The Official English Rugby Thread

[Rhubarb & Custard]

A couple of the LCD lineout misses last match were lifting errors, though agree the injuries look to be catching up with him.
Thought George was excellent for the 20 minutes he was on against FRance
Dan doesn't exactly fill me with great hope for the future though he does add a bit of zip
I'm amazed that Oghre and Langdon haven't seen any game time off the bench this past 12 months

Maybe Chessum is a better lineout option than Martin and should help improve the Lineout when LCD is throwing.

Appears to be more athletic than Martin

He's probably a flat out better player than Martin. What isn't clear is whether he's a better partner for Itoje, better players Vs better team, 'tis an old chestnut

[Tichtheid]

‘Clubs are going to disappear’: grassroots rugby crying for help in Six Nations’ shadow

It’s a problem that is being repeated certainly in Scotland and from what I’ve heard, in Ireland and Wales too

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... d-scotland

[Paddington Bear]

‘Clubs are going to disappear’: grassroots rugby crying for help in Six Nations’ shadow

It’s a problem that is being repeated certainly in Scotland and from what I’ve heard, in Ireland and Wales too

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... d-scotland

It’s very hard to know what the solution is to this. Funding is a factor, drowning clubs in regulations and paperwork doesn’t help, but pure and simple there are fewer people willing to dedicate their spare time to team sport in the way that is required to run a rugby club. For whatever reason a committed player 20 years ago may have missed a game a season for a wedding etc, a committed player now probably plays 75% of games (we get this particular issue worse in cricket as a summer sport). I don’t know how you fix that or what if anything you can do about it.

It’s very sad - I played my first game of men’s rugby 14 years ago when my club had four sides and a vets team all playing at home. They now run 2 sides and are often scrabbling to fill the bench of the 2s (inevitable situation for your lower side probably). There is, granted, a women’s team now but the bar of what is needed for one is so low - they’ll play two games this season and it’ll be chalked up by all as a success.

[Tichtheid]

‘Clubs are going to disappear’: grassroots rugby crying for help in Six Nations’ shadow

It’s a problem that is being repeated certainly in Scotland and from what I’ve heard, in Ireland and Wales too

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... d-scotland

It’s very hard to know what the solution is to this. Funding is a factor, drowning clubs in regulations and paperwork doesn’t help, but pure and simple there are fewer people willing to dedicate their spare time to team sport in the way that is required to run a rugby club. For whatever reason a committed player 20 years ago may have missed a game a season for a wedding etc, a committed player now probably plays 75% of games (we get this particular issue worse in cricket as a summer sport). I don’t know how you fix that or what if anything you can do about it.

It’s very sad - I played my first game of men’s rugby 14 years ago when my club had four sides and a vets team all playing at home. They now run 2 sides and are often scrabbling to fill the bench of the 2s (inevitable situation for your lower side probably). There is, granted, a women’s team now but the bar of what is needed for one is so low - they’ll play two games this season and it’ll be chalked up by all as a success.

Yeah, similarly my hometown club put out three men's senior teams and a Colts U19 every week, plus the one school in the town ran teams for every year. Now the club is responsible for the school age rugby and we have one men's team. The women's side is coming on nicely and our junior section has lots of boys and girls playing minis - it's keeping them after 18 years old that is the problem and I'm not sure the Unions are to blame to be honest, or even what they are supposed to do about it.

In Scotland's case (excuse me, it's relevant to the discussion, even on the English thread) the playing numbers you read include "players" who have taken part in SRU outreach programs in the Highlands and Islands as well as other rural areas across the country.
Things have changed, people don't work locally, more kids go off to uni, as you say fewer are prepared to commit to a whole day travelling, playing and socialising. Many younger people are playing E games or other sports or even watching professional rugby - the club support has to come from somewhere and if they are watching on a Saturday afternoon, that's people who aren't playing themselves.

I remember a very similar article a few years ago about Ireland and especially Ulster which had Willie John McBride saying pretty much the same thing

[geordie_6]

I've always felt that the university culture around rugby can put people off who might otherwise go on to play at various levels. Not everyone is into the "game between drinking sessions" mentality as well as the hazing and shit, they just want to play the game.

[Tichtheid]

I've always felt that the university culture around rugby can put people off who might otherwise go on to play at various levels. Not everyone is into the "game between drinking sessions" mentality as well as the hazing and shit, they just want to play the game.

On that point, I was in a discussion at the weekend with a couple of older heads at our club. The team still does the odd drinking game, but it's nothing like before.
They don't know and don't want to sing the songs from yesteryear (this was the point of the discussion) and to be honest those songs make me cringe now.

The point one of the guys my age was making was that as we want to encourage women and girls to join our club and be a big part of it, we have to make it a welcoming environment. Some of the other older guys weren't impressed.

[Paddington Bear]

‘Clubs are going to disappear’: grassroots rugby crying for help in Six Nations’ shadow

It’s a problem that is being repeated certainly in Scotland and from what I’ve heard, in Ireland and Wales too

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... d-scotland

It’s very hard to know what the solution is to this. Funding is a factor, drowning clubs in regulations and paperwork doesn’t help, but pure and simple there are fewer people willing to dedicate their spare time to team sport in the way that is required to run a rugby club. For whatever reason a committed player 20 years ago may have missed a game a season for a wedding etc, a committed player now probably plays 75% of games (we get this particular issue worse in cricket as a summer sport). I don’t know how you fix that or what if anything you can do about it.

It’s very sad - I played my first game of men’s rugby 14 years ago when my club had four sides and a vets team all playing at home. They now run 2 sides and are often scrabbling to fill the bench of the 2s (inevitable situation for your lower side probably). There is, granted, a women’s team now but the bar of what is needed for one is so low - they’ll play two games this season and it’ll be chalked up by all as a success.

Yeah, similarly my hometown club put out three men's senior teams and a Colts U19 every week, plus the one school in the town ran teams for every year. Now the club is responsible for the school age rugby and we have one men's team. The women's side is coming on nicely and our junior section has lots of boys and girls playing minis - it's keeping them after 18 years old that is the problem and I'm not sure the Unions are to blame to be honest, or even what they are supposed to do about it.

In Scotland's case (excuse me, it's relevant to the discussion, even on the English thread) the playing numbers you read include "players" who have taken part in SRU outreach programs in the Highlands and Islands as well as other rural areas across the country.
Things have changed, people don't work locally, more kids go off to uni, as you say fewer are prepared to commit to a whole day travelling, playing and socialising. Many younger people are playing E games or other sports or even watching professional rugby - the club support has to come from somewhere and if they are watching on a Saturday afternoon, that's people who aren't playing themselves.

I remember a very similar article a few years ago about Ireland and especially Ulster which had Willie John McBride saying pretty much the same thing

Young people is part of the puzzle but the heart of the playing side of a sports club tends to be people in their 30s and 40s - been around a bit longer, settled, more likely to be willing/able to run sides, possibly a bit more cash etc. That’s the generation that’s missing particularly at rugby clubs now from my experience.

Anecdotally there are three big reasons for this:

1. Individual/smaller group pursuits. Running/cycling/golf largely. You by and large choose who you do and don’t do them with, timings are yours and you broadly guarantee your outcome rather than getting 15 minutes off the bench etc.

2. ‘Events’. Not uncommon to end up at 3 stags, 4 weddings, a weekend away you shouldn’t miss, festival etc. and then the season is gone.

From personal experience, I know my wife’s friends (male and female) have always found it deeply odd that I can and will miss going for say brunch and cocktails to play league sport, I don’t think it was considered so deeply weird and an outlier in the past, and you need to be pretty committed to the club to get past the peer pressure on this.

3. Kids seem to ‘need’ bespoke activities and direct parental time in a way that wasn’t true previously. My childhood Saturdays were spent on the touchline/round the boundary and to broadly work out how to amuse myself, you could guarantee there’d be other kids from Dads playing for both sides there as well. Generally a pretty great way to spend time tbh, this really seems to have fallen off a cliff and means for Dad to play Mum will be looking after the kids. Mum of course works full time in a way that wasn’t so true previously, which changes the dynamic as well.

[inactionman]

I've always felt that the university culture around rugby can put people off who might otherwise go on to play at various levels. Not everyone is into the "game between drinking sessions" mentality as well as the hazing and shit, they just want to play the game.

I'd agree, and I always thought it might be worth local clubs actively approaching unis to see if they can advertise - there will be some who'd rather join a town club than the university team.

A different sport, but I've been a member of various tennis teams for years (although covid and kids have meant I've not played competitively for a good few years now) and we'd find that we could easily fill out strong squads during term times as the students were available. They didn't want to play in intramurals or BUCS teams as it could be quite toxic, they just wanted to rock up on a weekday evening and play half a dozen sets of good, competitive tennis.

On the subject of club rugby, there's obviously a bunch of reasons why it may drop, but I've struggled with all my sports participation due to dispersion of family. I'd go to see my nan if my dad was playing away, I can't easily do the same with my kids if I wanted to regularly take the best part of a whole weekend day out. I've not found an easy answer.

[Yeeb]

It’s very hard to know what the solution is to this. Funding is a factor, drowning clubs in regulations and paperwork doesn’t help, but pure and simple there are fewer people willing to dedicate their spare time to team sport in the way that is required to run a rugby club. For whatever reason a committed player 20 years ago may have missed a game a season for a wedding etc, a committed player now probably plays 75% of games (we get this particular issue worse in cricket as a summer sport). I don’t know how you fix that or what if anything you can do about it.

It’s very sad - I played my first game of men’s rugby 14 years ago when my club had four sides and a vets team all playing at home. They now run 2 sides and are often scrabbling to fill the bench of the 2s (inevitable situation for your lower side probably). There is, granted, a women’s team now but the bar of what is needed for one is so low - they’ll play two games this season and it’ll be chalked up by all as a success.

Yeah, similarly my hometown club put out three men's senior teams and a Colts U19 every week, plus the one school in the town ran teams for every year. Now the club is responsible for the school age rugby and we have one men's team. The women's side is coming on nicely and our junior section has lots of boys and girls playing minis - it's keeping them after 18 years old that is the problem and I'm not sure the Unions are to blame to be honest, or even what they are supposed to do about it.

In Scotland's case (excuse me, it's relevant to the discussion, even on the English thread) the playing numbers you read include "players" who have taken part in SRU outreach programs in the Highlands and Islands as well as other rural areas across the country.
Things have changed, people don't work locally, more kids go off to uni, as you say fewer are prepared to commit to a whole day travelling, playing and socialising. Many younger people are playing E games or other sports or even watching professional rugby - the club support has to come from somewhere and if they are watching on a Saturday afternoon, that's people who aren't playing themselves.

I remember a very similar article a few years ago about Ireland and especially Ulster which had Willie John McBride saying pretty much the same thing

Young people is part of the puzzle but the heart of the playing side of a sports club tends to be people in their 30s and 40s - been around a bit longer, settled, more likely to be willing/able to run sides, possibly a bit more cash etc. That’s the generation that’s missing particularly at rugby clubs now from my experience.

Anecdotally there are three big reasons for this:

1. Individual/smaller group pursuits. Running/cycling/golf largely. You by and large choose who you do and don’t do them with, timings are yours and you broadly guarantee your outcome rather than getting 15 minutes off the bench etc.

2. ‘Events’. Not uncommon to end up at 3 stags, 4 weddings, a weekend away you shouldn’t miss, festival etc. and then the season is gone.

From personal experience, I know my wife’s friends (male and female) have always found it deeply odd that I can and will miss going for say brunch and cocktails to play league sport, I don’t think it was considered so deeply weird and an outlier in the past, and you need to be pretty committed to the club to get past the peer pressure on this.

3. Kids seem to ‘need’ bespoke activities and direct parental time in a way that wasn’t true previously. My childhood Saturdays were spent on the touchline/round the boundary and to broadly work out how to amuse myself, you could guarantee there’d be other kids from Dads playing for both sides there as well. Generally a pretty great way to spend time tbh, this really seems to have fallen off a cliff and means for Dad to play Mum will be looking after the kids. Mum of course works full time in a way that wasn’t so true previously, which changes the dynamic as well.

Point 2, so much this - had a huge row with an ex as she wanted me to drive her to a friends baby shower type bollocks, I couldn’t as was playing rugby - “but but but you played last week ?!”
She was actually incredulous that I’d commit to a league game for a team I’d played for for about 4 years longer than I’d known her and her stupid fat Preggo chav mate. Might not even have been a baby shower, I vaguely recall the row let alone the details, no idea what the tram was either.

Sporty friends and acquaintances ‘get’ commitments to matches, galas and training, fat useless cunts usually won’t

[Brazil]

Unrealistic ambitions have played their part as well. A lot of adults don't want to be talked down to if they can't make training each week, whilst club secretaries dreaming of turning their team into the next Exeter and buying in players drive local lads away either from the club or from the game entirely.

The merit tables for second and third teams have also had the exact opposite effect of attracting people to the game by making every match competitive and penalising teams that are struggling for numbers. It's a big ask for people to give up the majority of a Saturday to rugby, doubly so when you're being told every third team game is equivalent to the World Cup Final, then being docked match points because the one front row forward in the entire town was too hungover to make it on time.

[Kawazaki]

I don't think the initiative to let club 2nd Teams into the league structure will be looked back on as a success either. Where does that end? You could end up with one club with 3 different sides playing in the same 12-team league.

[Hal Jordan]

Unrealistic ambitions have played their part as well. A lot of adults don't want to be talked down to if they can't make training each week, whilst club secretaries dreaming of turning their team into the next Exeter and buying in players drive local lads away either from the club or from the game entirely.

The merit tables for second and third teams have also had the exact opposite effect of attracting people to the game by making every match competitive and penalising teams that are struggling for numbers. It's a big ask for people to give up the majority of a Saturday to rugby, doubly so when you're being told every third team game is equivalent to the World Cup Final, then being docked match points because the one front row forward in the entire town was too hungover to make it on time.

A lot of this - back when the majority of us played rugby, the stakes were nowhere near as high, if you rocked up to training regularly and had a modicum of talent you were probably in the 1st XV, and everyone else spilled up on the day and played for the 2s, 3s, Vets etc. and it tended to be "your club" unless you did something worthy of being ostracised, moved away or were really ambitious for glory. The club hopping regularity wasn't as much of a thing.

There were leagues and cups, but it wasn't about gym programs, backs bigger than old days forwards and the sheer physicality of the game that seems to be the thing now everyone is fit and jacked.

I am sure Covid also had a big effect as people started exercising alone and felt that giving up Saturday to get beaten black and blue wasn't worth it, so didn't go back (or it accelerated retirement).

/nostalgia filter/

[sockwithaticket]

Having mentioned gyms there, I think that outside of a rugby context going to the gym to get your exercise in has become a lot more normalised over the last couple of decades. It's indicative of at least a couple of things
- time poverty/time competition. The gym fits around your schedule flexibly, the time commitment is entirely up to the individual.
- changing social pressures or at least a perception among young men that they need to look buff (steroid use among teens and twenties has been an increasing problem for years now)

Other things that have experienced a lot of growth are the likes of park run and couch to 5k - casual things that are more at the discretion of the individual. Team sports do generally require more of commitment and they're finding that fewer people are either willing or able to provide it.

[Yeeb]

Unrealistic ambitions have played their part as well. A lot of adults don't want to be talked down to if they can't make training each week, whilst club secretaries dreaming of turning their team into the next Exeter and buying in players drive local lads away either from the club or from the game entirely.

The merit tables for second and third teams have also had the exact opposite effect of attracting people to the game by making every match competitive and penalising teams that are struggling for numbers. It's a big ask for people to give up the majority of a Saturday to rugby, doubly so when you're being told every third team game is equivalent to the World Cup Final, then being docked match points because the one front row forward in the entire town was too hungover to make it on time.

A lot of this - back when the majority of us played rugby, the stakes were nowhere near as high, if you rocked up to training regularly and had a modicum of talent you were probably in the 1st XV, and everyone else spilled up on the day and played for the 2s, 3s, Vets etc. and it tended to be "your club" unless you did something worthy of being ostracised, moved away or were really ambitious for glory. The club hopping regularity wasn't as much of a thing.

There were leagues and cups, but it wasn't about gym programs, backs bigger than old days forwards and the sheer physicality of the game that seems to be the thing now everyone is fit and jacked.

I am sure Covid also had a big effect as people started exercising alone and felt that giving up Saturday to get beaten black and blue wasn't worth it, so didn't go back (or it accelerated retirement).

/nostalgia filter/

Agree with both of you:
Train and are good - 1sts
Don’t train as much and or not so good 2nds
Shit 3rds
Really shit 4ths
Really old and shit 5ths
Really old but a mixture - vets, aka King prawns / Vipers / wizards / wankstains / some other comedic collective noun (usually a bit of a closed shop and you had to be invited to join and drink each others piss on tour with)
Young and not that good - colts

The sport deffo seems to attract more gym rats now than it used to, can’t say skill levels when I retired recently were any better than they were circa 1991 when I started to play senior rugby

[Paddington Bear]

Having mentioned gyms there, I think that outside of a rugby context going to the gym to get your exercise in has become a lot more normalised over the last couple of decades. It's indicative of at least a couple of things
- time poverty/time competition. The gym fits around your schedule flexibly, the time commitment is entirely up to the individual.
- changing social pressures or at least a perception among young men that they need to look buff (steroid use among teens and twenties has been an increasing problem for years now)

Other things that have experienced a lot of growth are the likes of park run and couch to 5k - casual things that are more at the discretion of the individual. Team sports do generally require more of commitment and they're finding that fewer people are either willing or able to provide it.

Team sports also require give as well as take and people are not keen on it.


Re: seriousness, I get the point being made but in cricket any attempts to encourage poor players to play friendly village cricket are almost always now met with flat refusal and an insistence on wanting to play in a league. Another generational societal shift and in the cases I’m referencing a totally baffling one

[sockwithaticket]

Having mentioned gyms there, I think that outside of a rugby context going to the gym to get your exercise in has become a lot more normalised over the last couple of decades. It's indicative of at least a couple of things
- time poverty/time competition. The gym fits around your schedule flexibly, the time commitment is entirely up to the individual.
- changing social pressures or at least a perception among young men that they need to look buff (steroid use among teens and twenties has been an increasing problem for years now)

Other things that have experienced a lot of growth are the likes of park run and couch to 5k - casual things that are more at the discretion of the individual. Team sports do generally require more of commitment and they're finding that fewer people are either willing or able to provide it.

Team sports also require give as well as take and people are not keen on it.


Re: seriousness, I get the point being made but in cricket any attempts to encourage poor players to play friendly village cricket are almost always now met with flat refusal and an insistence on wanting to play in a league. Another generational societal shift and in the cases I’m referencing a totally baffling one

Is that because the people who do want a more casual experience have dropped out and now what you're left with is a core of more competitive types?

[Paddington Bear]

Having mentioned gyms there, I think that outside of a rugby context going to the gym to get your exercise in has become a lot more normalised over the last couple of decades. It's indicative of at least a couple of things
- time poverty/time competition. The gym fits around your schedule flexibly, the time commitment is entirely up to the individual.
- changing social pressures or at least a perception among young men that they need to look buff (steroid use among teens and twenties has been an increasing problem for years now)

Other things that have experienced a lot of growth are the likes of park run and couch to 5k - casual things that are more at the discretion of the individual. Team sports do generally require more of commitment and they're finding that fewer people are either willing or able to provide it.

Team sports also require give as well as take and people are not keen on it.


Re: seriousness, I get the point being made but in cricket any attempts to encourage poor players to play friendly village cricket are almost always now met with flat refusal and an insistence on wanting to play in a league. Another generational societal shift and in the cases I’m referencing a totally baffling one

Is that because the people who do want a more casual experience have dropped out and now what you're left with is a core of more competitive types?

Some but not all. People seem to like being a part of a bigger club, I suspect at least in part because it is less likely you’ll be forced to do anything but play

[Slick]

I've always felt that the university culture around rugby can put people off who might otherwise go on to play at various levels. Not everyone is into the "game between drinking sessions" mentality as well as the hazing and shit, they just want to play the game.

On that point, I was in a discussion at the weekend with a couple of older heads at our club. The team still does the odd drinking game, but it's nothing like before.
They don't know and don't want to sing the songs from yesteryear (this was the point of the discussion) and to be honest those songs make me cringe now.

The point one of the guys my age was making was that as we want to encourage women and girls to join our club and be a big part of it, we have to make it a welcoming environment. Some of the other older guys weren't impressed.

I think this is the way forward really, clubs becoming a rugby social club with womens teams and touch teams - I know I would have stayed much longer on the playing side if there was touch rugby to go on to.

[SaintK]

I've always felt that the university culture around rugby can put people off who might otherwise go on to play at various levels. Not everyone is into the "game between drinking sessions" mentality as well as the hazing and shit, they just want to play the game.

On that point, I was in a discussion at the weekend with a couple of older heads at our club. The team still does the odd drinking game, but it's nothing like before.
They don't know and don't want to sing the songs from yesteryear (this was the point of the discussion) and to be honest those songs make me cringe now.

The point one of the guys my age was making was that as we want to encourage women and girls to join our club and be a big part of it, we have to make it a welcoming environment. Some of the other older guys weren't impressed.

Bloody dinosaurs!!!!
My club have been near or at the forefront of girls rugby in the county and Northern Home Counties (9 full internationals say we're doing something right) and we recognised and made a concious decision to make it an welcoming place for them to come to learn the game and have fun doing so.
It put a few noses out of joint and and a lot of harrumphing from the very old farts initially but it has been a great success. It has attracted new sponsors and allowed us to bid for funding as one one of the few areas the RFU are prepared to put money towards. We raised enough funds to redevelop the changing and shower facilities to the tune of £250,000 so that both boys and girls (and men and women) can now play and train on the same days without any safeguarding issues.
Interestingly the numbers in the girls section will likely outnumber the boys section next season

[SaintK]

I don't think the initiative to let club 2nd Teams into the league structure will be looked back on as a success either. Where does that end? You could end up with one club with 3 different sides playing in the same 12-team league.

Hertfordshire have just voted for it so will be breaking away from the Herts/Middx Counties set up as they voted against.
So we will now be playing aganst Stortford 2's(level3), Albanian 2's(level 4) and Hertford 2's(level 5). How much "poaching" is going to happen? How many first team plaayers will be allowed if coming back from injury etc. so many questions they couldn't answer
My club voted against but the "noes" didn't quite get enough numbers as a lot of the smaller clubs thought it was a good idea..............though they don't have to play them.

[Kawazaki]

I don't think the initiative to let club 2nd Teams into the league structure will be looked back on as a success either. Where does that end? You could end up with one club with 3 different sides playing in the same 12-team league.

Hertfordshire have just voted for it so will be breaking away from the Herts/Middx Counties set up as they voted against.
So we will now be playing aganst Stortford 2's(level3), Albanian 2's(level 4) and Hertford 2's(level 5). How much "poaching" is going to happen? How many first team plaayers will be allowed if coming back from injury etc. so many questions they couldn't answer
My club voted against but the "noes" didn't quite get enough numbers as a lot of the smaller clubs thought it was a good idea..............though they don't have to play them.

I think the RFU's 'logic' is that a game is a game regardless but it misses the point hugely and, in my opinion, it will result in more smaller clubs folding, not less. We've seen this before, the better resourced clubs with better floodlights, better pitches, and better showers will reach out and hoover up all the better players at 3 or 4 levels now instead of just 1. And where will those players come from, those smaller clubs with crappy floodlights and cold showers.

The 1st XV of a club is the ultimate representation of that club, it should really mean something to wear that jersey regardless of the level.

[Ovals]

I don't think the initiative to let club 2nd Teams into the league structure will be looked back on as a success either. Where does that end? You could end up with one club with 3 different sides playing in the same 12-team league.

Hertfordshire have just voted for it so will be breaking away from the Herts/Middx Counties set up as they voted against.
So we will now be playing aganst Stortford 2's(level3), Albanian 2's(level 4) and Hertford 2's(level 5). How much "poaching" is going to happen? How many first team plaayers will be allowed if coming back from injury etc. so many questions they couldn't answer
My club voted against but the "noes" didn't quite get enough numbers as a lot of the smaller clubs thought it was a good idea..............though they don't have to play them.

I think the RFU's 'logic' is that a game is a game regardless but it misses the point hugely and, in my opinion, it will result in more smaller clubs folding, not less. We've seen this before, the better resourced clubs with better floodlights, better pitches, and better showers will reach out and hoover up all the better players at 3 or 4 levels now instead of just 1. And where will those players come from, those smaller clubs with crappy floodlights and cold showers.

The 1st XV of a club is the ultimate representation of that club, it should really mean something to wear that jersey regardless of the level.

That is exactly what happened in cricket in my region. Lots of village sides have disappeared as the Big clubs hoover up all the players and end up with as many as six sides. Most of them only had 2 sides when the transition started.

[Paddington Bear]

Hertfordshire have just voted for it so will be breaking away from the Herts/Middx Counties set up as they voted against.
So we will now be playing aganst Stortford 2's(level3), Albanian 2's(level 4) and Hertford 2's(level 5). How much "poaching" is going to happen? How many first team plaayers will be allowed if coming back from injury etc. so many questions they couldn't answer
My club voted against but the "noes" didn't quite get enough numbers as a lot of the smaller clubs thought it was a good idea..............though they don't have to play them.

I think the RFU's 'logic' is that a game is a game regardless but it misses the point hugely and, in my opinion, it will result in more smaller clubs folding, not less. We've seen this before, the better resourced clubs with better floodlights, better pitches, and better showers will reach out and hoover up all the better players at 3 or 4 levels now instead of just 1. And where will those players come from, those smaller clubs with crappy floodlights and cold showers.

The 1st XV of a club is the ultimate representation of that club, it should really mean something to wear that jersey regardless of the level.

That is exactly what happened in cricket in my region. Lots of village sides have disappeared as the Big clubs hoover up all the players and end up with as many as six sides. Most of them only had 2 sides when the transition started.

Hoover isn’t the right word in most cases. I said above - a lot of people who really ought to be playing village cricket actively want to be part of the big club environment. We do not recruit actively at any level unless we have a gap in our 1s, but we do find people joining us from village clubs to play 4s or 5s - I don’t get it personally but this appears to be what the people want.

On our circuit the best example seemingly of what people are looking for would be Wokingham CC - their ground got bought by one of the supermarkets who built them a comically enormous facility on the outskirts of town, their pavilion is also a cafe and pub that serves food. There’s an indoor school on site and I believe a gym as well. Their members treat it essentially like a golf club, you pay a fair whack in subs, you are not required to do any off-field job, you can have a coffee and pastry pre-match and a beer and a burger afterwards. Everything organised for you, largely by paid staff. It sounds pretty grim to me, but they run 8 sides on a Saturday now so clearly people are voting with their feet.

Calling it poaching/hoovering etc I think misses the point that fewer but bigger clubs is players’ revealed preference

[Ovals]

I think the RFU's 'logic' is that a game is a game regardless but it misses the point hugely and, in my opinion, it will result in more smaller clubs folding, not less. We've seen this before, the better resourced clubs with better floodlights, better pitches, and better showers will reach out and hoover up all the better players at 3 or 4 levels now instead of just 1. And where will those players come from, those smaller clubs with crappy floodlights and cold showers.

The 1st XV of a club is the ultimate representation of that club, it should really mean something to wear that jersey regardless of the level.

That is exactly what happened in cricket in my region. Lots of village sides have disappeared as the Big clubs hoover up all the players and end up with as many as six sides. Most of them only had 2 sides when the transition started.

Hoover isn’t the right word in most cases. I said above - a lot of people who really ought to be playing village cricket actively want to be part of the big club environment. We do not recruit actively at any level unless we have a gap in our 1s, but we do find people joining us from village clubs to play 4s or 5s - I don’t get it personally but this appears to be what the people want.

On our circuit the best example seemingly of what people are looking for would be Wokingham CC - their ground got bought by one of the supermarkets who built them a comically enormous facility on the outskirts of town, their pavilion is also a cafe and pub that serves food. There’s an indoor school on site and I believe a gym as well. Their members treat it essentially like a golf club, you pay a fair whack in subs, you are not required to do any off-field job, you can have a coffee and pastry pre-match and a beer and a burger afterwards. Everything organised for you, largely by paid staff. It sounds pretty grim to me, but they run 8 sides on a Saturday now so clearly people are voting with their feet.

Calling it poaching/hoovering etc I think misses the point that fewer but bigger clubs is players’ revealed preference

Not the case here - 95% of the villages already played in the Hampshire League - very few were 'friendly only' teams. Most of the 'friendly' teams fared reasonably well because they cater for a different clientele. However, there were not many of them.

[Paddington Bear]

That is exactly what happened in cricket in my region. Lots of village sides have disappeared as the Big clubs hoover up all the players and end up with as many as six sides. Most of them only had 2 sides when the transition started.

Hoover isn’t the right word in most cases. I said above - a lot of people who really ought to be playing village cricket actively want to be part of the big club environment. We do not recruit actively at any level unless we have a gap in our 1s, but we do find people joining us from village clubs to play 4s or 5s - I don’t get it personally but this appears to be what the people want.

On our circuit the best example seemingly of what people are looking for would be Wokingham CC - their ground got bought by one of the supermarkets who built them a comically enormous facility on the outskirts of town, their pavilion is also a cafe and pub that serves food. There’s an indoor school on site and I believe a gym as well. Their members treat it essentially like a golf club, you pay a fair whack in subs, you are not required to do any off-field job, you can have a coffee and pastry pre-match and a beer and a burger afterwards. Everything organised for you, largely by paid staff. It sounds pretty grim to me, but they run 8 sides on a Saturday now so clearly people are voting with their feet.

Calling it poaching/hoovering etc I think misses the point that fewer but bigger clubs is players’ revealed preference

Not the case here - 95% of the villages already played in the Hampshire League - very few were 'friendly only' teams. Most of the 'friendly' teams fared reasonably well because they cater for a different clientele. However, there were not many of them.

We’re the same, my point is people don’t want to play for smaller clubs

[Ovals]

Hoover isn’t the right word in most cases. I said above - a lot of people who really ought to be playing village cricket actively want to be part of the big club environment. We do not recruit actively at any level unless we have a gap in our 1s, but we do find people joining us from village clubs to play 4s or 5s - I don’t get it personally but this appears to be what the people want.

On our circuit the best example seemingly of what people are looking for would be Wokingham CC - their ground got bought by one of the supermarkets who built them a comically enormous facility on the outskirts of town, their pavilion is also a cafe and pub that serves food. There’s an indoor school on site and I believe a gym as well. Their members treat it essentially like a golf club, you pay a fair whack in subs, you are not required to do any off-field job, you can have a coffee and pastry pre-match and a beer and a burger afterwards. Everything organised for you, largely by paid staff. It sounds pretty grim to me, but they run 8 sides on a Saturday now so clearly people are voting with their feet.

Calling it poaching/hoovering etc I think misses the point that fewer but bigger clubs is players’ revealed preference

Not the case here - 95% of the villages already played in the Hampshire League - very few were 'friendly only' teams. Most of the 'friendly' teams fared reasonably well because they cater for a different clientele. However, there were not many of them.

We’re the same, my point is people don’t want to play for smaller clubs

I don't think that is really the main issue. The bigger clubs have more resources and get out to all the schools to recruit kids and have the pulling power to runs colts sides at all age levels - small clubs just can't compete - especially if they are non-suburban. The effort, peronnel and organisation needed to run colts sides is immense. They also encourage players to 'move up' if they are half decent. My club isn't small but we still get loads of players poached by the really big clubs - and it has been encouraged by the Hampshire coaches who push the better youth players towards the big clubs..

[Kawazaki]

Maybe this is the Bill Sweeney corporate vision for English rugby - a huge reduction in the number of junior clubs so players can be coalesced and focused towards much bigger regional facilities that have the resources to cater better for all their needs, whether they be age, gender, commercial or all of the above.

That is how corporate minds tend to view solutions.

I can see the potential benefit of multiple clubs sharing the same facility, like perhaps happens with London Scottish and Richmond sharing a ground, but there needs to be a number of external factors in play for that to be viable, it wouldn't be a model suitable in less densely populated areas.

[Paddington Bear]

Maybe this is the Bill Sweeney corporate vision for English rugby - a huge reduction in the number of junior clubs so players can be coalesced and focused towards much bigger regional facilities that have the resources to cater better for all their needs, whether they be age, gender, commercial or all of the above.

That is how corporate minds tend to view solutions.

I can see the potential benefit of multiple clubs sharing the same facility, like perhaps happens with London Scottish and Richmond sharing a ground, but there needs to be a number of external factors in play for that to be viable, it wouldn't be a model suitable in less densely populated areas.

I think this is exactly the case, and whatever they say I don’t think they really mind players becoming consumers

[inactionman]

Maybe this is the Bill Sweeney corporate vision for English rugby - a huge reduction in the number of junior clubs so players can be coalesced and focused towards much bigger regional facilities that have the resources to cater better for all their needs, whether they be age, gender, commercial or all of the above.

That is how corporate minds tend to view solutions.

I can see the potential benefit of multiple clubs sharing the same facility, like perhaps happens with London Scottish and Richmond sharing a ground, but there needs to be a number of external factors in play for that to be viable, it wouldn't be a model suitable in less densely populated areas.

I think this is exactly the case, and whatever they say I don’t think they really mind players becoming consumers

And clubs being just facilities.

It's not a good thing at all.

[Paddington Bear]

Maybe this is the Bill Sweeney corporate vision for English rugby - a huge reduction in the number of junior clubs so players can be coalesced and focused towards much bigger regional facilities that have the resources to cater better for all their needs, whether they be age, gender, commercial or all of the above.

That is how corporate minds tend to view solutions.

I can see the potential benefit of multiple clubs sharing the same facility, like perhaps happens with London Scottish and Richmond sharing a ground, but there needs to be a number of external factors in play for that to be viable, it wouldn't be a model suitable in less densely populated areas.

I think this is exactly the case, and whatever they say I don’t think they really mind players becoming consumers

And clubs being just facilities.

It's not a good thing at all.

Again though I don’t think this is just the suits being malevolent. A club as we know it requires give and take, as well as commitment and dedication over a long period. A lot of players want to rock up, play, maybe stay for a beer maybe not and play again in three weeks. That’s far easier to accommodate at a ‘facility’ (or the golf club style set up I referenced yesterday) and seems to be what the current generation of players prefer.

[inactionman]

I think this is exactly the case, and whatever they say I don’t think they really mind players becoming consumers

And clubs being just facilities.

It's not a good thing at all.

Again though I don’t think this is just the suits being malevolent. A club as we know it requires give and take, as well as commitment and dedication over a long period. A lot of players want to rock up, play, maybe stay for a beer maybe not and play again in three weeks. That’s far easier to accommodate at a ‘facility’ (or the golf club style set up I referenced yesterday) and seems to be what the current generation of players prefer.

I completely agree that many people just don't have bandwidth or inclination - I'm not denying it, I'm really just decrying it. My post was a bit brief and I should have been clearer.

I look at my dad's experience - he met my mum on a rugby team night out, his best man was scrum-half at his club, most of his business customers were themselves small businessmen at his rugby club, they went on tours, he meets his old mates whenever our old club plays in Norfolk.

I think there's something missing where we can't retain the type of club experience my dad had, and something worrying if there's an either/or to it. Some will want a true club, others just want to play rugby without all the ongoing commitments - but I'd hate for someone who wants our hometown club experience to not be able to find it.

I've no answer to how, I just feel sad this is where it generally seems to going.

[Sandstorm]

I look at my dad's experience - he met my mum on a rugby team night out, his best man was scrum-half at his club, most of his business customers were themselves small businessmen at his rugby club, they went on tours, he meets his old mates whenever our old club plays in Norfolk.

I think there's something missing where we can't retain the type of club experience my dad had, and something worrying if there's an either/or to it. Some will want a true club, others just want to play rugby without all the ongoing commitments - but I'd hate for someone who wants our hometown club experience to not be able to find it.

I've no answer to how, I just feel sad this is where it generally seems to going.

I don't understand how building a "super-club" prevents some people from getting the "hometown experience". Its the choice of the individual what they get out of the club - you can be all in 24/7 (like your Dad and his mates) or just pop in for a gym session and a match every week. Or something in between.

If however you only crave the old-school version and the club dies through lack of young people wanting that in 2025, then everyone loses. The Rugby matches are what keeps a club alive, not nostalgia. And money.

[inactionman]

I look at my dad's experience - he met my mum on a rugby team night out, his best man was scrum-half at his club, most of his business customers were themselves small businessmen at his rugby club, they went on tours, he meets his old mates whenever our old club plays in Norfolk.

I think there's something missing where we can't retain the type of club experience my dad had, and something worrying if there's an either/or to it. Some will want a true club, others just want to play rugby without all the ongoing commitments - but I'd hate for someone who wants our hometown club experience to not be able to find it.

I've no answer to how, I just feel sad this is where it generally seems to going.

I don't understand how building a "super-club" prevents some people from getting the "hometown experience". Its the choice of the individual what they get out of the club - you can be all in 24/7 (like your Dad and his mates) or just pop in for a gym session and a match every week. Or something in between.

If however you only crave the old-school version and the club dies through lack of young people wanting that in 2025, then everyone loses. The Rugby matches are what keeps a club alive, not nostalgia. And money.

There's an expectation that members run and contribute to the club. The model for 'super clubs' (I'm not sure I quite follow, but I'll respond as though this means we're in the consumer model) appears to be that people pay their subs to play their games and others do the work. There's no social engagement or commitment to helping.

No-one is happily going to do all the admin and running about for a club where half the team are only there intermittently, or turn up for social events to find most of the others weren't interested.

Just by way of analogy - I play tennis for my local club. There's an expectation that we help with running the club, we attend fundraisers, we contribute to social events . Pre-covid if we were the home team we'd bring down some re-heatable food to cater for the visiting team. It was expected you'd fill in for teams that were short even if that meant stepping up or dropping down a level. If you did not do this you did not get picked in later weeks.

I was previously a member at a David Lloyd where - for the tennis 'club' - we did nothing, we just rocked up to sessions arranged by he pro and many members wouldn't even stay to tidy the practice balls away after the session. To be honest, many- including me - were member at 'true' clubs as well, and just used David Lloyd for tennis in winter as it one of only 4 accessible indoor courts in Edinburgh.

My point is - my current club is a club, David Lloyd is just a facility. They can co-exist for tennis, but my reading of discussions here is that 'club' rugby clubs can't easily co-exist with 'facility' rugby clubs.

It's also not nostalgia - it doesn't need to be a bygone age.

Again, no answers as to how to address it, but I don't like the situation.

[Paddington Bear]

Basically agree with everything inactionman says.

There’s a core of about 15 of us who play at my cricket club who see it as one of the centres of our lives, played for a fair amount of time, commit to the season, do stuff around the club, socialise outside of it, go to each others weddings, all took time off work for one of our old boys funeral the other week etc.

Accepting that not everyone you play with feels the same is tough and it took me a fair amount of time to deal with it in a more sanguine manner and accept that it is in fact exceptionally difficult to REPLY TO A FUCKING WHATSAPP MESSAGE*.

I suppose it’s always been like this but a fair chunk of my closest friends have come through being heavily involved with sports clubs both at home and at uni, and its those experiences I value well above any facility or training or anything else. It still makes me sad more people don’t seem to want it. You get out of club sport what you put in ultimately, and there’s something worthwhile in working to ensure that opportunity will be there for the next generation


*clearly this is still a work in progress

[SaintK]

A couple of the LCD lineout misses last match were lifting errors, though agree the injuries look to be catching up with him.
Thought George was excellent for the 20 minutes he was on against FRance
Dan doesn't exactly fill me with great hope for the future though he does add a bit of zip
I'm amazed that Oghre and Langdon haven't seen any game time off the bench this past 12 months

Maybe Chessum is a better lineout option than Martin and should help improve the Lineout when LCD is throwing.

Appears to be more athletic than Martin

Martin out
Hill to the bench

[Paddington Bear]

Scotland team out. Think we have them up front, and our back row has been excellent thus far. Huw Jones and VdM will never not give me the fear - it is very possible to get to the outside of our defensive system and I don’t think it’s any criticism of Smith to say he’s unlikely to stop a bloke 1,000 times the size in full flight if he gets through. You have to assume Russell will be better than he has been.

Got to put them under pressure down the middle and their breakdown discipline was piss poor against Italy which meant Allan could keep them in the game with 3 pointers. Useful blueprint for chipping away. I’d like to see us run down Jordan’s channel plenty.

Just got to win this one, really doesn’t matter how.

[inactionman]

Maybe Chessum is a better lineout option than Martin and should help improve the Lineout when LCD is throwing.

Appears to be more athletic than Martin

Martin out
Hill to the bench

I like Martin so I'm disappointed in one sense, but chuffed Hill's going to - hopefully - get a go. His performances have deserved it for a good while now, a real athlete and a very handy lineout option

[Kawazaki]

Scotland team out. Think we have them up front, and our back row has been excellent thus far. Huw Jones and VdM will never not give me the fear - it is very possible to get to the outside of our defensive system and I don’t think it’s any criticism of Smith to say he’s unlikely to stop a bloke 1,000 times the size in full flight if he gets through. You have to assume Russell will be better than he has been.

Got to put them under pressure down the middle and their breakdown discipline was piss poor against Italy which meant Allan could keep them in the game with 3 pointers. Useful blueprint for chipping away. I’d like to see us run down Jordan’s channel plenty.

Just got to win this one, really doesn’t matter how.

Is flakey still kicking or will Fin start as kicker?

[Ovals]

Scotland team out. Think we have them up front, and our back row has been excellent thus far. Huw Jones and VdM will never not give me the fear - it is very possible to get to the outside of our defensive system and I don’t think it’s any criticism of Smith to say he’s unlikely to stop a bloke 1,000 times the size in full flight if he gets through. You have to assume Russell will be better than he has been.

Got to put them under pressure down the middle and their breakdown discipline was piss poor against Italy which meant Allan could keep them in the game with 3 pointers. Useful blueprint for chipping away. I’d like to see us run down Jordan’s channel plenty.

Just got to win this one, really doesn’t matter how.

Is flakey still kicking or will Fin start as kicker?

Both are excellent kickers, so won't matter.

[Tichtheid]

. I’d like to see us run down Jordan’s channel plenty.

Have you watched Jordan much?