• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The English club system.

ratsapprentice

Hall of Fame
TRF Legend
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,094
Country Flag
England
Club or Nation
England
...as seen in Football and Rugby.

I ****ing loathe it.

Thanks.

wosahvN.gif
 
Last edited:
The salary cap thing leaves a sour taste, but overall, it's not that bad.

70%+ EQP representation last season. Getting richer/more successful for all clubs. One of the top leagues in the game, and becoming more entertaining and better quality.

You can try and peddle bull**** that they're responsible for the mess in the RWC, but you only need to look at Argentina, and how well they did, to see that for the nonsense it is. Their players are scattered all over, have no rest periods, and often have even less rest, due to the fact that many play a NH schedule in the league, and then compete in the RC.

Is the system perfect? Nope, but our clubs don't rely on the union to bail them out, and in turn, the union has access to massive funds, which should allow it to heavily invest in grassroots and the national team, unfortunately only grassroots and age grade seem to have been improving, but lets hope that reaches the top too.
 
It's a fundamentally **** system.

Argentina have improved because they've been playing regularly against teams which don't use it.
 
It's a fundamentally **** system.it.

Your viewpoint is readily understood on basis that one sees clubs solely as feeders for the International game!

The alternative view is that many, many people enjoy club leagues at least equally to international rugby if not more!

Club rugby is played on more or less a weekly basis rather than periods of 4/6 weeks three times a year and often at prices they cannot afford for tickets they cannot get!!
 
It's a fundamentally **** system.

Argentina have improved because they've been playing regularly against teams which don't use it.

So Argentina did better than England because they play against leagues that don't use the English club system... Apart from France, who do England play that use an English club system?
 
Oh yes... Scotland's two PRO12 sides are really comparable with the SANZAR equivalent, how silly of me... not to mention Italian powerhouse Zebre.

Even if you don't give a **** about international or representative sport - it's an inferior system.
If you only care about domestic competition then a North American style league is superior.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes... Scotland's two PRO12 sides are really comparable with the SANZAR equivalent, how silly of me... not to mention Italian powerhouse Zebre.

So it's the English club system that means the England national team regularly play against Italy and Scotland, rather than Aus, NZ and SA???
 
Well you seem to be arguing (at least in part, given the comparison to Argentina) that the English league system has contributed to the National sides failure, by somehow causing them to play Scotland and Italy more often than playing against Aus/NZ...

I'm not sure that can really be put on the PRLs shoulders.
 
Your viewpoint is readily understood on basis that one sees clubs solely as feeders for the International game!

The alternative view is that many, many people enjoy club leagues at least equally to international rugby if not more!

Club rugby is played on more or less a weekly basis rather than periods of 4/6 weeks three times a year and often at prices they cannot afford for tickets they cannot get!!

Yes absolutely. And the club system isn't just 'a system'. It is part of our culture. There's nothing in this country outside of the clubs. Like I said in another post, they tried regional teams back in the 80s and 90s and it failed. Nobody wanted them.

There wouldn't be a national team with pro players if it wasn't for the clubs acceptance to loan their players to the union. If that stopped, and it could very well do, the union would not be able to field a proper test team. Mind you, in the last 4 years, they haven't really...

The more fans who become disenchanted with the national team, and there's a lot of them at the moment, the more are turning to club rugby in droves. A mid table team like Bordeaux in a footy town had the highest league attendance in Europe last season.

The average fan over here doesn't give a rat's arse about SH rugby. 90% of fans i talk to don't watch SR. They go to games and support their club because it's part of what they are.
 
Well you seem to be arguing (at least in part, given the comparison to Argentina) that the English league system has contributed to the National sides failure, by somehow causing them to play Scotland and Italy more often than playing against Aus/NZ...

No - I'm saying that the club system is inferior. And Argentina have been massive beneficiaries of the SR system since engaging with the product of it.

You disagree that a system which condensed the best quality Premiership players into, say, 6 teams and had them play fewer total games* would improve the quality of the national side, and it's competitiveness in domestic European competition?

*Whilst subsequently giving younger players the opportunity to play in a more stable, and potentially higher quality environment than being shipped off on loan for half a season.
 
Last edited:
No - I'm saying that the club system is inferior. And Argentina have been massive beneficiaries of the SR system since engaging with the product of it.

You disagree that a system which condensed the best quality Premiership players into, say, 6 teams and had them play fewer total games would improve the quality of the national side, and it's competitiveness in domestic European competition?

How is the English league inferior to the Argentinian product/system? This should be interesting.

As for fewer teams, doing what? Playing in a British league? No thanks, we already dominate both tiers of the eurocup compared to 90% of the rest of the British sides, making our teams stronger still will not change that.

We have a successful 12 team league that is self contained, the money is improving, more clubs have stability, the quality of the product is constantly improving. What if we jump to 6 sides, they have no one to play, 80% of the support drops because they have no affiliation, and the money runs out?

Can improvements be made? Hell yes. However, I think looking into rearranging the season, especially a move to summer, could be a far more sensible way, than juggling with one of the more successful leagues in the world.
 
How is the English league inferior to the Argentinian product/system? This should be interesting.

Where have I talked about Argentina's domestic system?

As for fewer teams, doing what? Playing in a British league? No thanks, we already dominate both tiers of the eurocup compared to 90% of the rest of the British sides, making our teams stronger still will not change that.

:lol:
 
Where have I talked about Argentina's domestic system?



:lol:

You seem to be blaming the English domestic setup to be partially responsible for the English NT failure. My point was that the Argie players play in comparatively worse conditions (long seasons, no mandated rest, often NH season, followed by TRC meaning no decent time off), and yet they looked far better than we did. Your argument was that they play in the TRC. My question then is how the hell does the English league system make it that England NT doesn't play in the TRC.

Could you point out all the british sides that have done so much better than the English ones in the euro cup? Only Leinster made it to the playoffs in the champions cup, there were 4 English sides there. And in the challenge cup 4/5 English teams made it to the playoffs with an English side winning it. Why would we want to play the other British sides any more, they appear to be a lower level than the AP for the most part.
 
The problem in my opinion is money, to much money in Soccer and that has ruined the game, it's lead to a steady increase in big money moves from abroad and has done nothing more than line the pockets of players and clubs, the other side of the coin is that the average fan is finding the cost of supporting a team unaffordable, soccer used to be the working mans game in England, grounds used to be populated with working men in flat caps who had an escape from the working week at 3pm every Saturday. Now the game is out of reach financially for a lot of ordinary people with the cost of taking the wife and a couple of kids akin to flying the family to Spain and back.
The winners are the club owners, the players, TV companies and advertisers, the looser the fans without who there would be no product.
There has been a steady decline in England soccers on field success since the 70's closely associated with vastly increased player income and an increased influx of foreign players, can anyone seriously expect silverware again, I doubt it, whoever coaches England has an impossible task with an ever decreasing pool to pick from.

In rugby this problem seems to exist only in France and England where clubs seem to have more money to throw at player imports. This World Cup has seen poor returns from both nations and although France reached the 1/4s this was probably the worst performing French side in my memory and one which has a direct correlation with the low numbers of French qualified players plying their trade in the top 14, this is also mirrored in England. My feeling is that the respective unions need to man up and take ownership of the game as a whole, because at the moment the collective clubs seem to have far greater power than their respective unions and it has become a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Directives on match day squads need to be put in place with a maximum number of imports (6 in my opinion) in each 23, it would also level the playing field for individual clubs giving some of the lesser lights a fairer chance on the domestic scene, with Soccer we already know at the start of any given season that one of 3 or 4 teams is going to win the premiership and that around half a dozen are in a relegation dog fight with the others settling for mid table mediocrity and a possible cup run, as I've said before it smacks of groundhog day, where is the fun in that ?
 
There is already a minimum number of eqp in place, it stands at 15/23, about 65%, last seasons average was 72% I believe. As for imports, high quality imports only improve the product and quality, therefore improving the England players too. With 12 teams, we can afford to have 30%+ foreigners since we have plenty of teams, as long as by fluke not every one starts in the same position. Foreign journeymen are an issue, when players likely their equal can be found in the championship, and if they improve help England.
 
You seem to be blaming the English domestic setup to be partially responsible for the English NT failure. My point was that the Argie players play in comparatively worse conditions (long seasons, no mandated rest, often NH season, followed by TRC meaning no decent time off), and yet they looked far better than we did. Your argument was that they play in the TRC. My question then is how the hell does the English league system make it that England NT doesn't play in the TRC.

Could you point out all the british sides that have done so much better than the English ones in the euro cup? Only Leinster made it to the playoffs in the champions cup, there were 4 English sides there. And in the challenge cup 4/5 English teams made it to the playoffs with an English side winning it. Why would we want to play the other British sides any more, they appear to be a lower level than the AP for the most part.

Where have I talked about playing the Celtic sides in here, Raggs?
Where have I blamed the English system for being in the wrong hemisphere?

I haven't - I've simply stated my dislike for what I see to be a fundamentally flawed system.

Given their raw resources, I'd suggest that the Celtic sides have fared significantly better than the English sides over the last 5+ years.

I didn't bring up the Pumas, but since you have...
The primary factor behind Argentina's recent improvement has been them playing in the RC, do you think they would have improved anywhere near as much had they joined the 6N?
No - they are directly benefiting from the pyramidal system of the three SANZAR nations, which has consistently found said countries at the top of the international pile in the professional era.
 
Fine, let's go back to basics. You barely talked about anything in your opening post, hence my perhaps more leading questions, since you offered virtually no information yourself.

You don't like the system. Why not? What are the negatives?
 

Latest posts

Top