Euphoria, Dick Best and Retirments

[westy154]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_u ... 046458.stm

I’ve never agreed with Dick Best before; it feels quite odd...

It got me thinking though – Win or lose on Saturday, this team needs dismantling and rebuilding, as did the 2003 team. But when should they all go?

It would be foolhardy to make everyone retire on Monday, but unless they are going to make it to the 2011 World Cup, ought they be going sooner rather than later? In my mind, Brian Ashton should approach those to go immediately, tell them he won’t be picking them again, and let them go out on their terms, not his (at least to the media facing side of things):

After the Final, win or lose
Lawrence Bruno Nero Dalagliaglio (Yay!)
Martin Corry (Great servant, go out at the top)
Mike Catt
Mark Regan
Simon Shaw
Jason Robinson (obviously)
Andy Gommersall

After the next 6 nations
Josh Lewsey (An injury is no way to end a career)

Within the next 2 years
Phil Vickery
Ben Kay (how old is he?)
Joe Worsley
Andy Farrell (Preferably yesterday, but realistically within the next 2 years from the RFU’s point of view)

Any more for anymore? Mark Cueto maybe? When Should Julian White go?

[Tigerbob]

I would say Julian White has already voted with his feet.

He knew he wasn't going to get much game time with Vickery in and being captain this time round, but I wouldn't mind betting his reluctance to warm the bench will now prevent him from being considered again.

[Cagey Tiger]

I general I quite agree, although I might quibble over one or two timings in your lists.

One thing to remember is that many of the young players who are coming through, and that we would hope will be there for 2011, have had relatively little international experience and will need quite a few older, experienced heads around them for at leats two years.

We don't want anybody to go through what Matthew Tait suffered, but neither do we want to be in the position that Brian Ashton had in this World Cup where very few players under 25-26 had 15+ caps to give them the experience and to show that they can play at that level.

[westy154]

Exactly Cagey, which is why we can't get rid of them all on Monday. A well balenced squad will have experience to help guide the youngsters through, but it is important to ensure that youth permeates every corner of the squad sufficiently in time for the next cup.

[chipnchase]

I dont think the domestic games need restructing, just tidying up! I honestly believe that the competative level in England is much much higher than the southern hemisphere when you think that no matter what top level team your in theres always a need to wn whether thats.
A: Winning enough games to finish in a good play off position which in turn leads to two must win games.
B: Making sure you finish top 6 to ensure a HC place
C: Avoiding relegation (which i believe should be 2 up to 2)

Even the EDF has a sense of win or die about it.
England does need two competative leagues though i believe to develope future English stars.

As for this squad it is not a patch on the 2003 side but again this is proof that we need a constent flow and mix of age in the team as you cant just build one team for 6 years and then dismantle the whole squad.

[Outlander]

I don't see how to consider the question of phasing out veterans without looking at the upcoming generation.

Ashton has (rather belatedly) recovered the bedrock of England rugby strength. It resides in the older players.

Now, saying that the bedrock resides in the players is not to say that it consists of them. The bedrock isn't the individuals. It is the tradition, the identity of power rugby. For 4 years, Clive and Andy let ENG stray from its core strengths. In the last couple of weeks, veteran players have recovered that tradition and identity.

If you throw those vets away en masse, then you really start from "the foul rag and bone shop of the heart." That would not be smart.

What Ashton should do (IMO) is twofold:

- Maintain the base of the ENG game using a core of the older lads.

- Systematically and intentionally work youngsters into the frame to build on a firm foundation.

To do this, then you need to consider in every case who is coming in and how they can be blooded in a constructive way.

Take for example Kay, Shaw, and Borthwick. All are on the back nine, probably playing the last couple of holes. Yet all can still play and should be able to play for a while.

So rotate them with youngsters, maintaining high standards for the second row. As youngsters establish those high standards, work the veterans out of the picture.

Now, I don't know the youngsters very well. So I can't begin to propose a wise schedule for doing all this. I just know that I don't let the vets go until I have made a serious effort to work the youngsters in. I let Ben and Steve and Simon go as development of youth allows that to happen.

You guys do know the youth coming up. So what I would love to see from other posters is a look at specific veterans in the context of youngsters available to work in.

Incidentally, this is an area in which I have some optimism about Ashton. I think he will be intentional and fairly shrewd in making this systematic transition.

In fact, for Ashton, the success in this WC has been a bonus. When he took the job, he had to be looking past the WC, which seemed pretty tough. He had to be eagerly awaiting the moment when he could start building a team with the freedom to bring in youth.

I actually think the future of ENG rugby looks pretty bright.

But I also think it is crucial to remain firmly based on what ENG have done right in this tourney. Yes, ENG must recycle talent and improve in many areas. But the veteran core have provided a blindingly impressive lesson in the platform that ENG success must be built on. Develop on that foundation, but do not lose touch with it, as Clive and Andy did.

[g]

I think a majority of the over 30's will go anyway the decision will be made by themselves and they will not wait to be told to go.

So those I expect to retire once this WC is over is Robinson, Corry, Catt, Shaw,Dallaglio,Regan, Kay, Farrell, Borthwick and possibly Grewcock.I know the latter 2 haven't been involved with England but both are approaching mid 30's (I think)and should be thinking of retiring.

[westy154]

I agree with you Outlander. So when should these old players who are being blended out beblended out altogether? 1 week before the next world cup, 2 weeks? The likes of Corry, Lewsey and Kay will not make it to the next world cup (you have to assume. Dads Army is one thing, great grandads is another), and will have to be replaced. 2 years, 3???

[Outlander]

I agree with you Outlander. So when should these old players who are being blended out beblended out altogether? 1 week before the next world cup, 2 weeks? The likes of Corry, Lewsey and Kay will not make it to the next world cup (you have to assume. Dads Army is one thing, great grandads is another), and will have to be replaced. 2 years, 3???

Your points, Westy, highlight the mistakes made by ENG after '03. The mindset of ENG rugby on many levels (I have seen it in the press and in fan viewpoints) was split so that people saw the '03 win and the burden of '07 ... and nothing in between. It was an inability to see the intervening years in perspective that led to the debacle. This is what Ashton has had in mind when he has angrily barked that it was unconscionable that a rebuilding process was left until the last 9 months before the WC.

Now let's agree on this: The likes of Corry, Lewsey and Kay will not make it to the next world cup.

Agreed. Emphatically.

But that does NOT mean that these guys cannot help WIN the '11 WC. What they can do is help win the first stage of the rebuilding process that should lead to the '11 WC.

Let's say that the older guys who can still play for a while have, on average, about 2 years of international play in them. They're out of the frame for '11.

Here's the question:

What does ENG do with those 2 years?

That is an enormous question.

A judicious, intentional, strategic, forward-looking plan of development would use these guys during those two years to work the youngsters in to a winning situation. By playing another 6 or 8 tests matches WITH youngsters, these guys can win the development stages that lead to regeneration and progress.

Now, if you look at it without thinking of WCs, what I have just written is the blandest truism. Look at Tigers. They do this all the time! What was Rountree doing the last year or two? Helping win games, yes, but also steeping youngsters in the Tigers' way. This is how quality sports organizations maintain consistency. They blend youth in with veterans to maintain team identity and strengths.

So why did ENG not understand that after '03? Lots of reasons. But even now, "people" have a way of talking about the situation which misses that key thread of continuity within development. Look at Best's comments. He wants to blow the whole thing up and start over. Look at your comments (I assume they are ironic). They reflect the tendency of many fans to start immediately thinking of '11.

I think that the problem lies in the 4 year cycle of WCs. People get so caught up in WC that they dismiss the time in between. They do it in different ways. NZ tried to freeze dry their success in '06 and put it on the shelf for late '07. I remember a video clip of the intense camps they were holding while their players should have been playing in the Super 14. McCaw was saying that they were using training to put certain competitive qualities in the bank so they would be there in fall '07. It didn't work. It COULDN'T work. You cannot use training a year before a tournament to store up competitive qualities.

After '03, ENG went into a funk and let their hard-earned qualities slide. Then, about mid-way between the cups, they panicked and tried to fabricate brilliance trying this, that, and the other. Suddenly, the WC was upon them and they hadn't made any progress preparing. Only the fact that they have players steeped in tough GP competition saved them.

I think the key to a WC is to take seriously the journey leading up to it. Whatever happens Sunday, ENG have a job to do IN 2008! They need to sustain their competitive foundation and work in youngsters while winning games! They don't have to win them all. There IS room for some innovation and development.

But all in all they need to WIN 2008! That is a meaningful goal. They need to come out of 2008 having done those 4 things: maintaining their core, working in youngsters, improving their attack, and winning some big games.

Then in 2009, they need to work in more players, develop further, and keep winning games.

If they do it right, they could enter 2010 with a wholly regenerated team that is better in attack, more balanced, and more disciplined, with the old vets almost entirely gone.

Go one year at a time. Stay in touch with your core. Work in youngsters. Win games. End the year stronger than you were the last.

Do that 4 years in a row and the WC will take care of itself.

[SamWard]

Players who should retire?
Catt
Dallaglio
Corry (sad to see him go)
Richards? (not sure how old he is, but been around for years hasn't he? Never showed much class either)
Grewcock (non-essential anyway)
If Shaw wasn't playing the rugby of his life, I'd say him, but these are the only players I can think of who should give up the international scene.
I think that the GP should be shortened to 11 games each season- like the super 14. I think adding some teams could work as well, maybe having a 15 game season with EDF and Heineken cup fixtures should be ideal- shouldn't it?

[GeddingtonTiger]

Players who should retire?
Catt
Dallaglio
Corry (sad to see him go)
Richards? (not sure how old he is, but been around for years hasn't he? Never showed much class either)
Grewcock (non-essential anyway)
If Shaw wasn't playing the rugby of his life, I'd say him, but these are the only players I can think of who should give up the international scene.
I think that the GP should be shortened to 11 games each season- like the super 14. I think adding some teams could work as well, maybe having a 15 game season with EDF and Heineken cup fixtures should be ideal- shouldn't it?

How can you add teams, but cut the number of games they play? Once again I'm confused

[Outlander]

I would guess that Sam Ward would have in mind a league, perhaps with two divisions, in which not everyone played each other home-and-home, but rather once a season. Or perhaps you could have divisions with home-and-home series and then one-time games against the other teams.

In other words, it would move in the direction of our NFL.

I would imagine that idea would not be popular.

Yet the ENG game would be healthier with a few less games.

Now how this is linked to the thread topic, I dunno.

[SamWard]

Well, I was basing my thoughts on the rather successful super 14- where you play each other once a season, with a play off at the end of the season. It links in with the thread because the article mentions that England's route to the final may not have done wonders for the club game

[Pete]

I fervently believe that with the re-emergence of England, plus France and Argentina, all three of which gather their players from a club based system with promotion and relegation, the case in favour of the current English / French club systems is quite overwhelming.

The New Zealand system obviously suffers from fatal flaws, as do the Welsh and Irish systems. All these three countries can play exceptionally well at times, but when it is much more important, as in the World Cup, they do not perform.

England have been quite poor since the previous World Cup, but over the last month have proved they have exceptional players. That means the problem has predominantly lain with the England coaching set-up and the RFU management. The clubs are providing players of exceptional standard.

[Outlander]

I fervently believe that with the re-emergence of England, plus France and Argentina, ... the case in favour of the current English / French club systems is quite overwhelming.

England have been quite poor since the previous World Cup, but over the last month have proved they have exceptional players. That means the problem has predominantly lain with the England coaching set-up and the RFU management. The clubs are providing players of exceptional standard.

Pete, I agree and would take things a step further.

You say that "the problem has predominantly lain with the England coaching set-up." Agreed. Absolutely.

But I would say that the SOLUTION which has been found in the last month and which has ENG playing in the final ...

was not developed by the ENG coaching staff. In fact, it had virtually nothing to do with the ENG set up.

It came FROM the players who were disgusted by the SA game and who found a way forward.

And that way forward was ... SURPRISE! ...

The Premiership formula for success!

The players reverted to what they play in the clubs game after game, season after season.

And that formula is so strong that they turned things around on a dime.

Not only does ENG's 4-year failure to progress the fault of the RFU braintrust, but ...

the credit for the Resurrection belongs with the clubs, not the RFU system.

Of course, the RFU wouldn't say that. And Ashton gets some credit for letting the players find their way. (This is a huge and fascinating topic to be explored in time.)

But there is absolutely no way forward that isn't grounded in the Premiership clubs.

As an outsider, I have watched the debates about club and country and wondered what to believe.

Well, I am now wholly convinced that ENG rugby success is grounded in the club game. I see that now.

Ultimately, of course, a workable peace does need to be developed. ENG does need to have some time with its players and some control over the international periods. Also, the clubs have their mercenary sins too, including a tendency to buy foreign talent at the expense of player development.

But I am convinced that the key to ENG's competitiveness lies in the club experience. ENG is indeed successful BECAUSE of the Premiership!