I like not this news.

Going by the HC, things are looking grim for those of us who choose (or are compelled) to support England.

If the HC is any kind of indicator of the NH power rankings, then it's Ireland, Scotland, France and Wales with the players to make a mark when the international season kicks off in a few weeks.

So my question is: Is the HC any kind of indicator of the NH power rankings? Are the English players merely biding their time, ready to peak when it gets serious? is England as a unit collectively stronger than the sum of the individual components? Is the HC so riddled with ineligible foreign talent in key positions that it distorts any such judgement? Is the game plan of the English sides wrong? Is our talent too thiny dispersed across too many teams? Do the coaches have the game plans wrong?

Someone say something reassuring. Please.

Yes we're seeing the same weather warning forcast of the impending Ireland tour of NZ next year with Ulster, Munster and Leinster, albeit propped by a few of our own, definitely leading some of the way.

http://www.allblacks.com/news/18432/Is-Irish-Euro-dominance-pointing-to-historic-All-Blacks-scalp

Probably a good thing Hansen will be taking note of now...

Well with Hansen in charge the result wont matter, its performance that counts. Oh YOur lineout will probably go into terminal decine as well.

Strange you should ask that question there was an article in the Telegraph this weekend on the same subject

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/9029861/Why-the-premier-English-clubs-are-failing-to-live-up-to-their-billing-in-Europe.html

Bottom line is that it's skewed in favour of Wales / Scotland / Ireland & Italy.

NO the HC isn't a direct indicator of how the International sides will go, Munster and Leinster have been top dogs or there abouts in Europe for sometime but the International form doesn't always represent that.

Us Welsh have a pretty poor record in Europe and none of our clubs/regions have never won the big one but yet in recent years we have had 2 Slams and a WC semi final place.

Of course if the guys in the National side are use to winning and have that mental edge it all helps but its not a foregone conclusion.

There's no direct correlation really. Obviously, the Irish players will come into the Irish national setup with a spring in their step on the back of three provinces qualifying for the quarter finals, but it's no guarantee that they'll do any better than they would if none of the provinces had qualified.

This isn't the best analogy, but look at the England football team. There are always Premiership sides in the Champions League but the national team never does much at major tournaments.

How did England get on in the 6 nations and HC last year?

The Welsh inability to contest a HC final didnt stop them winning two GS a few years back, meanwhile despite multiple wins from English clubs Team England was very much an also ran on the international stage.

Scottish international rugby is currently on a low after encouraging results a couple of years ago, yet they finaly managed to get a club in the last 8.

Its hard to draw a direct comparisson betwene club and country form. England are still ranked above Ireland internationaly depsite being well of the HC pace of Ireland and Munster ( and now Ulster) for several years.

Im worried about this England team, but that more to do with the alarming lack of proven players and expereince in the side, and a coach hell bent on proving a point rather than winning a game.

PSW,

I think this is the first time for a very long time that England go into the tournament as a very unknown quantity.

They still have some truly class players in Foden, Ashton, Tuilagi, Lawes, Cole etc but after all the goings on at the WC and with a Lancaster in place with, like you said a point to prove or in fact nothing to lose who knows.

They still have big strong forwards and will be a danger to anyone at home but how they go all together then only time will tell.

miteyironpaw wrote:Going by the HC, things are looking grim for those of us who choose (or are compelled) to support England.

If the HC is any kind of indicator of the NH power rankings, then it's Ireland, Scotland, France and Wales with the players to make a mark when the international season kicks off in a few weeks.

Why? Am I wrong in thinking that we have as many teams in the quarters as Scotland and Wales? England's players are spread across a larger number of teams, and the clubs don't have the opportunity to rest them in the same way as pro 12 teams do. There's then the salary cap issue, particularly against the French sides. I don't think it's a huge problem that we only got the one side through.

thomh wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Going by the HC, things are looking grim for those of us who choose (or are compelled) to support England.

If the HC is any kind of indicator of the NH power rankings, then it's Ireland, Scotland, France and Wales with the players to make a mark when the international season kicks off in a few weeks.

Why? Am I wrong in thinking that we have as many teams in the quarters as Scotland and Wales? England's players are spread across a larger number of teams, and the clubs don't have the opportunity to rest them in the same way as pro 12 teams do. There's then the salary cap issue, particularly against the French sides. I don't think it's a huge problem that we only got the one side through.

The English rest players as well as I clearly proved elsewhere with respect to Leicester and Ulster prior to their clash. The salary cap does not explain why 5 Pro12 teams made it and only 1 Aviva team did

Geoff

This stat from Mark McCafferty

"After round four of this season's tournament I looked at the starting line-ups of Ulster, Leinster and Munster [all through to the quarter-finals] and only four of the 45 starters in the Heineken Cup were retained for their PRO12 league games the next weekend."

I haven't seen your other post, but Leicester played pretty much the best team they had available for their game against Wasps. Quins, my club, have also barely rested a player all season.

That is one game - there were 3 games between the 4th Round and the 5th Round.

I looked at the forwards i.e. 24 starting positions.
Of the team Leicester played against Ulster 13 of those positions were filled by Leicester by players who played against Ulster.
Ulster filled exactly the same number.

Therefore Leicester rested as many forward players as Ulster did between
rounds 4 and 5.

On your wider point re Quins and resting player - the same applies for Uslter with the exception of the Leinster game which was only done because of a stupid fixture list giving us only a 4 day break between matches. Ulster have traditionally always put out their stongest allowed side.

I don't really follow the wording of that. Could you explain it a bit more? And can you demonstrate that this was entirely down to Leicester resting players rather than injury problems? They've had pretty horrible injuries this year.

This only applies to two teams in any case. I wouldn't dispute that Irish clubs are in a stronger position at the moment - but I do think that the fact that they are almost guaranteed HC qualification means that pro 12 sides can focus on the tournament more.

Both teams put out 3 teams between the 4th and 5th rounds.

Of the Leicester team that started against Ulster the players played, between them , 13 matches (out of a maximum total of 24).
The same figure apply to Ulster.

Both had injuries but I have no way of determining how many of the missing 11 positions were down to that.

The bottom line is the Leicester pack had as much of a rest between Round 4 and Round 5 as the Ulster pack did.

Ulster have had horrendous injuries at 1 and 12.

We have has a hooker playing at LH
a 19 year old fly half playing at 12
a blind side flanker playing at 12

You just roll up your sleeve and get on with it.

Munster v Ulster
Leinster v Cardiff Blues
Saracens v Clermont Auvergne
Edinburgh v Toulouse

Irish = 3
French = 2
Scottish = 1
Welsh = 1
English = 1

So its quite equal really apart from the irish teams....and as far as what that means for the six nations.....It doesn't matter because they have a super conservative national coach who doesn't seem to want to select the young or inform players.

Which of Healy, Best, Ross, POC, Ryan, Ferris, Heaslip, SOB, Reddan/Murray, Sexton, Trimble, D'Arcy/McFadden/Wallace, Earls, Bowe, Kearney do you consider not in form and who should replace them - just curious

A case for Bowe, a case for Ross and a case for D'arcy perhaps but that is it and for the first two not really sure you can drop them anyway.

geoff998rugby wrote:That is one game - there were 3 games between the 4th Round and the 5th Round.

I looked at the forwards i.e. 24 starting positions.
Of the team Leicester played against Ulster 13 of those positions were filled by Leicester by players who played against Ulster.
Ulster filled exactly the same number.

Therefore Leicester rested as many forward players as Ulster did between
rounds 4 and 5.

On your wider point re Quins and resting player - the same applies for Uslter with the exception of the Leinster game which was only done because of a stupid fixture list giving us only a 4 day break between matches. Ulster have traditionally always put out their stongest allowed side.

The stats actually show that Leicester forwards had more gametime in those three matches than Ulster forwards, and the difference becomes more significant when considering the starting XV and XXIII. It's also significant that more of Leicester's rested players were actually injured or injury replacements, and that Leicester also faced a similar fixture congestion.

Stats are very over-rated, though.

Much like other facts.

As are claims that Pro12 teams rotate on a regular basis and Aviva teams dont.

A claim regular regularly made but not backed up by hard evidence.

geoff998rugby wrote:As are claims that Pro12 teams rotate on a regular basis and Aviva teams dont.

A claim regular regularly made but not backed up by hard evidence.

Surely that puts the English players at a disadvantage when the international competition rolls around if it's true. So perhaps the poor return bodes poorly for us whether or not it's down to injuries or relative rotation.

For me it comes in the main down to attitude. The HEC is, in my humble opinion, the best club competition in the world. A lot of English teams that I have seen however, have simply not demonstrated that unshakeable desire to win consistently enough.

Whether that be through fatigue, lack of sqaud depth, the rivalry of the Jeff or whatever, the consistency of desire has been lacking. Glaws played a wonderful game on the weekend against Tolouse (and an equally good one away), beating them at their own game. But put in a poor display against Quins at home and away.

Northampton played well at Thomond and were pipped at the post, but then backed it up with a woeful display against Scarlets and away to Castres. Bath played well against Montpellier home and away, but were beaten by a Glasgow team they should have finished off.

I don't agree with the current trend of slating English rugby purely because some teams have struggled in a tough HEC. What I do have an issue with is the varying lack of desire shown by all the English teams at times in the competition. Yes the French have more money, the Irish have some foreign superstars, but most teams are capable of beating one another it just comes down to consistent attitude across the board.

I think the Jeff should be looking for 3 or 4 teams to be getting through the HEC each season, and some of them weren't far from the required standard. Maybe it does come down to the intensity of the Jeff, but more likely the rivalry that it is built upon. The Leicester v Northampton match of last year was one of the best club games i've seen for a long time, and perhaps that takes its toll over the season?