Always a Wasp

But if you want to play Sarries/Tigers/Sale style, why would you pick players from Toulouse?
12 out of 15 are current or former players of those clubs.

Quote

For the RFU, it's about looking at the best way to make English rugby successful again in the longer term and limiting the influence of certain clubs (who shall remain nameless).

I don't want this to degenerate in to the usual bashing, our opinions and disgust are well known, but I have been thinking about the 2nd and higher order affects of the concentration, legally or illegally, of so much of a country's top talent in one team, especially when that team play an overcoached system that relies on power rather skill to overwhelm its opponents.

Players want to play for that team because they naturally want to be playing top tier rugby and winning trophies. That brings financial reward beyond just salaries and win bonuses if that is what motivates players. That in itself is a reason for players to play the system and obey the coaches, because they know they are easily replaced.
 
A pliant 2nd best player being better than a renegade best player being a possible result, with the 2nd best player looking better than he is because he's in a winning team and the best player not looking as good because he's playing for a struggling team and even getting more injuries because he's having to play more. This is what I mean by higher order effects.

As we've seen, this has also meant that England has had to rely on the English players from that club for the core of the team. That has led to importing that club's culture and playing style because that's what those players are comfortable with and to a certain extent forces the England head coaches to build on it.

This means that players from other clubs joining England have to fit in and be accepted by the core players and we've heard rumours of strife in the camp when other players don't fit in.  I wonder how much this affects moral? We're often told its high but who is going to rock the boat and say it isn't?

Eddie appears to have been comfortable with this arrangement but I wonder how much it affected the other coaches who've wanted to play a different style and maybe been blocked by these core players' inability or unwillingness to play a different style of rugby?

What we've witnessed over that past 6 or 7 years is an England team that can only grind out wins but when things aren't going well on the field have shown in a number of matches an inability to think and adapt to what's in front of them. But what about beating NZ in the semi final? Yes, great win but probably set us back again because the focus was on that one game and not all the rest of the bad performances.

One point I'm making here is that central contracts with the RFU directing where players play might not be the panacea some might hope if it leads to stagnant coaching because success comes easily at the club level.

The answer is still that we need a decent sized top tier league with teams being on more or less a level playing field when it comes to salary meaning coaches having to develop players and playing styles with the good and innovative ones coming out on top. Those teams need to be distributed around the country to spread the game eg players going in to clubs, coaching camps during school holidays and being seen as part of the community.

But what about Ireland? A much smaller place and player pool so four teams is realistically the most they can support and its easier for those players to get in to the community is my argument against going down to such a route or if they do perhaps 10 teams evenly distribute about the major population centres is the minimum.

In conclusion, a concentration of player/coaching power, no matter how it is achieved, is bad for the game in England.