I'm going to guess most people reading this aren't too familiar with Scott Sio. That's understandable. I'm a rugby nerd with no life and I'm not too familiar with him either. That may change though.
Over the past five years or so, there has been a familiar train of thought for England fans prior to playing Australia and it centered on the scrum. If we beat them convincingly there, we were going to win; if we didn't, we were going to lose. Usually, we would win. Partially that was down to England having a very good scrum, but the pivotal point was more that Australia were absolutely plumbing the depths of forward play. We were far from the only team to benefit from their weakness during that period after all - just think back to Ireland during the last World Cup. Needless to say, Australia haven't enjoyed this, and there's been some considerable efforts to try and fix this. During the Rugby Championship, it looked like these efforts were paying off, and that brings us back to Scott Sio.
Sio is only 23, but to judge from recent selections, he is now Australia's first choice loosehead prop ahead of James Slipper. He might only be a baby in propping terms but having watched him in the Rugby Championship, he's got a bit about him. He's not the finished article yet, nor is he definitely going to be one of the greats, but I wouldn't mind if he was English. I wouldn't be outstandingly nervous if I was an Australian and considering whether he was fit for carrying a nation's hopes on his shoulders.
Scott Sio is a bit of a poster boy for a resurgent Australia pack. They beat the Bokke in South Africa, they beat the All Blacks. They even got two rolling maul tries against Fiji. I don't know to what extent coach Michael Cheika is inheriting the work of others and how much is his work - he made Leinster very hard-nosed in his time there - but either way, Australia are no longer utterly reliant on their backs.
At the other end of the spectrum from Sio is Stephen Moore, Australia's captain and hooker. He started his international career ten years ago and will earn his hundredth cap this tournament all things being equal. That he has survived and prospered in a way no other Australian forward of his generation has is testament to his ability and he is a keystone of this side.
Surrounding these two men in the tight five are a selection of the slightly journeyman-esque and the slightly Australian. Rob Simmons is an example of the latter and, despite being only 26, the most experienced lock in the Australia camp. He seems to be one of those guys who thrives in the loose and survives in the tight. James Slipper and the injured Will Skelton (now replaced by Sam Carter) also fit that description. In contrast, Dean Mumm spent three years doing the dirty business with Exeter successfully enough. He'll be on the bench, most likely. James Horwill was omitted altogether, despite 61 caps and being the form man from the Rugby Championship. Kane Douglas - who didn't impress Leinster fans at all even before he pleaded to go back home - got the nod instead and will probably join Simmons. Sekope Kepu is likely to be the final piece of the jigsaw at tighthead prop. Nothing about the unit screams danger, but nothing looks weak either. They seem to be at the peak of their powers and if Australia do well this tournament, the country will owe a big debt of thanks to Mario Ledesma, the Argentine scrummaging legend now helping coach the Wallabies.
Behind those men will be Australia's current strongest unit. Michael Hooper has really made a name for himself these past few years, but it was all done in the absence of David Pocock. Cheika has turned the potential selection quandary into a strength by playing the pair of them together and despite both men being officially opensides, their different styles have dovetailed well to date. Hooper is a marauding ball-carrier who loves the loose; Pocock probably the single best player at the breakdown active today. Hooper's decent there too, and Pocock can carry, but each man is concentrating on their strengths here. Hooper's pretty good but, in England's current circumstances, Pocock is the terrifying one. England struggle to protect their own ball at the best of times and Pocock is quite definitely just the worst. A look at the stats here from Green and Gold Rugby show just how much Pocock gets over the ball and just how much damage he does. As someone who loves the breakdown and rugby, it's fantastic to see Pocock playing test rugby again after three years out, but I really fucking wish it was against someone else. Spare a thought for Scott Fardy here, he deserves to be more than the forgotten third wheel; his work rate, grunt, and lineout jumping are the balance this unit needs, and he's performed his role well this summer.
Thankfully if Australia's pack is waxing, their backline is waning a little. Controversy and injury has reaped a bloody toll and the backs that seemed ready to score from anywhere in the first half of this decade look a bit more pedestrian. Will Genia remains scrum-half for now, but even he is not entirely sure how that's come to be, for he's definitely not the same scrum-half that tormented defences back in 2010. Quade Cooper, his old partner-in-cr- no, wait, lets not use that expression with Quade - has fallen even further and will probably be behind Bernard Foley, who's a decent fly-half but not even half the magician that Cooper could be. They'll almost definitely do their job but also almost definitely won't rescue Australia from disaster.
The rest of the backs will probably be made up of Adam Ashley-Cooper and Rob Horne on the wings, Matt Giteau and Tevita Kuridrani in the centres, with Israel Folau at full-back. It's a line up slightly short of game breakers (Folau aside), but one not without its strengths. With the exception of Giteau, that's a number of very solid citizens. Going through them doesn't really appeal. Kicking to them seems even more reckless, with both wingers being difficult to catch out, and Folau insanely dangerous on the counter-attack. It would be nice if we could go around them, as I bet England's wingers are quicker than theirs, but that ideally needs a quick back row to support them, a big centre to fix the drift, and a second playmaker to spread it wide quickly. Australia have that - Kuidrani is very big and Giteau might just be the last of the great 2nd 5/8ths in this increasingly muscled up game. England? Not so much. So we know how Australia will attack (expect Folau to appear outside of 13 a *lot*) - with England, we only know how they'd like to attack.
What England should do, can do, is an open question and one to which I don't have a great answer. I know I can often be a pessimist about English rugby but in this case, it seems well justified to me. They are in better form, strong where we are weak, and without too many obvious weaknesses themselves. The obvious and trite piece of advice for England based on that is 'play out of your skin'. A top level performance from England could still see us hammer into them up front and start dominating the collisions. Tom Wood would be crucial in making that work if he can refind his best form while Joe Launchbury and Ben Morgan urgently need to shake off the rust. Behind the scrum, Henry Slade and Sam Burgess would be my favoured partnership if Joseph isn't available, although the risks are many and obvious.
That said, most teams run risks somewhere in their selection when facing a team of Australia's quality. They have pace, power and precision. They are very strong at the breakdown and in the air with only faint question marks over their set-piece (the lineout faltering against Fiji) and game management. They can score tries through the forwards and maul, they can score them out wide. They're arguably the most in-form team in rugby right now.
It is up to England to prove they belong in this company and stay in the World Cup.
Tuesday 29 September 2015
Wednesday 23 September 2015
Fight fire with...?
There are many ways to measure a player's importance to a team, but one of the best is to think of what happens if they're not there. This is what's about to happen to England with Jonathan Joseph and the more I think about it, the more I fear we're out that Joseph was just about the most important player we had. The worry about Joseph's well-being started for me when Tuilagi was suspended, increased mildly with the dropping of Daly, then spiked when Burrell followed him.
Then I forgot about it. Then Joseph got injured.
Every man and his dog in the press will tell you that Lancaster's planning a midfield of Burgess and Barritt, with Farrell in at ten. It's quite possible this will be confirmed by the time this post is up, given my writing speed. If this is correct, then England will be drastically changing styles at the last minute, just like Johnson did in 2011. That turned out to be a career defining decision for Johnson and that comparison should tell you where I'm fearing this will go but lets look at this coldly and sanely.
We all know what Wales are bringing. It starts with Jamie Roberts running over the top of someone followed by a similar procession of very big men getting onto the ball in relentless succession until cracks appear. Then they target the crack and try to get one of their speed men through it. Knowing it's about to happen hasn't helped a lot of teams, worn out by the physical collisions and, once upon a time, a scrum led by the might of Adam Jones. The Farrell-Burgess-Barritt unit is very much a case of fight fire with fire. It is the most physical, most anti-Roberts line-up that Lancaster could call on. That's never a bad thing and as someone who has repeatedly pointed to the yards lost by Ford in the tackle, I'd be lying if I said I couldn't see some logic. That said - it's not like we haven't seen Farrell get bounced when going high on a far stronger man. It's even happened to Barritt on occasion. Roberts will not be despairing at the sight of this unit and Gatland will be looking very hard at how to get Burgess to do something stupid in defence.
The real question about the fight fire with fire strategy is what happens when England get the ball in hand and there are weaknesses to all three men selected. The biggest weakness with Farrell is that he's a disruptive selection. Ben Youngs is by now quite used to his ex-Leicester team mate; he hasn't started with Farrell for about two years. Burgess is used to Ford from Bath, but has only started once with Farrell for England. Everything will be that little bit more tentative before we even consider his less assured touch in the role. I've mellowed on Farrell, even if others have become harder on him; he has worked very hard to become an international fly-half. He's developed a running game and has a better range of short passing. He's not as good at either as Ford, but that is forgiveable. Where the difference tells, for me, is what happens when Farrell runs out of instructions. He doesn't look like a natural fly-half at such times. Execute a detailed game plan, yes; produce on the hoof, no. That is part of the reason why he's looked better with a second distributor outside him for England.
He won't have that advantage against Wales. In fact, he'll be so deprived of it, I'm half expected the UN to intervene. The Bosh Brothers (as they're now renamed) will pass, but there is no guarantee of the recipient getting any space to work with. That is a straight-up huge issue for a team whose strongest suit in recent times has been the back three. Wales tend to pick a pretty physical pair of wingers, comfortable with tight spaces, and an outside-centre with the ability to draw a man and pass; they'll be fine. Jonny May and Anthony Watson are not pretty physical. They do not welcome tight spaces. They'd be well forgiven for looking extremely nonplussed when this team is read out, if it wasn't for the fact it's been leaked so thoroughly that the news has been the source of first contact with hitherto unknown tribes in the Amazon. We don't know their language yet, but we're working on it in the presumption they're asking 'what is that bald bloke thinking?'
I had previously defended Burgess' inclusion in the squad on two grounds. The first, that he was no dodgier than any of our other twelves. The second, he probably wasn't going to play in anything important. I told myself that if used, he would at least be with familiar faces from Bath. How utterly foolish I was. Sam Burgess will undoubtedly produce something of worth in attack. No dramas. The question is what will happen when they run the other way and, well, I might be revising my belief he was no dodgier than any of our other twelves. Yes, Burrell and Twelvetrees have made mistakes in defence, but very rarely have they been lining up the wrong man completely. A missed tackle is better than a tackle never made and Nadolo's line break against England exposed that one cruelly. Burgess had no need to buy that dummy and I don't think most other English centres would have. They might have missed the tackle, but at least they'd have slowed Nadolo down. England didn't concede on that occasion. How many occasions will Wales fashion by targeting Burgess though?
It only takes a try or two from that source to undo all the good work that Brad Barritt will do in defence. At that point England need tries of their own and Barritt becomes something of a liability. He tends to prosper more with the additional space at 13, but he still has one of the worst attacking games of any centre at the World Cup. His presence will pile pressure on both Burgess and the wingers, as it will be up to them. The idea - and I'm not ruling out the possibility of it working - is that Barritt will keep his wayward colleague in line in defence, and be able to rely on him to carry the brunt in attack. If that works, England won't be too badly off although it still isn't ideal. If it goes the other way as I've suggested, then England are quite, quite screwed. Either way, we seem committed to meeting the Welsh midfield head on, which is their area of strength. They've been doing it for longer and they've been doing it better. Even if everything works the way it's meant to, they could still beat us there.
Could anything else have been done? We were still probably committed to one of those two players, but there were other options available to allow us to attack Wales in other areas.
The first and most obvious was Henry Slade, who secured his World Cup slot on the back of his performance playing 13 outside Burgess. A fly-half by youthful training, Slade would hugely increase England's ability to vary the point of attack. It seems likely that the wingers would have been far happier to see him there. He would have also offered another tactical kicking option - and it looks like there might be a lot of kicking - and could have had a go at the penalties from half-way that Farrell doesn't have a realistic hope of slotting. It wouldn't have been a solely attacking measure either. Slade's a lot tougher than his slight frame indicates and he established a mean defensive reputation when shutting down Tuilagi in the Premiership last season. Barritt-Slade would have been defensively stronger and Burgess-Slade stronger in attack for definite than the Bosh Brothers.
The other option also involves a West Country boy: Jack Nowell. He looked pretty useful togging out at 13 for the Chiefs at the end of the season and is by far the most like for like choice to replace Joseph. Fast, powerful for his size, good feet and links well. He might not have played the position enough to be a completely comfortable fit on defence, but if we're expecting Barritt to keep Burgess in line, then doing the same for Nowell would be child's play. The best thing about playing Nowell there is England's attacking patterns would have required very little adjustment. Once again, Nowell would make sense for a day with a lot of kicking - see Joe Schmidt's patented 'every back a full back' unit to see how it works.
You could have even played the two Exeter boys together, although that's a little risky for my blood, particularly with no big wingers for crash ball (my kingdom for Semesa Rokoduguni). You could have slotted Farrell into 12 for ultra-conservative defence and kicking game. There were a lot of options other than Fight Fire With Fire. We could have had an Escape. We didn't need to be Trapped Under Ice. There shouldn't be this disturbing sense of Creeping Death coming up on us; that England are about to Ride the Lightning.
This isn't a definitively match losing selection but I'd have felt a lot more comfortable with the added dimensions and extra defensive security that I think we'd have got from a different unit to the Bosh Brothers. Burgess is going to have to go very well in attack to persuade me I was wrong after the match and I'm really not sure Wales are going to be that susceptible to his straight line running. I've gone from feeling very secure in this match-up, particularly with Wales' godawful luck with injuries, to feeling a bit 50-50. Welsh fans seem a lot more confident now.
To finish on an even grimmer note - if this goes wrong, Lancaster is going to face a lot of hostility. The cries of favouritism and u-turn have already begun, before we even know whether the result justifies the selection. They will only double if he keeps faith with an underperforming pack as well, making Ford a scapegoat. It's certainly not popular; it's dubious whether it's good rugby. Whether this selection is right or wrong, we know Lancaster has made a big mistake, and the question is whether he's fixing the mistake or making the mistake. If he is making a mistake, then England will be half-out of their group, and Lancaster may be finding out For Whom The Bell Tolls.
p.s. This author is in no way ashamed about making so many lame Metallica puns.
Then I forgot about it. Then Joseph got injured.
Every man and his dog in the press will tell you that Lancaster's planning a midfield of Burgess and Barritt, with Farrell in at ten. It's quite possible this will be confirmed by the time this post is up, given my writing speed. If this is correct, then England will be drastically changing styles at the last minute, just like Johnson did in 2011. That turned out to be a career defining decision for Johnson and that comparison should tell you where I'm fearing this will go but lets look at this coldly and sanely.
We all know what Wales are bringing. It starts with Jamie Roberts running over the top of someone followed by a similar procession of very big men getting onto the ball in relentless succession until cracks appear. Then they target the crack and try to get one of their speed men through it. Knowing it's about to happen hasn't helped a lot of teams, worn out by the physical collisions and, once upon a time, a scrum led by the might of Adam Jones. The Farrell-Burgess-Barritt unit is very much a case of fight fire with fire. It is the most physical, most anti-Roberts line-up that Lancaster could call on. That's never a bad thing and as someone who has repeatedly pointed to the yards lost by Ford in the tackle, I'd be lying if I said I couldn't see some logic. That said - it's not like we haven't seen Farrell get bounced when going high on a far stronger man. It's even happened to Barritt on occasion. Roberts will not be despairing at the sight of this unit and Gatland will be looking very hard at how to get Burgess to do something stupid in defence.
The real question about the fight fire with fire strategy is what happens when England get the ball in hand and there are weaknesses to all three men selected. The biggest weakness with Farrell is that he's a disruptive selection. Ben Youngs is by now quite used to his ex-Leicester team mate; he hasn't started with Farrell for about two years. Burgess is used to Ford from Bath, but has only started once with Farrell for England. Everything will be that little bit more tentative before we even consider his less assured touch in the role. I've mellowed on Farrell, even if others have become harder on him; he has worked very hard to become an international fly-half. He's developed a running game and has a better range of short passing. He's not as good at either as Ford, but that is forgiveable. Where the difference tells, for me, is what happens when Farrell runs out of instructions. He doesn't look like a natural fly-half at such times. Execute a detailed game plan, yes; produce on the hoof, no. That is part of the reason why he's looked better with a second distributor outside him for England.
He won't have that advantage against Wales. In fact, he'll be so deprived of it, I'm half expected the UN to intervene. The Bosh Brothers (as they're now renamed) will pass, but there is no guarantee of the recipient getting any space to work with. That is a straight-up huge issue for a team whose strongest suit in recent times has been the back three. Wales tend to pick a pretty physical pair of wingers, comfortable with tight spaces, and an outside-centre with the ability to draw a man and pass; they'll be fine. Jonny May and Anthony Watson are not pretty physical. They do not welcome tight spaces. They'd be well forgiven for looking extremely nonplussed when this team is read out, if it wasn't for the fact it's been leaked so thoroughly that the news has been the source of first contact with hitherto unknown tribes in the Amazon. We don't know their language yet, but we're working on it in the presumption they're asking 'what is that bald bloke thinking?'
I had previously defended Burgess' inclusion in the squad on two grounds. The first, that he was no dodgier than any of our other twelves. The second, he probably wasn't going to play in anything important. I told myself that if used, he would at least be with familiar faces from Bath. How utterly foolish I was. Sam Burgess will undoubtedly produce something of worth in attack. No dramas. The question is what will happen when they run the other way and, well, I might be revising my belief he was no dodgier than any of our other twelves. Yes, Burrell and Twelvetrees have made mistakes in defence, but very rarely have they been lining up the wrong man completely. A missed tackle is better than a tackle never made and Nadolo's line break against England exposed that one cruelly. Burgess had no need to buy that dummy and I don't think most other English centres would have. They might have missed the tackle, but at least they'd have slowed Nadolo down. England didn't concede on that occasion. How many occasions will Wales fashion by targeting Burgess though?
It only takes a try or two from that source to undo all the good work that Brad Barritt will do in defence. At that point England need tries of their own and Barritt becomes something of a liability. He tends to prosper more with the additional space at 13, but he still has one of the worst attacking games of any centre at the World Cup. His presence will pile pressure on both Burgess and the wingers, as it will be up to them. The idea - and I'm not ruling out the possibility of it working - is that Barritt will keep his wayward colleague in line in defence, and be able to rely on him to carry the brunt in attack. If that works, England won't be too badly off although it still isn't ideal. If it goes the other way as I've suggested, then England are quite, quite screwed. Either way, we seem committed to meeting the Welsh midfield head on, which is their area of strength. They've been doing it for longer and they've been doing it better. Even if everything works the way it's meant to, they could still beat us there.
Could anything else have been done? We were still probably committed to one of those two players, but there were other options available to allow us to attack Wales in other areas.
The first and most obvious was Henry Slade, who secured his World Cup slot on the back of his performance playing 13 outside Burgess. A fly-half by youthful training, Slade would hugely increase England's ability to vary the point of attack. It seems likely that the wingers would have been far happier to see him there. He would have also offered another tactical kicking option - and it looks like there might be a lot of kicking - and could have had a go at the penalties from half-way that Farrell doesn't have a realistic hope of slotting. It wouldn't have been a solely attacking measure either. Slade's a lot tougher than his slight frame indicates and he established a mean defensive reputation when shutting down Tuilagi in the Premiership last season. Barritt-Slade would have been defensively stronger and Burgess-Slade stronger in attack for definite than the Bosh Brothers.
The other option also involves a West Country boy: Jack Nowell. He looked pretty useful togging out at 13 for the Chiefs at the end of the season and is by far the most like for like choice to replace Joseph. Fast, powerful for his size, good feet and links well. He might not have played the position enough to be a completely comfortable fit on defence, but if we're expecting Barritt to keep Burgess in line, then doing the same for Nowell would be child's play. The best thing about playing Nowell there is England's attacking patterns would have required very little adjustment. Once again, Nowell would make sense for a day with a lot of kicking - see Joe Schmidt's patented 'every back a full back' unit to see how it works.
You could have even played the two Exeter boys together, although that's a little risky for my blood, particularly with no big wingers for crash ball (my kingdom for Semesa Rokoduguni). You could have slotted Farrell into 12 for ultra-conservative defence and kicking game. There were a lot of options other than Fight Fire With Fire. We could have had an Escape. We didn't need to be Trapped Under Ice. There shouldn't be this disturbing sense of Creeping Death coming up on us; that England are about to Ride the Lightning.
This isn't a definitively match losing selection but I'd have felt a lot more comfortable with the added dimensions and extra defensive security that I think we'd have got from a different unit to the Bosh Brothers. Burgess is going to have to go very well in attack to persuade me I was wrong after the match and I'm really not sure Wales are going to be that susceptible to his straight line running. I've gone from feeling very secure in this match-up, particularly with Wales' godawful luck with injuries, to feeling a bit 50-50. Welsh fans seem a lot more confident now.
To finish on an even grimmer note - if this goes wrong, Lancaster is going to face a lot of hostility. The cries of favouritism and u-turn have already begun, before we even know whether the result justifies the selection. They will only double if he keeps faith with an underperforming pack as well, making Ford a scapegoat. It's certainly not popular; it's dubious whether it's good rugby. Whether this selection is right or wrong, we know Lancaster has made a big mistake, and the question is whether he's fixing the mistake or making the mistake. If he is making a mistake, then England will be half-out of their group, and Lancaster may be finding out For Whom The Bell Tolls.
p.s. This author is in no way ashamed about making so many lame Metallica puns.
Tuesday 22 September 2015
The Bravest Of Blossoms
I work in an office where conversation is mostly dominated by blaming others, hatred of our environment, and football. I am fairly sure I was only hired to give the other Crystal Palace fan someone to talk to. I can count the number of informative conversations I've had about rugby there on Oscar Pistorius' toes. Yet the first thing I heard when walking in on Saturday night was an excited conversation about the Japan - South Africa game. I had a long email chain with a friend about just how pumped up he was from watching it. There was a level of general enthusiasm about rugby that I don't always see at my rugby club.
Up until that point, it didn't feel like the Rugby World Cup had grabbed people's attention. There weren't many ads, I didn't hear people talk about it, media coverage was uneven. It feels different now. It feels like Japan has grabbed England's attention.It certainly grabbed my Facebook feed. Given most of my friendships were made at one of a grammar school, a rugby club, or the Officer Training Corps, that's not that surprising, but it backs up the general feeling I'm getting from the media, forums, everyday conversations.
The RFU constantly talks about legacy - the hope that this World Cup will somehow provide the Big Bang that makes rugby big. Maybe even football big. Provide a second 2003, since they didn't really capture the momentum from the first one. You hear it from World Rugby too - the desire to capture more of the globe, get more of the world involved. Japan just gave both bodies the biggest gift it could have hoped for. Even if the history isn't as readily appreciable to those less involved in the game, the drama cut through all barriers. How can you not love a team that backs itself so readily?
It's a flagship game. If you're talking to someone who doesn't like rugby union, point them to the last twenty minutes of it and if they don't feel something positive watching it, then, well, there's just no hope for some people. It's dramatic, it's poignant, it's immensely entertaining - and it's not just the British Empire Old Boys club either. It might not have grabbed the world's attention - Americans seem oblivious based on my limited polling, but then that's easy when you're country is the size of a continent, with MAAR's new foreign correspondent reporting they weren't 'even aware of the pig thing until I started going round telling people "David Cameron fucked a pig!"' Now he has something more interesting to talk about.
What does it mean for Japan itself? They have the professional infrastructure and the funding to be as good as anyone; the decision to award them the next World Cup echoes that. This isn't like the Pacific Islands, forever hamstrung by populations that don't even break into the millions. Their professional game is in ruder health than about half of Tier One by some standards. Yet, eye-catching as this victory was, they couldn't beat any of the Pacific Islands in the summer, with their only victory in the Pacific Nations Cup coming against Canada. The Japanese game needs more of something and what that something is, I don't know. I don't think many people know. Japanese rugby is a surprisingly big fish in our little pond but one that rarely attracts much attention, which says everything we need to know about Japanese rugby to date.
Japan have made history with this result. Hopefully we will look back and see it as even more historic than it now seems.
Up until that point, it didn't feel like the Rugby World Cup had grabbed people's attention. There weren't many ads, I didn't hear people talk about it, media coverage was uneven. It feels different now. It feels like Japan has grabbed England's attention.It certainly grabbed my Facebook feed. Given most of my friendships were made at one of a grammar school, a rugby club, or the Officer Training Corps, that's not that surprising, but it backs up the general feeling I'm getting from the media, forums, everyday conversations.
The RFU constantly talks about legacy - the hope that this World Cup will somehow provide the Big Bang that makes rugby big. Maybe even football big. Provide a second 2003, since they didn't really capture the momentum from the first one. You hear it from World Rugby too - the desire to capture more of the globe, get more of the world involved. Japan just gave both bodies the biggest gift it could have hoped for. Even if the history isn't as readily appreciable to those less involved in the game, the drama cut through all barriers. How can you not love a team that backs itself so readily?
It's a flagship game. If you're talking to someone who doesn't like rugby union, point them to the last twenty minutes of it and if they don't feel something positive watching it, then, well, there's just no hope for some people. It's dramatic, it's poignant, it's immensely entertaining - and it's not just the British Empire Old Boys club either. It might not have grabbed the world's attention - Americans seem oblivious based on my limited polling, but then that's easy when you're country is the size of a continent, with MAAR's new foreign correspondent reporting they weren't 'even aware of the pig thing until I started going round telling people "David Cameron fucked a pig!"' Now he has something more interesting to talk about.
What does it mean for Japan itself? They have the professional infrastructure and the funding to be as good as anyone; the decision to award them the next World Cup echoes that. This isn't like the Pacific Islands, forever hamstrung by populations that don't even break into the millions. Their professional game is in ruder health than about half of Tier One by some standards. Yet, eye-catching as this victory was, they couldn't beat any of the Pacific Islands in the summer, with their only victory in the Pacific Nations Cup coming against Canada. The Japanese game needs more of something and what that something is, I don't know. I don't think many people know. Japanese rugby is a surprisingly big fish in our little pond but one that rarely attracts much attention, which says everything we need to know about Japanese rugby to date.
Japan have made history with this result. Hopefully we will look back and see it as even more historic than it now seems.
Tuesday 8 September 2015
Weekend Round-Up
Given a full weekend of international action, I only watched one match, and that was Ulster vs Ospreys. Apparently I value sleep over watching England play. Anyway, I mention the Ulster match as before that game, most of Ulster's support was showing distinct signs of anxiety following a very casual couple of warm-ups. Ulster then went on to roflstomp the poor Ospreys and now all is well. The moral of this story is 'think very hard before assigning importance to warm-ups'.
So in that spirit, I will now proceed to talk about games I didn't even see.
From everything I've read, it doesn't sound like Ireland pushed England too hard. The moral importance of this game as a launchpad will be talked up but as a guide of what to expect, it remains a little shaky. It's like John Wanamaker nearly said: half the analysis I spend on warm-ups is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half. The three things I have been more interested in reading about after the game are the things where I think this is the most accurate guide we've got. They are:
Going back to England's opponents from the other day now and I doubt the Irish camp will be as upset as some of their fans seem to be. They have longer to wait for a difficult match than just about anyone else and not only does that give them plenty of time to get things right, it also means they don't want to be completely right just now. If they peak now, they risk being too tired come the big games at the end (assuming they get there). Yes, they might be making a mistake with their build-up - or they might still be the same beast that has strangled the life out of the majority of its opponents over the last twelve months. My bet would be that the coach who masterminded the latter is too canny to be caught doing the former.
That leaves one member of the Home Nations unconsidered - Scotland - and they will be kicking themselves after they snatched another defeat from the jaws of victory. Their propensity for doing so makes them ideal quarter-final opponents for England, assuming everything goes right, but I'm too cynical to leave it there. After all, Scotland do have some serious talent, and the last two World Cups have seen a team step up big style. In Vern Cotter they have their best coach since people liked Tony Blair, if not longer, and he clearly has a plan for his new charges, and I don't mean just "replace all of the Scots with better rugby players", although that does seem to be part of it. It seems a little early for his plans to come to fruition, but then it always does until it happens. It's to be quite devoutly hoped that, when push comes to shove, the main thing Cotter brings from his Clermont days is the ability to lose the majority of important games.
In other news, most of Europe's major club competitions are now underway, except for the Aviva Premiership. This is a serious relief to me. Some people don't like the leagues playing at these times because they feel the fans get short changed but me, I actively enjoy it. Yes, I'm no longer watching the best vs the best, but that's actually a bit of a benefit. Those games often have something of a predictable feeling to them. Everyone knows what a full strength Saracens or Bath are going to do. That's not something you can say when Ulster put out a reserve back three player at fly-half and hand goal kicking duties to their bosh inside-centre. I don't want that experience all the time, but every now and again, it's really good.
As it happens, as an Ulster fan, I was immensely happy with how that combination went down. In particular, I would like to take the opportunity to gush about said bosh inside-centre, Stuart McCloskey. It's doing him a bit of a disservice to call him a bosh player, actually. Yes, he is rather powerful - just see here:
But he also plays like a genuine centre. He looks for space, he looks for offloads, he can pass and kick and the rest of it. He just happens to be the same size as the average blindside flanker at the same time. It is a potent combination and a lot of people seem to be tentatively pencilling him in for Ireland in the near future as a result. The interesting part for most people (other than dat hand-off - goodbye poor Welshman) is how he developed - after all, everyone wants a genuinely skilled old school centre who just happens to be the same size as Stonehenge. McCloskey's school days were spent as a scrum-half prior to what must have been the mother of all growth spurts. Imagine what they must have spent feeding him at that point! Mrs McCloskey's weekly shop is not the point here though. The point is that in an era when many of England's groomed from birth superstars seem to have embarassing gaps in their skillsets, and most of the AP's most devastating carriers didn't come through England's academies, it does offer food for thought. No answers yet though. In any case, if McCloskey does keep on developing like this, he'll be one to follow for rugby fans everywhere.
Aside from the Pro 12, we also have the French leagues, and the Championship. I guess calling the Championship a major league is stretching it a little, but it is probably one of the top five leagues in Europe and will be minus a few players over the World Cup. The big loser there is, unsuprisingly, Bristol. In fact, Bristol are the main reason I'm bringing up the Championship. I don't follow the Championship that well, because I'm not too familiar with the teams, but most rugby fans are familiar with Bristol and just how much absurdly bigger than the rest of the Championship they are. Right now, the Championship is like watching an 800lb gorilla smashing itself against the walls of its cage, while all the other inhabitants slip through the bars. It's kind of funny, in a mean way, but at some point the joke will get thin, particularly for the residents of Bristol. It would be great if Bristol could stop Clermonting it up and get promoted before that point, as they do have a lot to add to English rugby. For now though, the joke remains funny, particularly if you're Bedford, who beat Bristol in this first round of the season. That might just be the only time Bristol lose this season though - until the next play-offs.
And that's everything remotely interesting I have to say.
So in that spirit, I will now proceed to talk about games I didn't even see.
From everything I've read, it doesn't sound like Ireland pushed England too hard. The moral importance of this game as a launchpad will be talked up but as a guide of what to expect, it remains a little shaky. It's like John Wanamaker nearly said: half the analysis I spend on warm-ups is wasted, the trouble is I don't know which half. The three things I have been more interested in reading about after the game are the things where I think this is the most accurate guide we've got. They are:
- Is Ben Morgan fit?
- Did we look like shaking off the self-inflicted wounds in the set-piece, discipline and finishing areas?
- How did the centre pairing we've never seen before go?
- Getting there. This is important to me as I believe him to be quite comfortably England's best ball carrier.
- 100pc in the lineout and only six penalties conceded - good. Losing two of your own scrums and only two tries off of 9 line breaks and 55pc of the territory - not good.
- Seems to be an area of contention. Since I didn't see it, I will hold my peace here, but the whole situation makes me nervous.
Going back to England's opponents from the other day now and I doubt the Irish camp will be as upset as some of their fans seem to be. They have longer to wait for a difficult match than just about anyone else and not only does that give them plenty of time to get things right, it also means they don't want to be completely right just now. If they peak now, they risk being too tired come the big games at the end (assuming they get there). Yes, they might be making a mistake with their build-up - or they might still be the same beast that has strangled the life out of the majority of its opponents over the last twelve months. My bet would be that the coach who masterminded the latter is too canny to be caught doing the former.
That leaves one member of the Home Nations unconsidered - Scotland - and they will be kicking themselves after they snatched another defeat from the jaws of victory. Their propensity for doing so makes them ideal quarter-final opponents for England, assuming everything goes right, but I'm too cynical to leave it there. After all, Scotland do have some serious talent, and the last two World Cups have seen a team step up big style. In Vern Cotter they have their best coach since people liked Tony Blair, if not longer, and he clearly has a plan for his new charges, and I don't mean just "replace all of the Scots with better rugby players", although that does seem to be part of it. It seems a little early for his plans to come to fruition, but then it always does until it happens. It's to be quite devoutly hoped that, when push comes to shove, the main thing Cotter brings from his Clermont days is the ability to lose the majority of important games.
In other news, most of Europe's major club competitions are now underway, except for the Aviva Premiership. This is a serious relief to me. Some people don't like the leagues playing at these times because they feel the fans get short changed but me, I actively enjoy it. Yes, I'm no longer watching the best vs the best, but that's actually a bit of a benefit. Those games often have something of a predictable feeling to them. Everyone knows what a full strength Saracens or Bath are going to do. That's not something you can say when Ulster put out a reserve back three player at fly-half and hand goal kicking duties to their bosh inside-centre. I don't want that experience all the time, but every now and again, it's really good.
As it happens, as an Ulster fan, I was immensely happy with how that combination went down. In particular, I would like to take the opportunity to gush about said bosh inside-centre, Stuart McCloskey. It's doing him a bit of a disservice to call him a bosh player, actually. Yes, he is rather powerful - just see here:
But he also plays like a genuine centre. He looks for space, he looks for offloads, he can pass and kick and the rest of it. He just happens to be the same size as the average blindside flanker at the same time. It is a potent combination and a lot of people seem to be tentatively pencilling him in for Ireland in the near future as a result. The interesting part for most people (other than dat hand-off - goodbye poor Welshman) is how he developed - after all, everyone wants a genuinely skilled old school centre who just happens to be the same size as Stonehenge. McCloskey's school days were spent as a scrum-half prior to what must have been the mother of all growth spurts. Imagine what they must have spent feeding him at that point! Mrs McCloskey's weekly shop is not the point here though. The point is that in an era when many of England's groomed from birth superstars seem to have embarassing gaps in their skillsets, and most of the AP's most devastating carriers didn't come through England's academies, it does offer food for thought. No answers yet though. In any case, if McCloskey does keep on developing like this, he'll be one to follow for rugby fans everywhere.
Aside from the Pro 12, we also have the French leagues, and the Championship. I guess calling the Championship a major league is stretching it a little, but it is probably one of the top five leagues in Europe and will be minus a few players over the World Cup. The big loser there is, unsuprisingly, Bristol. In fact, Bristol are the main reason I'm bringing up the Championship. I don't follow the Championship that well, because I'm not too familiar with the teams, but most rugby fans are familiar with Bristol and just how much absurdly bigger than the rest of the Championship they are. Right now, the Championship is like watching an 800lb gorilla smashing itself against the walls of its cage, while all the other inhabitants slip through the bars. It's kind of funny, in a mean way, but at some point the joke will get thin, particularly for the residents of Bristol. It would be great if Bristol could stop Clermonting it up and get promoted before that point, as they do have a lot to add to English rugby. For now though, the joke remains funny, particularly if you're Bedford, who beat Bristol in this first round of the season. That might just be the only time Bristol lose this season though - until the next play-offs.
And that's everything remotely interesting I have to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)