England Under 20's

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Post Reply
1988
Tiger Cub
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 10:50 pm

England Under 20's

Post by 1988 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:11 am

No Tigers players in the Under 20 team to play Australia?

Surely this is not good for our Academy and development prospects.
Do we have many good young under 20/21 aged players?

thanks

kpj tiger
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1996
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:57 pm
Location: Stoney Stanton

Re: England Under 20's

Post by kpj tiger » Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:12 am

1988 wrote:No Tigers players in the Under 20 team to play Australia?

Surely this is not good for our Academy and development prospects.
Do we have many good young under 20/21 aged players?

thanks
Will Evans was in the team but had to withdraw, Jacob Umaga is also in there who was Tigers academy till the start of the season just gone

Roly
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2351
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:02 pm

Re: England Under 20's

Post by Roly » Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:14 am

England will play Italy in the Semi-Finals...
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.

TigerCam
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3623
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:41 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: England Under 20's

Post by TigerCam » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:50 pm

Scrape past the junior boks to the final against France or NZ whoo hoo!! :smt023 :smt027

TigerCam
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3623
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:41 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: England Under 20's

Post by TigerCam » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:04 pm

Getting a first half stuffin' 7-40 (ITV4)

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: England Under 20's

Post by BFG » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:01 pm

A record win for New Zealand!
England completely outclassed in every facet of the game!
Not really surprised, lost count of the amount of connected Englishmen on the park mentioned as related to someone.

jgriffin
Super User
Super User
Posts: 6687
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: On the edge of oblivion

Re: England Under 20's

Post by jgriffin » Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:57 pm

BFG wrote:A record win for New Zealand!
England completely outclassed in every facet of the game!
Not really surprised, lost count of the amount of connected Englishmen on the park mentioned as related to someone.
Some of us who make that comment get trashed - BUT until the net for talent is cast by someone with the nous of EJ......... :smt009
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.

HantsTiger
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: England Under 20's

Post by HantsTiger » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:50 pm

We were missing something like 10 first choice players through illness and being called up to the main squad, however it was like watching a bunch of September borns against July borns in youth rugby. The size and power difference was horrifying, it defined men against boys.....

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: England Under 20's

Post by BFG » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:35 pm

jgriffin wrote:
BFG wrote:A record win for New Zealand!
England completely outclassed in every facet of the game!
Not really surprised, lost count of the amount of connected Englishmen on the park mentioned as related to someone.
Some of us who make that comment get trashed - BUT until the net for talent is cast by someone with the nous of EJ......... :smt009
Agreed!
I suspect today we witnessed several World Cup winners of 2023 and 2027, in All Black!

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: England Under 20's

Post by BFG » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:24 am

HantsTiger wrote:We were missing something like 10 first choice players through illness and being called up to the main squad, however it was like watching a bunch of September borns against July borns in youth rugby. The size and power difference was horrifying, it defined men against boys.....
The players missing made little difference, they would've suffered a similar fate.
You have to give credit where it's due, the young All Blacks were on another level.
The breathless pace at which the New Zealand youngsters played was superb, the awareness to interplay as a team at that pace was stunning all round, proper rugger players.
I've seen so many young English lads like that overlooked in favour of the establishment in this country.
Those young All Blacks would take England seniors all the way!

TigerCam
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3623
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:41 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: England Under 20's

Post by TigerCam » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:28 am

BFG wrote:
HantsTiger wrote:We were missing something like 10 first choice players through illness and being called up to the main squad, however it was like watching a bunch of September borns against July borns in youth rugby. The size and power difference was horrifying, it defined men against boys.....
The players missing made little difference, they would've suffered a similar fate.
We will never know?

You have to give credit where it's due, the young All Blacks were on another level.
Oh so true

The breathless pace at which the New Zealand youngsters played was superb, the awareness to interplay as a team at that pace was stunning all round, proper rugger players.
Oh so true again!


I've seen so many young English lads like that overlooked in favour of the establishment in this country.
Oh so true yet again

Those young All Blacks would take England seniors all the way!
No wouldn't stand a cat in hell chance. Unfortunately in 2/3 years maybe?

jgriffin
Super User
Super User
Posts: 6687
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: On the edge of oblivion

Re: England Under 20's

Post by jgriffin » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:49 am

BFG, some of us on here (now and long gone) bemoaned the way players got 'selected' by the blazers. It is also the way talent is identified - too often connections to certain schools prioritise players, whereas the idea of skills first throughout the youth 'structure' has never permeated that far into clubland. I have seen firsthand over the last two decades how it works - by regional level much talent has been discouraged by the biases of the blazerati. This is a very unpopular view with some who witter on about the primacy rugby schools and the inadequacies of state education etc etc etc........meanwhile talent flows to fooball, basketball, dance, music, gangs etc etc :smt009
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.

4071
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2701
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:21 am
Location: London

Re: England Under 20's

Post by 4071 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:30 am

BFG wrote: The players missing made little difference, they would've suffered a similar fate.
However impressive NZ were, that is total speculation. And it's hard to imagine that losing 8-10 starters had no significant impact. No team - particularly at age grade - can easily cope with losing so many first choice players.

Granted, NZ were fantastic and this may be their most talented batch of players since the classic 2011 final. But to say that losing the likes of Street, Isiekwe, Ben Curry, Tom Curry, Will Evans, Maunder, Brophy-Clews, Morris, Cokasigna, Aspland-Robinson, Crossdale and Shillcock made no difference is total nonsense.

There's a reason that most of those players would be first choice, and there's a reason that many of them were absent due to being selected for the full national side. It's because they are better players than the guys who ended up starting the final.

To say they would have made no difference is basically to assert that the quality of players makes no difference to the level of performance.


NZ may well have won anyway. They were missing a few guys to national commitments and injury as well (though nothing like as many as England). But the side England picked in the final is not representative of the ability of this particular age-group.

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: England Under 20's

Post by BFG » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:52 am

4071 wrote:
BFG wrote: The players missing made little difference, they would've suffered a similar fate.
However impressive NZ were, that is total speculation. And it's hard to imagine that losing 8-10 starters had no significant impact. No team - particularly at age grade - can easily cope with losing so many first choice players.

Granted, NZ were fantastic and this may be their most talented batch of players since the classic 2011 final. But to say that losing the likes of Street, Isiekwe, Ben Curry, Tom Curry, Will Evans, Maunder, Brophy-Clews, Morris, Cokasigna, Aspland-Robinson, Crossdale and Shillcock made no difference is total nonsense.

There's a reason that most of those players would be first choice, and there's a reason that many of them were absent due to being selected for the full national side. It's because they are better players than the guys who ended up starting the final.

To say they would have made no difference is basically to assert that the quality of players makes no difference to the level of performance.


NZ may well have won anyway. They were missing a few guys to national commitments and injury as well (though nothing like as many as England). But the side England picked in the final is not representative of the ability of this particular age-group.
Like someone said before we'll never really know!
England were torn apart in a way that none of the above you mention could've dealt with apart from possibly Cockanasiga in his position, that's just my opinion and not fact but time will tell!
England were soft, for all the hype I actually thought Curry was a bit soft playing in Argentina last week.
They lost badly, the score didn't lie in fact I thought it flattered England a little, it could've been 100 points, and you do know New Zealand also had players missing!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests