Professionalism has got nothing to do with England's failures, if you want to cling onto a vague stereotype that befits any national team's exit from a major tournament then you only have to blame the sheer number of foreign players playing in the Premiership which has dwindled the pool of talent available for the coaches and management.
I think Johnson got his selection wrong anyway, the players seemed to be under the assumption that they could turn up and win, just because it's happened in the past, but France are always worthy of at least one performance in every WC and hopefully today was their only one - I'd love to see Wales muller them.
Professionalism has got nothing to do with England's failures, if you want to cling onto a vague stereotype that befits any national team's exit from a major tournament then you only have to blame the sheer number of foreign players playing in the Premiership which has dwindled the pool of talent available for the coaches and management.
I think Johnson got his selection wrong anyway, the players seemed to be under the assumption that they could turn up and win, just because it's happened in the past, but France are always worthy of at least one performance in every WC and hopefully today was their only one - I'd love to see Wales muller them.
I said Rugby Union, I didn't say England. It is not the same game it was. Athletes they may be but they can't play. This lot, and not just England, wouldn't have survived in the old game. Maybe you're not old enough to remember.
And as for the World Cup, well that was the beginning of the end in 1987, Kiwis were illeagly paying their players then and the Union gave in to filthy lucre. Just as the whole world of sport has.
It's a stretch to say that 87 had players paid like today's professionals, or that professionalism and the world cup was the beginning of the end.
One of our (New Zealand's) top players then, John Kirwan was playing in Italy after that cup as they had a professional league but he was a car salesman and a butcher before that. It was common everywhere for blokes to be in employment of friends of their clubs (or on farms, building or in the freezing works) so they could get a wage as well as being able to duck off to training early or get extended leave for games and touring. A common catch cry here now is that the current players are not work hardened by having to juggle rugby with a real life loading boxes, working the land on a farm or swinging a hammer. It would be hard to believe it was just a Kiwi phenomenon. The flow of Kiwi players overseas in those days as well suggests that there were other generous friends of clubs outside New Zealand too.
Without the world cup we'd have a sport without a global reach. We'd just rely on tours and one-off test matches pulling in people's interest. We'd also have missed some magic moments like the Boks winning in '95 in front of Mandela, Jonah Lomu's try-scoring feats, Wilkinson's radar boot (I was in Melbourne when he saved England from what looked like a defeat against Samoa - a cracking game), French heroics against the ABs (painful to say it) and countless other games that have made rugby just as interesting to watch as it was before professionalism.
As a viewer, what bugs me is not how players from different eras would have adapted to each other's era, but today's interpretation of the myriad of rules by referees. The breakdown is chaos for a rugby viewer. Who's come in from the on-side/off-side position, who's on their feet or not and who's holding on to the ball, tackler not rolling away, players being blown off the ball, trapped on the ball, is it a maul/ruck/open play. The whistle has been killing the flow of game... that's why football is so much clearer to follow.
But that aside, and the fact that players are less interesting in interviews and conversation as their lives have become more consumed by rugby, Rugby is still an entertaining game and professionalism's certainly not the end.
Watched the Grand Final last night, the speed and accuracy of the passing leaves the England RU team standing. If the League players can do it, why not the Union players?
The inquest into this tournament will be long and painful.
Some points...
England didn't seem to know what their best starting XV was - there were too many changes of personnel. A settled side tends to play better when players know what they are doing.
The English game relies too heavily on the scrum, most other international teams pack down get the ball in and out and play on.
Scrum-half - Youngs a few months ago was shaping up to be a world class number 9, I seriously wouldn't pick him for England again until he sorts out his positioning at defensive scrums (how often was he on the wrong side?), in English scrums he's too slow to put the ball in and too many times takes an extra step before passing, or delays before running, his box kicks tend to go too high and long. All of this means that at acrucial phase England lose momentum.
Tactics - England focused on playing 10-12 man rugby, when Manu got the ball he made yards but eventually France sussed him out. England had in Ashton one of the fastest wings but he didn't see enough of the ball. By all means suck the forwards into the first few phases and then set the wings and backs free - that's often where you make the real gains.
Too much indiscipline - especially at scrums, it was obvious after the scotland match how the French would play Stevens and the resulting collapses again lost us momentum and conceded too many penalties. It occurred to me watching Nigel Owens ref the NZ-Arg match that British refs are a bit more lenient with offences at the scrums, other non-British refs tend to apply the letter of the law. (For those that missed this point Owens reset quite a few scrums that collapsed without apportioning blame, most non British refs seem to give a penalty or free kick at the first infringement).
Handling - again too many handling basic errors.
When in the opposition's 22...you have to score more times than not against good sides. England didn't do that anywhere near often enough in this tournament.
No point grumbling France deserved the win while an English win would have been robbery.
Argentina gave the Kiwis a really good run for their money this morning. So pleased they have finally been accepted into the Tri (now four) nations tournament for next year.
Argentina gave the Kiwis a really good run for their money this morning. So pleased they have finally been accepted into the Tri (now four) nations tournament for next year.
True, but I'n not sure what strength in depth they have. Had it happened three/for years ago then they could have been a real force at this WC. Most of their starting XV looks a tad long in the tooth, so the likelihood is that they might struggle for a few years while they bring the next generation through, but mid/long term it should be good for the game.
Perhaps it'll help them join England as the only winners of the football and rugby wold cup?
Perhaps it'll help them join England as the only winners of the football and rugby wold cup?
Nice factoid!
I helped organise some S American WC qualifying games - only Pool B - but many of the Argentinian A team came down -young and keen to help they really impressed us. I agree it may be their transition era - just as we are in the middle of an England team transition, but it is well timed.
For RWC 2015 I reckon Argentina (currently still an amateur Union) will have regularly beaten N Hemishere teams and will be on a par with the 6 Nations champions. Having spent a bit of time with the Alumni team in Buenos Aires I was amazed by the organisation of Rugby there. There are 24 provincial leagues and almost 90 rugby clubs in Buenos Aires alone.
England has 166,000 adult male registered players, Argentina has just over 50,000 (though I believe this included senior schoolboys) compared to NZ 27,000, Australia 39,000 Georgia 878!
Interesting factoid - Samoa has the greatest % of its population as registered adult Rugby players - an amazing 12.5%
Interesting stats..but it looks like Beunos Aires is really where the game is played and where the growth is, which is no surprise as it's the capital. But outside only NOA is there any growth, the other areas are up/down a little. Is the game outside the capital strong in terms of quality?
Undoubtedly being in the Tri-Nations will boost their overall game (and it wil benefit the Tri_nations as well) but it could be that what it will really do is put the game on a more professional footing, attract more sponsorship etc and the allure of attracting teams like SA, NZ and Australia on a regular and organised basis with the first choice teams will push the game on. That should allow money to filter down to the clubs.
What's important is getting the sport played at school level, like most sports you need to learn it young and train up so you have a core of players who have experience and teachers/coaches in turn who know how to coach the sport. In sports mad Germany for example it is considered too dangerous to play at school, consequently the only players in Germany are those who are ex-pats or somehow take the game up through friends and work colleagues.
Interesting factoid - I was once a registered rugby player in Germany.
Looks like the bookies were right as usual. France NZ final as they predicted pre tournament. Really wanted Wales to win this one but the worst refereeing decision makes me question the integrity of this ref - for the first time ever!
Letter of the law, he should've gone apparently. Zero tolerance on all tackles like that announced before WC as well.
Saves me from plenty of 'banter' from uni mates in Wales.
Having been sad enough to watch every game of this RWC, there have been at least four worse tackles than this which either recieved a yellow or a talking to. You are correct regarding the law, of course, as was the referee. But my word, what a disgrace.
France coach Marc Lievremont has called some of his players "spoiled brats" for ignoring orders not to go out after their semi-final win over Wales.
Lievremont said he told his players what he thought of their decision.
"I told them they are a bunch of spoiled brats ["sales gosses"]," he said.
"Undisciplined, disobedient, sometimes selfish. Always complaining, always moaning. It has been like this for four years."
Lievremont did not name the culprits but, when asked how the players had responded to his harsh words, he added with a smile: "Oh, they appreciated them.
Comments
I think Johnson got his selection wrong anyway, the players seemed to be under the assumption that they could turn up and win, just because it's happened in the past, but France are always worthy of at least one performance in every WC and hopefully today was their only one - I'd love to see Wales muller them.
The inquest into this tournament will be long and painful.
Some points...
England didn't seem to know what their best starting XV was - there were too many changes of personnel. A settled side tends to play better when players know what they are doing.
The English game relies too heavily on the scrum, most other international teams pack down get the ball in and out and play on.
Scrum-half - Youngs a few months ago was shaping up to be a world class number 9, I seriously wouldn't pick him for England again until he sorts out his positioning at defensive scrums (how often was he on the wrong side?), in English scrums he's too slow to put the ball in and too many times takes an extra step before passing, or delays before running, his box kicks tend to go too high and long. All of this means that at acrucial phase England lose momentum.
Tactics - England focused on playing 10-12 man rugby, when Manu got the ball he made yards but eventually France sussed him out. England had in Ashton one of the fastest wings but he didn't see enough of the ball. By all means suck the forwards into the first few phases and then set the wings and backs free - that's often where you make the real gains.
Too much indiscipline - especially at scrums, it was obvious after the scotland match how the French would play Stevens and the resulting collapses again lost us momentum and conceded too many penalties. It occurred to me watching Nigel Owens ref the NZ-Arg match that British refs are a bit more lenient with offences at the scrums, other non-British refs tend to apply the letter of the law. (For those that missed this point Owens reset quite a few scrums that collapsed without apportioning blame, most non British refs seem to give a penalty or free kick at the first infringement).
Handling - again too many handling basic errors.
When in the opposition's 22...you have to score more times than not against good sides. England didn't do that anywhere near often enough in this tournament.
No point grumbling France deserved the win while an English win would have been robbery.
So pleased they have finally been accepted into the Tri (now four) nations tournament for next year.
True, but I'n not sure what strength in depth they have. Had it happened three/for years ago then they could have been a real force at this WC. Most of their starting XV looks a tad long in the tooth, so the likelihood is that they might struggle for a few years while they bring the next generation through, but mid/long term it should be good for the game.
Perhaps it'll help them join England as the only winners of the football and rugby wold cup?
I helped organise some S American WC qualifying games - only Pool B - but many of the Argentinian A team came down -young and keen to help they really impressed us. I agree it may be their transition era - just as we are in the middle of an England team transition, but it is well timed.
For RWC 2015 I reckon Argentina (currently still an amateur Union) will have regularly beaten N Hemishere teams and will be on a par with the 6 Nations champions.
Having spent a bit of time with the Alumni team in Buenos Aires I was amazed by the organisation of Rugby there.
There are 24 provincial leagues and almost 90 rugby clubs in Buenos Aires alone.
England has 166,000 adult male registered players, Argentina has just over 50,000 (though I believe this included senior schoolboys) compared to NZ 27,000, Australia 39,000 Georgia 878!
Interesting factoid - Samoa has the greatest % of its population as registered adult Rugby players - an amazing 12.5%
Interesting stats..but it looks like Beunos Aires is really where the game is played and where the growth is, which is no surprise as it's the capital. But outside only NOA is there any growth, the other areas are up/down a little. Is the game outside the capital strong in terms of quality?
Undoubtedly being in the Tri-Nations will boost their overall game (and it wil benefit the Tri_nations as well) but it could be that what it will really do is put the game on a more professional footing, attract more sponsorship etc and the allure of attracting teams like SA, NZ and Australia on a regular and organised basis with the first choice teams will push the game on. That should allow money to filter down to the clubs.
What's important is getting the sport played at school level, like most sports you need to learn it young and train up so you have a core of players who have experience and teachers/coaches in turn who know how to coach the sport. In sports mad Germany for example it is considered too dangerous to play at school, consequently the only players in Germany are those who are ex-pats or somehow take the game up through friends and work colleagues.
Interesting factoid - I was once a registered rugby player in Germany.
France NZ final as they predicted pre tournament.
Really wanted Wales to win this one but the worst refereeing decision makes me question the integrity of this ref - for the first time ever!
Saves me from plenty of 'banter' from uni mates in Wales.
You are correct regarding the law, of course, as was the referee.
But my word, what a disgrace.
But not worthy of a red card
France coach Marc Lievremont has called some of his players "spoiled brats" for ignoring orders not to go out after their semi-final win over Wales.
Lievremont said he told his players what he thought of their decision.
"I told them they are a bunch of spoiled brats ["sales gosses"]," he said.
"Undisciplined, disobedient, sometimes selfish. Always complaining, always moaning. It has been like this for four years."
Lievremont did not name the culprits but, when asked how the
players had responded to his harsh words, he added with a smile: "Oh,
they appreciated them.