• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Anglo Welsh Cup 17/18

Like the John Player / Pilkington of old. You'll be suggesting that the champions are the team that finish top of the league next :)

Before professionalism, knock outs were great. In 86/7 Old Reigatian beat Exeter and Saracens before losing creditably at Kingsholm. The senior clubs all put out proper sides - the Glaws front row was Preedy (capped) Dunn (Eng bench) and Pascall (Eng tourist). We'll never see that again, mores the pity. Now way too dangerous to put amateurs in with pros.

This comp as is seems pointless. Make it u21 or get shot.
Make it 24 clubs (Premiership, Championship & the Welsh - or ditch the Welsh if we're not allowed to condense our talent and improve our leagues) with 6 pools of 4, played in an orthodox fashion, so 3 home and 3 away; include cup, plate & shield so that everyone gets a knock-out match. (Prem) Players only eligible if they played less than XX minutes in the previous season; age is an alternative; but minutes is a better bet for player welfare.
This gives us 6 pool + 3 KO weekends to fit into the 10 week international window.
Bare in mind - this is part of my joined-up-thinking approach to English rugby: https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/rfu-should-buy-out-4-premiership-clubs.40625/#post-887023
 
A season with silverware is better than a season without.
Of course, you'd sacrifice the AWC in order to secure a place in the big boys cup next year, but it's never that simple.
 
Who brought the drummers along?
Kind of feels like I'm watching mad max fury road
 
Bath's problem is they have a small squad which isn't great but on top of that they don't have a deep senior academy team really that can fill in alot of positions.

A small squad can work if the Academy is strong enough to fill in when needed, without that you end up like bath having to bring in nearly a full squad as injury cover and loans.
 
Not true any more, we've a squad of 47 IIRC... Thanks to 10 or so mid-season signings.
Baths problems are that we've been dealing with a 50% reduced squad size due to I jury (average is 25-30%).
Our other problem is that we're trying to increase the squad size by 50% over the last 18 months, leading to u happiness as there's not as much money for individuals - especially those whom were favourites of the previous coach and had been paid well above their worth.
 
Not true any more, we've a squad of 47 IIRC... Thanks to 10 or so mid-season signings.
Baths problems are that we've been dealing with a 50% reduced squad size due to I jury (average is 25-30%).
Our other problem is that we're trying to increase the squad size by 50% over the last 18 months, leading to u happiness as there's not as much money for individuals - especially those whom were favourites of the previous coach and had been paid well above their worth.

Kind of proves my point though, you went into the season with 37 players and not many Senior academy lads who are ready.
Bringing in that many players during a season will never end well.

injuries happen to everyone, Tigers went through a time off a major injury crisis but we had a very big squad at the time to deal with it on the whole and a game plan that could slow the game down and drag it to a mudbath fight (Which failed against teams with wide attacks like Bath under Ford) . Bath have neither currently.
 
I'm well aware that injuries happen to all teams; but not many teams go through episodes where the injuries are concentrated in one position; or the sheer numbers that Bath have been putting up with this season. However big the squad, any team will struggle when they're 20+ absent with injuries. Equally, any squad will struggle if they just have 5 injures; all of whom are THPs.

Bath had a very small squad; Ford had us with 32-34 players, and a tiny academy as he wanted to concentrate the talent and pay a bit more for them whilst keeping uynder the cap (yes, I know what you say to that); so we had a team that coule potentially win things if they reached the sharp end; but were unlikely to reach that sharp end in the first place.
Given that those 34 players took up almost all of the salary cap; Todd has had a hard time building up the numbers without breaching; so it takes time, and it ****** some players off and some we'd like to keep leave. C'est la vie, and it needs to be done.
We started this season with 37-38 players, which isn't a particularly small squad, and should be enough with a fairly typical injury list - just not when you lose 20+, or 5 in position, or both simultaneously. Planning to account for that is a fool's errand, and doing so just means that you don't have enough quality in the squad to do anything much. Bath still have enough quality in the squad; we just can't get them on the field, or even training together enough to show it.
 
Only saw some of the bath v chiefs game, obv Chiefs won well but was it a good game and how did joe Simmonds and cordero get on? And any the young lads not in the first team looking like they have potential?
 
Only saw some of the bath v chiefs game, obv Chiefs won well but was it a good game and how did joe Simmonds and cordero get on? And any the young lads not in the first team looking like they have potential?
No one really stood out. Of the young/new guys:
2. Innard - Not Prem quality (yet). He's fine in open play but his set piece, especially lineouts are very shaky. If he can sort them out he'd be a decent back-up to LCD but that'll take a lot of sorting.
4. Salmon - Very similar player to Mitch Lees; powerful ball carrier but noticeably overweight and without having a lineout back rower as good as Armand to make up for him (like Lees does in the 1st team) that lack of mobility is noticeable.
6. Kvesic - Didn't stand out a great deal. He is good though, defence and breakdown are impressive assets. I'd like to see him given more time with the 1sts.
9. Townsend - Looked sharp. Best kicking game of our 9s and should definitely be ahead of Maunder.
10. Simmonds - Didn't set the game alight but was good and managed the game well. Should be our 1st choice 10 if he isn't already.
13. Hendrickson - He's fine but he's never going to overtake the likes of Slade, Hill, Devoto etc.
14. O'Flaherty - Defensively sound, didn't notice him besides that.
15 Cordero - Made a few good cover tackles but his kicking game was poor. Didn't notice him in attack.
 
Obano was the best on the pitch for me,
Don't know what the ref was smoking but the bath scrum was completely dominant yet not getting the rewards.

I thought Cordero looked very good when given some ball and space, but it wasn't a game for the flyers
 
It's only seen as a development cup because it's about the only chance there is to rest players with little downside. I don't think that's intended to be its identity as such. As for what it's for, I guess just to scratch out a little more money on fallow weekends?

I definitely remember it being identified as a "development focused" cup after the end of the 08/09 season, hence why they decided to move it into the international window from 2009/10 onwards. I always remember the press releases at the start of each AW Cup where the coaches would go on about "how its a chance to blood new players" etc.

Naturally no strict rules meaning teams have to stick to that, but this feels like the first season where a large number of teams have fielded strong teams for the majority of the competition.

Just to put the record straight.
Of the 15 who started that match only Dollman and Short had started in any of 3 important games prior to it (1 Aviva and 2 european games) and Short had only stated 1. They had some players returning from injury that took part ,which is also what the AW is used for. It was nowhere near 'close to strongest side'.

That's fair enough - happy to be corrected by someone more clued up on the Exeter squad!

All I meant was that it's pretty telling that I recognise the majority of the Exeter team, and can pick out a number of international players / players who've had a fair bit of game time since being with Exeter (before and after the game). However I maybe faintly reconize a name or two in the Scarlets team from Wales u20 / Welsh Prem duty, but the majority I've never seen before.

The disparity in experience between the two sides was pretty huge, maybe more so than the 40 - 0 scoreline showed. This isn't to have a pop at Exeter - they're perfectly entitled to play whatever side they want of course, and don't have to match it to the opposition - same applies to Bath is all I meant. It's a cup final after all, and considering that most sides have played fairly strong teams, nothing wrong with playing a strong starting XV - Not that it mattered ;) congrats to Chiefs!

Like the John Player / Pilkington of old. You'll be suggesting that the champions are the team that finish top of the league next :)

Before professionalism, knock outs were great. In 86/7 Old Reigatian beat Exeter and Saracens before losing creditably at Kingsholm. The senior clubs all put out proper sides - the Glaws front row was Preedy (capped) Dunn (Eng bench) and Pascall (Eng tourist). We'll never see that again, mores the pity. Now way too dangerous to put amateurs in with pros.

This comp as is seems pointless. Make it u21 or get shot.

Haha to be fair, my Dad still gets grumpy about play offs and wants it back to the top of the league wins it...

Yeah you couldn't ever go back to the old style set up you had in the amateur days, but I wouldn;t be against some sort of competition that did include the top Championship / Welsh Prem sides as a chance for the smaller clubs to gain some exposure while the bigger clubs blood their youngsters, with the line ups getting stronger as they go along.

A pipe dream no doubt though!
 
As said above there are no rules on selection meaning you dont have to match the teams as said. So 40 - 0 to exeter. But they need to impose some rules becausr that is not really beneficial to neither team. If we just had lose rules that said x about of under 23s in the starting 15/23 and then its up to the team if to field more u23s. Zero internationals ( played international rugby within last 18months for x about minutes)
 
As said above there are no rules on selection meaning you dont have to match the teams as said. So 40 - 0 to exeter. But they need to impose some rules becausr that is not really beneficial to neither team. If we just had lose rules that said x about of under 23s in the starting 15/23 and then its up to the team if to field more u23s. Zero internationals ( played international rugby within last 18months for x about minutes)

I wouldn't say zero internationals but maybe a cap limit per player and for the team as a whole instead? Eg not player with more than 10 caps and the team as a whole limited to 30 or 40? (I haven't checked the sort of caps flying around the squads to know how realistic these would be)
 
I'd just favour a limit on game time from the previous season. But then, I'm more interested in player welfare than making it a purely developmental competition.
Something like anyone playdd a part in more than 20 matches last season (counting International, ECC, Prem and AwC) is ineligible, and known to be from the start of the season. Or no-one who's played more than 1500 minutes in the last 12 months as a rolling total. Or any combination of those 2 elements.
 
Needs to be a develipment comp but does need some prem level players as then players are having to step up and play at a higher level. But if a player has played more than 200 min internation in the last 18 month they arnt aloud to play. Then the comp can be for prem players who are coming back from injury or need gametime to get back to the level and young guys who experience a step up and pressure of the comp. There just needs to be actual rules for who can be selected
 

Latest posts

Top