There were no inquiries after England’s disastrous Ashes whitewash. The media asked a few questions, the fans chatted on twitter, many vented their spleens on forums such as this one, but firm action was generally lacking: the captain kept his job, the coach stayed an ECB employee, no selectors resigned, and Giles Clarke kept guzzling champagne.
The major changes in structure or personnel one might expect after abject humiliation never materialised. Instead what we got was a lot of talk – about the importance of team ethics, team culture, engagement, and so forth.
We were also told that the England cricket team would try to replicate the England rugby team, which appeared somewhat rejuvenated after a poor World Cup under Martin Johnson in 2011.
After England’s underwhelming defeat to the All Blacks on Saturday, cricket fans are entitled to question the wisdom of this particular strategy.
Had we known that three years after Johnson’s departure England would have secured zero Six Nations championships (a title they actually held in 2011), and beaten quality southern hemisphere opposition just twice in twelve attempts, everyone would have been hugely disappointed.
Even Johnson managed to beat southern powerhouses on two occasions (and he did it in in ten attempts, not twelve).
These are the bare facts that expose English rugby’s so called cultural revolution – the revolution that was supposed to show English cricket the way forward.
The ECB bought into Stuart Lancaster’s emphasis on team spirit and creating the right ‘environment’ – he even made the players watch videos on England’s rugby history to motivate them – but success has still proved elusive.
What’s the point in raising patriotism to fever pitch if it’s not matched by results on the pitch? Shouldn’t the ECB have tried to emulate proven winners rather than another aspiring outfit?
One can understand, from the ECB’s perspective, why they might want to copy the RFU. Culturally they seem quite close. Meanwhile, both organisations are sometimes perceived as parochial, detached, elitist and riddled with politics. Despite attempts at modernisation, these perceptions linger.
Both organisations also chose a home-grown head coach they knew and could trust rather than a proven manager with world class credentials:
The RFU chose Lancaster, an existing RFU employee with just one season of coaching at a high professional level (in which his Leeds side were relegated) over Jake White and Nick Mallett.
Meanwhile the ECB chose Peter Moores, a former ECB employee (whose Lancashire team were relegated a year beforehand) over Trevor Bayliss, Graham Ford and any number of other coaches they might have approached.
Both Lancaster and Moores have similar philosophies: hard work, preparation, perceived loyalty and analysis supersede individual flair and enigmatic brilliance. Moores couldn’t work with Kevin Pietersen; Lancaster seems to mistrust players like Chris Ashton.
What’s more, both the RFU and the ECB appear fearful of foreign riches. English rugby players who betray the English Premiership by seeking greater financial rewards in France are considered outsiders and ruled unavailable for selection. There are parallels here with the ECB’s attitude to the IPL.
The language used by both organisations is also strikingly similar. When the RFU were looking to replace Martin Johnson, the job description they advertised read more like something from a PR company than a sporting organisation – so much so, in fact, that Wales Online had a great laugh at our expense.
Talk of promoting the ‘England rugby brand’ and working with ‘commercial partners to build productive relationships’ sounded like something Paul Downton did in his old City job. Paul Downton, Rob Andrew, what’s the difference?
Tellingly, the job description contained very little about having a track record of success as a rugby coach. Winning trophies, doing well in domestic and European competitions, and managing world-class athletes were deemed secondary to possessing ‘a high level of integrity’.
Stuart Lancaster is a very amiable man, and he talks intelligently about the game, but it was only the RFU’s peculiar job description that made him a stronger candidate than Jake White – a coach with a superb track record around the world.
The only thing Lancaster has actually won as a professional coach was promotion from the English championship (the second tier); White has won the World Cup, the Tri-Nations and been named IRB World Coach of the Year twice. The RFU’s decision was therefore curious to say the least.
The ECB also adopts the same pompous management-speak in its communications. As Maxie pointed out a few weeks ago, their advertisement seeking a new chief executive emphasised: “Developing strong and long lasting relationships with all the key stakeholders in the game including the first class counties, the recreational game, Team England, the National Cricket Performance Centre, the MCC, the PCA, the ICC, and Government”.
Actually knowing something about cricket, and being in touch with the modern game, didn’t seem particularly important. No wonder Paul Downton turned up in Sydney and needed a thorough briefing from Andy Flower, who was more concerned with the Pietersen issue than discussing broader failures of strategy and selection.
So what should the ECB be doing? It’s all very well to snipe from the sidelines without recommending an alternative blueprint.
In this observer’s humble opinion, I would like the ECB to broaden its horizons. Analysis and science have their place, but the recipe for success in international sport is somewhat intangible and elusive.
Every year scouts and general managers meet for the NFL draft. College prospects are put under unimaginable scrutiny: height, weight, arm-length, strength, speed over 40 yards, the ability to leap vertically and horizontally are all measured.
Players are also asked to perform numerous position drills, interviewed and given IQ tests. There’s just one problem: none of these drills are performed against live opposition. A player might have great straight-line speed on a running track, but if he cannot diagnose plays quickly, has poor instincts and freezes under pressure, then he’ll look incredibly slow in competitive action.
Every year, numerous prospects that excel during the draft process fail miserably when they become pros. Meanwhile, numerous unheralded prospects slip under the radar, get drafted in the later rounds (or sometimes not at all), and become all time greats. This proves, beyond question, that a scientific method is fallible.
The bottom line is that sportsmen cannot always be measured. Flair, instinct and a sense of occasion are just as important as physical attributes and whether one enjoys team-bonding exercises.
Creating a formula, concocting a method, establishing a good environment and trying to establish a team ethic is all very well, but it’s only part of the story.
The ECB would do well to remember this. Emulating those who are already similar to yourself – Andy Flower and Stuart Lancaster, with their emphasis on hard work and preparation, would have much in common – means you’ll learn nothing.
Do England’s management team seriously think that Darren Lehmann’s Aussies, Joachim Low’s Germans, or even Jake White’s South Africans, don’t work hard?
James Morgan
This agrees with my post on leadership te other day and people make the mistake that Clive Woodward introduced cluture to the team.
The difference is that he picked players who added energy to the group and got them to build the culture for the team.
And of course he had mavericks.
I warmly suggested everyone reads Ed Smith’s piece on Cricinfo today which agrees with this.
Building a team actually requires building te individuals and making each person the best they can be.
Lancaster makes about 6 changes a match and shows no continuity of selection.
As I said the other day, you build the team first and the culture can be shaped. It doesn’t work the other way around.
Oh and I fogot to say, picking the best players usually gives you the best team and the coach should concentrate on making the players and the team better on the pitch as their first job.
Look what happened when Ponting tried to make the Aussies more friendly. The lost.
Clarke turned the Aussies around by getting their best team on the pitch and going nasty.
Not sure about what professionalism is? It involves winning the big games consistently and crushing the weak teams.
Nothing to do with values.
I agree that the ECB shouldn’t necessarily follow the RFU’s policy but I think that has to do with the fundamental nature of the 2 sports rather than the failings of the RFU or Lancaster’s approach. Rugby is a game that requires a different approach to the concept of a team than cricket in the sense that there is far more interaction during the game and trust required to be a successful rugby team than a cricket team which can be more like a collection of individuals. Whilst the approach of Lancaster is a bit simplistic, his England team have a better record than his predecessor (58% wins to 55%), despite playing far more away matches and far more games against the SH big 3. To me the team looks better and harder to beat than under Johnson and have beaten New Zealand which Clive Woodward only managed twice.
I think perhaps horses for courses is needed. The simplistic team building employed by Lancaster can work in Rugby, but for the ECB to think they can simply apply it to cricket shows they don’t really understand the difference between the 2 sports.
I very much agree with the sentiment expressed here and on previous threads that cricket and rugby are very different sports. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the view of those in charge of English cricket.
Giles Clarke said in March: “Lancaster has done a fantastic job, In a very short space of time, he has sorted out English rugby. He’s talked the language of teams that Paul Downton and I like very much. Paul said to me, ‘If you look at the most successful sporting team over the last 100 years, of course, it is the All Blacks’. One of the fundamentals they live by is the team. You just don’t get to play if you don’t believe in it. In the end the team must matter.”
Alastair Cook said in May: “Lessons should be learned from England rugby. Huge credit to Stuart Lancaster and the guys for the way they have changed things. I imagine it’s taken a hell of a lot of effort.”
You can see those quotes at greater length in a piece I wrote on this subject a few months ago:
https://www.thefulltoss.com/england-cricket-blog/muddied-oafs-and-flannelled-fools/
The rugby defeat on Saturday brings the issue into sharper focus.
My disclaimer is that I dislike the general tone and culture of rugby union and I see very few parallels with cricket. The history of test cricket is studded with peculiar and idiosyncratic individuals whose genius and distinctiveness shaped the mythology of the game and provided the bulk of its most noteworthy performances. Cricketers by definition must operate, much of the time, alone. Often they have very fragile and delicate egos.
Standing at the crease and preparing to face Malcolm Marshall or Shane Warne, when for example the entire series is at stake, and your own reputation is on the line, is a rather different challenge from playing in the front row. Not to suggest that that is easy – it’s just completely different.
The notion of ‘team’ in cricket has evolved into a rather pernicious cult with quasi-religious overtones. It’s become too closely associated with unthinking patriotism and leads management to ask the wrong questions of their players. How would Shane Warne have fared under Downtonism? He wouldn’t even wear the Australian cap. Imagine if it had been Kevin Pietersen who, like Michael Clarke, refused to sing the team song because he wanted to meet his girlfriend. Pietersen was sacked; Clarke was made captain and reclaimed the Ashes.
Thanks for the link Maxie. Cook’s next sentence was a cracker – “they came second in the Six Nations three years in a row”. Is coming second in a competition where you are larger and wealthier than most of the other teams really that astounding?
One thing the RFU and the ECB appear to have in common is an ability to co-opt the media. The lack of criticism directed at Lancaster is bizarre. England football managers must wish they lived in such a world – not that I wish to give the FA ideas! Reading the Guardian’s ‘Five talking points about the weekend internationals’ I had to keep reminding myself that England had lost (and been outplayed by more than the final scoreline suggested). It’ll be interesting to see if England don’t beat SA (who lost to Ireland last weekend) if the worm finally starts to turn….
I’m not of course against learning from the best in other sports providing one is mindful of the differences between them and cricket. One point England could have learnt from the ABs is that when they were top of the world they kept their motivation through the challenge of ‘winning better’. In the process they have evolved their style from an effective but not especially attractive one to an effective and gloriously expansive method of play. This area was one of Andy Flower’s big failures – rather than ‘winning better’ his approach seems to have been ‘now settle your scores’. Another difference is the handling of maverick talents – the ABs have had their issues with Sonny Bill Williams but they didn’t permanently burn their bridges with him and he was back in the side at Twickenham.
What Clarke, Downton and Cook are doing are looking at others’ success and highlighting the elements they already agreed with rather than having any genuine interest or understanding of how they achieved it.
One thing I noticed that we both have in common Maxie is that we both lived near Twickenham for a while (nealy twenty years in my case). The experience is certainly an effective antidote to any overly romantic views of English rugby and some of its followers!
Simon your point about the medias rather too close relationship with the governing bodies is a good one. Almost all criticism seems have been removed in both cricket and rugby. Football is going the same way.
Now you might argue its about time in footballs case. The ludicrous expectations over the last 30 years every time England went to a major tournament was very odd to watch. So some sense of realistic expectations is welcome.
However England’s last World Cup in the summer seemed very similar to England’s ashes defeat. There was no outcry that they had been knocked out inside a week. The FA moved quickly to say the coach would stay in place, a lot of talk about TINA was handed out, and that was the end of it.
“They came second in the Six Nations three years in a row”.
And that’s who we want to aspire to – the perpetual also-rans? And second out of a pool of four, as – to my understanding – Scotland and Italy don’t challenge for the title.
I lived in Barnes, Simon. Richmond was to be avoided on rugby days!
We are being drip fed clarity around KP’s demise….Corporate speak, corporate vision, corporate methods, corporate culture. Whatever happened to sport, where extremely talented “individuals” had the environment and freedom to develop and express their talents to the full, and win along the way??
Will we get a bunch of corporate clones turning up in Sri Lanka and the WC? I do believe we will!!
Excellent post Dave!
Did you see the little cross of st George flags the RFU had stuck on top of the goal posts? When I saw it I cringed. I bet Giles Clarke will be thinking “can’t we have little flags on top of the stumps?”
Waitrose on one side and flag of st George on the other.
*Like*
Three stumps, flags of the Big Three would also be appropriate
OTOH do we really want to give Dale Steyn (or pretty much any bowler!) more of an incentive to knock them down?
Remember the reaction to Packer in the late 70s? The establishment spat their dummies out at the idea the players would go and earn more money elsewhere. And remember the RFU guy who tried to have Will Carling thrown out after he referred to them as the 57 old farts. In both cases the players won’ and the establishment had to back down. But they didn’t like it.
Both teams embody the English establishments obsession with hard work, discipline and duty. How hard you sing the national anthem is still regarded by some of these people as a measure to how well you will play. What of course is not so prevalent is flair. The establishment are suspicious of flair. That’s what the unreliable Celts do. That’s what those untrustworthy Johnny Foreigner types do. No, we prefer stout yeoman types that give 110% to those flakey types. I should point out that this is not the view of many supporters. Many of us love the flair players. We loved the. Botham’s and the Gower’s. But the English coaching model does find it very easy to blend the flair with the backbone.
30 odd years ago Franz Beckenbauer said the world respected English footballs work ethic, but they needed to marry it with great technique. If they ever did that he said, and combined it with their never say die attitude England would be world beaters. We never quite produced enough technical flair players.. And the ones we did were always viewed with suspicion. Brian Clough never got the England job because the FA suits did not want him anywhere near their power base. They couldn’t control him. Moores and Lancaster give the impression to me that they have their jobs because they fit in rather than are dynamic. How very English.
Mark,
I agree with you in part. If there is an example of an English sport that genuinely can’t handle mavericks, then it’s football. From Clough failing to get the England job, to Tony Currie and Stan Bowles, Glenn Hoddle and Matt Le Tissier, there are many examples of fantastically gifted players who never flourished at international level, or were never given a chance. There’s Gascpoigne as a counter-example – but he’s about the only one. English football definitely has a maverick problem.
But cricket? Not so much. For a start, KP played 104 tests – to use him as an example to prove that England can’t accomodate flair players is patently absurd. Botham. Gower. Flintoff. All mavericks who enjoyed magnificent test careers – and immense public support.
Oh, and as for those anti-establishment Aussies – why was Shane Warne never made captain? Because he was too much of a loose cannon to be risked. Even the Aussies have their limits!
Kev, I never said that England won’t ever try flair players. But they are viewed with suspicion and distrust. The English mentality is effort and team bonding over individual flair. The footballers you name are good examples of flair players. Gascoigne was the exception in that he did hold down a regular England place. But he was viewed with deep suspicion by media and managers.
As I pointed out Botham and Gower played many times for England. So I was never arguing that flair players never play for England. But when Gower failed, usually wafting outside off stump, the criticism was much more pointed. Botham was regularly attacked for his off field life style. The tabloids treated him like shit at times. Even going to his local butcher to ask if he was buying extra meat.
The English mentality is to love effort and hard work over pure genius. An England team that loses in a plucky rear guard effort is always loved by the media and fans. It’s usually accompanied by a claim that the team was cheated out of a win by dodgy decisions.
Your point about Warne is a fair one. He was never captain because of his off the field antics. A great pity because he would have made a great Australian Test captain in my opinion. But as you say even the Aussies have their limits.
“Oh, and as for those anti-establishment Aussies – why was Shane Warne never made captain? Because he was too much of a loose cannon to be risked. Even the Aussies have their limits!”
Well, that’s a bit of a myth. The only realistic time for Warne to have been made captain was when Mark Taylor retired. However, Steve Waugh was vice captain and heir apparent, and a far more senior player. In the run-up to Taylor retiring and the captaincy becoming vacant, Warne had busted his shoulder and missed a year of cricket, and been implicated in match fixing in the ‘John the Bookmaker’ affair. It was always going to be Waugh.
They still ignored the career threatening injuries, the match-fixing, and his contemporary form (he was dropped not long after) and made him vice captain, one sharp bouncer away from the captaincy.
I won’t claim to be an expert on rugby union but the England rugby team (not that I’m trying to claim to be an expert on cricket, but it is a game a follow a heck of a lot!) has at least shown some signs of playing a more expansive game in the last year or so. They were actually really enjoyable to watch in the last 6 nations. They even showed a bit of gumption in NZ earlier this year when they didn’t have by any means their strongest XV out (a problem that has carried on to this autumn’s internationals). I do wonder though whether Lancaster is enough of a dynamo to get the best out of the talent that he may have at his disposal come the next world cup.
As for the cricket team, this last year has been something of a complete and utter counter-revolution. No wish to gain a true fresh start (you wouldn’t appoint a failed ex-coach again, let alone new selectors) and keeping the walking slip cradle with the personality of a newt and the leadership capacity of Baldrick in the captain’s role. As for the ‘exciting’ new talents? Who, when? Perhaps a bit of Mo Ali, but a guy who can’t play the short ball will nigh on be a walking wicket next year given the opposition.
I agree with a lot of this, also being something of a rugby / cricketing layman! Lancaster still has a fair bit to prove, as the article pointed out, his credentials weren’t anything like as worthy as those of Mallet and White. And they still aren’t now! But to provide some context, he had stepped into the breach as a caretaker coach at a time when our team was in the doldrums and made a pretty good fist of that first 6N campaign. So there was a groundswell of support at the end of the 2012 season for the RFU to appoint him. Not saying that they had to or that it was the right call, but there was a fair bit of public momentum behind him.
And I think it’s quite unfair to tarnish him with the flair-hating brush, especially if the mercurial Ashton is being used as the example. Poor Chris couldn’t tackle for toffee, and by the time he was eventually dropped, he wasn’t scoring many tries or contributing offensively either. If anything, Lancaster was too faithful, many supporters wanted him benched long before…
Not posted for a while…new job.
I said at the time, that the rugby comparison bothered me, that it was instructive about the extremely narrow frame of reference those in charge of the England cricket team had. About the only comparison that is fair is based on the small number nations who play internationally, because let’s face it I’m pretty sure there are number of other teams in other sports who compete in much wider fields who the cricket team could also learn from.
Ultimately, for me, it’s a cultural thing. I’m stating nothing new here but across all team sports, and this is only said from the outside looking in obviously, it seems that administrators/the establishment/the men in committee rooms/blazers; whatever you want to call them, all distrust a) England qualified players who ply their trade overseas b) the unorthodox and have always valued hard work over talent.
Not a massive Rugby fan but I find it completely bizarre that players who play in France get ignored for England selection. I know the All Blacks do it, but I’d rather we concentrated on learning from the way they play rather than their selectorial policy.
Team culture is important, but first and foremost you need to get the most talented blend of players in the room, especially in cricket which is as we all know essentially an individual sport played out in a team context.
It’s long seemed to me that English sports teams have long failed on the most fundamental point of team building, that of picking your team from the best available squad of players. All else comes from that – the coaching, the structure, the culture the “ethos” (vomits).
The penny has finally dropped in football, with youth coaches and scouts finally realising that spatial awareness and technique on the ball are the qualities to be looked for in players first and foremost, not size, stamina and strength as anyone who went through the youth football system 20 years ago can attest was the case then. It’s just a shame every other nation, as Mark notes above, had cottoned onto this about 25 years before. We’re always playing catch up.
If this country ever wants sustained success in any team sport it must first rid it self of the fear of failure. It’s got to embrace the unorthodox within reason. There is nothing with losing trying to win. Supporters understand that and I’m pretty sure the players do too.
Again I find it weird, in a country that produces so many talented individuals in so many creative disciplines (fashion, design, architecture, advertising, film making, research, writing, photography) not to mention in science & engineering, who are at or near the top in the world, who positively ooze flair, that the characteristics we value in our team sport doesn’t reflect this.
I’m sure there’s a really woolly sociological essay that could be written about this about how our bizarro class system, our post colonial history etc have all informed this attitude…but I’m nowhere near qualified to comment…apologies for the long winded ramble.
In summary, I think there is a limited amount to be gained from emulating the approach of a team, in another radically different spor,t which has yet to win anything, has repeatedly failed against the best opposition and deliberately excludes talented players if they seek to earn more money overseas.
Very naughty of you, Mike, to your put career and livelihood before us. Get your priorities right, man!
James here. Good thoughts Mark. I just wanted to make a point about the All Black’s selection policy. It’s much harder for players based in Europe to travel back to NZ for training camps etc, so the All Black’s policy of only picking domestic based players makes more sense. It’s less of an issue for English players to travel home from France, although I understand French clubs are picky about releasing English players for these types of camps (which is where part of the problem lies).
Clashes between domestic leagues is not an issue during the World Cup, of course, so I still don’t understand why Lancaster will not pick Steffon Armitage of Toulon (the best flanker in Europe, a specialist 7 England so desperately need). I think it’s because he’s concerned about drafting someone in to start in the XV at short notice, leap frogging players who have been with the squad longer and bought into the team culture he’s trying to create.
For me this is utter b**l*ocks. It’s cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Armitage would surely be just as committed as the players already in the squad and give his all in the World Cup. It’s just another example of the team ethic getting in the way of common sense and preventing the best players from getting on the pitch. Of course, a cynic might suggest that Lancaster doesn’t want to pick Armitage because he plays the same position as his captain (Robshaw) and is a superior player. It would cause a political headache.
The end result, as I understand it, is that Armitage might now decide to play for France instead as he will qualify under their residency laws *(yes, he’s that desperate to play in the World Cup!) This would be as much of a tragedy as it is ridiculous. Can you imagine France refusing to pick Zinedine Zidane for their home world cup in 1998 because he played club football in Italy? Zidane would have formed a good partnership with Totti or someone and probably won the Cup for Italy instead of France. Absurd.
To be honest, I don’t think it’s any of those things. The incentive of playing for England is the RFU’s only way of enforcing the salary cap and keeping the premiership viable as a spectator sport.
NZ and Australia do the same. The case of Nick Cummins recently really tested the ARU’s policy but they held firm. No exceptions.
France is Rugby Union’s IPL, and tests the boards similarly.
“The incentive of playing for England is the RFU’s only way of enforcing the salary cap”
Tristan, these are two completely different things. There has always been a salary cap, and it was always enforced, before this rule came in. Yes there would be a talent drain if the rule was abolished, but why would this be such a problem? It would just make English clubs less competitive in Europe.
The English Premiership is different to Wales, where artificial regions were created. Most (proper) clubs are from rugby cities, and attendances and interest would be maintained even if some of the big names moved on. Fans would still want to watch their team, rivalries would still exist, and the passion to win the Premiership would remain.
The silver lining is that clubs would stop spending huge wages on big name imports, and focus on developing younger English players. Heck, it might even benefit the national team.
What I don’t agree with is saying that the salary cap (which is extremely important in keeping the league competitive) is inextricably linked to the Armitage rule (for want of a better expression), and that one can’t exist without the other.
“Yes there would be a talent drain if the rule was abolished, but why would this be such a problem? It would just make English clubs less competitive in Europe.”
I find it kind of bizarre that you don’t see the connection. Domestic rugby in England is a product the RFU is selling to the public. Having a significant talent drain would inevitably make rugby less attractive as a spectator sport and overall lower the standard of rugby. The idea that this would actually *strengthen* the English team requires such twisted logic it’s competing with Trickle-Down Theory.
Rugby players are relatively poorly paid, as sportsmen go, and their careers are short. The number of leading players who’ve already voluntarily given up their international careers and homeland in exchange for a better salary is a pretty clear indication that if the RFU (and other boards) no longer had international rep rugby as a weapon in their armoury there would be a mass exodus. The domestic game would be poorer, both financially and as a sport. The England team would inevitably suffer.
I find it equally bizarre that you’re ignoring the experience of other sports. The French and Dutch football leagues experience a talent drain every year. Ajax etc therefore don’t do well in Europe any more, but the national team consistently competes in World Cups. If anything Holland have done better since the champions league came in and the talent drain increased. The emphasis is on producing talent rather than buying it. Look at the English Premiership: great ‘product’, big stars, huge money, yet the worst national team in living memory. Do the Math mate. Your argument is just one perspective, and a cynic would point out that it’s the perspective the clubs would like you to believe. I’m sure Ajax complain bitterly about the talent drain. Now why would they do that?
I’m not sure how many people watch the domestic first class competition in Australia these days, but it used to be buggar all in the 1990s when they had the best national team ever, and a constant production line of world class batsmen who couldn’t even get in the Aussie squad due to the embarrassment of riches. Basically I see no correlation between the strength of a domestic league financially (and the product) and the strength of national teams.
If anything is true it’s the opposite of what you and Burly are arguing. Since France started attracting the best players in the world, their top 14 domestic league is thriving but the national team is in a huge slump! It’s because they’re relying on imported talent rather than producing great Young French players, who suddenly can’t get a game … just like the English football team.
“I’m not sure how many people watch the domestic first class competition in Australia these days, but it used to be buggar all in the 1990s when they had the best national team ever, and a constant production line of world class batsmen who couldn’t even get in the Aussie squad due to the embarrassment of riches. Basically I see no correlation between the strength of a domestic league financially (and the product) and the strength of national teams.”
You describe how Australian domestic cricket had a constant production line of world class batsmen who couldn’t get in to the national team, at a time when they also had the greatest national team in history, but you see no correlation between the strength of a domestic league and the strength of the national team? Do the math mate.
I see comparing other sports as ridiculous – there are too many variables and differences to draw accurate comparisons – but if you insist, you could read Dean Jones’ article from last week on the state of Australian cricket. He made the direct connection between the strength of the domestic game and the strength of the national team. High quality domestic cricket in the 90s and high quality national team – poor domestic cricket now riven by poor technique, poor national team riven by the same problems as the domestic players. Attendances are a complete straw man. No one watches domestic cricket regardless of whether the national team is winning or losing. Utter red herring which highlights the pointlessness of comparing apples with oranges.
You have argued that a talent drain from English rugby and a consequent drop in the quality of rugby played in England, and an inevitable drop in attendances and revenue, is actually a positive thing. Try putting that in a business plan and see how it sounds: “I’m going to let my most talented employees leave, I’m going to make my product less attractive, and I’m going to see my revenue go down. This will be good for my business”. Good luck on the Apprentice.
If you want a real comparison, don’t look at football or cricket, look at rugby league – it’s the perfect example of allowing a foreign league to build a rich competition of big money and superstars whilst you allow your own to dwindle. English players want to play in the NRL not just for the money, but because of the standard. They want to play against the best every week instead of once in a blue moon. All the best players from England now play in Australia. There’s nothing holding them back. The gap between the two leagues is vast now, and unbridgeable. We can never go back and, worst of all, we can’t compete.
Your belief that the talent drain is a good thing and will lead to native talent being developed is shown to be a fantasy. English rugby league is still full of foreign players, they’re just shit foreign players. All the talent that does come through the English clubs – and there’s plenty of it – has either already pissed off to Australia or is desperately trying to – they did an anonymous survey of RL players a year or so ago and >60% of them said they would move to Aus if they had half a chance.
France has built a very strong and very attractive domestic competition. One of the reasons the clubs have so much money is because of the enormous increase in popularity over the last decade or more – ground attendances are up massively (a rugby crowd now has the record for most attended sporting event in France), tv audiences are up, revenue from TV deals and advertising is up enormously and, perhaps most importantly, actual participation in the sport of rugby has increased dramatically. The influx of star players has been key to this. The French domestic game is attractive and competitive with some of the world’s best players.
How can someone be a fan of rugby and not want participation up, the standard to be higher, the audience to be bigger? How can any fan of the sport blithely say it’s not a problem if the opposite happens?
Great exercise in evasion Tristan (I know it’s you from your email). What you don’t address is my fundamental point: the French domestic league is thriving but the national team is in the doldrums! Both England and Wales have lost players to France, yet their national teams are far better off. It’s the same in football with France, Holland etc. How do you explain that if your model is correct?
As for your point about Aussie cricket, you’re confusing the ‘product’ with the quality of cricketers. The problems facing Australian cricket have little to do with number of spectators, or the viability of the first class cricket financially, it’s to do with the the production lines of talent drying up. These are not the same things.
It doesn’t matter where a nation’s best players play – they will seek out the best leagues and the best competition. Indeed, what you’re arguing (i.e. not allowing England players to play in France without suffering consequences) actually prevents them from doing so. It’s an argument in favour of our best players stagnating, and not being allowed to broaden their education and experience.
The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter where the best sporting talent lives and plays, they will still represent the countries of their birth. The historic lack of money in Brazilian and Argentinian football, and the fact all the best talent is exported, doesn’t stop them from being the world’s best. Meanwhile, allowing players to play abroad has not led to the catastrophic collapse of football in these countries.
This idea that the English rugby premiership would suddenly collapse if Armitage was allowed to play for England is paranoid and sensationalist. The damage would be minimal, the biggest clubs would still be well supported and robust, and England would continue to produce good players. The only difference is they would grow up wanting to play for Toulon, rather than Gloucester. Just like Dutch footballers dream of playing for Real Madrid not PSV.
The fundamental point you seem to be missing is that I’m not thinking of the health of the ‘premiership’ or trying to create a business model for the premiership, I’m trying to develop a competitive England team. I can see your point, and I understand the logic in it, I’m just not buying it. Why? Because the experience of other sports supports my conclusion.
By the way, I don’t accept your example of rugby league. I don’t follow league (I find it tedious) but what I do know is that it’s a minority sport, is only really played in the north of England, and only 3 countries actually take it seriously. I certainly don’t think the England team is suffering because they best players are leaving for Australia. Isn’t it a good thing they’re playing against the best week in week out?! It’s probably more to do with the fact that players are transferring across to Union e.g. Burgess, and they are therefore being lost to the sport.
By the way, another argument that supports my view is the strength of the English championship in football. It’s an extremely well supported league that’s immune to the so called effects of losing your best players. The fans remain, the passion remains, the rivalries remain etc.
The French didn’t put any limits on the number of foreign players playing in their league to the point that an all French Heineken Cup semi-final a couple of years ago only featured eight French players out of thirty. They have a strong league but not enough Frenchmen in it. As I’m suggesting we have a strong English league with as many as possible English players in it, that hardly contradicts my argument.
Your argument, frankly, is utterly contradictory. You’re only interested in the England team and don’t care about the premiership or if it suffers in quality – but you want it to be a pipeline for the national team, bring on new English talent, and support thriving academies. You can’t apparently see the contradiction.
Australian cricket isn’t weak as a result of the decline of the domestic competition, it’s because the talent dried up. And this talent was coming from where? The ether?
You don’t know about rugby league..but youre going to diagnose its problems anyway. Right.
And endless references to football. Even though football is not comparable to rugby at all. Brazillian football wouldn’t even be a good example to other footballing nations, let alone other sports.
My problem with your argument is that it’s extreme. The English Prem would still be quite strong and well supported if a handful of the best players left for France. It would not collapse. You forget that the top English players miss lots of the domestic season anyway – they’re all missing significant game time during the Autumn internationals and Six Nations anyway. The league carried on regardless, and is still interesting and well supported.
When a couple of players leave for new challenges, the clubs’ fans would soon forget about their old heroes and cheer on new ones. Otherwise, why do people go and support anyone other than Leicester Tigers or Man Utd? 95% of professional clubs, no matter what the sport, are “selling” clubs.
The production lines of talent in sport comes from schools and amateur clubs. It comes from Dads passing on their love of the game. It comes from heritage, and from boys dreaming of being the next Ronaldo or Jonny Wilkinson. The professional clubs are just finishing schools more or less. The professional clubs do not own the playing fields etc.
When it comes to the health of English rugby, it doesn’t matter whether a small portion of players (some of the very elite guys) go to finishing schools located in France rather than England for 3 years or so. Besides, the best players would still spend time at English clubs before moving on to new pastures. What we’re talking about here is the top 5% of players (only) moving on. You seem to think this 5% would bring down the whole pack of cards. I don’t think it would. it hasn’t in football. If the likes of Freddy Burns, Owen Farrell, Ben Morgan etc wanted to play in France wouldn’t it improve them as players and therefore benefit the England team?
As long as there are role models the production lines of talent will continue. Jonny Wilkinson was just as much of a role model when playing for Toulon as he was at lowly little Newcastle. Indeed, some would say he improved his game, and certainly became less injury prone, when he moved to France. Armitage has also improved his game when playing in France. It’s a shame Burns, Ford etc won’t be allowed the same opportunities, unless they’re prepared to forego their England ambitions and be treated like traitors.
The main argument in favour of the Armitage rule is logistical ie. the Eng coach wants to control the availability of players (which isn’t an issue during the World Cup). It is not that the whole of English rugby would disintegrate without such a rule.
James not wanting to high jack your thread but can I pose a slightly different question…………..Do the English generally make good coaches?
This will probably set off a fire storm but I am not sure they do. Of course there are always exceptions. But how many England managers have won the Premiership in football? There have been successful Scottish managers. How many English managers manage abroad? People will say Ramsey was successful, Paisley or Clough, or even. Bobby Robson. But they were of a different time. Not many in the last 25 years.
The ECB brought Duncan Fletcher in to revamp English cricket when it was in the doldrums, and then Flower. Tom Moody and Jason Gillespie, Daren Lehman have come into county cricket.
British swimming brought in an Aussie to revamp the swimming set up about a decade ago. Again no one from these shores seemed able to do it.
The Welsh brought in a New Zealander to run their rugby team.twice. The Irish have appointed a South African. The English still refuse to look elsewhere for a coach.
Maybe English coaches have little success at International sport because they don’t have the players. The old chicken and egg argument. But then why aren’t English coaches lower down the system creating the players?
“Not a massive Rugby fan but I find it completely bizarre that players who play in France get ignored for England selection. ”
and
“For me this is utter b**l*ocks. It’s cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Armitage would surely be just as committed as the players already in the squad and give his all in the World Cup. It’s just another example of the team ethic getting in the way of common sense and preventing the best players from getting on the pitch. Of course, a cynic might suggest that Lancaster doesn’t want to pick Armitage because he plays the same position as his captain (Robshaw) and is a superior player. It would cause a political headache.”
Sorry, that’s nowhere near accurate. It shows a really bad understanding of how domestic rugby works, how that particular rule works, and when it was put into place.
Some points.
1) Armitage plays 8 as much as he plays 7, and besides, Robshaw could quite easily shift to 6 to accommodate him if it was simply about Robshaw, seeing as he won one of his two Player of the Year awards in that position.
2) The rule against picking French players came in well before Lancaster was in place. The only reason guys like Wilko and others continued to be picked is because they signed overseas deals before this rule came about.
3) The rule is in fact entirely sensible. English domestic rugby is in a precarious financial position but the “product” has slowly been improving. The last thing English rugby needs is for its domestic competition to be gutted by French sides backed by huge funds. As a season ticket holder for a premiership rugby team I absolutely support this rule, and my memory isn’t so short that I don’t remember the glut of players who headed to France prior to the rule being brought in.
If the rule didn’t exist, the richer club owners (think Bath, Saracens, Tigers, etc) would have little standing in their way to stop them getting the salary cap demolished, leading to a massively uncompetitive league where the gap between the haves and the have-nots is even more pronounced, and where more teams put themselves into real financial difficulties in an attempt to compete domestically. This is bad for competition and bad for the fans of teams outside the top 4.
This rule also brings the clubs and the union closer together. It’s no surprise that the introduction of this rule coincided with the best relationship between the unions and the clubs we’ve had in decades, with benefits for all concerned. The national team has unprecedented access to the players, the clubs are happy to look after the players in a way that the RFU is happy with, and both sides work together to improve every aspect of English rugby. Academies are booming and the pipeline between local rugby, the clubs, and the national side is in rude health.
Destroying all of that for one player would be total insanity. Fatty Armitage is excellent, with the proviso that he gets an armchair ride by being in what is basically a Rugby All Stars team, but if you watch how he plays he relies an awful lot on other players putting in the grunt work. I think England could carry him there – he doesn’t do any ruck work on attack, preferring to stay available as a ball carrier, a real strength of his – and it would be worth looking at for sure if he was playing in this country.
But as it stands, this is a player who didn’t want to be in England, knew exactly what would happen when he signed his contract extension, and isn’t *that* good that we should potentially terminally damage English rugby over.
It has little to do with team ethic and everything to do with looking after the game.
And this is one of many reasons why I get hugely frustrated with people trying to link cricket and rugby. Two vastly different sports and it’s a rare breed who knows what they’re talking about with both.
Thanks for the post, this was massively informative. There was a lot that I didn’t quite get about the France-based players and their lack of selection but that makes more sense. Glad to hear there is some rhyme and reason to it, I was starting to wonder!
Also, one thing Lancaster learned from the errors of his predecessor Johnson, was not to place blind faith in his skippers. From what I can see, he has been very careful to only name Robshaw as captain on a series / tournament basis… presumably to give himself flexibility as a selector and to keep everyone on their toes. So I don’t think he can be accused of protecting his golden boy like Downton!
Lancaster definitely has his favourites (Tom Wood springs to mind). I’m an unabashed Robshaw fanboy but the guy is really good and an excellent “follow my lead” captain so I’m not too concerned about Lancaster’s faith in him!
Hmmm. I’m guessing you’re a Quins fan. Am I right? Might explain why our perspectives are so different ;-)
Thanks for the post and providing a bit of understanding.
Still doesn’t take away the point, you want to win, pick your best players, there will be another player who unlike Armitage, will be too good to ignore who will break out at some point. Another way of reading it, seems to me then the priority here is for smaller clubs to keep their best players by threatening international exicle if they chase a wage comensurate with their talent, which is a bit ECB/RFU isn’t it?
At some stage, this will change, sadly, as you say maybe to the detriment of the less wealthy clubs.
Armitage may (may!) give England a better chance of winning if he was picked.
The downside is the potential destruction of professional rugby in England.
It seems facile to just keep banging on about picking your best players without looking at the wider picture. It’s not the clubs threatening international exile, and the top players at English clubs are paid very well indeed. No-one can compete with the French however, and attempting to do so would be a one-way trip to disaster.
The club RFU relationship and setup is nothing like the ECB county setup.
Burly,
How come French clubs have so much more money than English clubs? Where are they getting their money from?
Sorry but I think you’re being over-dramatic. “The potential destruction of professional rugby in England”? I think it’s more accurate to simply say “damaging the prospects of the bigger prem teams winning the Heineken Cup” … which isn’t something everyone cares about imho.
Well put. Thanks for taking the trouble to write the reply I clearly couldn’t be arsed to type above.
Sorry, Burly but I disagree with much of what you say too …. (draws sword and takes a deep breath) ….
“1) Armitage plays 8 as much as he plays 7, and besides, Robshaw could quite easily shift to 6 to accommodate him if it was simply about Robshaw, seeing as he won one of his two Player of the Year awards in that position.”
> I was being a little facetious here. But moving Robshaw to 6 isn’t an option in my opinion as I believe Wood is a better player, and Wood should play 6. He makes a big contribution in the line-out (with Croft usually injured) so I don’t see Wood’s place as negotiable.
“2) The rule against picking French players came in well before Lancaster was in place. The only reason guys like Wilko and others continued to be picked is because they signed overseas deals before this rule came about.”
> I never blamed Lancaster for this rule. I know it existed beforehand.
“3) The rule is in fact entirely sensible. English domestic rugby is in a precarious financial position but the “product” has slowly been improving. The last thing English rugby needs is for its domestic competition to be gutted by French sides backed by huge funds. As a season ticket holder for a premiership rugby team I absolutely support this rule, and my memory isn’t so short that I don’t remember the glut of players who headed to France prior to the rule being brought in.
If the rule didn’t exist, the richer club owners (think Bath, Saracens, Tigers, etc) would have little standing in their way to stop them getting the salary cap demolished, leading to a massively uncompetitive league where the gap between the haves and the have-nots is even more pronounced, and where more teams put themselves into real financial difficulties in an attempt to compete domestically. This is bad for competition and bad for the fans of teams outside the top 4.”
> How do you know Sarries, Tigers (Bath are a bad example aren’t they with their tiny ground) etc would be successful in lifting the salary cap if players left for France? I think you’ve kind of jumped to this conclusion.
> I’m a Worcester fan, so I have a huge interest in the cap being maintained. However, I also dislike the glut of foreign players in the Premiership, which stops younger English players from getting game time. My main priority is the strength of the England team, not the Premiership. Whether a domestic league is a good ‘product’ isn’t the most important thing to me. It’s the conveyer belt of talent for England that matters. Having a relatively weak domestic league does not stop France, Brazil etc being perennial challengers in major football tournaments. I have no interest in English clubs doing well in the Heineken Cup etc. What I do care about is the England team. Less big salaries and more money spend on academies would be my preference. It is only now, when Worcester have been relegated, that they’ve been able to blood young English players who can thrive, without constantly worrying about relegation. There are two sides to every story.
“This rule also brings the clubs and the union closer together. It’s no surprise that the introduction of this rule coincided with the best relationship between the unions and the clubs we’ve had in decades, with benefits for all concerned. The national team has unprecedented access to the players, the clubs are happy to look after the players in a way that the RFU is happy with, and both sides work together to improve every aspect of English rugby. Academies are booming and the pipeline between local rugby, the clubs, and the national side is in rude health.”
> Why can’t the clubs and the union be close without the rule?
“Destroying all of that for one player would be total insanity. Fatty Armitage is excellent, with the proviso that he gets an armchair ride by being in what is basically a Rugby All Stars team, but if you watch how he plays he relies an awful lot on other players putting in the grunt work. I think England could carry him there – he doesn’t do any ruck work on attack, preferring to stay available as a ball carrier, a real strength of his – and it would be worth looking at for sure if he was playing in this country.”
> It’s not all about Armitage at all. It’s about the other players that play in France too, plus many more in the future. They have short careers, and they surely deserve to earn as much as possible during that time frame, without sacrificing the opportunity to play in a World Cup. Should England cricketers who play in the IPL be banned from playing test matches?
“But as it stands, this is a player who didn’t want to be in England, knew exactly what would happen when he signed his contract extension, and isn’t *that* good that we should potentially terminally damage English rugby over.”
> He’s European player of the year. I think he IS ‘that’ good! Just my opinion. He was also pretty bloody good at London Irish, so I don’t think it’s fair to say he only looks good because he plays for Toulon. If he looks good in the best team in Europe then he must be extremely good – because spectators are judging him alongside the best of the best.
“It has little to do with team ethic and everything to do with looking after the game.
And this is one of many reasons why I get hugely frustrated with people trying to link cricket and rugby. Two vastly different sports and it’s a rare breed who knows what they’re talking about with both.”
> I know more about cricket than I do about rugby, but I’m a passionate Worcester fan, know quite a lot about club rugby, and I often find that my perspective (just like other Worcester fans) is very different from those who support the big English clubs. Out of interest, who to you support mate? Genuine question. Might explain why we’re coming at this from such different perspectives.
why is the 2015 Women’s Ashes series – during which there is only one test match -being entirely played in the south- not one match even in the midlands? Pattern for the future of the game maybe -this is appalling
sorry, here’s the link http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/11/womens-ashes-england-v-australia-2015-canterbury-test
So you have a women’s Ashes going no further north than Worcester, a men’s Ashes going no further north than Nottingham (this applies to the entire tour including county games, except for two ODIs in September), a main sponsor that had no presence in northern England until the last ten years, a series of other sponsors based in London’s financial district, and a chairman and MD with City/stockbroker backgrounds.
Gosh, anyone see a pattern at all?
This is subject we’d love to explore further here when time and resources allow. Among many other points, I’ve long felt it deeply unfair that London gets three of the seven tests every single year. And I say that as a Londoner.
I participated in this debate at the Guarduan when the men’s schedule was announced. MS was so blase about the whole thing, he was arguing that Nottingham was in the north and that southerners had every right to be pissed off with the 2013 schedule. This argument missed the fact that there is now a clear medium-term trend away from the north in Tests, which shows every sign of becoming long-term (I provided stats at the time, can’t look them up right now). It also misses something that ought to give blasé southerners pause for thought. England’s first city has two Test grounds. Its second has one. Its third, fourth, fifth and sixth largest would all fit in a circle with a forty mile radius, have two grounds between them and yet their populations (boosted by dense neighbouring conurbations as well as huge separate cities like Bradford) are frequently being asked to rely on Nottingham for Test cricket.
The county champions are Yorkshire from the north. And their chairman might be thinking of running to replace Giles Clarke.
The ECB seem to be running English cricket for the sole benefit of southern businessmen. This can’t be good for the development of the game.
I do hope the ECB is not placing test matches according to where Waitrose has some supermarkets. This is starting to stink.
The latest Switch Hit bizarrely praises the scheduling of the women’s test at Canterbury because it is “accessible”.
Accessible for who exactly? A car driving Home Counties based media?
The test scheduling is all over the show isn’t it?
Surely it would make sense to have a minimum of 2 of Headingley, Old Trafford & Chester Le Street getting a test every summer, then one each for Edgbaston & Trent Bridge, with your 2 Lords tests and an Oval Test making up your 7 test summer schedule.
In an ideal world, you’d only have the one Lords test then you could get a Test either in Cardiff or the Rose Bowl too, ensuring as many of the different regions get a chance to see the team play.
But, I’d imagine the powers that be will have seen the scantily attended tests at Headingley & the Rose Bowl this year and will hold that against them. A simple probelm that couldperhaps be solved by slightly reasonable more pricing and better local marketing, but again, is unlikely to happen.
The Lords tests are pretty much guaranteeed sell outs on 3 of the 5 days, the Oval at least 2…there’s no way they’re ever going to take away tests from London.
[…] The ECB’s obsession with rugby shows no signs of […]