Rome Rising

Speaking from the standpoint of a neutral rugby fan for a moment, a man simply wishing to see the best rugby, this Six Nations has been pretty poor. The first weekend promised a great deal, but, like a heavily padded bra, there wasn't much to see when it was gone. Instead, we got another round of the scrum debacle, poor weather, a fair few subpar sides and occasional outbreaks of rugby.

And we also got Italy, who have been the best thing about this tournament.

For a long time, I was uneasy about Italy in the Six Nations. They did not belong by tradition, they did belong by the overall standard - although all credit to Scotland's decision to become crap, thus ensuring they didn't feel too out of place. Mallet coaxed the odd big win out of them, but where was the consistency? Or the enjoyment factor in watching? Italy's admission was very justifiable in that the standard they had attained shortly before joining the tournament, and the idea that being part of the tournament would help their development to be able to sustain and then pass that level. But the argument falters if the country does not develop. Indeed, the main development that seemed to go on with Italy was other countries using the game to give fringe players a go.

I do not see too many teams doing that next year.

It is not just that they finally recorded two wins for the first time since 2007, but the manner in which they did so. Their complete control of the second half, save for the score board, at Twickenham won't go unnoticed either. The only match in which they truly let themselves down was the game against Scotland, in which a bad day for Orquera led to a disappointingly wide margin that helped contribute to the worst points against tally in the competition. However, even so, the statistics show progress. Italy conceded 111 points and 8 tries. Last year, it was 121 points and 12 tries and the year before that, 138 points and 15 tries. The switching of Andrea Masi and Orquera on defence was a simple move, but one that has paid dividends.

However, it is in attack they have really brightened things up. Under Nick Mallet, they were beginning to regress into a limited team who continually sought territory, played mostly by the pack, and hoped to edge tight games. Jacques Brunel's approach has been a breath of fresh air. Six tries may not sound too impressive, but it does not tell the whole story. Italy made more  passes, carries and offloads than any other team - testament to the way they looked to play ball in hand and keep it alive where possible. It paid off with dividends against France. Less so against Scotland, where Orquera's loose offload into the path of Stuart Hogg completely killed Italy's prospects, but it was still very entertaining. It also promises much for Italy - the move had got to that place through some excellent attacking play and had Orquera read Hogg's intentions correctly and simply gone, it was try time. Better to be approaching the fine margins between success and disaster then marooned a million miles away. And, of course, far more entertaining for the fans.

This is all for nothing if they do not continue this next year. Next year they only have two fixtures in Rome, making life more difficult. They must beat Scotland next year if progress is to be real. They must also fancy their chances of taking down England in Rome given the closeness of the last two results. Trips to Cardiff, Dublin and Paris may seem a great deal more difficult, but it is time for Italy to start overcoming such handicaps. Only England retain an unbeaten record against them, a record that looks vulnerable on recent evidence. 

It looks vulnerable looking at Italy's team sheet too. No longer do people summarise it as Parisse, Castrogiovanni & Friends - not that it ever really was, but the change in perception has followed ramped-up performances. Andrea Masi has been very good at full-back. People now suggest that the Parisse-Barbieri-Zanni back row is possibly the best in the Championship, and with good reason. Not that Favaro disgraced himself as Barbieri's stand-in against Ireland. Nor Cittadini in Castro's place. Venditti looks a talent, Luke McClean is in fine form, Garcia and Canale have been abrasive and effective in the centres. The only place where Italy arguably look a little weak is the second row, where they have nothing special, and the half-backs, where their options are mercurial to be kind. That's a critical weakness to be carrying at test level,and it might hold them back, but this begins to feel like Italy's time. The majority of Italy's players are now hitting their prime, most of them with plenty of international experience. A notional first team (possibly wrong here) contains only four players with less than twenty caps; Rizzo, the replacement for Lo Cicero, young lock Joshua Furno, scrum-half Botes, and the rampaging wing Venditti. Six of them have over fifty. Only Furno and the wingers are under 28; none of them, with Lo Cicero's impending retirement, yet 31. With the majority of the players at the top of their game, the next few years could see the birth of Italy as a genuine force in the competition.

Of course, the age profile carries a risk; in four years at most, a lot of players will need replacing and unless players develop and are given chances by Brunel, any advantages gained could be wiped out. There are talented young players in the Italy squad - Gori and Benevenuti already have 20+ international caps - but but talented prospects are not always talented players. Preparing for that transition and ensuring the youngsters make it will be one of Brunel's most important tasks. After this Six Nations, I really hope he succeeds.

If he does, Italian rugby's future will look brighter than ever.

Deja Ow

History has a habit of repeating itself. It's rare for it to do so quite this quickly however. It was only in 2011, after all, that an English Grand Slam attempt left a celtic capital feeling woe-begotten and beaten up. The defeat in Dublin marked the end of Martin Johnson's purple patch and ended up in that World Cup campaign.

The good news for Lancaster is that his squad seems unlikely to implode like that anytime soon.

Lancaster's probably been working very hard on reminding both himself and the players about the good news over the past weekend. As ways to end your Six Nations go, it doesn't get much more demoralising than that, although Ireland and France might both wish to disagree. The Bomber won't want his men to stew in negativity and let the game cast a shadow over them. And there was some good news.

What is of more interest to England fans right now however is what Lancaster does about the bad news. This is no knee-jerk reaction to a defeat and an extremely good performance from Wales. The weaknesses, as I said last week, have been there for some time and it was very obvious how things might go wrong. We'd all watched England get exposed out wide and shunted in the scrum before this Six Nations. Except, this time, it actually hurt.

I am a recent convert to being a Lancaster fan and, despite how its all turned out this year, I remain so. I can live with his decision to keep a relatively settled team throughout the tournament, even if that did mean some obvious weaknesses. However, what happens next will be a big test for him. It should now be obvious that England cannot hope to beat the top teams through good team spirit, big midfield defence and penalties alone. Those things are essential to our hopes of doing so, but more is required. And the results of this Six Nations show that Lancaster's emphasis on these things has led to too much sacrifice in our attacking capabilities.

A good example of this is Brad Barritt, a man constantly talked up for the important role he plays for England. Which is fair enough to a point. The man defends like a Trojan. Unfortunately, he attacks like a horse. As a runner, he straightens the line well and usually makes the gainline, but little more. His distribution skills aren't particularly noteworthy at international level and he's ignored a few overlaps recently. This is not to say he should definitely be dropped, players like him can be very important in doing the dirty work to allow more talented players to shine. But Barritt is typical of a great deal of the team and the team as a whole; outstanding in defence, uninspiring in attack, and seemingly lacking in perception of opportunities on the pitch. We messed up try scoring opportunities against Wales, against Italy and against France. We have not scored when it seemed easier to do so than to not.

Lancaster must fix this. We will not win the World Cup, our proclaimed goal, with such poverty in attack. We won't win the Six Nations either, and its doubtful whether we'll win as many games again next year. We will travel to an improving Italy, a potentially dangerous Scotland and also France, who surely cannot be that bad again next year. Ireland likewise have a great deal more potential than they showed. If we stand still, we will probably fall behind. However, if we are to actually progress, then attack cannot be at the total expense of what we have achieved in terms of midfield defence and mental strength. To a certain extent, Lancaster might be justified in grumbling about where he's meant to find these players. But he has already nailed his colours to the mast as a man developing a team, developing players. If he cannot find them, he must make them. Providing a player has courage and strength, he can be taught to defend. Attack is the more difficult art, the more dependent on natural talent. No amount of training will make Mike Brown as fast as Jonny May or Christian Wade. There is talk that Mike Catt's brief in the England camp is considered a long term thing - presumably bringing technical skills up to scratch and developing decision making in attack. It is an incredibly important role, but also an arduous process. Will it even make Owen Farrell as talented a passer as Freddie Burns, or give him his natural eye for the opportunity? Farrell has advanced a lot in his England career already but one has to wonder how much further he will develop.

It's been a good job until now. Jim Greenwood, one of rugby's original coaching gurus, once wrote that defence and fitness are the first concerns with a struggling team. Lancaster has done that, with the exception of that weird blind spot out wide. But Greenwood's books encourage attacking rugby to the utmost and it is now time for Lancaster to move on to this next step. Or I fear we will all be cursing more missed trophies again next year.

Same Again

I started rewatching the England-Italy game last night. I didn’t get very far, but I did remind myself that England started that game as a crisp, precise team playing a tempo that the Italians struggled to deal with. By the end they were clinging on, defending their line grimly. After the game, I spoke online with a lot of people, who weren’t just disappointed, they seemed angry. Myself, I can’t quite understand a lot of that. It’s not exactly news that teams with a big game the next week often take their eye off the ball mentally. It is human nature, and even the most experienced, streetwise athletes can suffer from it. I also feel this attitude takes Italy too lightly. Brunel has certainly raised their game at least temporarily and a lot of the Italians had very good games.

Everyone has heard the advice ‘Nothing is ever as good or as bad as it seems’. I believe it applies well enough to England’s most recent performance well enough – that was not as bad as some are making out. England maintained their discipline well and rode out a prolonged period of pressure to keep Italy’s score down and in particular, the defence was excellent on their own goal line. They also exerted significant pressure on Italy at times and while they didn’t score any tries themselves, Italy’s reaction to the pressure handed penalty after penalty to England. Discipline may not be something that gets people excited – at least not in a rugby connotation – but it is important. That England maintained theirs better is to their credit. And, since I’ve often been a harsh critic of Tom Youngs’ throwing, it should be pointed out that the lineout went very well.

But if the last game was not as bad, were the games preceding it as good? To my mind, the level of performance was not dissimilar to the games against Ireland and France. Greater levels of expectation and the erosion of patience with some of Lancaster’s choices account for at least some of the negative reaction – as too does the fact that this is the first time in a while that England have finished a match less strongly than their opponents. I would also chalk it down to some of England’s problems looking more prominent than usual. Just as Ashton’s miss on Fofana sparked a lot of criticism of his defence which would have been justified for some time, so too did parts of England’s game. And, partially with the benefit of hindsight, we are talking problems that have been trailing around for a good long time now. Maybe we should not be as happy with the Ireland and France victories as we are – or even those over Scotland and New Zealand. To me, there are three big criticisms that could be made of England’s performance that could ring true for most of that period. Those are:

A shaky set-piece

       Frail defence in the wide channels

     Profligacy with try scoring chances

It was the lineout that put Danny Care under pressure, leading to his hasty attempt at a box kick, which in turn lead to the Italian try – ironic considering that was otherwise England’s best lineout performance in some time. And the period of Italian dominance in the match was greatly assisted by them turning the screws on the English scrum, just as our half in the sun was marked by some monster shoves. It was not the first time England’s scrum creaked this Six Nations, although it was the most pronounced, and the worst since Joe Marler’s attempt to scrummage against Australia with a ligament injury. France in particular gave us a hard time, and did so in the lineout too despite the addition of Dylan Hartley, our more reliable lineout thrower. But then there has been plenty of wasted and scrappy lineout possession for England this Six Nations against everyone, as there was against South Africa and New Zealand last Autumn.

Similarly, there are more than a few instances of England’s defensive solidity suddenly crumbling out wide. New Zealand had a lot of joy there, particularly through Cory Jane. Scotland’s two tries largely came through wing play. Then there’s Fofana’s excellent run, and the Italian wings had their moments too.  I struggle to think of the last time an opposition team was able to find a hole in England’s midfield, but the list of occasions in which they found it out wide trips off the tongue easily. A bit of time considering it adds Australia to the list too.

Finally, there is the matter of scoring tries. Yes, even against New Zealand and Scotland. Using ESPN’s statistics, England made 10 line breaks in both games – a rare level of attacking performance, even for the likes of New Zealand. If you are creating that many holes in the defence, three or four tries is the least I’d expect.  Really, international sides should be looking to score more when breaking the defensive line that often. We have now only scored one try in three test matches. That said, it is difficult to think of England squandering as many gilt-edged chances against anyone else, as they did against Italy – even allowing for Waldrom dropping one over the line against Australia. It is possible I’m being harsh and we weren’t near the try line all that much against Ireland or France,  something my memory is foggy on, although we had definitely had a few chances. None were taken though. England are often smart and lively leading up into the 22. Inside the 22, things often go awry and chances go begging.

This should not be taken entirely negative. These flaws have not stopped us from winning five games on the trot. They do worry me leading up to Wales and a possible Grand Slam; I imagine they worry Lancaster too. But they do not make the task impossible. Nor does it mean there are not positives in terms of our midfield defence, the pressure we exert, our performance at the breakdown, our discipline and self-belief. There have been moments in the last three games where it seemed easier for England to lose than to win. Each time we have prevailed. Whether that will be enough to beat Wales, and whether we will let the pressure get to us, will be interesting.

In the short term, a lot of this week will be about the England coaching staff trying to put that right. With the exception of our second rows, who all seem to be doubtful, England has no new injuries and should have the team out training on both days. In terms of the set-piece, I doubt much will change unless injury forces it. The pack is in too much credit in other areas to tinker with and if we adhere to the EPS, we can’t in most areas anyway. The only likely change in the pack is Tom Croft, who would further boost the lineout. Of course, England might find they have to change a lot in the second row, but that cannot be helped. The presence of Billy Vunipola would be nice, given the lack of a big ball carrier with Morgan injured, but it seems unlikely Lancaster will parachute him in. It’s a shame, as it’s difficult to believe that Morgan’s absence and the drop in try scoring opportunities is coincidental, but so be it.

In the backline I am also resigned to little change but far less happy about it. It’s the backs mostly missing tackles out wide, and it’s the backs mostly butchering try scoring chances. They do put a lot of pressure on the opposition with a strong midfield defence and good depth positioning should the opponent choose to kick, but that alone should not be enough. If we are serious about developing towards winning a World Cup, then we need to be capable of more. I do worry that Wales will keep calm in possession and work out ways to get the ball quickly to Cuthbert and North out wide. The game is likely to be attritional. If Wales can manage the tricky balance between denying quick ball and keeping their discipline, England could struggle to score points – something the Welsh rarely struggle with themselves. But if there was to be a change – Twelvetrees into the centres, Strettle in, Foden involved – we would have surely seen it against Italy. And we 

didn’t.

So it seems that we are set to go into the final match with the same again, warts and all. Hopefully, it will be enough.