a sudden someone who chose the money before the change of international caps turns up and is given the best of both worlds.

FWIW, I'm sure that Armitage earns good money in France, possibly more than any English club would have been able to offer him, but I don't think it's fair to imply that this was his sole motivation. As a fluent French speaker, the choice between living in the south of France, playing with genuine superstars, picking up silverware and living in Reading, playing in an average AP side, I'd say that a move to Toulon would be worth a pay cut!

These are professionals who have chosen a hazardous occupation. Every training session and every match could bring the career ending injury. It's perfectly proper for them to seek the best remuneration they can and I don't see that as unpatriotic. If they are good enough, and the best player (having taken into account lack of regular availability, which it would be quite sensible and fair to take into account on marginal calls), they should be selected and if that was clear from the start, why should anyone object?

 

[YoungScud]

atleast yees ur still the best morris dancers in the world

Aye lad, in't world.

 

[Peat]

That would depend on whether I wanted to play for my country more than take that higher salary. The players know the rules, which I don't personally agree with, and have to decide accordingly.
Interestingly, Australia lifted their ban on selecting overseas players and it's worked out well for them.

For a really select band of players. Nic White and James Horwill possibly missed out on selection because of moves abroad, Dean Mumm and Kane Douglas had to come back to be picked. They still basically have a domestic only policy - like virtually every other major rugby country.

 

[TW27BA]

^ You forgot the biggest name of them all. Matt Giteau

 

[OverGore]

Seriously though, every country is doing protectionism, rail at the whole world for doing it and not just England.

First thing Cheika asked was to remove that same rule in australia so he can select drew mitchell or matt giteau. Idea was to be able to get the best you have. Getin armitage might not have you make win the WC, but at least you ll be out of it with less questions. Maybe he would have cost u a penalty, maybe he d have offer you a try, who knows, but havin better players puts competition in the team, it drives players up.
You say all countries are doing protectionism, but that couldnt be more untrue. SA already picked players in TOP14, as did Ireland, wales, France, Australia, Samoa, Fidji, Usa ,Scotland, etc etc. The only 2 countries doing it are NZ and England. But where on earth RFU thought they had the level of newzealand and imagined they could put in youngsters with no lost of quality in team. That is so pretentious.
The fact that the rule wont be removed seals the fate of english team.
It shows of RFU is out of realities, and not only on this matter. What lead to this situation will stay on.
One asked me how is was disrespectful for players. Well, you are a very good player, so good, a very big club wants to buy you and pay you twice what you would have earned in england, and this to play on riviera.
RFU s answer? sorry, u not english anymore, go screw urself, u can watch 6n on tv. WTF is that mentality.
Or maybe it is the top14 is so ****ty, all english clubs have of course 10 times the quality we have in clubs. Come on, how can one doubt of the malignacy of this rule?
It is obviously made to protect CLUBS not the national team, and as a fact, so far, it didnt make your clubs stronger, and it killed your english team.
Its appaling some accept facts of such irrantionality.
Btw, the armitage borthers GREW in south france and learned rugby there. None of them was born in UK, and they CHOSE to play for england. They could have very well pick france, we would have been glad.

 

[valley commando]

Your logical inference is flawed IMO. England chose not to take overseas based players and had a poor World Cup. There is nothing to conclusively prove that had they chosen to take overseas players, the performance would have been better. I suspect that people will say that the number of turnovers that England gave up against Australia is "proof" that the decision was the wrong one, but I don't entirely agree with this - the responsibility for clearing out the breakdown and avoiding giving up turnovers is more collective, the fault lay with many players for failing to spot the potential for one of their colleagues to be isolated and to get there in time to stop it ending in tears. I deafened half of my local shouting "help him" at the TV two seconds before an inevitable turnover more than once. Would Armitage have created turnovers for England? Debatable IMO, the English pack were coming second best in most, if not all facets of the game which would have made turnovers much harder to get and meant that Armitage wouldn't have been able to get away with playing the loose, roaming role he is accustomed to when being given a free ride by his dominant forward colleagues.

It's in journalists' nature to try to appear wise after the event and pick at controversial decisions to generate quick, unimaginative, disinteresting column inches, but picking on individual decisions that may or may not have had an impact on how things panned out glosses over the systematic failures which is what is much more interesting (and constructive) to address IMO.

Moody is not as far as I am aware a journo, he was invited to Talk Sport and his comments were his own. My comments were before the event initially, on this forum/site I questioned the thinking of picking Burgess and not picking Armitage and Cipriani, comments which I was ridiculed for, I now feel vindicated.

 

[Peat]

^ You forgot the biggest name of them all. Matt Giteau

He was one of the ones the change in the rule applied to - the reason for it even. I was pointing out all the guys still affected by the rule being in place for most players.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

What are all you people on about.

If S Armatige was playing in England he still wouldn't have been picked other wise it would have shown up captain slow.

Whatever people have to say about the rule, the reason we were rubbish was the coaching and selection.

There were better players not picked than the ones selected. Oversees or not, Lancaster would have still picked dross

 

[RedruthRFC]

Moody is not as far as I am aware a journo, he was invited to Talk Sport and his comments were his own. My comments were before the event initially, on this forum/site I questioned the thinking of picking Burgess and not picking Armitage and Cipriani, comments which I was ridiculed for, I now feel vindicated.

Journalist or pundit, same difference. I'm aware that your comments were made before the tournament, my point was that all we know for sure is that the side that went didn't perform well, this in itself doesn't vindicate your points. Maybe having no Burgess and having Cipriani and Armitage in the squad would have had a positive impact, maybe not - we will never know. I still don't know what to think about Burgess' involvement - his shortcomings have been well documented, but you can't get around the fact that he made a positive impact against Fiji and that England looked worse when he went off against Wales. I think I'd have rather has Burrell, but it's not a deal breaker to me.

As living sacrifice says, the point about Armitage is moot as he wouldn't have got a look in anyway under the incumbent coaching regime. If Lancaster was interested in having a seven, he would have taken Kvesic - a player who Lancaster described as his MoTM the last time he selected him before turning his back on him!

 

[ncurd]

RedruthRFC I wouldn't bother we are just witnessing someone who doesn't understand a broken watch is right twice a day. Even if they were right (I've seen plenty of other pundits/journo's disagree with that assessment).

 

[j_remos]

Eddie Jones+Woodward would lead to a big clash of egos and to subsequent disaster so YEEEEEAAAAH! Let's see them ride the tandem bike!

I don't know about that. I think Eddie would be happy to have someone above him dealing with all the RFU political bulls**t so he could concentrate on the business of coaching a winning team. Remember, SCW is not a coach, he is a manager more than anything. I was more hoping for SCW to replace Rob Andrew.

 

[RedruthRFC]

These are professionals who have chosen a hazardous occupation. Every training session and every match could bring the career ending injury. It's perfectly proper for them to seek the best remuneration they can and I don't see that as unpatriotic. If they are good enough, and the best player (having taken into account lack of regular availability, which it would be quite sensible and fair to take into account on marginal calls), they should be selected and if that was clear from the start, why should anyone object?

You're trying to put words (unpatriotic) into my mouth, I'm not quite sure why. The post you quoted explains exactly why I would understand an objection from a player who had turned down an opportunity to get a more attractive deal abroad would be justified in objecting, I don't see that I could have made it any clearer.

My biggest misgiving would be whether it would be possible to build a sufficient relationship with foreign teams. This is an area that members of the setup often talk about, but need to be more brutal / dictatorial in which is tough enough given the AP club's power talk about a club that the RFU have no relationship with what so ever.

 

[TommiG88]

So I see Lancaster blaming everything under the sun other than himself and his fellow coaches.