Outlander, what can I say?
Spot on my American friend.
Euphoria, Dick Best and Retirments
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Rather Lucrative maybe. It hasn't done the national teams any favours in the last 8 years (although granted this may be defunct come Saturday night).SamWard wrote:I was basing my thoughts on the rather successful super 14
John
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
Outlander, Quality posts and just what I was getting at. Spot on too, it was what I was getting at, although put far more eloquently than I could have!
Completely off topic (but you mentioned it in passing) but are you an NFL fan, and if so who is your team?
Also, Rugby League in both the UK and Australia don't have even playing schedules, very much like the Strength of Schedule in the NFL. In the Super League, the teams finishing in the top half of the table play each other once (?) more than they do the lower placed teams. Their playoff system is stunningly efficient and effective too, although that discussion can wait for another day
. In the NRL there are too many teams and not everyone plays each other each year. That was why they introduced their playoffs, to provide the level playing field when good teams might not meet. And the intensity of their playoffs certainly makes for battle hardened players.
BACK ON TOPIC, my post was really to see when people thought the individual players would go, as well as when they should go. I still think that my predictions aren't too far off either.
Completely off topic (but you mentioned it in passing) but are you an NFL fan, and if so who is your team?
Also, Rugby League in both the UK and Australia don't have even playing schedules, very much like the Strength of Schedule in the NFL. In the Super League, the teams finishing in the top half of the table play each other once (?) more than they do the lower placed teams. Their playoff system is stunningly efficient and effective too, although that discussion can wait for another day
. In the NRL there are too many teams and not everyone plays each other each year. That was why they introduced their playoffs, to provide the level playing field when good teams might not meet. And the intensity of their playoffs certainly makes for battle hardened players.BACK ON TOPIC, my post was really to see when people thought the individual players would go, as well as when they should go. I still think that my predictions aren't too far off either.
John
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
-
Cagey Tiger
- Super User
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:27 pm
- Location: South Lincolnshire
There have been a number of posts about who should or might retire immediately after the RWC.
One of the names mentioned was Simon Shaw. In an article in The Times recently, his view was that choosing when to retire was only for those who had had a long and settled international career (e.g. Jonno), which he has not. He has no intention of retiring (yet), no matter what happens.
I wonder how many of the other over 30's (e.g. Reagan) might feel like this? I expect that part of the decision will be dictated by Saturday's result. If we win, what better time to retire? If not...
One of the names mentioned was Simon Shaw. In an article in The Times recently, his view was that choosing when to retire was only for those who had had a long and settled international career (e.g. Jonno), which he has not. He has no intention of retiring (yet), no matter what happens.
I wonder how many of the other over 30's (e.g. Reagan) might feel like this? I expect that part of the decision will be dictated by Saturday's result. If we win, what better time to retire? If not...
-
Wayne Richardson Fan Club
- Super User
- Posts: 3878
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:53 am
- Location: The Salt Mines
As per Dick Best's comments I'm worried if England win on Saturday the RFU's ostrich mentality may come to the fore again. The planning for 2011 MUST start at the end of the final not the begining of the RWC like this time.
Of the present squad I can only see Tait, Stevens, Sheridan, Hipkiss and Rees being likely to be around by 2011. The England management team must start by working out which players are likely to be involved in 4 years and start finding out who has got the ablity to play Internationally and then bring in the New Comers/Late developers as they appear on the scene.
Of the present squad I can only see Tait, Stevens, Sheridan, Hipkiss and Rees being likely to be around by 2011. The England management team must start by working out which players are likely to be involved in 4 years and start finding out who has got the ablity to play Internationally and then bring in the New Comers/Late developers as they appear on the scene.
To win is not as important as playing with style!
Totally agree, in fact the chances of getting Martin Johnson involved in the England set-up UNTIL he goes will be NIL!Pete wrote:The first retirement should be Frances Baron, who spent over a million pounds on trying to persuade everyone to change to the (unsuccesful) New Zealand system so he could control everyone.
The current English and French systems are far better.
Time for Baron to fall on his sword methinks!
We (well, the RFU) have three options in developing a team for 2011:
1) The 2003-2007 “masterplan” – don’t bring any new blood into the England squad except for the occasional youngster who you treat badly and cause to regress by 2 years. Needless to say, not a great plan.
2) Gradually blend in new, inexperienced players within the existing squad, eventually dropping all more mature players except for a core few, genuinely international class players (probably most forwards + Jonny).
3) Drop everybody who is not going to be around for 2011 immediately. Bring in new players asap, possibly rotating squad at first or having a few possibles v probables matches
Each of 2 and 3 (I think we can safely discard 1) have advantages and disadvantages:
Gradual blending
Do you start with the forwards, the backs or a bit of each? By 2011 the new players won’t have as many caps (or as much international experience) as they would had they all been brought in en masse. Equally, it is slightly more difficult to test different combinations of new players – if you decide you start playing one experienced lock with one newbie, each separate newbie will only get half as much game time as if you freed up both slots – so it’ll take you twice as long to work out which one of the newbies is genuinely better suited to international rugby.
The key advantage of course, is twofold: learning off experienced players and (hopefully) maintaining a winning way. Having said that, some players may learn more from certain types of painful defeat (SA pool match) than they do from grinding out poor quality wins (USA pool match).
Out with the old, in with the new
Any tight five forward who will be 35 or over by 2011 gets dropped right now. Any back row or back who is 32 or over by 2011 gets dropped right now. Might be willing to make a slight exception if we had someone who was just over that age but a Martin Johnson figure…
Then we use 2008 as an experimental year. Try different combinations, different styles (blitz v drift defences, pods, structured attack drills vs more free-form attacks). Rotate new players in and out – see how Allen plays at IC and then try Flood immediately after. Tait, Hipkiss and JSD all at OC in succession (or as substitutes). Ellis vs Foden vs Care. Blaze, Palmer, Deacon and maybe Croft all fighting for lock positions. Seymour, Abraham, Rees, Lund, Moody, Haskell all going against one another for the flanker spots. And many more. You’ll generate much more internal competition because the youngsters may well perceive a “better chance” of making the squad when they’re competing against their peers (in age) rather than players who’ve been there and done it.
Towards the end of 2008 we’ll have had 5 6N matches plus 3 or 4 other internationals. That’s 8 or 9 matches to start to get a feel for who has it and who doesn’t.
2009 is then the beginning of the rebuilding – start to stabilise the combinations. Play pairs/groups of players together: 8/9/10, or 12/13, back 3 etc. Still experiment with different players but start to look to build a cohesive style of play around players who work well off each other.
2010 and 2011 is then the finalisation of all this planning. Building up the experience, learning to win tough matches and how to change game plans.
The disadvantage and big risk, of course is that we suffer horrible losses in 2008. How can you realistically compare players when one match they’re on top, getting go forward ball and the next match, with different players, they’re on the back foot for 90% of the game. Sure, it’ll tell you about the relative quality of the packs but little about what 8 backwards can really do.
So what next?
I think neither solution is optimal, but combining the two approaches might just be the ideal solution. For two reasons:
1) Our forwards, especially the tight 5, are actually pretty tasty right now. We have a core of experience which means we can “beat up” 75+% of other teams out there (SA, Arg and possibly Italy are exceptions). Dropping these personnel en masse would lose us this key area of strength.
2) Our backs lack direction. JW has been out of sorts (except defensively), Catt, Lewsey and Billy Whizz are all gone / going. We don’t have much real choice other than to drop the old blokes (including Lewsey right now) and start testing the myriad of exciting players we have. How can Ashton leave out JSD, Allen, Abendanon, Cipriani, Lamb etc. when he hasn’t seen them play proper international rugby behind a dominant pack?
So we start with largely a new set of backs, plus of course JW. But even with JW, given the fact he’s injury prone and we must have a reserve FH, we need to test Geraghty and Flood there, possibly even Lamb/Cipriani. And we have some experience now amongst the youth: Tait, Sackey, Strettle and to lesser extents, Flood and Hipkiss have all had some valuable match time. We play these guys in different combinations to see what works against different types of opposition and conditions.
But we gradually blend in the new tight 5 + No 8 players. Maybe one front row at a time, one lock at a time, and alternate No 8 between relative experience (Easter) and youth. Oh, and DWS, perhaps. As for the flankers, Moody and Rees are incumbents but they are going to have to prove they deserve the places against the host of others we have coming through. I am genuinely excited about our prospects here.
Well, that’s my 2p. Or maybe 3p.
1) The 2003-2007 “masterplan” – don’t bring any new blood into the England squad except for the occasional youngster who you treat badly and cause to regress by 2 years. Needless to say, not a great plan.
2) Gradually blend in new, inexperienced players within the existing squad, eventually dropping all more mature players except for a core few, genuinely international class players (probably most forwards + Jonny).
3) Drop everybody who is not going to be around for 2011 immediately. Bring in new players asap, possibly rotating squad at first or having a few possibles v probables matches
Each of 2 and 3 (I think we can safely discard 1) have advantages and disadvantages:
Gradual blending
Do you start with the forwards, the backs or a bit of each? By 2011 the new players won’t have as many caps (or as much international experience) as they would had they all been brought in en masse. Equally, it is slightly more difficult to test different combinations of new players – if you decide you start playing one experienced lock with one newbie, each separate newbie will only get half as much game time as if you freed up both slots – so it’ll take you twice as long to work out which one of the newbies is genuinely better suited to international rugby.
The key advantage of course, is twofold: learning off experienced players and (hopefully) maintaining a winning way. Having said that, some players may learn more from certain types of painful defeat (SA pool match) than they do from grinding out poor quality wins (USA pool match).
Out with the old, in with the new
Any tight five forward who will be 35 or over by 2011 gets dropped right now. Any back row or back who is 32 or over by 2011 gets dropped right now. Might be willing to make a slight exception if we had someone who was just over that age but a Martin Johnson figure…
Then we use 2008 as an experimental year. Try different combinations, different styles (blitz v drift defences, pods, structured attack drills vs more free-form attacks). Rotate new players in and out – see how Allen plays at IC and then try Flood immediately after. Tait, Hipkiss and JSD all at OC in succession (or as substitutes). Ellis vs Foden vs Care. Blaze, Palmer, Deacon and maybe Croft all fighting for lock positions. Seymour, Abraham, Rees, Lund, Moody, Haskell all going against one another for the flanker spots. And many more. You’ll generate much more internal competition because the youngsters may well perceive a “better chance” of making the squad when they’re competing against their peers (in age) rather than players who’ve been there and done it.
Towards the end of 2008 we’ll have had 5 6N matches plus 3 or 4 other internationals. That’s 8 or 9 matches to start to get a feel for who has it and who doesn’t.
2009 is then the beginning of the rebuilding – start to stabilise the combinations. Play pairs/groups of players together: 8/9/10, or 12/13, back 3 etc. Still experiment with different players but start to look to build a cohesive style of play around players who work well off each other.
2010 and 2011 is then the finalisation of all this planning. Building up the experience, learning to win tough matches and how to change game plans.
The disadvantage and big risk, of course is that we suffer horrible losses in 2008. How can you realistically compare players when one match they’re on top, getting go forward ball and the next match, with different players, they’re on the back foot for 90% of the game. Sure, it’ll tell you about the relative quality of the packs but little about what 8 backwards can really do.
So what next?
I think neither solution is optimal, but combining the two approaches might just be the ideal solution. For two reasons:
1) Our forwards, especially the tight 5, are actually pretty tasty right now. We have a core of experience which means we can “beat up” 75+% of other teams out there (SA, Arg and possibly Italy are exceptions). Dropping these personnel en masse would lose us this key area of strength.
2) Our backs lack direction. JW has been out of sorts (except defensively), Catt, Lewsey and Billy Whizz are all gone / going. We don’t have much real choice other than to drop the old blokes (including Lewsey right now) and start testing the myriad of exciting players we have. How can Ashton leave out JSD, Allen, Abendanon, Cipriani, Lamb etc. when he hasn’t seen them play proper international rugby behind a dominant pack?
So we start with largely a new set of backs, plus of course JW. But even with JW, given the fact he’s injury prone and we must have a reserve FH, we need to test Geraghty and Flood there, possibly even Lamb/Cipriani. And we have some experience now amongst the youth: Tait, Sackey, Strettle and to lesser extents, Flood and Hipkiss have all had some valuable match time. We play these guys in different combinations to see what works against different types of opposition and conditions.
But we gradually blend in the new tight 5 + No 8 players. Maybe one front row at a time, one lock at a time, and alternate No 8 between relative experience (Easter) and youth. Oh, and DWS, perhaps. As for the flankers, Moody and Rees are incumbents but they are going to have to prove they deserve the places against the host of others we have coming through. I am genuinely excited about our prospects here.
Well, that’s my 2p. Or maybe 3p.
-
North Sea Tiger
- Top Cat
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:13 pm
- Location: Houston
Outlander it is refreshing reading your views.
I agree to allow / push all the veterans out now would be a big mistake. If you believe the media it was the player power in these veterans that turned it around for us after the 36-0 thrashing.
It is so much easier for a youngster to blosom coming into a winning team without the risk that they will be dropped for one poor game/mistake. Just look at the contrast between how sir clive developed wilkinson vs andy robinson mucked up tait for 12 months.
In this next year we should be looking to bring in one or two youngsters in the pack and one or two in the backs around the skeleton of the team that got us to the final.
See post under where do england go thread
I agree to allow / push all the veterans out now would be a big mistake. If you believe the media it was the player power in these veterans that turned it around for us after the 36-0 thrashing.
It is so much easier for a youngster to blosom coming into a winning team without the risk that they will be dropped for one poor game/mistake. Just look at the contrast between how sir clive developed wilkinson vs andy robinson mucked up tait for 12 months.
In this next year we should be looking to bring in one or two youngsters in the pack and one or two in the backs around the skeleton of the team that got us to the final.
See post under where do england go thread
-
dailywaffle
- Super User
- Posts: 7106
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
- Location: NW Leics
How do you propose we replace the income we receive from the EDF? I believe it is, after all, the most profitable competition we play in (on a 'per match' basis).pogue3 wrote:why doesn't the EDF cup games get played during the autumn internationals and 6 nations weekends. leaving the premiership alone which is a better competition. I for one woulf like to see the EDF cup scrapped. our players play too much rugby