RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: worse conditions than NZ?

Slightly better in fairness, and certainly a different view on priorities, also they're picking from a different pool

Not sure why you raised conditions in the first place; they are not an excuse for our (in my view) underperformance in developing players (though its certainly improving).

We do get games where passing is miserably difficult and that does explain some of our balance in tactics and training, even if taken as a whole I'd prefer a shift in our emphasis. Though yes we have improved, actually the kids started improving a long time back, it's a failure to promote through the levels and the top tier that's the problem (and even at kids level you can still be shouted at for throwing a speculative pass that might create something)

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Slightly better in fairness, and certainly a different view on priorities, also they're picking from a different pool

Not sure why you raised conditions in the first place; they are not an excuse for our (in my view) underperformance in developing players (though its certainly improving).

We do get games where passing is miserably difficult and that does explain some of our balance in tactics and training, even if taken as a whole I'd prefer a shift in our emphasis. Though yes we have improved, actually the kids started improving a long time back, it's a failure to promote through the levels and the top tier that's the problem (and even at kids level you can still be shouted at for throwing a speculative pass that might create something)

agree the last bit totally

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote: it's a failure to promote through the levels and the top tier that's the problem (and even at kids level you can still be shouted at for throwing a speculative pass that might create something)

This is so true, and so frustrating, but I continue to see it at all levels from coaches in England

old-n-slo-2nd-row wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

This is so true, and so frustrating, but I continue to see it at all levels from coaches in England

It's nuts. But it is our culture

Digby wrote:

old-n-slo-2nd-row wrote:

Digby wrote:

This is so true, and so frustrating, but I continue to see it at all levels from coaches in England

It's nuts. But it is our culture

which bit- the speculative pass, or the failure to develop and/or promote to/through the top tier.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

old-n-slo-2nd-row wrote:
This is so true, and so frustrating, but I continue to see it at all levels from coaches in England

It's nuts. But it is our culture

which bit- the speculative pass, or the failure to develop and/or promote to/through the top tier.

Nuts that we so criticise players, especially young players trying to develop their game, and imo our culture is nuts also, but given it's our culture the majority disagree with me

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's nuts. But it is our culture

which bit- the speculative pass, or the failure to develop and/or promote to/through the top tier.

Nuts that we so criticise players, especially young players trying to develop their game, and imo our culture is nuts also, but given it's our culture the majority disagree with me

I meant which bit was cultural- the criticism of players (though criticism can be positive, even positively done) or the dev/promotion of players?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: which bit- the speculative pass, or the failure to develop and/or promote to/through the top tier.

Nuts that we so criticise players, especially young players trying to develop their game, and imo our culture is nuts also, but given it's our culture the majority disagree with me

I meant which bit was cultural- the criticism of players (though criticism can be positive, even positively done) or the dev/promotion of players?

For me it pervades across the whole. Fletcher and Walton being the standard bearers for change, so thank god the RFU came to its senses and ditched them under the enlightened rule of Ryan (actually I found that odd as whenever I've heard Ryan talk he makes a lot of sense)

Does our culture outlaw flair? Thus Andrew over Barnes, JW over CH, Farrell over Cipriani percolates down to safety-first over 'trying something' at junior level coaching perhaps.

Outlaw is too strong, frown upon unless you score/win and even then take a dim view might be closer

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Nuts that we so criticise players, especially young players trying to develop their game, and imo our culture is nuts also, but given it's our culture the majority disagree with me

I meant which bit was cultural- the criticism of players (though criticism can be positive, even positively done) or the dev/promotion of players?

For me it pervades across the whole. Fletcher and Walton being the standard bearers for change, so thank god the RFU came to its senses and ditched them under the enlightened rule of Ryan (actually I found that odd as whenever I've heard Ryan talk he makes a lot of sense)

Ok; I was thinking the former was definitely a long term cultural thang, the latter (and I was thinking post age group rep rugby, where losing walton and fletcher was a heinous crime, and agreed on Ryan, but lets park that) more a DOR/Head coach behaviour driven by results. But I guess its really the same thing.

Oakboy wrote:Does our culture outlaw flair? Thus Andrew over Barnes, JW over CH, Farrell over Cipriani percolates down to safety-first over 'trying something' at junior level coaching perhaps.

In the case of Cips its less about flair, more about attitude and behaviour off the field; and lets not forgot, his flair was attempted to be embraced at the earliest of opportunities, and sadly through bad luck and bad behaviour it didn't work out as I'd hoped. We are not unique in taking off field behaviour into account- rightly or wrongly, coaches like players who don't need a lot of management and by and large comply . That's why Faz is a hit with coaches I'd guess. There is a balance between being a disruptive talent who is worth the management effort and being a pain in the ar5e taking up a disproportionate amount of a coaches time, and at some point the coach has to draw the line (you could argue that's a fail for the coach, but some folks are just unmanageable imo).

I really wish Cips had become the great player I thought he could have been.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Does our culture outlaw flair? Thus Andrew over Barnes, JW over CH, Farrell over Cipriani percolates down to safety-first over 'trying something' at junior level coaching perhaps.

In the case of Cips its less about flair, more about attitude and behaviour off the field; and lets not forgot, his flair was attempted to be embraced at the earliest of opportunities, and sadly through bad luck and bad behaviour it didn't work out as I'd hoped. We are not unique in taking off field behaviour into account- rightly or wrongly, coaches like players who don't need a lot of management and by and large comply . That's why Faz is a hit with coaches I'd guess. There is a balance between being a disruptive talent who is worth the management effort and being a pain in the ar5e taking up a disproportionate amount of a coaches time, and at some point the coach has to draw the line (you could argue that's a fail for the coach, but some folks are just unmanageable imo).

I really wish Cips had become the great player I thought he could have been.

That's a solid explanation that I fully accept. The disruptive bit has to be weighed against the ceiling of the team unit though, doesn't it? In all the psycho-babble floating around at the top level can one individual really not be analysed/managed/exploited these days? Cipriani's days are over so his example no longer matters but the crunch for me was always that the team's potential performance ceiling was higher with him in it than with anyone else at 10.

Of course, selection doesn't occur in a vacuum. I often wonder whether Cips would have had more time in the shirt had there been any quality around at 9 and 12. Picking Cips at 10 with Youngs/Care at 9 and Farrell at 12 effectively negated everything he added to the party.

Maybe, we have to wait for a club trio as a unit. I'd ban all foreign players from those three shirts in the GP for the next 10 years if I could!

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Does our culture outlaw flair? Thus Andrew over Barnes, JW over CH, Farrell over Cipriani percolates down to safety-first over 'trying something' at junior level coaching perhaps.

In the case of Cips its less about flair, more about attitude and behaviour off the field; and lets not forgot, his flair was attempted to be embraced at the earliest of opportunities, and sadly through bad luck and bad behaviour it didn't work out as I'd hoped. We are not unique in taking off field behaviour into account- rightly or wrongly, coaches like players who don't need a lot of management and by and large comply . That's why Faz is a hit with coaches I'd guess. There is a balance between being a disruptive talent who is worth the management effort and being a pain in the ar5e taking up a disproportionate amount of a coaches time, and at some point the coach has to draw the line (you could argue that's a fail for the coach, but some folks are just unmanageable imo).

I really wish Cips had become the great player I thought he could have been.

That's a solid explanation that I fully accept. The disruptive bit has to be weighed against the ceiling of the team unit though, doesn't it? In all the psycho-babble floating around at the top level can one individual really not be analysed/managed/exploited these days? Cipriani's days are over so his example no longer matters but the crunch for me was always that the team's potential performance ceiling was higher with him in it than with anyone else at 10.

Of course, selection doesn't occur in a vacuum. I often wonder whether Cips would have had more time in the shirt had there been any quality around at 9 and 12. Picking Cips at 10 with Youngs/Care at 9 and Farrell at 12 effectively negated everything he added to the party.

Maybe, we have to wait for a club trio as a unit. I'd ban all foreign players from those three shirts in the GP for the next 10 years if I could!

No journeyman kiwi 9’s?!?! Who will we take as backup scrum half to RWC 2023?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Does our culture outlaw flair? Thus Andrew over Barnes, JW over CH, Farrell over Cipriani percolates down to safety-first over 'trying something' at junior level coaching perhaps.

In the case of Cips its less about flair, more about attitude and behaviour off the field; and lets not forgot, his flair was attempted to be embraced at the earliest of opportunities, and sadly through bad luck and bad behaviour it didn't work out as I'd hoped. We are not unique in taking off field behaviour into account- rightly or wrongly, coaches like players who don't need a lot of management and by and large comply . That's why Faz is a hit with coaches I'd guess. There is a balance between being a disruptive talent who is worth the management effort and being a pain in the ar5e taking up a disproportionate amount of a coaches time, and at some point the coach has to draw the line (you could argue that's a fail for the coach, but some folks are just unmanageable imo).

I really wish Cips had become the great player I thought he could have been.

The disruptive bit has to be weighed against the ceiling of the team unit though, doesn't it? In all the psycho-babble floating around at the top level can one individual really not be analysed/managed/exploited these days?

Well yes, I tried to make that point. Obviously failed

Mellsblue wrote: No journeyman kiwi 9’s?!?! Who will we take as backup scrum half to RWC 2023?

I sometimes wonder at the depths of my rugby ignorance. Simpson looks better than Heinz each time I watch Gloucester.

Beanz meanz Heinz.

morepork wrote:Beanz meanz Heinz.

Similarly fart-producing you mean?

You need as many dynamic 33 year old bald dudes as you can lay your hands on.

morepork wrote:You need as many dynamic 33 year old bald dudes as you can lay your hands on.

Helped in 2003 both front and backstage!

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Does our culture outlaw flair? Thus Andrew over Barnes, JW over CH, Farrell over Cipriani percolates down to safety-first over 'trying something' at junior level coaching perhaps.

In the case of Cips its less about flair, more about attitude and behaviour off the field; and lets not forgot, his flair was attempted to be embraced at the earliest of opportunities, and sadly through bad luck and bad behaviour it didn't work out as I'd hoped. We are not unique in taking off field behaviour into account- rightly or wrongly, coaches like players who don't need a lot of management and by and large comply . That's why Faz is a hit with coaches I'd guess. There is a balance between being a disruptive talent who is worth the management effort and being a pain in the ar5e taking up a disproportionate amount of a coaches time, and at some point the coach has to draw the line (you could argue that's a fail for the coach, but some folks are just unmanageable imo).

I really wish Cips had become the great player I thought he could have been.

That's a solid explanation that I fully accept. The disruptive bit has to be weighed against the ceiling of the team unit though, doesn't it? In all the psycho-babble floating around at the top level can one individual really not be analysed/managed/exploited these days? Cipriani's days are over so his example no longer matters but the crunch for me was always that the team's potential performance ceiling was higher with him in it than with anyone else at 10.

Of course, selection doesn't occur in a vacuum. I often wonder whether Cips would have had more time in the shirt had there been any quality around at 9 and 12. Picking Cips at 10 with Youngs/Care at 9 and Farrell at 12 effectively negated everything he added to the party.

Maybe, we have to wait for a club trio as a unit. I'd ban all foreign players from those three shirts in the GP for the next 10 years if I could!

Some decent points made here, but let’s be honest, we’re hardly the only country that does this. If you look at the starting 10s from the 10 top ranked nations, the ‘flair’ option is rarely the undisputed first choice. Often flair had pros and cons - see Finn Russell as exhibit A and I do wonder if Scotland would pick him if they had a serious alternative (Hastings is similar but not as good and Weir is not a tier 1 fly half).

Your last two paragraphs are the most pertinent IMO. A 10 is only as good as the players around him and if they’re not on the same wavelength, he’s never going to be able to play to his potential. In international rugby, you can only work with what you’ve got and it’s about finding the best balance, which is why the players that can fit in to the best system for the team usually get the nod.

Focusing on developing test quality 9, 10 and 12s could only be a good idea. We’re usually OK for 10s, but 9s and 12s ...

I know this wasn’t the point, but... not pick Finn Russell?

Cooper vs. Foley is the best example in recent years.

Scrumhead wrote:Cooper vs. Foley is the best example in recent years.

Spencer vs Mehrtens as well.

Puja

Wilkinson Vs Healey