"England has the quantity, but Wales has the quality". Discuss.

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I've said this for years. Our depth is one of our biggest hindrances as players (and coaches TBH) tend not to be supported through a temporary drop in form; or have a hell of a road back into the squad if they drop out with an injury.

I'm curious, do you have any evidence to back up such a claim? Or is it a feeling you have because i don't see it. I am asking because intuitively i'd be inclined to argue the opposite.

Allow me to use two simple examples i am reasonably familiar with: arg tends to do much, much better in the first 50-60 minutes of the game, which speaks volumes about our depth. The opposite tends to happen with the All Blacks, which is understandable given their depth. This does not mean that the pumas are terrible during the last 30 minutes and that the all blacks are amazing. We are talking about relative measures, not absolute ones.
It means that, relative to the competition and on average, the people that come in as subs for the pumas give the opposition a slight advantage and the opposite happens with the all blacks.

All teams are expected to drop performance when changes occur. That's why some people are starters and some aint (again, on average). The relevant question is whether those substitutions, which pretty much every team does, cost you more than the opposition.

If we were talking in F1 terms, all teams have to 'waste time' at pit stops. The question is whether you waste more time there than the competition or not. Complaining about u taking 6 seconds when all the other teams take 10 doesn't make much sense. Sure, you could improve but that is clearly not your bottleneck.

On average, the difference in skill/performance/whatever you want to call it, is bigger between a NZ sub and an Arg sub than between their starter counterparts. There are ways to estimate that. Score at different points in time is the most typical one (specific metrics relevant to that position are obvious ones, too). There are other factors sure (taking the foot off the pedal, concentration, etc), and although these metrics are hardly perfect, they are pretty widely accepted as precisely wrong but directionally correct.

I don't see any evidence to support the claim that England's depth is worse than say, Wales's, Scotland's, Ireland's or Australia's.

 

[BPM]

I don't think Which is saying our depth is worse than Wales, Scotland, Ireland or Australia.

I think he's saying that the volume of options make it difficult to break back in to the squad if you get injured at the wrong time.

The best example I can think of is Ben Curry. But for a badly timed back spasm, he was due to play ahead of Tom. He dropped out, Tom swapped in, seized his chance and never looked back while Ben has struggled to get back in to the squad. Partly because of injury, but mostly because he's competing with several very good players like Underhill, Willis, Ludlam, Wilson, Earl etc.

In comparison, there's only a couple of players who can benefit from Halfpenny's injury and it remains to be seen whether they're really good enough to keep the shirt. If Halfpenny comes back in any kind of form, he probably goes straight back in to the side/RWC squad.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I'm curious, do you have any evidence to back up such a claim? Or is it a feeling you have because i don't see it. I am asking because intuitively i'd be inclined to argue the opposite.

Allow me to use two simple examples i am reasonably familiar with: arg tends to do much, much better in the first 50-60 minutes of the game, which speaks volumes about our depth. The opposite tends to happen with the All Blacks, which is understandable given their depth. This does not mean that the pumas are terrible during the last 30 minutes and that the all blacks are amazing. We are talking about relative measures, not absolute ones.
It means that, relative to the competition and on average, the people that come in as subs for the pumas give the opposition a slight advantage and the opposite happens with the all blacks.

All teams are expected to drop performance when changes occur. That's why some people are starters and some aint (again, on average). The relevant question is whether those substitutions, which pretty much every team does, cost you more than the opposition.

If we were talking in F1 terms, all teams have to 'waste time' at pit stops. The question is whether you waste more time there than the competition or not. Complaining about u taking 6 seconds when all the other teams take 10 doesn't make much sense. Sure, you could improve but that is clearly not your bottleneck.

On average, the difference in skill/performance/whatever you want to call it, is bigger between a NZ sub and an Arg sub than between their starter counterparts. There are ways to estimate that. Score at different points in time is the most typical one (specific metrics relevant to that position are obvious ones, too). There are other factors sure (taking the foot off the pedal, concentration, etc), and although these metrics are hardly perfect, they are pretty widely accepted as precisely wrong but directionally correct.

I don't see any evidence to support the claim that England's depth is worse than say, Wales's, Scotland's, Ireland's or Australia's.

I guess a good example would be fly half. We have Smith, Simmonds and Umunga and Atkinson who are all young potential. There isn't really enough time to try them all and give them all a fair crack and therefore we would never really find out if any or all had WC potential on an international level.

If you only had two you'd quickly figure out which if any were any good.

Or something like that anyhow .

 

[BPM]

I think everyone would prefer actual clubs but most countries it's simply not financially viable. Could argue it's not viable in England since there is only one or two that actually make a profit.

Yes. It is a big dilemma.

IMO, the club game in England is a significantly better product week-in, week-out than the United Rugby Championship where I'd argue that the derby games that fall out of test windows are the only ones really worth watching. However, there is very little money and certainly very little profit in Premiership rugby and that's a major worry.

I don't know the answer, but it's clear that we need a way to make the game more profitable. I hope that's not at the expense of the club game.

 

[BPM]

I guess a good example would be fly half. We have Smith, Simmonds and Umunga and Atkinson who are all young potential. There isn't really enough time to try them all and give them all a fair crack and therefore we would never really find out if any or all had WC potential on an international level.

If you only had two you'd quickly figure out which if any were any good.

Or something like that anyhow .

Or you'd look for a project player or a random granny.

 

[Which Tyler]

I don't think Which is saying our depth is worse than Wales, Scotland, Ireland or Australia.

I think he's saying that the volume of options make it difficult to break back in to the squad if you get injured at the wrong time.

Exactly, I'm not entirely sure what Cruz thinks I'm saying - but it seems to be almost the precise opposite of what I'm trying to say.

Take FH.
If Cipriani doesn't make it, we call up Farrell, if he doesn't make it, we call up Ford, if he doesn't make it, we call up Simmonds, if he doesn't make it we call up Smith, if he doesn't make it, we call up Umaga, if he doesn't make it...
If you look at just the U20s this year; we've got Smith, Atkinson, Bailey and Matthews - all in one year group of age-group rugby, all have the potential to be regular internationals. Who do we invest time, training, money and caps in? Do you pick one and invest in him? do you give all 4 a quarter of the investment? what do you do if one makes a mistake (or even doesn't, but isn't the media darling? or plays for a club too far from London?). They're likely to feel insecure, disposable, fearful of their place; unwilling to play what's in front of them in case they make a mistake and get replaced.
Look at Ireland, Wales or Scotland; and they'll have 1-2 player in a 4-year period who are likely to make it; and it's a no-brainer as to who to invest in. They feel secure, loved and confident, allowed to try things without fear of being replaced.

Go back a decade; when you've got Sexton, Sexton or Sexton to invest in - guess who gets invested in? guess who gets the next batch of matches if he hits a run of poor form?
Alternatively, you've got Cipriani, Farrell or Ford - who gets the investment? who gets trusted with the next batch of matches following a poor run?

Cipriani i actually a really good example of this - essentially discarded for being awkward to work with. Had he come from a nation with less depth, do we really think he'd have been replaced so easily? or do you think he'd have been mentored (from before it became an issue) better, trusted, shown the love, and kept in the team?

I'm NOT saying that the drop off between starter and bencher is too great - I'm saying it's too small; as is the drop off between bencher and 3rd choice pushing from behind; and that it's often a judgment call as to who to trust and invest in.

I'm saying that our league structure is a pillar, not a pyramid; the top talent can float up into... 12 teams; whilst the next-best float into... erm... 12 teams; whilst those for whom semi-pro is the upper limit of their capability can drift into.... 12 teams.
Have 8 teams in the top league; 12 in the second; 20-odd (split by conference / region) in the 3rd; and there's more of a pyramidal structure; those top 8 teams will all be playing better rugby, against better opposition than in a league of 12. By playing better rugby against better opposition, you can better weed out the small differences between the top players week-in week-out.
IMO there are plenty of other advantages to this as well, but again, this isn't the thread to go into the detail of my proposal (which, FTR, doesn't involve any franchises at all).

 

[MikeTheNative]

England under Jones has been very loyal to 'his' players while others not afforded the same luxury. There may be options at 10 but Jones has exclusively played Farrell and Ford there with somebody else getting the odd game, same could be said about 9 where it's be Youngs and others scrabbling to get 2 minutes off the bench, let alone challenge to start.

 

[Reiser99]

England under Jones has been very loyal to 'his' players while others not afforded the same luxury. There may be options at 10 but Jones has exclusively played Farrell and Ford there with somebody else getting the odd game, same could be said about 9 where it's be Youngs and others scrabbling to get 2 minutes off the bench, let alone challenge to start.

Yeah, but that is a separate issue to the one about having too many choices. That's just EJ being a twat.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Yeah, but that is a separate issue to the one about having too many choices. That's just EJ being a twat.

I agree but one poster made a point where England are too quick to drop players as opposed to other teams but under Jones that hasn't really been the case. He backs his core spine through thick and thin.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I don't think Which is saying our depth is worse than Wales, Scotland, Ireland or Australia.

I think he's saying that the volume of options make it difficult to break back in to the squad if you get injured at the wrong time.

The best example I can think of is Ben Curry. But for a badly timed back spasm, he was due to play ahead of Tom. He dropped out, Tom swapped in, seized his chance and never looked back while Ben has struggled to get back in to the squad. Partly because of injury, but mostly because he's competing with several very good players like Underhill, Willis, Ludlam, Wilson, Earl etc.

In comparison, there's only a couple of players who can benefit from Halfpenny's injury and it remains to be seen whether they're really good enough to keep the shirt. If Halfpenny comes back in any kind of form, he probably goes straight back in to the side/RWC squad.

I'm not disagreeing with you as I think there is merit in the argument but your comparison to Halfpenny, for example, is a position where we lack depth (beyond Liam Williams and Halfpenny for Full Back) if you compared like for like (when you were talking about your back row and looking at our back row) then we too can't give opportunities to very talented young, and some not so young, players (Thomas Young, Reffell, Jac Morgan) who can't even get a look in coz the back row is a position we have a lot of depth in, full back not so much.

I'd argue that all teams through the decades will go through cycles and one decade produce loads of talent in certain areas and another totally different set of areas another decade.

As I say, though, there is some merit in the over competitive argument but having 12 top clubs to choose from and all the money in the world you won't get any sympathy from me. Lol.

 

[BPM]

I think the stats on rugby nations make interesting reading. There are two nations which quite frankly are sleeping giants, France and Japan. They have significantly more clubs and active senior male players yet internationally don't quite get it together.

Ireland Scotland and Wales seem to play very much as their number would predict. I think the real elephant in the room though is where would most nations be without their pacific island heritage players be (Including 1-2 generations back) who consistently punch well above their weight. Every 1st tier nation is peppered with them. They are so good they can get into any other countries side.

Is this really that significant?

Currently, England have the Vunipola brothers, Tuilagi and Cokanasiga. Wales have Faletau and Haloholo. Ireland have Aki and Scotland have Tuipolotu.

It's fair to say 3/4 of the England players have been key parts of success as well as Faletau for Wales. Aki has been a regular starter for Ireland, but I wouldn't have put him at the same level of importance as the others. Tuipolotu is a recent call-up for Scotland and hasn't been key to anything.

Would England have been as successful without those players over the last little while? Probably not. However, I think the Vunipolas and Tuilagi are at the tail end of being key players for England (a lot of us wouldn't pick Mako or Billy) and it remains to be seen whether Cokanasiga can fulfil his potential to the extent that he's material to the success of the England team.

Similarly, Faletau has been a huge asset for Wales over the years, but I'd question how much difference one player would have made (particularly given his injury record).

Probably a bit controversial, but I'd argue NZ and Australia have had a lot more key players who were born in the Pacific Islands. They've certainly benefited from it. However, I still think they'd probably have achieved a good deal of their success without this.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I agree but one poster made a point where England are too quick to drop players as opposed to other teams but under Jones that hasn't really been the case. He backs his core spine through thick and thin.

But he has, loads of players have come in and been dropped or not given a chance, Dunn, Harrison, Burrell etc but there are many more better examples.

While he's been loyal to some he's been the opposite with a load of other players. Look at Robson, Spencer etc.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Faleteau and the Vunipola brothers etc. grew up in the UK, they have lived longer here than back in their birthplaces. They are as British as the rest of us.
Funny enough Hallaholo is born and raised NZ. I do think PI do get a the worse end of the stick, but you can't claim players on their ethnicity.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I agree but one poster made a point where England are too quick to drop players as opposed to other teams but under Jones that hasn't really been the case. He backs his core spine through thick and thin.

But he has, loads of players have come in and been dropped or not given a chance, Dunn, Harrison, Burrell etc but there are many more better examples.

While he's been loyal to some he's been the opposite with a load of other players. Look at Robson, Spencer etc.

 

[BPM]

I'm not disagreeing with you as I think there is merit in the argument but your comparison to Halfpenny, for example, is a position where we lack depth (beyond Liam Williams and Halfpenny for Full Back) if you compared like for like (when you were talking about your back row and looking at our back row) then we too can't give opportunities to very talented young, and some not so young, players (Thomas Young, Reffell, Jac Morgan) who can't even get a look in coz the back row is a position we have a lot of depth in, full back not so much.

I'd argue that all teams through the decades will go through cycles and one decade produce loads of talent in certain areas and another totally different set of areas another decade.

As I say, though, there is some merit in the over competitive argument but having 12 top clubs to choose from and all the money in the world you won't get any sympathy from me. Lol.

I chose Halfpenny purely as he's got a long term injury.

Back row is probably the area where Wales have most depth/competition. I don't think it's the same in most other positions.

For example, AWJ, Owens and JD2 would probably have been pensioned off if there were obvious successors.

 

[BPM]

Faleteau and the Vunipola brothers etc. grew up in the UK, they have lived longer here than back in their birthplaces. They are as British as the rest of us.
Funny enough Hallaholo is born and raised NZ. I do think PI do get a the worse end of the stick, but you can't claim players on their ethnicity.

I agree entirely.

I was arguing that the 'elephant in the room' Mikey12 mentioned isn't that material to success.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I chose Halfpenny purely as he's got a long term injury.

Back row is probably the area where Wales have most depth/competition. I don't think it's the same in most other positions.

FoR 3xample, AWJ, Owens and JD2 would probably have been pensioned off if there were obvious successors.

Fair. Back row, back 3 and 9 are areas we generally always tend to do alright in in terms of producing talent. The rest, not so much. Although we're not doing to bad at 10 these days.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I think this mostly boils down to structure rather than scale, which can be a blessing and a curse. If you believe Wiki (hah!) the registered player bases (senior men) make for interesting reading:

ENG: 131,000 - RWCs 1
FRA: 124,000 - RWCs 0
RSA: 113,000 - RWCs 3
USA: 50,000 - RWCs 0
JAP: 48,000 - RWCs 0
AUS: 39,000 - RWCs 2
NZ: 27,000 - RWCs 3
IRE: 25,000 - RWCs 0
WAL: 22,000 - RWCs 0
ITA: 15,000 - RWCs 0
SCO: 11,000 - RWCs 0

Conclusion: WAL, stop worrying about ENG and start comparing yourselves to the ABs....

 

[Welsh Exile]

I think this mostly boils down to structure rather than scale, which can be a blessing and a curse. If you believe Wiki (hah!) the registered player bases (senior men) make for interesting reading:

ENG: 131,000 - RWCs 1
FRA: 124,000 - RWCs 0
RSA: 113,000 - RWCs 3
USA: 50,000 - RWCs 0
JAP: 48,000 - RWCs 0
AUS: 39,000 - RWCs 2
NZ: 27,000 - RWCs 3
IRE: 25,000 - RWCs 0
WAL: 22,000 - RWCs 0
ITA: 15,000 - RWCs 0
SCO: 11,000 - RWCs 0

Conclusion: WAL, stop worrying about ENG and start comparing yourselves to the ABs....

Gareth Thomas did a documentary a few years ago where he went over to NZ and talked about this. Obviously Wales and NZ have similar population sizes and both love their rugby so it was looking at why there is such a big gulf.

Their school boy rugby over there is next level. Not even next level, next universe kind of stuff compared to ours. There's obviously other factors why they're so much better than us but that's the main one I remember from the doc. To be fair, they've been a lot better than everyone for the last hundred years or so.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think he's saying that the volume of options make it difficult to break back in to the squad if you get injured at the wrong time.

There isn't really enough time to try them all and give them all a fair crack and therefore we would never really find out if any or all had WC potential on an international level.

Ok, fair enough. If i push it i guess i can see how that could constitute a problem, but i hope we can agree that out of all the potential problems a coaching team could face this would be among the most menial ones. Some might even call it an advantage, go figure. It'd be like saying to your neighbours 'Jesus, i dont know whether to drive the audi, the bmw, the mercedes or the porsche today. I dont have enough time these days to test them all properly.' while they can only afford to carpool in their 1992 peugeot 505.

I cant help comparing your argument with how nzealanders deal with pretty much the same problem. Selection involves risks, we all know that, yet most of us would rather have more options from where to choose from than fewer ones.