England v. Ireland

[p/d]

'I think everyone is really into shapes and it looking pretty at the minute. It’s not what scores. It’s making sure I get players in the best spots for them to attack the opposition and make stuff happens. We want our players to put their talent on the field and that looks different for everyone, so let’s get an England way of playing that gets the best out of the players we’ve got. It would always change with the group I've got. This isn’t a cut and paste job of anyone else and anything else. It’s what is best for England; our talents – what we have. That will change over time'

........and there was me worrying.

[Puja]

'I think everyone is really into shapes and it looking pretty at the minute. It’s not what scores. It’s making sure I get players in the best spots for them to attack the opposition and make stuff happens. We want our players to put their talent on the field and that looks different for everyone, so let’s get an England way of playing that gets the best out of the players we’ve got. It would always change with the group I've got. This isn’t a cut and paste job of anyone else and anything else. It’s what is best for England; our talents – what we have. That will change over time'

........and there was me worrying.

"Of course we know what we want. We want a red, white, and blue Brexit!"

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Is that Wigglesworth?

Do other nations do this shit? Is it just that there is a lot more media bullshit, analysis, clickbait etc. or that I simply don’t pay attention to it from other sides?

There just seems to be an endless stream of nonsense about ‘the English way’ and why we need to be bad for a huge portion of every World Cup cycle.

[Mr Mwenda]

Both Care and Spencer may have a better kicking game than Randall, but the evidence of the last few weeks suggests that Mitchell's pace (and kicking) was giving us an improved attack. It's gone backwards with the two 'kickers'. Randall will at least give a chance of quicker, wider, distribution.

I know it's only a piece of the wider problems but if Mitchell isn't fit enough for next weekend, we know what to expect if we maintain the status quo.

You can't get away with playing 9 and having an average kicking game at international level though. The modern game is to tactical for that. You look at any of the top teams and their 9s are all excellent kickers irrespective of how the side plays. Kicking from the base is a go to for all sides and will be until world rugby do something about the caterpillar set ups (I advocate encouraging the ref to call use it early and then banning any additional players from entering the ruck after he's done so).

Yes, some of the weak clearances v the Scots really highlighted why Youngs was persisted with for so long. Totally morale-sapping.

[francoisfou]

There’s talk of Smith M and Mitchell being available for selection, but will Scum Bag pick them when they’re hardly match fit - particularly Smith? Mitchell may get the nod with Danny Care on the bench for his 100th cap?(few would surely deprive him of that) but will Ford be blamed for the non functioning attack at Murrayfield? I hope not. I’m expecting Mitchell and Ford to start, to build a solid lead before I get rushed off to the asylum for having been over optimistic!

[francoisfou]

There’s talk of Smith M and Mitchell being available for selection, but will Scum Bag pick them when they’re hardly match fit - particularly Smith? Mitchell may get the nod with Danny Care on the bench for his 100th cap?(few would surely deprive him of that) but will Ford be blamed for the non functioning attack at Murrayfield? I hope not. I’m expecting Mitchell and Ford to start, to build a solid lead before I get rushed off to the asylum for having been over optimistic! TWICE!

[Oakboy]

Would it be so sensational if F Smith was picked to start? He is currently the best club FH (form + fitness).

[p/d]

Is that Wigglesworth?

Do other nations do this shit? Is it just that there is a lot more media bullshit, analysis, clickbait etc. or that I simply don’t pay attention to it from other sides?

There just seems to be an endless stream of nonsense about ‘the English way’ and why we need to be bad for a huge portion of every World Cup cycle.

Yep. Wiggy bollox.

[p/d]

Would it be so sensational if F Smith was picked to start? He is currently the best club FH (form + fitness).

Roll of the dice time. Step back to the first 2 games or push forward with his original first choice back line.

I just want to see the back row updated. Though do not expect any change there.

Martin, Mitchell, George and Itoje are the only nailed on to start (me thinks) alongside Mr Shouty Earl

[Puja]

Would it be so sensational if F Smith was picked to start? He is currently the best club FH (form + fitness).

Now, yes. Should've been done from the start of the 6N, when he was flanked by Mitchell and Dingwall, and playing against the two weakest teams, but it's irrational to chop and change now.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Would it be so sensational if F Smith was picked to start? He is currently the best club FH (form + fitness).

Now, yes. Should've been done from the start of the 6N, when he was flanked by Mitchell and Dingwall, and playing against the two weakest teams, but it's irrational to chop and change now.

Puja

What would be ironical is if Marcus is picked to start with Fin on the bench - the original selection before injury intervened (reportedly). I think starting Ford again would be another backward step.

[Oakboy]

Would it be so sensational if F Smith was picked to start? He is currently the best club FH (form + fitness).

Roll of the dice time. Step back to the first 2 games or push forward with his original first choice back line.

I just want to see the back row updated. Though do not expect any change there.

Martin, Mitchell, George and Itoje are the only nailed on to start (me thinks) alongside Mr Shouty Earl

What would be your back row selection from the squad? Nobody has been called up from outside it as far as I've heard.

[p/d]

Would it be so sensational if F Smith was picked to start? He is currently the best club FH (form + fitness).

Roll of the dice time. Step back to the first 2 games or push forward with his original first choice back line.

I just want to see the back row updated. Though do not expect any change there.

Martin, Mitchell, George and Itoje are the only nailed on to start (me thinks) alongside Mr Shouty Earl

What would be your back row selection from the squad? Nobody has been called up from outside it as far as I've heard.

Not changed my mind Dors. CCS, Earl & Dombrandt

[Mellsblue]

Keep Ford in situ until we get a functioning team/system to drop them into. I can’t watch us ruin anyone else through mismanagement.

[Oakboy]

Keep Ford in situ until we get a functioning team/system to drop them into. I can’t watch us ruin anyone else through mismanagement.

That's depressing. It means I've got to watch Ford till SB gets sacked??

[p/d]

What’s one more game

[Oakboy]

What’s one more game

Ah, now developing that thought might cheer me up!

[Mellsblue]

What’s one more game

The gateway to alcoholism.

[pjm1]

Ok... I posted this somewhere else (i.e. not in this forum) but after 20 years of building up more and more frustration at what England Rugby is serving up, it's come to a head for me.

This is not about the players. It's not about their innate quality or even whether we're building the right units etc. That's window dressing when the f*cking panes are knocked in.

Look at the Lions tours that have been unsuccessful. You've got ostensibly the best players from 4 nations - even if there are some dubious calls*, we're still talking about top, top talent. They can play and have the natural skills to match the best in the world.

When Henry created a divisive camp in 2001, we lost a series for the first time against Aus with one of the best group of test players we should have been able to assemble. And Aus weren't all that. That's the effect of poor structure, coaching and the impact of a negative mentality within camp.

* When Woodward contrived to deliver the worst Lions performance in living memory by selecting the dads army four years later, he managed to combine poor selection (of the squad) with atrocious tactics and in-camp vibes. The selection he should have been able to get away with - they were still good enough to do far better than they did - both against the Maoris and to not get absolutely dry humped by a great NZ team. But the rest of the approach was ghastly and it showed in performances and results.

This is why bad coaching, tactics and player sentiment matters. And matters more than whether you pick the 1st, 2nd or 3rd best player in the country in any given position. The differences between players at that level are lost in the rounding compared with the effect of going into a game knowing your tactics stink. Or not having even played any of your set plays in the last 2 weeks. Or being told that the only thing you need to focus on is hitting rucks and tackles, because the rest will "come naturally".

But then we look at England. And we realise it's not even about the coaching / head coach. Because the overall structure of the game is fundamentally broken. The RFU is morally bankrupt, led by an unethical know-nothing. The governance structure is verging on corrupt (from insiders who've previously spoken about "voting") and it is not fit to support an elite pathway to national team success.

So yes, debating picking one 15 over another is great for the bantz. But unless we treat the cancer at the heart of English rugby, there's not much point.

[Mr Mwenda]

But then we look at England. And we realise it's not even about the coaching / head coach. Because the overall structure of the game is fundamentally broken. The RFU is morally bankrupt, led by an unethical know-nothing. The governance structure is verging on corrupt (from insiders who've previously spoken about "voting") and it is not fit to support an elite pathway to national team success.

I feel much of your frustration and agree that selection is only ever papering over the cracks.

Could you elaborate more on this paragraph? I find it a bit odd to point the finger solely at the RFU. I am deeply suspicious of premiership rugby and the club owners as a rule and was surprised they escaped your ire.

[pjm1]

But then we look at England. And we realise it's not even about the coaching / head coach. Because the overall structure of the game is fundamentally broken. The RFU is morally bankrupt, led by an unethical know-nothing. The governance structure is verging on corrupt (from insiders who've previously spoken about "voting") and it is not fit to support an elite pathway to national team success.

I feel much of your frustration and agree that selection is only ever papering over the cracks.

Could you elaborate more on this paragraph? I find it a bit odd to point the finger solely at the RFU. I am deeply suspicious of premiership rugby and the club owners as a rule and was surprised they escaped your ire.

You're absolutely right. I guess my focus is on creating a structure for the national team, coaching setup and pathways into that. The RFU definitely missed the boat by "allowing" clubs to turn professional without setting up a clearer framework for how they operate within and feed into that pathway. But I also need to acknowledge that hindsight is a wonderful thing and what we know now wasn't available to us in 1996/7...

In a way, the clubs operate in a simple way: they are legally bound to act in the interests of their shareholders as a whole (until they believe they may become insolvent, in which case their duty switches to creditors)... so everything that they do will be with reference to what their shareholders (as a whole) reasonably demand. Club owners are in it for themselves - it may be ego, it may be charitable, but it obviously isn't financial! Are they good for the game... well, yes and no. But the RFU has allowed this to happen on their watch and has a degree of power - largely through negotiation - to secure agreements with PRL etc. that give them more of what they need: player access, in exchange for what clubs want: cash and visibility.

The RFU is, IMO, tripping itself up by trying to be too many things to too many people - and therefore not having a clear enough and objectively measurable set of success parameters. Let's look at the "Rules" that incorporate the RFU as a "Registered Society":

Code: Select all

3. Objects
3.1 To encourage the Game, and its values, to flourish across England.
3.2 To grow the Game in England through the Union’s performance and values, namely teamwork, respect, enjoyment, discipline and sportsmanship.
3.3 To administer the Game as its governing body in England.
3.4 To promote the playing and administration of the Game in England in accordance with the Laws of the Game, the RFU Regulations and World Rugby Regulations.
3.5 To promote inclusivity and diversity within the Game.
3.6 To assist the development and playing of the Game throughout the world.
3.7 To provide, maintain and operate a national stadium or stadia.
3.8 To operate representative men’s and women’s teams

All noble stuff. Makes you feel good about supporting and contributing. But where - for the love of god - is there any reference to actual, tangible success in terms of winning games of rugby, at the very top level? And when you combine that lack of clarity on what on earth the RFU should be measured on, we have the disaster that is the governance structure where all and sundry get a board seat and you have councils and committees that hamstring the actual, effective decision making that needs to take place in order to deliver success.

Edited to add: sorry this is probably off topic for an Eng v Ire thread... even one that is inside the English rugby board. If mods want to move this into a more appropriate place, I will understand

[Banquo]

But then we look at England. And we realise it's not even about the coaching / head coach. Because the overall structure of the game is fundamentally broken. The RFU is morally bankrupt, led by an unethical know-nothing. The governance structure is verging on corrupt (from insiders who've previously spoken about "voting") and it is not fit to support an elite pathway to national team success.

I feel much of your frustration and agree that selection is only ever papering over the cracks.

Could you elaborate more on this paragraph? I find it a bit odd to point the finger solely at the RFU. I am deeply suspicious of premiership rugby and the club owners as a rule and was surprised they escaped your ire.

You're absolutely right. I guess my focus is on creating a structure for the national team, coaching setup and pathways into that. The RFU definitely missed the boat by "allowing" clubs to turn professional without setting up a clearer framework for how they operate within and feed into that pathway. But I also need to acknowledge that hindsight is a wonderful thing and what we know now wasn't available to us in 1996/7...

In a way, the clubs operate in a simple way: they are legally bound to act in the interests of their shareholders as a whole (until they believe they may become insolvent, in which case their duty switches to creditors)... so everything that they do will be with reference to what their shareholders (as a whole) reasonably demand. Club owners are in it for themselves - it may be ego, it may be charitable, but it obviously isn't financial! Are they good for the game... well, yes and no. But the RFU has allowed this to happen on their watch and has a degree of power - largely through negotiation - to secure agreements with PRL etc. that give them more of what they need: player access, in exchange for what clubs want: cash and visibility.

The RFU is, IMO, tripping itself up by trying to be too many things to too many people - and therefore not having a clear enough and objectively measurable set of success parameters. Let's look at the "Rules" that incorporate the RFU as a "Registered Society":

Code: Select all

3. Objects
3.1 To encourage the Game, and its values, to flourish across England.
3.2 To grow the Game in England through the Union’s performance and values, namely teamwork, respect, enjoyment, discipline and sportsmanship.
3.3 To administer the Game as its governing body in England.
3.4 To promote the playing and administration of the Game in England in accordance with the Laws of the Game, the RFU Regulations and World Rugby Regulations.
3.5 To promote inclusivity and diversity within the Game.
3.6 To assist the development and playing of the Game throughout the world.
3.7 To provide, maintain and operate a national stadium or stadia.
3.8 To operate representative men’s and women’s teams

All noble stuff. Makes you feel good about supporting and contributing. But where - for the love of god - is there any reference to actual, tangible success in terms of winning games of rugby, at the very top level? And when you combine that lack of clarity on what on earth the RFU should be measured on, we have the disaster that is the governance structure where all and sundry get a board seat and you have councils and committees that hamstring the actual, effective decision making that needs to take place in order to deliver success.

Edited to add: sorry this is probably off topic for an Eng v Ire thread... even one that is inside the English rugby board. If mods want to move this into a more appropriate place, I will understand

As you say, I think , you wouldn't start from here. The RFU board isn't that big tbh, and does have sensible powers and scope (and measurable objectives); the RFU council on the other hand is huge and unwieldy (64 members from archaic old day structures), but these days offers a check and balance on behalf of the community game, so a cut down version might be of benefit. The scope/remit of the RFU is probably too large, and whether the board are the right people is probably the best question, and whether the objectives have been set properly the secondary. That said, there is an ongoing governance review due to report imminently (apparently).

[Mr Mwenda]

Ta for the clarification.

[Banquo]

oh, and PRL ....don't know where to start...

[pjm1]

oh, and PRL ....don't know where to start...

Yeah, it's all a bit of a buggers muddle, isn't it?

The RFU strategic objectives are laudable to an extent, but create a rod for their own back in being both too disparate and non-specific enough (at least as communicated*):

"Game objectives" are four-fold:

• enable positive player experiences on and off the field
• create the best possible high-performance system for England Rugby
• enhance player welfare to protect and support the wellbeing of players
• support clubs to sustain and grow themselves and to reflect society

And then there are another 4 "Driving objectives" focusing on diversity, inclusion and community connection. This means that out of 8 strategic objectives, we have 1/8 that is targeting "best possible high-performance system". Which itself is then broken down into two components:
1. develop effective and integrated pathways for players, coaches and match officials; and
2. influence and shape the game at domestic and international levels to ensure its long-term health and the success of our England teams

* I realise what we hear/see is only part of it, but in an entertainment industry, communicating your strategy and approach clearly to the paying public is pretty important.

Look at the number of words in this "strategy" and what tiny proportion of them actually relate to success on the field in England colours. I'm not disputing the benefits of balanced score cards (and the trick to that is the first word, which RFU appear to have forgotten) and increasing access, but that counts for little if nobody wants to watch the national team play.

Bringing it back on thread - somewhat - let's compare this to the IRFU strategic plan, which is about to be updated as it runs to 2023. "Our Mission" provides for five areas where IRFU are seeking to develop and grow the game:

• Excellence in performance
• Quality experiences
• Effective engagement
• Great people
• Strong leadership

This gets to the nub of what matters, a fair bit quicker. The ordering is, I'm sure, not accidental. Leaves nobody in any doubt what they're all about, and what success will be measured on.

QED.