Eng U20s 2023

[Margin_Walker]

It's not really about the list though. I doubt he'll even be on it for this tournament.

I even agree that lots of players you think are going to make it won't. Although if we're looking at wings Nathan Earle is probably a better example than Cato. He stood out a bit more for me.

Locks are a bit easier to spot imo though and would put money Chessum getting more than a few England caps.

Well see though

[FKAS]

I'm not so sure.
I'm far from convinced that the pathways (in fully professional countries) between age-grade and senior are any better now than they were a decade ago.
Rugby's been professional for 28 years now. Yeah, the first decade or so was a mess, and a but longer for these pathways to properly kick in, but... age grade rugby is still a small pond with the odd big fish swimming around. It always will be, because it's the best of a 2-year age-group (at best) who have only just (or usually not-quite-yet) become full time professionals, not the best of a 12+ year ago group who've been full-time professional since they left age-grade.

I dunno I think the changes to the salary cap has seen a number of clubs place a far bigger emphasis on player pathway. In many ways following the French example.

[Mellsblue]

It's not really about the list though. I doubt he'll even be on it for this tournament.

I even agree that lots of players you think are going to make it won't. Although if we're looking at wings Nathan Earle is probably a better example than Cato. He stood out a bit more for me.

Locks are a bit easier to spot imo though and would put money Chessum getting more than a few England caps.

Well see though

That’s my point. If even those on the list fail to make it at such a high percentage what chance those who don’t… yet a lot are talking as if L. Chessum is nailed on to be a multi-cap test player.

I think Earle is a bit of an outlier given the severity of his injury whilst at Bedford. I was at the game and I’ve never seen players react in such a fashion. Given that and subsequent snippets on how bad it was, he was never going to come back as the player he was when he first broke through.

[FKAS]

Just looked at the 2022 squad. It included Fin Smith, Henry Arundell, Will Joseph and Seb Atkinson. There's unfulfilled promise in Fin Baxter, Emeka Ilione, Ewan Richards, Tom Litchfield and Olly Hartley. But for some of those in the squad playing U20s is going to be their career highlight.

All of those guys played some Prem rugby last season though and in the main are forwards who will mostly take some more time to come through. Ilione would have certainly come through quicker if it weren't for injury, still managed to make his Champions Cup debut and secure the penalty that won the Prem game Vs LI.

Looks like the 2022 lot could be a good haul.

[Scrumhead]

Agreed.

I think Baxter’s coming along nicely. Whether he’s an England international in the future remains to be seen, but as with most props, it’ll take him a while yet to reach his peak. He looks like he’ll be a solid Premiership player at the very least though.

Hartley probably would have had more of a breakthrough season, but for Wasps’ collapse. With Duncan Taylor retiring, I think he might get a few opportunities with Saracens this season.

[Mr Mwenda]

I'd like to see the Chessums, Vunipolae and Curries all in the same pack. Maximum confusion.

[Puja]

I'd like to see the Chessums, Vunipolae and Curries all in the same pack. Maximum confusion.

This is arrant Willis erasure.

Puja

[Puja]

I'm not so sure.
I'm far from convinced that the pathways (in fully professional countries) between age-grade and senior are any better now than they were a decade ago.
Rugby's been professional for 28 years now. Yeah, the first decade or so was a mess, and a but longer for these pathways to properly kick in, but... age grade rugby is still a small pond with the odd big fish swimming around. It always will be, because it's the best of a 2-year age-group (at best) who have only just (or usually not-quite-yet) become full time professionals, not the best of a 12+ year ago group who've been full-time professional since they left age-grade.

I think the amateur nature of English pathways is shown by the number of surnames that we recognise in the age groups. You wonder how much more time and energy a player with the right pedigree gets over someone, who might be a better talent, but doesn't have connections or name recognition.

Puja

[FKAS]

I'm not so sure.
I'm far from convinced that the pathways (in fully professional countries) between age-grade and senior are any better now than they were a decade ago.
Rugby's been professional for 28 years now. Yeah, the first decade or so was a mess, and a but longer for these pathways to properly kick in, but... age grade rugby is still a small pond with the odd big fish swimming around. It always will be, because it's the best of a 2-year age-group (at best) who have only just (or usually not-quite-yet) become full time professionals, not the best of a 12+ year ago group who've been full-time professional since they left age-grade.

I think the amateur nature of English pathways is shown by the number of surnames that we recognise in the age groups. You wonder how much more time and energy a player with the right pedigree gets over someone, who might be a better talent, but doesn't have connections or name recognition.

Puja

This is true but this also seems to be part of a greater problem in that the academies generally pull from private schools where the name carries weight with the rugby coach (who probably knows the family) and possibly a scholarship. There's also likely to be some advantages to having a parent or family member that is going to help mentor you as you come through.

Rugby does need to limit its reliance on the private school system.

[Banquo]

I'm not so sure.
I'm far from convinced that the pathways (in fully professional countries) between age-grade and senior are any better now than they were a decade ago.
Rugby's been professional for 28 years now. Yeah, the first decade or so was a mess, and a but longer for these pathways to properly kick in, but... age grade rugby is still a small pond with the odd big fish swimming around. It always will be, because it's the best of a 2-year age-group (at best) who have only just (or usually not-quite-yet) become full time professionals, not the best of a 12+ year ago group who've been full-time professional since they left age-grade.

I think the amateur nature of English pathways is shown by the number of surnames that we recognise in the age groups. You wonder how much more time and energy a player with the right pedigree gets over someone, who might be a better talent, but doesn't have connections or name recognition.

Puja

Rugby does need to limit its reliance on the private school system.

How and in fact why and whats the level of reliance anyway? and tbh there are tons of players in the amateur game who havent been near a private school.

Plenty in the England squad not thru private schools, or only doe 6th form. Clubs have pretty vibrant youth sections too. I think a mixed system is ok.

[FKAS]

I think the amateur nature of English pathways is shown by the number of surnames that we recognise in the age groups. You wonder how much more time and energy a player with the right pedigree gets over someone, who might be a better talent, but doesn't have connections or name recognition.

Puja

Rugby does need to limit its reliance on the private school system.

How and in fact why and whats the level of reliance anyway? and tbh there are tons of players in the amateur game who havent been near a private school.

Plenty in the England squad not thru private schools, or only doe 6th form. Clubs have pretty vibrant youth sections too. I think a mixed system is ok.

Yeah, key term there is amateur game. I'm well aware the amateur game is a good mix, I went to a shite school and played with mostly tradies who had similar state education background.

If you look at the England squad the majority went to private school and Genge has said that he knew good players when he was at school that never made it because of the dearth of opportunity at state school. Realistically the main difference is that private schools all have sport programs and state schools are heavily reliant on a teacher taking an interest and doing something outside of the hours they get paid for. For instance I have long said Tigers inability to tap into the Carribbean, Asian and African communities in the city has held them back.

[Banquo]

Rugby does need to limit its reliance on the private school system.

How and in fact why and whats the level of reliance anyway? and tbh there are tons of players in the amateur game who havent been near a private school.

Plenty in the England squad not thru private schools, or only doe 6th form. Clubs have pretty vibrant youth sections too. I think a mixed system is ok.

Yeah, key term there is amateur game. I'm well aware the amateur game is a good mix, I went to a shite school and played with mostly tradies who had similar state education background.

If you look at the England squad the majority went to private school and Genge has said that he knew good players when he was at school that never made it because of the dearth of opportunity at state school. Realistically the main difference is that private schools all have sport programs and state schools are heavily reliant on a teacher taking an interest and doing something outside of the hours they get paid for. For instance I have long said Tigers inability to tap into the Carribbean, Asian and African communities in the city has held them back.

Ok, but you haven't answered how to 'limit' its alleged reliance and what the impact of this reliance is? Who are you looking at when you say 'Rugby'- RFU, Pro Clubs, Mixed pro and amateur clubs, Amateur clubs?

Btw, just a quick sample, all the below didn't come through the English private school system as far as I can tell......(admittedly there are some grammar schools chucked in but they aren't private schools) - Marler, Genge, Sinckler, J Hill, Lawes, Willis x 2, Alex Mitchell, Manu, Farrell, May, Care, Cole, Blamire, Martin, VRR, Underhill, Cokanasiga, Murley, Marchant, Porter, Steward...

My own club is doing absolutely tons of outreach work to schools who don't have any rugby provision, and I know other clubs are doing the same. What does need to be done is getting the pyramid from participation in youth rugby upwards better sorted, aligning the game as a whole, rather than pretty much a free for all from Prem downwards.

[Gloskarlos]

In my experience academies end up putting exponentially more players off rugby, (if not for life then at least for a few years) than they do generating Prem or international quality players. You are correct in that most state schools don't offer it or give any credence to rugby at all, and that means outside of the club environment at school ages the vast majority of players exposure to good coaching, game time and being able to develop is severely limited. The RFU are complicit in this. Academies are also heavily dominated by constantly coached private school players (certainly in the midlands) which also limits accessibility for others trying to get in. How the overhaul looks is not certain for me but the RFU have huge issues to address. The academies of Worcester, Wasps and now LI are being run by the RFU and none of those players have a club to aspire to (locally). The RFU will not sanction any developmental coaching outside of the academies for any of the thousands of other players that could or might be at academy level, not selected because of a bad game, covid, injury or weren't spotted at the original 5 minute selection process. There is so much untapped and undeveloped talent out there that the current system takes no account for.

[Banquo]

In my experience academies end up putting exponentially more players off rugby, (if not for life then at least for a few years) than they do generating Prem or international quality players. You are correct in that most state schools don't offer it or give any credence to rugby at all, and that means outside of the club environment at school ages the vast majority of players exposure to good coaching, game time and being able to develop is severely limited. The RFU are complicit in this. Academies are also heavily dominated by constantly coached private school players (certainly in the midlands) which also limits accessibility for others trying to get in. How the overhaul looks is not certain for me but the RFU have huge issues to address. The academies of Worcester, Wasps and now LI are being run by the RFU and none of those players have a club to aspire to (locally). The RFU will not sanction any developmental coaching outside of the academies for any of the thousands of other players that could or might be at academy level, not selected because of a bad game, covid, injury or weren't spotted at the original 5 minute selection process. There is so much untapped and undeveloped talent out there that the current system takes no account for.

Fair enough- but I think we agree a systemic overhaul is needed rather than just addressing private schools in some way. Agreed on academies- but this is the holy grail of development pathways that nobody here has cracked. That said, and I will say it again, clubs do offer kids and youths an opportunity to play outside the established rugby schools (not all private)- but the quality of coaching is variable! If you want the net to be spread more widely, then a massive investment in coaching is almost certainly needed- where does the money come from?

[Margin_Walker]

Always tend to mention the ACE pathway when this comes up. It's not perfect as it will often require relocation for school during the week. but it is a viable option for kids from state schools to receive an equivalent level of coaching that they would have had in a fee paying school.

For LI around half of the academy intake over the last few years were state school educated coming in through this way. Just recently you've got guys like OHC, Fasogbon, Dykes, Englefield, Haffar, Allan, Munga and a bunch of the senior squad players (Atkins brothers, Smart, Green, Cooke etc) using this as an entry point.

Other clubs do make good use of it too. I worked with a guy whose son went through the Leicester programme at Brooksby Melton and went on to play BUCs rugby. Had a lot of good things to say about it.

[Gloskarlos]

In my experience academies end up putting exponentially more players off rugby, (if not for life then at least for a few years) than they do generating Prem or international quality players. You are correct in that most state schools don't offer it or give any credence to rugby at all, and that means outside of the club environment at school ages the vast majority of players exposure to good coaching, game time and being able to develop is severely limited. The RFU are complicit in this. Academies are also heavily dominated by constantly coached private school players (certainly in the midlands) which also limits accessibility for others trying to get in. How the overhaul looks is not certain for me but the RFU have huge issues to address. The academies of Worcester, Wasps and now LI are being run by the RFU and none of those players have a club to aspire to (locally). The RFU will not sanction any developmental coaching outside of the academies for any of the thousands of other players that could or might be at academy level, not selected because of a bad game, covid, injury or weren't spotted at the original 5 minute selection process. There is so much untapped and undeveloped talent out there that the current system takes no account for.

Fair enough- but I think we agree a systemic overhaul is needed rather than just addressing private schools in some way. Agreed on academies- but this is the holy grail of development pathways that nobody here has cracked. That said, and I will say it again, clubs do offer kids and youths an opportunity to play outside the established rugby schools (not all private)- but the quality of coaching is variable! If you want the net to be spread more widely, then a massive investment in coaching is almost certainly needed- where does the money come from?

Agreed. the overhaul needs to be complete. I don't think the investment needed is that high though, given that coaches at the vast majority of levels are volunteers and their clubs pay for all RFU training (nominal values frankly). People who are enthusiastic about rugby could easily reach a level of coaching for next to no influx of cash which would be better than players get in most schools and I dare say quite a few clubs.

[Banquo]

In my experience academies end up putting exponentially more players off rugby, (if not for life then at least for a few years) than they do generating Prem or international quality players. You are correct in that most state schools don't offer it or give any credence to rugby at all, and that means outside of the club environment at school ages the vast majority of players exposure to good coaching, game time and being able to develop is severely limited. The RFU are complicit in this. Academies are also heavily dominated by constantly coached private school players (certainly in the midlands) which also limits accessibility for others trying to get in. How the overhaul looks is not certain for me but the RFU have huge issues to address. The academies of Worcester, Wasps and now LI are being run by the RFU and none of those players have a club to aspire to (locally). The RFU will not sanction any developmental coaching outside of the academies for any of the thousands of other players that could or might be at academy level, not selected because of a bad game, covid, injury or weren't spotted at the original 5 minute selection process. There is so much untapped and undeveloped talent out there that the current system takes no account for.

Fair enough- but I think we agree a systemic overhaul is needed rather than just addressing private schools in some way. Agreed on academies- but this is the holy grail of development pathways that nobody here has cracked. That said, and I will say it again, clubs do offer kids and youths an opportunity to play outside the established rugby schools (not all private)- but the quality of coaching is variable! If you want the net to be spread more widely, then a massive investment in coaching is almost certainly needed- where does the money come from?

Agreed. the overhaul needs to be complete. I don't think the investment needed is that high though, given that coaches at the vast majority of levels are volunteers and their clubs pay for all RFU training (nominal values frankly). People who are enthusiastic about rugby could easily reach a level of coaching for next to no influx of cash which would be better than players get in most schools and I dare say quite a few clubs.

The coaching quality from these volunteers is pretty patchy and frankly pretty poor where I've been an observer- definitely need enthusiastic volunteers, but nearly all overseen by a bone fide coach. and I don't think you can raise the standards uniformly, cheaply. I'd say- guessing- that its the big difference between us and say NZ, where you don't get to coach anyone without being fit to do so. While I'm on a roll, even the folks I've met on senior coaching courses are generally not equipped to coach teams- either temperamentally or technically or both.

[Mellsblue]

How and in fact why and whats the level of reliance anyway? and tbh there are tons of players in the amateur game who havent been near a private school.

Plenty in the England squad not thru private schools, or only doe 6th form. Clubs have pretty vibrant youth sections too. I think a mixed system is ok.

Yeah, key term there is amateur game. I'm well aware the amateur game is a good mix, I went to a shite school and played with mostly tradies who had similar state education background.

If you look at the England squad the majority went to private school and Genge has said that he knew good players when he was at school that never made it because of the dearth of opportunity at state school. Realistically the main difference is that private schools all have sport programs and state schools are heavily reliant on a teacher taking an interest and doing something outside of the hours they get paid for. For instance I have long said Tigers inability to tap into the Carribbean, Asian and African communities in the city has held them back.

Ok, but you haven't answered how to 'limit' its alleged reliance and what the impact of this reliance is? Who are you looking at when you say 'Rugby'- RFU, Pro Clubs, Mixed pro and amateur clubs, Amateur clubs?

Btw, just a quick sample, all the below didn't come through the English private school system as far as I can tell......(admittedly there are some grammar schools chucked in but they aren't private schools) - Marler, Genge, Sinckler, J Hill, Lawes, Willis x 2, Alex Mitchell, Manu, Farrell, May, Care, Cole, Blamire, Martin, VRR, Underhill, Cokanasiga, Murley, Marchant, Porter, Steward...

My own club is doing absolutely tons of outreach work to schools who don't have any rugby provision, and I know other clubs are doing the same. What does need to be done is getting the pyramid from participation in youth rugby upwards better sorted, aligning the game as a whole, rather than pretty much a free for all from Prem downwards.

Add Chessum to that list.
You can also add in those that were only at private school as they have a scholarship because of the talent/promise shown outside the private school system, eg Vunipolae.

[Gloskarlos]

Fair enough- but I think we agree a systemic overhaul is needed rather than just addressing private schools in some way. Agreed on academies- but this is the holy grail of development pathways that nobody here has cracked. That said, and I will say it again, clubs do offer kids and youths an opportunity to play outside the established rugby schools (not all private)- but the quality of coaching is variable! If you want the net to be spread more widely, then a massive investment in coaching is almost certainly needed- where does the money come from?

Agreed. the overhaul needs to be complete. I don't think the investment needed is that high though, given that coaches at the vast majority of levels are volunteers and their clubs pay for all RFU training (nominal values frankly). People who are enthusiastic about rugby could easily reach a level of coaching for next to no influx of cash which would be better than players get in most schools and I dare say quite a few clubs.

The coaching quality from these volunteers is pretty patchy and frankly pretty poor where I've been an observer- definitely need enthusiastic volunteers, but nearly all overseen by a bone fide coach. and I don't think you can raise the standards uniformly, cheaply. I'd say- guessing- that its the big difference between us and say NZ, where you don't get to coach anyone without being fit to do so. While I'm on a roll, even the folks I've met on senior coaching courses are generally not equipped to coach teams- either temperamentally or technically or both.

Also true. There is some dross around. As with any progressive coaching though (as you have alluded to with the NZ example) coaches can find their level, whether that be sticking with U9's for example (and happy to do so as the level of seriousness should remain low) - or progressing through age grade with the tuition and mentorship to go with it. I think the basic tuition is there, at little cost, but the mentorship and progressive attainment path is absolutely lacking. RFU courses are seen as tick boxes by many coaches (not all), but what could easily happen during those weekend sessions is for an assessor to pick out some people with genuine passion and ability for more elite sessions. the one size fits all doesn't work as you've stated.

[Banquo]

Agreed. the overhaul needs to be complete. I don't think the investment needed is that high though, given that coaches at the vast majority of levels are volunteers and their clubs pay for all RFU training (nominal values frankly). People who are enthusiastic about rugby could easily reach a level of coaching for next to no influx of cash which would be better than players get in most schools and I dare say quite a few clubs.

The coaching quality from these volunteers is pretty patchy and frankly pretty poor where I've been an observer- definitely need enthusiastic volunteers, but nearly all overseen by a bone fide coach. and I don't think you can raise the standards uniformly, cheaply. I'd say- guessing- that its the big difference between us and say NZ, where you don't get to coach anyone without being fit to do so. While I'm on a roll, even the folks I've met on senior coaching courses are generally not equipped to coach teams- either temperamentally or technically or both.

Also true. There is some dross around. As with any progressive coaching though (as you have alluded to with the NZ example) coaches can find their level, whether that be sticking with U9's for example (and happy to do so as the level of seriousness should remain low) - or progressing through age grade with the tuition and mentorship to go with it. I think the basic tuition is there, at little cost, but the mentorship and progressive attainment path is absolutely lacking. RFU courses are seen as tick boxes by many coaches (not all), but what could easily happen during those weekend sessions is for an assessor to pick out some people with genuine passion and ability for more elite sessions. the one size fits all doesn't work as you've stated.

Its tricky, because the enthusiasm volunteers bring is great, but generally disappear once their child/teenager has moved on, understandably. Personally I think the culture isn't quite right there- if you had permanent age group coaches in situ, it might help, but that would cost a fair bit that clubs don't have.

[fivepointer]

Coaching at junior club level is very patchy. Its dads and mums helping out in the main. Some will do it well and have a genuine interest in the craft and look to develop further, but most do it to keep the teams going. I've been on courses and the knowledge is often limited and the incentive to keep going wanes as soon as their child moves on. Coaching isnt for everyone and in my experience only a very small number keep at it once their connection to a side has been broken. You do get a bit more quality coaching at u16/colts level as these sides are generally run by the more capable and motivated coaches who do often stay with that age group.

[Banquo]

Coaching at junior club level is very patchy. Its dads and mums helping out in the main. Some will do it well and have a genuine interest in the craft and look to develop further, but most do it to keep the teams going. I've been on courses and the knowledge is often limited and the incentive to keep going wanes as soon as their child moves on. Coaching isnt for everyone and in my experience only a very small number keep at it once their connection to a side has been broken. You do get a bit more quality coaching at u16/colts level as these sides are generally run by the more capable and motivated coaches who do often stay with that age group.

Indeed. One of the side issues of professionalism is that anyone who has taken the time and effort to do the 'senior' badges now pretty much only coaches for cash unless its their own kids- quite a shift tbh. Even in lower leagues the qualified coaches get cash.

[FKAS]

How and in fact why and whats the level of reliance anyway? and tbh there are tons of players in the amateur game who havent been near a private school.

Plenty in the England squad not thru private schools, or only doe 6th form. Clubs have pretty vibrant youth sections too. I think a mixed system is ok.

Yeah, key term there is amateur game. I'm well aware the amateur game is a good mix, I went to a shite school and played with mostly tradies who had similar state education background.

If you look at the England squad the majority went to private school and Genge has said that he knew good players when he was at school that never made it because of the dearth of opportunity at state school. Realistically the main difference is that private schools all have sport programs and state schools are heavily reliant on a teacher taking an interest and doing something outside of the hours they get paid for. For instance I have long said Tigers inability to tap into the Carribbean, Asian and African communities in the city has held them back.

Ok, but you haven't answered how to 'limit' its alleged reliance and what the impact of this reliance is? Who are you looking at when you say 'Rugby'- RFU, Pro Clubs, Mixed pro and amateur clubs, Amateur clubs?

Btw, just a quick sample, all the below didn't come through the English private school system as far as I can tell......(admittedly there are some grammar schools chucked in but they aren't private schools) - Marler, Genge, Sinckler, J Hill, Lawes, Willis x 2, Alex Mitchell, Manu, Farrell, May, Care, Cole, Blamire, Martin, VRR, Underhill, Cokanasiga, Murley, Marchant, Porter, Steward...

My own club is doing absolutely tons of outreach work to schools who don't have any rugby provision, and I know other clubs are doing the same. What does need to be done is getting the pyramid from participation in youth rugby upwards better sorted, aligning the game as a whole, rather than pretty much a free for all from Prem downwards.

George Martin went to Fairfield Prep and Loughborough Grammar which is fee paying all the way.

Steward went to Norwich School which is private.

Porter came through in the Australia system so is completely pointless as an inclusion.

Don't know what your strike right is with the non-Tigers but you got Cole right he got picked up through the county system. Went to the same secondary school as Martin Johnson.

[Banquo]

Yeah, key term there is amateur game. I'm well aware the amateur game is a good mix, I went to a shite school and played with mostly tradies who had similar state education background.

If you look at the England squad the majority went to private school and Genge has said that he knew good players when he was at school that never made it because of the dearth of opportunity at state school. Realistically the main difference is that private schools all have sport programs and state schools are heavily reliant on a teacher taking an interest and doing something outside of the hours they get paid for. For instance I have long said Tigers inability to tap into the Carribbean, Asian and African communities in the city has held them back.

Ok, but you haven't answered how to 'limit' its alleged reliance and what the impact of this reliance is? Who are you looking at when you say 'Rugby'- RFU, Pro Clubs, Mixed pro and amateur clubs, Amateur clubs?

Btw, just a quick sample, all the below didn't come through the English private school system as far as I can tell......(admittedly there are some grammar schools chucked in but they aren't private schools) - Marler, Genge, Sinckler, J Hill, Lawes, Willis x 2, Alex Mitchell, Manu, Farrell, May, Care, Cole, Blamire, Martin, VRR, Underhill, Cokanasiga, Murley, Marchant, Porter, Steward...

My own club is doing absolutely tons of outreach work to schools who don't have any rugby provision, and I know other clubs are doing the same. What does need to be done is getting the pyramid from participation in youth rugby upwards better sorted, aligning the game as a whole, rather than pretty much a free for all from Prem downwards.

George Martin went to Fairfield Prep and Loughborough Grammar which is fee paying all the way.

Steward went to Norwich School which is private.

Porter came through in the Australia system so is completely pointless as an inclusion.

Don't know what your strike right is with the non-Tigers but you got Cole right he got picked up through the county system. Went to the same secondary school as Martin Johnson.

Dodged the point but hey. I was wrong on Steward apols, but I and the RFU have Martin going to Brooksby Melton college, with his bro going to Lufbra grammar?
Porter was included to show you can make it here without private schooling. I did look all those up on the RFU site. My point is a lot of top players did and do come through non private school routes.

[FKAS]

Ok, but you haven't answered how to 'limit' its alleged reliance and what the impact of this reliance is? Who are you looking at when you say 'Rugby'- RFU, Pro Clubs, Mixed pro and amateur clubs, Amateur clubs?

Btw, just a quick sample, all the below didn't come through the English private school system as far as I can tell......(admittedly there are some grammar schools chucked in but they aren't private schools) - Marler, Genge, Sinckler, J Hill, Lawes, Willis x 2, Alex Mitchell, Manu, Farrell, May, Care, Cole, Blamire, Martin, VRR, Underhill, Cokanasiga, Murley, Marchant, Porter, Steward...

My own club is doing absolutely tons of outreach work to schools who don't have any rugby provision, and I know other clubs are doing the same. What does need to be done is getting the pyramid from participation in youth rugby upwards better sorted, aligning the game as a whole, rather than pretty much a free for all from Prem downwards.

George Martin went to Fairfield Prep and Loughborough Grammar which is fee paying all the way.

Steward went to Norwich School which is private.

Porter came through in the Australia system so is completely pointless as an inclusion.

Don't know what your strike right is with the non-Tigers but you got Cole right he got picked up through the county system. Went to the same secondary school as Martin Johnson.

Dodged the point but hey. I was wrong on Steward apols, but I and the RFU have Martin going to Brooksby Melton college, with his bro going to Lufbra grammar?
Porter was included to show you can make it here without private schooling. I did look all those up on the RFU site. My point is a lot of top players did and do come through non private school routes.

Brooksby Melton replaced QE as the 16-18 college Tigers uses for its academy players. You'll find most of the recent graduates from the Tigers academy went to a college that specialises in agriculture.

Players certainly come through the non-private route but I'd still like to see more clubs and the RFU engaging with state schools to drive forward the game and bring more talented youngsters into the sport. Joe Marchant is a good example as he was accomplished in other sports (gymnastics being one) at a younger age before being tempted across to rugby.