Lessons from the RWC

molloyjh

Time For A Change?

So France have been shown in the last 2 weeks to be a fairly poor international team. They came out brimming with confidence against us thinking they were going to roll over us. They were smashing us from early on. They forced 3 of our players from the field. Yet at the end of the day they were never once ahead on the scoreboard. And ultimately an Irish team disrupted by injury to key players took on a French side at their peak (apparently) and beat them in every area of the park. All that confidence, and I would call it faux confidence because I've no idea what it was based on, was torn down. And where did that leave them?

Against NZ the French didn't tear into them the way they did against us. After 5 minutes I was saying they were screwed. It seemed obvious from minute one that they hadn't a hope. It also seems quite obvious to me that they never really believed that they were going to win. I reckon the game against Ireland basically burst their bubble and they were never coming back from it. Not because of how great we were, but due to the fact that they were never as good as they thought they were. We were all talking about this great French performance that was coming. It never did because it was never coming. They aren't that team any more. And while we were nervous ahead of the game they haven't been that team for the last 4 years.

So that's France. But another big Northern Hemisphere side were found wanting quite a bit this RWC. England became the first side to host the tournament and get knocked out in the group stage. Another really big rugby nation and ultimately they were found wanting. Similar to France they went out pumped against Wales and while they did better over the course of the 80 they ultimately lost to a team disrupted by injury just like France. Huge issues were laid bare and when they went out against Australia the confidence and intensity wasn't there, like France tonight. Just like France tonight I called it early, England were in trouble (thomond had to listen to me on that one 2 weeks ago!). The English bubble was burst. They were not as good as they had been made out to be. Contenders for the title? Not even close. And while they have come second in the last 2 6 Nations competitions they looked to have plateaued 18 months ago. Against Ireland in the Aviva they were comprehensively outplayed. They have developed a bit of a leadership issue, but like France Lancaster has also struggled to identify his best XV.

Another thing that definitely stands out as being very similar in both cases is their domestic leagues. Both leagues are independent from their Unions and work to their own agendas. With such large domestic markets they are financially independent and the impacts of that on the national sides is huge. The French access to their players during the 6 Nations is ridiculously limited. Add to that the number of foreign players in the Top14 and despite the fact that their clubs have done well in Europe this just hasn't transferred to the national side at all. By contrast English clubs simply haven't delivered on the European stage. No English club has won the Heineken Cup/Champions Cup since Wasps in 2007. Unlike the French clubs it seems the English clubs form has transferred to their national side.

Then look at the 6 Nations records. In the last several years while Ireland and Wales have won the title multiple times the English and French have only won it once each.

So is it about time that the "established order" of France and England being the 2 big Northern Hemisphere teams is binned? While many of us here have probably already realised this there seems to be a general notion in the rugby world in general that these two teams are the big 2. And is there anything these countries can do to turn things around? Has the horse bolted in their domestic leagues and what should Irish expectations be in the coming years? We've heard a lot today about how New Zealand approach the game from a coaching and prep perspective and the things that seem big there are big here in Ireland. Should we be looking to push on and cement ourselves as one of the big 2 in this half of the world? And should we start getting ourselves good and comfortable with that idea?

thebaz

possibly just one Eurpean league with 14 teams , a Super 14 as you will, with a division 2 , with the next 14 best - won't happen given all the squabbling just to have the Heineken Cup in its current state. The English and French leagues are just too big , and money oriented and the quality of rugby is just not good eneogh, too defensive - need less teams with more elite players similar to Ireland or what happens with Super 15

irishbucsfan

thebaz wrote: »

possibly just one Eurpean league with 14 teams , a Super 14 as you will, with a division 2 , with the next 14 best - won't happen given all the squabbling just to have the Heineken Cup in its current state. The English and French leagues are just too big , and money oriented and the quality of rugby is just not good eneogh, too defensive - need less teams with more elite players similar to Ireland or what happens with Super 15

Not a hope in hell of that happening for financial reasons. No point reducing the number of teams either, it would achieve very little.


European rugby needs to be completely ripped apart and rebuilt. The idea of 6 Nations running the show is antiquated. Try to explain to someone who doesn't follow rugby why England/Ireland/Wales/Scotland/Italy/France don't play under the auspices of Rugby Europe and you'll struggle. That's where this all needs to start from. Unfortunately it doesn't seem any of the 6 Nations have the slightest interest in making that happen (least of all the less populous nations like Ireland/Scotland/Wales) and they're the ones who call the shots.

thebaz

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not a hope in hell of that happening for financial reasons. No point reducing the number of teams either, it would achieve very little.

it might increase the standard of rugby , if the the top French and English just played against the best in Europe, rather than domestically, the standard at the top should rise - similar to what happens in NZ and Aus.
I know its not going to happen , but I can dream

irishbucsfan

thebaz wrote: »

it might increase the standard of rugby , if the the top French and English just played against the best in Europe, rather than domestically, the standard at the top should rise - similar to what happens in NZ and Aus.
I know its not going to happen , but I can dream

The standard of the Heineken Cup/Champions Cup is superb. There's nothing wrong with the standard of club rugby in Europe at all relative to the SXV

I agree with everything you have said Molloy. But at the same time, I can't help but think that with two different coaches leading France and England this tournament would look very different.

Despite this though, the Aviva and the Top14 are not a breeding ground for talent at the moment and I think you mentioned in a different thread (or at least someone did) that the preferential play styles of leading teams in these tournaments (size, power, bosh) does not lend itself well to the national stage.

I think one of the benefits Ireland has had in not producing the most massive possible players is that we've developed more nuance to our game that has allowed us to punch above our weight.

Another point that occurred to me watching the France game, and this is as good a place to make it as any is this. New Zealand don't scare me anymore tonight than they did last week. John Tracey was a great Irish athlete that had limited speed, so when he competed, he ran out hard and kept it up throughout to make sure no one could live with him and he didn't need speed at the end of the race. When he came up against someone that had the same endurance but also a kick he would run that little bit harder to take the sting out of their tail. Ireland don't have much of a kick, were not an afterburner team. But, we have intense mental concentration and clinical line speed and discipline that forces us to work that little bit harder, but allows us to live with those teams that have a kick.

Australia and New Zealand seem to have so much time on the ball, their skills are so developed they almost seem to slow down time, their offloading from impossible positions and contortions are weighted perfectly to land consummately into the hands of supporting runners. It's irresistible. We can't do it.

But that's the great thing about rugby. It's a game of variety, and whilst we don't have any Julian Saveas, we have players that know well enough to tackle him at knee height. We don't have any Milner-Skudders, but we have players that have enough in the engine room to chase kicks for 70 minutes and still reach extraordinary heights to take possession.

We're not a country of fast paced rabbits like New Zealand. We're turtles, but we know we're turtles so we work with our strengths. Will we score loads? Nope. Will anyone score loads against us? Not a chance. The Northern Hemisphere might need a rethink, and I think an injection of self believe would go along way, but I actually think Ireland is doing all the right things. We'll win tomorrow, and we have two pretty special players to come back into the squad a week later to face a team that are just as good as the All Blacks are right now.

We win that, we enter the finals as equals and everyone knows the story about the turtle and the rabbit.

I'm drunk.

molloyjh

Was it not the tortoise and the hare Venjur?

You need another beer.

CatFromHue

I'm not sure about England yet, I think it was just a bad tournament for them in a tough group, but the French are in trouble. In the last 4 6N's they haven't finished higher than 4th whereas the English have finished 2nd in each of those 4 tournaments and won it in 2011.

thebaz

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The standard of the Heineken Cup/Champions Cup is superb. There's nothing wrong with the standard of club rugby in Europe at all relative to the SXV

the standard of the HC is superb, but don't don't think the long competitive domestic leagues in France and England , do them any favours nationally.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Was it not the tortoise and the hare Venjur?

You need another beer.

To edit or not to edit...

Actually, there is another story, similar to the tortoise and the hare but slightly different and in all ways better.


Shut up, that's why.

duckysauce

Nope dire coaches for both teams . English picking totally wrong team , and French just hating their team, no mater what neither were going to win f uck all .

molloyjh

CatFromHue wrote: »

I'm not sure about England yet, I think it was just a bad tournament for them in a tough group, but the French are in trouble. In the last 4 6N's they haven't finished higher than 4th whereas the English have finished 2nd in each of those 4 tournaments and won it in 2011.

Yeah but before that was 2003. If you look at the top tiers they've won just a single 6 Nations and a single HEC in the last 10 years. Compared to 3 and 5 here. They've become like Ireland in the noughties. A good side who don't win much in the way of silverware. Whereas we've become more like the England and France if old. Real contenders with the trophies to back that up.

CatFromHue

Yeah they haven't won it in the last 4 years but being second every year is impressive, it's consistently at a good level. I mean the last 3 6N's have been decided by points difference, England won the same amount of games as the eventual champions!

They're prob favourites for next years comp as they've both Ireland and Wales at home!

pickarooney

I think we need to consider investing in the sevens game at all levels in the NH. We have our head totally in the sand regarding developing core skills and all the European teams are being found wanting in key areas. You can talk all you like about league politics and national management but it's clear that we're not breeding players who can cope with a fast-paced game.

If the Pacific nations ever got it together in terms of coaching and access to their players (and that's mostly down to them not being allowed to) I think they'd leave us behind, despite having only a tiny population to choose from.

lunarhog

Let's not forget that england under Lancaster have beaten the all blacks. I know we got agonisingly close in 2013 but we have beaten oz and sa. that does show NH sides can mix it with the SH

RedemptionZ

The only thing stopping England from being the powerhouse of NH rugby is their arrogance and refusal to admit they're wrong when it is right in front of you. Reform some of your policies for your underage game and don't always pick the biggest players for your U20 squad, you might win the odd JWC but how many of those guys will stand out when they're playing against guys their size? Underage tournaments should always be looked at primarily as a development tool. England consistently have the most dominant U20s team in the NH and have had so for some time now. Where are all these superstars that should have made it by now?! Stop hiring English coaches and look for someone with a track record and preferably from the Southern Hemisphere.

France are on a very poor downward spiral and I don't know if they'll address the issues. I think both France and England would have a lot of issues sorted if they got better coaches, but the problem is deeper than that whether people like to admit it or not. When you have a playing pool as large and genetically varied (ie. Access to many explosive athletes) as England and France do and you're still getting embarrassed by the much smaller pools of NZ and Aus then your whole system of developing players is seriously flawed. Would anyone in the English or French team make New Zealand? You can brush it off and simply say "ah but they're the All Blacks", but that's not good enough and is an attitude that the Northern Hemisphere seems to take. New Zealand has to develop their players too. Dan Carter or Sonny Bill didn't learn how to do those sexy offloads overnight. There's absolutely no reason why we in the Northern Hemisphere can't learn those skills too. Going on a bit of a tangent there but the point is that getting a new coach only papers over the cracks. Sure they'd do better in the 6N but they'd still be dealing with inferior squads to NZ and occasionally Australia, which shouldn't be the case.

Coburger

Smaller nations like Japan, Samoa, and Georgia need more games against top opposition on a regular basis and be able to field their strongest team. Financially it'll never happen, but I think teams should tour over there more often.

The home nations play enough games against South Hemisphere teams, does England play 5 times a year against them (Oz, NZ, and SA in November and a tour in the summer of two games) but who does Japan get to play?

The idea of the 6 Nations changing is not going to happen. I don't think it would benefit Georgia coming into the 6 Nations and getting beaten by a huge score every week. I think they missed a chance years ago if they had managed to get Argentina into it.

I wonder how well England would have done under the management of Cheika or Schmidt. I think they have the players but have been poorly coached.

rrpc

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yeah they haven't won it in the last 4 years but being second every year is impressive, it's consistently at a good level. I mean the last 3 6N's have been decided by points difference, England won the same amount of games as the eventual champions!

They're prob favourites for next years comp as they've both Ireland and Wales at home!

A good level compared to what? Behind them are France, Italy and Scotland (I'm leaving out Wales because they've been top of the 6N as well in that period).

irishbucsfan wrote:

European rugby needs to be completely ripped apart and rebuilt. The idea of 6 Nations running the show is antiquated. Try to explain to someone who doesn't follow rugby why England/Ireland/Wales/Scotland/Italy/France don't play under the auspices of Rugby Europe and you'll struggle. That's where this all needs to start from. Unfortunately it doesn't seem any of the 6 Nations have the slightest interest in making that happen (least of all the less populous nations like Ireland/Scotland/Wales) and they're the ones who call the shots.

Is that not just shuffling of feet and pointing outside the box? Whether there is a European nations cup or not won't fix the problems with the French and English national squads.

The culture of rugby in those nations is the problem, not some external factor based on whether Georgia or Romania et al can play against them. The way the game is played is almost the polar opposite of what New Zealand do. French club rugby is boring and attritional. The rest of us are not far behind.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

Is that not just shuffling of feet and pointing outside the box? Whether there is a European nations cup or not won't fix the problems with the French and English national squads.

The culture of rugby in those nations is the problem, not some external factor based on whether Georgia or Romania et al can play against them. The way the game is played is almost the polar opposite of what New Zealand do. French club rugby is boring and attritional. The rest of us are not far behind.

It was more a response to the question about whether or not England and France should be considered the big 2 of the 6 Nations. I'm just pointing out that the question is incorrect. If we can build a more open framework for European rugby with an actual path for development then I couldn't care less about the English or French to be honest, it should be a much higher priority.

irishbucsfan

Coburger wrote: »

The idea of the 6 Nations changing is not going to happen. I don't think it would benefit Georgia coming into the 6 Nations and getting beaten by a huge score every week. I think they missed a chance years ago if they had managed to get Argentina into it.

This is exactly the problem. The fact it needs to be changed at all is the problem. Especially when the people who have to vote for the change make a lot of money out of the status quo which they would risk losing. Do you think the Scots or Italians would EVER let Georgia in on their slice of the pie?

Put it into a larger structure under Rugby Europe, make it division 1 of the ENC with a defined route for progression and let the rugby do the talking. If they're not good enough to play at the highest level they won't.

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It was more a response to the question about whether or not England and France should be considered the big 2 of the 6 Nations. I'm just pointing out that the question is incorrect. If we can build a more open framework for European rugby with an actual path for development then I couldn't care less about the English or French to be honest, it should be a much higher priority.

Well this I agree with. The Georgians were a joy to watch and the Romanians also. They shouldn't be left out in the cold anymore and absolutely we should be doing something about it.

The Six nations format isn't exactly broken, the real problem is time and the demands of the club game. Too many leagues are wagging the national dog and the power of money is becoming unstoppable. There is talk of expanding leagues and more games and the only loser will be national squads and international matches.

That circle will never be squared until there is a balance found and room made for both to thrive.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

Well this I agree with. The Georgians were a joy to watch and the Romanians also. They shouldn't be left out in the cold anymore and absolutely we should be doing something about it.

The Six nations format isn't exactly broken, the real problem is time and the demands of the club game. Too many leagues are wagging the national dog and the power of money is becoming unstoppable. There is talk of expanding leagues and more games and the only loser will be national squads and international matches.

That circle will never be squared until there is a balance found and room made for both to thrive.

The international game has it's defined windows and that system works. If we want more international games we can just expand the windows. That's how it's balanced and it works absolutely fine in almost every country.

The club game is not having an impact on the 6 Nations currently. I don't even really see any problems in the 6 Nations itself, it's just it's intended nature that's problematic, IE a closed league for 6 teams.

errlloyd

It is very tempting to lay out the two failed states side by side. Point to similar structures that exist, and conclude that the problem is something structural as opposed to anything else. I guess if you create a spectrum of how much nations are dominated by their clubs, you could probably put France and England right next to each other at one end, and New Zealand pretty much alone at the far end.

But I don't think that analysis completely why France failed at this world cup. There are still great French players, the loss of Huget was big, but all of Parra, Fofanna, Huget, Nakataci, Basteraud would in my mind challenge for starting places at any team in Europ. Ben Arous, Slimani, Guirado, Picamoles and Dusatoir are also among my favourite players. England lacked well developed talent going into this world cup, France didn't. Usually you could say they were missing an outhalf, but Freddie was actually playing well till the very second he got hurt.

Simply put PSA was criminal. When he goes on trial for crimes against rugby, the first charge I want leveled against him is wasting the better part of Wesley Fofanna's career. We've all heard about his use of 80 something players, and his 30 something combinations of 9 and 10, but what does that actually mean? Well put it this way, in the last 4 years when fit we have one combination of 9 and 10. And around that rock we've built a team, god willing that team survives today. Ireland and JS are all about building chemistry, that is why he has been guilty of leaving leinster players out, that is why people have to train all week, and that is why we have so many training camps.

I realise PSA has limited access to players which reduces his ability to built up chemistry, but instead of forming a 4 year plan when he took over, based around the world cup, he wasted the little access he had by not developing anything. By chopping and changing. This France team were hockeyed down under in 2014 by an Australia team in mid crisis. Well beaten in all tests on a three match tour to New Zealand. They were never a team, they were a collection of individuals. It was like watching the Barbarians, and that must hang on the coach.

General Lessons

If we want to compete with Southern Hemisphere teams (here in the North) we have to play more tests. Simple as. New Zealand play their 6 game championship against the other best teams in the world. They play an extra bledisloe against the other best team in the world. They go on long 4 game tours in our autumn, multiple teams go down there for long tours in our summer.

Let us compare our 2014 fixtures with a table.


New Zealand | Ireland
|
England | Scotland
England | Wales
England | England
Australia | Italy
Australia | France
Argentina | Argentina
South Africa | Argentina
South Africa | South Africa
Argentina | Georgia
Australia | Austrlalia
USA |
England |
Sctotland |
Wales |




Sure it wasn't a bad year for Ireland, but we still played four fewer tests. And considering it was basically an Argentina B Team, we played significantly fewer tests against top class opposition. In New Zealand and South Africa they have all but banned their international players from playing Domestic, so they have way fewer club games, and way more international matches, I genuinely wouldn't mind Ireland and Wales playing an extra match or two each year before the 6 nations, call it whatever you want (the equivalent of a Bledisloe) and we tell our clubs they're without their internationals for a bit longer. The Pro 12 is effectively Union run, so it's primary purpose is still development.

Where I am getting to, eventually. Is that SH teams have the perfect situation for development. They play each other loads, and then they get the best choice when it comes to tours, because there are 4 of them and 6 of us. If we want to be as good as them, we need to spend less time playing club rugby, and more time international.

Sorry, it's early in the morning, and I just wanted to get my thoughts on paper.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

It is very tempting to lay out the two failed states side by side.

...

Sorry, it's early in the morning, and I just wanted to get my thoughts on paper.

We play strong opposition every year. We play the best in Europe and then we tour and then we host SH teams.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you only mean that we should play more international tests, but rather you mean that we should play more international tests against the very best in the world? If that's the case then really the only time we have to do this is in November or in the Summer. I'd be in favour of expanding the international window in November (although it already allows for 3 tests which should really be enough given it may not be possible to play every team every year).

I wouldn't be in favour of expanding the Summer window because I think if anything we need to add a small window after the current international window excluding all competitive rugby for a few weeks in the summer tbh, or else it'll just turn into non-stop rugby 12 months a year for players based in Europe.

jm08

Don't write off France anyway. ROG said recently that while doing his coaching badges in the French National Academy they were using some of the underage teams and he said they have some fantastic players coming through and he expects them to be a force again shortly.

I think with Guy Noves as coach, they will be a different animal as well.

errlloyd

Yeah you're basically right. We should look to play 4 tests every Autumn, at least 1 should be against Georgia, Romania or Russia (because I strongly feel we just should), but the other 3 should be against RC teams, and if we can't get those games, than we should play another 6N team.

irishbucsfan

jm08 wrote: »

Don't write off France anyway. ROG said recently that while doing his coaching badges in the French National Academy they were using some of the underage teams and he said they have some fantastic players coming through and he expects them to be a force again shortly.

I think with Guy Noves as coach, they will be a different animal as well.

Didn't he also say the standard of coaching in France was particularly poor?

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The international game has it's defined windows and that system works. If we want more international games we can just expand the windows. That's how it's balanced and it works absolutely fine in almost every country.

But we can't expand the windows, the club game won't allow for it. The French clubs were not a bit happy with the World Cup and what it meant for the league. The Top 14 continues during the six nations and players leave camp to play for their clubs (whether they're needed or not for the squad, it makes for disruption).

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The club game is not having an impact on the 6 Nations currently. I don't even really see any problems in the 6 Nations itself, it's just it's intended nature that's problematic, IE a closed league for 6 teams.

Apart from what I've said above; of course it has an impact. Even at the level of match fitness and injuries, it has an impact. The French have a lot of league matches played by the time the 6N comes around. Squad continuity suffers.

The closed league is an easily fixed issue. It just requires that there be two leagues with some kind of relegation system, played at the same time. Adding one more team to the six nations adds another week or possibly two. This would eat into the European competition and the pointy end of the leagues.

International players are playing too many matches as it is. For the international system to work, the leagues have to contract or split into A and B sections.

ixus

England - playing Burgess, dropping Hartley & Tualagi and not taking that kick cost them v wales. The players dropped should have been out of squad earlier or let off given close proximity to tournament. Robshaw made that kick mistake early in his captaincy career too. The 15 & extended squad are there.

France - inconsistent selection over extended period has cost them. Had a settled squad entered that training camp, could jave been a different story.

Against NZ, charged try, Parra missing sitter, Spedding trying to be French efore half time and Piccamoles being French after half time cost them dearly. The final two instances caused a major swing in momentum. Irreversible. Oh, and Naquatacki (spelling).

Nz & Aus are slicker with ball, as ever and playing with confidence. South Africa are muck but can still smash thungs Hulk style. Argies are good as ever. Northern Hem teams blighted by injury or selection policies.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

But we can't expand the windows, the club game won't allow for it. The French clubs were not a bit happy with the World Cup and what it meant for the league. The Top 14 continues during the six nations and players leave camp to play for their clubs (whether they're needed or not for the squad, it makes for disruption).

The French clubs have no say at World Rugby/IRB so it really doesn't matter what they think about an extra international window.

Now, if you were to say that the French clubs might be upset at the French national team taking advantage of that extra week then that's another issue. Maybe the French national team would choose not to play that extra game in order to bargain for extra time with the players elsewhere, or extra JIFF player, or extra whatever else. That's completely up to them. But the French clubs have no say over WR.

rrpc wrote: »

Apart from what I've said above; of course it has an impact. Even at the level of match fitness and injuries, it has an impact. The French have a lot of league matches played by the time the 6N comes around. Squad continuity suffers.

That's always been the case. It might be marginally more the case nowadays but not a huge amount so. It's not a massive problem at the moment. I see no evidence that Irish players, despite our player welfare rules, get injured any less than the players in the French squad or the EPS. We could barely field a team against Italy in 2013. It's a lot more complex than just more matches = bad.

rrpc wrote: »

The closed league is an easily fixed issue. It just requires that there be two leagues with some kind of relegation system, played at the same time. Adding one more team to the six nations adds another week or possibly two. This would eat into the European competition and the pointy end of the leagues.

Nope. Neither of these things work. If you just split the 6 Nations into 2 leagues then who is in those leagues? Who decides that? What happens if Germany start to fluorish,how do they get in? That's just kicking the can down the road. We already have a framework for European rugby that encompasses ALL of the teams in Europe, it's just some nations believe they're too good for it. I certainly never said I wanted to add anyone to the 6 Nations, that would just make things far worse.

rrpc wrote: »

International players are playing too many matches as it is. For the international system to work, the leagues have to contract or split into A and B sections.

I'm not buying that really. If players are playing too many matches then it's up to themselves, their clubs and their unions to sort it out anyway. It's not a structural issue. Club rugby works fine (outside of various issues unique to each league that don't really apply to this).

Celly Smunt

I feel club rugby is completely isolated from the problems internationally.

When we look at France we see big names and players capable of tearing any team apart on the day. When we look upstairs we see an disorganised mess of a coaching panel who can't find direction or response from their players. That is the reason they are where they are, that's all.

When we look at England we see similarities, I don't directly blame Lancaster but more so the mediocre group of coaches around him (Farrell who?). Selection has been off, their captain is lost for direction and too timid to take a game by the scruff of the neck like we would see from POC. They change 10's as often as their underwear to their own detriment too.

They're down on their luck for the next few years, not due to talent but due to coaching. Throw Gatland or Schmidt into either side and they'd have their mess cleared up.