Henry thinks English back play ruined by conservative approach

Graham Henry has come out and stated he thinks a generation of English backs are being stiffled by conservative coaching, that generates slow ball. The article can be found at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/29/england-world-champions-graham-henry

Essentially the key points are:
England should dominate rugby given their size,
England is producing quality exciting backs,
A fear of losing possession means that Englsih teams concentrate in sealing of the ball (often illegally) and generate slow ball, and a limited attacking platform,
England struggle to score tries against quality sides,
England backs struggle to develope,
the problem is compounded, because the RFU doesn't give coaches enough time to grow into the role (aka Ashton, and Johnson).

In the main I agree with him. I think Engladn and France should be the dominat sides based on economics and numbers. The fact that they aren't is probably down to inefficiencies in, and the ineffectiveness of their systems.

I think he's right as the games stands at the moment, although I think there's a swing to creating a more static game over the next 4 years. I think the the 2003 team would have struggled more recently if they had played as the did in 2003, because a huge part of there game involved sealing off the ball at rucks. You struggle to play that game at the moment. Before anyone thinks I am slagging off England alone. I think this is true of all teams. Following the the 2007, world cup the IRB looked at a number of techniques used by South Africa and the asked the refs to police the relevent aspects of the laws (inhibiting the boks). The same has also affected other teams (e.g. NZ, Australia and France at various times).

The poijnt is however, that the Englsih play a style that doesn't produce quick ball and uncertainty and disorganisation in the opposition defensive line and makes it difficult for backs to flourish. England have some great outside backs coming through, but can they progress to the next level as a unit.

I think the other point that is an issue for me: is that the English (and French) club systems are not conducive to producing quality club and international sides and players. I'm not saying they don't produce them. I am saying they are not as effective at doing it as places like NZ, Austyralia, SA and Ireland. They should dominate all levels of the game, given their numbers. To my mind they compete, simply because they can buy talent.

I think they need less games, a better structured season, with one international window. the fact that they haven't is probably a function of their transition to professionalism, and a club structure based on a amatuer and football model, rather and one talored to a full contact sport and synergy with the international game. They'd be better to look at a range of alternatives, including the NFl and Irish rugby.

Your thoughts...

Good luck with this one canelion. Its not a lot different than weve been saying for decades so im surprised at his timing and words used to voice this. The 'now hes won a world cup he thinks he can tell the rest how to play' comments are inevitable even though hes probably right.
Mustnt have a lot to do at the moment...

I dont understand where this article comes from or for what useful purpose it achieves, I for one thought Englands attack in the World cup was 100 per cent better than the garbage their backs dished up in 2007.

Perhaps it came out of his consideration for an english post? Turned down for the conservative approach/ too hard basket? Henry would require all players in England to start moving the ball around at 100 miles an hour- not slowing down for anyone to ensure he got to select the best players.
Cant see anything wrong that myself..

All true. All stuff we've known for years. Bottom line is that most English rugby followers want to keep their clubs and keep promotion, etc. All of which means that a NZ/Irish system wouldn't be suitable. Most sensible people except that it means problems for the international side. Coaching may be something that people can do something about.

Yes shame really when at one end of the scale everyones saying the national team is the top priority when they dont actually know what that really means.

Oz are at the other end of the scale and try anything and everything, having the most open game of us all not giving a toss about club allegiance- just not quite the player numbers due to other sports.

SA have political agendas sucking the life out of the Boks.

Oz and england are a really good contrast. If deans had access to the english players down here at sxv and test level oz would go number one easily as the club grip on the players wouldnt exist.

Thankfully, this myriad of self imposed constraints placed on the top teams helps perpetuate the AB myth I suppose.

All good. Gotta love the status quo!