The Future

[Bloke in North Dorset]

I would normally agree that if you have nothing to say, then keep quiet.
But on that basis we may hear nothing till the fag end of next season when (if!!) the prem 1 & 2 plan gets announced.

There might not be many Wasps fans left to communicate with at that point if they don't start engaging soon.....

Once a Wasp always a Wasp.

Although I understand the point about not saying anything unless you've got something to say it would be nice if they said they had nothing yet to say, just so we know there's a pulse.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

If they are waiting fro Prem 2 to happen, and waiting for an invite, it is likely they are not planning at the same time for a low league entry.

[Heathen]

If the Prem 1/2 actually happens, will the RFU still impose the rugby debt repayment?

[NellyWellyWaspy]

If the Prem 1/2 actually happens, will the RFU still impose the rugby debt repayment?

Probably, but who knows? They are making it up as they go along right now.

[Heathen]

Well Danny's not holding back - https://twitter.com/DannyCipriani87

[Trevs Big Tackle]

Here's a direct link to his tweet.
https://twitter.com/DannyCipriani87/status/1693180086558634407?t=1aN5f8llVE0166_EcgM4fw&s=19

[mike909]

This was very interesting

It doesn?t mean Borthwick isn?t right for the job. He has clearly grown from a player to a coach. He over took a very wooden system left by Eddie. Which is a very tough job to get the players to unlearn what was ingrained in them

Since the 2020 6Ns when England used the backbone of the 2019 WC team to carry on the "focus". That WC team of course - being based on the one which did so well at U-20's level and was winning 80% of 6Ns games prior to the 2015 WC. And given what Lancaster has done since....perhaps we were unfortunate with that tournament's outcome. One which facilitated hiring jones. A man renown for short term gains but also for losing the dressing room and not liking challenge (Hence the turnover of coaches - all 17 of them....)

So that period from the Junior world cup wins/performances that left a legacy of players essentially ran out of steam almost the same time as "Peak Jones". And since the 100% and 91% win percentage years - it's been a record of decent years alongside (under Jones) three awful 6Ns (winning 2 of 5) a few opportune wins to "bolster the myth" but - for me - an underlying concern about a team that could win any game (if prepared like crazy for that one game - Jones' speciality - Japan vs SA, England vs NZ etc.) but was increasingly looking like it was being found out and ideas were running out?

I'm uncertain I have many ideas about anything in the short term. But England must look to the future from next 6Ns....

[jamestaylor002]

England couldn't do much worse than what they are doing at the moment so they might as well complete a comprehensive review of the way rugby is coached/played etc. and promote those up and coming players in a similar way to the French over the last few years.

However, for this to work it requires buy-in from everyone from the top of the RFU down to us supporters.

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).

It's also about understanding that results may not go our way instantly and England may experience a poor 6N or two, maybe a WC, with the promise that everything comes together at some point. Can the RFU accept that? Can supporters?

[Bloke in North Dorset]

I agree with what you say, but to be somewhat pedantic:

However, for this to work it requires buy-in from everyone from the top of the RFU down to us supporters.

Your never going to get the buy-in of everyone because there are always winners and losers with change and the losers are generally incumbent, organised and vocal (the Seen). On the other hand the winners are generally unseen, often unknown and therefore unorganised.

This is where a much overused term is required: Leadership. Leadership isn't being appointed to senior management, getting a key to the executive toilet and claiming to be part of a leadership team. Its about having the vision and ability to communicate the needs for the change and the benefits but more importantly its having the moral strength and ability to make it happen against the organised resistance and bureaucratic inertia.

Sadly, the RFU has shown a distinct lack of leadership.

[WonkyWasp]

Plus 1 BinD.  You spoke a book.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

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.

[Garuda]

My nine year old, knowing the season should start soon, asked me yesterday when Wasps will play again. He was disappointed when I had to tell him Wasps may never play again. He replied that there is no-one in the prem for him to support anymore. A whole generation of kids who would have followed Wasps, Wuss and Irish are being lost to the sport.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

@BiND

The only way you fix that dilemma is to examine what causes the power game (as typified by Tigers and Sarries, to name but two teams) to be successful.

The answer is, the laws of the game. Slowly, year by year, the changes have favored that approach.

It would be nice, but we cannot outlaw 'big' players, but we can change the laws to persuade the coaches away from the power game.

* Free kick becomes the maximum punishment for scrum/maul collapse or turning.
* Still allow 8 replacements on the bench, but you can use only 4, or maybe 5, of them, except in the case of a player being injured due to a yellow or red card offence. So they can be true replacements instead of 'finishers'. Maximum of 3 replacements for the pack, maximum of 2 for the backs. Forces player selection to lighter players who can run the 80 minutes.
* No penalty kick to your own lineout, instead it goes to the other side.
* No scrum option from penalties or free kicks.
* No rolling mauls from lineouts.
* Players in front of a kicker MUST retreat 10m before rejoining the game.
* Penalty kick to goal or drop goal only worth the same as a conversion, 2 points.
* Player who is held up is declared tackled if held for more than 5 seconds, and must be released to ground.

[jamestaylor002]

I agree with what you say, but to be somewhat pedantic:

However, for this to work it requires buy-in from everyone from the top of the RFU down to us supporters.

Your never going to get the buy-in of everyone because there are always winners and losers with change and the losers are generally incumbent, organised and vocal (the Seen). On the other hand the winners are generally unseen, often unknown and therefore unorganised.

This is where a much overused term is required: Leadership. Leadership isn't being appointed to senior management, getting a key to the executive toilet and claiming to be part of a leadership team. Its about having the vision and ability to communicate the needs for the change and the benefits but more importantly its having the moral strength and ability to make it happen against the organised resistance and bureaucratic inertia.

Sadly, the RFU has shown a distinct lack of leadership.

I wouldn't say you're pedantic, your response actually is what I was trying to say but perhaps very simplistically! I completely understand, and would expect, there to be some sort of resistance from areas of the game.

[jamestaylor002]

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.

The only thing I'd say about your response here BiND is that, for once, I'd actually managed to put my personal feelings on the subject of Tigers/Saracens et al to one side.

Everything else I agree with - the only reason I suggest that clubs may have more influence than other clubs is because I have my tin hat on and wonder how some players have managed to stay within the system. Some players have been able to perhaps hide behind a winning team but others may not have.