Wal vs. Eng - Match Thread

[Oakboy]

You didn’t disagree with ‘other than NZ’ so I assumed you agree. Who do have the second best squad?

Because NZ clearly have the best squad; I think Ireland have a very good squad as it happens.

I'm assuming therefore you are blaming Jones for not being second best in the world, as opposed to 4th.

This is a weird turn of the thread from where you were previously , though in fairness it was a general frustration, which I share. But for me, there remains a problem with player quality

So you think we have the third best squad? I’d take our squad over Ire but it’s close. We’re also discussing the last 10 years and the next 10 years. Everything at our disposal means that we should consistently be at the sharp end whilst smaller nations fluctuate around us.
When fit, I think we have a squad that should mean we consistently beat all, other than NZ, and one that should have us consistently in the top two in the world.
What shouldn’t happen is the clueless last 30 against Wales, 2018 6N etc. I do blame Jones. As a selector I think he’s poor and I’m sick of this sticking to traditional English strengths, ie 10 man rugby. In Ford, Slade, Joseph, Tuilagi, May, Watson and Daly we have some absolute quality in the backs to play with width. To be clear, I’m not happy with where the team is. I just think that with everything at the RFU’s disposal - money, player numbers, age group pathway and current playing squad - we should consistently be top two with no4 being a blip rather than return to the mean. That’s not say we don’t need upgrades in places, but who doesn’t.

Agreed. Unfortunately, our weakest unit is at halfback.

[Stom]

Because NZ clearly have the best squad; I think Ireland have a very good squad as it happens.

I'm assuming therefore you are blaming Jones for not being second best in the world, as opposed to 4th.

This is a weird turn of the thread from where you were previously , though in fairness it was a general frustration, which I share. But for me, there remains a problem with player quality

So you think we have the third best squad? I’d take our squad over Ire but it’s close. We’re also discussing the last 10 years and the next 10 years. Everything at our disposal means that we should consistently be at the sharp end whilst smaller nations fluctuate around us.
When fit, I think we have a squad that should mean we consistently beat all, other than NZ, and one that should have us consistently in the top two in the world.
What shouldn’t happen is the clueless last 30 against Wales, 2018 6N etc. I do blame Jones. As a selector I think he’s poor and I’m sick of this sticking to traditional English strengths, ie 10 man rugby. In Ford, Slade, Joseph, Tuilagi, May, Watson and Daly we have some absolute quality in the backs to play with width. To be clear, I’m not happy with where the team is. I just think that with everything at the RFU’s disposal - money, player numbers, age group pathway and current playing squad - we should consistently be top two with no4 being a blip rather than return to the mean. That’s not say we don’t need upgrades in places, but who doesn’t.

Agreed. Unfortunately, our weakest unit is at halfback.

Ah, you're back.

[Mellsblue]

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a rugby supporter in possession of an interest in the success of the English game and half a pound of sense, must eventually want a smaller league, usually with a professional second division.

Sadly, this is not a truth CVC will ever recognise as an option.

Puja

Is it universally acknowledged?

[Mellsblue]

But the context here is that prior to Saturday we’d won the last 4 against Wales. We’ve won 6 of the last 8 and the previous two times at Cardiff. Even if they don’t have as talented a team/squad they’re still good and will turn us over from time to time.

For even wider context, prior to the most recent run of 8 games, of the previous 9 we had only won 3. Which suggests we are performing closer to the sum of our parts than we have been.

If we’re going for context, I’d rather look beyond results against Wales. I’d also look past just results. We went into last year’s 6N easily second in the world and on a world record equalling winning streak, and we all know what happened next.

The trend is upwards in terms of overall results, has been for a fairly long while now, even allowing for our crappy 2018 6N’s.

Tbh, I’ve lost the direction of this thread. Not really sure what we’re all discussing anymore. In large part I feel like there’s agreement, we all just have very slightly different perspectives.

We all think we’re not good enough. You think we’re on an upward trend and it’ll take us the best part of a decade to get systems in place to get us to the top. I think we’re not good enough, that we bumble around being mediocre with the odd bit of good and the odd bit of shite and that we really should be consistently in the top 2 in the world.

[Banquo]

Unfortunately I see no (coordinated) drive or much will to get the systems, structures and coaches in place in the GP that support a national team to thrive. So whilst we could find a genius head coach who could maximise our players ability, and who knows, even improve their skills and decision making abilities as well as fitness, I still fear we will produce less than complete players through our club system. That's not a disaster I suppose, but it means we will be feeling like we are underachieving relative to player numbers a lot of the time imo.

In the short term, I do think a better coach could make us play better rugby- mind, that might not in itself lead to better results . I also think that some of our better players have still some headroom for improvement- Itoje for example could definitely think more clearly, make better decisions, and run less upright into contact; Billy V could certainly up his work rate and work on running lines; George could carry and handle more; May could link play better and so on. Half back and full back are selectorial issues, though Daly could benefit from some intensive coaching at 15, I think he has the skills and athletic ability to improve, its whether he 'fancies it' I suppose. I can't see though that a new coach is likely to be apppointed, and thus I can't see much change into who is playing and how we play. In which case, we will likely end up seeing more of what we did v Wales against well coached sides.

[fivepointer]

Arrange the game in England on the basis that the national side always comes first and that everything is geared up to support that.
Then we will truly punch our weight. That will involve quite a radical overhaul of the elite game involving less teams at the top, reduced player workload, greater emphasis on player development and limiting non EQP players.
Until that happens, then we will always be working with unsatisfactory compromise where the national side have to work in sub optimal conditions.
Bunging the clubs some cash helps, but it can never be better than a system governed by the success of the team at the top of the pyramid.

[Puja]

Why can't I want other nations to beef up their domestic leagues and stop asking for the business of rugby to be run as a charity?

Your confusion is coming from the fact that you think we want an 8-10 team top-tier in order to make the World League happen, which is confusing us because we want an 8-10 team top-tier because it will result in a stronger English club game and a stronger England team.

Puja

[Digby]

Am I the only one failing to see the direct, causative link between shrinking the Prem and an annual world cup

Oh, and @Stom - welcome to the dark side!

I'd grant shrinking the Prem would facilitate an annual world cup, but I wouldn't of itself say it was causative. I presume I'm missing something obvious?

erm... You're the one linking the two separate issues into one. I'm failing to see any link, but you wonder what you're missing about he proposed link?

I'm getting more confused here, not less. I suspect we might be talking at cross purposes, but I'm really not sure

Sorry, wrong end of the stick.

Given we're again seeing the game advocate for more international games I'm not sure I see a benefit to curbing the size of the league. It only makes sense to shrink the size of the league if we at worst keep to the current number of test matches. And actually for me if we're going to shrink the league I'd want some test matches cut too

[Digby]

Why can't I want other nations to beef up their domestic leagues and stop asking for the business of rugby to be run as a charity?

Your confusion is coming from the fact that you think we want an 8-10 team top-tier in order to make the World League happen, which is confusing us because we want an 8-10 team top-tier because it will result in a stronger English club game and a stronger England team.

Puja

I don't think that

I think if you shrink the league it makes it easier to have an annual world cup, or just because we agree to shrink our league it might suit the purposes of others rather than us

For myself I'm not convinced I'd shrink the league even with the quid pro quo of the current arrangements where it does limit the national side. I'm content with the size of the league, and there are other things we can look at to improve the test side

[Which Tyler]

Sorry, wrong end of the stick.

Given we're again seeing the game advocate for more international games I'm not sure I see a benefit to curbing the size of the league. It only makes sense to shrink the size of the league if we at worst keep to the current number of test matches. And actually for me if we're going to shrink the league I'd want some test matches cut too

Literally nobody on here is advocating for more international matches; or an annual world cup.

the only person even equating the size of the domestic calendar and the size of the international calendar is yourself.

[Digby]

Sorry, wrong end of the stick.

Given we're again seeing the game advocate for more international games I'm not sure I see a benefit to curbing the size of the league. It only makes sense to shrink the size of the league if we at worst keep to the current number of test matches. And actually for me if we're going to shrink the league I'd want some test matches cut too

Literally nobody on here is advocating for more international matches; or an annual world cup.

I wasn't limiting comments based on what just people here might think, not that I spend any time thinking about what people here think

[Puja]

Why can't I want other nations to beef up their domestic leagues and stop asking for the business of rugby to be run as a charity?

Your confusion is coming from the fact that you think we want an 8-10 team top-tier in order to make the World League happen, which is confusing us because we want an 8-10 team top-tier because it will result in a stronger English club game and a stronger England team.

Puja

I don't think that

I think if you shrink the league it makes it easier to have an annual world cup, or just because we agree to shrink our league it might suit the purposes of others rather than us

For myself I'm not convinced I'd shrink the league even with the quid pro quo of the current arrangements where it does limit the national side. I'm content with the size of the league, and there are other things we can look at to improve the test side

Right, I get you now.

I think we're all assuming that this World League bollocks is dead in the water. And I wouldn't say that shrinking the league is an invitation to more internationals - it wouldn't leave any fallow weekends, but instead mean that the league wasn't played during international windows. It'd have to be done as part of a new Long Form Agreement anyway, so an agreement by the RFU not to add any additional internationals without the clubs' consent could easily be added in there.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Ah, you're back.

Yes, kicking and screaming.

[Puja]

Ah, you're back.

Yes, kicking and screaming.

Crap, he's got through the IP block again. Sorry all, I'll ban him again in a mo.

Puja

[Banquo]

Why can't I want other nations to beef up their domestic leagues and stop asking for the business of rugby to be run as a charity?

Your confusion is coming from the fact that you think we want an 8-10 team top-tier in order to make the World League happen, which is confusing us because we want an 8-10 team top-tier because it will result in a stronger English club game and a stronger England team.

Puja

I don't think that

I think if you shrink the league it makes it easier to have an annual world cup, or just because we agree to shrink our league it might suit the purposes of others rather than us

For myself I'm not convinced I'd shrink the league even with the quid pro quo of the current arrangements where it does limit the national side. I'm content with the size of the league, and there are other things we can look at to improve the test side

Games/game time played is an issue that needs addressing. Quality is another. An arrangement that sorts both is needed. There are many short term things we can do to improve the test side, but in the long term quantity and quality have to be optimised. If you insist on keeping the league the same size, then imo bigger squads are needed, and with more quality, ideally brimful of our best young talent being developed well. However, not sure where the money would come from.

[Digby]

Your confusion is coming from the fact that you think we want an 8-10 team top-tier in order to make the World League happen, which is confusing us because we want an 8-10 team top-tier because it will result in a stronger English club game and a stronger England team.

Puja

I don't think that

I think if you shrink the league it makes it easier to have an annual world cup, or just because we agree to shrink our league it might suit the purposes of others rather than us

For myself I'm not convinced I'd shrink the league even with the quid pro quo of the current arrangements where it does limit the national side. I'm content with the size of the league, and there are other things we can look at to improve the test side

Games/game time played is an issue that needs addressing. Quality is another. An arrangement that sorts both is needed. There are many short term things we can do to improve the test side, but in the long term quantity and quality have to be optimised. If you insist on keeping the league the same size, then imo bigger squads are needed, and with more quality, ideally brimful of our best young talent being developed well. However, not sure where the money would come from.

Or we simply accept the current club Vs country balance including the inherent problems for the test side of taking on other nations who place more emphasis on their national sides

I'm a little ambivalent about whether change is needed to that balance. I realise the greater number probably favours boosting the national side, but most of them are armchair fans

[Banquo]

I don't think that

I think if you shrink the league it makes it easier to have an annual world cup, or just because we agree to shrink our league it might suit the purposes of others rather than us

For myself I'm not convinced I'd shrink the league even with the quid pro quo of the current arrangements where it does limit the national side. I'm content with the size of the league, and there are other things we can look at to improve the test side

Games/game time played is an issue that needs addressing. Quality is another. An arrangement that sorts both is needed. There are many short term things we can do to improve the test side, but in the long term quantity and quality have to be optimised. If you insist on keeping the league the same size, then imo bigger squads are needed, and with more quality, ideally brimful of our best young talent being developed well. However, not sure where the money would come from.

Or we simply accept the current club Vs country balance including the inherent problems for the test side of taking on other nations who place more emphasis on their national sides

I'm a little ambivalent about whether change is needed to that balance. I realise the greater number probably favours boosting the national side, but most of them are armchair fans

Patronising much.

In any case, I wasn't only referring to club v country; players need to play less imo, and ideally raise the quality of fare on offer.

[Puja]

I don't think that

I think if you shrink the league it makes it easier to have an annual world cup, or just because we agree to shrink our league it might suit the purposes of others rather than us

For myself I'm not convinced I'd shrink the league even with the quid pro quo of the current arrangements where it does limit the national side. I'm content with the size of the league, and there are other things we can look at to improve the test side

Games/game time played is an issue that needs addressing. Quality is another. An arrangement that sorts both is needed. There are many short term things we can do to improve the test side, but in the long term quantity and quality have to be optimised. If you insist on keeping the league the same size, then imo bigger squads are needed, and with more quality, ideally brimful of our best young talent being developed well. However, not sure where the money would come from.

Or we simply accept the current club Vs country balance including the inherent problems for the test side of taking on other nations who place more emphasis on their national sides

I'm a little ambivalent about whether change is needed to that balance. I realise the greater number probably favours boosting the national side, but most of them are armchair fans

I think it would boost the clubs as well. You'd get a higher quality of product without having to play league games through internationals and fewer higher quality games would drive bigger crowds and counteract the fade in attendances we've seen this season. It'd also reduce the need for bloated squads of journeymen to accomodate internationals and injuries, so the salary cap could be frozen for longer. A permanent 4th AI could be used to increase RFU funding to ameliorate any financial loss from 2 or 4 less home games.

Not least of the advantages is having a proper second division, with a reviewed ring fence below. Moving into 2 tiers of 8 (or 810 and 8) would mean that the second division actually had credibility, rather than just being "The relegated team and their sacrificial lambs". Freeing up the international weekends would allow a proper Cup competition, where upsets would be advantaged by the second tier not having international callups. You could actually likely get a television deal for the second tier if it were credible enough and it'd mean relegation wasn't a financial disaster, but a setback to be recovered from.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I think it would boost the clubs as well. You'd get a higher quality of product without having to play league games through internationals and fewer higher quality games would drive bigger crowds and counteract the fade in attendances we've seen this season. It'd also reduce the need for bloated squads of journeymen to accomodate internationals and injuries, so the salary cap could be frozen for longer. A permanent 4th AI could be used to increase RFU funding to ameliorate any financial loss from 2 or 4 less home games.

Not least of the advantages is having a proper second division, with a reviewed ring fence below. Moving into 2 tiers of 8 (or 810 and 8) would mean that the second division actually had credibility, rather than just being "The relegated team and their sacrificial lambs". Freeing up the international weekends would allow a proper Cup competition, where upsets would be advantaged by the second tier not having international callups. You could actually likely get a television deal for the second tier if it were credible enough and it'd mean relegation wasn't a financial disaster, but a setback to be recovered from.

[Banquo]

Games/game time played is an issue that needs addressing. Quality is another. An arrangement that sorts both is needed. There are many short term things we can do to improve the test side, but in the long term quantity and quality have to be optimised. If you insist on keeping the league the same size, then imo bigger squads are needed, and with more quality, ideally brimful of our best young talent being developed well. However, not sure where the money would come from.

Or we simply accept the current club Vs country balance including the inherent problems for the test side of taking on other nations who place more emphasis on their national sides

I'm a little ambivalent about whether change is needed to that balance. I realise the greater number probably favours boosting the national side, but most of them are armchair fans

I think it would boost the clubs as well. You'd get a higher quality of product without having to play league games through internationals and fewer higher quality games would drive bigger crowds and counteract the fade in attendances we've seen this season. It'd also reduce the need for bloated squads of journeymen to accomodate internationals and injuries, so the salary cap could be frozen for longer. A permanent 4th AI could be used to increase RFU funding to ameliorate any financial loss from 2 or 4 less home games.

Not least of the advantages is having a proper second division, with a reviewed ring fence below. Moving into 2 tiers of 8 (or 810 and 8) would mean that the second division actually had credibility, rather than just being "The relegated team and their sacrificial lambs". Freeing up the international weekends would allow a proper Cup competition, where upsets would be advantaged by the second tier not having international callups. You could actually likely get a television deal for the second tier if it were credible enough and it'd mean relegation wasn't a financial disaster, but a setback to be recovered from.

Puja

Seems obvious to me too

[Digby]

The second tier will not by comparison get a relevant financial deal even if the relegated teams were Leicester and Gloucester, the only way a second tier works is sharing money the top tier would prefer to keep

[Digby]

Patronising much.

It's a fair comment.

Nonetheless I'm not sold on relegating two or more clubs and all their fans losing out for the benefit merely of those who watch the odd 6N game on TV

[Oakboy]

Ah, you're back.

Yes, kicking and screaming.

Crap, he's got through the IP block again. Sorry all, I'll ban him again in a mo.

Puja

I know you don't mean it, really . . . . ???????

[Which Tyler]

Patronising much.

It's a fair comment.

Nonetheless I'm not sold on relegating two or more clubs and all their fans losing out for the benefit merely of those who watch the odd 6N game on TV

It's not for their benefit.
And yes, were aware that funding the second division properly would involve a smaller slice of the pie for the top clubs

[Banquo]

Patronising much.

It's a fair comment.

Nonetheless I'm not sold on relegating two or more clubs and all their fans losing out for the benefit merely of those who watch the odd 6N game on TV

Both patronising and reductive

I do get why many if not most GP and aspirant club fans would likely side this way, but there's also the view that said clubs and their fans want their cake and to eat it (and why wouldn't you ).