Squad for Wales

[Digby]

I just want to know why Wales can’t produce their own centres and wings.......







too obvious?

England leant them a 7 in Warburton and that dried up all ball even reaching the 12 and 13

[Banquo]

No idea how I even got dragged into this, as the premise that a view of how the game should be played is a function of your own skills and limitations/aspirations seems faintly strange. Even if this extrapolation were the case, Warburton was not a reductive or limited player, but an excellent all round one. And whilst I understand the point - well sort of- that a highly skilled player offers more, and more is good-Cips is just a poor example to use.
On free time for pros- they aren't always in international camps, and one would think the clubs would find some time for skills improvement, albeit (and this could be the problem) at club standards.

[Oakboy]

It's not just about skill v graft/physicality, though, is it? It's about all-round rugby skills and doing the right thing at the right time in the right place. The legitimate criticism of the current state of the game is that too many skill attributes are being shelved. When a fly-half with all-round skills like Ford spends most of 80 minutes kicking poorly there must be something wrong.

[Banquo]

It's not just about skill v graft/physicality, though, is it? It's about all-round rugby skills and doing the right thing at the right time in the right place. The legitimate criticism of the current state of the game is that too many skill attributes are being shelved. When a fly-half with all-round skills like Ford spends most of 80 minutes kicking poorly there must be something wrong.

Correct, hence my defence of Warburton tbh.

[Digby]

No idea how I even got dragged into this, as the premise that a view of how the game should be played is a function of your own skills and limitations/aspirations seems faintly strange. Even if this extrapolation were the case, Warburton was not a reductive or limited player, but an excellent all round one. And whilst I understand the point - well sort of- that a highly skilled player offers more, and more is good-Cips is just a poor example to use.
On free time for pros- they aren't always in international camps, and one would think the clubs would find some time for skills improvement, albeit (and this could be the problem) at club standards.

Players viewing the world through their own bias seems the norm, because that seems quite normal for people. Though I've also argued the counterpoint that players can if moving into coaching train sides that are a reflection of what they found hard to play, so Deano might seek a skilful side that moves the ball, and PSA seeks a side that might have skill but for damn sure never tries to use it. Still test rugby is a test, and finding a role within it that

No idea why you think Warbs was an excellent all round player, if he was he never submitted much evidence to base that view on. Nothing at least on a level that's even approximate to players like Tips and Faletau who would have featured in many of those same games even if they too had to endure Gatball. I'd still even allowing for that easily rate Warbs over someone like Moody, but still think overall he was reductive and destructive in approach. Most flankers are much more destructive than constructive, christ that charge would apply to McCaw and it's hard to have more influence on the game than McCaw

By all means select another player than Cips to consider they might have a different take on what's possible. I thought him a reasonable example of a player who would have the handling skills and the willingness to employ that in decision making, and of more recent times having to cope with defence as it is now and not what a Larkham would have had to face.

[Banquo]

No idea how I even got dragged into this, as the premise that a view of how the game should be played is a function of your own skills and limitations/aspirations seems faintly strange. Even if this extrapolation were the case, Warburton was not a reductive or limited player, but an excellent all round one. And whilst I understand the point - well sort of- that a highly skilled player offers more, and more is good-Cips is just a poor example to use.
On free time for pros- they aren't always in international camps, and one would think the clubs would find some time for skills improvement, albeit (and this could be the problem) at club standards.

Players viewing the world through their own bias seems the norm, because that seems quite normal for people. Though I've also argued the counterpoint that players can if moving into coaching train sides that are a reflection of what they found hard to play, so Deano might seek a skilful side that moves the ball, and PSA seeks a side that might have skill but for damn sure never tries to use it. Still test rugby is a test, and finding a role within it that

No idea why you think Warbs was an excellent all round player, if he was he never submitted much evidence to base that view on. Nothing at least on a level that's even approximate to players like Tips and Faletau who would have featured in many of those same games even if they too had to endure Gatball. I'd still even allowing for that easily rate Warbs over someone like Moody, but still think overall he was reductive and destructive in approach. Most flankers are much more destructive than constructive, christ that charge would apply to McCaw and it's hard to have more influence on the game than McCaw

By all means select another player than Cips to consider they might have a different take on what's possible. I thought him a reasonable example of a player who would have the handling skills and the willingness to employ that in decision making, and of more recent times having to cope with defence as it is now and not what a Larkham would have had to face.

Its a big and faintly extravagent extrapolation for me-to just discount his opinion because of what he was good at on the rugby pitch- which was a skilled back row player, at home at 6 or 7, good athlete, good support runner, line out skills and more than decent hands. That he was a good tackler and won a good chunk of turnovers hardly clouds his judgement tbh- turnovers can be very constructively used, and Wales generally do, and did, even under Gatland. On the Cips point you seemed to deliberately counterpoint him to Faz, inferring workrate was preferred to Cips skills- when Cips himself was the problem.

Must try harder not to get dragged into this sort of debate .

[Oakboy]

Must try harder not to get dragged into this sort of debate .

Rubbish, you love it. In any case, how would my education continue otherwise?

[Timbo]

Cockansiga was fit enough to play for Bath. I don't think Watson has played much for Bath but was selected. Cockansiga would have given us a different backline option, someone that could carry hard and straighten the line. Ford looked dangerous but the Welsh defence wasn't really taxed, all to easy for them to drift across the pitch and make the tackles out wide.

Watson played 483 minutes, with 7 starts for Bath, after a 5 month lay off - and played very well
Cokanasiga played 100 minutes, with 2 benches and 1 start for Bath, after a 12 month lay off - and played terribly

These things are not the same

Plus Watson was fit to be involved in the pre-AIs camp and played against Italy, so he's hardly coming back from nowhere.

Didn’t notice Te’o’s name in the conversation either regarding powerful runners in the backs. EJ seemed pretty intent on fitting him in despite only showing 10 minute bursts of quality. Am I going mad or did he have Sam Hill in one of the very early training squads too?

I don’t have any stats to hand, but the volume and the quality of kicking at the moment seems quite different to a lot of what we’ve seen in test rugby over the last few years. Do those performances not count as test rugby to Warburton? He always comes across as a pompous know-it-all to me.

I don’t think all these pundits telling everyone they’re thick for not understanding/enjoying this relentless kicking is going to help in keeping people watching or attracting new ones.

This. The whole, "If you don't like it, go watch rugby league" from Underhill was cringeworthy as well - they might, you dumbarse, and that's your wages going with them! Hells, *I* might at this rate - the reason I don't like league is because it's close enough to the sport I love that it frustrates me that it's missing so many key elements. Frankly, that description could also cover almost every bit of NH rugby I've seen after the pandemic - it's close to the sport I love, but there's no passing or running at space, no use of the wingers in anything but kick-chase, no continuous play where speed of ball is paramount.

The IRB need to sort this out or it'll be the death of the game in the northern hemisphere. We either need a thorough d*cking from a NZ team willing to run back every bit of ball that we kick them (which I'm not sure they have in them at the moment, even if they could/would come here) or some sort of change in the rules. Bring in the 40:22 rule, move back the offside line by a metre, and ban kicking from the base of a ruck or maul to my mind - make defenders drop back to cover touchlines and weaken defensive lines, knock back the rush defence to reduce its effectiveness as a tactic, and rule out our entire attacking strategy respectively.

Puja

The Autumn Nations Cup hasn’t really worked, for a number of reasons, but overall I can’t agree. Post lockdown there’s been loads of good and compelling rugby. Some of the Champions Cup and Challenge Cup knock outs were fantastic spectacles and the final of the CC was brilliant. The Prem stuff at the end was really good too. And this with the backdrop of no fans, 3 games a week and COVID cancellations. I think the clubs across Europe have done brilliantly.

My theory on the internationals is that, simply, most of the NH teams aren’t particularly good at the moment. England are very strong, but are a bit like a peak Mourinho football side and pretty dull, unless they come up against a team good enough to draw them out of their comfort zone. The only team capable of that at
the moment up north is France, and they can’t play their best team this week unfortunately. If this weekend was England vs a full blooded France in front of 80k we’d all be very excited/nervous.

My guess is that as long as we get a decent amount of fans in for the 6N’s- obviously far from guaranteed- and the Lions tour goes ahead as planned, we will not be having this conversation in 9 months, regardless of the laws, interpretations, kicking etc.

[p/d]

The jackal is too readily rewarded. Give the carrier more time to present. I want to see a 7 walk off the pitch with visible stud marks on his back, not a 10's hair ruffled for laying his fingers on the ball for a split second.

[Mikey Brown]

The jackal is too readily rewarded. Give the carrier more time to present. I want to see a 7 walk off the pitch with visible stud marks on his back, not a 10's hair ruffled for laying his fingers on the ball for a split second.

Yeah, the number of scrumhalves winning turnovers since the resumption is utterly sickening, and they’ve not necessarily been Kelleher/Philips types either.

[jngf]

I think he'd like to have a power option though, its just he hasn't had one. Whenever Manu has been fit, he's straight in. Obsessed with power is OTT, recognising that power is an increasingly important part of the mix and possibly over compensating up from is likely fairer. Territory and power (and intensity)will win you a lot of games, and even two of those three was good enough to beat Ireland.

No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

I read a telling piece about Ben Earl being told that by Eddie that he needed to cover all the grafting basics exemplified by Curry and Underhill to get a look in. On one level, yes work on those areas by way of continuous improvement, but the danger is that the quintessence that makes a player special, which in the case of Earl is his pace and attacking focus, get diluted in an attempt to fit into Jones’s view of England flankers which as far as I can see is all out defence with flair an optional extra. (To be fair the same criticism could be levelled at Burt too and to an even greater extent given he got Robshaw and Wood’s shirt numbers the wrong way round from the get go )

Having said all that Jones has tended to put athleticism over power in his tight five choices (though use of players like Stuart, Launch and Johnny Hill - whose quoted as being 130+ kilos on wikipedia is welcome development for us size-queens! )

[Which Tyler]

Player Cam: Sam Underhill versus Wales

[Digby]

No idea how I even got dragged into this, as the premise that a view of how the game should be played is a function of your own skills and limitations/aspirations seems faintly strange. Even if this extrapolation were the case, Warburton was not a reductive or limited player, but an excellent all round one. And whilst I understand the point - well sort of- that a highly skilled player offers more, and more is good-Cips is just a poor example to use.
On free time for pros- they aren't always in international camps, and one would think the clubs would find some time for skills improvement, albeit (and this could be the problem) at club standards.

Players viewing the world through their own bias seems the norm, because that seems quite normal for people. Though I've also argued the counterpoint that players can if moving into coaching train sides that are a reflection of what they found hard to play, so Deano might seek a skilful side that moves the ball, and PSA seeks a side that might have skill but for damn sure never tries to use it. Still test rugby is a test, and finding a role within it that

No idea why you think Warbs was an excellent all round player, if he was he never submitted much evidence to base that view on. Nothing at least on a level that's even approximate to players like Tips and Faletau who would have featured in many of those same games even if they too had to endure Gatball. I'd still even allowing for that easily rate Warbs over someone like Moody, but still think overall he was reductive and destructive in approach. Most flankers are much more destructive than constructive, christ that charge would apply to McCaw and it's hard to have more influence on the game than McCaw

By all means select another player than Cips to consider they might have a different take on what's possible. I thought him a reasonable example of a player who would have the handling skills and the willingness to employ that in decision making, and of more recent times having to cope with defence as it is now and not what a Larkham would have had to face.

Its a big and faintly extravagent extrapolation for me-to just discount his opinion because of what he was good at on the rugby pitch- which was a skilled back row player, at home at 6 or 7, good athlete, good support runner, line out skills and more than decent hands. That he was a good tackler and won a good chunk of turnovers hardly clouds his judgement tbh- turnovers can be very constructively used, and Wales generally do, and did, even under Gatland. On the Cips point you seemed to deliberately counterpoint him to Faz, inferring workrate was preferred to Cips skills- when Cips himself was the problem.

Must try harder not to get dragged into this sort of debate .

I was aiming for a point being made around outlook, and what a player would want to try and do and act on. And that it'd help players to have a go if they had skills which would support having a go, as opposed to the players whose game relies more simply on getting stuck in.

[Spiffy]

No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

I always thought Sam pretty skilled at the breakdown, a good decision maker- bar once, and a capable handler, so think your characterisation a tad unfair. I'd also be wary of citing Cipriani as an example of a skilled player over-looked- he created most of the rods for his own back over a sustained period, and by the time he'd woken up, his skills were somewhat diminished. Armitage is a more challenging example, its true.

It does mystify me why there appears to be so little time spent on skills- a professional has a lot of time to fill.

Would agree with you there. But, by the time a professional player reaches international standard or plays for a top club, his skills should already be at a high level. Skills are something you hone as a kid learning the game of rugby with endless hours of running, passing, kicking, tackling etc. so that these things become second nature and almost automatic. The notion that you can now be picked for a national team, but then must go on to develop your skills seems a little arse-about-face. In my own playing days, a long time ago, many clubs did not have good gym facilities, were not into endless weight pumping and bulking up, and so spent most training sessions predominantly playing with the ball. The result was pretty good running and passing skills. Now, an ordinary pass, placed in front of the receiver, at belly button level, with the right weight and timing, is raved about as something special rather than the accepted norm.
The gym rat culture rules unfortunately and England (as well as several other nations) seem to be heading even more in this direction. The bludgeon has overcome the rapier.

[Banquo]

Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

I always thought Sam pretty skilled at the breakdown, a good decision maker- bar once, and a capable handler, so think your characterisation a tad unfair. I'd also be wary of citing Cipriani as an example of a skilled player over-looked- he created most of the rods for his own back over a sustained period, and by the time he'd woken up, his skills were somewhat diminished. Armitage is a more challenging example, its true.

It does mystify me why there appears to be so little time spent on skills- a professional has a lot of time to fill.

Would agree with you there. But, by the time a professional player reaches international standard or plays for a top club, his skills should already be at a high level. Skills are something you hone as a kid learning the game of rugby with endless hours of running, passing, kicking, tackling etc. so that these things become second nature and almost automatic. The notion that you can now be picked for a national team, but then must go on to develop your skills seems a little arse-about-face. In my own playing days, a long time ago, many clubs did not have good gym facilities, were not into endless weight pumping and bulking up, and so spent most training sessions predominantly playing with the ball. The result was pretty good running and passing skills. Now, an ordinary pass, placed in front of the receiver, at belly button level, with the right weight and timing, is raved about as something special rather than the accepted norm.
The gym rat culture rules unfortunately and England (as well as several other nations) seem to be heading even more in this direction. The bludgeon has overcome the rapier.

Totally right

[Oakboy]

It seems to me that it is not necessarily a case of developing the individual skills of players as much as the practising of applying them collectively. That really goes on to mean that the most important skill is that of the coaches. In terms of the way the game is played within the current application of the laws, coaches generally and England's in particular, lack the skill to find a way around the kicking stalemate.

Whether I am right in that assertion or not, the fact is that they have all stopped trying. Statistics back kicking so kick more. When statisticians rule over the best coaching brains in rugby (supposedly) the future is bleak.

[twitchy]

Genge not cited.

[fivepointer]

Coaches will adopt a style that they think will win them games. If that involves a lot of kicking and low risk attacking, then thats what they will do. There can be a lot of skill involved in that, though maybe not the freewheeling, expansive style of play that most of us want to see.
Perhaps the broader issue is whether the game at the top level has a duty to try and entertain.
Do our international teams and leading clubs have a responsibility to broaden the games appeal, and to play in a more exciting and attractive manner?

[Banquo]

Coaches will adopt a style that they think will win them games. If that involves a lot of kicking and low risk attacking, then thats what they will do. There can be a lot of skill involved in that, though maybe not the freewheeling, expansive style of play that most of us want to see.
Perhaps the broader issue is whether the game at the top level has a duty to try and entertain.
Do our international teams and leading clubs have a responsibility to broaden the games appeal, and to play in a more exciting and attractive manner?

Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. Will a relatively complicated game ever broaden its appeal sufficiently to attract a bigger audience than the one that might turn its back? It’s simpler cousin, RL doesn’t appear to have grown much. It’s a conundrum for sure- without true growth, Pro Union isn’t self sustaining at club level at current costs.

[p/d]

The laws and interpretation of have empowered defences, and the best place to defend is in the opposition’s half. Easiest way to get your destructive players there is to kick the leather off the ball.

I’m all for tweaks and player safety but there will be consequences, sadly it looks (at the moment) as if kick and clap is back

Oh, and the 9 is still too protected

[Oakboy]

Coaches will adopt a style that they think will win them games. If that involves a lot of kicking and low risk attacking, then thats what they will do. There can be a lot of skill involved in that.

Fair enough but why is the kicking and chasing so poor in execution? The skill in that is not being demonstrated. Maybe the players hearts are not in it.

Perhaps the broader issue is whether the game at the top level has a duty to try and entertain.
Do our international teams and leading clubs have a responsibility to broaden the games appeal, and to play in a more exciting and attractive manner?

Do you not think that winning by 'negative' kicking has its own self-defeating time limit? I wonder what would happen, for example, if the England team found itself 0-14 down after ten minutes. Just suppose that some enterprising coach found a way to surprise us with a start and a restart or whatever. What is the way back? Yes, we could reel the opposition in with penalties theoretically but if the opposition constantly kick us back into our own 22?

Ultimately, I hope that this is just a phase. If, over a period, balanced play (between attack/defence, forwards/backs etc.) does not rule the administrators will have to act, I'd have thought, before the sponsors/TV companies walk away.

[Mikey Brown]

Coaches will adopt a style that they think will win them games. If that involves a lot of kicking and low risk attacking, then thats what they will do. There can be a lot of skill involved in that.

Fair enough but why is the kicking and chasing so poor in execution? The skill in that is not being demonstrated. Maybe the players hearts are not in it.

Perhaps the broader issue is whether the game at the top level has a duty to try and entertain.
Do our international teams and leading clubs have a responsibility to broaden the games appeal, and to play in a more exciting and attractive manner?

Do you not think that winning by 'negative' kicking has its own self-defeating time limit? I wonder what would happen, for example, if the England team found itself 0-14 down after ten minutes. Just suppose that some enterprising coach found a way to surprise us with a start and a restart or whatever. What is the way back? Yes, we could reel the opposition in with penalties theoretically but if the opposition constantly kick us back into our own 22?

This is kind of what I’ve been wondering too.

Developing a pack that can’t be overpowered is great, but if we do find ourselves getting dominated in the forwards again and on the wrong end of a big score are we actually going to have any sort of plan beyond more kicking?

[Banquo]

Just a phase would be my bet. Coaches will continue to adapt- and this may be some kind of reaction to the weirdness of covid times.

[Banquo]

Coaches will adopt a style that they think will win them games. If that involves a lot of kicking and low risk attacking, then thats what they will do. There can be a lot of skill involved in that.

Fair enough but why is the kicking and chasing so poor in execution? The skill in that is not being demonstrated. Maybe the players hearts are not in it.

Perhaps the broader issue is whether the game at the top level has a duty to try and entertain.
Do our international teams and leading clubs have a responsibility to broaden the games appeal, and to play in a more exciting and attractive manner?

Do you not think that winning by 'negative' kicking has its own self-defeating time limit? I wonder what would happen, for example, if the England team found itself 0-14 down after ten minutes. Just suppose that some enterprising coach found a way to surprise us with a start and a restart or whatever. What is the way back? Yes, we could reel the opposition in with penalties theoretically but if the opposition constantly kick us back into our own 22?

This is kind of what I’ve been wondering too.

Developing a pack that can’t be overpowered is great, but if we do find ourselves getting dominated in the forwards again and on the wrong end of a big score are we actually going to have any sort of plan beyond more kicking?

See RWC final.

[Digby]

I always thought Sam pretty skilled at the breakdown, a good decision maker- bar once, and a capable handler, so think your characterisation a tad unfair. I'd also be wary of citing Cipriani as an example of a skilled player over-looked- he created most of the rods for his own back over a sustained period, and by the time he'd woken up, his skills were somewhat diminished. Armitage is a more challenging example, its true.

It does mystify me why there appears to be so little time spent on skills- a professional has a lot of time to fill.

Would agree with you there. But, by the time a professional player reaches international standard or plays for a top club, his skills should already be at a high level. Skills are something you hone as a kid learning the game of rugby with endless hours of running, passing, kicking, tackling etc. so that these things become second nature and almost automatic. The notion that you can now be picked for a national team, but then must go on to develop your skills seems a little arse-about-face. In my own playing days, a long time ago, many clubs did not have good gym facilities, were not into endless weight pumping and bulking up, and so spent most training sessions predominantly playing with the ball. The result was pretty good running and passing skills. Now, an ordinary pass, placed in front of the receiver, at belly button level, with the right weight and timing, is raved about as something special rather than the accepted norm.
The gym rat culture rules unfortunately and England (as well as several other nations) seem to be heading even more in this direction. The bludgeon has overcome the rapier.

Totally right

Other than the skills on players in the top tier are now well beyond anything we used to see, they're even higher than those belonging to the mighty Spiffy in his school days, even allowing for school rugby being rightly famed for its high level skills.

What the skills in the current game haven't been able to do is keep pace with the rise of defensive systems that apply such pressure. So yes the bludgeon is winning out, but even those 9s we complain about are well ahead of the skills we saw 15-20 years back, and it's just the pace on the modern game with all the pressure which makes them look suspect in relative terms.

I do think that should mean still more emphasis on skills, but the idea we used to have good running and passing skills and now we don't is only true relative to how much defence has improved. So if we were able to expose the 2001 version of say Gregan and Larkham to a modern defence they'd be in for something of a culture shock and then some.

Also of course skills should improve on players coming into the professional game. The idea your skill levels are fixed as a junior and then can only be maintained as a pro is just weird, as when given access to time and quality education skill levels will of course improve vastly, both range of skills and standard of skill level. What is fixed as a junior is the top end potential of skills such as hand-eye coordination because that's how our brains develop, but where you end up within that potential is still something that can be heavily influenced by practice.