RugbyRebels

Interesting. I think the only players of yours I'd actually want ahead of ours - assuming a full deck to choose from - are probably Billy and Launch/Itoje fighting it out to accompany James Ryan. Then I watch barely any English club rugby now. We are well organised but I think where we have the most significant advantage is the decision making and technique at the breakdown. The organisational argument would be stronger if Leinster were the only province doing better than their English counterparts.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Interesting. I think the only players of yours I'd actually want ahead of ours - assuming a full deck to choose from - are probably Billy and Launch/Itoje fighting it out to accompany James Ryan. Then I watch barely any English club rugby now. We are well organised but I think where we have the most significant advantage is the decision making and technique at the breakdown. The organisational argument would be stronger if Leinster were the only province doing better than their English counterparts.

The issue is comparing the contrasting application of the breakdown rules in the GP compared to everywhere else...

Plus, comparing club rugby to international rugby is a bit moot... If the clubs had pooled together their talents, I'm sure they'd be able to consistently beat the provinces...it's not an even playing ground but it *should* give us more strength in depth.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Interesting. I think the only players of yours I'd actually want ahead of ours - assuming a full deck to choose from - are probably Billy and Launch/Itoje fighting it out to accompany James Ryan. Then I watch barely any English club rugby now. We are well organised but I think where we have the most significant advantage is the decision making and technique at the breakdown. The organisational argument would be stronger if Leinster were the only province doing better than their English counterparts.

I would not disagree with that player assessment but I suspect that we both would should the head coaches swap jobs for two years. Comparing the the two 23s brings lots of close debates with the Irish players marginally ahead on current international effectiveness. What I'd find trouble with assessing is the peak level of the relative potential. Ignoring the 'wishful thinking' aspect linked with being English, I just never get the impression that our players regularly give of their best individually or collectively whereas I fully respect the Irish for doing just that.

Oakboy wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Interesting. I think the only players of yours I'd actually want ahead of ours - assuming a full deck to choose from - are probably Billy and Launch/Itoje fighting it out to accompany James Ryan. Then I watch barely any English club rugby now. We are well organised but I think where we have the most significant advantage is the decision making and technique at the breakdown. The organisational argument would be stronger if Leinster were the only province doing better than their English counterparts.

I would not disagree with that player assessment but I suspect that we both would should the head coaches swap jobs for two years. Comparing the the two 23s brings lots of close debates with the Irish players marginally ahead on current international effectiveness. What I'd find trouble with assessing is the peak level of the relative potential. Ignoring the 'wishful thinking' aspect linked with being English, I just never get the impression that our players regularly give of their best individually or collectively whereas I fully respect the Irish for doing just that.

Then you're clearly over-estimating your players if you NEVER get the impression that they are at their best.

Regularly at their best...

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Interesting. I think the only players of yours I'd actually want ahead of ours - assuming a full deck to choose from - are probably Billy and Launch/Itoje fighting it out to accompany James Ryan. Then I watch barely any English club rugby now. We are well organised but I think where we have the most significant advantage is the decision making and technique at the breakdown. The organisational argument would be stronger if Leinster were the only province doing better than their English counterparts.

I would not disagree with that player assessment but I suspect that we both would should the head coaches swap jobs for two years. Comparing the the two 23s brings lots of close debates with the Irish players marginally ahead on current international effectiveness. What I'd find trouble with assessing is the peak level of the relative potential. Ignoring the 'wishful thinking' aspect linked with being English, I just never get the impression that our players regularly give of their best individually or collectively whereas I fully respect the Irish for doing just that.

Then you're clearly over-estimating your players if you NEVER get the impression that they are at their best.

For England, when have the players shown consistent form? It's been a while...

That's the issue we have. When there's an obviously crap group of players (start of Jonno's reign, for instance), you can kind of understand. But when there is the talent available that there is now...

We're consistently one of the best 2 u20 sides in the world. Our players are consistently nominated for best young player awards. And they then step up for their clubs.

But for whatever reason, they just find it impossible to make the next step at international level. Considering how often it happens, I don't think you can say it's the individual player not being good enough.

You definitely can. You're better at U20 because numerical advantage is much more important then. The chances of small countries like Ireland generating enough good players and having so few weak players from a 2 year cohort to be regularly competitive is pretty slim. Combine that with the fact that you're players are professional much younger than pretty much anywhere and you have reason beyond ability.

You say your players step up for their clubs, and as I've said I don't see much English club rugby. However in a European context you have had pretty limited success for quite some time. Apart from a couple of Saracens I'm not sure any of the players tend to look like the leading players in their positions in Europe over the course of a season, never mind multiple ones.

I accept my view is probably an outlier - if one looks at Gatland's Lions squads they are certainly replete with Englishmen. But I do think that really only Launch, Itoje and the Vunipolas are regularly considered near the top of the European tree at club level.

Rightly or wrongly there's no way Farrell doesn't make a list of players considered near the top of the European tree, one could claim he's not rated in Ireland but a brief check with POC or Sexton would cover off that claim.

I'd understand George, Sinckler, Lawes, Curry, Underhill, May and so on wouldn't be considered at the zenith, but it's a bit weird if they're not rating Ford, Daly, JJ and Watson. Each to their own

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:You definitely can. You're better at U20 because numerical advantage is much more important then. The chances of small countries like Ireland generating enough good players and having so few weak players from a 2 year cohort to be regularly competitive is pretty slim. Combine that with the fact that you're players are professional much younger than pretty much anywhere and you have reason beyond ability.

You say your players step up for their clubs, and as I've said I don't see much English club rugby. However in a European context you have had pretty limited success for quite some time. Apart from a couple of Saracens I'm not sure any of the players tend to look like the leading players in their positions in Europe over the course of a season, never mind multiple ones.

I accept my view is probably an outlier - if one looks at Gatland's Lions squads they are certainly replete with Englishmen. But I do think that really only Launch, Itoje and the Vunipolas are regularly considered near the top of the European tree at club level.

European tree? Then Ford should be considered. Joseph is excellent. George is consistently very good. Sinckler is improving every day and may soon be one of the best in Europe at THP. I know it's pretty much offset by the fact we have the worst international 9 at SH...

It's a team game forget the individuals. The irish team are clearly better than the english team at this point. I think people that argue otherwise just look silly. It's been proven on multiple occasions.

We had a honey moon period under EJ where we looked good then we fell off a cliff. Our resident sarries fan predicted it perfectly. I saw an article the other day that injury rates are up five times from EJ england training camps.

twitchy wrote:It's a team game forget the individuals. The irish team are clearly better than the english team at this point. I think people that argue otherwise just look silly. It's been proven on multiple occasions.

We had a honey moon period under EJ where we looked good then we fell off a cliff. Our resident sarries fan predicted it perfectly. I saw an article the other day that injury rates are up five times from EJ england training camps.

I'm not sure of Diggers' point, and he may just be being his usual contrary self, but for me it's closer than many admit.

We're not that far behind Ireland. We're behind, but we're not so far behind that a game in Ireland is almost a foregone conclusion. It won't be a one sided slogathon.

I actually think the standard of the international teams has narrowed considerably this past year, Australia aside. And there's not much to separate the top teams.

That the nub of it. Ireland are simply a better side at this time.
Player wise i dont reckon there's much in it. We have better players in certain positions, Ireland likewise .
England do have a lot of good players - you could easily pick a very decent 4th choice side indicating real depth - but not top line players in all positions.

Stom wrote:

twitchy wrote:It's a team game forget the individuals. The irish team are clearly better than the english team at this point. I think people that argue otherwise just look silly. It's been proven on multiple occasions.

We had a honey moon period under EJ where we looked good then we fell off a cliff. Our resident sarries fan predicted it perfectly. I saw an article the other day that injury rates are up five times from EJ england training camps.

I'm not sure of Diggers' point, and he may just be being his usual contrary self, but for me it's closer than many admit.

We're not that far behind Ireland. We're behind, but we're not so far behind that a game in Ireland is almost a foregone conclusion. It won't be a one sided slogathon.

I actually think the standard of the international teams has narrowed considerably this past year, Australia aside. And there's not much to separate the top teams.

That's hit the nail on the head. New Zealand are ahead, Ireland are tucked in just behind, but any one of Wales, South Africa, or England could turn over one of the top two without it being a surprise, and one of Scotland, France, or Australia could turn over one of our tier without it being a surprise.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

twitchy wrote:It's a team game forget the individuals. The irish team are clearly better than the english team at this point. I think people that argue otherwise just look silly. It's been proven on multiple occasions.

We had a honey moon period under EJ where we looked good then we fell off a cliff. Our resident sarries fan predicted it perfectly. I saw an article the other day that injury rates are up five times from EJ england training camps.

I'm not sure of Diggers' point, and he may just be being his usual contrary self, but for me it's closer than many admit.

We're not that far behind Ireland. We're behind, but we're not so far behind that a game in Ireland is almost a foregone conclusion. It won't be a one sided slogathon.

I actually think the standard of the international teams has narrowed considerably this past year, Australia aside. And there's not much to separate the top teams.

That's hit the nail on the head. New Zealand are ahead, Ireland are tucked in just behind, but any one of Wales, South Africa, or England could turn over one of the top two without it being a surprise, and one of Scotland, France, or Australia could turn over one of our tier without it being a surprise.

Puja

Wales could beat New Zealand without it being a surprise? Don't disagree with much of your post but I for one would be very surprised. I was also surprised England almost did although you have a good habit of very rarely losing comfortably

Cameo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:
I'm not sure of Diggers' point, and he may just be being his usual contrary self, but for me it's closer than many admit.

We're not that far behind Ireland. We're behind, but we're not so far behind that a game in Ireland is almost a foregone conclusion. It won't be a one sided slogathon.

I actually think the standard of the international teams has narrowed considerably this past year, Australia aside. And there's not much to separate the top teams.

That's hit the nail on the head. New Zealand are ahead, Ireland are tucked in just behind, but any one of Wales, South Africa, or England could turn over one of the top two without it being a surprise, and one of Scotland, France, or Australia could turn over one of our tier without it being a surprise.

Puja

Wales could beat New Zealand without it being a surprise? Don't disagree with much of your post but I for one would be very surprised. I was also surprised England almost did although you have a good habit of very rarely losing comfortably

It wouldn't be a regular occurrence, but I'd say Wales are good enough that they actively pose a threat to NZ. When I say not a surprise, I meant more that it wouldn't be a massive shock, but just a bit of an upset.

Puja

There has been lots of debate about our world class players or lack thereof. We are also constantly assessing our team's performance under Jones. I believe that before the SA tour, Daly was a genuine world class winger and, in that form, I would not take any NH winger ahead of him. Now, Jones has turned him into a below-average international FB and destroyed his confidence with the result that for the 1st 6N game it's debatable whether he should be in the starting XV in any position.

The other members of the squad cannot be blind and deaf to such fundamentally flawed judgement and I wonder how much slack the coaching crew is being cut with regards to other judgement calls.

Oakboy wrote:There has been lots of debate about our world class players or lack thereof. We are also constantly assessing our team's performance under Jones. I believe that before the SA tour, Daly was a genuine world class winger and, in that form, I would not take any NH winger ahead of him. Now, Jones has turned him into a below-average international FB and destroyed his confidence with the result that for the 1st 6N game it's debatable whether he should be in the starting XV in any position.

The other members of the squad cannot be blind and deaf to such fundamentally flawed judgement and I wonder how much slack the coaching crew is being cut with regards to other judgement calls.

The situation at Wasps, where he clearly isn’t happy, hasn’t helped and trialling at fullback was worth a go, if only because of lack of alternatives, but it should’ve ended after the SA tour.

As for Ire v Eng, then other than halfback, where Ire are quite a way ahead, I wouldn’t say there is much difference in quality. Assuming Jones selects Wilson, Underhill & Curry rather than Shields and Robshaw, Ire are more experienced at flanker but I wouldn’t say there’s a huge gap in quality. That said, factor in that halfback is a crucial area, Jones keeps picking limited players, the Irish coaching panel is more settled and better and their players tend not to be over played and therefore injured, and you’d fancy Ireland 8 times out of 10.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:There has been lots of debate about our world class players or lack thereof. We are also constantly assessing our team's performance under Jones. I believe that before the SA tour, Daly was a genuine world class winger and, in that form, I would not take any NH winger ahead of him. Now, Jones has turned him into a below-average international FB and destroyed his confidence with the result that for the 1st 6N game it's debatable whether he should be in the starting XV in any position.

The other members of the squad cannot be blind and deaf to such fundamentally flawed judgement and I wonder how much slack the coaching crew is being cut with regards to other judgement calls.

The situation at Wasps, where he clearly isn’t happy, hasn’t helped and trialling at fullback was worth a go, if only because of lack of alternatives, but it should’ve ended after the SA tour.

As for Ire v Eng, then other than halfback, where Ire are quite a way ahead, I wouldn’t say there is much difference in quality. Assuming Jones selects Wilson, Underhill & Curry rather than Shields and Robshaw, Ire are more experienced at flanker but I wouldn’t say there’s a huge gap in quality. That said, factor in that halfback is a crucial area, Jones keeps picking limited players, the Irish coaching panel is more settled and better and their players tend not to be over played and therefore injured, and you’d fancy Ireland 8 times out of 10.

Please tell me that Jones won't choose Ashton at FB. Recalling Brown has to be the sensible way to go, though I suppose, if Tuilagi stays fit, he could try Slade at 15 , always a better shout there than Daly, IMO.

Oakboy wrote:Please tell me that Jones won't choose Ashton at FB. Recalling Brown has to be the sensible way to go, though I suppose, if Tuilagi stays fit, he could try Slade at 15 , always a better shout there than Daly, IMO.

Puja

Still think that Pennell should have got many many caps, and his allegiance to Worcester really scuppered his ability to do that.

Decent kicker, great under high ball, good strike runner, heads up rugby player, more than good enough last ditch defender, and great positionally.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:There has been lots of debate about our world class players or lack thereof. We are also constantly assessing our team's performance under Jones. I believe that before the SA tour, Daly was a genuine world class winger and, in that form, I would not take any NH winger ahead of him. Now, Jones has turned him into a below-average international FB and destroyed his confidence with the result that for the 1st 6N game it's debatable whether he should be in the starting XV in any position.

The other members of the squad cannot be blind and deaf to such fundamentally flawed judgement and I wonder how much slack the coaching crew is being cut with regards to other judgement calls.

The situation at Wasps, where he clearly isn’t happy, hasn’t helped and trialling at fullback was worth a go, if only because of lack of alternatives, but it should’ve ended after the SA tour.

As for Ire v Eng, then other than halfback, where Ire are quite a way ahead, I wouldn’t say there is much difference in quality. Assuming Jones selects Wilson, Underhill & Curry rather than Shields and Robshaw, Ire are more experienced at flanker but I wouldn’t say there’s a huge gap in quality. That said, factor in that halfback is a crucial area, Jones keeps picking limited players, the Irish coaching panel is more settled and better and their players tend not to be over played and therefore injured, and you’d fancy Ireland 8 times out of 10.

Jesus. I'm a big admirer of Underhill (long before you guys got on board) but back row I think we've got you absolutely cuffed with any one of our top 2 or 3: POM/SOB/CJ; Jordi/Leavy/Conan; Ruddock/vdF/andok I'm struggling for a 3rd quality number 8 but you get my drift.

And Stom, JJ was a fine player when last he was fit, but he hasn't been a leading centre in Europe for at least 3 years. And I'm not sure Ford has ever been considered in the top 4 or 5 fly halves in club rugby in Europe. Great matches from time to time but sustained seasons of excellence?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:There has been lots of debate about our world class players or lack thereof. We are also constantly assessing our team's performance under Jones. I believe that before the SA tour, Daly was a genuine world class winger and, in that form, I would not take any NH winger ahead of him. Now, Jones has turned him into a below-average international FB and destroyed his confidence with the result that for the 1st 6N game it's debatable whether he should be in the starting XV in any position.

The other members of the squad cannot be blind and deaf to such fundamentally flawed judgement and I wonder how much slack the coaching crew is being cut with regards to other judgement calls.

The situation at Wasps, where he clearly isn’t happy, hasn’t helped and trialling at fullback was worth a go, if only because of lack of alternatives, but it should’ve ended after the SA tour.

As for Ire v Eng, then other than halfback, where Ire are quite a way ahead, I wouldn’t say there is much difference in quality. Assuming Jones selects Wilson, Underhill & Curry rather than Shields and Robshaw, Ire are more experienced at flanker but I wouldn’t say there’s a huge gap in quality. That said, factor in that halfback is a crucial area, Jones keeps picking limited players, the Irish coaching panel is more settled and better and their players tend not to be over played and therefore injured, and you’d fancy Ireland 8 times out of 10.

Jesus. I'm a big admirer of Underhill (long before you guys got on board) but back row I think we've got you absolutely cuffed with any one of our top 2 or 3: POM/SOB/CJ; Jordi/Leavy/Conan; Ruddock/vdF/andok I'm struggling for a 3rd quality number 8 but you get my drift.

And Stom, JJ was a fine player when last he was fit, but he hasn't been a leading centre in Europe for at least 3 years. And I'm not sure Ford has ever been considered in the top 4 or 5 fly halves in club rugby in Europe. Great matches from time to time but sustained seasons of excellence?

Can you really name 4 or 5 better 10s?

I'm assuming if the masses don't rate Ford it's the same masses as make barking mad political decisions

Digby wrote:I'm assuming if the masses don't rate Ford it's the same masses as make barking mad political decisions

I mean, I can understand Sexton...but after him who is there? Russel can be good, but I wouldn't say he's much better than Ford, if at all. Ford's a far better defender, too. Leaving who in Europe? I don't understand, I'm afraid Eugene...

Ford to me is our most consistently underrated player. But we have a lot of overrated ones to balance it out.