Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
England Rebuild
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="OldCoach" data-source="post: 461238" data-attributes="member: 56506"><p>Nice post but you also miss the point - England have come 2nd to NZ in the last 4 U20 Junior World Cups. So we are guilty of doing the same things and expecting a different result. </p><p>Apart from that the points you make are very relevant. So here's my build on your post.</p><p>1. Only in England, France and strangely Japan can a young player suddenly start making a reasonable living by becoming a top club player so where's the incentive to push for that extra skill level and become an international?</p><p>2. In NZ, Aus, SA, Wales and Ireland - the level below international is Provincial funded by the national union with a helping of money from TV. The only way to become a very well paid and recognised player is to become a full and successful international - so the incentive is to become the best player you possibly can and hopefully represent the national side.</p><p>3. In the countries named in 2. the main competition is free from relegation with the emphasis on the type of game which will provide the best skill development to be able to play both tight and open styles of rugby ( NZ beat Aus with a forward dominated game but had the nous to open up when the possibility arose). England and France play the grind and in the main don't have the vision nor the skills to see and exploit an opportunity.</p><p>4. England's Academy does not creat skillful players. Indeed in the England academy set up from 15 onwards the first thing selectors assess are the fitness stats. There is a template for each position in each age group - and there is not one reference to skill set in the template, all the metrics are about athletic attributes. Shane Williams, Leigh Halfpenny, Aaron Crudden and possibly Dan Carter would be rejected as 16 year olds.</p><p>5. Players do not have enough game time where learning and executing personal skills are the priority. That's why when the pressure comes on lines of support run, depth of run and sympathy / accuracy of the pass fall down.</p><p>6. This is not a rant - my credentials include having coached a number of the young players mentioned in this thread up to them disappearing off into the malaise of England Academy at the age of 16. I still know them well and watch them playing club rugby and wonder where their skills have gone. When I see them and ask how much time they spend working on their left hand passing or experimenting with different support running lines you can guess the answer.</p><p>7. Maybe this is a rant - so rant over</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="OldCoach, post: 461238, member: 56506"] Nice post but you also miss the point - England have come 2nd to NZ in the last 4 U20 Junior World Cups. So we are guilty of doing the same things and expecting a different result. Apart from that the points you make are very relevant. So here's my build on your post. 1. Only in England, France and strangely Japan can a young player suddenly start making a reasonable living by becoming a top club player so where's the incentive to push for that extra skill level and become an international? 2. In NZ, Aus, SA, Wales and Ireland - the level below international is Provincial funded by the national union with a helping of money from TV. The only way to become a very well paid and recognised player is to become a full and successful international - so the incentive is to become the best player you possibly can and hopefully represent the national side. 3. In the countries named in 2. the main competition is free from relegation with the emphasis on the type of game which will provide the best skill development to be able to play both tight and open styles of rugby ( NZ beat Aus with a forward dominated game but had the nous to open up when the possibility arose). England and France play the grind and in the main don't have the vision nor the skills to see and exploit an opportunity. 4. England's Academy does not creat skillful players. Indeed in the England academy set up from 15 onwards the first thing selectors assess are the fitness stats. There is a template for each position in each age group - and there is not one reference to skill set in the template, all the metrics are about athletic attributes. Shane Williams, Leigh Halfpenny, Aaron Crudden and possibly Dan Carter would be rejected as 16 year olds. 5. Players do not have enough game time where learning and executing personal skills are the priority. That's why when the pressure comes on lines of support run, depth of run and sympathy / accuracy of the pass fall down. 6. This is not a rant - my credentials include having coached a number of the young players mentioned in this thread up to them disappearing off into the malaise of England Academy at the age of 16. I still know them well and watch them playing club rugby and wonder where their skills have gone. When I see them and ask how much time they spend working on their left hand passing or experimenting with different support running lines you can guess the answer. 7. Maybe this is a rant - so rant over [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
England Rebuild
Top