RugbyRebels

At a guess a reasonable number of those attended public school, and even if not it's miles off suggesting we're getting the best athletic talent, miles off

I didn't say we were anywhere near getting the best talent, just that it's not 99% Henrys, Jeremys and Sebastians.
State school or rugby scholarship England XXIII*:
Mako
LCD
Cole
Lawes
Isiekwe
?
Curry
Billy
Care
Ford
Nowell
Farrell
Lozowski
May
Brown

Dunn
Marler
Sinckler
?
Simmonds
Spencer
Cipriani
Tuilagi

*Bit of guesswork and assuming those who went from state school to sixth form at renowned rugby public schools were on scholarships.

It not being 99% and frankly it even being 50/50 would mean there's a long way to go

Seems to me your English options for next England boss look like being:
Lancaster - RFU unlikely to go for it as it may seem like them admitting a mistake in letting him go.
Farrell - no head coach experience but now plenty of International experience
Edwards - see Farrell
Cockerill - I think more success and more varied coaching background than any other English coach plying their trade except maybe Richards. Having been in Embra, a better knowledge of how Unions see things and need to be looked after. Utterly transformed their outlook and results.
Baxter - really very successful with a less than stellar playing panel, and clearly knows how to get results against teams that are very starry.
Richards - apparently doesn't want it and the RFU won't want the team to be dogged at every term about innuendo of cheating. I mean the rest of us do that anyone with any vague chance but we'd actually have some evidence.
Gustard - some time with the Test set up and some time as a head coach.

The reality is that any coach of any experience will have at least 1 "failure" behind them. Discard people on that basis and you just end up with a succession of people not ready for the demands of Test rugby.

Or they could offer Steve Hansen £2.5 million a year, in the belief it's the head coach who makes up for the players not being all that good

Digby wrote:Or they could offer Steve Hansen £2.5 million a year, in the belief it's the head coach who makes up for the players not being all that good

You may say that but the man you name in your quote along with the other AB coaches said if England ever sorted their shit out the AB's would have a real problem holding onto top spot. They say we have the talent we just don't use it.

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Digby wrote:Or they could offer Steve Hansen £2.5 million a year, in the belief it's the head coach who makes up for the players not being all that good

You may say that but the man you name in your quote along with the other AB coaches said if England ever sorted their shit out the AB's would have a real problem holding onto top spot. They say we have the talent we just don't use it.

Always be nice about teams worse than yours

Digby wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Digby wrote:Or they could offer Steve Hansen £2.5 million a year, in the belief it's the head coach who makes up for the players not being all that good

You may say that but the man you name in your quote along with the other AB coaches said if England ever sorted their shit out the AB's would have a real problem holding onto top spot. They say we have the talent we just don't use it.

Always be nice about teams worse than yours

He is right. For how many generations will the not good enough thing hold water given the number of registered players available to England?

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote: You may say that but the man you name in your quote along with the other AB coaches said if England ever sorted their shit out the AB's would have a real problem holding onto top spot. They say we have the talent we just don't use it.

Always be nice about teams worse than yours

He is right. For how many generations will the not good enough thing hold water given the number of registered players available to England?

Very weak, even Rowan wouldn't fall for such poor analysis

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:
Always be nice about teams worse than yours

He is right. For how many generations will the not good enough thing hold water given the number of registered players available to England?

Very weak, even Rowan wouldn't fall for such poor analysis

Typical Welsh WUM.

If Hansen's right, the misuse of talent starts well before the England head coach ever gets hold of them.


Also, I thought Edwards did have HC experience? Good point about Cockers expanding his horizons too.

Digby wrote:It not being 99% and frankly it even being 50/50 would mean there's a long way to go

To have a sensible discussion about this we would need to know the number of male pupils at independent schools which play rugby and the number of male pupils at state schools which play rugby.

That would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

CunningPunter wrote:

Digby wrote:It not being 99% and frankly it even being 50/50 would mean there's a long way to go

To have a sensible discussion about this we would need to know the number of male pupils at independent schools which play rugby and the number of male pupils at state schools which play rugby.

That would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

I think an issue there is a huge part of the problem is we're simply not engaging the vast numbers of pupils from a state school background, unless one weirdly counts 2 games lessons a year of playing rugby where nobody knows what to do anyway, and nobody sane does that (unless Morepork wants to make a late claim for sanity)

Digby wrote:

CunningPunter wrote:

Digby wrote:It not being 99% and frankly it even being 50/50 would mean there's a long way to go

To have a sensible discussion about this we would need to know the number of male pupils at independent schools which play rugby and the number of male pupils at state schools which play rugby.

That would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

I think an issue there is a huge part of the problem is we're simply not engaging the vast numbers of pupils from a state school background, unless one weirdly counts 2 games lessons a year of playing rugby where nobody knows what to do anyway, and nobody sane does that (unless Morepork wants to make a late claim for sanity)

As much as it's good for schools to introduce children to a wide range of sports, they're most interested in engaging the kids with a sport that gets them moving a lot and keeps them interested. Because of the spread and popularity of football, it simply makes sense for it to be the #1 team sport played at schools.

I think the bigger problem is the decrease in parent led activities: they just don't want/don't have the time/ don't feel like taking the kids to rugby practice and matches every weekend.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

CunningPunter wrote:
To have a sensible discussion about this we would need to know the number of male pupils at independent schools which play rugby and the number of male pupils at state schools which play rugby.

That would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

I think an issue there is a huge part of the problem is we're simply not engaging the vast numbers of pupils from a state school background, unless one weirdly counts 2 games lessons a year of playing rugby where nobody knows what to do anyway, and nobody sane does that (unless Morepork wants to make a late claim for sanity)

As much as it's good for schools to introduce children to a wide range of sports, they're most interested in engaging the kids with a sport that gets them moving a lot and keeps them interested. Because of the spread and popularity of football, it simply makes sense for it to be the #1 team sport played at schools.

I think the bigger problem is the decrease in parent led activities: they just don't want/don't have the time/ don't feel like taking the kids to rugby practice and matches every weekend.

Decrease in parent led activities? I'm really not sure that's accurate at all

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
I think an issue there is a huge part of the problem is we're simply not engaging the vast numbers of pupils from a state school background, unless one weirdly counts 2 games lessons a year of playing rugby where nobody knows what to do anyway, and nobody sane does that (unless Morepork wants to make a late claim for sanity)

As much as it's good for schools to introduce children to a wide range of sports, they're most interested in engaging the kids with a sport that gets them moving a lot and keeps them interested. Because of the spread and popularity of football, it simply makes sense for it to be the #1 team sport played at schools.

I think the bigger problem is the decrease in parent led activities: they just don't want/don't have the time/ don't feel like taking the kids to rugby practice and matches every weekend.

Decrease in parent led activities? I'm really not sure that's accurate at all

I could be wrong, it is anecdotal. But several of my family members work in education and they say there's a decrease and an increase in parent free activities like after school clubs in classrooms. These are all state schools, but all close to Twickenham...

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
As much as it's good for schools to introduce children to a wide range of sports, they're most interested in engaging the kids with a sport that gets them moving a lot and keeps them interested. Because of the spread and popularity of football, it simply makes sense for it to be the #1 team sport played at schools.

I think the bigger problem is the decrease in parent led activities: they just don't want/don't have the time/ don't feel like taking the kids to rugby practice and matches every weekend.

Decrease in parent led activities? I'm really not sure that's accurate at all

I could be wrong, it is anecdotal. But several of my family members work in education and they say there's a decrease and an increase in parent free activities like after school clubs in classrooms. These are all state schools, but all close to Twickenham...

My friends seem to spend the vast majority of their time chauffeuring their children from one thing to another and most children's activities seem to have waiting lists. Childrens rugby in particular I think is unrecognisably busy from not that long ago.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Decrease in parent led activities? I'm really not sure that's accurate at all

I could be wrong, it is anecdotal. But several of my family members work in education and they say there's a decrease and an increase in parent free activities like after school clubs in classrooms. These are all state schools, but all close to Twickenham...

My friends seem to spend the vast majority of their time chauffeuring their children from one thing to another and most children's activities seem to have waiting lists. Childrens rugby in particular I think is unrecognisably busy from not that long ago.

That is ny experience too but I'm willing to admit I live in a bubble. In terms of rugby, might that be an irish thing (I've always assumed you lived in Ireland)

I would ask whether all the fantastic work done on Sunday mornings by mini and junior coaches amounts to much elite player development.
When I was having go the pathways to representative rugby were jealously guarded by the schools. The schools competitions were the pathway. Many fee paying schools told their players they were not allowed to play for local clubs.

Cameo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
I could be wrong, it is anecdotal. But several of my family members work in education and they say there's a decrease and an increase in parent free activities like after school clubs in classrooms. These are all state schools, but all close to Twickenham...

My friends seem to spend the vast majority of their time chauffeuring their children from one thing to another and most children's activities seem to have waiting lists. Childrens rugby in particular I think is unrecognisably busy from not that long ago.

That is ny experience too but I'm willing to admit I live in a bubble. In terms of rugby, might that be an irish thing (I've always assumed you lived in Ireland)

I'm in London actually. Ireland has a very different profile certainly for children's rugby which is utterly dominated by the schools at least in Ulster.