In the past week or so we have seen Owen Franks go uncited for what appears to be an eye gouge on Kane Douglas in the Bledisloe Cup. We have also seen Cillian Willis start legal proceedings against former club Sale for alleged clinical negligence over a career ending concussion. Two very different cases about how the game goes off the field but with a common link. The common link is trust.
There has been a huge amount of disbelief over the Franks non-citing. Of course there is. The video here (complete with music to let you know how evil Franks is) looks very much to me like contact was made with the eye and that Franks was looking to do so. I'm not a hundred per cent certain that's a gouge but based on that angle, its reckless contact with the eye area, an offence that usually results in eight or so weeks off.
The magic words in the last sentence though were 'based on that angle'. We've all seen the cameras tell us one thing from one angle and another from another. You'd like to think SANZAR have more camera angles than just two to work with. Maybe on one of them there was clearly no case to answer. Certainly Poite had a fantastic view of the incident (as Kiwi fans keep telling me) and felt no need to even penalise Franks.
Once again though, we've all seen the ref stare directly at a big decision and get it wrong according to the citing committee. As such, I do not trust Poite - or any other ref - to have definitely got that one right. More crucially, I do not trust the SANZAR citing committee.
Why should I? Any rugby fan with a brain has grown wearily accustomed by now to the random nature of the sport's disciplinary process. An offence may garner a ban one week and nothing the next. Complaints of bias and political influence are common place. I say this not to indicate that I believe them but merely to indicate the perceived scale of injustice. Fans often find the calls so bewildering that its easier to believe in conspiracy than it is to believe in incompetence.
If Cillian Willis is to be believed, there's some of that incompetence going around Sale too. According to the BBC report, Willis was twice treated for a head injury in a game with Saracens in March 2013, but was allowed to keep playing.
Given how little we know I'd be hesitant to say Sale have been negligent but in general I support the case. The majority of rugby fans I've talked to have. Again, this is an issue of trust. It is very plausible to us that a professional rugby club have treated an injury with too little caution. There is a never ending litany of stories from the sport of clubs doing so. Often, it should be noted, with the connivance of the players. Players want to play. The buck stops with the club though. It is up to coaches and medical staff to say "You have to come off."
By and large, I don't think fans trust the clubs to do the right thing. Just like they don't trust citing committees to do the right thing. And this is a problem. A lack of trust is corrosive. Sometimes it takes a long time for it to cause problems but usually, sooner or later, it does.
It is up to the various bodies involved whether they want to act on this. Issuing a video of an angle clearing Franks would stop the story dead. Of course, it would introduce a new standard for citing committees where they explain their work properly, with failures to do so being incredibly suspicious, but I think only people on citing committees would see this as a bad thing.
Similarly, Premiership clubs could look at the introduction of independent medical examiners, or just accept that concussion is an issue where erring on the side of caution is safer. Or introduce annual fMRI scans instead of relying on the neurological tests that we all know players cheat. Rugby has improved its stance on concussion but there is a way to go as we can see from this.
Taking such measures would help restore the trust of fans. We will now see whether those involved had any appetite for doing so - or whether they just want to avoid being sued.
Tuesday 30 August 2016
Monday 8 August 2016
A quick look at the provisional EPS backs
SH
Care, Robson, Simpson, Youngs B
One of the biggest causes of bellyaching about the selection to tour Australia was the presence of only two scrum-halves.A great many England fans have run out of patience with the continued flaws in the games of Danny Care and Ben Youngs and consequently were quite disgruntled to see them given the run of the place during the summer. By naming Wasps duo Joe Simpson and Dan Robson to the squad, Eddie Jones is now threatening to end the duopoly that's dominated the England scrum-half shirt for the last six years.
Until we see a match day squad though, it is only a threat. Youngs and Care will look at Simpson and Robson and they will not be terrified. Simpson has always been birds of a feather with Youngs and Care - electrifying break, ramshackle basics. That he has improved recently in the last couple of years is beyond doubt but whether he's now a better choice for England isn't. It is not a coincidence that his upsurge in form has come with Wasps renaissance as a side. Dan Robson too is a beneficiary of this new machine. Everyone thought he had potential at Gloucester but the calls for him to be an international only truly took off at Wasps. He probably has the best combination of passing and kicking out of any English scrum-half in contention but that does not mean he is the complete article. The Saxons' second test in South Africa showed that.
A few political commentators have described their 2015 vote for Corbyn as being "not for the surfer, but the wave". It is an analogy that works well in rugby. The team's form is the wave. The individual player is the surfer. All four scrum-halves have put in some fantastic performances at every level they've played but, as is perhaps traditional for the position, have form for going badly missing when things get a bit messy. They are surfers, utterly dependent on the team to make the wave for them. For a player to beat the Youngs/Care duopoly, they will have to prove they are more. Simpson probably isn't. Robson maybe will be. Until someone improves on them it will be the same old story - England winning most of their matches, the scrum-halves vilified as inadequate. There are worse places to be.
FH
Farrell, Ford
From one big complaint of the summer to another - the lack of Cipriani.
Look, there isn't a lot to be said about Ford and Farrell at this point. We know what we're getting, even if there are disagreements on what exactly that is. There have been some very big criticisms of both players (guilty as charged here) but they are both definitely capable enough. The main question therefore is what happens if one or both were to get injured.
Currently the squad suggests the plan is Henry Slade. His professional rugby experience to date is mostly in the centre. He has done enough at fly-half to suggest he could be a future international there but it would be a very brave man who played someone with his limited experience as their third choice fly-half. This 45 man squad seemingly only has two fly-halves.
So why not Cipriani? If not him, then why not Freddie Burns, who was back to his best for Leicester prior to getting injured. They are both international class fly-halves; its not like they'd be including a no-hoper just to make the numbers up. It seems likely Jones is very deliberately focusing everything on Ford and Farrell, but would having a third fly-half around really be such a distraction? Is having that extra forward around really worth the risk that we'll thrust out an unprepared player should both fly-halves get injured? The chances of that happening are small, but not so small as to be completely ignored.
The decision to omit Cipriani (or like player) is confusing. Hopefully it will not be damaging.
C
Daly, Farrell, Joseph, Marchant, Slade, Te'o, Tuilagi
This is a lot of centres.
The easiest to comment on are the speedsters. Joseph has the shirt, Daly deserves a crack at it, Marchant is a very exciting prospect for the future. The only real note of interest here is that the presence of Marchant would seem to indicate Jones has committed fully to the idea of a speedster at outside-centre.
The question mark is over inside-centre. Farrell has the shirt. There is no pressing "move or lose" reason for him not to have it. Plenty of good reasons, but nothing argument clinching. The presence of Henry Slade says a playmaking centre is more than a convenience. But playmaking is the second last word we'd associate with Tuilagi and Te'o, coming right after small.
Does Jones know how best to use these centres? Was Burrell's first test start a reflection on Jones' desire for physicality or a temporary loss of faith in Ford? Tuilagi didn't make the tour, Te'o missed training days before the first test due to injury. Would things have been different if they'd started that first test? Eight tests in and it feels like England are still somewhat in flux in this position. How does this end?
The most likely answer for now seems to be Farrell at 12 with Te'o or Tuilagi on the bench. Such a move would give England a lot of flexibility and a difficult to cope with Plan B. You could easily reverse that and have the big man start too. But what if Jones continues his love affair with the 6-2 bench? You could cover the whole back-line with only one centre but a back three man seems more likely.
In summation, the selection seems reminiscent of Lancaster's days. An awful lot of possible answers for playing in the centres but very little certainty and very little appetite to test them. Hopefully the situation will start to resolve itself in the autumn.
WI
May, Nowell, Rokoduguni, Watson, Yarde
Not a good EPS if your name began with C. Ashton has dropped from EPS to Saxons to potentially not involved at all in just a few short months. Its a bit early to say anything definite about whether he's done but it would no longer be a surprise. Similarly, if Wade never gets a chance to show his skills on the biggest stage it will be a crying shame, but no longer a shock.
That cannot be stated with absolute confidence as all the players named have something of the curate's egg to them. The four of them not named Semesa Rokoduguni have all shown top drawer attacking ability and considerable defensive weaknesses. Its always a struggle to defend a wing once the opposition have created space and numbers, but Watson and Nowell made it look particularly hard this summer. May is usually good in those situations but has not always completed his tackles. Marland Yarde possibly combines the worst of both worlds.
Rokoduguni - arguably the most dangerous of the five at Premiership level - has had less chances at international level. One of them in fact. That time he was very solid in defence and forgotten about in attack. He could be the best of them but at the age of 28, Jones is unlikely to be patient with him. It happens very soon or not at all.
Wing is a position waiting for talented players to add that extra 10% and nail down the shirt. Watson has come closest and will almost certainly start this autumn, but an indifferent summer has hauled him back a little. However, while we wait for the perfect player, there is at least plenty of pace and power to be going on with. Cast your mind back to the time of Cueto, and reflect just how much worse it could be.
FB
Brown, Goode, Haley
Last but not least, the full-backs.
A considerable number of England fans would like Mike Brown dropped. The steady flow of small mistakes is eroding trust and concentrating attention on the flaws in his game. His lack of pace and linking play are both held up on these occasions. His strengths - the ability to make ground and contribute to try scoring chances - are often overlooked.
The problem with replacing Brown is every player must be replaced by someone better and Alex Goode has never shown himself to be that man. Maybe the times have a-changed and... well, maybe not. There's a lot of words on Alex Goode on this blog. More seem unnecessary until such time as Goode is on a pitch in an England shirt.
So if neither are happy* options - which may be an overstatement, particularly concerning Brown - then who? Anthony Watson? There's an interesting case to be made there but Mike Haley might be about to put a spanner in the works there. He backed up a strong season for Sale with an outstanding first test for the Saxons in South Africa before getting injured early in the second. He has shown every desirable trait at least in glimpses - pace, elusiveness, kicking, taking the high ball, linking - and at the age of 22, is still improving. With it possibly preferable to keep Watson's finishing ability out wide and few other young Englishmen getting regular time in the position, there is a window of opportunity opening if Haley is good enough to take advantage of it. We will see how highly Jones rates him but right now, Haley looks like to be one of the most exciting players in the EPS.
*It must be conceded that happy is very rarely a good adjective to use in connection with Mike Brown.
Care, Robson, Simpson, Youngs B
One of the biggest causes of bellyaching about the selection to tour Australia was the presence of only two scrum-halves.A great many England fans have run out of patience with the continued flaws in the games of Danny Care and Ben Youngs and consequently were quite disgruntled to see them given the run of the place during the summer. By naming Wasps duo Joe Simpson and Dan Robson to the squad, Eddie Jones is now threatening to end the duopoly that's dominated the England scrum-half shirt for the last six years.
Until we see a match day squad though, it is only a threat. Youngs and Care will look at Simpson and Robson and they will not be terrified. Simpson has always been birds of a feather with Youngs and Care - electrifying break, ramshackle basics. That he has improved recently in the last couple of years is beyond doubt but whether he's now a better choice for England isn't. It is not a coincidence that his upsurge in form has come with Wasps renaissance as a side. Dan Robson too is a beneficiary of this new machine. Everyone thought he had potential at Gloucester but the calls for him to be an international only truly took off at Wasps. He probably has the best combination of passing and kicking out of any English scrum-half in contention but that does not mean he is the complete article. The Saxons' second test in South Africa showed that.
A few political commentators have described their 2015 vote for Corbyn as being "not for the surfer, but the wave". It is an analogy that works well in rugby. The team's form is the wave. The individual player is the surfer. All four scrum-halves have put in some fantastic performances at every level they've played but, as is perhaps traditional for the position, have form for going badly missing when things get a bit messy. They are surfers, utterly dependent on the team to make the wave for them. For a player to beat the Youngs/Care duopoly, they will have to prove they are more. Simpson probably isn't. Robson maybe will be. Until someone improves on them it will be the same old story - England winning most of their matches, the scrum-halves vilified as inadequate. There are worse places to be.
FH
Farrell, Ford
From one big complaint of the summer to another - the lack of Cipriani.
Look, there isn't a lot to be said about Ford and Farrell at this point. We know what we're getting, even if there are disagreements on what exactly that is. There have been some very big criticisms of both players (guilty as charged here) but they are both definitely capable enough. The main question therefore is what happens if one or both were to get injured.
Currently the squad suggests the plan is Henry Slade. His professional rugby experience to date is mostly in the centre. He has done enough at fly-half to suggest he could be a future international there but it would be a very brave man who played someone with his limited experience as their third choice fly-half. This 45 man squad seemingly only has two fly-halves.
So why not Cipriani? If not him, then why not Freddie Burns, who was back to his best for Leicester prior to getting injured. They are both international class fly-halves; its not like they'd be including a no-hoper just to make the numbers up. It seems likely Jones is very deliberately focusing everything on Ford and Farrell, but would having a third fly-half around really be such a distraction? Is having that extra forward around really worth the risk that we'll thrust out an unprepared player should both fly-halves get injured? The chances of that happening are small, but not so small as to be completely ignored.
The decision to omit Cipriani (or like player) is confusing. Hopefully it will not be damaging.
C
Daly, Farrell, Joseph, Marchant, Slade, Te'o, Tuilagi
This is a lot of centres.
The easiest to comment on are the speedsters. Joseph has the shirt, Daly deserves a crack at it, Marchant is a very exciting prospect for the future. The only real note of interest here is that the presence of Marchant would seem to indicate Jones has committed fully to the idea of a speedster at outside-centre.
The question mark is over inside-centre. Farrell has the shirt. There is no pressing "move or lose" reason for him not to have it. Plenty of good reasons, but nothing argument clinching. The presence of Henry Slade says a playmaking centre is more than a convenience. But playmaking is the second last word we'd associate with Tuilagi and Te'o, coming right after small.
Does Jones know how best to use these centres? Was Burrell's first test start a reflection on Jones' desire for physicality or a temporary loss of faith in Ford? Tuilagi didn't make the tour, Te'o missed training days before the first test due to injury. Would things have been different if they'd started that first test? Eight tests in and it feels like England are still somewhat in flux in this position. How does this end?
The most likely answer for now seems to be Farrell at 12 with Te'o or Tuilagi on the bench. Such a move would give England a lot of flexibility and a difficult to cope with Plan B. You could easily reverse that and have the big man start too. But what if Jones continues his love affair with the 6-2 bench? You could cover the whole back-line with only one centre but a back three man seems more likely.
In summation, the selection seems reminiscent of Lancaster's days. An awful lot of possible answers for playing in the centres but very little certainty and very little appetite to test them. Hopefully the situation will start to resolve itself in the autumn.
WI
May, Nowell, Rokoduguni, Watson, Yarde
Not a good EPS if your name began with C. Ashton has dropped from EPS to Saxons to potentially not involved at all in just a few short months. Its a bit early to say anything definite about whether he's done but it would no longer be a surprise. Similarly, if Wade never gets a chance to show his skills on the biggest stage it will be a crying shame, but no longer a shock.
That cannot be stated with absolute confidence as all the players named have something of the curate's egg to them. The four of them not named Semesa Rokoduguni have all shown top drawer attacking ability and considerable defensive weaknesses. Its always a struggle to defend a wing once the opposition have created space and numbers, but Watson and Nowell made it look particularly hard this summer. May is usually good in those situations but has not always completed his tackles. Marland Yarde possibly combines the worst of both worlds.
Rokoduguni - arguably the most dangerous of the five at Premiership level - has had less chances at international level. One of them in fact. That time he was very solid in defence and forgotten about in attack. He could be the best of them but at the age of 28, Jones is unlikely to be patient with him. It happens very soon or not at all.
Wing is a position waiting for talented players to add that extra 10% and nail down the shirt. Watson has come closest and will almost certainly start this autumn, but an indifferent summer has hauled him back a little. However, while we wait for the perfect player, there is at least plenty of pace and power to be going on with. Cast your mind back to the time of Cueto, and reflect just how much worse it could be.
FB
Brown, Goode, Haley
Last but not least, the full-backs.
A considerable number of England fans would like Mike Brown dropped. The steady flow of small mistakes is eroding trust and concentrating attention on the flaws in his game. His lack of pace and linking play are both held up on these occasions. His strengths - the ability to make ground and contribute to try scoring chances - are often overlooked.
The problem with replacing Brown is every player must be replaced by someone better and Alex Goode has never shown himself to be that man. Maybe the times have a-changed and... well, maybe not. There's a lot of words on Alex Goode on this blog. More seem unnecessary until such time as Goode is on a pitch in an England shirt.
So if neither are happy* options - which may be an overstatement, particularly concerning Brown - then who? Anthony Watson? There's an interesting case to be made there but Mike Haley might be about to put a spanner in the works there. He backed up a strong season for Sale with an outstanding first test for the Saxons in South Africa before getting injured early in the second. He has shown every desirable trait at least in glimpses - pace, elusiveness, kicking, taking the high ball, linking - and at the age of 22, is still improving. With it possibly preferable to keep Watson's finishing ability out wide and few other young Englishmen getting regular time in the position, there is a window of opportunity opening if Haley is good enough to take advantage of it. We will see how highly Jones rates him but right now, Haley looks like to be one of the most exciting players in the EPS.
*It must be conceded that happy is very rarely a good adjective to use in connection with Mike Brown.
Thursday 4 August 2016
A quick look at the provisional EPS forwards
LHP
Genge, Marler, Mullan, Vunipola M
It should be noted straight away that this is a provisional squad and that things might change. The anger and approval directed at full squads is rarely proportionate with how much they actually mean at the best of times, nevermind when dealing with a 45 man squad that will be changed anyway.
This is said because the inclusion of four looseheads is slightly odd. Do we need four? If four is the minimum number for the front row, there would be four tightheads too. There are not. Is there any particular reason to have four? Ellis Genge is still incredibly raw. While Uncle Eddie's logic for including him for the future is obvious, it would not have been a sin to put him in England's development squad while he learns his trade with Leicester. He is not likely to burst into the England team anytime soon. Nor, more damningly, is Matt Mullan. He had a chance to dislodge the established order in Australia and certainly could have done more to take it. A squad of 45 means not everyone must be a contender but to have two players in a position that are not smacks of indulgence.
It is possible that the reason for this is continued concern over Joe Marler's mental stability. His decision to stay home from Australia to sort things out in his own head was a wise one, but that does not mean it is the end of the matter. It feels distasteful and futile to speculate too much about a player's mental health so it is best to mention this as a possibility and move on for now. Time will tell where Marler is; if he is at his best, Mullan and Genge will face a big struggle to get into the team.
HK
Cowan-Dickie, George, Hartley, Youngs T
The rescue of the good ship Tom Youngs from the waters of international abandonment must have surprised many, particularly after Tommy Taylor's useful summer in a white jersey. The move should be welcomed for all his noted frailties at the set-piece, Youngs' experience and proven impact in the international arena are too valuable to be thrown lightly away.
Whether he is likely to make the team again anytime soon is another matter. Captain Hartley is currently cemented to his place when fit, although the possibility of another concussion must be in Jones' thoughts after last season. Jamie George has not had much time off of the bench but has used what he has extremely well and the argument that he is England's outright best hooker grows louder and louder.
That leaves Youngs scrapping with Luke Cowan-Dickie, a player in a very similar mould. Their inclusion in the squad ahead of Taylor suggests that Jones' devotion to a rock solid set-piece only goes so far. There are now three outstanding loose players competing for a position here, hinting at Jones' future direction. It seems likely that whoever nails their set-piece duties wins third place behind George but until we see how much Jones likes Tom Youngs, it is hard to be confident on the matter. One thing is sure though; the return of Youngs to contention is a great shot in the arm for depth and competition in the hooker position.
THP
Cole, Hill, Sinckler
In the space of just over a year, Paul Hill and Kyle Sinckler have leapfrogged a long queue of English tightheads for this position. Dave Wilson, Kieron Brookes and Henry Thomas all have reason to believe they can reverse this position. All three currently have greater experience than the men in the EPS (I think, Hill's cap count may not be accurate on wikipedia) and that points directly to the current weakness England possess in the position.
England's first choice tighthead is Dan Cole. England's second choice tighthead is Dan Cole on crutches. There is no competition. There is no plan B that doesn't involve a gamble. That is the current situation.
That is not a criticism of Jones' choice of player. It seems quite likely he has the right of it. Nor is it meant to say that the other players are incapable of challenging Cole at some point in the future, possibly quite soon in the future. It is instead saying that they're currently not at that level of form and/or potential. No one knows for sure when any of them will be.
It is simply a bald statement of fact that as of now, England are very dependent on Dan Cole's continuing form and fitness.
LK
Ewels, Itoje, Kruis, Lawes, Launchbury, (Williams)
Many a word has been written in praise of England's second row power quartet. Joyous as it would be to write more, this is being written in quite a hurry due to the EPS being released quite a few days before, so let us just say the position is strong. Any combination of the four would register as quite acceptable in anyone's team, even New Zealand's.
The interesting decisions then are the two understudies. Neither of Charlie Ewels and Mike Williams are household names nor are they the obvious choices. Indeed, both are at clubs with more vaunted men; Attwood at Bath for Ewels, Slater and Kitchener at Tigers for Williams. The most obvious reason for these choices would seem to be that Jones believes he has the present locked down and is turning to prospects with the highest ceilings to fill out his squad. That seems reasonable but the identity of any development squad locks is now a matter of mild curiosity.
What should be expected of them? Ewels is the classic beanpole lock, although not particularly tall at 6'6". He has been highly thought of all the way through age grade, captaining England U20s, but he did not particularly show that promise on tour in South Africa. Given his age though - he is only 20 - that is not particularly surprising. If he stays as mobile while packing on the muscle, he has a fair chance of being another George Kruis. As for Williams - well, Leicester fans would say he's better discussed below
FL
Evans, Harrison, Haskell, Robshaw, Williams
The situation is reminiscent of that at tighthead; Haskell and Robshaw start unless badly injured. Of course, Haskell is badly injured, so now we must find out what will be done next.
Will Evans is probably not a live option just yet. He is after all, only 19 and 14 stone 4 lbs. His inclusion is a sign of his huge potential but it would be amazing if he replaced Haskell come the autumn.
Mike Williams is unlikely to either, being a definite blindside flanker. Being 24 and over 18 stones, he is physically ready to step in if called upon, but he needs Robshaw to fall over for that. Leicester fans have been very excited with him, so maybe he would be in line if that did happen. Maybe. Its quite possible one of the 8s or locks would benefit instead.
Of course the beneficiary to injury woes could be Teimana Harrison. Yes, he froze down under, but he showed definite signs of promise against Wales and should be stronger for both experiences. He's got aggression, he's got abrasiveness, he's got ability... has he got a future? Time will tell. Still, for now, it is not obvious which of these players would replace Haskell in the autumn. Perhaps none of them.
8
Beaumont, Clifford, Hughes, Vunipola
Apparently Jones has talked about Nathan Hughes as a possible Haskell replacement. And we know Jack Clifford can play openside too, to a certain level. We also know they're both capable of doing quite remarkable things on a rugby field. Likewise Josh Beaumont and,of course, Billy Vunipola.
The competition for England's number 8 shirt is currently quite nominal. Vunipola is the proven man, the rest are possible contenders, and Vunipola has no intention of letting anyone else advance beyond that point. Only the exiled Ben Morgan brings similar levels of experience. At some point though, the others will get chances and they will start to take them and we will have a real battle royale on.
As such, it is possible some of the players will start seeking to demonstrate their versatility. Beaumont, for example, is perfectly capable of playing lock (he is in fact the joint tallest man in this squad). Clifford has played all over the back row and while he needs to up his work rate and breakdown impact to be an England starter, he could well do so. Hughes is the only out and out 8 in the group - even Vunipola's played more elsewhere - but, as noted, Jones is thinking of him as an openside. Why not? He is effective at the breakdown, he is quick, and he is awesomely powerful. As a Haskell substitute, he is the most like for like in the squad. Definitely a case of watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)