91热爆

It seems that the very arguments that filled the pages of 606 are being rehashed and examined with new ferocity as blame for the woeful mess that is England rugby is sought to be squared in one place or another. Let鈥檚 start with some facts:
1. South Africa (NZ the same when we have played them of late) were superior to such an extent that I do not think any of the improvements in the game set up, administration or so on would, between the last RWC and this one, have enabled more than a slightly less embarrassing result.
2. The honesty of Mike Ford is not traitorous as some have suggested. It is a man who calls a spade a spade, only in this example, he is properly referring to what one might use a spade to clean up for what it is. If only more in the English game had been so honest before now, we might even have breached the Bok line once in the match.
3. The only restrictions in the English Premiership that can legally be placed on the nationality of constituent members of teams are that they must be EU nationals.
4. The clubs have poured vast sums of money into the development of the professional game in England. They did so because unlike the Southern Hemisphere Unions, our Union did not grasp the rose by the thorns and set a professional structure in place right from the beginning. The commitment of time, effort and capital by the club owners cannot be punished because we do not like what happens down the line as regards the national side.
5. Relegation - the arch producer of negative rugby is the need NOT TO LOSE. The issue of relegation is another that has been vigorously debated in 606 and largely I think without conclusion in that both sides have reached a stalemate. If we are to keep to the old club and league structure, clearly relegation is a crucial aspect. Clearly it also breathes life into the tail of the table. Is there a middle ground?
5. Too many games. This is a little vexing because it is a double edged sword. Yes, there are too many club games, but similarly, there are too many internationals.
If you take these points as valid statements rather than points of argument, as least for purposes of the arguments that follow, what are we left with? Well, clearly the entire English and indeed European game needs to be radically rethought. Previously I have argued that perhaps there is room for 3 non EU players in a squad. I now think the number is zero. This is not of case of not appreciating the many SH players that have not just graced our game but also contributed healthily to it, I just think that the time for that contribution has passed. We must now mature into a rugby nation that at least attempts to lead the way rather than refashion to our own purposes what the SH teams do. Ok, so a raft of highly skilled players leave the European scene and for perhaps as many as 5/6 years, we suffer for it in terms of entertainment. But just think how many more home grown players will get game time, add to their experience and in short, be given every chance to rise to their potential? How many 20 year old Kiwis of good potential are held back from playing by a 31 year old Brit? This is not a bandage for 2011; this is penicillin for every RWC thereafter and the wider health of the game in this part of the world.
On to the "too many games" "tired players" argument. Allow me to address those games that are not needed either to boost club coffers, create a proper league format or have any bearing on the relegation issue. The EDF Cup games in a sentence. Total waste of resources, playing calendar and without a redeeming feature. Previously, people have said these games give youngsters a chance, but if we are only giving youngsters a chance in a side show competition, clearly there is a serious problem in the development process that should instead be targeted at the entire club set up, not just the EDF Cup and that means grasping the non EU players issue by the horns. The EDF cup must go. It is an irrelevance that is paid for by the longer term health of the game.
Ok, heres is where it can get complicated: how to better structure the season? What number of games is the most that can be played in a non RWC season at both domestic, European & International levels? Where does relegation come into this? What about club interests?
To my mind, the answers are clear, but I would love to see some reasoned debate on the issues. First off, assuming the EDF Cup goes, we have domestic league, European and International games. I think the domestic league needs to take a look at American football and in order to accommodate the top 4 1st Division teams who in any case are head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the table (the one dropped and the three ambitious ones), we produce two "conferences" to borrow from the NFL of 8 with the teams in each randomly picked each year, home and away fixtures. That means 14 games. Top two from each play in a semi final and final to decide who is the Champion. Assuming that we are to go down this route, the relegation issue solves itself - the top 4 teams from the 1st division who are the most ambitious will be in a fully professional league. All other divisions become compulsorily amateur or semi-pro. The likes of Roslyn Park, London Welsh, London Scottish etc. can get back to being what they used to be - important parts of their local community that serve as a bedrock of rugby from whence late bloomers can be plucked having had the game time they needed to come to the fore.
Europe has other issues. First up is the fact that the Celtic nations do not qualify for it. Either it is made simple and the top 6 teams qualify or Ireland, Wales and Scotland each place two teams in the competition. Anything else is unfair on England and France who each get 4 places, all earned. Two further places awarded to the best Celtic team bar the top 6 from the Magner's League and one Italian side. Thus, a 16 team European Cup with 4 pools, home and away. That is 6 games in the pools, 1 quarter, 1 semi, 1 final. 9 games total. International games - two in winter, 5 in 6N, two in Summer tour, 9 games total. Total number of matches that can possibly be played in one year: 34. Acceptable I think? One more thing, there need be no fixture congestion in this way and in fact there is room for a 4 week Christmas break 4 weeks of National squad training in the summer and better still, 10 week of total break from rugby assuming that fixtures and breaks fall sequentially.
The second European issue is who is entered for the 4 places available to England (assuming the above rationalisation of the ERC goes through)? Two alternatives
1. The RFU enters 4 teams made up entirely of English qualified players and pays 50% of all proceeds to clubs on the basis of player contribution. In simple terms, the recognition of the power of incentive in the capitalist system. The clubs have a carrot to develop English players and do well financially as a result.
2. The top 4 teams play, top 2 from each conference. If this is to be the case, the younger branches of club academies are scrapped and replaced with national academies and again, we look to the NFL and introduce a "draft" system so weaker teams can pick up better young talent or trade. The Club academies take them on from U21 stage, not U16.
Simple isn't it? Only it isn't because I have no doubt that 99% of those who took the time to read this find fault somewhere in what I have set out. Fine. I just hope that the response you have similarly takes a holistic view of the game in England and indeed Europe. The solution is not to nurture the dying tree in hope of an occasional revival. It is to wholesale transplant the tree into a new field with more fertile soil. Until we do, the likes of 33-0 to the Boks will become the norm and to win or even be competitive will be despite the system, not because of it.