Discussion in 'Rugby Union Discussion' started by HeathDavisSpeed, Dec 2, 2011.
Good luck to him if he wants us playing sh rugby in february in Wales or Scotland lol.
Fair call saying Jake White is a great coach but no way he should be the All Blacks coach. The guy doesn't even know how to use a backline yet use the forwards in the backline like the ABs do.
IMO rugby has come so far now that unless it is a mud bath (which it should never be in the professional era) then 10 man rugby is never going to get anywhere ever again.
Teams like NZ, Aus, Arg, Jap and hopefully SA if they decide to go back to playing running rugby are going to be the main contenders in 2019.
Some thoughts on this.
1. I'm not sure I agree with your claim that England have 22 test match standard players with the rest being mediocre. I'd say what's actually a bigger problem is that, apart from Mike Brown and probably Anthony Watson, every other position has two or three players who are relatively close in standard. Realistically I think you could play an England A vs England B team, and if nobody told you, you'd struggle to tell the difference between the two. I think that feeds into the same conclusion though, even if it's the opposite idea. Selection is important and it's important to find the balance between trying combinations/new players and having a consistent team that the players can feel confident playing in, rather than being worried that the coach will change things on a week to week basis.
2. The confidence point is an interesting one. I think in general, I'd usually be more confident in England beating the world's premier teams than I would be in pretty much anyone else in the NH. That might just be me as a biased England fan talking, but we seem to have come away with more wins recently than the rest of the NH who seem to always find a way to lose, even if they have a good position.
3. I'm not convinced a 10 man rugby style is really where we're clearly strongest at the moment, especially when we don't have an especially strong set-piece which felt like the case at the world cup. We might not have the best backs in the world, but they're mostly pretty young and if we pick the right line up, really have the potential to tear teams apart. It's why we all got so excited against France in the Six Nations, because it was a side to England we hadn't really seen before. I can't really think of an England backline which had the potential to be as exciting as this one.
That doesn't mean we have to chuck the ball round every game though and in every situation. We can be pragmatic and play a more closed style sometimes. But I'd rather we tried to play openly more often than not than the other way round.
Great post that ^^
I think 10 man rugby is a bit of a misnomer. England obviously aren't going to be able to go try for try with New Zealand but they have to offer something in attack. I don't think coaches go into games thinking that they are going to play 10 man rugby.
Good point. I think I said I preferred him to Warren Gatland and I stand by that, but yes a NZ coach of the Wayne Smith variety may be our next best option after Hansen.
Nice post - we have some good analysts in this thread. Not saying 10 man rugby - just don't run and gun it either with the likes of Australia and New Zealand.
I think the balance they had under Lancaster was just about right for England. They are not far off the mark.
The centres is also another area where there would be a drop off between England A and England B. I concede you could put out two test standard packs.
Yeah I think the balance between pragmatism and running rugby is pretty key, and probably more pragmatic than Australia and New Zealand is what I'd go for. I think what I'd like is to play with a back line that's capable of the more creative brand of rugby, even if it's at the expense of the back line running into a lot of people. Lancaster was probably pretty close to getting it right at the end.
I don't know if I agree with your point about centres though. I think these are all the people who would be considered to play in the centres: Manu, JJ, Burrell, Barrit, Slade, Farrell, Daly (I think there's someone, Blunder maybe, who is a big Daly fan).
Of those, you'd probably say that Manu and JJ are the best, assuming that Manu comes back well from injury as he hasn't played at all in 2015. I'd worry about how well they'd work as a partnership though, but maybe that's just my personal thoughts. If you ended up playing any other combination of the centres I think they're all pretty equal.
My personal preference would be for Slade and Joseph to start and then Manu on the bench. There's enough flexibility between the three of them that we'd probably use them to cover the back three as well.
Weeman has just hit the nail on the head with everything there. Have to say I agree with your preference on who should be centres as well. Manu would be a wrecking ball off the bench.
Shit, sounds like I really missed a trick by not giving the RFU my CV.
Give it a few years, you will get your chance lol
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Eddie Jones on scrum ball "I’m sure the hookers in England can strike. If they can’t strike they’re going to have to learn to strike.” Amen</p>— Brian Moore (@brianmoore666) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianmoore666/status/668399690111668224">November 22, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Yes please<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I heard somewhere that the reason hookers don't strike anymore is because the forces in the scrum these days are so high now that the risk of losing stability is too great if they un plant one leg.
Agreed on the centres so much though. Joseph and Manu are far away our two best but they play the same position so won't get in the team together. I'll put together what i feel are the two best players in each position and assign them randomly to a team a or a team b and we'll see if it's obvious where there's a drop off. You'd probably say the front row and fullback (less so if you include abendanon and hopefully this is the impetus we need to get Armitage and him back into the setup) are maybe places where we lack another, and i'm not sure we have a 4th top draw wing just yet
I think that's definitely an issue with trying to hook the ball, but it's not like it can't be done. Teams definitely showed that ability during the world cup. I'd just love for us to be able to get the ball quickly out of the scrum and away to the backs. Think about the number of times in the world cup that we lined up with that straight line of 10/14/15 behind the scrum, and I'm pretty sure that never got used, because it just took forever to come out and ended up at the feet of the 8 who got tackled.
I don't know if we'll get Armitage back in the team though, assuming you're talking about Steffon. I think Jones has come out and said that he's only intending on picking players playing in England. Even if not, I think this was his world cup, rather than the next one where he'd be 34.
Yeah but I still think we need to be setting the precedent where we say that we're willing to take those exceptional players. And I think maybe actually it's alot easier for new players to come into a winning team, and if we can get into that habit right from the off and wine the 6 nations 4 years in a row that will set us up really nicely for Japan. The worst thing we can do is slump for 2 years - we need the best players now imo not just in 4 years time.
So anyway here's my two teams - I've taken the liberty of including Armitage and Abendanon and i've moved Robshaw to 6.
8. Billy V
9. Youngs, B
2. Youngs, T
I think RNG was quite cruel to As backs and there is a bit of a difference in those two lineups there but apart from that i'd have it pretty even
But my point is you could maybe make 3 definite improvements to team B from the players available... and team A I'd say 6. apart from that i think position to position they're pretty evenly matched
SA coach resigns - speculation loss to Japan at heart of decision.
Where to from here and who would want the team with the challenge of quotas coming in.
SA really needed to retain him imo. Just gonna screw it up more for them.
If this is the 2016 Hurricanes jersey I'm gonna rage - 1. it looks terrible (all the other NZ teams have got it right except the Chiefs) 2. We've always had more yellow as our main colour.
The Blues looks the best out of the NZ teams imo although a slightly different blue to what we're use to:
Saders doesn't look too bad:
Highlanders is typical Highlanders:
The Chiefs looks fucking terrible too:
It's weird because in the past all the NZ teams have had the same type of style with their team colour. Very disappointed with that Canes one. Looks bad. Massive downhill from recent years. I've liked the ones in recent years. Actually even preferred our away (black one) last season to our home one last season.
Separate names with a comma.