Goodbye to a giant

My first exposure to rugby was some sort of article about the 1995 World Cup in some magazine that was lying around the house. I didn't grow up in a house that followed the game; my dad had played a bit at school and that was it. I went to a primary school that did no organised sport at all. I can't even recall it being on the TV. Family legend says I only learnt to read so I could follow Crystal Palace's results but that was as far as my interest in the sports pages went. 

No, I didn't read about Jonah Lomu being awesome then. I mean, I probably did, but it doesn't stick in my memory. I vaguely recall hearing on the news about England getting knocked out, to no small extent down to some oversized freak of a wing. I was aware, in my distant way, that was a remarkable time for rugby; professionalism, black men in Springbok jersies, and 19 stone wingers. I knew I wanted to play this game. But I only really got involved when I went to secondary school and, the glories of 2003 aside, I only became truly fascinated with the game after I completed university, drifted back to my rugby club due to peer pressure and got sucked in by the 2009 Lions tour.

In all that time of half-interest, I knew who Jonah Lomu was. I knew he was amazing. I watched the 2007 World Cup final without really knowing a single one of the players, but Lomu? Yeah. Who could forget that video of him running over Mike Catt? In much the same way even people with no interest in Basketball know who LeBron James is, Lomu was unforgettable.

As my interest in the game has grown, so has my appreciation for what Jonah Lomu has done and his status in the game. He was rugby's first superstar and he did it  by changing the game. Wings of about his size are the norm now but looking back at the highlights, you know damn well that if he was around today he'd still be terrifying. He mightn't have scored 15 tries in 2 World Cups today but he'd have got close. The most incredible thing is he did it all with the kidney condition that would eventually bring first his career, and now his life, to a premature half.

The biggest loss is to Lomu's family. To see your son die is heartbreaking; to grow up always missing your father scarring. None of the acclaim and love for their loved one will take away their pain. It is a loss for all of rugby though. I think in all the sport's history, we've possibly only had one icon, and now he is gone. Wilkinson? McCaw? Carter? Amazing athletes but I don't think any of them have seized the global conciousness like Lomu did. My girlfriend is an American with no particular interest in rugby. She heard about Lomu's death. 

And because rugby is a small game, if you listen, you soon hear what players are like. Some are wazzocks, some are mad, but I've yet to hear a bad word spoken about Jonah Lomu. He was just a really nice guy.

A gentleman and a giant - may we see his like again.

Rest easy Jonah.

G'day Mr Jones

This morning, the RFU announced the appointment of Eddie Jones as the new England head coach, with a four year contract starting in December.

That was quick, wasn't it?

Last time around we'd only just had news of Johnson's resignation, nevermind the appointment of a new man. The plan had been an extensive search to find the world's best which ended up going on and on until we hit the Six Nations and Lancaster secured the hearts of most of the RFU. Everything about this time is different and speaking cynically, the fear remains that we are still fighting the last war and have made a mistake.

It is very easy to imagine this going wrong and not just because it involves the RFU, who specialise less in shooting their own feet than in blowing their own legs off. Reading around the internet to see what the learned men of the press have to say, it swiftly emerges that Eddie Jones can at times be, well, a bit difficult. Alex Sanderson's comments here put it most succinctly:

"He is very much his own man and unwilling to compromise. You can see that from the turnover of jobs he has had. In the wrong environment, people can find it hard to work with him. He pushes you so hard and that can be to the detriment of your own enthusiasm. It is a make-or-break scenario."

To a certain extent, this is a good thing. One's reminded of Jim Telfer laying into the Lions pack and telling them he's the judge. A good coach is not just a judge though; he's also a salesman. Should Eddie Jones push the players as hard as he can, harder than they think they can endure? Duh. Is it going to work if the players don't understand what Jones think he's getting from it or see what they're getting from it? No. Does it sound like Eddie's definitely one hundred per cent going to ensure they do get it? Hmm. Hmmm. HMMMM. It's probably quite a small chance, and nothing in life is guaranteed, but it is  a bigger chance than I'd like.

If things could go wrong with those below him, there is even bigger potential for them to go wrong with those above. We already know that Jones isn't too impressed with the structure of English rugby which as far as I'm concerned, just goes to prove he's a sensible chap. If he means to put words into practice and try to start changing how the whole organisation works though, rather than merely sharpening the pointy end, then he may find himself running into a metaphorical pointy thing himself. Or maybe trying to insert one into the Teflon Don. I'm never going to tell a man not to fight for the betterment of English rugby but Jones would be advised to tread very carefully here.

If no culture clash or internecine conflict intervenes, what can we expect from Eddie Jones? Anyone expecting a guaranteed attempt at sexy rugby would be well advised to read this article by Dean Ryan - he will have no problem in deciding his team is not up to an expansive game plan and that victory lies in grinding away. He's also successfully worked with Jake White, in case further evidence is needed.

Before anyone says it - yes, England have looked good playing expansive rugby at times recently. Yes, we have no shortage of speed merchants who like to see the game played wide and there's a case to be made for England building a team to exploit that. The problem is that while we have the speed merchants, we have a problem when it comes to the technicians and generals needed to create the space out wide to begin with. Disagree? Comment please. Come at me and all that waffle.

Expansive or not, Jones likes big back lines. Look at the 2003 Australia back line. Wendell Sailor? Big. Stirling Mortlock? Big. Lote Tuqiri? Big. Larkham was pretty big for a fly-half as well. The 2007 back line he ran for Jake White was along similar lines as well. To date, he's usually put out a playmaking 12 and some big lads with a bit of toe and decent hands. If he sticks to type, that's good news for Manu Tuilagi, and not so good news for Jonathan Joseph... or most of the current England back line, in fact, which is quite small. Would he prefer Rokoduguni and Yarde to May and Watson? Time will tell. 

He likes his sides to be technically adept and he likes them to keep the ball in play - Lancaster has tried to build in this direction, with mixed results. He played with two opensides in the 2003 World Cup final. If I could, I'd tell him that over here, Robshaw and Wood are considered opensides and nothing need changing there, simply to see the look on his face. I suspect his priorities will be to build a scrum so steady you could use it as a table for Christmas dinner, a line-out of similar reliability (I see some quite boring drill sessions in the England players' future), find a back row with pace and breakdown ability as well as an inside-centre who can distribute, and then work on the England players' handling and ability to use space. Minor things, really. No big sweat. I'm sure Lancaster never considered them... wait, no, most of them appeared on Lancaster's list, with mixed results. The set-piece can be fixed quite easily I suspect, particularly if Jamie George keeps up his form and comes into the team. Henry Slade might be odds-on to be England's starting inside-centre next Six Nations. Matt Kvesic and Will Fraser have big opportunities to become part of the team but neither seems as guaranteed to me as Slade, perhaps unfairly. The intelligent use of space... well. One thing at a time.

The main thing we expect from Jones though is success. He's had plenty of it, from the upwards curve of Japan that thrust him back into the rugby world limelight with that victory, to his initial successes back in Australia back at the turn of the millennium. He's had his failures too - just ask Queensland rugby fans - but that does mean he's erratic and prone to getting lucky, or a man who's learned the most essential lessons before coming here? This job is arguably going to answer that question for many; this will probably be his defining moment. Success, and he joins rugby's greats - particularly if he can go back to Japan in 2019 and win the World Cup there. Fail, and there will be no second chance to do so, or cast off the aspersions that he's just the man who inherited Rod MacQueen's hard work. There is everything to play for.

There is everything to play for with England's players too. They have a new coach to please now; a demanding, exacting coach looking for outstanding rugby players and workers to come and fulfil his vision and make them winners. Everything starts with the player's desire to be among that number.

After that, it's up to Eddie Jones. Good luck.

Post-Mortem 7: The Unforgiven

So, let's talk about Stuart, shall we?

In my mini-break it's been less a case of watching the grass grow under my feet and more a Rip van Winkle-esque trip to the future where we download rice and Davina McCall is the Pope. Stuart Lancaster is gone and debates as to whether that's the right idea are completely irrelevant. But then, the point of this series has been more "What went wrong" than "What do we next", so this article's still (hopefully) relevant which is just as well as I'd like to get a few things off my chest.

Here's the first thing. I thought he was a mistake at the beginning and barring a brief period during the 2013 Six Nations I've thought he was a mistake all the way through until now. I didn't expect the World Cup to happen, as he'd looked more competent than that to date, so I can't say "Told you so", but I can say "Thank fuck I can stop feeling like I have to be positive about a bad idea."

I can also say "This article might be biased against Stuart Lancaster". I like to think I'm fair and objective about everything but that is a damnable lie and the fairest thing is to be open from the beginning. I did not think he'd deliver anything particularly of note for the English rugby team and I'm happy I won't have to hear any more of his PR. 

That said, I wished this had ended better for him. He seems like a decent guy who only wanted to do his very best for English rugby and it feels like this experience has crushed him. That's shit, he didn't deserve that. As Clint Eastwood once said though, deserve's got nothing to do with it. It's happened and the question is "Why?"

Ignore the World Cup for a moment. Lancaster's got us to 4 6N second places. 4 wins out of 5 every time. If he'd got us that final step further once and he might have stayed regardless. Twice and I think he definitely would have. Think of all the close games lost to the SANZAR teams. England have had a demonstrable issue with crunch games all the way through Lancaster's tenure and come the two big games in the World Cup, we got the same thing again. In retrospect, maybe the outcome should have been more predictable; there's nothing too out of the ordinary about what happened. Personally speaking, I backed England because I saw Twickenham as a big factor. Relatively few of England's missed opportunities have come at Twickenham; maybe I'd have revised that opinion if I'd properly considered the pressure the England team was going to be under.

Pressure. The word is inescapable when talking about performances in big games. Lancaster can be partially absolved here because the best way to deal with that pressure is to have done so before and very few members of the team had done as much of that as their opponents. Only 6 members of the team had Lions test caps - both Youngs, Vunipola, Parling, Cole and Farrell. Only James Haskell had won the Heineken Cup and he was a bit player; only the Vunipolas, Goode, Farrell, Wigglesworth and Lawes can join him in saying they've at least been in the final. Only Haskell, Cole, Easter and Youngs had 50+ caps. We can quibble over the exact worth of some of these measurements but the overall picture I think withstands these quibbles and the overall picture says there were very few guys with lots of big game experience in the England team and it's not exactly a surprise when they fall down at the last moment as a result. 

However, there's things Lancaster could have done. One of them was to pack the team with experienced, big-game players where possible. Danny Cipriani could point to a Heineken Cup winners medal plus the experience of time spent playing in Australia. Tom Croft might have only just been back from injury but with two Lions tours and a Heineken Cup runners up medal, he had more pedigree than half of the forwards picked there. Mathew Tait, completely ignored, had played in a World Cup final - how many other Englishmen playing today could say that? Just three; Easter, Matt Stevens and Toby Flood. One wonders whether Lancaster regrets not persuading Flood to stay. Some might look at this list and protest at the point of including them as options - I know there's plenty who don't mourn Flood going. Some will look at Lancaster's reliance on young players as the best part of his reign, providing a legacy for the next man. There's something to that but there's quite a bit of work on for those players to make bombing out of a home World Cup worthwhile. I look at those players and see players who were good enough to be involved and think their experience might have been key in avoiding what happened.

The other thing he could have done was to prepare them for the pressure better. A coach's role here might be limited but when you see the captain making a hash of a late penalty when 3 behind in a World Cup then, well, you know it's bigger than Lancaster was filling. Every possible scenario that could have occurred in the last 10 minutes should have been tattooed on the leadership group's eyeballs. Whether that's Lancaster telling them what to do, or the players discussing it before hand is besides the point; the group needs to decide their best course of action before it comes up and then it needs to be backed up by every member of the group in public. Bitch about the execution if you will, but the course of action is a matter of collective responsibility. Lancaster's comments in the press conference didn't really feel like that was happening; England's performance definitely felt like he hadn't ensured they had all the information needed to succeed. 

Of course, inexperience aside, one of the traits considered most useful for winning big rugby games is a really good rugby team. I know, I'm fucking brilliant me with these radical revelations. It's pretty hard to have a good team of any sort if you keep replacing team members. We should all accept that rugby's a damn attritional game these days and that interferes with this but 14 different centre combinations sounds pretty damn extreme. 14! The problem here is slightly more serious than the never-ending case for an international 12 (you know things are bad when Shontayne Hape seems a good England inside-centre) though when you consider the big stylistic changes the England team have undergone since 2012 because if changing team members hinders a team, asking it to keep doing very different things is just not a good idea. The change from defence above all to Ford-inspired running from everywhere, from Barritt trundling to playmaking 12s and back again, and from big powerful forwards to skinny fit ones, all slowed the team's evolution. In the case of the latter, the last minute rush to do it may well have been responsible for the generally powderpuff nature of England's forwards, a key part in our failure. As for switching from Ford back to Farrell at the last moment - well, so much for learning from the last World Cup, eh?

Pretty much everything England did wrong at the World Cup - and most of the last four years to boot - can be traced back to either flawed big game preparation or indecisiveness leading to less than razor sharpness. And it's really super tempting to link those two things to a lack of experience on Stuart Lancaster's part. I'd hesitate to say I'm completely right to do so, because it's hard to definitively prove, but it does make total sense. Getting Leeds promoted and then relegated again followed by a stint with the Saxons doesn't provide much of an education in managing big games, nor does it give a comprehensive internal encyclopaedia of what works and what doesn't at the top. Inexperience, both as a club head coach and in terms of never playing international rugby, might also account somewhat for the reliance on his assistant coaches and particularly Andy Farrell - they were the guys who knew, so maybe Lancaster deferred too much. 

The biggest flaw of this argument is that by the World Cup, he was fairly experienced as an international and head coach. Not as much as many of his competitors, but a World Cup cycle as England's head coach is not to be sniffed at. The problem with experience is you have to learn from it and here we reach the crux - Lancaster didn't. The kick to the corner defines that to my mind - it's shocking that after the criticism Robshaw copped for it early in his captaincy that they didn't hammer out how to handle the situation properly from then on - but there's elements of it where ever you look. 

It should be noted again at this point that Lancaster's had to deal with a lot of impediments, some of his own making and many that weren't. Spending as much time with sponsors as he allegedly did is ridiculous. He's had less control over his players than most international coaches and his senior players represent the tail end of one of the less talented and lucky generations of England internationals. Then there's his own daft decision to lean heavily on Farrell while also taking on the seemingly diametrically opposed advice of Catt. He's had the CEO gob off about him not doing well enough for most of the last year. He's been a put upon man and for all I don't reckon he's the right man, the next man could do worst as a lot of those pressures aren't going to go away.

If the man with the chance does not learn though, it seems reasonable to gamble, particularly if the RFU will finally live up to its word and bring in someone who's done most of his education already. The rumours about Eddie Jones are piling up and frankly, I'm now in a bit of a rush to finish this all before they go and announce that as well. Really, this is the way it should be. I'm not saying England should never give a man his first chance at international rugby ever again - that would be fucking stupid - but the man should have earned it through prodigious feats at club level. Bonus points if they've demonstrated ability with one of the international age grade teams or as an international assistant. Sure, sometimes you can lucky if you punt on someone with potential. Sometimes you get Lord Baldermort. 

Most of the time you get Stuart Lancaster. A fine and decent coach out of his depth. 

Post-Mortem 6: The Frayed Ends of Sanity

Most fans don't talk about the RFU much for obvious reasons. Rugby is far more lovable than big bureaucratic companies full of in-fighting. However, we can't talk about what just went wrong with English rugby - and the twelve years preceding - without mentioning the guys ultimately responsible. 

One of the problems with talking about the RFU is that most fans are pretty fuzzy about what goes on there. That's not just simple lack of interest but also evidence of an organisation that doesn't really talk about itself. The media spotlight is only really thrown briefly on them when there's a change at the top and more sustainedly when there's a crisis - such as now.

Most of what I know comes from reading the odd post from the truly informed on forums and the picture they paint is of an organisation muddled as to its true purpose. The RFU exists to make money; to promote a game; and to manage an elite sports team. It is a muddled set of objectives and few of those organisations trying to do all of them have good reputations. With the RFU, people tend to remember the "57 old farts" quote (Will Carling's finest moment) but the problem is as much the professionals as the amateurs these days. Like all good businessmen and administrators, those of the RFU pick objectives and targets they can achieve and set great importance by them. Do they forget the national team a little, providing it continues as a cash cow, in these circumstances? Maybe.

We have now seen four coaches appointed since Lord Baldermort (aka Sir Clive Woodward) gave up in disgust and not one of them has been a success. Most of them have had relatively little head coaching experience, with the nadir of that trend coming with Martin Johnson, but neither Brian Ashton or Lancaster could claim comprehensive amounts. Most of them have had some form of prior involvement, making them company men to an extent, with Lancaster the foremost of these. There is room to speculate that the thinking at the RFU is to pick head coaches they can mould, convinced they'll grow in ability and success like Lord Baldermort did, but with less of that maverick streak. Certainly, the thinking of the RFU has not been to find the finest head coach they can, or at least I hope so - for they are utterly delusional if that was their aim.

They certainly seem guilty of fighting the last war. Ashton replaced Andy Robinson in the hope of reintroducing some swagger to the backline. The players revolted and Martin Johnson, most fearsome of the White Orcs, was brought in to ensure none of that nonsense. The players ran riot and so the RFU decided on Stuart Lancaster, with his emphasis on culture and discipline, to ensure there'd be no more scandals. After all, sponsors hate scandals, and sponsors mean money, and money is one of the RFU's achievable targets.

Much has been made of the likeable culture and decency of Lancaster's England; allow me to say that I think that's a pile of total bollocks. Lancaster says people have been telling him they like what England stand for. With the greatest of respect, I am quite happy if the England team stand for nothing but success, and do not care what else they stand for if they also stand for utter failure. The latter is currently the case. That's a cheap jibe, but also totally accurate right now. They are not winners.

I do not agree with the separation of discipline for off-pitch events and on-pitch events. Dylan Hartley has done more to erode the image of our game and team then any amount of public urination, police pushing, or dwarf tossing, and yet is straight back in the team after every ban. He's picked up two more bans since his final warning from Lancaster back in 2013, one effecting his availability for this tournament, but Lancaster has not yet called time on his career. Calum Clark performed the single worst act I have ever seen on a rugby field since two Kiwis mistook Brian O'Driscoll for a pneumatic drill and was straight back in after serving a ludicrously short ban. I accept that Lancaster is in a difficult position weighing morality with winning games, and everyone's morality is different, but it sits poorly with me.

Over the last few months, we've seen English players arrested for drink driving, convicted for assaulting police officers, and going off on at their own team in public, with allegations of cheating on their girlfriend in the tabloid press for good luck. There have been all sorts of leaks about player discontent over headphones, over not being allowed to go the pub, and who knows what else as people continue to settle their grudges. It does not sound like a transformed culture. A certain amount of trivial misbehaviour and for it to be blown out of proportion by media is only to be expected. This goes beyond trivial though. I don't have an issue with it, but please do not expect me to buy into the entire of this shiny happy culture.

My main source of anger at the players at the moment though is Tom Wood's comments about the coming review. He said:

“You’ve got to filter out some of the nonsense, the white noise and the individual frustrations to make sure we get a group appraisal, rather than 31 voices coming from everywhere.”

What I, and virtually other England fan I've spoken to, heard was "We've got to make sure all the people with real criticism get drowned out so Lancaster stays". It's not a good look, especially when it looks like he's already angling to be the next England captain, prompting this furious burst of trolling from Harlequins' Dave Ward. A kind man would say it's an example of extreme loyalty, the cynic would say Wood knows exactly where his England career is going if Lancaster goes. 

There are limits of what should be expected from human beings and I don't agree with the notion that being a role model means you have to be a saint. It would be naive to suggest that other nations don't have troubles either. I don't expect our players to be better human beings than anyone else. I do expect them to be fully disciplined towards being the best they can be in these moments though. That does not seem to be happening - and if it's not, what's the point in Lancaster's culture?

The RFU are another body who I'd expect to be completely committed to making English rugby the best they could be, to get back to the subject. Not only is that not the case, but they make the players look subtle with their intention to whitewash. CEO Ian Ritchie has already said there'll be a review, but he doesn't see why it should concern itself with him and Rob Andrew. This is an utterly ridiculous position but it is not the first time we've seen RFU people simply wash their hands of any responsibility for appointing the men who've failed. It happened in 2011 too with Rob Andrew saying he saw no reason why he should resign as well.

Most of the feedback I get from this blog comes in the form of Facebook comments (thinly veiled more comments request). This simple comment - 'The importance of getting rid of Rob Andrew cannot be overstated' - got more Likes than some of the posts do. Considering how few people know what exactly he does, that's saying something, but then that's the point. Andrew hides his light under a bushel until it's time to take credit for something. He's credited by some as being a driving force behind recent good relations between RFU and PRL; others suggest that's not the case. Something Andrew hasn't been able to hide is his involvement in the hiring of three disastrous coaches but that's ok, because somehow it all slides off: the nickname 'Teflon Don' is well deserved.

Hopefully we are about to see his run come to an end. There has been a slow rumble across the media about RFU's culpability in this mess and talk of a special meeting to call a vote of no confidence in the board. It is said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over while expecting different results: the definition fits in this instance.

It is time for the RFU to cure itself before its members shove the straitjacket over its head.

Post-Mortem 5: Disposable Heroes

In the many discussions I had following England's disappointing 2011 World Cup campaign I quickly reached a conclusion that I have rarely wavered from and that was England wouldn't win the 2015 World Cup. It was a very simple assessment based on looking at the levels of experience present in previous World Cup winners, then looking at what was likely to happen given the age of England's best players at that date, with many of that year's U20 team looking set to be better players than the incumbents. England were never going to have the experience to do it. 

Going into the World Cup, I saw nothing to say I'd been wrong. I know others will disagree but the quality was not there to win the World Cup regardless of who was coach. The team could and should have done a lot better but the win felt impossible. Most of England's players are as good as most of anyone else's players, by and large, but none of them are as good as the very best, and none of them have that vast store of experience when aids performance in huge games. Our opponents do not have that issue and therefore, in general, I'd back them in tight games. The only flaw I saw in my argument was that England were at home - a big advantage - and that there was a potentially easy route to the final if we topped our group (ho ho ho).

Reading various quotes of his, it seems Stuart Lancaster agrees with me up to a point, the point being he still thought it was doable. It has been well publicised that he was looking for about six hundred caps in the starting fifteen by the World Cup, believing that to be the right level of experience. More recently, he was quoted as saying the following:

"It's hard to make selections when you have an inexperienced team and bringing more inexperience in".

When I read that, I felt simultaneously sympathetic and exasperated. On the one hand, this chimes with what I felt. On the other hand, it's a bit rich for the guy handing out the caps to complain that the players he wants don't have enough. No one forced him to pick Henry Slade and Sam Burgess in the squad. Reading these words made me reconsider what I'd thought and the obvious flaw in it. We do not have the squad - I believe that. Might we have had the squad? I thought it was impossible but that does not mean I was right. After all, Stuart Lancaster thought that six hundred caps was doable. I've pointed at the development of Chris Robshaw compared to Chris Henry and Sean O'Brien - have any other players not developed as they might have perhaps? And on the other foot, how many potentially key players have we lost unexpectedly?

Answering these questions starts with looking at what Lancaster inherited. This is Johnson's last squad:

Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers) Alex Corbisiero (London Irish) Tom Croft (Leicester Tigers) Louis Deacon (Leicester Tigers) Nick Easter (Harlequins) Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints) James Haskell (Ricoh Black Rams) Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints) Lee Mears (Bath Rugby) Lewis Moody (Bath Rugby) Tom Palmer (Stade Francais) Simon Shaw (Unattached) Andrew Sheridan (Sale Sharks) Matt Stevens (Saracens) Steve Thompson (London Wasps) David Wilson (Bath Rugby) Tom Wood (Northampton Saints), Thomas Waldrom (Leicester Tigers) (IR)

Backs                                                                     

Delon Armitage (London Irish) Chris Ashton (Northampton Saints) Matt Banahan (Bath Rugby) Mark Cueto (Sale Sharks) Toby Flood (Leicester Tigers) Ben Foden (Northampton Saints) Shontayne Hape (London Irish) Joe Simpson (London Wasps) Mike Tindall (Gloucester Rugby) Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers) Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens) Jonny Wilkinson (Toulon) Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Most people remember it as a dad's army type of squad, with only a degree of fairness. Certainly, there were plenty of old men. Andrew Sheridan, Lewis Moody, Simon Shaw, Steve Thompson, Mark Cueto, Shontayne Hape, Mike Tindall and Jonny Wilkinson were all over 30 and never involved with England again. Louis Deacon and Lee Mears were likewise over 30 and soon joined them while Nick Easter appeared destined for this category until very late on. Only Tom Palmer had any major involvement for England again and he was was done by 2013. 12 players over the age of 30 seems excessive but outlier Australia aside, no Tier 1 nation had less than 7, France and Ireland had the most with 14, and half of them had ten or more. England were old, but not outrageously so. No side had so many players in this age bracket simply stop being involved though. 

However, it wasn't just veterans who were either axed or walked away. Armitage, Banahan and Simpson have yet to play another game for England. Stevens retired after the 2012 6N. Barring the tour to Argentina when the Lions were away, Wigglesworth didn't play again until Autumn 2014. Between one thing and another, only 7 forwards - Cole, Easter, Hartley, Haskell, Lawes, Wilson, Wood - and 2 backs - Wigglesworth, Youngs - made it to the next World Cup.

So who did Lancaster use? Here are the EPS and Saxons squads from 2012

Forwards: Mouritz Botha (Saracens) Calum Clark (Northampton Saints) Alex Corbisiero (London Irish) Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers) Tom Croft (Leicester Tigers) Louis Deacon (Leicester Tigers) Phil Dowson (Northampton Saints) Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints) Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints) Joe Marler (Harlequins) Lee Mears (Bath Rugby) Ben Morgan (Scarlets) Tom Palmer (Stade Francais) Chris Robshaw (Harlequins) Matt Stevens (Saracens) Rob Webber (London Wasps) David Wilson (Bath Rugby) Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)

BACKS (14)
Chris Ashton (Northampton Saints) Brad Barritt (Saracens) Mike Brown (Harlequins) Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints) Owen Farrell (Saracens) Toby Flood (Leicester Tigers) Ben Foden (Northampton Saints) Charlie Hodgson (Saracens) Joe Simpson (London Wasps) Charlie Sharples (Gloucester Rugby) David Strettle (Saracens) Manusamoa Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers) Jordan Turner-Hall (Harlequins) Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

FORWARDS (18)
David Attwood (Bath Rugby) Chris Brooker (Harlequins) Paul Doran Jones (Northampton Saints) Matt Garvey (London Irish) James Gaskell (Sale Sharks) Jamie Gibson (London Irish) Joe Gray (Harlequins) Tom Johnson (Exeter Chiefs) Joe Launchbury (London Wasps) Matt Mullan (Worcester Warriors) Luke Narraway (Gloucester Rugby) David Paice (London Irish) Geoff Parling (Leicester Tigers) George Robson (Harlequins) Andrew Saull (Saracens) Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks) Thomas Waldrom (Leicester Tigers) Nick Wood (Gloucester Rugby)

BACKS (14)Nick Abendanon (Bath Rugby) Anthony Allen (Leicester Tigers) Delon Armitage (London Irish) Matt Banahan (Bath Rugby) Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby) Karl Dickson (Harlequins) Alex Goode (Saracens) Jonathan Joseph (London Irish) Ryan Lamb (Northampton Saints) Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby) Ugo Monye (Harlequins) Henry Trinder (Gloucester Rugby) Billy Twelvetrees (Leicester Tigers) Micky Young (Leicester Tigers)

The first thing to note is there is some real quality available there. The second thing to note is there are a few who do not quite match this assessment. 

If we're talking about the starting point of Lancaster's project, then there are 8 forwards - Cole, Lawes, Marler, Morgan, Robshaw, Webber, Wilson, Wood - and 4 backs - Barritt, Brown, Farrell, Youngs - from that original EPS in the squad.They are joined by 2 forwards - Launchbury, Parling - and 3 backs - Goode, Joseph, May - from the Saxons squad, none of them with prior international experience. It should be noted at this point that Parling did play in that Six Nations as an injury replacement for Louis Deacon. Others were involved in the build up camp (some very briefly): Clark, Corbisiero, Croft, Hartley; Ashton, Dickson, Foden, Simpson, Strettle; Attwood, Mullan; Twelvetrees. Ed Slater was also added to the Saxons during February 2012. So that's 17 players from the World Cup squad that Lancaster used in some form in 2012, with another 13 that were in his thoughts. That's close to a World Cup squad right there numbers wise. Of these 30, 16 had prior international experience, but only 7 of these players made the final cut. 

So where the rest of his World Cup training squad at this point?

Lancaster has flagged the inexperienced nature of his squad  Of those already mentioned, Farrell, Launchbury and Joseph were all 20 and under at the time. So too were the following 10 members of his WC training squad: Nowell, Watson, Yarde, Daly, Slade, Ford, Cowan-Dickie, Itoje, Kvesic, Vunipola. Wait, scratch that, they were all 19. It would be ridiculous to blame him for not including 19 year olds at that point. All had the talent to be involved come the end - 5 made the final squad and there was anger that Daly, Itoje and Kvesic missed out - which vindicates Lancaster's point that many of his best players were very young at the start. Kieran Brookes, Jamie George and Mako Vunipola deserve to be added to these ranks, as they were 21 and very young for the front row. George Kruis was 22 and therefore sneaks into this category as well.

Danny Care, James Haskell and Danny Cipriani were not young bucks at the time, but between Care's internal suspension for pissing on the steps of a Leeds hotel and the location of the latter two in Super Rugby, none were included. Given the events of the 2011 World Cup, not too many would quibble with the former, and fewer would quibble with the latter. Nick Easter was also omitted at this point, due to age, misdemeanours, or both. Luther Burrell was playing somewhat indifferently for Sale, with no one calling for his inclusion, while even fewer were calling for Tom Youngs as he converted from centre to hooker off of Leicester's bench - his rapid promotion in the summer of 2012 being one of the notable triumphs of Lancaster's time. Kyle Eastmond had only just swapped codes, joining Bath in 2011, while I doubt Burgess had even considered it yet. That just leaves Richard Wigglesworth and Stephen Myler as the odd omissions, as both were ready to play a part if Lancaster required, which seems a reasonably low rate of error.

Lancaster started with over half of his World Cup training squad in place, with Care and Haskell swiftly rejoining the fold, and Wigglesworth, Easter and Myler available if he'd wished. About 30% of the squad were too young. That is a high number: 10 of Ireland's 45 man World Cup squad were 20 or under during the 2012 Six Nations as well. Only 9 players made it from the last World Cup; low compared to Ireland's 14. The problems do not seem insurmountable at this point but the number of 9 survivors seems very low given how many of them were involved in the 2012 Six Nations and they do show the inexperienced nature of the playing pool Lancaster was using in 2015.

There is no doubt he'd have preferred the number to be higher, both in general and when considering the players. Alex Corbisiero seemed destined to be the best loosehead prop in the world when playing a key role for the Lions in 2013, but heavy injuries have hit him so hard it's questionable whether he'll play for England again. Dylan Hartley could have been alongside him had he kept his discipline that year and repeated his party trick in 2015 to be dropped from the World Cup squad. Tom Croft was on that 2013 tour and played a test despite struggling with injuries; more serious ones have seriously restricted his playing time over the last four years and led to him missing out on the Colorado trip.

In the backs, Manu Tuilagi has managed to combine both the sins of being injured and, well, sinning, his suspension for assaulting a policewoman putting the cap on a fairly miserable four years for 2011's breakout star. Ben Foden, described as the first name on the team sheet back then, has struggled for form due to injuries and missed out on the training squad due to another. His partner in crime, Chris Ashton, racked up plenty of appearances under Lancaster, but the end result has been nothing but frustration for all concerned. Joe Simpson was in the squad and as noted, never played. It simply hasn't happened for Simpson and just when it looked like doing so, he also got injured and missed out on Colorado. Then there's Toby Flood, who might just be the one Lancaster regrets most. He played a few games in between being injured before deciding to go to France in 2013. Many fans lack fond memories of the player known as Jug Ears but in terms of raw experience, his 60 caps outweigh everyone in the squad bar Haskell. People focus on Steffon Armitage when discussing the protectionist policy, but Flood would have also been under consideration, as too would have Steffon's brother if not for his, ah, temperament issues.

Obviously, life happens and every coach has to accept events outside his control. Warren Gatland wouldn't have asked for Adam Jones to finally run out of steam and retire in a huff just before the World Cup. Steve Hansen probably didn't want Zac Guildford to be an alcoholic, or for Robbie Fruean to be so fragile. Ewen McKenzie's list of 'Do Not Wants' cost him his job while Heineke Meyer could be forgiven for frustrations over the South African injury list going into this tournament. Joe Schmidt would probably prefer Stephen Ferris to no Stephen Ferris, prefer that the Ulster centre curse didn't exist, that the much missed Nevin Spence was still with us. I could expand this list without doubt with more time spent remembering and researching. England's list of woes still seems pretty harsh though, before even considering the long-ago 'what-ifs' of Tom Rees, James Forrester, James Simpson-Daniel and the late Nick Duncombe.

There is a counter-balance to this of course. Hansen has taken along Waisake Naholo, despite him not being fully fit, because he believed in him. Schmidt has done the same with Cian Healy and Gatland with Samson Lee. All over the World Cup, at every international window, there are coaches taking chances and making allowances for the players they believe are truly important. Lord Baldermort knew Richard Hill wasn't going to be fit until the Quarter-Final in 2003, but took him anyway. If Lancaster had truly Croft or Foden, they'd be in. If he truly wanted Hartley, then the risk of having a prop cover hooker against Fiji would not have stopped him. We have seen Lancaster hurl Croft back in on barely any time before, seen him do it with Corbisiero and Twelvetrees. This time he didn't - but the decisions would have been more clear-cut and easy without the injury problems.

Still, Lancaster has been unfortunate both in timing and injury when building his squad. Whether his choices could have affected the injuries is unknown but unlikely. He could however have chosen to delay introduction of the kids and rely on older players who not only could have gained more experience, but might have offered greater impact, if not at the World Cup itself, then in winning the Six Nations before hand and establishing a culture of success. It should be remembered that the poor state of the England team that Lancaster inherited was partially due to such policies but I would state, with absolute belief, that picking for the present day and picking for the future are neither good nor bad things in and of themselves. It is how you execute those policies that matter. I would also state, given the potential offered by a home World Cup, it should have been the goal every step of the way, but that it is a treacherous journey and sometimes short-term expedients are needed to keep travelling forwards. Of course, there were also futile selections of these short-term expedients who took up opportunities to gain experience without offering anything of use. It is a fine line to tread and unfair to expect perfection.

There was other internationals that Lancaster could have called upon in his time in the job who would have added a little more experience towards the total. It's already been mentioned that Delon Armitage, Joe Simpson and Matt Banahan weren't used, with Wigglesworth only coming back into favour later. Looking at those 2012 squads reveals a few more names. Charlie Hodgson probably did more than any to earn Lancaster his job that Six Nations but was informed he would not be needed going forwards and retired; he was still performing for Saracens last season, although whether he would have if enduring test rugby as well is questionable. David Paice picked up a few caps to add to his collection in 2012 and had the talent when not being a yellow card magnet; an undesirable trait in an international. Current team mate Luke Narraway never really got going as an international. Thomas Waldrom scored a hatful of tries for Exeter last year but has never had a sniff with the current set-up. Anthony Allen retired last season due to injury and former Lion Ugo Monye has also just hung up his boots. Outside the squad there were a few more names, guys with smatterings of international experience like Nick Kennedy, Paul Hodgson, Shane Geraghty, Jordan Crane, Nick Abendanon, then France based Magnus Lund, and the prodigal son Danny Cipriani, then in Australia and little used since his return. The only man outside the squad at that point who was young enough with significant international experience never to be used, however, was Mathew Tait, who still has more caps than all but 9 of the current England squad. 

While there are a few big regrets in that list, it mainly serves to illustrate what Lancaster was working with. Mostly he got the right players in to begin with. There are a few on that list who deserved more but were unlucky with injury; a few who had the talent but were their own worse enemy; a few who took a long time to pin down their core skills. Of those based in England, only four were really playing at a level this year that suggested they could add to this England squad - Simpson, Cipriani, Tait and Waldrom. There are arguments against the four as well as against and Simpson, as noted, had his chances of last minute victory sabotaged by injury. I would have personally backed only Cipriani and Tait for bigger roles over the last few years; some might back all four or none of them. Right or wrong though, if Lancaster was worried about an inexperienced team, these players were there; only Simpson would have offered less experience than the incumbents.

One thing a coach can do if worried about inexperience is to concentrate the caps between as few players as possible when building the team. At first glance, the news that Lancaster used 72 players does not fit this. There are certainly a fair few players where you wonder what on earth he was smoking, such as the whole-hearted and lovable Mouritz Botha, who sadly just wasn't that suited. This number is misleading though for if you count up the players used by other Tier 1 nations since the last World Cup, you find the average is in fact 75.5 and that Lancaster's used slightly less than most. The lowest number of players used is by New Zealand with 63, testament to the very strong XV still in place post-2011. Lancaster hasn't really gone down more dead ends than most coaches.

Am I changing my mind here at all? It is difficult to say. What England started with is stronger than I remember, with a large number of players at the start of exciting international careers, many of whom had been part of a Six Nations win (albeit unconvincing) and a win in the Southern Hemisphere. They could have been the core of an exciting new team and that many of them have fallen by the wayside has as much to do with injury and bad fortune as it does to do with selection. The result has been the accelerated selection of a possibly golden generation and a very inexperienced leadership group. There are no Rory Bests or Kieran Reads, nevermind Paul O'Connells or Ritchie McCaws. It is difficult to win big games in that situation, although not impossible. Lancaster does have valid grounds for complaint here. There are also valid grounds for complaint that he did not do enough to get such veterans as he had into his team.

What of development though? It is difficult to remember now just how eager people were to see more of players like Robshaw and Tom Wood back in 2012. They were the form flankers in the Premiership, men who charged into contact with sting. The years seems to have removed that and what have they added to their games? I've already mentioned my frustration that Chris Robshaw did not become a proper openside flanker while Tom Wood has lagged even more except for conceding penalties. He's lost weight since then and you can tell - that has been at the request of the England management in their quest to play the game at All Blacks levels of speed. They currently form part of England's leadership group but it seems doubtful as to whether a new England coach would want anything to do with them. There's plenty of other players with once-strong reputations who've never developed their weaknesses - Brad Barritt and his carrying and distribution; Danny Care and his kicking; Chris Ashton and everything bar scoring tries. Why is Ben Youngs' passing still so ropey? Why does George Kruis enter rucks so high? Some players, such as Jonny May and Joe Marler (pre-World Cup), have ironed out weaknesses in the England environment, but they seem to be minority.

Lancaster has been failed by the playing pool but it has gone both ways. No international coach is ever given the perfect player and some degree of development is expected, particularly over the three and a half years Lancaster had. He may not have started with many international heavyweights but it is not unreasonable to suggest he should have ended with some. Not only has he not done so, but many of the players with him in the beginning seem lesser players now than when they begun. Player fatigue and changing game plans accounts for some of that; a head coach should be expected to overcome that however. It is unfair to blame Lancaster totally for this as there many factors in the development of an England player, most notably their club coach and the player themselves. At best though that means he is helpless in the face of greater powers.

Ultimately, I stick by my belief that the situation in 2011 greatly impeded, if not outright prevented, success in 2015; even if everything had gone right from there, that side's peak would have been around 2017, with 2019 the possible last huzzah for many of them. It's far from completely Lancaster's fault that not everything did go right. The catastrophic one-off of the World Cup aside, it is questionable whether Lancaster even underperformed. I would say he did by a small margin - a Six Nations win was very possible - although the margin is small enough that I could be wrong. He did not overperform though, that is for definite, and I would strongly criticise the idea that a man who is capable of hitting par at best is suitable material for England's longest serving coach, as will happen if he is not removed from post. We started the last World Cup cycle with a fair amount of deadwood who'd been hogging all the caps without particularly justifying it in the preceding years, a handful of experienced guys to build a team around, and a number of bright young things who might have been the future. The scenario does not appear to have changed radically as too many players have gone straight from bright young things to deadwood. Again, I am not sure the man who has overseen this is suitable material to be the English head coach. For Lancaster to keep his job, he should need to be very persuasive that he has learned on these scores, and to keep it for any length of time, should demonstrate this very quickly.

p.s.

This will be quite a lengthy post script. The article has concentrated mainly on what Lancaster was given and what he has used. It has alluded to wider problems in English rugby without touching on them substantially.

Let us be bald about it - English rugby has not produced a World Class player since the heroes of 2003. It is an astonishing record that reflects poorly on just about everyone involved.

There have been a number of steps taken to correct this from minis to Saxons. The RFU and the Premiership clubs set up academies in 2001 and these bodies have refined and strengthened their processes since then. Links have been set up with friendly schools and the best youngsters funnelled there.  Harlequins, to use an example, have development groups as young as U13. Coaches such as Richard Hill have been mentoring our best young professional talents. A swarm of coaching development officers have been deployed.

We have seen progress. England's age grade teams have been consistently strong in recent years with a number of Junior World Cup final appearances and wins in 2013 and 2014. While there are many factors involved in that, one of them is sheer player quality. There are a number of outstanding prospects in English rugby - and there are a number of players who were once outstanding prospects who developed. It does not build confidence in the future.

So far, the Premiership clubs have failed to take any of these prospects and turn them into a World Class player. A few players appear to be on the verge but we have been there before. If England are to fulfil their international potential, then the final steps of player development must improve. I suspect better coaching, less time in the gym and more on the paddock, and stronger reffing of the breakdown would be good initial steps here, although I'll admit to being less that informed when it comes to the final details of coaching Premiership rugby players. Whatever improvements are needed though, can only come with the agreement of Premiership chairmen and coaches. Hopefully, when the RFU and PRL next meet, they can discuss how to further improve English players, for there is clearly room for improvement and there can be no issue where the interests of the two are more closely aligned. 

p.p.s.

In fairness, backing the right player can be a difficult task. To illustrate, these are the players I thought wrongly omitted from the 2012 squads:

George Lowe, Miles Benjamin, Ed Slater, Rob Miller, JSD, Tom Guest, Dave Seymour, Kearnan Myall, Jamie George

On the one hand, I am a Jamie George visionary. On the other, Guest and Myall? Uhm... yeah. In my defence, I was talking about Saxons as well as senior. The most striking thing about this list to me however is just how many of them have suffered really bad injuries; Lowe, Benjamin, Slater, Seymour and the king of frailty himself, James Simpson-Daniel. Bad fortune can mock any prediction. More wrong than right though. 

Oh well. At least I wasn't a Rory Clegg advocate...

Post-Mortem 4: Seek and Destroy

So far this series has talked a lot about the breakdown, although obliquely: the Armitage Controversy, Farrell's defensive system. It's time to look closer at this aspect of the game, particularly when we lost to Wales due to a series of boneheaded ruck penalties and then followed it up by committing suicide by Pocock. People talk a lot about players but the collective break down at the breakdown (sorry) was one of the key factors. It is difficult to talk about the breakdown without mentioning the openside flanker, the position most linked with the dark arts. There may have been a few things said here and there about Chris Robshaw's eligibility in the position; spiders spinning it in their webs, outer Mongolian nomads writing songs about it, everything. It's usually followed by people saying this is why England are at trouble 

This annoys me a little. Don't get me wrong - I don't think Chris Robshaw is a proper traditional openside flanker, or at least not an outstanding one, and I do love proper opensides. I say this as a man who at heart will always regard himself as an openside, even as I get shunted around the team and despite my complete unsuitability for the role. I love openside play. I love rucks. I love winning the ball and providing the opportunity for my team mates to perform.

And the first thing I can tell you about winning the ball is it takes a team.

While it's amazing the difference an openside can make, there's only one of him covering an area of 100m x 70m with 15 from the other side trying to stop him. There's going to be about 180 rucks, give or take, and in multiphase play there's one about every six seconds as a rule. It's only common sense to suggest the other 14 on the pitch will have to muck in here and there. So if England are struggling at the breakdown, it can't solely be down to Chris Robshaw. 

There are two possibly reasons why England are struggling at the breakdown. The first is it's not valued within the coaching team; that they do not pick players for expertise there or spending enough time trying to develop it. The second is that the coaching team are picking from a rugby culture that does value the breakdown, that does not seek to develop players that are skilled there. I reckon both are true. I've already talked about my belief in Farrell's influence and his virtually breakdown-free defence system. The English ambivalence to the breakdown is all around us. Look at some of the men who've played openside in the Aviva Premiership over recent years, or for England. Look at the struggle Neil Back had to get in the England team. Or, hell, look at Chris Robshaw. Back when Chris Robshaw started converting from blindside, two guys over the Irish Sea started on the same journey. Back around this time, there were a lot of Ulster fans wondered what Chris Henry was doing ahead of natural openside Willie Falloon. The answer - becoming a ferociously good openside who'd become a key part of Ulster's brief renaissance and a fixture in the Ireland team when fit, behind only the convert, Sean O'Brien. Nothing needs to be said about him. The conversion can be done - it's just in Chris Robshaw's case, it didn't happen, and I really think that would not have been the case elsewhere.

Truth be told, the criticism of Chris Robshaw's breakdown ability can be overdone. Anyone remember Robshaw getting more turnovers than anyone but Blair Cowan in the last Six Nations? Or Steve Walsh complimenting him on his skills in South Africa in 2012? There's a pretty good analysis of a good day from Robshaw here that shows exactly how much he adds when on form. The issue with Robshaw, why he has not consistently performed at a high level here, is two-fold. The first is he plays in a defensive system that puts a secondary importance on the breakdown - it is difficult to get turnovers when you're being told to fan out first and foremost, when you're blitzing up and guys are going high and falling blocking your jackal. 

The second is he just a little slow for the role and it is this lack of speed that limits him as an openside more than anything. Getting to the breakdown first is a big part of winning their ball and securing yours and when a player is a little short of speed, it's hard. It's not such an issue competing on opposition ball as clever reading of the game is more important there as a rule, when England even bother. It's when you're supporting your own backs, the heart and soul of traditional openside play, that the lack of pace becomes an issue as you simply lag behind play at times if you're not as fast as they are. He does his best but it's not always enough. I did think he'd got over that in 2013, but on closer inspection it turned out the big blonde brute supporting all our breaks was actually Joe Launchbury. Which says it all.

If Robshaw's not superb at supporting and rucking over his own carriers, I don't really want to say what I think about the rest of the team. When watching the Six Nations matches again simply to see what was going on in the ruck, I was really struck by how high some of them seemed to be entering the ruck. George Kruis was the one that stuck in my mind for this but there were many other poor clear-outs. I associate that with getting your timing wrong entering the ruck as much as anything (well, ok, also being a lazy inept bastard) and it is remarkable to me just how late the English players set off to support the ball carrier at times. Often they seem to be waiting for the man to be tackled before even moving in support. I've seen it suggested that this is a deliberate tactic to allow two men to arrive at the time ensure a quick, clean ruck - if so, the coaches should have reviewed it after the Six Nations as it didn't do great. There are other possible explanations of course. If the word is true that the vast bulk of training time was spent on defence, players may have simply been unsure of attacking patterns and when to enter rucks and when not, causing hesitation. Or it might just be that the high body positions and timing is just poor technique that exists regardless of how quickly the clear out arrives.

There certainly does not appear to have been any strong attempt to try and rectify this. The problems in clearing out our own ball and turning over opposition ball has been there for every game of Lancaster's regime. It does not have to be this way: look at the success Schmidt has had in improving Ireland's rucking game. It is harder perhaps for England, as the breakdown is reffed more laxly in the Premiership, but a management that was concerned about the breakdown could have emphasised the skills involved in training and selection. 

That they haven't couldn't be clearer. One only has to look at the lack of interest in Steffon Armitage, or the complete omission of Matt Kvesic after his sterling tour in Argentina, or even that of Calum Clark, my least favourite player ever but useful at the ruck. Look at the eight rucks on our own ball lost to Australia's Pooper back row - roughly one in ten on the night - as we crashed to a record defeat against them. Look at the seven kickable penalties conceded to Wales, from Mike Brown getting caught holding to Dan Cole going straight off his feet and Tom Wood failing to roll away. These errors do not happen to teams who are good at the breakdown with this sort of regularity and these errors have just cost England dearly. They will continue to cost England dear until we take the breakdown seriously

For most people, this will start with putting an out and out openside in the job. I would be in favour of that - it certainly wouldn't hurt - but there is an issue with availability. If something is not worked out on Steffon Armitage, then there are a small number of players who could potentially do the job available. Matt Kvesic is the obvious shout-out and has looked impressive in a white jersey but this would be a step up for him and it has to be hoped that Lancaster's reservations about him were misplaced. Yes, I am being very conservative here. Will Fraser would be the obvious rival in the Premiership, but sadly his injury record means he's more likely to be the heir to Tom Rees than Neil Back. Jack Clifford is the less obvious rival - an age group 8, he's currently retraining for the openside with the help of Richard Hill. Sale's two opensides, David Seymour and Magnus Lund, could possibly do a job, but I use the word possibly very deliberately here. The pool is very shallow and it's possible we may not have the quality come Six Nations time. 

The start of the process for me though lies in having a head coach who respects that the breakdown is possibly the single most important thing in modern rugby. Catch, pass, tackle, ruck: those are the four key skills of the game and we must be seeking to make them as perfect as possible in every player. Even our wingers should be expected to pride themselves on their rucking, just like our props should be expected to pride themselves on their handling now. Where possible we should seek to involve the Premiership clubs, asking them to make it a priority as well. Speaking of Premiership coaches, the England set-up could do a lot worse than asking to borrow Lawrie Fisher from Glaws or Neal Hatley from Bath for a week or so to go over this aspect of play. It's even possible that the right thing for England to do would be to try and hire a coach like one of them and have them go into clubs and work with the senior players - and if the clubs won't let us do that, work with the academy players and create a better generation. There have been steps in that direction - I'm told Richard Hill mentors a fair few promising forwards, such as Clifford and Northampton's highly promising Lewis Ludlam, and works with the age groups from time to time - but maybe they need to go further. This needs to be mirrored in selection as well - we need forwards who can support breaks, melt rucks, get over the ball. Lancaster has emphasised fitness and work rate, which any good rucking game needs, but it is useless without pace and power. No disrespect to Tom Wood, who could still be a fine servant to his country, but he won't ruck as well as Maro Itoje can. Pace and power only gets you so far without technique. Having an openside tasked to seek and destroy at the breakdown will improve England, but not as much as having fifteen players who can all take up the mission when needed. We need both.

It takes a team to win the ball - and it only takes one lost ball to lose a team the game.

Or in England's case, their own World Cup before it even really started.

Post-Mortem 3: Master of Puppets

This post starts with a rumour, and if the wise man is slow to believe rumours, he should be careful about what he disbelieves as well. The rumour concerns a young injured back-rower, two ex-pros, and a room full of lawyers celebrating the World Cup with a little event. As part of the event, they were having a Q&A with the back-rower, who we will call Billy V... no wait, too obvious, let us say B Vunipola... ah, I'm no good at this and it's all over the internet anyway. Lets just roll the quotes, boys!

Bracken: when you were interviewed after the game against Fiji you said you didn’t know you’d scored the bonus-point try—that was a strange thing to say… 

Billy: not at all. None of us knew bonus points were part of this world cup. No one had told us. 

[…] 

Bracken: what’s Stuart Lancaster like to work with as a coach? 

BillyV: I don’t know. 

Bracken: what do you mean? 

BillyV: Stuart doesn’t coach the team, Andy Farrell does. I’ve never been coached by Stuart. 

Campo, butting in: what effect has that had on the way the team plays? 

Billy: he makes us play like a rugby league team. 

(Campo then goes off on one about England’s terrible style of play is and how the RFU should just bite the bullet and hire an experienced international coach. To be fair, he’s absolutely spot on with that). 

[…] 

Campo: so what do you think about England picking Sam Burgess? 

BillyV: it’s been disruptive. The whole squad is unhappy about it. 

Bracken: WHAT? Why? 

BillyV: Luther Burrell earned his place in the RWC squad and Sam didn’t. Luther should have been picked, not Sam. 

[…] 

Bracken: and how are you enjoying playing under Chris Robshaw? 

BillyV: *shrugs shoulders, sips beer, says nothing* 

That is some major shit right there.

The source was originally a poster on the Planet Rugby forums, although the post was deleted and I took it from a copy posted up on the Quins board. Since then, a number of people have said they've talked with people who were there and confirmed it, including Stuart Barnes. Now it's pretty incredible stuff and they could have been misled, but equally it's the sort of story that no one's going to put their name to it, so I'm still in two minds about it. The important thing to me though is that, just like prime ministers and pigs heads, whether it happened is almost secondary to everyone going "Well, yeah, that sounds like him all right."

Andy Farrell that is, not Billy Vunipola. That the account mentions Vunipola drinking when he doesn't is dubious in fact, and it's really hard to believe any professional sportsman would be so rash as to do this, even if they were so drunk they though Nickleback were good. Many a man and woman make their living from people being unbelievably stupid though, and most of those I talked rugby to online were joking about Farrell telling Lancaster what to do a good year before this even happened. I don't know whether the Vunipola rumour is true but I do believe Farrell has a very big influence on how things are done and this has been detrimental. 

The logic behind this is simple. Look at England and ask yourself who you think Andy Farrell pushed for in selection meetings, then do the same for Mike Catt. There are a lot more defensively solid players who fit the model that Farrell established at Saracens then there are creative attack players in the mould favoured by Catt. Barritt sticks around, Eastmond gets the brush-off very quickly. Burgess is parachuted into the team, Slade carries tackle bags. Wigglesworth's boot is in, Care's running game is out. And so on and so on. It's a reasonable inference that one coach has a louder voice than the other. 

The pack also shows Farrell's fingerprints - a surplus of big, very fit men who make for an impressive defensive line, rugby league style. So what if they may lack breakdown skills? They're not there to be in the breakdown, as this analysis from G&G rugby shows. Having spent a lot of time rewatching England matches simply to stare at the rucks, I can say their numbers sound right. England stay out of the breakdown in defence so everyone's in the line. We're not the only country to use that tactic, but no one else seems quite so reluctant to stray and it does help explain the indifference to the claims of Armitage and Kvesic ahead of Robshaw. Their breakdown skills weren't required and I would suggest  that covers all of them. That it wasn't just England looking bad at the breakdown because of Robshaw, but also Robshaw looking bad at the breakdown because of England, with maybe more of the latter than the former. That is an article for another day however. I also suspect Farrell of being partially responsible for the omission of big chunky set-piece loving forwards, such as everyone from Bath, and the demand for England forwards to slim down and get fitter. Only suspect mind; but I would love to hear Rowntree speaking frankly about the situation.

It's quite a jump however to get from there, with Andy Farrell likely a dominant voice among the assistants, to Farrell being the big dog overall like the rumour suggests and people have been joking. To a large extent its sheer gallows humour and frustration but there is a bit more to it. For one thing, given how much time Stuart Lancaster spends on PR and other management issues, it would not be surprising if the coaches had a big impact; Lancaster believe he spends only 20% of his time coaching. When he tried to lure Wayne Smith into the England camp (it's a crying shame he didn't), there were suggestions in the press that Lancaster would be more of a Director of Rugby while Smith was head coach. It seems plausible that Lancaster perhaps doesn't want to do everything associated with being head coach and probable that he doesn't have time to.

If there was something of a vacancy in the structure due to Lancaster's workload, does it matter if Andy Farrell filled it? I mean, obviously it does, because we just got knocked out of our own World Cup while shipping a record defeat to Australia at Twickenham, but is there anything wrong with the idea in principle? Trusted assistant filling in for overworked boss, that's how the world's meant to work before you remember most people are incompetents, right? I think the principle is sound but the execution is weaker than Matt Dawson's comedy skills and that for me comes down to two things, both of them pretty worrying even if he's just an assistant coach and there's nothing to these rumours.

The first is that Andy Farrell simply ain't big enough to be the big dog in this town. He started as a skills coach in summer 2009, was promoted to first team coach end of 2010, then left Saracens to join England summer 2012. You look at the experience gained by men such as Cheika, Gatland, Schmidt, Jones - then you look at Farrell - and you realise that in coaching terms, he is the drummer boy to their hardened veterans. They'd probably refuse to share their brandy with him as he's too young. I'm sure he's learned a lot very quickly from being in international rugby, including the Lions tour. I'm sure there are aspects of rugby he knows as well as anyone. That doesn't put you in big dog territory though. I'm not sure it even really qualifies you for working with the national team at all when you look at some of the guys working in other teams, but it certainly doesn't qualify him to be calling all the shots.

The second is that if England are going to do things the Andy Farrell way, then what on earth is the point of Mike Catt? And if there is a point to Mike Catt and his approach, then why give so much importance to Andy Farrell, whose approach seems completely incompatible?  It is neither man's fault that they have been put together and no two coaches will agree about everything, but for there to be such a divergence is damaging, particularly if one of the men has more pull than other. If they had equal voices, then perhaps it would work. They don't though. Farrell's voice is louder than Catt's - maybe louder than Lancaster's - and Farrell does not have the breadth of experience and knowledge needed to say all that must be said.

The result of this appears to be a tug of war over what players the team needs and how they should be playing. The result of that tug of war has been incoherent selections, unbalanced team units, and seemingly ever-mutating ideology and indecision. That this is happening does say quite clearly that Lancaster isn't listening to everything Farrell says, or we'd never deviate from a Rugby League defence and pressure as the cornerstone of everything, but it also says that Lancaster isn't listening equally to all ideas all of the time to meld them into a harmonious whole. He is flitting from voice to voice, but mainly listening to Farrell.

This method has not worked. It's fallen just short since 2012 (bar the one time the All Blacks had norovirus) and now it has not so much fallen short as collapsed unconscious on the start line. The paramedics and stewards are clustered around the body trying to work out what's happened and what to do while all of the other runners just keep on running. I know everyone knows this but I will keep repeating in ever more colourful ways as a coping mechanism and also to remind us all just how totes fucking abysmal this was and how it can't be business as usual.

I did not write this solely as a hatchet job on Farrell, although it's basically been one to date. I mean, sure, I think he's a big part of us going in the wrong direction and some of the rumours imply he's an even bigger part than I thought - but the issue is not necessarily Farrell himself so much as his position in the machine. If someone is handed a job they're not really qualified to do, it's not totally fair to blame them when it goes wrong, and back in 2012 Farrell apparently had to be persuaded to take on a temporary position for the 6N. As a defence coach and motivator under a strong experienced head coach - as he was for the Lions - he's well qualified. He has the potential to reach the top as a general coach if he is willing to keep learning, he will probably end up a top defence coach whatever happens (although he might like to learn how to incorporate the breakdown). 

That is the future though. Back in the here and now, Andy Farrell as the pseudo-head coach he appears to be does not work.