Comments on: Bath deal to sign Steffon Armitage falls through

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:17:05 +0000

Geat

We’ll see, but I’d just like to have seen Steffon Armitage play for England as I think he could make a diff @ break down; turning over, getting or stopping ball. And he’s in his prime . IMO it’s where the game is most important. Win there & likely win the game. Anyway, it ain’t gonna happen, but sad for his (& England’s?) sake methinks.

Regds skills, if the players aren’t proficient enough, then it ought to be SL’s priority to get them there… PRONTO. Joe Schmidt got Ireland off to a good start (ok, following spells @ Cl. Auvegne, Leinster… where he had their backs playing better than Int’al teams IMO). Mind you, as I’ve also said, 1 swallow & all that, but Sat will tell more. G’luck.

By: Geat

Geat — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:35:51 +0000

There’s talk of Dylan Hartley moving to France after the world cup. If he does, and others follow, then I believe the policy needs to be reviewed. But whilst we only have one potential England player overseas I don’t think we should change it, nor should there be any exceptions.

I don’t think the skills and accuracy issue is one that can be laid at Lancaster’s door, it’s more of a grassroots thing.

I do feel we’ve made progress under Lancaster, we’re in a better place than probably any time from 2004 to 2011, but after 3 years I don’t feel I can make excuses any more that that alone is enough. Having said that, our 4-match losing streak does skew perception a little, as it is solely against the best side in the world! If we were to win the remaining 3 AIs and then the Six Nations, I’d find it hard to complain. A big IF – and that starts on Saturday.

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:18:19 +0000

Geat
Happy days! Ideally an RFU run sport would streamline the game here, but England’s sit is what it is. As I recall the RFU, some yrs ago belatedly tried {acc 2 the ST} a ‘takeover’ of the game, but it didn’t happen; 2 little, 2 late? Again ideally, English players based here is better for the national team, but human nature being what it is (greed, temptation, greener grass, whatever?), some players will see it diff & ‘mkt forces’ can/do dictate, so some flex may be required by England to accomodate this need? Regds Lancaster, I agree. Nxt Sat is likely his (& England’s?) crunch time… as it may also be for SA. I’ve never seen that much diff between SL & his predecessors, altho to his credit he attempted an all round, wider game in NZ. It’s gd to instill pride & discipline, altho not convinced abt his ‘youth’ policy, but to win a WC, it needs a bit more than that. JH has mentioned England’s ‘giant strides’, but 5 v NZ? SL’s running out of support. Already mentioned skills, accuracy, decision making @ speed in which he has 10 mths to get right… starting Sat?

By: Geat

Geat — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:25:34 +0000

Don P, sit down because I’m about to agree with you.

I do wish we had the union run approach, it’s definitely better for the national team. It would also benefit us to have fewer clubs, so the players are more used to playing together. However, as we don’t, I do think the “play in England” approach is the best we can hope for.

Also, I’ve been a staunch defender of Lancaster – I do think where he’s got the side is no mean feat. However, the time for that is now over. If we don’t win our remaining games, then at the very most it could be considered treading water – if not going backwards – and that’s just not good enough. Wins over the remaining big 3, though, would put us back on track. The Springboks match is huge for this reason.

By: Don P

Don P — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 18:30:40 +0000

Geat I know. Just going over old ground, altho Wales & SA don’t buy into this & the latter just beat the ‘wobbley’ ABs. If you think it’s for the best, then you do. Personally, I think you fear the wrong things, as it’s not whether Engalnd’s players ply their trade in Fr that should be yr concern, but whether yr coaching is up to it. But we’re not going to agree, so we can agree to disagree then.

Jacob Be as sarcy as you want, but doesn’t everyone have a hol? Even from rugger? Summer off? Weeks, not mths then? But split hairs, knock yrself out. And it’s not the club structure, or just ingrained kids’ stuff. England’s game is club based. Almost ‘separate’ from, the RFU (who must neg player release), so some conflict of interest. NZ rugby is RUN top to bottom by the Union, i.e. ABs, S15, prov, clubs to tots, so a uniformity of style, (coaching, strat, tactics etc). Simimilar to US Gridiron, NZRU moves players from stronger to weaker teams thereby maintaining, in theory @ least, more even comp. Also diff coaching mind set, e.g. JS v SL & as other HN sides now?

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:31:22 +0000

In what world is a sabbatical and not selecting foreign based players the same thing? Also, just to give you a heads up, the likes of Robshaw were given the summer off (could even call it a sabatical) in 2013. How unflexible of Eng. If only we were like NZ.

England have pretty much copied NZ in this respect. What we can’t copy is your club structure and your skill set that is ingrained in players from a young age. Wish we could take those too – but we are working our best with what we have.

By: Geat

Geat — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:55:31 +0000

The reason the rule exists is to keep players in the country – as soon as you make exceptions, there’s the risk our best players will chase the Euro in France, knowing they can be picked for England. As a supporter of both England and Bath (who currently have 7 players in the England squad), I think this is a good thing for both club and country.

By: Don P

Don P — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:51:34 +0000

Geat
And I thought you were ‘out’. Fundamentally, I suppose, what I’m trying to pt out is an e.g. of a difference in thinking between NH (incl England’s) & SH (incl NZ’s). So, surely, the pt here is that ‘… the NZ players were on their sabbaticals’ in the 1st place. That’s an actual difference & a flexibilty within NZ’s policy compared to England’s. And of course ‘they were not available for selection by New Zealand’, because of the said ‘difference & flexibilty ‘. Another pt is that you & I see the same issue differently & I doubt that we’re going to change our minds. It’s a belief (& likely a dollop of patriotism thrown in 4 gd measure?) thing. Can we agree on that at least? Then we can both go away (un)happy(?).

By: Geat

Geat — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:21:16 +0000

The thing is, when the NZ players were on their sabbaticals they were not available for selection by New Zealand. That’s quite different to a player being selected for England whilst half way through a 3-year deal in a different country.

By: Don P

Don P — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:07:25 +0000

Ray
If ‘There is nothing new to be said here’, why are you commenting then? The RFU policy may not be new, but with England’s 5 zip loss v NZ e.g. & with the English press berating Lanc’s lack of success, perhaps some review of his/RFU strat/tactics may be in order (esp as yr b/row were largely ‘outplayed’ last up; acc to yr pundits). And because many, according to you (? – how many btw?), agree with this policy, does that automatically make it unquestionable? Also, since when is voicing an opinion an indicationion of needing to grow up? This is a blog site Ray. What else is it here for but to express opinion… just as you have?. But thanks for yr advice. I’ll now move on… til the nxt time… if that’s ok with you? Ttfn.

Geat
Bit thin skinned. I’ve dealt with far worse. Besides there is SOME evidence to back up what I say.

By: Geat

Geat — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:26:19 +0000

Resorting to personal insults? I’m out.

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 14:36:40 +0000

Many people agree with the RFU policy. You dont Don, that’s your right but the policy is in place grow up, deal with it and move on. There is nothing new to be said here.