RugbyRebels

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:33 pm

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:08 pm As I’ve said in another thread the RFU are diverting money away from everything that will grow the domestic game over the longer term to fund the clubs keeping international players. We would be far better to allow the French to fund a few of the England team with the clubs moving towards a sustainable staffing cost. I dont see the huge risk of a mass exodus as the french teams have to work to the JIFF rules.

Lowering the quality of the Premiership and meaning that young players aren't properly tested and don't develop as well, meaning a lower quality England team and less money for the Prem cause sponsors/fans/tv won't pay for losers. That's how death spirals begin.

The whole thing of "French clubs have to work to JIFF rules, so they won't take too many" is a red herring. There are 28 pro French clubs, so there's plenty of international spots and, if they're already interested in Joe Simmonds, they'll happily relieve us of MSmith, FSmith, and Ford.

Plus there's a definite argument to be made that the policy is actually reducing English clubs' staffing costs - they're getting England players at a significant reduction to their market price because those England players know they'll earn less overall if they miss out on England appearance money.

Puja

whilst I agree, there are a lot of pro players who will need to find clubs over the next 18 months when 35 + 12 kicks in; I make that 25-30 Bath will need to offload, for example (they've started sending players out on trials now). How this is all reconciled isn't clear; at the same time, the RFU want the U20's to get loads more game time.

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:08 pm As I’ve said in another thread the RFU are diverting money away from everything that will grow the domestic game over the longer term to fund the clubs keeping international players. We would be far better to allow the French to fund a few of the England team with the clubs moving towards a sustainable staffing cost. I dont see the huge risk of a mass exodus as the french teams have to work to the JIFF rules.

I could also see it benefiting someone like Itoje to be playing the big packs in France weekly, as it seemingly has to Willis.

"Players qualifying under these rules, referred to in French as JIFF (joueurs issus des filières de formation, loosely translated as "academy-trained players"), must have been registered with the FFR for at least five years before turning 23, or have spent three seasons in an FFR-approved training centre before turning 21."

Just means they'll target our best young talent who'll be tempted across knowing that there's no limitation on representing England later if they come through in France. You don't need to be FQ to be JIFF qualified.

Excellent, that’s capacity and funding issues for the academies sorted. What is next on the to-do list.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:33 pm

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:08 pm As I’ve said in another thread the RFU are diverting money away from everything that will grow the domestic game over the longer term to fund the clubs keeping international players. We would be far better to allow the French to fund a few of the England team with the clubs moving towards a sustainable staffing cost. I dont see the huge risk of a mass exodus as the french teams have to work to the JIFF rules.

Lowering the quality of the Premiership and meaning that young players aren't properly tested and don't develop as well, meaning a lower quality England team and less money for the Prem cause sponsors/fans/tv won't pay for losers. That's how death spirals begin.

The whole thing of "French clubs have to work to JIFF rules, so they won't take too many" is a red herring. There are 28 pro French clubs, so there's plenty of international spots and, if they're already interested in Joe Simmonds, they'll happily relieve us of MSmith, FSmith, and Ford.

Plus there's a definite argument to be made that the policy is actually reducing English clubs' staffing costs - they're getting England players at a significant reduction to their market price because those England players know they'll earn less overall if they miss out on England appearance money.

Puja

Lowering the quality of club teams perhaps but improving the quality of the international team while also making the finances more sustainable for the RFU / clubs.

It is lowering the cost vs what the same players would be in the open market but if we werent synthetically keeping England players n England we could set a budget and work from there which is a much more sustainable model.

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:32 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:33 pm

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:08 pm As I’ve said in another thread the RFU are diverting money away from everything that will grow the domestic game over the longer term to fund the clubs keeping international players. We would be far better to allow the French to fund a few of the England team with the clubs moving towards a sustainable staffing cost. I dont see the huge risk of a mass exodus as the french teams have to work to the JIFF rules.

Lowering the quality of the Premiership and meaning that young players aren't properly tested and don't develop as well, meaning a lower quality England team and less money for the Prem cause sponsors/fans/tv won't pay for losers. That's how death spirals begin.

The whole thing of "French clubs have to work to JIFF rules, so they won't take too many" is a red herring. There are 28 pro French clubs, so there's plenty of international spots and, if they're already interested in Joe Simmonds, they'll happily relieve us of MSmith, FSmith, and Ford.

Plus there's a definite argument to be made that the policy is actually reducing English clubs' staffing costs - they're getting England players at a significant reduction to their market price because those England players know they'll earn less overall if they miss out on England appearance money.

Puja

Lowering the quality of club teams perhaps but improving the quality of the international team while also making the finances more sustainable for the RFU / clubs.

It is lowering the cost vs what the same players would be in the open market but if we werent synthetically keeping England players n England we could set a budget and work from there which is a much more sustainable model.

I don't think I understand your argument. The RFU aren't paying extra money to keep the players in England - they're just paying the England salaries and saying that the only people that can collect them have to play in England, so there's no saving to be made there. Your plan only works with a massive cut to the salary cap at the same time as we outsource our elite player development to a foreign league, which is going to be a hard sell to the likes of Craig and Lansdown. If we don't have that, then the same salary cap will just be spent on importing all the Welsh talent to fill the gaps in our XVs.

That's not to address the question of whether it would even be an improvement to the quality of the international team to remove most of the training weeks and control of the players, for the sake of picking Jack Willis.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 12:29 am

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:32 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:33 pm

Lowering the quality of the Premiership and meaning that young players aren't properly tested and don't develop as well, meaning a lower quality England team and less money for the Prem cause sponsors/fans/tv won't pay for losers. That's how death spirals begin.

The whole thing of "French clubs have to work to JIFF rules, so they won't take too many" is a red herring. There are 28 pro French clubs, so there's plenty of international spots and, if they're already interested in Joe Simmonds, they'll happily relieve us of MSmith, FSmith, and Ford.

Plus there's a definite argument to be made that the policy is actually reducing English clubs' staffing costs - they're getting England players at a significant reduction to their market price because those England players know they'll earn less overall if they miss out on England appearance money.

Puja

Lowering the quality of club teams perhaps but improving the quality of the international team while also making the finances more sustainable for the RFU / clubs.

It is lowering the cost vs what the same players would be in the open market but if we werent synthetically keeping England players n England we could set a budget and work from there which is a much more sustainable model.

I don't think I understand your argument. The RFU aren't paying extra money to keep the players in England - they're just paying the England salaries and saying that the only people that can collect them have to play in England, so there's no saving to be made there. Your plan only works with a massive cut to the salary cap at the same time as we outsource our elite player development to a foreign league, which is going to be a hard sell to the likes of Craig and Lansdown. If we don't have that, then the same salary cap will just be spent on importing all the Welsh talent to fill the gaps in our XVs.

That's not to address the question of whether it would even be an improvement to the quality of the international team to remove most of the training weeks and control of the players, for the sake of picking Jack Willis.

Puja

*Like*

SixAndAHalf wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:08 pm As I’ve said in another thread the RFU are diverting money away from everything that will grow the domestic game over the longer term to fund the clubs keeping international players. We would be far better to allow the French to fund a few of the England team with the clubs moving towards a sustainable staffing cost. I dont see the huge risk of a mass exodus as the french teams have to work to the JIFF rules.

I could also see it benefiting someone like Itoje to be playing the big packs in France weekly, as it seemingly has to Willis.

Plus, we see that performances in France do not necessarily translate.

Look at Mercer. He stood out in France. But has been decent for Glos and nothing more. He doesn't look like a "must pick", he looks like someone who should possibly be in the reckoning.

Does Willis stand out because of the way these clubs use their backrows? Would Itoje benefit from playing against big packs, or would he be ground into the dirt by their relentless schedule?

I just don't see any evidence that playing in France improves a player any more than playing in England. Because the examples of players who have played in France and then returned...they don't look like world beaters back in the Prem. They just have systems in place in France that allow them to shine in that environment. That's not the case in England or for England.

I also see no way we can say that Willis is our best backrow. He looks amazing in a dominant pack. He's looked decent for England, but not any better than a fit Curry.

But, will we see a fit Curry again?

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:10 am But, will we see a fit Curry again?

Not really relevant if Willis is playing in France.

Changing the rules would be madness.

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:02 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:10 am But, will we see a fit Curry again?

Not really relevant if Willis is playing in France.

Changing the rules would be madness.

I’d argue it’s very relevant as on talent and form J Willy is almost certainly T Cuzza’s replacement.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:10 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:02 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:10 am But, will we see a fit Curry again?

Not really relevant if Willis is playing in France.

Changing the rules would be madness.

I’d argue it’s very relevant as on talent and form J Willy is almost certainly T Cuzza’s replacement.

Tom Curry is two years younger. Underhill is the same age as Willis. Earl is a year younger than Willis.

Jacky boy isn't the up and coming youngster anymore he's 27. Very good player but there's a lot of competition for him and they've got more international experience than he has. If he wants to comeback to the Prem fantastic otherwise let's look at what we have plus Pearson, Pepper and Pollock who are all coming through.

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:17 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:10 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:02 am

Not really relevant if Willis is playing in France.

Changing the rules would be madness.

I’d argue it’s very relevant as on talent and form J Willy is almost certainly T Cuzza’s replacement.

Tom Curry is two years younger. Underhill is the same age as Willis. Earl is a year younger than Willis.

Jacky boy isn't the up and coming youngster anymore he's 27. Very good player but there's a lot of competition for him and they've got more international experience than he has. If he wants to comeback to the Prem fantastic otherwise let's look at what we have plus Pearson, Pepper and Pollock who are all coming through.

Completely missed my point.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:10 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:02 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:10 am But, will we see a fit Curry again?

Not really relevant if Willis is playing in France.

Changing the rules would be madness.

I’d argue it’s very relevant as on talent and form J Willy is almost certainly T Cuzza’s replacement.

Genuine question - is a JWillis who can only turn up 5 days before the game (and might not be able to train fully for another day or two) a better TCurry replacement than Underhill (as he was at the end of the 6N, rather than the just-back-from-injury one at the start) who has nearly two weeks before the start of every international period and stays in camp all the way through?

I don't think anyone would argue that JWillis is the better player in general, but it's the classic all-star Barbarians vs a settled side argument isn't it? How good does a player have to be to outweigh someone with training time and familiarity with the systems (especially the complicated systems we're trying to build)?

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:41 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:10 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:02 am

Not really relevant if Willis is playing in France.

Changing the rules would be madness.

I’d argue it’s very relevant as on talent and form J Willy is almost certainly T Cuzza’s replacement.

Genuine question - is a JWillis who can only turn up 5 days before the game (and might not be able to train fully for another day or two) a better TCurry replacement than Underhill (as he was at the end of the 6N, rather than the just-back-from-injury one at the start) who has nearly two weeks before the start of every international period and stays in camp all the way through?

I don't think anyone would argue that JWillis is the better player in general, but it's the classic all-star Barbarians vs a settled side argument isn't it? How good does a player have to be to outweigh someone with training time and familiarity with the systems (especially the complicated systems we're trying to build)?

Puja

Without any other context, you'd pick Underhill pretty much every time, as the cohesion is so important.

However, we know that planning around Underhill is about as wise as designing a system that plays to Watson's strengths.

I still reckon next off the rank who is in camp for the duration is the better option than drafting in someone who would ve in and out, but I'd start to move the other way if that started to mean shifting Earl to 7, on the basis he's done well at 8 and is fast, as opposed to having another option who can do the role without disrupting the whole unit.

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:41 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:10 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:02 am

Not really relevant if Willis is playing in France.

Changing the rules would be madness.

I’d argue it’s very relevant as on talent and form J Willy is almost certainly T Cuzza’s replacement.

Genuine question - is a JWillis who can only turn up 5 days before the game (and might not be able to train fully for another day or two) a better TCurry replacement than Underhill (as he was at the end of the 6N, rather than the just-back-from-injury one at the start) who has nearly two weeks before the start of every international period and stays in camp all the way through?

I don't think anyone would argue that JWillis is the better player in general, but it's the classic all-star Barbarians vs a settled side argument isn't it? How good does a player have to be to outweigh someone with training time and familiarity with the systems (especially the complicated systems we're trying to build)?

Puja

It seems everyone’s missing my point. I’m not advocating for a change of policy, I’m just saying, and therefore disagreeing with Stom, that it’s relevant if T Cuzza is perma injured as his closest like for like replacement, imo, is also unavailable due to playing in France.

tbf all of Willis J, Earl, Curry T, Underhill have different playing strengths.

I just wish we'd made a clone of Tom Curry before he got injured.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 12:21 pm I just wish we'd made a clone of Tom Curry before he got injured.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:56 amIt seems everyone’s missing my point. I’m not advocating for a change of policy, I’m just saying, and therefore disagreeing with Stom, that it’s relevant if T Cuzza is perma injured as his closest like for like replacement, imo, is also unavailable due to playing in France.

Yeah, my reading comprehension clearly off today!

16th man wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:16 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:41 am Genuine question - is a JWillis who can only turn up 5 days before the game (and might not be able to train fully for another day or two) a better TCurry replacement than Underhill (as he was at the end of the 6N, rather than the just-back-from-injury one at the start) who has nearly two weeks before the start of every international period and stays in camp all the way through?

I don't think anyone would argue that JWillis is the better player in general, but it's the classic all-star Barbarians vs a settled side argument isn't it? How good does a player have to be to outweigh someone with training time and familiarity with the systems (especially the complicated systems we're trying to build)?

Puja

Without any other context, you'd pick Underhill pretty much every time, as the cohesion is so important.

However, we know that planning around Underhill is about as wise as designing a system that plays to Watson's strengths.

I still reckon next off the rank who is in camp for the duration is the better option than drafting in someone who would ve in and out, but I'd start to move the other way if that started to mean shifting Earl to 7, on the basis he's done well at 8 and is fast, as opposed to having another option who can do the role without disrupting the whole unit.

Fair play on Underhill's robustness, although he did at least last the full 6N. I wouldn't be surprised if Slovenly Boyband sets out a back row of CCS, Pepper, Earl against Japan with the aim of grooming Pepper as the long-term option at 7 that he can mould to the system.

Puja

Just get Pollock in now and be done with it for the next decade

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:56 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:41 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:10 am

I’d argue it’s very relevant as on talent and form J Willy is almost certainly T Cuzza’s replacement.

Genuine question - is a JWillis who can only turn up 5 days before the game (and might not be able to train fully for another day or two) a better TCurry replacement than Underhill (as he was at the end of the 6N, rather than the just-back-from-injury one at the start) who has nearly two weeks before the start of every international period and stays in camp all the way through?

I don't think anyone would argue that JWillis is the better player in general, but it's the classic all-star Barbarians vs a settled side argument isn't it? How good does a player have to be to outweigh someone with training time and familiarity with the systems (especially the complicated systems we're trying to build)?

Puja

It seems everyone’s missing my point. I’m not advocating for a change of policy, I’m just saying, and therefore disagreeing with Stom, that it’s relevant if T Cuzza is perma injured as his closest like for like replacement, imo, is also unavailable due to playing in France.

They are somewhat...

But I'd still argue my point stands: He's not available in the current system, therefore he's not relevant to England discussions until he is available for selection.

I'd also agree with Banquo that he's not really a like for like replacement. They're two different players and I think I'd rather have a fully fit Curry in this England team, tbh. I see the direction we're going in, and it's possible that Willis could become a very good player in that system, but there's an important word there: become.

Because on his brief England appearances he looked...good. He didn't look like the best openside in the world. He just looked...good.

And we've got tonnes of "good" players in the backrow nowadays. No places for Evans, for the aforementioned Mercer, for Pearson, and so on. And we're missing a whole squad's worth of players to injury, too. So...yeah, I think Willis' form deserves a look, with a view to making it known what he would need to do to get into the England team IF he were to return to availability.

Just like Soiled Bratwurst has done to many others.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 12:21 pm I just wish we'd made a clone of Tom Curry before he got injured.

Ben has proved to be a lesser clone. Wrong test tube mebbe.

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:29 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:56 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:41 am

Genuine question - is a JWillis who can only turn up 5 days before the game (and might not be able to train fully for another day or two) a better TCurry replacement than Underhill (as he was at the end of the 6N, rather than the just-back-from-injury one at the start) who has nearly two weeks before the start of every international period and stays in camp all the way through?

I don't think anyone would argue that JWillis is the better player in general, but it's the classic all-star Barbarians vs a settled side argument isn't it? How good does a player have to be to outweigh someone with training time and familiarity with the systems (especially the complicated systems we're trying to build)?

Puja

It seems everyone’s missing my point. I’m not advocating for a change of policy, I’m just saying, and therefore disagreeing with Stom, that it’s relevant if T Cuzza is perma injured as his closest like for like replacement, imo, is also unavailable due to playing in France.

I'd also agree with Banquo that he's not really a like for like replacement. They're two different players and I think

Hence ‘closest like for like’ rather than just like for like.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:20 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:29 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:56 am
It seems everyone’s missing my point. I’m not advocating for a change of policy, I’m just saying, and therefore disagreeing with Stom, that it’s relevant if T Cuzza is perma injured as his closest like for like replacement, imo, is also unavailable due to playing in France.

I'd also agree with Banquo that he's not really a like for like replacement. They're two different players and I think

Hence ‘closest like for like’ rather than just like for like.

I'm not sure that's true, though. Willis seems much more like a Hill style flanker, while Curry is much more like Moody, imo. Willis doesn't do that charging around, his intensity is a very different type of intensity.

I actually think he could look good in this 8 role that Slanderous Braindrain is putting in place.

Following SB's accidental selection of Earl at 8 - and Earl's overall maturity as an international, my choice for our back row would be Willis, Earl and Willis. I suspect we will never see it given a chance for a variety of reasons: JW in France, TW's injuries and status at Saracens together with our trend for always wanting a line-out lump at 6. Regardless of my favourite combo being right or wrong, good or bad, somehow, we always seem to compromise in back row selection. Maybe, that's why we come second against the best back rows so often in crunch matches.