RugbyRebels

Not sure Smith should shoulder all the blame, Dombrandt’s happy go lucky personality went some way to undermine team unity.

I blame Marchant

p/d wrote:Not sure Smith should shoulder all the blame, Dombrandt’s happy go lucky personality went some way to undermine team unity.

I blame Marchant

Marler's ghost

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Not sure Smith should shoulder all the blame, Dombrandt’s happy go lucky personality went some way to undermine team unity.

I blame Marchant

Marler's ghost

I haven’t seen Marler’s ghost but there’s no way Marler’s horse isn’t better.

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Not sure Smith should shoulder all the blame, Dombrandt’s happy go lucky personality went some way to undermine team unity.

I blame Marchant

Marler's ghost

Takes one to know one, eh Banquo.

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Not sure Smith should shoulder all the blame, Dombrandt’s happy go lucky personality went some way to undermine team unity.

I blame Marchant

Marler's ghost

Takes one to know one, eh Banquo.

I expectre so...

Mellsblue wrote:

Sweeny should consider a career as a Cabinet Minister

On the where do you play Lawes point I recall him saying in one interview that he noticed how when playing a game at lock he’d get favourable reviews yet when playing that same game at 6 he get judged more harshly. I think he was trying to make a point that expectations of all round rugby skills are (all things being equal) higher for backrows than locks and that in that context there’d been inconsistency in how a player like himself was rated when changing position. However, my own interpretation of his observation is that maybe lock is the position his skillset and style work best at whilst that not withstanding I fully get that he’d much prefer to play backrow. In other words his preference and optimal skillset are to an extent mismatched? An immediate contrast is with Itoje who’s better at lock than 6 and appears to prefer playing lock.

jngf wrote:On the where do you play Lawes point I recall him saying in one interview that he noticed how when playing a game at lock he’d get favourable reviews yet when playing that same game at 6 he get judged more harshly. I think he was trying to make a point that expectations of all round rugby skills are (all things being equal) higher for backrows than locks and that in that context there’d been inconsistency in how a player like himself was rated when changing position. However, my own interpretation of his observation is that maybe lock is the position his skillset and style work best at whilst that not withstanding I fully get that he’d much prefer to play backrow. In other words his preference and optimal skillset are to an extent mismatched? An immediate contrast is with Itoje who’s better at lock than 6 and appears to prefer playing lock.

You're bang on that he's not making the point that he thinks he's making there. If he's producing the same performance at flank that he does at lock, then he is not a flanker, but a third lock who is somehow not producing extra despite not having to work as hard in the scrums.

Puja

I am very much of the opinion that we must have three genuine line-out options and Lawes at 6 was one of the few selection decisions where I agreed with Jones . . . until Ewels was sent off. Lawes's performance against Ireland as captain and lock was outstanding.

I never liked the back row with Curry and Underhill on the flanks. I have never rated Billy V as highly as many do.

Where that leaves us I am not sure. Jones should have his first choices all resolved for every position by now with back ups in place too. I have no idea how he proposes three line out options without Lawes at 6. I doubt he has a clue either.

And another one from Brian Moore in the Telegraph:

English game should stop wasting millions on substandard players
Clubs could instead use money to invest in grounds, facilities and to grow boys’, girls’ and women’s sections

Brian Moore
image
English rugby is wasting millions of pounds on players who are simply not good enough.

Both Bill Sweeney, the Rugby Football Union’s chief executive, and Eddie Jones, the England head coach, got a lot of stick last week from many journalists – Jones for his team not doing better in the recent Six Nations and Sweeney for not sacking his coach and instead issuing an unseemly rapid statement backing Jones.

As I wrote last week, Jones has a case to answer for England’s underperformance, not least in terms of inconsistent selection, but he is not at fault for the structural faults in the English game. You could allege that Sweeney is responsible for those but, in truth, they are long-standing and without a clear mandate from the professional element of the English game and support from the grass roots, the inherent faults will not be solved.

So much is said about England’s superior playing numbers that it borders on being cliched. Yes, more players gives you a better chance of producing elite players, but that is not the whole story, not by a long way. What is more frustrating is that if you ask many people within the game, they do not accept there are basic problems and, until they do, English rugby will continue to fall short of its potential.

Encourage players who want to try to be pro – but if they are not good enough, why pay them?
Start at the bottom and with participation – English rugby is wasting millions of pounds. I sat on the committee that looked into this and I was firmly against the current RFU policy of allowing clubs at levels three, four and five to pay players who are not good enough to be professionals, full or part-time. By all means encourage players who want to try to be pro, but if they are not good enough, why pay them at all? Rugby league and cricket have clear demarcated levels, why union does not do the same is beyond me.

The maximum total payments to players are set at £250,000, £125,000 and £50,000 in levels three, four and five, respectively, and they have effectively become what a club need to spend to play at that level. Think what that yearly spend could achieve, rather than use players who are not good enough. All those clubs could have their own full-time local rugby development officers. They could make substantial investments in their grounds, facilities and medical back-up. They could invest to grow boys’ and girls’ mini-rugby and women’s sections, pay for all their coaches, at every level, to be better qualified. They could even fund school rugby teams.

Growing rugby is not just the RFU’s responsibility, and who knows better how to promote the game in each locality – a national governing body or those who live, work and play there?

What the game really needs is to make clear decisions about how many paying clubs it should allow and, if necessary, divide the governance of the professional and amateur games.

The professional and international games should guarantee funding for the grass-roots and schools game, which, lest they forget, is where players come from and without which they would cease to exist.

As for the elite level, the transfer rate from junior clubs or academies desperately needs sorting out. Ireland have a better under-20 structure, which means their young players play and develop continually, unlike in England where some might only have a handful of games per season.

A minimum quota of England-qualified players in professional teams would also help with this problem, as it has done in France. Why be the paymasters for the rest of the world’s players? A reduced number of overseas players would mean only the better players are contracted and create more room for young domestic players.

On another crucial issue, you again have to look at the French to see how they have sorted out their access to international player issues. The RFU should at least revisit the issue of central contracts and, if this proves unworkable, at least ensure their national coaches have the same time with players as their opponents.

All this will take time and I doubt whether there is the stomach for the fight. I doubt whether there is the altruism on either side for the good of the wider English game, but if there is not then England’s potential will never be fulfilled and success will be sporadic. England could have a flourishing, inclusive grass-roots game that is played hard but where essentially the purpose is to make lifelong friends and enjoy yourself. It could distil the talent that such a system would produce by having a joined-up system of professional development that favours domestically qualified players.

At present, the pyramid for English rugby is distorted. The steps and pathways are uneven, and money is wasted rewarding mediocrity.

You see, it is not all about raw numbers, it is about what you do with them and whether you can enhance rugby at all levels.

As ever, Moore makes a number of very good points.

On this - The maximum total payments to players are set at £250,000, £125,000 and £50,000 in levels three, four and five, respectively, and they have effectively become what a club need to spend to play at that level.

I've long thought that the game below national level (i.e Nat L1 level 3) should be run on a strictly amateur basis. Far too many local clubs at levels well below the national ones have got themselves into trouble by paying players.

Been saying the same for ages esp on wasting money on average players and where the pro game needs to cut off, but I agree with Moore that it isn't likely to change.

I’m unsure what to make of his last two points as he doesn’t really flesh out what he means exactly.

1. Do Ireland have a better under 20 structure? They produce a lot of talent for a country their size, but that production is quite heavily reliant on the Dublin private schools system. I’ve listened to Bernard Jackman talk critically of how the Leinster academy system works, particularly in terms of how they effectively warehouse anyone below absolute elite talent level in their ‘sub-academy’. There’s loads of good young players at the provinces-often even age grade internationals- who won’t even get a full blown pro contract until they’re 22/23. They’ll do a couple of years in the sub academy and then 2 or 3 years in the senior academy, on very little money and minimal game time.

The fact is that more English and French players are playing high level professional rugby from an early age than any other countries players. Simply they have far and away the most pro clubs and the longest, most arduous seasons, which requires young players to make up squad numbers.

2. Access to players; do the French have greater access than Eddie does to his squad? I’m baffled as to what Galthie can do with his players that Eddie can’t. Seems an odd assertion. I do recall Galthie having to take a 2nd string squad to Oz because the top14 final clashed with the first test. Also recall him having to go second string again for the Autumn Nations final because LNR would only let him pick his best team for a set number of games in the AI window. Issues that Eddie has never had to contend with. In terms of access can only think the tier 1 nations in a better position than England would be Ireland & New Zealand.