Lancaster Drop Kicked

Liverpoolphil said:
In that year he was ineligible to play for NZ is that right ?

Did I hear it right that some clubs from Argentina are joining the Super 14 ?
Click to expand...
Right on both counts.

I agree with binning players who are abroad. If someone is wanting to play the next Workd Cup they have 2 years to go and play abroad and then get their backsides back to Blighty for the 2 seasons preceding the tournament. The kiwis, books and Aussies do that.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
I believe NZ also only pick players playing domestically ? Hence why all their players despite the lure of the French and Saracen millions stay where they are - because they value playing for their country higher.
Click to expand...

Not quite!

They want to be All Blacks!

Subtle, but very important, difference!
 
Captainron said:
Right on both counts.

I agree with binning players who are abroad. If someone is wanting to play the next Workd Cup they have 2 years to go and play abroad and then get their backsides back to Blighty for the 2 seasons preceding the tournament. The kiwis, books and Aussies do that.
Click to expand...

Exactly that - Bath were looking to bring back Armitage but couldn't afford him - only Saracens can prob afford to compete against Toulon etc
 
Captainron said:
I agree with binning players who are abroad. If someone is wanting to play the next Workd Cup they have 2 years to go and play abroad and then get their backsides back to Blighty for the 2 seasons preceding the tournament. The kiwis, books and Aussies do that.
Click to expand...

Indeed as Sonny Bill did in between RWC's playing RL for The Roosters before returning for The Chiefs
 
Liverpoolphil said:
I like his idea of only allowing players based in the UK of being able to play for England - that way you know which players want to play for the shirt and for their country or who wants to coin it in on the French south coast.
Click to expand...

And if they were based in Wales, Scotland or Ireland? Foreign countries in the world of Rugby.
 
Captainron said:
Right on both counts.

I agree with binning players who are abroad. If someone is wanting to play the next Workd Cup they have 2 years to go and play abroad and then get their backsides back to Blighty for the 2 seasons preceding the tournament. The kiwis, books and Aussies do that.
Click to expand...

Louw from South Africa who played in the world cup has been at Bath for at least 3 seasons now. Also you'll find a few others playing in premiership sides.
 
He's a decent fella, hamstrung by the selection policy. Agree he made some strange decisions when under pressure. However not being allowed to pick his best players is a joke. That policy was dictated to him.

Why pick an England team based on the best interests of the clubs, when the clubs don't have the England team as a priority.

Not picking players based abroad doesn't work ask the Aussies.

His biggest mistake was becoming risk averse
 
Last edited:
Personally I'm not surprised and thought he was wrong to go along with the home based selection policy. Pleased to see the RFU have come into the modern world and will now look further afield for their next man
 
The rule about players at foreign clubs could not be changed by the RFU, Lancaster or anyone else arbitrarily. It was part of the settlement with the premier league clubs for release of players. For those fans of club rugby and the great league we have, the salary cap and the players abroad rule is what stops the rugby premiership becoming like the football one.

I is also a total smokescreen. We are talking one player here (Abandenon would not play ahead of Brown) and Armitage was not enough to correct all of the other problems and tactical naivities caused by Lancaster. People also forget that Armitage did not shine when playing for England previously.

Anyway, tomorrow I can watch the Tigers play with all of their England internationals. If we ditched the player abroad rule I have no doubt that most of these players would be making the most of the more relaxed salary restrictions in France
 
GB72 said:
The rule about players at foreign clubs could not be changed by the RFU, Lancaster or anyone else arbitrarily. It was part of the settlement with the premier league clubs for release of players. For those fans of club rugby and the great league we have, the salary cap and the players abroad rule is what stops the rugby premiership becoming like the football one.

I is also a total smokescreen. We are talking one player here (Abandenon would not play ahead of Brown) and Armitage was not enough to correct all of the other problems and tactical naivities caused by Lancaster. People also forget that Armitage did not shine when playing for England previously.

Anyway, tomorrow I can watch the Tigers play with all of their England internationals. If we ditched the player abroad rule I have no doubt that most of these players would be making the most of the more relaxed salary restrictions in France
Click to expand...

I agree, the overseas rule best serves the league....but to have a strong national team the domestic structure has toservice that, at the moment it doesn't.

The two nations with the strongest respective 'proper' domestic leagues are England and France. Is it any coincidence that both the national teams consistently under achieve.

Do you want a strong tigers team or a strong England team? Can you have both?

If it were regional franchises would you support the 'East Midlands Sigers'?
 
A fair point but the French team will struggle more in the future with the influx of foreign players. We have that to a certain extent but only because they are needed to fill gaps when the players are on international duty. I can see the benefit in players taking a sabbatical to play in the Southern hemisphere to learn new skills but not in crossing the channel. It could even harm the national team as the French clubs are far less willing to release international players. Toulon have been particularly vocal on this. I actually think it works ok at the moment and the Armitage debate is more a result of the lack of quality 7s at the moment rather than the need to pick one player.

Maybe the solution is similar to the one applied by Wales where they can pick 2 or 3 players from abroad. That means players can go to France but they have to be very confident in their abilities if they do so to fill those limited spaces.
 
It will always be a bit of mess as the system isn't going to be completely redesigned. There is an argument that English rugby is cyclical. We won the World Cup in 2003 despite the system, because of a strong core group of players, the batch coming through seem pretty good also.

Maybe Lancaster was unlucky as he came one cycle too early.
The overseas rule is maybe a red herring based on our inability to find s decent 7, but if I was the new fella coming in I'd want.

No relegation from the premiership. Bristol may lose out but they've been in that league for 3 years now so maybe they've found their level.
I'd have a look at the agreement re national team access of players. You'll know more than me, but the players are limited at the moment re the no of club games? I'd reduce this even more.

I'd get shot of the salary cap, or raise it further (is this happening anyway). From what I've seen most clubs use it as 'guidance' anyway:o

I'd also do away with this rugby league obsession. It's a cracking sport, but Union has been professional for 20 years, we've learnt all we can. The criteria to play for England shouldn't be owning a whippet and having pigeon s@@t on your shoulders.
 
The relegation and promotion from Prem and Champ is a joke

Bristol have won the league countless times now showing themselves to be the best team in the league ( with the help of money ) but have lost of because of a points difference in the play off two leg final ?! It's a nonsense

The league winner should go up and then the four below go through to a play off system for one more to come up and then the bottom two go down.

Closing the route into the Premiership IMO is mad
 
Liverpoolphil said:
The relegation and promotion from Prem and Champ is a joke

Bristol have won the league countless times now showing themselves to be the best team in the league ( with the help of money ) but have lost of because of a points difference in the play off two leg final ?! It's a nonsense

The league winner should go up and then the four below go through to a play off system for one more to come up and then the bottom two go down.

Closing the route into the Premiership IMO is mad
Click to expand...

It is a joke, and it serves no purpose. No relegation allows clubs to invest in the long term. Promotion is pointless if the clubs coming up aren't competitive. Where are London Welsh? Could bring Bristol in and ring fence it, but I'd look for less teams not more. Depends whether you want a system to serve the national team or not.
 
therod said:
It is a joke, and it serves no purpose. No relegation allows clubs to invest in the long term. Promotion is pointless if the clubs coming up aren't competitive. Where are London Welsh? Could bring Bristol in and ring fence it, but I'd look for less teams not more. Depends whether you want a system to serve the national team or not.
Click to expand...

Bristol have the facilities and money to survive in the Prem.

I really don't think it is all as bad as being made out

Lancaster made some crucial errors and the players made the wrong call at the crucial
time in one game. Over the last 4 years England have been competing with the best - beaten NZ in that period as well as Australia and SA - I think it's the stereo typical overreaction

The players we have are talented enough to compete with the best and before major radical changes with the league are done they should look at a new coach with the ex England guys in the set up and look to tweak the overseas rule - as Australia do ( must have a number of caps already etc )
 
The problem is not so much Bristol but Leeds. They are still a Premiership stakeholder with a vote and they are not going to agree to a ring-fenced premiership unless they are in it. That would be abjectly unfair to a number of teams with a better claim on rugby grounds. Besides, if it were not for relegation I would have missed the great pleasure of seeing Northampton sent down yo the second tier��

I still favour the salary cap. To abandon it would see a league dominated by 2 teams with sugar daddy owners and would see a nose dive into the realm of the football premiership. At present any team can win on a given day. Worcester beating Northampton is a fine example. Look at Exeter, a team that has been able to compete and build with a fraction of the funding of some of their rivals and are now my outside bet for the title this year.

I agree with dropping the league obsession. Time to face facts that Jason Robinson was an exception not a rule and anyone who has made a decent fist of it has taken a couple of years of graft to learn their trade.
 
I think Rugby League players can move across - there have been a number of guys who have been successful. The Burgess issue was a mess from England - fast tracked far too quickly and no continuity with his club where they felt his best position was.

Even then when he played in the WC against Wales he did well - we were winning and Roberts was quiet as a mouse.

He should have been left at home to continue his education under Loew at 6
 
All of the above is a case in point, the tail is wagging the dog. International Rugby is the cash cow, it's all most rugby fans care about, the structure should serve the national team.

we're just too parochial in the UK in sporting terms. The irony is that the Kiwis, Aussies and Saffers (even the irish) are more forward thinking than us.

Irony being when was the last time you met an open minded Kiwi :o (wait for it!!)

I'm not sure what league players have to offer. No disrespect to Sam Burgess but did anyone actually question why he was coming (apart from the cash).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Green Bay Hacker
Ball kicked fellow competitor
Replies
17
Views
2K
MashieNiblick
MashieNiblick
Paul77
What's up with Tiger?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
Top