European Rugby Thread

[inactionman]

It's irrelevant though - we do spread our players more thinly. Yes, we have more players than Ireland, but it's not 13 top quality teams worth.

I don't understand why this would be so. Partly because I don't think it is unreasonable that the much larger pool of players in England should generate enough players of the requisite quality. The relationship may not be linear, but a larger pool of players should result in more players of a defined standard, other things being equal. Partly because I remember a time it was virtually axiomatic that the average level in the Prem was higher than in Scotland, Wales and Ireland individually or combined.

When the Celtic League was launched, it had 4 teams from each of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. It was generally accepted that the teams at the top were comparable to the top of the Prem, in the middle the English teams were stronger, and at the bottom the English teams were much stronger with the Prem teams stronger on average. There was a persuasive argument that there were teams in the Championship that were better than some of those in the Celtic League.

The Scottish teams consolidated to two, the Welsh to three and Irish stayed at 4. Ireland did consider dropping to three as the IRFU felt they lacked the resources for 4, but Connacht survived as an underfunded development side.

If the concentration of resources were the reason for Ireland's success, then Ireland would have had more success earlier, and Scotland, and especially Wales given their relative success at international level, would have seen better results.

I don't think much has changed in England, Scotland or Wales. What has changed is that Ireland has found a way to improve the quality of all its teams relative not just to the Prem, but relative to everyone else with Connacht improving just as much as Leinster, just from a lower base. I don't know how they did it, but I am envious they did.

I think part of Ireland's success has been in developing and then retaining internationals in their regional teams - through various means including a very attractive tax breaks etc but also in terms of a more joined up approach to player development between club and country (I'm really contrasting with England here, where it's probably better now than it was at early stages of professionalism but is still not ideal, especially given Eddie picking players in random positions and breaking what feels like at least half of them in every camp).

I appreciate it's just my gut intuition but I think retention is overlooked a fair bit in these arguments, which benefits both club and national team - especially if you can get national team players playing in their club positions alongside their club teammates, e.g. Leinster backs and Munster forwards. Wales for example have had to introduce rules to stop the exodus of their better players (eta: I know all countries have had to this, but it seemed to introduce more soulsearching and contention in Wales than elsewhere, presumably as it hit so many in the squad). England - even noting that the national team players aren't evenly distributed amongst the clubs - have a quite diffuse team representation, e.g. post-Vunipola there are only really 2/3 Sarries in the pack and although Bath provide a good handful in the squad these are at best a couple of front row, a lock, a back row and a wing or two. There's very few club pairings/groupings being blooded and developed in international competition, which is surely the most intense development environment in professional rugby, and a development which would be hugely beneficial to the club sides themselves.

I've always been intrigued by the argument that larger player numbers necessarily drives up quality, mostly as I view being included in international competition as a development pathway in itself and is limited to a selected few for all teams - everyone has a squad of 23 on matchday, and the same number of caps to build up experience and to develop the players. On this topic, I'm also not convinced England have done the clubs - or a number of players - many favours in recent years.

Just my two pence worth, but as a completely unscientific observation Ireland do seem to retain their better players in Ireland more effectively than their peers.

[Raggs]

I always did wonder how, as a useless tighthead playing in division 13, I improve how well players at the top level perform.

Playing numbers are relatively meaningless.

[Biffer]

I suppose another way of looking at is the 1XV squad of E, I, S and W are broadly competitive.

The 2nd XV’s would be similar with Scotland and Wales maybe struggling a bit

3rd XV and Scotland are ringing round Friday night to see if they can raise a team and Wales also drop off a fair bit

Scotland don’t have a 4th XV, Wales don’t either, England and Ireland probably still fairy level

I think by the time you get to third anf fourth XVs, England would be stronger.

[Raggs]

In the end there's only so many International caps to go around, and that exposure is important for development. No team has a huge advantage there compared to others.

[petej]

It's irrelevant though - we do spread our players more thinly. Yes, we have more players than Ireland, but it's not 13 top quality teams worth.

I don't understand why this would be so. Partly because I don't think it is unreasonable that the much larger pool of players in England should generate enough players of the requisite quality. The relationship may not be linear, but a larger pool of players should result in more players of a defined standard, other things being equal. Partly because I remember a time it was virtually axiomatic that the average level in the Prem was higher than in Scotland, Wales and Ireland individually or combined.

When the Celtic League was launched, it had 4 teams from each of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. It was generally accepted that the teams at the top were comparable to the top of the Prem, in the middle the English teams were stronger, and at the bottom the English teams were much stronger with the Prem teams stronger on average. There was a persuasive argument that there were teams in the Championship that were better than some of those in the Celtic League.

The Scottish teams consolidated to two, the Welsh to three and Irish stayed at 4. Ireland did consider dropping to three as the IRFU felt they lacked the resources for 4, but Connacht survived as an underfunded development side.

If the concentration of resources were the reason for Ireland's success, then Ireland would have had more success earlier, and Scotland, and especially Wales given their relative success at international level, would have seen better results.

I don't think much has changed in England, Scotland or Wales. What has changed is that Ireland has found a way to improve the quality of all its teams relative not just to the Prem, but relative to everyone else with Connacht improving just as much as Leinster, just from a lower base. I don't know how they did it, but I am envious they did.

I think part of Ireland's success has been in developing and then retaining internationals in their regional teams - through various means including a very attractive tax breaks etc but also in terms of a more joined up approach to player development between club and country (I'm really contrasting with England here, where it's probably better now than it was at early stages of professionalism but is still not ideal, especially given Eddie picking players in random positions and breaking what feels like at least half of them in every camp).

I appreciate it's just my gut intuition but I think retention is overlooked a fair bit in these arguments, which benefits both club and national team - especially if you can get national team players playing in their club positions alongside their club teammates, e.g. Leinster backs and Munster forwards. Wales for example have had to introduce rules to stop the exodus of their better players (eta: I know all countries have had to this, but it seemed to introduce more soulsearching and contention in Wales than elsewhere, presumably as it hit so many in the squad). England - even noting that the national team players aren't evenly distributed amongst the clubs - have a quite diffuse team representation, e.g. post-Vunipola there are only really 2/3 Sarries in the pack and although Bath provide a good handful in the squad these are at best a couple of front row, a lock, a back row and a wing or two. There's very few club pairings/groupings being blooded and developed in international competition, which is surely the most intense development environment in professional rugby, and a development which would be hugely beneficial to the club sides themselves.

I've always been intrigued by the argument that larger player numbers necessarily drives up quality, mostly as I view being included in international competition as a development pathway in itself and is limited to a selected few for all teams - everyone has a squad of 23 on matchday, and the same number of caps to build up experience and to develop the players. On this topic, I'm also not convinced England have done the clubs - or a number of players - many favours in recent years.

Just my two pence worth, but as a completely unscientific observation Ireland do seem to retain their better players in Ireland more effectively than their peers.

Good posts. Would also say the regions in Ireland are well dispersed geographically and do not seem to have been forced upon an amateur club structures unlike in Wales and Scotland. The problems Wales, Scotland and Italy with retaining their best players weakens the league and means the Irish regions can rest and rotate more to target the European cup games. The IRFU also seem to have done a good job of selecting coaches for the regions and always accepted the need to financially support the regions unlike the wrfu.

[Torquemada 1420]

It's irrelevant though - we do spread our players more thinly. Yes, we have more players than Ireland, but it's not 13 top quality teams worth.

I don't understand why this would be so. Partly because I don't think it is unreasonable that the much larger pool of players in England should generate enough players of the requisite quality. The relationship may not be linear, but a larger pool of players should result in more players of a defined standard, other things being equal. Partly because I remember a time it was virtually axiomatic that the average level in the Prem was higher than in Scotland, Wales and Ireland individually or combined.

When the Celtic League was launched, it had 4 teams from each of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. It was generally accepted that the teams at the top were comparable to the top of the Prem, in the middle the English teams were stronger, and at the bottom the English teams were much stronger with the Prem teams stronger on average. There was a persuasive argument that there were teams in the Championship that were better than some of those in the Celtic League.

The Scottish teams consolidated to two, the Welsh to three and Irish stayed at 4. Ireland did consider dropping to three as the IRFU felt they lacked the resources for 4, but Connacht survived as an underfunded development side.

If the concentration of resources were the reason for Ireland's success, then Ireland would have had more success earlier, and Scotland, and especially Wales given their relative success at international level, would have seen better results.

I don't think much has changed in England, Scotland or Wales. What has changed is that Ireland has found a way to improve the quality of all its teams relative not just to the Prem, but relative to everyone else with Connacht improving just as much as Leinster, just from a lower base. I don't know how they did it, but I am envious they did.

It's largely because our larger pool of players is mostly a larger pool of amateurs. It's not a 1 to 1 translation into a directly proportionate number of top professionals (or good academy players). I don't think it's coincidental that you're talking about the launch of the Celtic league, in the early days of professionalism, where the difference between amateur and professional was much smaller. Now, the Championship is made up teams who are miles off Premiership standard, with lots of semi-pro players, and every now and then some moneybags pushes for promotion with a bunch of mercenaries only to come a cropper in the big league.

Obviously England should have more professional players in terms of pure numbers, and you'd expect more players at the top end of quality, too - but there's a lot of factors that contribute here (the season, the schedule, the catchment areas, football, etc).

Fatigue is another factor. For probably the first time ever, the ABs suffered the effects of that this intl season. Fra and Eng have always suffered from playing too much rugby.

I think a more interesting line of debate is a) would 4 teams worth of English players from across the 13 clubs thrive more in an Irish-style environment? and b) would consolidating the clubs lead to higher quality or just more players missing out, along with c) would it even be financially viable to do so.

But it's all spitballing anyway, the reality is we're making do with what we've got in terms of the ownership and management of the sport in this country.

That is a key aspect. Registered players means jack sh*t. Fiji and Japan have more registered players than Ireland.

In addition, just like any manufacturing business, it's very hard to scale and maintain quality across the piece in a vertically integrated production (and in Eng/Fra, club v country is the opposite of integration) which becomes more so when you have geographical spread.

Another point being ignored is familiarity. There is a sweet spot somewhere between having too small a player pool (Wales, Sco) and picking all 15 starters from different clubs. There is a reason why Fre coaches have been guilty of picking players from a handful of clubs only (e.g. Toulouse): and it's because they don't have the time or coaching skills to successfully blend players. That's changed a little with the building of Marcoussis and intl training camps.

[laurent]

I don't understand why this would be so. Partly because I don't think it is unreasonable that the much larger pool of players in England should generate enough players of the requisite quality. The relationship may not be linear, but a larger pool of players should result in more players of a defined standard, other things being equal. Partly because I remember a time it was virtually axiomatic that the average level in the Prem was higher than in Scotland, Wales and Ireland individually or combined.

When the Celtic League was launched, it had 4 teams from each of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. It was generally accepted that the teams at the top were comparable to the top of the Prem, in the middle the English teams were stronger, and at the bottom the English teams were much stronger with the Prem teams stronger on average. There was a persuasive argument that there were teams in the Championship that were better than some of those in the Celtic League.

The Scottish teams consolidated to two, the Welsh to three and Irish stayed at 4. Ireland did consider dropping to three as the IRFU felt they lacked the resources for 4, but Connacht survived as an underfunded development side.

If the concentration of resources were the reason for Ireland's success, then Ireland would have had more success earlier, and Scotland, and especially Wales given their relative success at international level, would have seen better results.

I don't think much has changed in England, Scotland or Wales. What has changed is that Ireland has found a way to improve the quality of all its teams relative not just to the Prem, but relative to everyone else with Connacht improving just as much as Leinster, just from a lower base. I don't know how they did it, but I am envious they did.

It's largely because our larger pool of players is mostly a larger pool of amateurs. It's not a 1 to 1 translation into a directly proportionate number of top professionals (or good academy players). I don't think it's coincidental that you're talking about the launch of the Celtic league, in the early days of professionalism, where the difference between amateur and professional was much smaller. Now, the Championship is made up teams who are miles off Premiership standard, with lots of semi-pro players, and every now and then some moneybags pushes for promotion with a bunch of mercenaries only to come a cropper in the big league.

Obviously England should have more professional players in terms of pure numbers, and you'd expect more players at the top end of quality, too - but there's a lot of factors that contribute here (the season, the schedule, the catchment areas, football, etc).

Fatigue is another factor. For probably the first time ever, the ABs suffered the effects of that this intl season. Fra and Eng have always suffered from playing too much rugby.

I think a more interesting line of debate is a) would 4 teams worth of English players from across the 13 clubs thrive more in an Irish-style environment? and b) would consolidating the clubs lead to higher quality or just more players missing out, along with c) would it even be financially viable to do so.

But it's all spitballing anyway, the reality is we're making do with what we've got in terms of the ownership and management of the sport in this country.

That is a key aspect. Registered players means jack sh*t. Fiji and Japan have more registered players than Ireland.

In addition, just like any manufacturing business, it's very hard to scale and maintain quality across the piece in a vertically integrated production (and in Eng/Fra, club v country is the opposite of integration) which becomes more so when you have geographical spread.

Another point being ignored is familiarity. There is a sweet spot somewhere between having too small a player pool (Wales, Sco) and picking all 15 starters from different clubs. There is a reason why Fre coaches have been guilty of picking players from a handful of clubs only (e.g. Toulouse): and it's because they don't have the time or coaching skills to successfully blend players. That's changed a little with the building of Marcoussis and intl training camps.

+ Toulouse loves bitching about Doublons and still hire new internationals (Jelonch, Dupont) and now Jaminet ...

[Tichtheid]

Premiership rules
In the Premiership, the rule on foreign players has been amended to come into line with the regulations in European competitions. A maximum of two foreign players can now be in the matchday 23, at all periods during the season.

The level of English Qualified Players (EQP) in the Premiership has been fairly consistent since the inception of the league, and now stands at approximately 70%. This means on average there are approximately 200 English players playing every weekend in the Premiership.

The above is from the premiership rules.

200 players playing every weekend means an average of 15.3 players per team. However Rugby Pass calculated that for the 19/20 season 706 players were contracted to Premiership clubs, so 495 English players in the Premiership, or 38 pre team. Full squad sizes vary from 51 at Ldn Irish to 64 at Wasps. Many of those will be academy players or journeymen "squad players".

There are semi pros and some full times players in the Championship too.

The difference in pool sizes isn't about the amateur game, it's about the number of professional players

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/analysis ... r-2019-20/

[Uncle fester]

Other than the trophy, what do you even get for winning the Challenge Cup these days? It used to be automatic qualification for next year's big boy tournament.

The format section of the EPCR site doesn't mention anything and that seemed the most obvious place to look.

Good question. EPCR site is awful.

It is really, really bad.

There's still no app for the competition, is there?
Serious downgrade on the previous administration.

[Raggs]

Premiership rules
In the Premiership, the rule on foreign players has been amended to come into line with the regulations in European competitions. A maximum of two foreign players can now be in the matchday 23, at all periods during the season.

The level of English Qualified Players (EQP) in the Premiership has been fairly consistent since the inception of the league, and now stands at approximately 70%. This means on average there are approximately 200 English players playing every weekend in the Premiership.

The above is from the premiership rules.

200 players playing every weekend means an average of 15.3 players per team. However Rugby Pass calculated that for the 19/20 season 706 players were contracted to Premiership clubs, so 495 English players in the Premiership, or 38 pre team. Full squad sizes vary from 51 at Ldn Irish to 64 at Wasps. Many of those will be academy players or journeymen "squad players".

There are semi pros and some full times players in the Championship too.

The difference in pool sizes isn't about the amateur game, it's about the number of professional players

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/analysis ... r-2019-20/

Yes, but a ton of journeyman players doesn't make your top level teams better, it just means you have a ton of journeymen players as well. At the real sharp end of the stick, there's no world in which having some 4th choice prem journeyman actively helps England rugby at an international level. Just like having me play in Div 13, doesn't help any team in Div 10 in terms of their quality, we're worlds apart.

[sockwithaticket]

Premiership rules
In the Premiership, the rule on foreign players has been amended to come into line with the regulations in European competitions. A maximum of two foreign players can now be in the matchday 23, at all periods during the season.

The level of English Qualified Players (EQP) in the Premiership has been fairly consistent since the inception of the league, and now stands at approximately 70%. This means on average there are approximately 200 English players playing every weekend in the Premiership.

The above is from the premiership rules.

200 players playing every weekend means an average of 15.3 players per team. However Rugby Pass calculated that for the 19/20 season 706 players were contracted to Premiership clubs, so 495 English players in the Premiership, or 38 pre team. Full squad sizes vary from 51 at Ldn Irish to 64 at Wasps. Many of those will be academy players or journeymen "squad players".

There are semi pros and some full times players in the Championship too.

The difference in pool sizes isn't about the amateur game, it's about the number of professional players

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/analysis ... r-2019-20/

Yeah, that is absolutely including academy players. Senior squads are readily available on teams' websites. Wasps currently have a squad of 46.

[Tichtheid]

Premiership rules
In the Premiership, the rule on foreign players has been amended to come into line with the regulations in European competitions. A maximum of two foreign players can now be in the matchday 23, at all periods during the season.

The level of English Qualified Players (EQP) in the Premiership has been fairly consistent since the inception of the league, and now stands at approximately 70%. This means on average there are approximately 200 English players playing every weekend in the Premiership.

The above is from the premiership rules.

200 players playing every weekend means an average of 15.3 players per team. However Rugby Pass calculated that for the 19/20 season 706 players were contracted to Premiership clubs, so 495 English players in the Premiership, or 38 pre team. Full squad sizes vary from 51 at Ldn Irish to 64 at Wasps. Many of those will be academy players or journeymen "squad players".

There are semi pros and some full times players in the Championship too.

The difference in pool sizes isn't about the amateur game, it's about the number of professional players

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/analysis ... r-2019-20/

Yes, but a ton of journeyman players doesn't make your top level teams better, it just means you have a ton of journeymen players as well. At the real sharp end of the stick, there's no world in which having some 4th choice prem journeyman actively helps England rugby at an international level. Just like having me play in Div 13, doesn't help any team in Div 10 in terms of their quality, we're worlds apart.

On the other hand, I've just had a look at the premiership league tables from 2010 to now. If you take the extremes away, ie the top two and the bottom two each year, there isn't a huge spread in the numbers of games won, suggesting the league is competitive.

If your complaint is that the teams are full of journeymen and that the level of competition in the league is poor, that's another story and it would suggest that the coaching system perhaps isn't what it should be

[Tichtheid]

Yeah, that is absolutely including academy players. Senior squads are readily available on teams' websites. Wasps currently have a squad of 46.

I think we at Edinburgh have just shy of 45 listed, with another dozen or so academy players on the page, I would guess that is about average for professional sides

[Raggs]

On the other hand, I've just had a look at the premiership league tables from 2010 to now. If you take the extremes away, ie the top two and the bottom two each year, there isn't a huge spread in the numbers of games won, suggesting the league is competitive.

If your complaint is that the teams are full of journeymen and that the level of competition in the league is poor, that's another story and it would suggest that the coaching system perhaps isn't what it should be

The top of each team are competitive, but, if we take Wasps this weekend (as the conversation started there), we had a lot of our relative journeymen out due to the 18 injuries and 6 covid pull outs. Coaches can only do so much.

[JM2K6]

Quins have a senior squad of 37 players, and additionally lean on their academy fairly often. Of those 37, 24 are English, which is a good proportion and near the top end for English clubs. Add in the 3 academy guys getting regular game time, that's 27 players. If every club is like Quins, that's 351 players actually playing professional league rugby this season, not 495. Academy kids who don't actually play competitive games aren't really worth talking about.

Our complaint isn't a complaint. We're not complaining at all. Just saying that we don't have enough quality English players to fill 13 clubs. We have enough once you add in the overseas players, which is why we're at this stage of equilibrium, but that means a higher turnover of players (mercenaries tend not to be one-club players after all) and there's other issues surrounding scheduling, injuries, etc etc.

I think we're way off track from the original premise here.

[Raggs]

I love the English league, it hurts the international team in it's setup, but it produces a great competition throughout the season. Our stronger teams are also competitive in Europe, which is enough for me.

[Tichtheid]

On the other hand, I've just had a look at the premiership league tables from 2010 to now. If you take the extremes away, ie the top two and the bottom two each year, there isn't a huge spread in the numbers of games won, suggesting the league is competitive.

If your complaint is that the teams are full of journeymen and that the level of competition in the league is poor, that's another story and it would suggest that the coaching system perhaps isn't what it should be

The top of each team are competitive, but, if we take Wasps this weekend (as the conversation started there), we had a lot of our relative journeymen out due to the 18 injuries and 6 covid pull outs. Coaches can only do so much.

That is the same almost everywhere, though. Munster's bench was full of academy players, three of them were in their U18s last year.

Edinburgh had a dozen injuries at the weekend, five definite first team starters among them, plus two who would probably make the 23 and another two who would be in the conversation at least.


I haven't followed the Top 14 for a couple of years at least, and now it is on the same channel as the URC I just don't have the time, so I don't know about the French sides, but Leinster are about the only team who can put the jersey on just about anyone who has left school and they will do a similar job to the guys who are not available.

[Torquemada 1420]

+ Toulouse loves bitching about Doublons and still hire new internationals (Jelonch, Dupont) and now Jaminet ...

Yes. That too!

[JM2K6]

I love the English league, it hurts the international team in it's setup, but it produces a great competition throughout the season. Our stronger teams are also competitive in Europe, which is enough for me.

Yup. There's still issues - we play too many matches, the injury rate is too high, the national side as you say isn't getting the most out of it - but it's an ever more popular league with increasingly entertaining rugby being played and a good number of talented players coming through each season.

[Tichtheid]

A couple of years ago Edinburgh had to call up a Kiwi guy who did house removals for a living to play in the second row, we fielded a couple of teenagers too.

Against Leinster.

The Kiwi guy did okay actually but we still got a right shoeing.

[Raggs]

On the other hand, I've just had a look at the premiership league tables from 2010 to now. If you take the extremes away, ie the top two and the bottom two each year, there isn't a huge spread in the numbers of games won, suggesting the league is competitive.

If your complaint is that the teams are full of journeymen and that the level of competition in the league is poor, that's another story and it would suggest that the coaching system perhaps isn't what it should be

The top of each team are competitive, but, if we take Wasps this weekend (as the conversation started there), we had a lot of our relative journeymen out due to the 18 injuries and 6 covid pull outs. Coaches can only do so much.

That is the same almost everywhere, though. Munster's bench was full of academy players, three of them were in their U18s last year.

Edinburgh had a dozen injuries at the weekend, five definite first team starters among them, plus two who would probably make the 23 and another two who would be in the conversation at least.


I haven't followed the Top 14 for a couple of years at least, and now it is on the same channel as the URC I just don't have the time, so I don't know about the French sides, but Leinster are about the only team who can put the jersey on just about anyone who has left school and they will do a similar job to the guys who are not available.

Yes, but you still had 9 full internationals, including the likes of Beirne, POM, De Allende, Murray, Carbeary etc. That sort of international exposure improves you as a player. Unions with regions, means that each region is more likely to have a higher concentration of well capped internationals.

Wasps had 17 international caps in the 23 I believe (not including Hougarrd because he was withdrawn with injury, and only returned because of a +ve covid test, and we needed 23 players, he didn't come on the pitch). 9 of those caps were Shields, who was playing at lock instead of backrow, and obviously got sent off...

It's a different way to setup the sport. If England went to regions, then the 4 regions would obviously be stronger than the 13 teams we currently have, and it would benefit our international team too, however, it would lessen the league (well, it would change it completely) in my mind.

[Tichtheid]

The top of each team are competitive, but, if we take Wasps this weekend (as the conversation started there), we had a lot of our relative journeymen out due to the 18 injuries and 6 covid pull outs. Coaches can only do so much.

That is the same almost everywhere, though. Munster's bench was full of academy players, three of them were in their U18s last year.

Edinburgh had a dozen injuries at the weekend, five definite first team starters among them, plus two who would probably make the 23 and another two who would be in the conversation at least.


I haven't followed the Top 14 for a couple of years at least, and now it is on the same channel as the URC I just don't have the time, so I don't know about the French sides, but Leinster are about the only team who can put the jersey on just about anyone who has left school and they will do a similar job to the guys who are not available.

Yes, but you still had 9 full internationals, including the likes of Beirne, POM, De Allende, Murray, Carbeary etc. That sort of international exposure improves you as a player. Unions with regions, means that each region is more likely to have a higher concentration of well capped internationals.

Wasps had 17 international caps in the 23 I believe (not including Hougarrd because he was withdrawn with injury, and only returned because of a +ve covid test, and we needed 23 players, he didn't come on the pitch). 9 of those caps were Shields, who was playing at lock instead of backrow, and obviously got sent off...

It's a different way to setup the sport. If England went to regions, then the 4 regions would obviously be stronger than the 13 teams we currently have, and it would benefit our international team too, however, it would lessen the league (well, it would change it completely) in my mind.

I'm Scottish, and an Edinburgh fan.

Edinburgh have previously and now a lot of international caps playing, but the fact that we have two teams means that anyone still able to walk will get a cap at some point.
We had a Springbok-capped centre, Andries Strauss, who played 49 games for us.

With all due respect, I can't imagine the injury list that enabled him to win that cap.

[JM2K6]

On the other hand, I've just had a look at the premiership league tables from 2010 to now. If you take the extremes away, ie the top two and the bottom two each year, there isn't a huge spread in the numbers of games won, suggesting the league is competitive.

If your complaint is that the teams are full of journeymen and that the level of competition in the league is poor, that's another story and it would suggest that the coaching system perhaps isn't what it should be

The top of each team are competitive, but, if we take Wasps this weekend (as the conversation started there), we had a lot of our relative journeymen out due to the 18 injuries and 6 covid pull outs. Coaches can only do so much.

That is the same almost everywhere, though. Munster's bench was full of academy players, three of them were in their U18s last year.

Edinburgh had a dozen injuries at the weekend, five definite first team starters among them, plus two who would probably make the 23 and another two who would be in the conversation at least.


I haven't followed the Top 14 for a couple of years at least, and now it is on the same channel as the URC I just don't have the time, so I don't know about the French sides, but Leinster are about the only team who can put the jersey on just about anyone who has left school and they will do a similar job to the guys who are not available.

Munster: They had to pick some academy players on the bench? How unfortunate. Still, they started Conway, Farrell, de Allende, Earls, Carbery, Murray, Kilcoyne, Beirne, and O'Mahoney. Not exactly slim pickings.


Edinburgh: That's also unfortunate, and will no doubt have affected them in their game against a Saracens side missing only a couple of players (Farrell, Swinson, Koch, George, Barrington, Woolstencroft).

Wasps were missing Launchbury, Fekitoa, Fifita, Robson, Odogwu, Jack Willis, Tom Willis, Gaskell, Cruse who I believe are all starters, plus another ten players on top of that. It is a completely different scale of injury list.

If people are making all these grand statements because the Wasps walking dead were well beaten by a Munster side laced with quality internationals, I just don't see the point.

[robmatic]

That is the same almost everywhere, though. Munster's bench was full of academy players, three of them were in their U18s last year.

Edinburgh had a dozen injuries at the weekend, five definite first team starters among them, plus two who would probably make the 23 and another two who would be in the conversation at least.


I haven't followed the Top 14 for a couple of years at least, and now it is on the same channel as the URC I just don't have the time, so I don't know about the French sides, but Leinster are about the only team who can put the jersey on just about anyone who has left school and they will do a similar job to the guys who are not available.

Yes, but you still had 9 full internationals, including the likes of Beirne, POM, De Allende, Murray, Carbeary etc. That sort of international exposure improves you as a player. Unions with regions, means that each region is more likely to have a higher concentration of well capped internationals.

Wasps had 17 international caps in the 23 I believe (not including Hougarrd because he was withdrawn with injury, and only returned because of a +ve covid test, and we needed 23 players, he didn't come on the pitch). 9 of those caps were Shields, who was playing at lock instead of backrow, and obviously got sent off...

It's a different way to setup the sport. If England went to regions, then the 4 regions would obviously be stronger than the 13 teams we currently have, and it would benefit our international team too, however, it would lessen the league (well, it would change it completely) in my mind.

I'm Scottish, and an Edinburgh fan.

Edinburgh have previously and now a lot of international caps playing, but the fact that we have two teams means that anyone still able to walk will get a cap at some point.
We had a Springbok-capped centre, Andries Strauss, who played 49 games for us.

With all due respect, I can't imagine the injury list that enabled him to win that cap.

I think there's been a fair few Scottish international caps over the last couple of decades of professionalism who would basically be mere journeymen etc. if they were English.

[sockwithaticket]

The top of each team are competitive, but, if we take Wasps this weekend (as the conversation started there), we had a lot of our relative journeymen out due to the 18 injuries and 6 covid pull outs. Coaches can only do so much.

That is the same almost everywhere, though. Munster's bench was full of academy players, three of them were in their U18s last year.

Edinburgh had a dozen injuries at the weekend, five definite first team starters among them, plus two who would probably make the 23 and another two who would be in the conversation at least.


I haven't followed the Top 14 for a couple of years at least, and now it is on the same channel as the URC I just don't have the time, so I don't know about the French sides, but Leinster are about the only team who can put the jersey on just about anyone who has left school and they will do a similar job to the guys who are not available.

Munster: They had to pick some academy players on the bench? How unfortunate. Still, they started Conway, Farrell, de Allende, Earls, Carbery, Murray, Kilcoyne, Beirne, and O'Mahoney. Not exactly slim pickings.


Edinburgh: That's also unfortunate, and will no doubt have affected them in their game against a Saracens side missing only a couple of players (Farrell, Swinson, Koch, George, Barrington, Woolstencroft).

Wasps were missing Launchbury, Fekitoa, Fifita, Robson, Odogwu, Jack Willis, Tom Willis, Gaskell, Cruse who I believe are all starters, plus another ten players on top of that. It is a completely different scale of injury list.

If people are making all these grand statements because the Wasps walking dead were well beaten by a Munster side laced with quality internationals, I just don't see the point.

Then there were the late covid withdrawals which robbed us of Umaga (also a guaranteed starter) and 2 of our 3 remaining locks, Porter (default first choice with Robson out) got injured in the warm up...

Some of our starters and a good chunk of the bench were academy or championship players last season. Barely more experienced than many of the players Munster were calling upon.

Given the number of seasoned internationals in that Munster team the hyping I've seen in the press and online of the win as some Herculean achievement and talking up of their underdog status has been quite irksome tbh.

[JM2K6]

I have no idea how I missed out Umaga

[Raggs]

I'm Scottish, and an Edinburgh fan.

Edinburgh have previously and now a lot of international caps playing, but the fact that we have two teams means that anyone still able to walk will get a cap at some point.
We had a Springbok-capped centre, Andries Strauss, who played 49 games for us.

With all due respect, I can't imagine the injury list that enabled him to win that cap.

I'd argue the Scottish system goes too far the other way. Too few teams, leaving no depth whatsoever!

[Biffer]

It's weird you know. When the English teams have done well in the past, it's down to their league being highly competitive because of relegation, so every game means something, and their broader pool of players. When they've done badly, it's due to their league being so competitive because of relegation so there's no 'easy' games, and too many journeymen.

An alternative explanation might be that the three big leagues in Europe are really evenly matched which provides great competition. Each has different strengths and weaknesses and brings something different to the table in the Heineken Cup. Which is why a European league or a B&I league would be a shit idea.

[JM2K6]

I don't think the "because of relegation" argument has been used for some time now, especially with the changes to qualification for the European competitions. I don't there's actually any argument being made here at all.

[Tichtheid]

What does amaze me, and please don't think this is a dig because it's not meant that way, it's a genuine "how the fuck is that?" type thing.

England do struggle to produce quality scrum halves from 12 or 13 teams and however many players. I don't mean Phil Vickery, Wilkinson, Johno or Jason Robinson quality in their positions, ie World XV conversation material, I mean, well, really good scrum halves.

[JM2K6]

What does amaze me, and please don't think this is a dig because it's not meant that way, it's a genuine "how the fuck is that?" type thing.

England do struggle to produce quality scrum halves from 12 or 13 teams and however many players. I don't mean Phil Vickery, Wilkinson, Johno or Jason Robinson quality in their positions, ie World XV conversation material, I mean, well, really good scrum halves.

I'm not sure that's still true(*), but it's definitely a national trait over the years. Much like Aussies and props, Saffers and fullbacks, etc. Tis very weird.

* - Ben Spencer, Dan Robson, Alex Mitchell, Raffi Quirke, Jack van Poortfliet, Harry Randall are all players who I'd expect to thrive at international level given the chance. They aren't being given the chance.

[Biffer]

What does amaze me, and please don't think this is a dig because it's not meant that way, it's a genuine "how the fuck is that?" type thing.

England do struggle to produce quality scrum halves from 12 or 13 teams and however many players. I don't mean Phil Vickery, Wilkinson, Johno or Jason Robinson quality in their positions, ie World XV conversation material, I mean, well, really good scrum halves.

Yeah, it's always been a bit weird that way, similarly Scotland very, very rarely produces a competent 10. Occasional crackers but apart from that very thin on the ground.

[Uncle fester]

The top of each team are competitive, but, if we take Wasps this weekend (as the conversation started there), we had a lot of our relative journeymen out due to the 18 injuries and 6 covid pull outs. Coaches can only do so much.

That is the same almost everywhere, though. Munster's bench was full of academy players, three of them were in their U18s last year.

Edinburgh had a dozen injuries at the weekend, five definite first team starters among them, plus two who would probably make the 23 and another two who would be in the conversation at least.


I haven't followed the Top 14 for a couple of years at least, and now it is on the same channel as the URC I just don't have the time, so I don't know about the French sides, but Leinster are about the only team who can put the jersey on just about anyone who has left school and they will do a similar job to the guys who are not available.

Yes, but you still had 9 full internationals, including the likes of Beirne, POM, De Allende, Murray, Carbeary etc. That sort of international exposure improves you as a player. Unions with regions, means that each region is more likely to have a higher concentration of well capped internationals.

Wasps had 17 international caps in the 23 I believe (not including Hougarrd because he was withdrawn with injury, and only returned because of a +ve covid test, and we needed 23 players, he didn't come on the pitch). 9 of those caps were Shields, who was playing at lock instead of backrow, and obviously got sent off...

It's a different way to setup the sport. If England went to regions, then the 4 regions would obviously be stronger than the 13 teams we currently have, and it would benefit our international team too, however, it would lessen the league (well, it would change it completely) in my mind.

With your playing numbers, 4 would be stupid. 8-10 would probably be the perfect number for you.
Bigger benefit would be that the clubs/regions would be more aligned with the national team instead of actively working against it.
For instance, an IQ player with one of our four teams cannot retire from international rugby. If they are contracted to an Irish team, they are by default available for international selection. Simple things like that.

[JM2K6]

I'd say we've actually leaned more towards 12 being the problem position than 9 in the last 5 years (short term, so not the traditional timescale). Besides Farrell, who has his own problems, it's not a great selection: Ollie Devoto, Alex Lozowski, Slade (much better as a 13), Atkinson, Tuilagi (converted from 13), Lawrence (converted from 13), Piers Francis (perma-crock)... Billy Twelvetrees...

Hence being gutted that Redpath chose Scotland!

[Uncle fester]

What does amaze me, and please don't think this is a dig because it's not meant that way, it's a genuine "how the fuck is that?" type thing.

England do struggle to produce quality scrum halves from 12 or 13 teams and however many players. I don't mean Phil Vickery, Wilkinson, Johno or Jason Robinson quality in their positions, ie World XV conversation material, I mean, well, really good scrum halves.

Skill-based positions. SH types reign there.
You see it with hookers as well. Loads of 3rd prop/flanker types but lacking in the basic fundamentals of hooker play.

[JM2K6]

With your playing numbers, 4 would be stupid. 8-10 would probably be the perfect number for you.
Bigger benefit would be that the clubs/regions would be more aligned with the national team instead of actively working against it.
For instance, an IQ player with one of our four teams cannot retire from international rugby. If they are contracted to an Irish team, they are by default available for international selection. Simple things like that.

The alignment issue is one that's not solved by the number of clubs, but by the ownership of them and the partnership with the RFU.

As for the retirement issue, we've never had that problem.

[Uncle fester]

I'm Scottish, and an Edinburgh fan.

Edinburgh have previously and now a lot of international caps playing, but the fact that we have two teams means that anyone still able to walk will get a cap at some point.
We had a Springbok-capped centre, Andries Strauss, who played 49 games for us.

With all due respect, I can't imagine the injury list that enabled him to win that cap.

I'd argue the Scottish system goes too far the other way. Too few teams, leaving no depth whatsoever!

Definitely. Pity your Borders team isn't financially viable.

[Uncle fester]

With your playing numbers, 4 would be stupid. 8-10 would probably be the perfect number for you.
Bigger benefit would be that the clubs/regions would be more aligned with the national team instead of actively working against it.
For instance, an IQ player with one of our four teams cannot retire from international rugby. If they are contracted to an Irish team, they are by default available for international selection. Simple things like that.

The alignment issue is one that's not solved by the number of clubs, but by the ownership of them and the partnership with the RFU.

As for the retirement issue, we've never had that problem.

Yes, I'm getting at both aspects of the union-club thing.

[Tichtheid]

On the pro side of the cub/country thing in Scotland, Scotland international players have to be rested after five games for either Edinburgh or Glasgow

[weegie01]

On the pro side of the cub/country thing in Scotland, Scotland international players have to be rested after five games for either Edinburgh or Glasgow

I remember a conversation with some Newcastle supporters about this. Edinburgh were due to play Newcastle, but in the preceding match had put out a bunch of kids against Munster while the internationals did not play. They were totally convinced that Cockerill was throwing the Munster game to keep players fit and just could not get their heads round the concept that the SRU were able to dictate the rest periods for internationals.