RugbyRebels

I know English clubs have been underwhelming. However, this board is a reasonable reflection of public opinion, perhaps. The current number of posts on either of the competitions is pretty minimal.

So, with international players in our national league and the need to reduce players' seasonal commitment, would withdrawing from Europe do that much harm to the England XV or player development in general?

Money rules, we all know. But, a proper national cup competition would probably attract crowds on a par or bigger.

Playing against good sides from other countries and in very different surroundings is highly beneficial to our players.

There's a world of difference to playing Munster or Clermont away, than a trip to The Ricoh or Welford Road. Exposing our players to a different environment is a good thing.

The rugby can be great, too. There can be duds but some of the Euro games are really something.

Tonight is a good example of the benefits. Bath take on Scarlets, pitting a young front row with England aspirations, against the Welsh front row. Thats going to be great for them, and gives us a chance to really assess just where they are.

I'm surprised this is even a question; yes, they are worth entering, and worth taking seriously, there just isn't that much to talk about before the matches, as there's no particularly contraversial selection calls, and not many trolling foreigners here to antagonise us anymore; whilst most of us don't know enough about our opponents to comment sensibily on what to expect.

Quite honestly though, we don't get much chat here about Prem matches ahead of KO either.

If anything we should reduce domestic games. Our young inside centres will learn more from getting the run around from Fofana and his ilk than facing Fergus Mulchrone and Luther Burrell.

Not everyone will be playing against a fofana though. Others will be playing a second string side against a nobody.

That’s true but nobody would play against Fofana if we scrapped Euro comps.

I remember the time before the European competitions. It was parochial and you were never sure how good the English teams actually were vs how good the French/Welsh were (the Irish weren't even really worth mentioning in those days and everyone was confident they were better than the Scots, even when it wasn't true). Players were ill-prepared come the 5N, cause they'd mostly been playing against sides who played the same as them and even the Welsh players were strange and alien.

I'll grant you that the ECC is a waste of our time, but it's worth it for the ERC and to help the minor nations get a foothold in European competition.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:That’s true but nobody would play against Fofana if we scrapped Euro comps.

I agree. I just think the balance is ok for now.

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:That’s true but nobody would play against Fofana if we scrapped Euro comps.

I agree. I just think the balance is ok for now.

I do, too. I was just replying to the OP that if we are to cut games they should be at the bottom end of the quality available not the top end.

I do think that this season especially, the English sides seem to have struggled with upping their intensity. It looks to all still be premiership pace.

Raggs wrote:I do think that this season especially, the English sides seem to have struggled with upping their intensity. It looks to all still be premiership pace.

Why would be the question?

Potentially the premiership is tougher week in week out than the pro14, and doesn't rotate massively for home and away games like the top 14.

Love the Euro comps, and the issues the AP sides are having are on them, and they can fix it, or not, their choice

Exhibit A: Bath vs Scarlets

Puja

Another vote for definitely worth it.

The ERC is the step between premiership and international rugby that our guys need. Unfortunately it's only a few of them that get to experience it, and it's a bit luck of the draw how much that is, but until another method of getting that comes along, then it's valuable.

I'd echo that it's concerning that our clubs don't appear to be able to step it up a notch this time round, but the levels of injuries that say, Bath and Quins have been coping with explains a lot of that.

Puja wrote:Exhibit A: Bath vs Scarlets

Puja

In that Bath were taught a lesson, perhaps. Conversely, how many EQPs in the Bath line-up played well to the extent of improving from the experience?

It all depends on one's view of the club/country debate, I suppose. If we had, say, a maximum of two non-EQPs per club and if all head coaches were English, the arguments for Europe would be undisputed. Half the time, though, our clubs are doing other countries' development work.

I've always admitted that my personal rugby cause is the England XV way ahead of any other consideration. With that in mind, I don't think the benefits of the European competition are quite as clear cut as some suggest. For example, I think a full Saxons season of, say, eight matches would do just as much good in the long term.

It's not a black and white argument either way. As part of the overall fixture programme, Europe can work if prioritised. Maybe, less fixtures of a higher standard would be a reasonable compromise - dropping the initial league stages, for example.

I've never really cared as much about european competition as domestic but that seems to be the way things are going in the rugby world.

The powers that be are going to have to make a decision about relegation from the prem. Which personally I'm still torn on but I do see the advantages loud and clear.

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:Exhibit A: Bath vs Scarlets

Puja

I've always admitted that my personal rugby cause is the England XV way ahead of any other consideration. With that in mind, I don't think the benefits of the European competition are quite as clear cut as some suggest. For example, I think a full Saxons season of, say, eight matches would do just as much good in the long term.

Against who though, and when? Could you do this without completely tearing up club rugby and having a major rethink of the international calendar.
You'd need to start again with a blank sheet of paper. If that were possible, then yes the European competitions could absolutely be improved, but given the vested interests in France, the fact that the current Irish system is working quite nicely for them, that the Scots appear to have finally go their heads around how their system can work, then you'd only really have England, Wales and Italy for whom the system is a bit broken.

I’d say it is black and white. The best way to improve is by playing with and against better players. Bath’s players and coaches will have learnt more last night than if they’d ground out a win against Wuss or given LI a shellacking.

You say you want ‘less fixtures of a higher standard‘, and I’d agree, but you won’t achieve that by dropping matches against Leinster, Munster, Clermont etc and having a domestic cup comp. I say this as someone who would love a domestic cup comp.

Mellsblue wrote:I’d say it is black and white. The best way to improve is by playing with and against better players. Bath’s players and coaches will have learnt more last night than if they’d ground out a win against Wuss or given LI a shellacking.

You say you want ‘less fixtures of a higher standard‘, and I’d agree, but you won’t achieve that by dropping matches against Leinster, Munster, Clermont etc and having a domestic cup comp. I say this as someone who would love a domestic cup comp.

I agree, largely, but where I have reservations is that we are talking about Bath with a foreign coach and, what, 2 or 3 England regulars and a couple more squad players? Even one of the commentators quipped that Bath had started nearly as many Welshmen as Scarlets.

An elite European competition is all well and good (e.g. the top 16 teams on a straight KO basis) for long-term improvement but, purely from an English selfish viewpoint, I don't think the current set-up is achieving the principle aims that I would set out. It is a good money-maker and an effective vehicle for those national unions with regions. The later stages have more merit, IMO. As things stand, I see the set-up as of limited overall benefit, particularly when the knackering of our players is added in.

16th man wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:Exhibit A: Bath vs Scarlets

Puja

I've always admitted that my personal rugby cause is the England XV way ahead of any other consideration. With that in mind, I don't think the benefits of the European competition are quite as clear cut as some suggest. For example, I think a full Saxons season of, say, eight matches would do just as much good in the long term.

Against who though, and when? Could you do this without completely tearing up club rugby and having a major rethink of the international calendar.
You'd need to start again with a blank sheet of paper. If that were possible, then yes the European competitions could absolutely be improved, but given the vested interests in France, the fact that the current Irish system is working quite nicely for them, that the Scots appear to have finally go their heads around how their system can work, then you'd only really have England, Wales and Italy for whom the system is a bit broken.

There speaks the realist! I accept that much of my argument is idealistic. It is simply all about England and the RWC in my little world.

Most of our top players are in teams that compete in the Champions Cup. Thats a minimum of 6 usually high quality competitive games. Some of which will be at a higher level than they would experience in our domestic league.
That just has to be a good thing.
Sure, you can argue that there are too many foreign coaches and players in our teams - there are, but with 6 or 7 teams involved there is plenty of opportunity for our top players to gain the invaluable experience of playing against the top sides in Europe.
If you want England to do well, then having most of our best playing at a level up from what they usually encounter is pretty much vital.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’d say it is black and white. The best way to improve is by playing with and against better players. Bath’s players and coaches will have learnt more last night than if they’d ground out a win against Wuss or given LI a shellacking.

You say you want ‘less fixtures of a higher standard‘, and I’d agree, but you won’t achieve that by dropping matches against Leinster, Munster, Clermont etc and having a domestic cup comp. I say this as someone who would love a domestic cup comp.

I agree, largely, but where I have reservations is that we are talking about Bath with a foreign coach and, what, 2 or 3 England regulars and a couple more squad players? Even one of the commentators quipped that Bath had started nearly as many Welshmen as Scarlets.

An elite European competition is all well and good (e.g. the top 16 teams on a straight KO basis) for long-term improvement but, purely from an English selfish viewpoint, I don't think the current set-up is achieving the principle aims that I would set out. It is a good money-maker and an effective vehicle for those national unions with regions. The later stages have more merit, IMO. As things stand, I see the set-up as of limited overall benefit, particularly when the knackering of our players is added in.

Well, you're arguing two separate points there. Bath have a foreign coach and 2-3 England regulars, but that won't be solved by having them play in a domestic cup against Worcester - there'd still be the 2-3 England regulars, but just against worse opposition and with less fresh input from foreign challenges.

Puja

How many england regulars aren't getting the higher level of rugby?

fivepointer wrote:Most of our top players are in teams that compete in the Champions Cup. Thats a minimum of 6 usually high quality competitive games. Some of which will be at a higher level than they would experience in our domestic league.
That just has to be a good thing.
Sure, you can argue that there are too many foreign coaches and players in our teams - there are, but with 6 or 7 teams involved there is plenty of opportunity for our top players to gain the invaluable experience of playing against the top sides in Europe.
If you want England to do well, then having most of our best playing at a level up from what they usually encounter is pretty much vital.

You'd think so, yes, but I wonder if the reality is so. I'd love to be able to measure how much better we are as an international XV after playing in Europe for, say, three seasons than if we had not, taking into account injuries/form/total number of games etc.

Maybe, I'll be convinced if we win RWC 2019!