The Rabo vs Mark McCafferty and the Premiership Thread

its_phil

It seems a lot of debate is taking place between the Premiership and the Rabo. The Premier Rugby Association CEO Mark McCafferty wants to take the Rabo League team numbers down to 8 teams and give France and England two more spots. He also believes the pressures of Premiership relegation play a part in England poor performance in Europe over the past few years.

Here's an article from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/9029861/Why-the-premier-English-clubs-are-failing-to-live-up-to-their-billing-in-Europe.html

And an article from Stuart Barnes (cant believe I'm agreeing with him) defending the Rabo:

http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,12062_7451779,00.html

Opinions?

Tox56

Never was an issue when they were winning.

GerM

As mentioned on the other thread, it will reduce the quality of the tournament overall. If the likes of Castres or Racing can't be bothered to compete, why on earth would we expect the likes of Bayonne or Bordeaux who are spending money and stuck in relegation battles at the expense of Treviso or Edinburgh? Yes there are 11 Rabo sides in the tournament this season but have they not justified their presence? You can say that it's easy for them to play given they're automatically in the cup but does that explain the top two spots in pools 1, 2 and 3?! If the quality or desire was there from other sides they would beat Glasgow or Edinburgh or Scarlets. It's not there. There are top players in England but the talent is spread too thinly. Why I don't know because England has a population about 9 times the size of ROI and NI combined. The players are there. The teams just need to identify them and bring them through correctly.

They argue that Pro12 sides don't have to focus on the league and can rest players. Have I missed the reports of the vast depth in Edinburgh with large amounts of money being pumped into Scottish rugby? They have about 48 players including their academy and those who spend a chunk of the season on the sevens circuit. Throw in injuries and Edinburgh have about 25-30 senior players to select from at times. Maybe, they're a better drilled side who benefit from playing against good teams every week and learn to play a quicker paced game in the Pro 12 that catches the likes of the AP sides unaware. Perhaps the Irish sides have fairly tight restrictions in place on foreign players and are forced to build top class academies with their finances which churns out players who want to play for their home side and not go where the next biggest cheque is allowing continuity and better strength in depth.

You would think that instead of moaning about the set up in other nations, the likes of England would be reviewing their own academies and set ups wondering why they produce so much talent but so little of it makes it to the top.

SARZY

The Heineken Cup clearly demonstrates that the style of rugby being played in the Rabo is superior to both the English and the French leagues in the depth of the strength through the league.

The top teams in the 3 leagues are of a very high standard but the Rabo at the middle and bottom is way ahead and thats down to the style of rugby being played.

Now the English through this guy know they have a big problem and they look for an easy, quick fix, and there is real danger that they will get their way being THE rughy union etc.

The way I see it,no matter what they do, as long as our provinces can always be among the top 8 in the Rabo, it will get better for the 'rabo 8'.

Bring on Exeter or Worcester or Leeds or Irish or Northampton or Bath etc.

Its probably Connacht that has p****d this guy off anyway.

Reminds me add Harlequins to that list.

myflipflops

What McCafferty is basically proposing is to freeze out the Italian teams from the Heineken Cup.

This phrase from the article made me laugh

Paul Ackford wrote:

Put simply, English and French Rugby Union teams have to bust a gut to qualify from their respective domestic leagues while any old middling outfit can get through from the RaboDirect Pro 12, a new name for an old sinecure, the Celtic alliance plus Italy.

Teams like London Irish, Bath, Biarritz, Racing and Gloucester (Toulouse win aside) are nothing more than 'middling outifits'.

Even the good English sides like Northampton and Leicester have been distinctly average this year.

McCafferty seems to be employing that age old football managers trick where you blame anybody else and take the focus off your own organistaion. Premier Rugby would be better off looking in house and figuring out why their game is so weak rather than looking elsewhere.

I'm not sure what good 2 extra Heineken Cpots would do for their game.

its_phil

SARZY wrote: »

Its probably Connacht that has p****d this guy off anyway.

Couldnt give a s**** if English rugby doesnt like us, because Toulouse love us!

profitius

One of the main reasons for the Pro 12 success lately is because the players on all the pro 12 teams are developed differently. They are being developed for international rugby. Thats played at a higher pace. Theres a bigger emphasis on bulking up in the AP and Top 14 and bulk succeeds in these leagues because its played at a slower pace. There are exceptions everywhere but in general I think my points stand. Irish teams have very high standards nowadays and those high standards are pushing the teams to become even better.

We're lucky here with the structures for bringing players through. Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that in England and Wales they have bigger academies and players start out in those academies at a young age. Therefore its harder to identify talent. Irish teams wait to see who are the best schools and youth players and then start working on them. There are cons to this way of doing things too but the strike rate of turning academy players professional is high in Ireland.

The Pro 12 players tend to be more experienced too in international rugby. Since the league has to supply the vast bulk of 4 national squads it means the players partake in loads of big, pressure matches. Therefore they are more used to pressure games in front of big attendances.

DeDoc

my personal opinion is that we've seen a collective slipping of standards in England. Players like Easter, Waldrom, Corbisiero etc are all key players for their sides and all of them waddle round the pitch carrying spare tyres. You just don't see that (any more) in the Rabo league.
Also - the kind of behaviour you seem to regularly read about of some of the players, just doesn't generally get tolerated by the Rabo teams (or at least since the Ospreys got 'real' )
You've also evolved to a situation in the Rabo where it is the only game in town for those countries - any kid wanting to play pro rugby is identifying with one of the fairly small number of teams. In England they have a far more diverse situation below the top tier - with a pro (or at least semi-pro) league in the Championship.

The teams in the Rabo are also forced to lean more on their academies - you have effectively 4 national squads drawn from 12 teams, rather than 1 national squad. Instead of 2 players per team on average, you have about 8. That gives a lot of opportunity to the younger players to improve.

porterbelly

Is there only 3 provinces in Ireland Stuart?

its_phil

porterbelly wrote: »

Is there only 3 provinces in Ireland Stuart?

Forgive me if I'm wrong the line your quoting is

The three Irish teams have plenty to teach our clubs but England does not want to listen

Why would the 11th placed side in the Rabo give a lesson to the Aviva Premiership clubs?

Yeah Connacht won on Friday against Quins but one win out of 15, to me personally, would not be included as an example to Premiership rugby. Right now there is three Irish provinces leading the way in Europe and another trying to get there with a long way to go.

twinytwo

typical moan and excuses... id love the likes of leinster to play a season in the AP just to what these morons would say when leinster walked through the whole competition.

English club rugby is crap.. end of.. rather than admit that they have to fix the problems at home, its everyones elses fault they got destroyed in the HC.

errlloyd

Firstly we don't have to worry about this, all nations are members of the ERC and there is 4 of us and only 1 of him.

Secondly, what a load of ****. Since when have Leicester been worried about relegation? That can't be an excuse for playing badly.

Thirdly since when has qualification for the next year of European rugby effected the current year of European rugby "Better not try to win it this year so we still have a chance of winning it next year".

Now what I will say in his defense, Rabo teams won three pools, we also came last in 3 pools. Not a single AP team bottomed their pool. It would show there is a bigger spectrum of talent in the rabo, our better teams are better but our worse teams are worse.

Even still, if I was English I'd blame the salary cap.

RE: Relegation.

How many clubs that would be liable for relegation in the Rabo (if it existed) have ever managed to make a viable competitive effort at the HEC?

its_phil

Deleted User wrote: »

RE: Relegation.

How many clubs that would be liable for relegation in the Rabo (if it existed) have ever managed to make a viable competitive effort at the HEC?

I like that point but someone from the AP could point to Northampton being relegated after making the semi's in the Heineken 06-07.

lologram

its_phil wrote: »

And an article from Stuart Barnes (cant believe I'm agreeing with him) defending the Rabo:

http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,12062_7451779,00.html

But why can you not believe that you might agree with Stuart Barnes? I struggle to understand the negativity that surrounds him. From what I read on match threads particularly, it's like some people don't hear what he's actually saying, and substitute in something which might offend them instead. He's actually very articulate and knowledgeable on the game, and I can't really find any background agenda he might have.

In my opinion, he's one of the least partial commentators out there.

Gracelessly Tom

Have to say, I fully agree with McCafferty on this issue. And while we're at it we should only allow one Sanzar nation into the World Cup, not fair they have three good sides while England have to worry about winning a six nations as well.......

irishbucsfan

its_phil wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

RE: Relegation.

How many clubs that would be liable for relegation in the Rabo (if it existed) have ever managed to make a viable competitive effort at the HEC?

I like that point but someone from the AP could point to Northampton being relegated after making the semi's in the Heineken 06-07.

Surely that's only evidence that battling relegation isn't realistically something that prevents them from competing?

Gracelessly Tom

Just re-read the article. There is a number of glaringly ignorant comments.

"Our view is that Heineken Cup qualification should be based on league form,” McCafferty explains. “There are three of those – the Aviva Premiership, the Top 14 Orange in France and the Pro 12 – and you should take the qualifying teams from the best sides in those leagues. Then it’s a completely meritocratic system."

How exactly is that meritocratic? Three entirely different leagues. The champions league doesn't give every league equal amounts of spots.

"Put simply, English and French Rugby Union teams have to bust a gut to qualify from their respective domestic leagues"

Is that why they are busting a gut? To qualify for Europe and not to win their domestic competiton?

"There will be concerns that it could lead to one or two countries not being represented in the Heineken Cup. But the price you pay for that inclusivity is not necessarily having the best against the best.”

Yes, lets not try and expand the game and give developing nations a shot.

"After round four of this season’s tournament I looked at the starting line-ups of Ulster, Leinster and Munster [all through to the quarter-finals] and only four of the 45 starters in the Heineken Cup were retained for their Pro 12 league games the next weekend. Take a model where the top eight clubs qualify from each league and they wouldn’t be able to take as many risks. That’s the issue our clubs have."

I notice he fails to mention that even with all these H Cup players rested the Irish sides are still the standard bearers in the Rabo and lead the league.

"Make it more meritocratic and everyone will have to take their leagues seriously.”

This is a shockingly ill informed and ignorant comment.

"Meanwhile the Heineken Cup, having provided the Italian sides with some fresh air and a few fun trips, moves towards the quarter-finals still pretending it’s a competition which embraces the best teams in Europe. Pull the other one."

Firstly, could you be more patronising and arrogant? Secondly, it does embrace the best teams in Europe, just so happens that he hasn't yet realised they don't include the "middling" English clubs!

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Surely that's only evidence that battling relegation isn't realistically something that prevents them from competing?

I asked the question the wrong way around. How many teams that have ever been competitive in the Heineken Cup have finished lower than mid table in the Pro12?

Teams affected by the threat of relegation (if there was such a thing) are not the problem here. The teams who've managed to qualify from the group stages of the HEC that are playing Pro12 week in week out are all in the mix for the title.

It shows that Pro12 teams have far outshone their Aviva counterparts in terms of squad development, resource management and overall team progress. French teams have the most to moan about imo. The Premiership guys already have too much of a quota to be honest.

The European Cup is a tournament for European countries.

Pro teams in top flight rugby
France - 14
England - 12
Ireland - 4
Wales - 4
Scotland - 2
Italy - 2

representation in the HEC from those teams
France - 6 - (Castres / Racing Metro / Montpelier / Clermont / Biarritz / Toulouse
England - 7 - (Northampton / London Irish / Bath / Leicester / Saracens / Harlequins / Gloucester )
Ireland - 4 - (Munster /Leinster / Ulster / Connacht)
Wales - 3 - ( Scarlets / Cardiff / Ospreys )
Scotland - 2 - (Glasgow/ Edinburgh)
Italy - 2 - (Treviso / Aironi)

It doesn't divide up much further than it does.

ormond lad

According to Garrett Fitz the pro 12 is more lucrative, overall looking at the number of home gates, season tickets etc it may be but the heinekec is always the icing on the cake and what drives munsters season
There’s more money in Pro12 campaign, claims Fitzgerald

By Simon Lewis
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Munster Rugby chief executive Garrett Fitzgerald has played down the financial windfall of securing a Heineken Cup home quarter-final,insisting success in the RaboDirect Pro12 is worth more.
Fitzgerald welcomed Tony McGahan’s side’s achievements in marching into the last eight with six wins from six pool matches, a feat which earned the province top seeding and a home quarter-final date with Irish rivals Ulster on April 6, 7, or 8. Yet a week after competition organisers ERC trumpeted thepotential financial jackpots on offer to quarter-finalists, Fitzgerald suggested success in the Pro12 offered far greater revenue benefits.

"From a rugby point of view, it’s very important to move into the knockout stages with home advantage," the Munster chief executivetold the Irish Examiner.

"It gives us the best opportunity of reaching the next round. But it is not as economically viable as you may think because in the quarter-finals, the gates are split in two between the two sides. This is the only round of the knockout phase where we would receive gate income — after that our gate revenues go to the IRFU — and so our home pool games would give us more gate income."

Fitzgerald did point out there were also some financial benefits to reaching the last eight. "We would hopefully see a boost to merchandise sales and it will keep interest in Munster Rugby going through the Six Nations campaign because we will still be playing in Europe in April rather than finishing in January. Obviously there is a prestige to the Heineken Cup because it is a European competition and there is a big benefit to our sponsors from being involved but the domestic side of things, the RaboDirect Pro12 is very important to us financially because if we earn home semi-finals and a final in that it’s a bigger payday for us than the Heineken Cup."

While Munster Rugby may not reap the benefits, the local economy seems set to do so with ERC last week publishing research that found the 2009 Heineken Cup quarter-final at Thomond Park against Ospreys saw the local economy benefit by up to €10.5m.

"This is hugely beneficial to the local economy," Fitzgerald said of the home quarter-final draw. "But there is nodirect windfall for us."

Success over Ulster on Easter Sunday will see Munster decamp to the Aviva Stadium in Dublin for the semi-finals, after McGahan’s side were handed a ‘home country’ draw against either Edinburgh or Toulouse for the last four on Sunday evening. That is where Leinster will play their quarter-final against Cardiff Blues, having moved their game across the road from the RDS to the national stadium. That will mean a further windfall as by moving to a bigger stadium, the defending champions are entitled to a 65% share of the gate revenues.

The ERC also had good news to report on Monday night as they reported almost 2,000 tickets had been sold in 24 hours for the 2012 Heineken Cup final at Twickenham on May 19.

Heineken Cup quarter-finals

Saturday, April 7: Edinburgh v Toulouse,Murrayfield, 3pm; Leinster v Cardiff Blues, Aviva Stadium, 5.45pm. Sunday, April 8: Munster v Ulster, Thomond Park 1.45pm; Saracens v ASM Clermont Auvergne, Vicarage Road, 4.30pm.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/r...#ixzz1kYjAF4KZ

its_phil

lologram wrote: »

its_phil wrote: »

And an article from Stuart Barnes (cant believe I'm agreeing with him) defending the Rabo:

http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,12062_7451779,00.html

But why can you not believe that you might agree with Stuart Barnes? I struggle to understand the negativity that surrounds him. From what I read on match threads particularly, it's like some people don't hear what he's actually saying, and substitute in something which might offend them instead. He's actually very articulate and knowledgeable on the game, and I can't really find any background agenda he might have.

In my opinion, he's one of the least partial commentators out there.

Well that's your opinion of him. I think he is a hype merchant, which is understandable being from Sky. The amount of times I have heard him call average players, outstanding talent with all the potential to be world class is ridiculous. Also don't like his way of commentating.

its_phil

irishbucsfan wrote: »

its_phil wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

RE: Relegation.

How many clubs that would be liable for relegation in the Rabo (if it existed) have ever managed to make a viable competitive effort at the HEC?

I like that point but someone from the AP could point to Northampton being relegated after making the semi's in the Heineken 06-07.

Surely that's only evidence that battling relegation isn't realistically something that prevents them from competing?

I'm just coming from the point of view of the AP who could point to Northampton and say you would have to put all your eggs in one basket or no topflight any European rugby for a year.

I think it's rubbish too, but just looking at it from their counter argument

Piliger

It looks to me like the English Premiership need to address their own league and the problems that are causing them to produce teams that cannot compete in Europe.

Why are Premiership sides regularly spanked by Irish teams ? Who's fault is that ? It is the Premiership's fault ! Not the Irish or the ERC's !

The Premiership has failed to produce high quality teams and the cause leads back to choices made within the Premiership itself. That is the reality of the situation.

They have failed because of the structure of the Premiership itself and because of the tactics, coaching, arrogance and financial structures.

Now they are whining because they have failed, and want the rules changed to make it easier for them.

The answer from the ERC should be NO. They should tell England to go back and fix their own league first and also stop abusing the ERC by referring to people who disagree with them as a 'cabal'.

Riskymove

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

How exactly is that meritocratic? Three entirely different leagues. The champions league doesn't give every league equal amounts of spots.

in fairness there is a much wider range of standards across the soccer leagues


The Champions league does not grant places to teams finishing near the bottom of a league simply for geographic reasons


on the other hand I certainly don't think that finishing 8th in the Premiership should get you into the HEC either

porterbelly

its_phil wrote: »

Well that's your opinion of him. I think he is a hype merchant, which is understandable being from Sky. The amount of times I have heard him call average players, outstanding talent with all the potential to be world class is ridiculous. Also don't like his way of commentating.

Phil Dowson, Chris Robshaw, Ryan Lamb, Matt (Conrad) Hopper. I could go on and on

Blured

porterbelly wrote: »

Phil Dowson, Chris Robshaw, Ryan Lamb, Matt (Conrad) Hopper. I could go on and on

Jordan Turner-Hall - I remember watching the bloodgate game and I really thought he might cream himself whenever JTH had the ball

Gracelessly Tom

Riskymove wrote: »

in fairness there is a much wider range of standards across the soccer leagues

Yeah, I know. It's not exactly the best example for a strong argument, I admit that.

Mind you, you could argue that one AP team in the 1/4's proves there is wide range of standards across the H Cup leagues, :)

totallegend

Stuart Barnes is just as likely, more likely even, to spout over-the-top rhetoric about Munster or Leinster as about English clubs/players. Hype things up he may do, but he in no way favours English clubs over Irish ones.

Sometimes I wonder do half the people on here even watch the games.

profitius

I think Barnes is very fair. He goes out of his way to praise Irish teams so what more do people want? He happens to be English and of course will want English players to do well but he is balanced. Dewi Morris on the other hand...

porterbelly

Blured wrote: »

Jordan Turner-Hall - I remember watching the bloodgate game and I really thought he might cream himself whenever JTH had the ball

Meant to say him as well

CatFromHue

Blured wrote: »

Jordan Turner-Hall - I remember watching the bloodgate game and I really thought he might cream himself whenever JTH had the ball

If I remember right Turner Hall was causing Leinster a lot of problems that day.

lologram

totallegend wrote: »

Stuart Barnes is just as likely, more likely even, to spout over-the-top rhetoric about Munster or Leinster as about English clubs/players. Hype things up he may do, but he in no way favours English clubs over Irish ones.

Sometimes I wonder do half the people on here even watch the games.

That's exactly my point. He might be all hype and hyperbole but it's distributed without much bias. He definitely drinks from the Leinster and Munster fountain.

its_phil

totallegend wrote: »

Stuart Barnes is just as likely, more likely even, to spout over-the-top rhetoric about Munster or Leinster as about English clubs/players. Hype things up he may do, but he in no way favours English clubs over Irish ones.

Sometimes I wonder do half the people on here even watch the games.

I didnt read anyone say anything about him favoring English clubs over Irish clubs. Of course he doesn't show bias, isn't there an article at the start of the thread with him praising the Rabo. I said he's a hype merchant full stop, nothing about any clubs or national bias. Glad people enjoy his punditry, but I dont. Don't see a reason why I should defend that, everyone has their preferences when it comes to punditry.

And I think others have pointed at certain English players because Barnes' regular job is commentating on Aviva Premiership games where we do watch games and notice the hype.

jimbomalley

lologram wrote: »

But why can you not believe that you might agree with Stuart Barnes? I struggle to understand the negativity that surrounds him. From what I read on match threads particularly, it's like some people don't hear what he's actually saying, and substitute in something which might offend them instead. He's actually very articulate and knowledgeable on the game, and I can't really find any background agenda he might have.

In my opinion, he's one of the least partial commentators out there.

maybe coz he writes for the sunday times, the same paper that stephen jones hacks at? i've generally found SB to be full of praise for irish teams, especially leinster and munster in the heineken

durkadurka

Brian Ashton In the uk independent today:


Only those with a particularly tribal mindset could have been disappointed – together, of course, with the Premiership grandees, who are now pushing for a change in the qualification rules to give more English clubs access to the elite European competition. Can this be right? Please, let's not go out of our way to appear arrogant in this country.

Saracens were the only Premiership side to find a way into the knockout stage and even they spent a large part of their weekend scrabbling indecisively before beating Treviso, one of those pesky Italian teams who, according to some, should not be in the tournament at all. In the event, Treviso were more than a match for the English champions in a number of areas and it was pure inexperience in the dying minutes that prevented them causing an upset many would have seen as seismic.

This English qualification struggle is in danger of becoming part of the fabric of the sport and the explanations – some would call them excuses – have been trotted out ad nauseam. There are elements of truth in all of the reasons put forward for repeated Heineken Cup failures: financial problems surrounding salary caps and contract issues; the imbalance in squad sizes; the presence of relegation in England and its absence in the Celtic lands; the intense physicality – something spoken of with pride when it suits the people involved – of the week-by-week proceedings in the Premiership. But are these things really as they seem? Are we honestly claiming that squads in England are smaller and of lower quality than elsewhere? Does not the fear of relegation enhance the competitive mindset of any player worth his professional salt? Just wondering aloud.

To my mind, the problems are elsewhere – not least in what seems to me to be the official designation of rugby, at least in England, as a "collision sport" rather than a "contact sport". The art of evasion is passé; heavy objects running into each other has become endemic. I swear there is another form of football, played with crash helmets and protective padding, and extremely popular in a very large and powerful corner of the free world, where this approach is embraced more completely.

The "collision" obsession has had a massive knock-on effect on rugby and, while it was interesting to read the recently published research indicating that injury levels have stabilised over the past two or three years, I am tempted to suggest that, although this is a feather in the cap of conditioning coaches, who have clearly been redoubling their efforts in pursuit of ever-bigger, ever-stronger players, it is not necessarily a triumphant reflection of the way the union game is going in these parts.

English rugby's gym culture begins at a very early age, with those youngsters fortunate enough to have been identified as having potential soon enjoying (if that is the right word) the benefits of a specialised development programme in which 50 per cent of practical work is carried out amid the dumb-bells and leg-press machines. Add to this the huge emphasis on core skills, an area traditionally taught exceptionally well by schoolmasters, and it makes you wonder how much time is spent actually playing games.

I'm the first to acknowledge the importance of good technique and conditioning at the base of the performance pyramid, but it strikes me as downright crazy that young players are not encouraged to move a little further up the structure during their most formative and naturally creative years. Why is this happening?

Let us ask ourselves where most of our sporting population, be they rugby enthusiasts or not, first experience the thrill of playing games with and against one another. For those of my generation, it was in the street; for others, it was in the park; for all of us at one time or another, the school playground was the place. At my junior school, rugby league was played across the yard, football was played up and down it, and there was skipping and hopscotch going on smack in the middle of it all. We made it work, because that's what kids do.

And what did this game-playing give us? Enjoyment, for a start: children run around (in an evasive way, not a collision-based way) because it's natural to them. They explore their creativity without the heavy hand of "he who knows all" interfering with the process. It may appear chaotic from the outside, but the youngsters involved make sense of unstructured environments by showing a degree of discipline – by behaving responsibly and accepting that someone in the group will emerge as an organiser, a leader. The mavericks? Peer-group pressure sorts them out. Order is imposed on chaos as the participants learn to handle themselves in a maelstrom of uncertainty. In short, they develop an awareness of how games function, without the input of a coach or referee.

And then? Then the man in the tracksuit comes along: whistle at the ready, coaching badge on chest, certificate in pocket. All too soon, the sense of freedom becomes nothing more than a distant memory. Drills abound – the military would be proud – and training fields are covered with the widest possible array of artificial aids. I have personally witnessed, just recently, the sight of under-10s running into (rather than around) tackle shields as big as they are.

As things progress, for want of a better word, the focus shifts: to the closed world of set-piece perfection and to the collision-based game, which makes obsolete the evasive skill of the playground. And, of course, there is the worship of defence as key.

Over the past three years, I've discussed these issues with coaches of every level. More often than not they prioritise the factors just mentioned over any consideration of the attacking game. It defies belief. God forbid that a team should even think of running the ball from their own 22.

Still, I suppose none of the above had an impact on the failure of all but one of England's seven Heineken Cup clubs to reach the quarter-finals.

CiaranMT

Hear, hear.

profitius

Bath vs Northampton. Northampton have made about 12 changes from last weeks game. I thought only Pro 12 teams did that! :eek:

irishbucsfan

profitius wrote: »

Bath vs Northampton. Northampton have made about 12 changes from last weeks game. I thought only Pro 12 teams did that! :eek:

Thats not the premiership thouh in fairness.

profitius

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Thats not the premiership thouh in fairness.

But I didn't think English teams did that!

phog

profitius wrote: »

Bath vs Northampton. Northampton have made about 12 changes from last weeks game. I thought only Pro 12 teams did that! :eek:

How many of them are tied up with the English teams and not available to play. The got hockeyed again this week and conceded another 5 tries.

Sindri

durkadurka wrote: »

Brian Ashton In the uk independent today

Very good article, the spontaneity and fun, and the good it can do, that comes from allowing kids to just play the game and throw the ball around cannot be understated. Very productive as well for the reasons Ashton stated.

CatFromHue

Graham Henry has some interesting and hard to disagree with views on the English game. He also reinforces what Brian Ashton was talking about.

---

Graham Henry has described England as "world champions at wasting talent" and accused the team of playing a game based on fear.

The World Cup-winning coach questioned whether England could ever realise their full potential with the approach they used in New Zealand in 2010. Henry, who was at one stage linked with England's top job, pinpointed the problem as a reluctance to use attacking players.

"England has top-drawer attacking players [but] they are seldom used," Henry told therugbysite.com. "It sometimes seems that England are world champions at wasting talent.

"At national level and at club level English teams are far too worried about securing possession. They are obsessed with sealing off the ball carrier. They are paranoid that an opponent might steal the ball and so everyone jams on the brakes and seals off possession. It is fearful and often illegal.

"OK, so the opposition can't get at the ball, but there is no dynamic forward momentum and nobody is being shifted out of the defensive line. No wonder England had trouble scoring tries against the better teams at the World Cup."

Henry urged interim coach Stuart Lancaster to encourage the England side to shift the ball into wide areas during their Six Nations opener against Scotland next Saturday.

"England has a back line to get excited about but they will never fulfil their potential unless the team can win quick ball," he said. "This needs a total change of policy for the Six Nations. England must go to Murrayfield and stick it to the opposition. They have to smash the Scottish forwards past the ball instead of conservatively stopping at the tackled player in order to secure possession.

"A country with over a million players should be the best team in the world and England's potential in the backs is as good as it has ever been. Ben Foden's a good player, Chris Ashton is a handful and Delon Armitage has always impressed me. But how frustrated those players must get in a white shirt. England and the English clubs play a game based on fear and a generation of promising backs are dying on their feet. That has to change."

Henry also expressed an interest in coaching an English club side, but took aim at Saracens who will provide most of England's back-line in Edinburgh.

"Saracens are England's leading qualifiers in the Heineken Cup but few expect them to win the competition with a game that is as petrified as England's efforts at the World Cup. English conservatism around the tackle is an attitude that appears to be ingrained in most of the players."

http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/158497.html