RugbyRebels

Alex Marsh with some interesting thoughts post the first European weekend - https://www.rugbypass.com/news/englands ... ime-to-act

This section on how some of our clubs can move forward interested me -

"They are, as a group, riddled with flaws and imperfections when it comes to competing in Europe.

Many of these are problems of their own making, such as the top-heavy nature of their playing squads.

This applies less to Exeter, who have done a good job of putting together a squad capable of competing on multiple fronts, but the Wasps, Baths and Leicesters of the league have chased Saracens and Exeter at the top by building XVs that, on paper, look to be a match for anyone. Often, this comes at the expense of the overall strength of the squad.

One agent even described one of those clubs as “not caring who they sign, they just want the cheapest depth they can find.”

It’s true that if everyone at Bath and Wasps were fit, they would have a XV capable of beating anyone on their day, but that’s just not how tournaments are decided, particularly in the attritional northern hemisphere season. It’s also true that finding value for money in cheaper depth options is vital in a salary cap league.

But if this is the path you want to take, you actually have to build a squad. You need to sign players who will still be at the club in four or five years’ time and whom you are happy to rotate into the XV with the more established players, thus giving them the experience they need to thrive and develop. You cannot expect to field your strongest XV for six-straight weeks in the first block of Premiership fixtures, draft in a couple of replacements for guys who have picked up knocks and then go into the Champions Cup and expect to turnover some of the best sides in Europe. It’s folly.

The same old trope comes up every season from fans of the Premiership and that’s that teams can’t rotate in the domestic league because it’s so competitive and you have to worry about relegation.

If the likes of Wasps, Bath and Leicester have sold you the line that they can’t rotate because of fears of relegation, then I have a business proposition for you. We’re going to go and sell sawdust to lumbermills. It’s going to be huge.

The Premiership is competitive, granted, but it certainly isn’t at the top and, in many recent seasons, it hasn’t been overly competitive at the bottom, either. None of those sides have the squads capable of usurping Saracens or Exeter, so realistically, barring dramatic injury crises in Devon or London, they’re shooting for 3rd as their ceiling and ultimately a probably unfruitful trip to Sandy Park or Allianz Park in the semi-finals.

Teams shouldn’t give up on that ambition of chasing the top two spots, but you have to have a plan in place for how you’re going to achieve it. Can you, hand on heart, say that you’ve seen something from Wasps, Bath or Leicester in recent seasons that makes you think they are capable of making that leap anytime soon? My answer would be no

"Too good to be relegated and without the squads to consistently compete with Exeter and Saracens, the reasons seem to be dwindling for why these clubs can’t rotate players in the build-up to Europe, thus keeping their front-liners fresher and giving their young, emerging players a valuable opportunity for playing time in the Premiership.

That is, essentially, the system with which the Irish provinces have used to great effect and it is one which is enforced upon them by the IRFU. The RFU may not have a say over the way Premiership clubs are run, but that doesn’t stop the independent clubs and their directors of rugby from making the decision to act similarly of their own volition.

To quote a former Premiership academy manager, the provinces give their players ‘opportunity by design, not default’ and that is something the second tier of Premiership clubs need to look at being more proactive in, if they want to develop the squads that can compete with the likes of Leinster and Saracens.

Embrace the imperfections that are the current top-heavy squads and use your senior academy members to plug the gaps, not journeymen who you might bring in for a season or two before they head off to a Championship club or pick up another spot providing depth in the Premiership.

It’s cheaper, it has a hopefully more positive outcome in the long-term and it can take the reliance, again in the long-term, off of recruiting heavily from the southern hemisphere and Celtic countries, therefore helping to slow the continued rise in salary expectations.

If you give those players their opportunities in the Premiership, where there are more than enough games to bounce back from a loss or two as they get accustomed to the level of competition, you’ll eventually reap the rewards in the much more cutthroat Champions Cup."

He's right, isn't he? Its either Saracens or Exeter for the title with rest fighting it out for 3rd. In Europe its the same 2 teams that are likely to fly the flag. Time for a serious rethink by the following pack ? (i'd add in Saints and Quins to the also rans)

Well, Quins have consistently given opportunity to senior academy grads. And look where it got us!

It is a transitional period.

For example, two complete front rows of 'starting' standard is now the norm. That really means three of each position at least to get through a season. That is going to transition more as journeymen become less available and clubs are forced to develop their own props and hookers.

Saracens and Exeter have something in common with several of their top ever-present players being (arguably) of international standard but not being selected by Jones.

As for Europe, I don't see how English clubs can change much if relegation remains in the GP and if GP games continue to be played in international windows.

One relatively minor point that might have mileage in it is a bigger referee exchange programme.

In among all the hand wringing and sackcloth wearing about squads and structures, two things have always struck me about these European games. Firstly, the different refereeing. This has been covered in other threads. Secondly it's the intensity that the Celtic teams always play with against the English clubs. Part of this is plain hatred of the English (or at least English clubs given how many foreen players are at English clubs. Then again, the Celtic teams have foreen players too). Another part of this is obviously that they play fewer games per player which will help too. I suppose we're getting back to the whole squad/structure thing again then. But isn't it weird how English clubs can play with intensity against other English clubs but then shrink away when met with Celtic opposition?

Look, Wasps got blown away but they're not the same team without Launch.

Leicester have issues of their own doing, nothing to do with the league.

Exeter would have won if it wasnt for the ref. Bath if it wasn't for Freddie.

Sarries and Newcastle both won.

What's the wailing about?

Take out Saracens and the last English club to get to a final was Saints in 2011. Tigers havent been finalists since 2009.
Our record in the top European competition is pretty awful, with one time strong contenders like Tigers and Bath now there to make up the numbers.
At home, Saracens have won 3 out of the last 4 Premiership finals. Most people think that they will contest the final again, probably against Exeter. Most consider the league to be a 2 horse race with the rest vying for 3rd or 4th spot.
That is really the backdrop to Shaw's piece.
What do the other Prem clubs do to close the gap. How do they get better to compete at home and abroad? He suggests taking a longer term approach and investing more in home grown talent. I think he's got a point.

If you want to win things you need a quality 1st XV, strength in meh will at best get one to the quarters

I just think too much isnbeing read I to this weekend.
Gloucester won, Newcastle won, Saracens won, Wasps never had a hope in hell against a likely RWC finalist, Bath shoulda won, Exeter shoulda won. That really doesn't spell disaster to me.

As a Bath fan, I'd also defend my club in that Todd HAS rotated his squad in the Prem when he's had enough players to do so - so that's a stupid stick to beat us with, especially when there are so many better sticks lying around to use against us.

Beyond that, he seems to be co pletelt ignoring the fact that simply being in the HC is a worthy goal in and of itself, with what? 8 teams shooting for 4 slots in the mid-table. The facts of life in the Prem is that those 8 teams won't be getting a home SF, and also don't really need to fear relegation, certainly not to the point of worrying about it in the first block of 6 matches... But, they're VERY worried about making top 6, so they don't want to risk dropping points at home, and will scrap for everything they can possibly get away from home.

Of course, I DO agree that you need a strong squad, and a willingness to rotate and use it, I'd simply use Ex and Sarries as exemplars of that. It's the age-old trade-off. You don't reach the sharp end without a strong squad. But you don't win at the sharp end without a strong first XV.

Oh, and I absolutely do not believe that any club doesn't care now good their back-up players are (possible exception of Darren Allinson - who wouldn't cut it as 3rd choice in the Champ.), they're all looking for value-for-money, and that means taking a risk, picking up a player that others are rejecting for whatever reason.

Wasps have got pretty good depth i reckon...and in those few positions where injury isn't dictating, have rotated well.

But if we removed McGrath, Healy, Furlong, Ryan, Conan, McGrath, Henshaw and Lowe from the Leinster side, and returned those positions to wasps, it may have been a bit of a different game. Wasps have some more injuries to further depth players but I've no idea who the equivalent Leinster boys would be.

Of course you can argue that Irish sides look after players better, but then i quite enjoy the generally competitive nature of the gp.

Irish sides benefit by having only 4 clubs to compete for players with.

Imagine what the english clubs would be like with a
North team - Sale, Falcons, Doncaster, Yorkshire
Midlands - Tigers, Saints, Wuss, Wasps, Nottingham etc
South west - Bath, Exeter, Glous, Bristol, Etc
London/south East - Quins, Sarries, Irish etc

English rugby is IMO spread to thin in the top league to really dominate Europe.

I do feel that the AP needs time to sort itself out. Finances aren't quite right yet and some (one) club(s) are abusing the salary cap to skew the competition in their favour.

Our problems in Europe come from the fact that

a) it's like playing a different code sometimes with the refs.
b) our clubs find it very difficult to build efficient depth and that's not through want of trying. I complain about Quins signing players like Alofa but he has to come into the 23 sometimes when you've got an injury list as long as your arm. I don't know what's caused this 2-3 year long injury crisis in the Prem, but it's seriously causing problems for teams.

Quins, as an example, are currently missing:

1. Auterac, Lambert
2. Buchanan
3. Swainston, McNulty, Ibuanopke
4. Glynn
5. Lamb
6. Robshaw
7. Wallace
8. Clifford
9. Care, Saunders
10. Lang
11.
12. Lasike
...

That's insanity and it's become the norm. Of course teams will struggle when they can't really rotate because so many players are out injured.

The prem is the bread and butter for the English clubs. The Euros and Internationals are the bread and butter for the Irish/Welsh/Scots sides.

You can't expect a player to play at his absolute best for 28 games a season, even if physically fit to do so. The Pro14 then offers further chances for squad depth to build because they're getting games.

I think the English sides will generally continue to struggle in Europe. It's important for them to be in the top tier euro games (which means doing well in the prem) and it's important for them to perform well in the premiership outside of making top 6. The entire focus is the premiership. And for me, that's OK.

Also who dominates in Europe? At various points Leicester, Munster, Toulon and now Leinster can claim such, but beyond that most teams in the comp aren't English is a bigger factor than our standard at a point in time.

fivepointer wrote:Take out Saracens and the last English club to get to a final was Saints in 2011.

Take out Leinster and the last Pro14 club to get to a final was Ulster in 11/12. Only the French clubs have been offering consistency and variety at the business end with Clermont, Toulon and Racing.

I broadly agree with the Alex Shaw article, although not necessarily that there should be one homogenised approach. Each club needs to find its own way, although strong youth pathways and a degree of continuity around coaching and players should be prioritised. The resources and ambition appear to be there with most of the top English clubs, but a few of them do need to sort themselves out.

fivepointer wrote: One agent even described one of those clubs as “not caring who they sign, they just want the cheapest depth they can find.”

I'll name that Leicester!

I think we are going in the right direction though - a few years back we basically started up our academy again and we're starting to see the first fruits in the likes of Heyes, Lewis, Reffel, White, Hardwick, and Olowofela, who we are now trusting to fill up the squad. Give it another few years and we'll have a production line for squad places and three or four of those named above will be regular first XV.

Puja

I think it’s mental that refs in Europe are either French, English or (sco/ire/wal/ita)

The refs should be under one org so that refereeing in the nh is consistent across the 4 tournaments.

The pro 14 teams do have an advantage in that they have to deal with refs coming from 5 countries so do adapt better but that doesn’t help when referees and TMO just ignore stuff that is week in week out punished in your home league.

I also think this article has a little bit of woe is me about it, don’t see you guys having to fly to the sh play at altitude and then play the next week. It’s a bit horses for courses but if also say an unwillingness to rotate your squad , the year Glasgow won the pro12 they used 51 players , the year Leinster won the double they used 54.

They don’t have an endless well of talent but have structures in place so that players can be introduced and rotated in a controlled method.

To play 51-54 players, an AP club would have to use it's entire senior academy for the most part (I doubt some clubs even have enough players to manage that), and in the AP, these are significantly meaningful games, against sides that will beat you if you are 5% off your game.

Raggs wrote:To play 51-54 players, an AP club would have to use it's entire senior academy for the most part (I doubt some clubs even have enough players to manage that), and in the AP, these are significantly meaningful games, against sides that will beat you if you are 5% off your game.

I reckon last year Quins got close to 50...

Stom wrote:

Raggs wrote:To play 51-54 players, an AP club would have to use it's entire senior academy for the most part (I doubt some clubs even have enough players to manage that), and in the AP, these are significantly meaningful games, against sides that will beat you if you are 5% off your game.

I reckon last year Quins got close to 50...

Around 10 rugby players and 40 I don't know what to call them

Raggs wrote:To play 51-54 players, an AP club would have to use it's entire senior academy for the most part (I doubt some clubs even have enough players to manage that), and in the AP, these are significantly meaningful games, against sides that will beat you if you are 5% off your game.

We are getting some additional rotation this season, before reacting too much I'm content to see that develop. And really if clubs can't make it work they're less likely to win things, which is more as it should be than anything else

Looking at the way Newcastle have played and their results over the first two weeks drives home that there is no excuse for some of the bigger Prem teams. Quality coaching, culture, continuity and structures over a bunch of ragtag quality individuals.

Rotation makes sense. You need to manage workloads as you cannot play the same guys week in, week out. If you have a squad of 40+ and an academy of 12-15 you need to use them. The trick is to plan and change out a few players here and there.
I've looked at a few GP squads to compare numbers.
Wasps have 42 senior squad and 14 in the senior academy
Bath have 47 and 13
Quins have 46 and 14
Sale have 30 and 20 and have probably the smallest squad in the Prem.

Timbo wrote:Looking at the way Newcastle have played and their results over the first two weeks drives home that there is no excuse for some of the bigger Prem teams. Quality coaching, culture, continuity and structures over a bunch of ragtag quality individuals.

And where exactly are previously 4th placed Newcastle in the GP?

Tigersman wrote:Irish sides benefit by having only 4 clubs to compete for players with.

Imagine what the english clubs would be like with a
North team - Sale, Falcons, Doncaster, Yorkshire
Midlands - Tigers, Saints, Wuss, Wasps, Nottingham etc
South west - Bath, Exeter, Glous, Bristol, Etc
London/south East - Quins, Sarries, Irish etc

English rugby is IMO spread to thin in the top league to really dominate Europe.

This mirrors what I've thought for some time.

I think 4 pro teams might be too few - 6 might the be ideal number.

No play off - just a 10 match regular season.

European rugby would add another 6 (group matches) - 9 (team getting to final) games.

= 19 games per season max*

International players would play another 8 games.

Season starts 1st Saturday in September - end with European cup final 1st weekend in April.

May off

Summer tour in June only.

July off

August pre-season training.



*I'd personally scrap the group stages and have the European cup a 32 team (seeded) knockout tournament = 6 games max.

Add in a domestic cup competition and starts to look like a plan. But it won't take off because you can't expect to cut the number of games that drastically and get away with it.

I also think a 10 game league is just waaay too short. It's a mini league. 18 games would be the best number, I think.

As WT has said before, I think:

Premiership
10 teams - 1 winner, 2 relegated
Championship - fully pro
10 teams - 1 winner, 4 go into playoff for 2nd promotion spot. No regular relegation. Licenses are reviewed every 5 years.
Cup competition - 1st round is 8 matches - teams who were in the Championship last season (so excluding the 2 relegated teams). Winners progress.
Then there are 16 left for a last 16 match. So maximum 5 games (4 for Prem teams).

That's, in total, 18 league matches, 4 cup games, 9 europe, 12 internationals. Total: 43 games maximum. That's still a lot, tbh...