World Cup Squad Announcements

[fortysix]

Englands future has to without any of the so called-------by Cipriani----------'Mafia''--Farrell Cole Tuilagi Youngs Ford Itoje Daly Lawes Care, both Vunipolas..... All way past their sell bye date.
Plus a whole load not nearly good enough at top International level--Malins Marchant Sinckler Lawrence Cokasinga Earl.
Build from there. With pace, lots of it..

[ay2oh]

Cipriani is a b***end always has been and always will be.

[wigworth]

Englands future has to without any of the so called-------by Cipriani----------'Mafia''--Farrell Cole Tuilagi Youngs Ford Itoje Daly Lawes Care, both Vunipolas..... All way past their sell bye date.
Plus a whole load not nearly good enough at top International level--Malins Marchant Sinckler Lawrence Cokasinga Earl.
Build from there. With pace, lots of it..

Hmm, not leaving many players to choose from then. I do agree that after the WC some of those names shouldn't be selected for England again, although I am not a fan of the blow back the players get personally, it is not as if the players are picking themselves for the team.

[GB72]

I think that post world cup, we will not be left with much of a choice but to rebuild. I suspect that there will be some retirements and a number of players looking for more secure or lucrative contracts abroad.

[mol2]

I fear Cipriani fails to appreciate he didn't get more caps was because he just wasn't good enough for international rugby.

Flash in attack but his ability to go AWOL in defence meant he wasn't a realistic option.

[GB72]

I fear Cipriani fails to appreciate he didn't get more caps was because he just wasn't good enough for international rugby.

Flash in attack but his ability to go AWOL in defence meant he wasn't a realistic option.

Add to that an apparent attitude that did not make the term 'professional' spring to mind and that pretty much sums up why he only had a few caps.

My knowledge of these things is not the best but was he actually a success anywhere other than a short period at Wasps. He has a great highlight real full of a few Hollywood moments but not a lot else.

[Dokie]

I fear Cipriani fails to appreciate he didn't get more caps was because he just wasn't good enough for international rugby.

Flash in attack but his ability to go AWOL in defence meant he wasn't a realistic option.

Add to that an apparent attitude that did not make the term 'professional' spring to mind and that pretty much sums up why he only had a few caps.

My knowledge of these things is not the best but was he actually a success anywhere other than a short period at Wasps. He has a great highlight real full of a few Hollywood moments but not a lot else.

This is such an English conversation. Most, if not all, tier one nations would have embraced his talent and built their game plan around it, as they would be doing with Marcus Smith now. I also doubt Finn Russell would have got a look in had he been English.

[fortysix]

Someone said '' Cipriani flash in attack but AWOL defensively''.... surely we had the Grand Master at that, Tuilagi..

[GB72]

I fear Cipriani fails to appreciate he didn't get more caps was because he just wasn't good enough for international rugby.

Flash in attack but his ability to go AWOL in defence meant he wasn't a realistic option.

Add to that an apparent attitude that did not make the term 'professional' spring to mind and that pretty much sums up why he only had a few caps.

My knowledge of these things is not the best but was he actually a success anywhere other than a short period at Wasps. He has a great highlight real full of a few Hollywood moments but not a lot else.

This is such an English conversation. Most, if not all, tier one nations would have embraced his talent and built their game plan around it, as they would be doing with Marcus Smith now. I also doubt Finn Russell would have got a look in had he been English.

The point I was making was not one of should his talent have been embraced but rather whether it was there in the first place and whether his attitude was one conducive to a professional career. Not the best of sources I know but reading his wikipedia entry shows no real long term form at club level and problems at every club he was at. That was why I asked the question, I am no great rugby historian and so I wondered if there was a strong case that he was ignored rather than having wasted his own potential. I have seen highlights of him doing some amazing things on a rugby pitch but not really any evidence of that having been done consistently

As I said, I am asking for someone to point out what I am missing and why I am totally wrong in having this English conversation.

On the other side of things, I think that Smith deserves a decent run in the post RWC rebuild that will be necessary.

[ABClub]

Manu wasn't AWOL in defence. He wasn't Moroni or AA running the defensive line brilliantly and improving those around them through their positioning. He was often prone to shoot out the line. But a back that can make dominant hits on the biggest forwards isn't AWOL. He could be a blunt instrument but a very useful one in a good system. Manu was a defensive asset for his physicality in good Tigers and England teams. The same as Billy Vunipola at his best as a ball carrier. He was a blunt instrument but a mightily effective one.

Once you have good systems and the defence are adept at staying aligned the difference between a solid defence and a dominant one is usually physicality. Curry and Underhill showed that in 2019. As good as those two are in positioning, work rate and communication I wouldn't say the players they usurped (Haskell, Robshaw, Shields, Wood, etc) are notably weaker in those areas. Curry and Underhill dominated tackles better than any England forward since Worsley though. Knocking ball carriers back makes the complicated bits of defence such as realigning for the next phase a lot easier all of a sudden.

Put Manu and his clone in the midfield together and you'll have a worse defence than Slade and a Slade clone. As the Manu x 2 defence will be woefully organised in comparison. Put Manu in a good system alongside Slade and you should get a better defence than the Slade x 2 defence. It's a contact sport after all. Organisation will win out over disorganised physicality in defence. If you can put someone that physical in an organised system though then they can be a huge asset.

[ABClub]

This is such an English conversation. Most, if not all, tier one nations would have embraced his talent and built their game plan around it, as they would be doing with Marcus Smith now. I also doubt Finn Russell would have got a look in had he been English.

How many successful international players haven't adapted to what their team needs though?

Even Dan Carter, for my money the best 10 in the pro era, changed his game enormously. He started as a running 10 that broke through for the Saders at inside centre. He developed into a 10 that ran a team who kicked more than anyone else in the game to that point. He sanded away the rough edges to complement what the team and teammates available required of him.

It's what international rugby is. At club level you can sign a player to complement others. Such as Estherhuizen. At international level you work with what's available in the player pool. Which means adapting. Surely that's a huge part of what distinguishes between good club players and 'test match animals'?

I've always found the idea of "building around a fly-half" such an odd concept. Surely if a player is that talented they should be the ones capable of adapting to those around them. If they aren't capable of that, then should an international team be tearing up the script to accommodate them?

I don't remember the ABs tearing things up and starting again to accommodate Beauden for instance. He was a completely different FH to Carter and Cruden before him. Rather Beauden has continuously adapted to suit international rugby. First as a 10, now as a fantastic 15 as well. That's what makes him world class.

[Scott1]

It also helped Carter and Cruden having Nonu and Smith outside them! That's been NZ problem,they havnt had a settled MF since then and that's why they've played with different 10s ,they've been trying to settle on a trusted combination.

[sam16111986]

This is such an English conversation. Most, if not all, tier one nations would have embraced his talent and built their game plan around it, as they would be doing with Marcus Smith now. I also doubt Finn Russell would have got a look in had he been English.

How many successful international players haven't adapted to what their team needs though?

Even Dan Carter, for my money the best 10 in the pro era, changed his game enormously. He started as a running 10 that broke through for the Saders at inside centre. He developed into a 10 that ran a team who kicked more than anyone else in the game to that point. He sanded away the rough edges to complement what the team and teammates available required of him.

It's what international rugby is. At club level you can sign a player to complement others. Such as Estherhuizen. At international level you work with what's available in the player pool. Which means adapting. Surely that's a huge part of what distinguishes between good club players and 'test match animals'?

I've always found the idea of "building around a fly-half" such an odd concept. Surely if a player is that talented they should be the ones capable of adapting to those around them. If they aren't capable of that, then should an international team be tearing up the script to accommodate them?

I don't remember the ABs tearing things up and starting again to accommodate Beauden for instance. He was a completely different FH to Carter and Cruden before him. Rather Beauden has continuously adapted to suit international rugby. First as a 10, now as a fantastic 15 as well. That's what makes him world class.

Agreed.

It's also worth remembering that Russell was in and out of the Scotland team until he adjusted his attitude and started to play more as the team's general and less of the mercurial creator. Russell now is not the Russell of the last world cup, he's become a brilliantly well rounded flyhalf.

[Tiglon]

Finn Russell tries to tackle ball carriers when they run towards him, Cirpriani generally just dived out of the way. Just because they're both very talented and both have allegedly had attitude/discipline problems, doesn't mean they're the same.

If Cipriani had shone for multiple consecutive seasons at a top European club, as Russell has, then I'm sure he would have had a lot more caps. If Farrell and Ford were Scottish, Russell would have won far fewer caps up until a couple of years ago.

Cipriani is proof that hard work and commitment usually beat talent.

[mightymouse]

I was going to say the same .firstly . Russell is an excellent defensive flyhalf, he always puts himself in harms way and never shirks the big tackles on big men in his channel. His bravery is even more evident with the big hits he draws on himself to put others in space.
Yes his “attitude” was called into question and Townsend had fallouts with him for his tendency to wander off for a few pints against curfew. However I think this was not in the scale of ciprianis antics in the media spotlight. Nor is Russell a self publicist.
Cipriani is one of these characters who constantly whine about his lot but doesn’t want to do much about improving it and his self pity is tiresome. He reminds me more of Stuart Barnes than Russell or Smith for that matter. He thinks he is much better than anyone else does.. yes the odd moment of magic, no doubt, but just not that good a player and his way of dealing with it is to spend more time involved in matters outside tbe game than concentrate on improving.