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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete