RFU - Please get SCW back into the England setup

Team GB - 29 Gold Medals under SCW leadership.

This guy should be made a Lord for what he has given to England & GB

The man is a living legend and IMO the RFU would be foolish not to sign him up before a rival union tries to secure his signature.

England shmingland - he's put himself in pole position for the Lions' job.

I didn't realise all the 29 gold medals were because of Clive.

I would say it goes in this order:

1.The athletes
2.The coaches and support staff
3.The GB public
................
................
................
................

Clive's not on the list.

You and I have contributed more than Clive.

Not strictly true their Beshocked the man did help lay the foundations for GB at the Olympics. His tactical planning has led to athletes like Mo Farah claiming that the backroom support has been crucial to him winning his second gold (he pointed out that the team that helped him recover from the 10k race was so far ahead of his competitors that he was fresher than the others that ran both races come the 5k).

We've also seen the targeting of talented individuals and seen the nurtured ready for these games. The likes of Trott and Gemili in particular have been real gems.

Sir Clive is responsible for that sort of careful planning and organisation. Just as Rob Andrew is for the RFU. Over the last two years we've seen England crash out in the knock out stages of the RWC and then after Andrew was told to focus on the England agre grade sides the England under 20s crash out earlier from the JWC. In the same time team GB have had their best Olympics since 1908.

Sam Mo Farrah would not have won without the crowd in my opinion. They gave him that extra boost needed to get the over the line in both the 5,000 and 10,000m. Mo Farrah said that too.

I know it's an exaggeration to say Clive did nothing. I am sure he did contribute in some way but it's hard to gauge how much of an influence he had on proceedings.

I lost a lot of respect for Clive after the Lions debacle in 2005. Would probably prefer him to Rob Andrew admittedly. Labelling him as a potential saviour though is going too far. Wouldn't want Clive's head getting too big.

So you're admitting that you were wrong in your previous comment!

The Lions tour was bad, but was that down to SCW or the fact that some players didn't buy into his way of thinking?

If he had been given another go I'm sure he would have learnt from the mistakes and we would have won the 2009 tour.

Make him a Lord

Justice_4_SCW

HERSH wrote:Team GB - 29 Gold Medals under SCW leadership.

This guy should be made a Lord for what he has given to England & GB

The man is a living legend and IMO the RFU would be foolish not to sign him up before a rival union tries to secure his signature.

My opinion is SCW broke the Team GB swimming team. There should be some inquest and see if he just repeat the mistakes of Lions 2005.

beshocked wrote:Sam Mo Farrah would not have won without the crowd in my opinion. They gave him that extra boost needed to get the over the line in both the 5,000 and 10,000m. Mo Farrah said that too.

I know it's an exaggeration to say Clive did nothing. I am sure he did contribute in some way but it's hard to gauge how much of an influence he had on proceedings.

I lost a lot of respect for Clive after the Lions debacle in 2005. Would probably prefer him to Rob Andrew admittedly. Labelling him as a potential saviour though is going too far. Wouldn't want Clive's head getting too big.

Mo actually said that the crowd gave him magnificant support, which may or may not have contributed to his win - but to say he wouldn't have won without the support is pure speculation. Mo had peaked physically at the right time and ran a tactically superb race, which i suspect, had more to do with his win than any other factors.

Quote from Mo:

"The crowd was inspiring. If it wasn't for them, I don't think I would have dug in as deep," he said.

Though having said that he was also tactically superb and works his backside off in training so that come these kind of races he is ready.

Thank you Sam. That was the quote I was getting the idea from.

Jimpy I said it's my opinion. Did you actually watch the races? You can see Mo really digging deep. That crowd was electric.

Home advantage is a boost in most sports. Would Mo have won without the crowd? Maybe, but as Sam says Mo thought the crowd helped.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Quote from Mo:

"The crowd was inspiring. If it wasn't for them, I don't think I would have dug in as deep," he said.

Though having said that he was also tactically superb and works his backside off in training so that come these kind of races he is ready.

Which is pretty much what I said really...

beshocked wrote:Thank you Sam. That was the quote I was getting the idea from.

Jimpy I said it's my opinion. Did you actually watch the races? You can see Mo really digging deep. That crowd was electric.

Home advantage is a boost in most sports. Would Mo have won without the crowd? Maybe, but as Sam says Mo thought the crowd helped.

Of course, I wouldn't have commented had I not. I probably would not have bothered to comment had you not stated that SCW contributed nothing (or next to nothing) to the Olympics success. And when someone who has made getting on for 4000 contributions to a public forum claims that they contributed more than SCW - well, I find it hard to believe they do anything else. At all.

Jimpy it's tongue in cheek. An exaggeration to balance out Hersh's exaggeration.

I suppose it depends whether you think the GB public (yes that includes me and you) have contributed more or less than Clive to the London Olympics.

If you don't believe Mo Farah was helped by the crowd you are entitled to your opinion.

I am trying to balance the belief that Clive is a saviour.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy it's tongue in cheek. An exaggeration to balance out Hersh's exaggeration.

I suppose it depends whether you think the GB public (yes that includes me and you) have contributed more or less than Clive to the London Olympics.

If you don't believe Mo Farah was helped by the crowd you are entitled to your opinion.

I am trying to balance the belief that Clive is a saviour.

It is not 'the' belief, it is 'HERSH's' belief and appears deliberately designed to invoke heated discussion. In other words, it is a WUM, and you fell for it.

True hook line and sinker.

I am being overly harsh on Clive. He evidently fits into the support staff I eluded to in my first post.

Basically what do you think Clive brought to the table in the Olympic games? How influential do you think he was? Do you think he could seriously bring success if he comes back to rugby?

Everything SCW touches turns to Gold.

England Rugby, Team GB, Southampton FC

The guy is a genius behind the scenes, just because he doesn't stand up and look to take all the glory people knock his contribution, IMO without SCW Team GB wouldn't have won half the medals that we did.

It’s not really up for debate the results speak for themselves, the only reason the Lions fell apart was players from three other nations didn't buy into SCW way of thinking and injuries.

Basically what do you think Clive brought to the table in the Olympic games? How influential do you think he was? Do you think he could seriously bring success if he comes back to rugby?

I suppose the first question you have to ask yourself Beschocked is, does the man in the job SCW would want need replacing? That man is Rob Andrew. If his contributions have no been up to scratch then we need to ask whether SCW brings the required skills to do a better job. If the concencus is that actually Andrew is meeting expectations then there is no job for SCW and no point looking at him any further.

HERSH wrote:Everything SCW touches turns to Gold.

England Rugby, Team GB, Southampton FC

The guy is a genius behind the scenes, just because he doesn't stand up and look to take all the glory people knock his contribution, IMO without SCW Team GB wouldn't have won half the medals that we did.

It’s not really up for debate the results speak for themselves, the only reason the Lions fell apart was players from three other nations didn't buy into SCW way of thinking and injuries.

"Southampton FC"

SCW's Lions tour started going wrong before they left Britain when he (a) hired Alistair Campbell, and (b) started spouting drivel about how the Lions had the advantage becuase they played in red, statistically the more successful colour in football . Oh and (c) running up against possibly the strongest ABs team of all time

I think there's probably too much baggage for him to come back to the RFU.

Thats right Kiwi, Southampton FC are now a Prem club once again, SCW made sure they were facing in the right direction and The Saints have never looked back.

Sure it took them a while but you can't always have results over night.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

HERSH wrote:Everything SCW touches turns to Gold.

England Rugby, Team GB, Southampton FC

The guy is a genius behind the scenes, just because he doesn't stand up and look to take all the glory people knock his contribution, IMO without SCW Team GB wouldn't have won half the medals that we did.

It’s not really up for debate the results speak for themselves, the only reason the Lions fell apart was players from three other nations didn't buy into SCW way of thinking and injuries.

"Southampton FC"

SCW's Lions tour started going wrong before they left Britain when he (a) hired Alistair Campbell, and (b) started spouting drivel about how the Lions had the advantage becuase they played in red, statistically the more successful colour in football . Oh and (c) running up against possibly the strongest ABs team of all time

Totally wrong, the Lions fell apart when SCW failed to select Henson for the first test and Gavin then paid off the AB's get O'Driscol removed...

I think there's probably too much baggage for him to come back to the RFU.

Is there Yappy? I thought he left over arguements about player control. What he demanded then in 2004 was the basically what was implemented years later as the EPS agreement.

Are you suggesting that without Clive Woodward england would never have been able to win the RWC...?

Here's a thought -

This new review could oust Squeaky & a new role could be made for SCW?

maestegmafia wrote:Are you suggesting that without Clive Woodward England would never have been able to win the RWC...?

I would suggest that SCW was instrumental in the win. He rewrote the book on international management.

I think Sir Clive did his bit for sure- He is class!

Do honestly think that SCW would come back to the England set up and work under Rob Andrew?

And and another thing, How would SCW fit in with the England set up?

What would his job actualy be?

Certainly not under Squeaky, madge.

Either above or instead of.

http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/168541.html

Dont worry HERSH, Geech is onboard to sort it all out.
Leaves SCW free to lead the review into why Bath are shoite.

majesticimperialman wrote:Do honestly think that SCW would come back to the England set up and work under Rob Andrew?

And and another thing, How would SCW fit in with the England set up?

What would his job actualy be?

SCW has to be the Big Boss. He would over see everything.

Forget SCW. He's history. The RFU have already appointed SIM to lead a review of performance in England Rugby. Their objective is to identify ways to improve. I hope they widen their net to include input from the best Olympian performance teams. That would include USA swimming and athletic teams IMO along with British Cycling and Rowing.

Its clear to me that just picking a few rich kids from posh rugby schools ain't anywhere near enough.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/168541.html

Dont worry HERSH, Geech is onboard to sort it all out.
Leaves SCW free to lead the review into why Bath are shoite.

Are we?

Didn't we finish above Glaws who many see as title contenders this year?

It also didn't help that we had an injury list as long as the soon to be Queens honours list later this year.

englandglory4ever wrote:
Its clear to me that just picking a few rich kids from posh rugby schools ain't anywhere near enough.

Worked in the rowing

In a minority sport yeah it can work.. To much partcipation in rugby to just stick with one social demographic

Presumably why they keep picking Saffers and Kiwis then.

Its absurd to suggest that theres a deliberate bias toward selecting posh kids for the England team Oakey. The reason there is such a high proportion is that thats who tends to take up the game at a serious level, not to mention getting access to better coaching at schools etc.

Maybe Rugby League might get a sniff of the world cup if it didnt just pick people who keep ferrets in their trousers?

They will get better by picking the best people available. It would be helpful if more were attracted to rugby and had better access to decent facilities and coaching yes but thats not within the remit of the elite director.

Its their job to ensure the structure for those who are good is there to enable them to reach their potential, not to set quotas on the number of kids from Hackney who make it to the EPS.

There isnt a deliberate bias i agree!

its just the way it is- They are producing the best players i am sure. I agree with what your saying- not in favour of a pikey quota- just a step up in getting more playing rugby

Fair enough...just imagine how good our horse dancing team could be if we harnessed (forgive the pun) the pikey community

He has been away for too long, SCW left rugby what, 8 years ago, had a mare with Soton and then went to Team GB as an elite beancounter. Lets face it he must have had some impact in the backroom but he would be blown away as Lions coach unless he surrounded himself with a team of top flight coaches. As an organiser and motivator he clearly has talent but why as a Lions coach. he stuffed the 05 tour royally by going with a tranche of has been players and most members of that tour say it was wrong. I am not sure of Gatland shoudl be lions coach but SCW should not...that said as a Manager maybe, responsible for the set up but not the rugby itself

where are the MODs when you need them?

It's unacceptable to use the n word in any context

mowgli wrote:It's unacceptable to use the n word in any context

And yet we only control what people say on the forum.

Whats been going on here then! did i start something.. Apoligies if i did.

Personally all though i used the term pikey I do actually think it is as bad as the N word in the real world context(but I do understand why it would be banned).It truely is when it boils down to it a judgement on a person based on there situation . Sometimes we have abit of a laff on a forum, its kind of easy to get carried away..We see/hear comedians saying what the hell they want day after day and its just fun and games really..

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Presumably why they keep picking Saffers and Kiwis then.

Its absurd to suggest that theres a deliberate bias toward selecting posh kids for the England team Oakey. The reason there is such a high proportion is that thats who tends to take up the game at a serious level, not to mention getting access to better coaching at schools etc.

Maybe Rugby League might get a sniff of the world cup if it didnt just pick people who keep ferrets in their trousers?

They will get better by picking the best people available. It would be helpful if more were attracted to rugby and had better access to decent facilities and coaching yes but thats not within the remit of the elite director.

Its their job to ensure the structure for those who are good is there to enable them to reach their potential, not to set quotas on the number of kids from Hackney who make it to the EPS.

Interestingly, an article appeared on the BBC's news website not long ago that basically said you were more likely to suceed in sport generally if you had a public school background. Actually, approximately 50% of the our medal winners were from a state school background, which suggests to me a pretty even split.

Public schools probably have better facilities on the whole, but in reality, a large proportion of public schools enter into initiatives with their state school neighbours and share the facilities and expertise available. In addition, extra funding (via the lottery one assumes) has allowed the provision of talent spotters and an increase in sporting facilities available to the general public.

Clearly, as our medal haul demographic would seem to show, its working, and actually, it now doesn't really matter what school you go to. If you have the will, the determination and the skill to achieve sporting goals, you can and will. Regardless of your background.

In terms of SCW coming back I have sort of given a view on the other thread regarding the current review. SCW is good but not essential, Keen is perhaps better and for now I will wait and see what comes of his review.

Anyway, onto this thread, 50/50 does not suggest that background is insignificant. Far less than 50% of people go to public schools, so it suggests that a student at public school is far more likely to succeed. However, I do think that is potentially misleading - recognising the difference between linkage and causality. I'd be more interested to know how many of the olympic athletes were at public school from age 11 and how many go in with sports scholarships. Growing up I saw a few kids that were good at sports identified and then offered scholarships at public schools. Many of them were competing well before they went to public school and would have continued to do so if they hadn't gone. It is quite possible that the 50/50 split shows that good athletes are more likely to be offered a free place at public school rather than public schools more likely to produce good athletes. Without looking at the data in more detail I think it's hard to say.

Public/Private educational backgrounds can be skewed by ability to do sport in certain institutions.

For instance, Gareth Edwards gained a Millfield scholarship not only on academic ability.

Plus as we all know, private schools can pick and chose between which children they select and later who they expel.

State schools do not to all intents and purposes do not have this comparative luxury. Anyone who has experienced working a state school (particularly bottom/near bottom set) class will understand that all the plethora of curriculum-packing initiatives from all quarters in reality causes a whirlpool of despair down the plug-hole of the sink school.

Big wrote:In terms of SCW coming back I have sort of given a view on the other thread regarding the current review. SCW is good but not essential, Keen is perhaps better and for now I will wait and see what comes of his review.

Anyway, onto this thread, 50/50 does not suggest that background is insignificant. Far less than 50% of people go to public schools, so it suggests that a student at public school is far more likely to succeed. However, I do think that is potentially misleading - recognising the difference between linkage and causality. I'd be more interested to know how many of the olympic athletes were at public school from age 11 and how many go in with sports scholarships. Growing up I saw a few kids that were good at sports identified and then offered scholarships at public schools. Many of them were competing well before they went to public school and would have continued to do so if they hadn't gone. It is quite possible that the 50/50 split shows that good athletes are more likely to be offered a free place at public school rather than public schools more likely to produce good athletes. Without looking at the data in more detail I think it's hard to say.

You also have to factor in that lottery funding has made sport more accessible and that more programmes exist outside school that identify talent. There were at least two athletes who won gold and silver respectively that hadn't even participated competetively in their events prior to Bejing and are in their 20's now.

Portnoy wrote:Public/Private educational backgrounds can be skewed by ability to do sport in certain institutions.

For instance, Gareth Edwards gained a Millfield scholarship not only on academic ability.

Plus as we all know, private schools can pick and chose between which children they select and later who they expel.

State schools do not to all intents and purposes do not have this comparative luxury. Anyone who has experienced working a state school (particularly bottom/near bottom set) class will understand that all the plethora of curriculum-packing initiatives from all quarters in reality causes a whirlpool of despair down the plug-hole of the sink school.

I'm not sure thats relevant. You seem to be suggesting that public schools expel pupils who don't make the grade in a sporting context (this article is about sport, after all) - I doubt any school can 'pick and choose' who they expel, surely the grounds for expulsion would be similar regardless of the institution.

Plus as we all know, private schools can pick and chose between which children they select and later who they expel.

I doubt they are as ruthless as to drop scholarships mid way through someone's education unless they are failing massively on and off the pitch.

Personnally I'd like to see the RFU make more of an effort to get state schools participating in small local leagues or at least a cup competition between local schools. Currently the reliance on public schools or universities to spot talent and offer it a scholarship is too high, the county system does bring promising players who are unaffiliated to a public school to light but I think more needs to be done.

The success in the Olympics is down a lot of things besides SCW including money and resources.The Olympics is now ruthlessly professional the more you spend in facilities the more medals you earn.WELL DONE all those who competed as well as the winners.
Rob Andrew has been side tracked and is now involved with developing English talent.Something to which he should be given credit,the age group,Academy,and A teams have all improved under his sponsership[for want of a better word]
Lancaster and co .need to left alone to get on with building an England team,SCW in 2004 new the clock was running on England.2005 was a case of the Better team winning,2009 was down to the organization not the Coaches.
The Boks should`nt have been allowed to hide there team to protect it from injury.While the Lions were softened up by the Provincial sides standard practice I know.BUT there test players were never hidden previously and it was a two edged sword because the second test was so close .