The Official English Rugby Thread

[sockwithaticket]

Too many commentators wank over the Prem as being the best domestic competition when it clearly is not. The moment Prem teams go into Europe they pretty much perhaps with the exception of Saracens get wiped out. The entertainment factor in the Prem might be high, but the skill levels and general rugby nous is way behind the URC and France...the sooner people recognise that, the sooner something might change. This is reflected fully at international level.

The Prem has 5 teams in the European knock outs vs. 3 from the Top 14.

[Paddington Bear]

The sturm und drang about the decline of English rugby is reminiscent of the woe about the demise of English test cricket a few years ago where everyone said the game was structurally fucked and England would be in the doldrums for decades. One change of coach later and they were suddenly the best test side in the world revolutionising the way the game was played.

English cricket still has all the structural problems it had a couple of years ago. What's changed is McCullum, Key and Stokes have made a virtue out of one of the vices of the English system - that we can't/don't produce traditional long form players anymore but can and do produce lots of incredibly clean hitting, dynamic players, and built a test side around it. The equivalent isn't quite as simple. You can be as exciting and dynamic as you like in rugby but if you can't kick out of trouble, can't win up front and can't last the pace you lose far more than you win. As Italy have found this 6N, as Australia found when push came to shove again and again.

[robmatic]

Too many commentators wank over the Prem as being the best domestic competition when it clearly is not. The moment Prem teams go into Europe they pretty much perhaps with the exception of Saracens get wiped out. The entertainment factor in the Prem might be high, but the skill levels and general rugby nous is way behind the URC and France...the sooner people recognise that, the sooner something might change. This is reflected fully at international level.

The Prem has 5 teams in the European knock outs vs. 3 from the Top 14.

Half of the Top 14 sides were playing B teams in Europe this season.

[sockwithaticket]

Too many commentators wank over the Prem as being the best domestic competition when it clearly is not. The moment Prem teams go into Europe they pretty much perhaps with the exception of Saracens get wiped out. The entertainment factor in the Prem might be high, but the skill levels and general rugby nous is way behind the URC and France...the sooner people recognise that, the sooner something might change. This is reflected fully at international level.

The Prem has 5 teams in the European knock outs vs. 3 from the Top 14.

Half of the Top 14 sides were playing B teams in Europe this season.

As did some Prem teams (most of whom were eliminated as a result).

[SaintK]

Tbh I view the problem of over-paying England players and getting poor value out of them in terms of matches played to sit entirely on the heads of those running clubs. They should be giving pay offers commensurate with what the player delivers for the club and if minutes on the field are lacking due to international commitments, that comes baked into the offer. With the salary cap being where it is the majority of players don't actually have that much freedom to negotiate hugely lucrative moves to rivals

I'd suggest that there is an incentive to keep up academy development in that producing a constant conveyor belt of talent helps the negotiation position of the club with any stars who might be making unreasonable demands. Someone threatens to leave and you've got a replacement coming through the ranks.

Too many commentators wank over the Prem as being the best domestic competition when it clearly is not. The moment Prem teams go into Europe they pretty much perhaps with the exception of Saracens get wiped out. The entertainment factor in the Prem might be high, but the skill levels and general rugby nous is way behind the URC and France...the sooner people recognise that, the sooner something might change. This is reflected fully at international level.

The quality of play might not be the best but it is very competitive. They have clearly aimed towards a more American/nfl model for the league. The European comps with their daft structure are a bit shite.

And fun.

Until the RFU stump up the amount of cash to turn it into a dedicated feeder competition for the national side, all it's stakeholders need to produce is an engaging competition and they are delivering on that front.

The RFU are front and centre of the issues facing Engtlish rugby. From the premature contract extension to Jones prior to the last RWC to their abject failure to sort out out a meaningful 2nd tier competition and to have a fully supported development pathway working hand in glove with Premiership sides and the decimation of the RDO scheme in the Community Game which helped identify potential premiership/international p[layers of the future.
Meanwhile as we watch our game limp along slowly failing at all levels, Sweeney is still being paid £750k a year to preside over the mess.

[inactionman]

Tbh I view the problem of over-paying England players and getting poor value out of them in terms of matches played to sit entirely on the heads of those running clubs. They should be giving pay offers commensurate with what the player delivers for the club and if minutes on the field are lacking due to international commitments, that comes baked into the offer. With the salary cap being where it is the majority of players don't actually have that much freedom to negotiate hugely lucrative moves to rivals

I'd suggest that there is an incentive to keep up academy development in that producing a constant conveyor belt of talent helps the negotiation position of the club with any stars who might be making unreasonable demands. Someone threatens to leave and you've got a replacement coming through the ranks.

Too many commentators wank over the Prem as being the best domestic competition when it clearly is not. The moment Prem teams go into Europe they pretty much perhaps with the exception of Saracens get wiped out. The entertainment factor in the Prem might be high, but the skill levels and general rugby nous is way behind the URC and France...the sooner people recognise that, the sooner something might change. This is reflected fully at international level.

The quality of play might not be the best but it is very competitive. They have clearly aimed towards a more American/nfl model for the league. The European comps with their daft structure are a bit shite.

And fun.

Until the RFU stump up the amount of cash to turn it into a dedicated feeder competition for the national side, all it's stakeholders need to produce is an engaging competition and they are delivering on that front.

The bolded part is a good point - Bath were forced into this with Anthony Watson and there was a bit of bad feeling after he left, but ultimately the club did the right thing for the club. He's a great player but barely plays for the club, and we had decent competition on the wings (who are, of course, now all injured but that is a separate question) but needed an investment elsewhere.

I think the club competition is fairly healthy, one personal acid test is that I will always, without fail, watch a Bath match* if it is on TV and will make efforts to catch other premiership club games, but will only catch a few sporadic URC games. Of course, a big chunk of that is allegiance but some of the URC games have been completely flat (the 1872 Derby is always good though).

I'd hate for club rugby to become completely subservient to national team interests, especially as the RFU haven't done the greatest work with lower tier and grassroots and I've rather they didn't break a good thing, but I do think the balance isn't quite right - I agree that player development into the national team seems to be almost actively punished:

I suggested years ago, well before the salary scandal that any player that comes through a club's academy should be exempt from the salary cap if they stay with that club. The system is madness at the moment, clubs are penalised four times if they develop an England player through their academy;

1. The club lose their own player for half the season.
2. The club have to pay the newly capped England player more money for playing less.
3. The club have to recruit a player to replace their own academy product when he's not available.
4. The RFU payment doesn't even cover the extra wages the club has to pay the player let alone the cost of the replacement.

There's really very little incentive to take on the enormous costs and risk associated with academy development.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it almost feels like international success would be to the detriment of the clubs, which just can't be right.



* yeah, yeah, glutton for punishment etc - you can all kiss my arse

[Kawazaki]

Tbh I view the problem of over-paying England players and getting poor value out of them in terms of matches played to sit entirely on the heads of those running clubs. They should be giving pay offers commensurate with what the player delivers for the club and if minutes on the field are lacking due to international commitments, that comes baked into the offer. With the salary cap being where it is the majority of players don't actually have that much freedom to negotiate hugely lucrative moves to rivals

I'd suggest that there is an incentive to keep up academy development in that producing a constant conveyor belt of talent helps the negotiation position of the club with any stars who might be making unreasonable demands. Someone threatens to leave and you've got a replacement coming through the ranks.

A 'conveyor belt of talent'?

If a club produces a once in a generation talent, what would you have them do if they get poached - simply produce another once in a generation talent?

[Slick]

I come in peace.

I appreciate some of this is a little cliched, but that's usually because it's true, and some may not sit well in our modern world, but we are talking specifically about rugby.

All the good England teams have been build on a horrible, belligerent, large and uncompromising pack, it's what you are known for. There was never anything particularly flashy or skillful about them, but they dominated and fronted up to anyone. It's just not here at the moment. From the French players apparently saying they were surprised at how soft the pack were, to everyone getting excited about a prop who can pass but seemingly not so worried about propping, to supporters of teams like Scotland who were always worried about get smashed up front not even talking about it before games now.

I know there are good reasons for it, but it infuriates me to see endless interviews with the likes of Sinkler and Genge talking about how they have overcome their anger and after a defeat they can be at peace etc. They are fucking props in an international rugby team. There is just nothing scary about that England pack. From this 6N, Chessum looks like he could cause some issues but that's about it.

I don't watch any Premiership so I've no real idea, but is this an issue because of the all action, attract new fans style of league?

[Ovals]

I come in peace.

I appreciate some of this is a little cliched, but that's usually because it's true, and some may not sit well in our modern world, but we are talking specifically about rugby.

All the good England teams have been build on a horrible, belligerent, large and uncompromising pack, it's what you are known for. There was never anything particularly flashy or skillful about them, but they dominated and fronted up to anyone. It's just not here at the moment. From the French players apparently saying they were surprised at how soft the pack were, to everyone getting excited about a prop who can pass but seemingly not so worried about propping, to supporters of teams like Scotland who were always worried about get smashed up front not even talking about it before games now.

I know there are good reasons for it, but it infuriates me to see endless interviews with the likes of Sinkler and Genge talking about how they have overcome their anger and after a defeat they can be at peace etc. They are fucking props in an international rugby team. There is just nothing scary about that England pack. From this 6N, Chessum looks like he could cause some issues but that's about it.

I don't watch any Premiership so I've no real idea, but is this an issue because of the all action, attract new fans style of league?

Maybe a bit of that, and a bit of other Nations building their own powerful packs. It's certainly no longer a point of difference for us !

[sockwithaticket]

Tbh I view the problem of over-paying England players and getting poor value out of them in terms of matches played to sit entirely on the heads of those running clubs. They should be giving pay offers commensurate with what the player delivers for the club and if minutes on the field are lacking due to international commitments, that comes baked into the offer. With the salary cap being where it is the majority of players don't actually have that much freedom to negotiate hugely lucrative moves to rivals

I'd suggest that there is an incentive to keep up academy development in that producing a constant conveyor belt of talent helps the negotiation position of the club with any stars who might be making unreasonable demands. Someone threatens to leave and you've got a replacement coming through the ranks.

A 'conveyor belt of talent'?

If a club produces a once in a generation talent, what would you have them do if they get poached - simply produce another once in a generation talent?

Not every player is completely 1:1 replaceable, obviously. If you have a rarity like Dupont, maybe you do break the bank to keep him, but that's an incredibly rare situation and there will even be a point with a player like that where what they're asking for doesn't represent a good deal for the club given how many minutes or games that player is actually on the field.

The academy product you bring through may not have the same talent ceiling as who they'd be replacing, but by being more available they might still deliver greater value for the club.


Maintaining a strong academy is a bargaining chip. I remember when Haskell was miffed with Wasps for not allowing him to see out his career with us, but we had both Willis boys making their name, plus Barbeary Curran and Fisilau coming through from the academy. We didn't need him unless he was prepared to go for cheap.

[Paddington Bear]

I come in peace.

I appreciate some of this is a little cliched, but that's usually because it's true, and some may not sit well in our modern world, but we are talking specifically about rugby.

All the good England teams have been build on a horrible, belligerent, large and uncompromising pack, it's what you are known for. There was never anything particularly flashy or skillful about them, but they dominated and fronted up to anyone. It's just not here at the moment. From the French players apparently saying they were surprised at how soft the pack were, to everyone getting excited about a prop who can pass but seemingly not so worried about propping, to supporters of teams like Scotland who were always worried about get smashed up front not even talking about it before games now.

I know there are good reasons for it, but it infuriates me to see endless interviews with the likes of Sinkler and Genge talking about how they have overcome their anger and after a defeat they can be at peace etc. They are fucking props in an international rugby team. There is just nothing scary about that England pack. From this 6N, Chessum looks like he could cause some issues but that's about it.

I don't watch any Premiership so I've no real idea, but is this an issue because of the all action, attract new fans style of league?

Maybe a bit of that, and a bit of other Nations building their own powerful packs. It's certainly no longer a point of difference for us !

Partially this. I think we're struggling to adapt our traditional game to the modern one, which France finally seem to have achieved after a decade or more of comprehensively failing to. There's been a clear aim to make our forwards more dynamic and attempt to balance it with continued forward dominance. Dan Cole feels like the last of a breed of English props.
I think our forwards in particular need a bit more of a siege mentality. In different ways Sarries, Leicester and Sale all manage this, and when England's pack is pumped up they are still capable of dominant performances. Pumping them up has been an issue.

[Joost]

Getting the balance right between indiscipline and aggression has also been a regular issue for England packs for a good while.

Smashing into rucks and putting big hits on ball carriers is also a lot more risky nowadays with the red card protocols, the game is moving more towards dynamism at the breakdown and tackle area - power still rules, but needs to be tempered with skill and good game judgment more than the days of old school England packs. We have good forwards, when they’re on form, but then so do France and Ireland - we’re not going to be beating up either side any time soon.

Thing is, I thought the selection decisions this 6N were actually pretty good and there’s something more fundamental going on with the team’s mentality and game plan - France game in particular, no idea where that (complete lack of) performance came from and sounds like the coaching team were equally unsure what happened. The other games were a continuation of the last couple of seasons really - hopefully the coaching team can achieve something with a bit more time, but if anything we got less coherent as the tournament went on and our defence was atrocious throughout, which doesn’t bode well and it’s not like there are better players waiting in the wings for their chance.

Not much to cling on to at present, is there!

[SaintK]

I come in peace.

I appreciate some of this is a little cliched, but that's usually because it's true, and some may not sit well in our modern world, but we are talking specifically about rugby.

All the good England teams have been build on a horrible, belligerent, large and uncompromising pack, it's what you are known for. There was never anything particularly flashy or skillful about them, but they dominated and fronted up to anyone. It's just not here at the moment. From the French players apparently saying they were surprised at how soft the pack were, to everyone getting excited about a prop who can pass but seemingly not so worried about propping, to supporters of teams like Scotland who were always worried about get smashed up front not even talking about it before games now.

I know there are good reasons for it, but it infuriates me to see endless interviews with the likes of Sinkler and Genge talking about how they have overcome their anger and after a defeat they can be at peace etc. They are fucking props in an international rugby team. There is just nothing scary about that England pack. From this 6N, Chessum looks like he could cause some issues but that's about it.

I don't watch any Premiership so I've no real idea, but is this an issue because of the all action, attract new fans style of league?

Maybe a bit of that, and a bit of other Nations building their own powerful packs. It's certainly no longer a point of difference for us !

Partially this. I think we're struggling to adapt our traditional game to the modern one, which France finally seem to have achieved after a decade or more of comprehensively failing to. There's been a clear aim to make our forwards more dynamic and attempt to balance it with continued forward dominance. Dan Cole feels like the last of a breed of English props.
I think our forwards in particular need a bit more of a siege mentality. In different ways Sarries, Leicester and Sale all manage this, and when England's pack is pumped up they are still capable of dominant performances. Pumping them up has been an issue.

How many Saffers keeping EQ players out of those two packs?

[SaintK]

Tbh I view the problem of over-paying England players and getting poor value out of them in terms of matches played to sit entirely on the heads of those running clubs. They should be giving pay offers commensurate with what the player delivers for the club and if minutes on the field are lacking due to international commitments, that comes baked into the offer. With the salary cap being where it is the majority of players don't actually have that much freedom to negotiate hugely lucrative moves to rivals

I'd suggest that there is an incentive to keep up academy development in that producing a constant conveyor belt of talent helps the negotiation position of the club with any stars who might be making unreasonable demands. Someone threatens to leave and you've got a replacement coming through the ranks.

The quality of play might not be the best but it is very competitive. They have clearly aimed towards a more American/nfl model for the league. The European comps with their daft structure are a bit shite.

And fun.

Until the RFU stump up the amount of cash to turn it into a dedicated feeder competition for the national side, all it's stakeholders need to produce is an engaging competition and they are delivering on that front.

The RFU are front and centre of the issues facing Engtlish rugby. From the premature contract extension to Jones prior to the last RWC to their abject failure to sort out out a meaningful 2nd tier competition and to have a fully supported development pathway working hand in glove with Premiership sides and the decimation of the RDO scheme in the Community Game which helped identify potential premiership/international p[layers of the future.
Meanwhile as we watch our game limp along slowly failing at all levels, Sweeney is still being paid £750k a year to preside over the mess.

Edit:
Read this and weep!!

What is less well known is that RFU never held an exit interview with Lancaster or his assistants. All that experience and crucial learnings were just left in the ether and are now directly benefiting Ireland. Contrast that with how ferociously the New Zealand Rugby Union protects its intellectual property, particularly when the RFU came sniffing around Wayne Smith, and how it retains contact with all its foreign-based coaches.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2F ... ch-up%2F

[sockwithaticket]

Maybe a bit of that, and a bit of other Nations building their own powerful packs. It's certainly no longer a point of difference for us !

Partially this. I think we're struggling to adapt our traditional game to the modern one, which France finally seem to have achieved after a decade or more of comprehensively failing to. There's been a clear aim to make our forwards more dynamic and attempt to balance it with continued forward dominance. Dan Cole feels like the last of a breed of English props.
I think our forwards in particular need a bit more of a siege mentality. In different ways Sarries, Leicester and Sale all manage this, and when England's pack is pumped up they are still capable of dominant performances. Pumping them up has been an issue.

How many Saffers keeping EQ players out of those two packs?

I think it's less about keeping EQ players out - there are plenty of EQ in every position - and more about what players are actually doing in game. It feels like a lot of the carrying responsibility is placed on foreign players, be they South African or Islanders, which leaves EQ players mainly doing set piece work or ruck clearing/ball securing.

[sockwithaticket]

Tbh I view the problem of over-paying England players and getting poor value out of them in terms of matches played to sit entirely on the heads of those running clubs. They should be giving pay offers commensurate with what the player delivers for the club and if minutes on the field are lacking due to international commitments, that comes baked into the offer. With the salary cap being where it is the majority of players don't actually have that much freedom to negotiate hugely lucrative moves to rivals

I'd suggest that there is an incentive to keep up academy development in that producing a constant conveyor belt of talent helps the negotiation position of the club with any stars who might be making unreasonable demands. Someone threatens to leave and you've got a replacement coming through the ranks.



And fun.

Until the RFU stump up the amount of cash to turn it into a dedicated feeder competition for the national side, all it's stakeholders need to produce is an engaging competition and they are delivering on that front.

The RFU are front and centre of the issues facing Engtlish rugby. From the premature contract extension to Jones prior to the last RWC to their abject failure to sort out out a meaningful 2nd tier competition and to have a fully supported development pathway working hand in glove with Premiership sides and the decimation of the RDO scheme in the Community Game which helped identify potential premiership/international p[layers of the future.
Meanwhile as we watch our game limp along slowly failing at all levels, Sweeney is still being paid £750k a year to preside over the mess.

Edit:
Read this and weep!!

What is less well known is that RFU never held an exit interview with Lancaster or his assistants. All that experience and crucial learnings were just left in the ether and are now directly benefiting Ireland. Contrast that with how ferociously the New Zealand Rugby Union protects its intellectual property, particularly when the RFU came sniffing around Wayne Smith, and how it retains contact with all its foreign-based coaches.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2F ... ch-up%2F

They probably wouldn't know how to pick anything useful out of what Lancaster gave them even if they had the inclination to try.

[Kawazaki]

Tbh I view the problem of over-paying England players and getting poor value out of them in terms of matches played to sit entirely on the heads of those running clubs. They should be giving pay offers commensurate with what the player delivers for the club and if minutes on the field are lacking due to international commitments, that comes baked into the offer. With the salary cap being where it is the majority of players don't actually have that much freedom to negotiate hugely lucrative moves to rivals

I'd suggest that there is an incentive to keep up academy development in that producing a constant conveyor belt of talent helps the negotiation position of the club with any stars who might be making unreasonable demands. Someone threatens to leave and you've got a replacement coming through the ranks.

A 'conveyor belt of talent'?

If a club produces a once in a generation talent, what would you have them do if they get poached - simply produce another once in a generation talent?

Not every player is completely 1:1 replaceable, obviously. If you have a rarity like Dupont, maybe you do break the bank to keep him, but that's an incredibly rare situation and there will even be a point with a player like that where what they're asking for doesn't represent a good deal for the club given how many minutes or games that player is actually on the field.

The academy product you bring through may not have the same talent ceiling as who they'd be replacing, but by being more available they might still deliver greater value for the club.


Maintaining a strong academy is a bargaining chip. I remember when Haskell was miffed with Wasps for not allowing him to see out his career with us, but we had both Willis boys making their name, plus Barbeary Curran and Fisilau coming through from the academy. We didn't need him unless he was prepared to go for cheap.

Haskell was also shite which probably made the decision easier.

Your answer didn't mitigate why taking the risk and enormous expense to develop your own is a better option that just letting somebody else take all that risk and effort and just cherry-pick when you can see how they turn out.

[Joost]

Shambolic and yet entirely believable and in-character from the RFU!

Recall that Lancaster was offered a senior development role with the RFU but turned it down, no wonder when you hear of how his exit was handled and how likely are the likes of Farrell, Edwards or other top-drawer coaches to take up a role with England in future - you’d certainly think twice before dealing with these clowns!

[Brazil]

Tbh I view the problem of over-paying England players and getting poor value out of them in terms of matches played to sit entirely on the heads of those running clubs. They should be giving pay offers commensurate with what the player delivers for the club and if minutes on the field are lacking due to international commitments, that comes baked into the offer. With the salary cap being where it is the majority of players don't actually have that much freedom to negotiate hugely lucrative moves to rivals

I'd suggest that there is an incentive to keep up academy development in that producing a constant conveyor belt of talent helps the negotiation position of the club with any stars who might be making unreasonable demands. Someone threatens to leave and you've got a replacement coming through the ranks.



And fun.

Until the RFU stump up the amount of cash to turn it into a dedicated feeder competition for the national side, all it's stakeholders need to produce is an engaging competition and they are delivering on that front.

The RFU are front and centre of the issues facing Engtlish rugby. From the premature contract extension to Jones prior to the last RWC to their abject failure to sort out out a meaningful 2nd tier competition and to have a fully supported development pathway working hand in glove with Premiership sides and the decimation of the RDO scheme in the Community Game which helped identify potential premiership/international p[layers of the future.
Meanwhile as we watch our game limp along slowly failing at all levels, Sweeney is still being paid £750k a year to preside over the mess.

Edit:
Read this and weep!!

What is less well known is that RFU never held an exit interview with Lancaster or his assistants. All that experience and crucial learnings were just left in the ether and are now directly benefiting Ireland. Contrast that with how ferociously the New Zealand Rugby Union protects its intellectual property, particularly when the RFU came sniffing around Wayne Smith, and how it retains contact with all its foreign-based coaches.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2F ... ch-up%2F

1) That's an actual journalist using the word "learnings" FFS
2) Lancaster was sacked after an utterly catastrophic World Cup that he and his team completely and comprehensively fucked up. Not exactly the sort of intellectual property you want to protect, nor indicative of any great "learnings" that you'd want to keep from your opponents.
3) England got to the next World Cup Final.

[Slick]

If you haven't read the latest from the Walrus, it's well worth a giggle. Although maybe not if you are a Quins supporter

[inactionman]

Tbh I view the problem of over-paying England players and getting poor value out of them in terms of matches played to sit entirely on the heads of those running clubs. They should be giving pay offers commensurate with what the player delivers for the club and if minutes on the field are lacking due to international commitments, that comes baked into the offer. With the salary cap being where it is the majority of players don't actually have that much freedom to negotiate hugely lucrative moves to rivals

I'd suggest that there is an incentive to keep up academy development in that producing a constant conveyor belt of talent helps the negotiation position of the club with any stars who might be making unreasonable demands. Someone threatens to leave and you've got a replacement coming through the ranks.



And fun.

Until the RFU stump up the amount of cash to turn it into a dedicated feeder competition for the national side, all it's stakeholders need to produce is an engaging competition and they are delivering on that front.

The RFU are front and centre of the issues facing Engtlish rugby. From the premature contract extension to Jones prior to the last RWC to their abject failure to sort out out a meaningful 2nd tier competition and to have a fully supported development pathway working hand in glove with Premiership sides and the decimation of the RDO scheme in the Community Game which helped identify potential premiership/international p[layers of the future.
Meanwhile as we watch our game limp along slowly failing at all levels, Sweeney is still being paid £750k a year to preside over the mess.

Edit:
Read this and weep!!

What is less well known is that RFU never held an exit interview with Lancaster or his assistants. All that experience and crucial learnings were just left in the ether and are now directly benefiting Ireland. Contrast that with how ferociously the New Zealand Rugby Union protects its intellectual property, particularly when the RFU came sniffing around Wayne Smith, and how it retains contact with all its foreign-based coaches.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2F ... ch-up%2F

Christ.

Surely it's management 101 to conduct exit interviews?

[sockwithaticket]

A 'conveyor belt of talent'?

If a club produces a once in a generation talent, what would you have them do if they get poached - simply produce another once in a generation talent?

Not every player is completely 1:1 replaceable, obviously. If you have a rarity like Dupont, maybe you do break the bank to keep him, but that's an incredibly rare situation and there will even be a point with a player like that where what they're asking for doesn't represent a good deal for the club given how many minutes or games that player is actually on the field.

The academy product you bring through may not have the same talent ceiling as who they'd be replacing, but by being more available they might still deliver greater value for the club.


Maintaining a strong academy is a bargaining chip. I remember when Haskell was miffed with Wasps for not allowing him to see out his career with us, but we had both Willis boys making their name, plus Barbeary Curran and Fisilau coming through from the academy. We didn't need him unless he was prepared to go for cheap.

Haskell was also shite which probably made the decision easier.

Your answer didn't mitigate why taking the risk and enormous expense to develop your own is a better option that just letting somebody else take all that risk and effort and just cherry-pick when you can see how they turn out.

From the outside looking in, it seems that an academy system allows a bit more control over the pipeline or at least knowing what's coming through/going to be available for you and thus helping your planning. It's random to an extent, you may not have any fly halves coming through for 2 - 3 season in your catchment, but not as random as relying on the external market to throw up a quality option in the position you need when you need it. There will always be players out of contract and looking, but they won't always be players you'd be interested in signing except in extremis.

Also if you homegrow someone, they often have more of an attachment and roots in the local area whichan mean you have a bit of an edge when it comes to retaining them. If someone grows up dreaming of playing for Sarries and goes through their academy, they're probably not going to move for a slight pay bump, it'd have to be significant. The longer you keep someone the more that applies.

[Kawazaki]

An academy makes sense if you run a football club because transfer fees are enormous. These fees don't exist in rugby. From an investment risk/return POV an academy is just a money pit.

[SaintK]

The RFU are front and centre of the issues facing Engtlish rugby. From the premature contract extension to Jones prior to the last RWC to their abject failure to sort out out a meaningful 2nd tier competition and to have a fully supported development pathway working hand in glove with Premiership sides and the decimation of the RDO scheme in the Community Game which helped identify potential premiership/international p[layers of the future.
Meanwhile as we watch our game limp along slowly failing at all levels, Sweeney is still being paid £750k a year to preside over the mess.

Edit:
Read this and weep!!

What is less well known is that RFU never held an exit interview with Lancaster or his assistants. All that experience and crucial learnings were just left in the ether and are now directly benefiting Ireland. Contrast that with how ferociously the New Zealand Rugby Union protects its intellectual property, particularly when the RFU came sniffing around Wayne Smith, and how it retains contact with all its foreign-based coaches.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2F ... ch-up%2F

1) That's an actual journalist using the word "learnings" FFS
So what its just a word.!
2) Lancaster was sacked after an utterly catastrophic World Cup that he and his team completely and comprehensively fucked up. Not exactly the sort of intellectual property you want to protect, nor indicative of any great "learnings" that you'd want to keep from your opponents.
True, but you just mihght want to debrief the managemnt that were being sacked so that the same mistakes weren't made again
3) England got to the next World Cup Final
And fucked up the final big time and had already given Jones a contract extension way before that.

The RFU have virtually destroyed the development pathway that was previously so succesful in developing players for the England senior squad

[Hal Jordan]

Ah, fitness was the problem. Righto.

Well, how else do you explain two linebreaks in 160 minutes of rugby? It's about fitness, and nothing else.

Now, now, we averaged three line breaks per match, let's not get upset about the outliers.

OK, we averaged the least line breaks per match of all six teams, but let's not go into that.

[Line6 HXFX]

Hearing Joe Rogan talking about CTE in boxing (and even training at Boxing ) , is quite startling, before we even talk about his barbaric MMA stuff.

You have to assume rugby players are going through precisely this. To then expect former professional rugby players to become World Class coaches....I dhunno is all I am saying.

You probably won't be pulling much Carwyn James level talent from the current rugby ranks, most having had all those gawd awful impacts.


[media] [/media]

[Sinkers]

Edit:
Read this and weep!!

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2F ... ch-up%2F

1) That's an actual journalist using the word "learnings" FFS
So what its just a word.!
2) Lancaster was sacked after an utterly catastrophic World Cup that he and his team completely and comprehensively fucked up. Not exactly the sort of intellectual property you want to protect, nor indicative of any great "learnings" that you'd want to keep from your opponents.
True, but you just mihght want to debrief the managemnt that were being sacked so that the same mistakes weren't made again
3) England got to the next World Cup Final
And fucked up the final big time and had already given Jones a contract extension way before that.

The RFU have virtually destroyed the development pathway that was previously so succesful in developing players for the England senior squad

That’s absolutely the big take away from that article. Not some bollox about exit interviews

[petej]

1) That's an actual journalist using the word "learnings" FFS
So what its just a word.!
2) Lancaster was sacked after an utterly catastrophic World Cup that he and his team completely and comprehensively fucked up. Not exactly the sort of intellectual property you want to protect, nor indicative of any great "learnings" that you'd want to keep from your opponents.
True, but you just mihght want to debrief the managemnt that were being sacked so that the same mistakes weren't made again
3) England got to the next World Cup Final
And fucked up the final big time and had already given Jones a contract extension way before that.

The RFU have virtually destroyed the development pathway that was previously so succesful in developing players for the England senior squad

That’s absolutely the big take away from that article. Not some bollox about exit interviews

Did Dean Ryan not improve things in his development role?

[Niegs]

An academy makes sense if you run a football club because transfer fees are enormous. These fees don't exist in rugby. From an investment risk/return POV an academy is just a money pit.

I've wondered this, actually.

I have the feeling that the old RFU Technical Journal had a Lancaster article from when he was with Leeds saying, basically, 'the more the merrier', keep the kids involved as long as you can and share knowledge far and wide as you can't possibly reach everyone.

I can accept that kids in DPP or Academies will be getting better S&C/nutrition advice than the average kid (though, surely, PE teachers must know this same stuff, too, and I'd argue if a lad isn't self-driven at that stage, he might not make it to the pros).

Surely, it's better to up-skill the school and community coaches to deliver better training to more kids? Keep those young players in clubs, free to play for strong colts teams or with men in strong clubs once of age? I sometimes wonder if academy kids in rugby get kept longer than they're worth (when you could probably find a better player in a Championship team) because of the relationship built / investment made? That's nice of clubs to do so, tbf, vs the seemingly cut-throat world of football academies, but as you say, a huge waste of money, time, effort, etc.

[Paddington Bear]

An academy makes sense if you run a football club because transfer fees are enormous. These fees don't exist in rugby. From an investment risk/return POV an academy is just a money pit.

I can accept that kids in DPP or Academies will be getting better S&C/nutrition advice than the average kid (though, surely, PE teachers must know this same stuff, too, and I'd argue if a lad isn't self-driven at that stage, he might not make it to the pros).

I think this is true to an extent, but:
- What age are we talking? I played alongside (from the bench ) a number of lads in/around the Wasps academy when we were 16/17, convincing them not to go to parties/drink/(attempt to) shag on Saturday night before Sunday colts or county games was futile, for obvious teenage boy related reasons.
- PE teachers might know this but how many give a shit? Particularly at state schools, rugby is not the main sport and sport isn't the main thing full stop. They might have a 'you could make it if you screw your head on' kind of chat, but they're unlikely to follow it up.
- a self-motivated kid may well look up strength/conditioning/nutrition and end up on completely the wrong path. I'm particularly thinking just getting way, way too bulky.

What I'm driving at is teenagers are teenagers, even if they're great at rugby, and generally need pretty clear steerage towards the pro game and conditioning. What you're really looking for is whether they can make the jump when they're a bit older and have a bit more of their head screwed on (21ish).

[Rhubarb & Custard]

An academy makes sense if you run a football club because transfer fees are enormous. These fees don't exist in rugby. From an investment risk/return POV an academy is just a money pit.

I've wondered this, actually.

I don't think we need wonder too much. Some people might claim it's a money pit to run an academy, but the number of sides enjoying success without an academy is not a long list. There's maybe Toulon, and talk about a money pit, and then they weren't able to sustain their efforts anyway, partly because their academy system wasn't up to scratch

So if people want to call investment into academies wasted money or too high risk let them, the clubs pretty much all know in reality they're crucial

[Kawazaki]

An academy makes sense if you run a football club because transfer fees are enormous. These fees don't exist in rugby. From an investment risk/return POV an academy is just a money pit.

I've wondered this, actually.

I don't think we need wonder too much. Some people might claim it's a money pit to run an academy, but the number of sides enjoying success without an academy is not a long list. There's maybe Toulon, and talk about a money pit, and then they weren't able to sustain their efforts anyway, partly because their academy system wasn't up to scratch

So if people want to call investment into academies wasted money or too high risk let them, the clubs pretty much all know in reality they're crucial

You don't need to go to Toulon. Try Exeter.

The point is, they cost a lot of money and they offer zero guarantees of either volume or quality or even positional churn.

[Oxbow]

Stephen Myler is retiring from rugby at the end of the season. I'm slightly biased, but he's been one of the better league converts I reckon. Nothing flashy, but also never anything less than 7/10. I've lost count of the number of games he won at the end for Saints with his kicking. That he was still doing it a season or two ago for Ospreys speaks volumes about the man. I think he's already done a bit with Wales women, but he'd be a fantastic kicking coach for any Prem or international side.

[Ovals]

A few new faces in the England 6N matchday squad for the 1st test - including an ex Canad prop !!

England team to face Scotland
England: Dow; Breach, Tuima, Reed, MacDonald; Aitchison, Packer; Carson, Cokayne, Bern, Aldcroft, P Cleall, Kabeya, Packer (co-capt), Hunter (co-capt).

Replacements: Davies, Crake, Clifford, O'Donnell, Beckett, Wyrwas, Heard, Sing.

[Joost]

Stephen Myler is retiring from rugby at the end of the season. I'm slightly biased, but he's been one of the better league converts I reckon. Nothing flashy, but also never anything less than 7/10. I've lost count of the number of games he won at the end for Saints with his kicking. That he was still doing it a season or two ago for Ospreys speaks volumes about the man. I think he's already done a bit with Wales women, but he'd be a fantastic kicking coach for any Prem or international side.

Tbh he’s been in union so long I’d completely forgotten he started-off in league - not many league converts make it as all-round, goalkicking 10s, so he’s in a fairly select club there, even if he didn’t get higher than good club player status. Best of luck to him

[sockwithaticket]

He was a wonderful club man and contributed hugely to a period of significant success for Saints. 325 appearances for them is one hell of an innings and he's gone on to show that he probably could have kept on for a while longer if they'd let him. By the time this season finishes he'll be on the cusp of 39. Up there with Gopperth and Wigglesworth for longevity.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I've wondered this, actually.

I don't think we need wonder too much. Some people might claim it's a money pit to run an academy, but the number of sides enjoying success without an academy is not a long list. There's maybe Toulon, and talk about a money pit, and then they weren't able to sustain their efforts anyway, partly because their academy system wasn't up to scratch

So if people want to call investment into academies wasted money or too high risk let them, the clubs pretty much all know in reality they're crucial

You don't need to go to Toulon. Try Exeter.

The point is, they cost a lot of money and they offer zero guarantees of either volume or quality or even positional churn.

Hiring from outside your club doesn't offer much in the way of guarantees, granted not all signings are Stephen Donald or Chris Jack levels of bad (especially for the money) but c'mon. Really if you're after nailed on guarantees then life will be a problem, not just sport. With academies you get players coming through who define your culture, you get young players coming into training who bring energy and enthusiasm, sometimes too much but it's far better than the alternative. You get players who play for arguably smaller contracts, and then you hire into whatever gaps are left if you can.

Not sure what the Exeter thing is, they seem to have a number of players who've played from the juniors into the seniors very much defining who the club are, with notable outside work from the likes of Mumm, and they've been notable for their success. Yes they've spent big too, but successful teams often do without too much surprise

Sure not everyone uses the academy well, not itself or/and not refreshing the senior squad well enough, with Cockers a famous example of lousing up an academy system, but Tigers have turned that around and what do you know, it's paying dividends even if they've a crazed bloody thirsty fullback.

Maybe someone can run a club in England with no notable academy input and do well, but I've not seen it done yet

[Niegs]

It's fairly self-fulfilling when every club has one and all the best local kids get filtered into them. But are they necessary compared to the costs? How many kids who come through the system actually survive on to their mid-20s as a pro, period, let alone stick with the club they came through?

North American sport largely relies on the farm team system (where not drafting from schools). And I think rugby clubs already share those players with some local partner clubs, right? Could they do more to have stronger ties with local clubs a div/two below without having to pay for an 'academy' proper and its staff?

[Kawazaki]

I don't think we need wonder too much. Some people might claim it's a money pit to run an academy, but the number of sides enjoying success without an academy is not a long list. There's maybe Toulon, and talk about a money pit, and then they weren't able to sustain their efforts anyway, partly because their academy system wasn't up to scratch

So if people want to call investment into academies wasted money or too high risk let them, the clubs pretty much all know in reality they're crucial

You don't need to go to Toulon. Try Exeter.

The point is, they cost a lot of money and they offer zero guarantees of either volume or quality or even positional churn.

Hiring from outside your club doesn't offer much in the way of guarantees, granted not all signings are Stephen Donald or Chris Jack levels of bad (especially for the money) but c'mon. Really if you're after nailed on guarantees then life will be a problem, not just sport. With academies you get players coming through who define your culture, you get young players coming into training who bring energy and enthusiasm, sometimes too much but it's far better than the alternative. You get players who play for arguably smaller contracts, and then you hire into whatever gaps are left if you can.

Not sure what the Exeter thing is, they seem to have a number of players who've played from the juniors into the seniors very much defining who the club are, with notable outside work from the likes of Mumm, and they've been notable for their success. Yes they've spent big too, but successful teams often do without too much surprise

Sure not everyone uses the academy well, not itself or/and not refreshing the senior squad well enough, with Cockers a famous example of lousing up an academy system, but Tigers have turned that around and what do you know, it's paying dividends even if they've a crazed bloody thirsty fullback.

Maybe someone can run a club in England with no notable academy input and do well, but I've not seen it done yet

I get all the reasons why an academy is a good thing including the community engagement. It still doesn't negate the fact that when a club goes through all that enormous time, effort and expense to identify, nurture, and develop a world-class English player (alongside the huge concurrent costs to identify, nurture and develop scores of other English players who aren't world-class), that player is then selected for England and the club losses the player for half the season with very little compensation.

[inactionman]

You don't need to go to Toulon. Try Exeter.

The point is, they cost a lot of money and they offer zero guarantees of either volume or quality or even positional churn.

Hiring from outside your club doesn't offer much in the way of guarantees, granted not all signings are Stephen Donald or Chris Jack levels of bad (especially for the money) but c'mon. Really if you're after nailed on guarantees then life will be a problem, not just sport. With academies you get players coming through who define your culture, you get young players coming into training who bring energy and enthusiasm, sometimes too much but it's far better than the alternative. You get players who play for arguably smaller contracts, and then you hire into whatever gaps are left if you can.

Not sure what the Exeter thing is, they seem to have a number of players who've played from the juniors into the seniors very much defining who the club are, with notable outside work from the likes of Mumm, and they've been notable for their success. Yes they've spent big too, but successful teams often do without too much surprise

Sure not everyone uses the academy well, not itself or/and not refreshing the senior squad well enough, with Cockers a famous example of lousing up an academy system, but Tigers have turned that around and what do you know, it's paying dividends even if they've a crazed bloody thirsty fullback.

Maybe someone can run a club in England with no notable academy input and do well, but I've not seen it done yet

I get all the reasons why an academy is a good thing including the community engagement. It still doesn't negate the fact that when a club goes through all that enormous time, effort and expense to identify, nurture, and develop a world-class English player (alongside the huge concurrent costs to identify, nurture and develop scores of other English players who aren't world-class), that player is then selected for England and the club losses the player for half the season with very little compensation.

Blimey. Mark McCall reads your posts:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ark-mccall

Suggestion for the use of central contracts.

I can definitely see pros and I can certainly see cons.