6 Nations 2016....

First topic message reminder :

....well, why not!  It's only about 8 weeks away:

Week 1

6 February 2016
France v Italy 15:25 CET (UTC+1)
Stade de France, Paris
Referee: JP Doyle (England)

Scotland v England 16:50 GMT (UTC+0)
BT Murrayfield, Edinburgh
Referee: John Lacey (Ireland)

7 February 2016
Ireland v Wales 15:00 GMT (UTC+0)
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)

Some good grudge matches in that lot!

I'm a little confused by the conversation above about all 6N teams being poor...

Scotland were eying a quarter final, and reached it. I actually think they bottled the opportunity to win the group by playing a substandard team v SA, however they were eyeing their goal of quarters and succeeded. Even playing better than expected against Australia, albeit not a great Australian team who did a Frence 2011 / England 2007 by cruising their way to a final a touch fortunately. SUCCESS

Ireland mustve been targetting a semi at minimum, but despite a decent group stage they got unluckily trounced with injuries and suspension for the quarters, which looked like it took the wind out of their sales as from the first whistle they were outplayed. FAILED

England, well, FAILED. They were in it to win it surely, and losing to such a depleted Wales team really broke their spirit, they were totally unable to even challenge an Australian team who were largely outplayed by a depleted Wales and Scotland. FAILED

Wales would have been eyeing a quarter at minimum, but ultimately were favourites not to qualify from the group of death, so even getting out of a group England didnt has to be a success for them. Considering how ridiculously injury hit they were. Aside from the England scrum debacle I think the Welsh pack outplayed everyone they faced, yet they just couldn't finish from the strong platform they created. The injury crisis talk seems to be specfically directed toward the backs, however they entered the tournament with 2 injured props, an injured lock, and a backrower, to go along with the 9, 13 and 15. Although Wales tournament was ultimately unsuccesfull I think the kids who played those last 2 games did the shirt proud.

I have 1 extremely unsuccesfull, but most of that is from media hype, true ability meant they were just unsuccesfull, 1 unfortunately unsuccesfull, 1 unsuccesfull with pride, and a success.

With regards to the upcoming 6N...

Hard to look beyond Ireland and Wales, if both squads are fit and strong, England are more than capable, and we know how a new coach can turn out in their first 6N.

France have to be classed as outsiders for the first time for me, nothing in 2 years has shown any sort of curve but down.

Italy havn't shown the same improvement as Scotland, and will surely struggle at the bottom.

Scotland have this new problem now, open up and play more as they did in the RWC, or retract and play a less risky gameplan. Realistically they just don't have the quality for a championship challenge, aim for 2 wins, 3 would be superb!

Did Scotland get the furthest in the RWC? I know Wales had a lot of injuries and may be back to a full or nearly full squad.

Ireland? With out Paulie ,it will be hard too see how they get up for it. Will Sexton be fit?

England? At this moment in time i am not all that confident too be honest. England have a new coach, and untill we know what team he will pick. and how he will coach England? Well i am not going to say where they may end up.

I think i will wait untill the first game is over be fore coming to an agreement has to how they may do.

majesticimperialman wrote:Did Scotland get  the furthest in the RWC? I know Wales had a lot of injuries and may be back to a full or nearly full squad.

Ireland? With out Paulie ,it will be hard too see how they get up for it. Will Sexton be fit?

England? At this moment in time i am not all that confident too be honest. England have a new coach, and untill we know what  team he will pick. and how he will coach England? Well i am not going to say where they may end up.

I think i will wait untill the first game is over be fore coming to an agreement has to how they may do.

Scotland didn't get further than Ireland or Wales (or France), but they came closest to winning their game. On their respective days (and irrespective of the reasons why) none of the other NH teams looked remotely like winning their QF games.

England will mostly be the same as the team which made a bad habit of always coming 2nd. Hopefully the key players are in better shape than they were for the RWC. But much will depend on how the new coaching team bed in and most importantly the state of the other nations. Could be very good or very bad. Not too long before we find out

Always find it funny when certain sides talk about injuries, conveniently ignoring that every side gets injuries.

England lost two of their most influential players vs Wales - B.Youngs and Billy Vunipola.

I don't blame those injuries for England's failure because every side gets injuries.

You have to win with what you've got. Wales won fair and square and deservedly so.

I want Irish fans to talk up Ireland - write off the world cup as a blip if you want, convince yourself that Ireland beat every side in the 6 nations despite losing to Wales this year and England in 2012,2013 and 2014.

Wales have the bragging rights over both Ireland and England at the moment but that could change this year.

I blame Lancaster and his coaching team for taking too many injured, or recovering injured players to the world cup.

I blame all the other teams for injuring the Welsh players.

munkian wrote:I blame all the other teams for injuring the Welsh players.

Nothing, wait till Hartley comes back.

gregortree wrote:

munkian wrote:I blame all the other teams for injuring the Welsh players.

Nothing, wait till Hartley comes back.

beshocked wrote: Always find it funny when certain sides talk about injuries, conveniently ignoring that every side gets injuries.

England lost two of their most influential players vs Wales - B.Youngs and Billy Vunipola.

I don't blame those injuries for England's failure because every side gets injuries.

You have to win with what you've got.  Wales won fair and square and deservedly so.

I want Irish fans to talk up Ireland - write off the world cup as a blip if you want, convince yourself that Ireland beat every side in the 6 nations despite losing to Wales this year and England in 2012,2013 and 2014.

Wales have the bragging rights over both Ireland and England at the moment but that could change this year.

that's 2 key players. Ireland lost 6! And 2 of their 3 genuine World Class players in POC and Sexton (Murray is the other). We also were missing our best winger in Trimble due to pre-WC injury as well.

It was bad luck, but Ireland do have a lot of work to do in developing their attack and plan B. If we had 3 or 4 of those 6, the game would have been closer but still 55/45 in Argentina's favour. You could see they targeted that game in the same way we targeted the france game. We were jaded, they were pumped.

.

beshocked wrote: Always find it funny when certain sides talk about injuries, conveniently ignoring that every side gets injuries.

England lost two of their most influential players vs Wales - B.Youngs and Billy Vunipola.

I don't blame those injuries for England's failure because every side gets injuries.

You have to win with what you've got.  Wales won fair and square and deservedly so.

I want Irish fans to talk up Ireland - write off the world cup as a blip if you want, convince yourself that Ireland beat every side in the 6 nations despite losing to Wales this year and England in 2012,2013 and 2014.

Wales have the bragging rights over both Ireland and England at the moment but that could change this year.

What is funny about it? It is rather childish and naive to assume injuries do not affect the teams involved. I am well aware that England and Wales were also missing important players. Although your choice of Billy Vunipola is strange (Saracens fan?) considering that Ben Morgan is arguably the better player. Jonathan Joseph was probably the most important player you were missing which led to the disastrous midfield combinations.

All teams are affected by injuries, but obviously those with less casualties will be better prepared.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

beshocked wrote: Always find it funny when certain sides talk about injuries, conveniently ignoring that every side gets injuries.

England lost two of their most influential players vs Wales - B.Youngs and Billy Vunipola.

I don't blame those injuries for England's failure because every side gets injuries.

You have to win with what you've got.  Wales won fair and square and deservedly so.

I want Irish fans to talk up Ireland - write off the world cup as a blip if you want, convince yourself that Ireland beat every side in the 6 nations despite losing to Wales this year and England in 2012,2013 and 2014.

Wales have the bragging rights over both Ireland and England at the moment but that could change this year.

What is funny about it? It is rather childish and naive to assume injuries do not affect the teams involved. I am well aware that England and Wales were also missing important players. Although your choice of Billy Vunipola is strange (Saracens fan?) considering that Ben Morgan is arguably the better player. Jonathan Joseph was probably the most important player you were missing which led to the disastrous midfield combinations.

All teams are affected by injuries, but obviously those with less casualties will be better prepared.

Not at all strange. When both have been fully fit I'd favor Morgan, just, because hes just that little bit more explosive. But Billy's work rate for such a big guy is pretty special. For Morgan the RWC was too soon after his leg break and he should have been left at home (for Easter). Billy on the other hand was playing very well and had been very influential when he was on the pitch. On the day we really missed him when he went off.

the-goon you had an easy group.

A poor French team and a weak Italy as your main competition in the pool stages. I know you Irish like to make excuses fair enough.

Injuries happen. England deserved to go out, beaten by two better teams. England had a much harder group than Ireland but England weren't good enough.

I could mention more key players - Hartley - pretty big loss, Joseph - big loss. Tuilagi - big loss..... Then of course players who weren't fully fit.

rory gallagher on the contrary I think it's childish to blame injuries and your weak group on your struggles.

As for Morgan he was poor in the RWC. Billy was far better. Also Billy was IMO England's best player in the 6 nations and RWC. Sorry but only an idiot thinks that Morgan has been the better no 8 than Billy in the last year. Prior to that you would have a valid point but that's old news.

Billy was excellent vs Fiji off the bench and vs Wales till his injury.

As an England fan I could say that Lancaster was unlucky with injuries and that England were in the pool of death but to be honest none of that matters because I know England weren't good enough. They should have at least beaten Wales if not Australia regardless of injuries.

Australia and Wales won fair and square. I won't blame the ref like when Ireland lost to Wales they whined about Wayne Barnes....

You need to look at what you can control - injuries cannot be controlled, Wales being ^&* enough to be ranked 3rd tier in the same pool as England - not in our control.

England could have and should have done better with what was in their control.


I don't think Ireland were good enough but if you want to convince yourself that Ireland were hampered more than other teams then you're entitled to even when there is evidence to the contrary.

The evidence clearly shows that Ireland were hampered massively by injury. Look at the XV vs Arg and France, and you can see the players that were missing. Our pool was weak, so what? We topped it. But we had very rotten luck that vs Arg we were missing 6 key players to injury in our most important game. Would we have won with them, who knows, but it would have given us a better chance to.

Certain injuries affect different teams differently. Losing POC and Sexton were huge losses, simply put there is no one Irish at their level. No matter what you say about plan B, trying out other options, the drop down is huge. That is a fact and there is no getting away from it.

When the back up isn't as good, and that affects the team, the extent is a mixture of the quality of the back up, and the plan in place to mitigate the loss. Ireland relied too heavily on these players and paid the price, the reason we rely on them is simple, they are our best players.

When you look at the Irish team, bar our few Worldclass players, most wouldn't make the England or Wales teams. When this is the case, losing those players can be described as a factor in why we lost to Arg, not "the" reason, but "a" reason.

the-goon yes but it just shows an overall failure from Ireland as a whole. A lack of strength in depth. Every single side has to deal with this.

Losing to Argentina exposed this flaw in Irish rugby but it's been there for some time.

Sexton might be marginally better than the likes of Farrell,Ford and Biggar but the gulf is not so great. Same with O Connell vs a lock like J.Gray or AWJ.

If you had half decent replacements then the loss of your players would not be so great.

England had injuries too but the bench and cover needed to up their game. They did not.

Wales in contrast dealt with their injuries better than England or Ireland. Big suprise and really impressed Wales did that.

Yeah any team would struggle to replace Sexton and Paulie. But strength in depth isn't something Ireland lack IMO. We were always hearing about how good Henderson is too, was he not that great against Argentina?

mikey_dragon wrote:Yeah any team would struggle to replace Sexton and Paulie. But strength in depth isn't something Ireland lack IMO. We were always hearing about how good Henderson is too, was he not that great against Argentina?

Losing O'Connell is not merely about losing a terrific player. It's about losing a Leader. To me, players can frequently be replaced, sometimes one-for-one. But Leaders are unique and it is rare too find another one of similar qualities.

Yeah leaders are much more difficult to replace.

So they relied on old players for too long and didn't develop younger talent ?

mikey dragon you don't think Ireland lack strength in depth? Ireland have struggled to replace them because no one has stepped up.

England have the same problem at 12. Still England have not sufficiently found a successor for Greenwood. Not from lack of trying but that weakness was exposed brutally in the RWC.

doctor grey leaders can be developed and nurtured in my opinion. There needs to be a passing of the torch.

Do you think English clubs have lacked leadership this season? It takes some serious tough mental strength and ability to thump Toulon,smash Clermont,destroy Ulster away from home and conquer Munster's fortress. All done by different English clubs with English players at the forefront.

munkian pretty much yes. Every national side has to find the right balance.

A team should not rely so heavily on a handful of players. Needs to be about the squad.

As an Irish fan, I have said this before and until I am blue in the face. Yes Ireland lost some key players but were woefully unprepared for this to happen. During tournament's, sides will lose key players but it is up to the coaching staff to formulate a game plan to counter this, Ireland did not do this.

When you set a team up to play one way without calculating any external influences then you fail in my opinion. Wales had loads of injuries, to key players as well but still managed to bring replacements in that performed. This is because they are a very well coached side and that is the difference I feel.

beshocked wrote:doctor grey leaders can be developed and nurtured in my opinion. There needs to be a passing of the torch.

Anyone can be named a leader, but real leaders are rare.  England have not had one since Martin Johnson.  Leaders cannot simply be developed.  A true Leader can groomed, but the raw materials need to be there first.  I see that through my army experience, my medical work, and in sport.  

Tell me, who do you think are real leaders in Rugby today?  Premiership or Internationals?

By the way, I do agree it is time for Martin Johnson to pass the torch, but to whom?

AWJ for both club and country. Warbs is a test match leader.

doctor grey of course you need the raw materials but I think there are enough players in rugby union as a whole that can be a good leader if given the responsibility.

It's just about a team getting the right balance and having the right direction. There needs to be someone who sees the big picture, someone who talks to the ref and those who lead by example. I don't think you need to only have one player doing all that. There might be someone who is named as captain but they don't necessarily need to hold all the burden.

Responsibilities I believe can be shared. You are right there's no Martin Johnson like figure but I don't think a national side needs one if the team collectively fronts up. You could have 3 or 4 key figures leading by example.

Good leaders realise that they have to utilise the assets at their disposal effectively. You need good people skills and a clear message. Of course be decisive.

The 2003 RWC team wasn't just the Martin Johnson show - you had a midfield general like Greenwood, you had Dallaglio who was a strong leader in his own right. I would also call Wilkinson a leader too. He inspired others in a way that not many could say they did.

As for potential leaders at club level - Leicester fans have identified Slater, I think Itoje could too. Maybe Clifford from Quins. Possibly Slade from Exeter.

beshocked wrote:doctor grey of course you need the raw materials but I think there are enough players in rugby union as a whole that can be a good leader if given the responsibility.

Disagree.  Leadership is a special and rare commodity.  Good Leaders are few and far between.

beshocked wrote:It's just about a team getting the right balance and having the right direction.

No.  We tried that theory  in the army and we got focked.  

beshocked wrote:Responsibilities I believe can be shared. You are right there's no Martin Johnson like figure but I don't think a national side needs one if the team collectively fronts up. You could have 3 or 4 key figures leading by example.

Strong personalities, yes.  Great players, yes.  There can be only on leader.  In sport, people frequently mistake strong personalities for leadership.  In that England squad, only Dallaglio would have made a good alternative to MJ.  

beshocked wrote:Good leaders realise that they have to utilise the assets at their disposal effectively. You need good people skills and a clear message. Of course be decisive.

Yes. I agree.  Those are absolutely some of the criteria to be a leader.  

beshocked wrote:The 2003 RWC team wasn't just the Martin Johnson show - you had a midfield general like Greenwood, you had Dallaglio who was a strong leader in his own right. I would also call Wilkinson a leader too. He inspired others in a way that not many could say they did.

Inspiring and leading are different.  As I said only Dallaglio would have been a viable alternative as captain to MJ.  The team relied on Jonny, Greenwood, Tindall, Cohen, Robinson, Leonard, Vickery, et al, but were led by MJ.  

beshocked wrote:As for potential leaders at club level - Leicester fans have identified Slater, I think Itoje could too. Maybe Clifford from Quins. Possibly Slade from Exeter.

Have Clifford or Slade ever led their club in Premiership or Euro Rugby competitions?  Are any of these guys in the mold of McCaw, MJ, O'Driscoll, O'Connell, Gregan?

beshocked wrote:the-goon yes but it just shows an overall failure from Ireland as a whole. A lack of strength in depth. Every single side has to deal with this.

Team selection didn't help. Put it this way, its easy to be wise after the event but there were a number of complaints that the likes of (Leinster reserve) Jordi Murphy got in while you have the likes of McCloskey not even making the training squad.


Theres more depth now than theres ever been with the exception of locks and scrumhalves. Even so, Kieran Marmion should be a cert as Murray's backup and there are still a few options at lock, even with Henderson out injured. Theres a few 8s there now also so Heaslip might not be a guaranteed starter either.

Impressive quoting skills Dr

beshocked wrote:the-goon you had an easy group.

A poor French team and a weak Italy as your main competition in the pool stages. I know you Irish like to make excuses fair enough.

Injuries happen. England deserved to go out, beaten by two better teams. England had a much harder group than Ireland but England weren't good enough.

I could mention more key players - Hartley - pretty big loss, Joseph - big loss. Tuilagi - big loss..... Then of course players who weren't fully fit.

rory gallagher on the contrary I think it's childish to blame injuries and your weak group on your struggles.

As for Morgan he was poor in the RWC. Billy was far better. Also Billy was IMO England's best player in the 6 nations and RWC. Sorry but only an idiot thinks that Morgan has been the better no 8 than Billy in the last year. Prior to that you would have a valid point but that's old news.

Billy was excellent vs Fiji off the bench and vs Wales till his injury.

As an England fan I could say that Lancaster was unlucky with injuries and that England were in the pool of death but to be honest none of that matters because I know England weren't good enough. They should have at least beaten Wales if not Australia regardless of injuries.

Australia and Wales won fair and square. I won't blame the ref like when Ireland lost to Wales they whined about Wayne Barnes....

You need to look at what you can control - injuries cannot be controlled, Wales being ^&* enough to be ranked 3rd tier in the same pool as England - not in our control.

England could have and should have done better with what was in their control.


I don't think Ireland were good enough but if you want to convince yourself that Ireland were hampered more than other teams then you're entitled to even when there is evidence to the contrary.

After all of that silly waffling about nothing, you should note that the primary point that I was trying to make was not to judge Ireland's demise based on the Argentina game as that would be rather foolish. I haven't even mentioned other teams or anything about their respective World Cup campaigns. I am not ignoring the fact they had their own problems with injuries but with all due respect I wasn't interested in talking about them. I was talking about the game involving Ireland and Argentina.

Injuries cannot be controlled but how difficult is it to realise that injuries will obviously play a large part in the performance of the team? Every team has their star players who they perform best with and every team has tactics that utilise these players. In our case we had a third of our team missing, most of whom were our most important players who we simply could not afford to lose. You can call it an excuse all you like, but it is the logical explanation as to why we were thoroughly dismantled. If you cannot grasp that reasonably simple concept then that is not my problem.

I await your next bitter response...

eirebilly wrote:As an Irish fan, I have said this before and until I am blue in the face. Yes Ireland lost some key players but were woefully unprepared for this to happen. During tournament's, sides will lose key players but it is up to the coaching staff to formulate a game plan to counter this, Ireland did not do this.

When you set a team up to play one way without calculating any external influences then you fail in my opinion. Wales had loads of injuries, to key players as well but still managed to bring replacements in that performed. This is because they are a very well coached side and that is the difference I feel.

To honestly believe that any team is prepared to lose a third of their team, all of whom are integral to the game plan and not easily replaced is absolutely absurd. What team do you genuinely think would be "prepared" for that sort of disruption in the midst of a World Cup? One week before knockout rugby? Ignore Ireland for a minute, what team wouldn't be affected by this?

I think some people need to float back down to the real world for a minute or two to see how unrealistic this sort of thinking is. Coaches and players do not have unlimited time and resources, or indeed any sort of crystal ball to prepare for such setbacks. Even if they did, injuries are always going to weaken the team.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Impressive quoting skills Dr

Was working all night last night and are home with nothing to do today. That is, until my wife gets home and starts giving me orders.
Remember, there is only one leader.........

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

eirebilly wrote:As an Irish fan, I have said this before and until I am blue in the face. Yes Ireland lost some key players but were woefully unprepared for this to happen. During tournament's, sides will lose key players but it is up to the coaching staff to formulate a game plan to counter this, Ireland did not do this.

When you set a team up to play one way without calculating any external influences then you fail in my opinion. Wales had loads of injuries, to key players as well but still managed to bring replacements in that performed. This is because they are a very well coached side and that is the difference I feel.

To honestly believe that any team is prepared to lose a third of their team, all of whom are integral to the game plan and not easily replaced is absolutely absurd. What team do you genuinely think would be "prepared" for that sort of disruption in the midst of a World Cup? One week before knockout rugby? Ignore Ireland for a minute, what team wouldn't be affected by this?

I think some people need to float back down to the real world for a minute or two to see how unrealistic this sort of thinking is. Coaches and players do not have unlimited time and resources, or indeed any sort of crystal ball to prepare for such setbacks. Even if they did, injuries are always going to weaken the team.

Rory, of course any team would suffer the loss of a large amount of players but with good coaching, those coming in should be able to gel more seamlessly. Wales had the very same issues that Ireland did and yet their replacements gelled more easily than Irelands. This was clear to me to be honest I found Wales to be a better coached side than Ireland in that regard.

I certainly do not live in the clouds, I simply see things differently to you and I for one do not blame Irelands failings at the RWC on injuries. I see it as wildly under prepared, a fact that I was saying in the leadup to the RWC as well.

profitius wrote:

Team selection didn't help. Put it this way, its easy to be wise after the event but there were a number of complaints that the likes of (Leinster reserve) Jordi Murphy got in while you have the likes of McCloskey not even making the training squad.


Theres more depth now than theres ever been with the exception of locks and scrumhalves. Even so, Kieran Marmion should be a cert as Murray's backup and there are still a few options at lock, even with Henderson out injured. Theres a few 8s there now also so Heaslip might not be a guaranteed starter either.

As a Munsterman, I am a massive fan of Murray's but he is going to have to up his form significantly to continue being guaranteed the starting 9 position. TOL has actually been the form 9 in Ireland but I would throw Marmion in there sooner rather than later as he is quality.

I questioned whether or not Heaslip would be guaranteed a start on another thread but got shot down by a fellow Irish poster because he thought that Heaslip would be captain, now this may be true but as you say, there are some very good 8's in Ireland (Stander for one) that must be pushing Heaslip.

profitius yes I know it's easy to be wise after an event but I could see Lancaster's poor decisions before they happened.

rory gallagher it's only silly waffle to you because you want to block it out. I didn't judge it on the Argentina game, Ireland were flattering to deceive throughout the whole tournament. Ireland were poor in the RWC warm ups too. I would agree that Ireland probably would not have been dismantled if you had Sexton or Connell but Argentina exposed the weaknesses in the Irish side that were papered over when Sexton was there.

A good side shrugs off the injuries. Wales shrugged off their injuries against England.

You need to instead of look what you can do better instead of blaming injuries for Ireland's failure.


doctor grey disagree. Leadership is not rare. CEO,team leaders, managers, organisers all need to be leaders. Can be a leader of a big group or a small group.

Even in an army there's not just one leader. You think there's just one officer? It's a collective. Sure there is a hierachy but a sergeant is still a leader. He might not lead as many men as a general but he's still important in his own right. The soldiers are the backbone of an army.

It's about responsibility and setting a good example. You can have one leader/figurehead but you need a strong structure of leadership surrounding them.

Johnson was fortunate to be surrounded by battle hardened hard nosed white orcs.

beshocked wrote:profitius yes I know it's easy to be wise after an event but I could see Lancaster's poor decisions before they happened.

rory gallagher it's only silly waffle to you because you want to block it out. I didn't judge it on the Argentina game, Ireland were flattering to deceive throughout the whole tournament. Ireland were poor in the RWC warm ups too. I would agree that Ireland probably would not have been dismantled if you had Sexton or Connell but Argentina exposed the weaknesses in the Irish side that were papered over when Sexton was there.

A good side shrugs off the injuries. Wales shrugged off their injuries against England.

You need to instead of look what you can do better instead of blaming injuries for Ireland's failure.


doctor grey disagree. Leadership is not rare. CEO,team leaders, managers, organisers all need to be leaders. Can be a leader of a big group or a small group.

Even in an army there's not just one leader. You think there's just one officer? It's a collective. Sure there is a hierachy but a sergeant is still a leader. He might not lead as many men as a general but he's still important in his own right. The soldiers are the backbone of an army.

It's about responsibility and setting a good example.  You can have one leader/figurehead but you need a strong structure of leadership surrounding them.

Johnson was fortunate to be surrounded by battle hardened hard nosed white orcs.

no

Going to add to that doctor grey?

There can be many leaders, but there are few good ones.

beshocked wrote:Going to add to that doctor grey?

Shared accountability means no one is accountable.  Shared responsibility means on one is responsible.  These are notions which fail over and over.
A person can be in a leadership position but that doesn't make them a Leader.  Real leaders which can lift their teams or organisations are few.

I think Scotland could be the dark Horses this year!

I think that it is a year too early for Scotland, Cotter needs time but he is at least getting Scotland to play their own game rather than set up a team to counter (damage control) others which is a massive boost for Scotland and their fans.

I still feel it will be between England and Wales this year. England under new management but with an excellent team will perform better and Wales, well Wales are pretty much the top NH team in my eyes. Good competition this up coming 6N.

eirebilly wrote:I think that it is a year too early for Scotland, Cotter needs time but he is at least getting Scotland to play their own game rather than set up a team to counter (damage control) others which is a massive boost for Scotland and their fans.

I still feel it will be between England and Wales this year. England under new management but with an excellent team will perform better and Wales, well Wales are pretty much the top NH team in my eyes. Good competition this up coming 6N.

This Billy fella knows his rugby

eirebilly wrote:I think that it is a year too early for Scotland, Cotter needs time but he is at least getting Scotland to play their own game rather than set up a team to counter (damage control) others which is a massive boost for Scotland and their fans.

I still feel it will be between England and Wales this year. England under new management but with an excellent team will perform better and Wales, well Wales are pretty much the top NH team in my eyes. Good competition this up coming 6N.

Billy stop trying to wind up our opposition .

doctor grey disagree. shared accountability means everyone is accountable. shared responsibility means everyone is responsible.

There is a blame culture and I am of course equally guilty of sometimes homing in on specific areas. E.g. Nowell's selection vs France, it was a very poor decision but not the only reason, England lost. The collective as a whole was not strong enough. Sadly Lancaster did not take any responsibility for England's failure in that game. If Lancaster had said after the game - " I am sorry I made some mistakes, I hold my hands up, I am not going to single out anyone to spare any embarrassment but we know what we did wrong and will do it right in the future".

I lost more respect for Lancaster when he failed to acknowledge his failure.

Fans disliked Borthwick when he wasn't honest about a lacklustre performance against Italy. If he was honest I am sure he would have gained more support. He just needed to state the obvious - England were very poor but somehow managed to win.

Failing is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you address the issues, are positive and honest.

Problem with Lancaster is he didn't address the problems.

A good leader doesn't need to be successful all the time but they need to have the trust of those around them. In the case of a captain - the fans,coaches and team.

Robshaw's issue was that there was no trust in him, particularly from the fans and media anyhow. When he dithered he was criticised, when he made a decisive decision, he was criticised. Robshaw will no longer be captain, doesn't mean he can't inspire others though by focussing on his primarily responsibility now - playing well.

I didn't rate Robshaw as a captain but I still think he has a lot to offer as an inspiration to others - he's a nice guy, a good role model and hardworking player. Just because he's no longer a figurehead doesn't mean he should be ignored.

The whole leadership concept is an interesting one.

- Joan of Arc is a national French heroine and figureheard but in my opinion her importance is overstated. Men and women flocked to her cause and history has painted a favourable picture of her but in reality it was men like Xaintrailles and La Hire who were the more prominent heroes of France. They were called her lieutenants but in reality there were the military commanders. She died after only two years of prominence. In contrast they fought prominently for years before and after as well as during.

People would claim Joan of Arc was a great leader but she died at the tender age of 19 and had not beaten the English. Does anyone seriously think she was in charge of the French army when you had experienced veterans like La Hire and Xaintrailles around?

It goes back to my point of needing a strong structure. An army/team is about the collective. Some figures get the headlines but cannot forget those who do not get the credit.

Martin Johnson needed those around him too in the RWC 2003.

Joan of Arc should be nowhere near the England side.

Harold Godwinson should be though - he's a leader that wouldn't take a backward step...

mikey_dragon wrote:Harold Godwinson should be though - he's a leader that wouldn't take a backward step...

Good choice. He very nearly pulled off victories in two major battles in under a month. Shame he's been on the injury list for so long. Bad case of contact with the eye area, I heard.

In the RWC, England were very short of leaders on the pitch - as evidenced by how few credible candidates there are to replace Robshaw.

Jones needs to identify a core group of senior players early and invest in their collective leadership qualities. That might mean persisting with a subset of those players even if there are form players in the same positions clamouring for inclusion.

Is this really about Leadership? I don't think so; it's far more simple than that and in essence is about having high quality players across the park which England clearly lack at the moment at international level. Develop some quality across the backs, the back row and the front row and the leadership will take care of itself. Don't get bogged down with the leadership myth. You need world class players in your team, at the moment there are none.

beshocked wrote:doctor grey disagree. shared accountability means everyone is accountable. shared responsibility means everyone is responsible.

There is a blame culture and I am of course equally guilty of sometimes homing in on specific areas. E.g. Nowell's selection vs France, it was a very poor decision but not the only reason, England lost. The collective as a whole was not strong enough. Sadly Lancaster did not take any responsibility for England's failure in that game. If Lancaster had said after the game - " I am sorry I made some mistakes, I hold my hands up, I am not going to single out anyone to spare any embarrassment but we know what we did wrong and will do it right in the future".

I lost more respect for Lancaster when he failed to acknowledge his failure.

Fans disliked Borthwick when he wasn't honest about a lacklustre performance against Italy. If he was honest I am sure he would have gained more support. He just needed to state the obvious - England were very poor but somehow managed to win.

Failing is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you address the issues, are positive and honest.

Problem with Lancaster is he didn't address the problems.

A good leader doesn't need to be successful all the time but they need to have the trust of those around them. In the case of a captain - the fans,coaches and team.

Robshaw's issue was that there was no trust in him, particularly from the fans and media anyhow. When he dithered he was criticised, when he made a decisive decision, he was criticised. Robshaw will no longer be captain, doesn't mean he can't inspire others though by focussing on his primarily responsibility now - playing well.

I didn't rate Robshaw as a captain but I still think he has a lot to offer as an inspiration to others - he's a nice guy, a good role model and hardworking player. Just because he's no longer a figurehead doesn't mean he should be ignored.

The whole leadership concept is an interesting one.

- Joan of Arc is a national French heroine and figureheard but in my opinion her importance is overstated. Men and women flocked to her cause and history has painted a favourable picture of her but in reality it was men like Xaintrailles and La Hire who were the more prominent heroes of France. They were called her lieutenants but in reality there were the military commanders. She died after only two years of prominence. In contrast they fought prominently for years before and after as well as during.

People would claim Joan of Arc was a great leader but she died at the tender age of 19 and had not beaten the English. Does anyone seriously think she was in charge of the French army when you had experienced veterans like La Hire and Xaintrailles around?

It goes back to my point of needing a strong structure. An army/team is about the collective. Some figures get the headlines but cannot forget those who do not get the credit.

Martin Johnson needed those around him too in the RWC 2003.

We will have to agree to disagree.


p.s. Thinking of Joan of Arc, she wore her suit of armour. It was always a fantasy of mine to run into a girl who would bring her own metal equipment to a party.

doctor_grey wrote:

beshocked wrote:doctor grey disagree. shared accountability means everyone is accountable. shared responsibility means everyone is responsible.

There is a blame culture and I am of course equally guilty of sometimes homing in on specific areas. E.g. Nowell's selection vs France, it was a very poor decision but not the only reason, England lost. The collective as a whole was not strong enough. Sadly Lancaster did not take any responsibility for England's failure in that game. If Lancaster had said after the game - " I am sorry I made some mistakes, I hold my hands up, I am not going to single out anyone to spare any embarrassment but we know what we did wrong and will do it right in the future".

I lost more respect for Lancaster when he failed to acknowledge his failure.

Fans disliked Borthwick when he wasn't honest about a lacklustre performance against Italy. If he was honest I am sure he would have gained more support. He just needed to state the obvious - England were very poor but somehow managed to win.

Failing is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you address the issues, are positive and honest.

Problem with Lancaster is he didn't address the problems.

A good leader doesn't need to be successful all the time but they need to have the trust of those around them. In the case of a captain - the fans,coaches and team.

Robshaw's issue was that there was no trust in him, particularly from the fans and media anyhow. When he dithered he was criticised, when he made a decisive decision, he was criticised. Robshaw will no longer be captain, doesn't mean he can't inspire others though by focussing on his primarily responsibility now - playing well.

I didn't rate Robshaw as a captain but I still think he has a lot to offer as an inspiration to others - he's a nice guy, a good role model and hardworking player. Just because he's no longer a figurehead doesn't mean he should be ignored.

The whole leadership concept is an interesting one.

- Joan of Arc is a national French heroine and figureheard but in my opinion her importance is overstated. Men and women flocked to her cause and history has painted a favourable picture of her but in reality it was men like Xaintrailles and La Hire who were the more prominent heroes of France. They were called her lieutenants but in reality there were the military commanders. She died after only two years of prominence. In contrast they fought prominently for years before and after as well as during.

People would claim Joan of Arc was a great leader but she died at the tender age of 19 and had not beaten the English. Does anyone seriously think she was in charge of the French army when you had experienced veterans like La Hire and Xaintrailles around?

It goes back to my point of needing a strong structure. An army/team is about the collective. Some figures get the headlines but cannot forget those who do not get the credit.

Martin Johnson needed those around him too in the RWC 2003.

We will have to agree to disagree.


p.s.  Thinking of Joan of Arc, she wore her suit of armour.  It was always a fantasy of mine to run into a girl who would bring her own metal equipment to a party.

Edge of tomorrow. Good film for lots of reasons. One of them is related to the above...

England for grandslam glory 2016!

Well, given England owned half of France at the time Joan of Arc should be EQ. Might be just what we need at IC - a nineteen year old girl dressed in metal would certainly embarrass any other contenders we have.