RugbyRebels

this is a good article which covers much the ground we have around the fatigue issue.

https://samrobertsrugby.com/2018/03/22/ ... x-nations/

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
But those payments are guaranteed for the next 6 seasons through the current agreement. So if you want to use thise as leverage, then you've got a long time to wait until the next renegotiation.

Puja

given that the RFU think the status quo is fine- and they are utterly wrong- its moot, but agreements are regularly amended before end dates.

Oh absolutely, but PRL won't want to amend it unless the RFU brings a new bribe to the table. Why would they - they're happy.

Puja

They are happy today, but when BT Sport (say) pull the plug there might be a different view.

This thread highlights the problem; we pretty much agree on the issues, but no-one agrees on the answer, with a 'why should I/they/it' response. Unsurprisingly, as this debate isn't entirely new or unrehearsed.

fivepointer wrote:this is a good article which covers much the ground we have around the fatigue issue.

https://samrobertsrugby.com/2018/03/22/ ... x-nations/

yep as I think I said on this thread, we shouldn't allow Lions fatigue/general fatigue to mask some underlying problems.

Rich wrote:

Digby wrote:You want a cleansing of those not as morally virtuous as yourself? Would this make you the Pol Pot of rugby perhaps?

Also it's a daft point. If tomorrow all test games were banned it's not going to stop Tigers, Chiefs, Bath, Glaws... fans going along to watch their side. The test game is important, but it's hardly the be all and end all

Who says I'm as morally virtuous as you ?

If I owned say London Wasps, it wouldn't be in my interests to support the national team.


The test game isn't just important - it's the ONLY thing that is.

The best model right now is Ireland.
Ireland has club rugby but it's their 4 provincial teams that provide Ireland with top quality players.
It's also very well supported.

Ireland's provincial teams are stronger than England's club teams and always will be.

England do flog their players in training, based on it looking like that's exactly what they've just done and Eddie telling us that's what he was going to do. Test rugby isn't the only thing, even if you thought it was the only thing to you where are you sourcing players from for your only important thing. Clearly Irish provinces aren't always going to be in the ascendancy, so far we've won some we've lost some, it's hardly one way traffic when just before this season England were back champions in the 6N and in Europe - a goldfish could remember this. And then if by your own rationale of thinking test rugby is the only thing that matters and you want a system which recognises that why on earth would you want the Irish system and not the NZ system?

Rich wrote:

Digby wrote:You want a cleansing of those not as morally virtuous as yourself? Would this make you the Pol Pot of rugby perhaps?

Also it's a daft point. If tomorrow all test games were banned it's not going to stop Tigers, Chiefs, Bath, Glaws... fans going along to watch their side. The test game is important, but it's hardly the be all and end all

Who says I'm as morally virtuous as you ?

If I owned say London Wasps, it wouldn't be in my interests to support the national team.


The test game isn't just important - it's the ONLY thing that is.

The best model right now is Ireland.
Ireland has club rugby but it's their 4 provincial teams that provide Ireland with top quality players.
It's also very well supported.

Ireland's provincial teams are stronger than England's club teams and always will be.

The model works well for the Ireland national team, but supporters of Irish Provincial teams are frequently pissed off that centrally-contracted players are not released to play important games for the province.

The biggest thing to take from Ireland and New Zealand is they select on form and aren't afraid to change the side.

pandion wrote:The biggest thing to take from Ireland and New Zealand is they select on form and aren't afraid to change the side.

Then why do they always pick the same team?
No team ever selects on form

Which Tyler wrote:

pandion wrote:The biggest thing to take from Ireland and New Zealand is they select on form and aren't afraid to change the side.

Then why do they always pick the same team?
No team ever selects on form

I do get tired of the form argument. Not only is it simply not done, you'd also end up with 100 players all with 10 caps each.

Stockdale might have been picked on form, but more likely potential. Ryan was certainly picked on potential. Leavy was picked due to injury and has been brilliant, but I don't see how form would have pushed him past SOB and JvdF

Then you go round in a circle and end up in England's situation of not changing a winning team then a couple of injuries and fatigue/form issues gives us the dross that was the 6ns.

You can't complain about the front/backrow and midfield and then suggest you can't pick other players?

To be fair, I'd be happy if more English players were picked on potential…

pandion wrote:Then you go round in a circle and end up in England's situation of not changing a winning team then a couple of injuries and fatigue/form issues gives us the dross that was the 6ns.

You can't complain about the front/backrow and midfield and then suggest you can't pick other players?

Talk about a strawman argument.
Nobody has said that you can't pick other players.
Selection is (and always has been, and always will be) based on a combination of class (current and potential), team dynamic, gameplan, fitness, form, opposition, and favouritism; hopefully in that order

Which Tyler wrote:

pandion wrote:Then you go round in a circle and end up in England's situation of not changing a winning team then a couple of injuries and fatigue/form issues gives us the dross that was the 6ns.

You can't complain about the front/backrow and midfield and then suggest you can't pick other players?

Talk about a strawman argument.
Nobody has said that you can't pick other players.
Selection is (and always has been, and always will be) based on a combination of class (current and potential), team dynamic, gameplan, fitness, form, opposition, and favouritism; hopefully in that order

Then the selectors got it wrong

pandion wrote:Then the selectors got it wrong

Up for debate

Which Tyler wrote:

pandion wrote:Then the selectors got it wrong

Up for debate

Well we see things differently. The change in results is not because other teams have suddenly improved imo and a country with our resources shouldn't be reliant on such a small group to perform.

pandion wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

pandion wrote:Then the selectors got it wrong

Up for debate

Well we see things differently. The change in results is not because other teams have suddenly improved imo and a country with our resources shouldn't be reliant on such a small group to perform.

If they'd picked different players, then trained them into the ground, do you think they would have won?

Raggs wrote:

pandion wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Up for debate

Well we see things differently. The change in results is not because other teams have suddenly improved imo and a country with our resources shouldn't be reliant on such a small group to perform.

If they'd picked different players, then trained them into the ground, do you think they would have won?

We'll never know but atleast some others would have had a break or been playing premiership rugby.

pandion wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

pandion wrote:Then the selectors got it wrong

Up for debate

Well we see things differently. The change in results is not because other teams have suddenly improved imo and a country with our resources shouldn't be reliant on such a small group to perform.

And another straw-man
Again, nobondy has claimed that other teams have suddenly improved.

Every country is reliant on their best players; having more resrouces doesn't mean we have more best players; and each team is still limited to 15 on the pitch at a time.

Select different players, and give them a right beasting to prepare them for a RWC (that they won't be selected for) would just mean that you're players are just as exhausted, mentally and physically; they're also not as good (theoretically) as the players you've given a rest to despite actively wanting to not give them a rest.
Your argument just makes no sense (or possibly doesm buyt is being presented poorly).

You'd be far better off arguing that the players should have been given a beasting, and that they should have targetted peak performance during the 6N.
This argument would have nothing to do with selection; nor what other teams are doing; but on what went wrong from a short-term, English perspective

Which Tyler wrote:

pandion wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Up for debate

Well we see things differently. The change in results is not because other teams have suddenly improved imo and a country with our resources shouldn't be reliant on such a small group to perform.

And another straw-man
Again, nobondy has claimed that other teams have suddenly improved.

Every country is reliant on their best players; having more resrouces doesn't mean we have more best players; and each team is still limited to 15 on the pitch at a time.

Select different players, and give them a right beasting to prepare them for a RWC (that they won't be selected for) would just mean that you're players are just as exhausted, mentally and physically; they're also not as good (theoretically) as the players you've given a rest to despite actively wanting to not give them a rest.
Your argument just makes no sense (or possibly doesm buyt is being presented poorly).

You'd be far better off arguing that the players should have been given a beasting, and that they should have targetted peak performance during the 6N.
This argument would have nothing to do with selection; nor what other teams are doing; but on what went wrong from a short-term, English perspective

Selection has been poor though, we've all said that - putting in 'pick on form' was a slight error . Drowning that under the noise of fatigue is a mistake I hope Eddie isnt making; Eddie has also admitted he messed up tactically,

Which Tyler wrote:

pandion wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Up for debate

Well we see things differently. The change in results is not because other teams have suddenly improved imo and a country with our resources shouldn't be reliant on such a small group to perform.

And another straw-man
Again, nobondy has claimed that other teams have suddenly improved.

Every country is reliant on their best players; having more resrouces doesn't mean we have more best players; and each team is still limited to 15 on the pitch at a time.

Select different players, and give them a right beasting to prepare them for a RWC (that they won't be selected for) would just mean that you're players are just as exhausted, mentally and physically; they're also not as good (theoretically) as the players you've given a rest to despite actively wanting to not give them a rest.
Your argument just makes no sense (or possibly doesm buyt is being presented poorly).

You'd be far better off arguing that the players should have been given a beasting, and that they should have targetted peak performance during the 6N.
This argument would have nothing to do with selection; nor what other teams are doing; but on what went wrong from a short-term, English perspective

Imo means in my opinion, I have not said others think the teams have improved. The thoughts are only a straw man when combined with other assumptions like beasting the team and that the WC squad is already selected. I didn't say that, you did.

I think we should have more players with international experience to call on and that selecting out of form,fatigued or just back from injury is often a mistake. I also know with our long season and player workload it's not possible to be in form and or mentally firing for 11 months a year. The system we have like France is where the money is, it won't change so we should adapt to it. Again this is my opinion but I love watching the Prem, top14 and European games but find super rugby boring. I'm not alone or the money would be in the SH and it's not. There is no reason except bad coaching and lack of club squad places that England can't have a constant stream of quality players.

Has Jones actually said 'fatigue' played a huge part in our predictable demise, or is this media talk flamed by ex players and coaches scratching about to fill their columns?

Digby wrote:Stockdale might have been picked on form, but more likely potential. Ryan was certainly picked on potential. Leavy was picked due to injury and has been brilliant, but I don't see how form would have pushed him past SOB and JvdF

Both Leavy and Ryan have been playing great stuff for Leinster. Yes - Leavy did get a little a little nudge ahead because of injuries to SOB and JVF. SOB is proably nailed on if he is fit but most Irish fans have been tipping Leavy to edge JVF for some time. Leavy is also a good 6. He grabbed his 6N opportunity with both hands and will be difficult to displace.

p/d wrote:Has Jones actually said 'fatigue' played a huge part in our predictable demise, or is this media talk flamed by ex players and coaches scratching about to fill their columns?

He's mostly said the game changed around him and he didn't spot it, thereby admitting he stuffed up. But I havent seen anything about fatigue.

Raggs wrote:

Rich wrote:

Raggs wrote:...the little Englander club fans may scream, the little Englander club owners might simply ask "What's in it for us?"...

And the answer would be : Notrhing


The club owners are flogging their players to make a few $$$


The same is happening in France - club owners spend way more money and produce good teams but the French team has been rubbish for years now.

The players can offer exactly what Billy V is presumably negotiating for now, less money for less playing.

I somehow doubt that Billy V is asking for that.

Players have short careers that can end at any time through injury so will naturally seek to maximize their earnings.

What is needed is frankly not in the players' interests as a group. We need less teams, less game and therefore less players.
They will never vote for that and neither will the club owners.

The RFU needs to show some leadership.