England Under 20's
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
England Under 20's
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
Surely this is not good for our Academy and development prospects.
Do we have many good young under 20/21 aged players?
thanks
Re: England Under 20's
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 gone1988 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
Re: England Under 20's
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.
Re: England Under 20's
Scrape past the junior boks to the final against France or NZ whoo hoo!!
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
Re: England Under 20's
Getting a first half stuffin' 7-40 (ITV4)
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
Re: England Under 20's
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.
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.
Re: England Under 20's
Some of us who make that comment get trashed - BUT until the net for talent is cast by someone with the nous of EJ.........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.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
-
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:33 pm
Re: England Under 20's
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.....
Re: England Under 20's
Agreed!jgriffin wrote:Some of us who make that comment get trashed - BUT until the net for talent is cast by someone with the nous of EJ.........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.
I suspect today we witnessed several World Cup winners of 2023 and 2027, in All Black!
Re: England Under 20's
The players missing made little difference, they would've suffered a similar fate.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.....
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!
Re: England Under 20's
BFG wrote:The players missing made little difference, they would've suffered a similar fate.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.....
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?
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
Re: England Under 20's
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
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Re: England Under 20's
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.BFG wrote: The players missing made little difference, they would've suffered a similar fate.
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.
Re: England Under 20's
Like someone said before we'll never really know!4071 wrote: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.BFG wrote: The players missing made little difference, they would've suffered a similar fate.
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.
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!