Midland Pests

It has now become apparent that Wasps are very close to sealing a deal to buy Coventry's Ricoh Arena with the intent of moving their games there. It's all been very hush-hush until now and, while that might have been due to commercial imperatives, Wasps must have welcomed the side-effect of avoiding negative opinion and opposition. 

It's not difficult to work out why there might be negative opinion as this move seems utterly idiotic.

Wasps are a west London club. That was confirmed to me every time I spoke to a Wasps fan in London - or even a rugby neutral - about their then mooted move to Brentford and heard hope. Wasps returning home. I'd even been planning to go a few Wasps games if that happened. Some will tell you the move to Wycombe was only ever sold as temporary before finding a London home. Now their club is lining up to tell them they'll be moving even further away.

Meanwhile, there's a large number of Coventry City fans who will be feeling betrayed and hurt if this goes through. The Ricoh, in their eyes, is Coventry's natural ground. To see it handed over to a rugby club from London that doesn't even want to move its training base and players there instead does not sound like the most promising of introductions. Of course, Wasps will mainly be focusing on Coventry's rugby fans. My guess would be there's two kinds of rugby fans in Coventry. There's those who travel to support Northampton, Worcester or Leicester, and who are presumably quite set in their ways. Then there's those who support Coventry, because it's Coventry and they're from Coventry, and Wasps will not be from Coventry. 

One can only presume the Wasps management think it will end out differently. The gods only know why. It's not like they'll even be able to claim they're a proper Coventry club, as apparently they're retaining their London training base. Hi people of Coventry - come and support a bunch of boys from London up here for a day trip! And they certainly wouldn't be a London club, as London clubs play as close to London as possible. You can go out and dress it up better for marketing but that is a difficult and unlovely underlying reality to hide. 

Spare a thought for the players. The commute is probably better than actually moving to Coventry, but no one signed on for that, and you've got to wonder at what point the club would try moving the whole circus there. There are three London clubs who'd probably love to asset strip Wasps if possible. Rumours have it that Saracens are already making overtures to Joe Launchbury, and by rumours I mean Dai Young's said it, who should probably know. Launchbury's wondering whether Wasps are a club with a top 4 future where he can challenge for trophies. If it becomes a tight call, at what point does a schlep up to the Midlands to play in front of an empty stadium enter his thinking?

Of course, while a player might wonder if they've got plans for moving the entire operation up to Coventry at some point, which could be very inconvenient for his family, any new fan in Coventry must wonder whether the retention of a London training base means this too might be temporary 

This could go on and on. There are main potential riffs on the main theme of "Wasps are about to make their club unloved and untrusted" but the owners don't seem to have noticed. Or cared. Or asked. 

And that's pretty shitty.

Here's hoping that it stings them in the arse.

Six Nations 2014: England

This will be Lancaster's third Six Nations as England head coach. It is hard to write anything about his England side without feeling deja vu for so far, the essentials of that side have not truly changed since day one. Since that unlikely, lucky win in the foulest of weather up in Scotland.

Under Lancaster, England have displayed considerable powers of defensive organisation and mental strength. The word incredible might be better; England have racked up a tidy array of wins seemingly by these two qualities alone. When it comes to the art of avoiding defeat by avoiding mistakes, England acknowledge few equals. The same qualities also make England very proficient at forcing such mistakes from their opposition. Their excellence in these areas have been sufficient to deal with a surprising number of teams.

In other areas however, England have looked a long way from excellent, although they do sometimes strain credibility. Place the England team in front of a tight, disciplined defence, give them the ball, and you could be there all day before a try is scored. Which becomes an issue when facing a team composed enough to deal with England's pressure tactics and gifted enough to crack the defence. There isn't a great amount England can do beyond that. The backline in particular has frequently looked more wooden than Keanu Reeves but it should not go unmentioned that the far more vaunted pack has undergone its own set of troubles. Over the past two years it has misfired regularly either at the lineout, the scrum, the breakdown or in terms of ball carrying. It is, in review, a comprehensive gamut of possible errors.

That it, more or less, the pattern of Lancaster's England. Successful when discipline is enough, not when it's not, unable to offer more. There are some outliers - New Zealand seem to bring out our best, there have been a few incidents of minnow trouncing and sometimes the system has failed spectacularly. But the pattern holds and as such, every tournament brings the question of 'Can England break that pattern and move on?' If we are to accomplish Lancaster's goal of winning the World Cup, we have to, and are running out of time to do so.

Lancaster could be forgiven for cursing his luck going into this tournament. There is an extensive injury list, filled with genuinely important players. The absence of Alex Corbisiero is a huge kick to the teeth and although Joe Marler's coninued improvement lessens the blow, he is not at the same level yet in his scrummaging.  Dave Wilson's injury is less newsworthy, but nearly as annoying. Without the Bath tighthead England's resources look very thin. Henry Thomas is a young man of much promise, but he is not here on the back of excellent scrummaging. Until Wilson regains fitness, you would imagine Cole will be played for as long as possible, adding to his already gargantuan workload for club and country. As a platform for attacking rugby, it is not ideal. At least the lineout should function with Hartley at hooker.

The breakdown is a different kettle of fish. Last year, I think, sometime around the Italy game, there was a video with HASK(tm) and Flood going over some of what had gone wrong and right. Numbers at the breakdown was one of the things mentioned with it being acknowledged that England had not sent enough men in. That has been an on and off failing ever since (and was before too) on show as recently as the last Saxons game. You presume they're using the same systems as the senior team. Are we about to see England commit minimum numbers to their own breakdown again? When England undercommit, they get done. There is the mobility and power available to secure the ball, that much is obvious from the most recent New Zealand game, but it is not getting consistently applied. The French may not have Dusautoir but they are still capable of causing major amounts of mischief.

So the platform up front could be shaky. Lancaster will have things to work on in training. Behind the pack, things look very different. The most familiar faces are Danny Care and Owen Farrell, but they are not overly familiar with each other. They have never started a game together before and have racked up less than 140 minutes of gametime as a partnership. The only real continuity in the backline comes in the Farrell-Twelvetrees partnership which has so far notched up five games, including the last three. It seems unlikely that we will see the backline going full tilt as a result.

However, there is nothing new about that. What is new and very laudable, is the danger possessed by each individual player. With the exception of Owen Farrell - and maybe not even that exception - there is no player to which you would wish to offer the gap. Both Burrell and Twelvetrees have power and distribution skills to add to a bit of pace and footwork while the back three is probably the most dangerous fielded by England in a Six Nations game since... since... answers on a postcard please. Nowell is in many ways a similar player to Brown - clever feet, strength and mad determination while Jonny May is just ridiculously fast. This is what many of us have wanted and we should be patient.

So, all in all, it seems unlikely to me that this is the tournament we will see the great step forwards. The platform up front is shakier than one would like and the backline is having to gel together on the job. The half-back partnership is made up of players better known for disappointing fans with their distribution than otherwise. Where we may see a tiny step forwards is that there are more players capable of moments of individual brilliance as the game opens up. Given the pressure England force on teams, seeking to force the game into brief periods of chaos in which they may prosper, this could work out.

But if movement is unsure on England's weaknesses, what then of England's strengths? If Saint-Andre made any prayers towards a choice of opposition for tomorrow, an England backline this callow would have been in his thoughts.  In particular, the centre partnership of Twelvetrees and Burrell looks a little suspect. Burrell started the season as a hard hitter who didn't read the game that well. He's been working on it - but as a 12.  At 13, as the hinge of the defence, things are different. Against them, France will pit Fofana's dancing feet and Bastareud's supersized prop physique, along with the back three popping up where they will. That could end poorly. Judging from the selection of Brad Barritt on the bench, Lancaster also suspects this as a possibility. It is difficult to see a more obvious reason for him being there. If that gap appears, what happens to the team's confidence? Does it affect their discipline? It seems unlikely but it is possible. This backline might just be the gamble of Lancaster's career.

The problems may remain the same but the factors have changed radically. This could be the most interesting Six Nations for England for some time.

Saxons vs Wolfhounds preview

The time just before the start of the Six Nations is always something of a washout in terms of rugby on the television, so thank gods for the continuation of A rugby in some corners of these isles. The A match between England Saxons and Ireland's Wolfhounds has always been an interesting guide to who the coaches might pick next year but are almost certainly going to ignore this year - which I hope isn't true of Anthony Watson.

The Bath youngster has dropped down from the main squad to cover injuries to the Saxons' initial selection of wingers in the best news that Chris Ashton has had since the double injury to Marland Yarde and Christian Wade last autumn. Watson will link up with Charlie Sharples, possibly the world's fastest bald man, and versatile Wasps man Elliot Daly. Not quite as deadly sounding as the originally mooted Varndell-Rokoduguni-Daly unit but still a worrying sight for oppositions anywhere. It does slightly beg the question of what Ashton is still doing in the senior squad when Charlie Sharples is about our ninth choice winger (Yarde, Wade, Nowell, May, Watson, Benjamin, Varndell, Rokoduguni and then Sharples) who is not Chris Ashton. Still, enough of that.

This Saxons team also contains a first taste of senior representative rugby for Exeter's Sam Hill, the powerful centre who has been a mainstay of England's U20s for the last two season, and probably the fastest possible English half-back pairing around in Joe Simpson and Freddie Burns. Also, Matt Hopper at 13. Up front, Tom Mercey reminds me that he exists and is a real person as he continues his pairing with fellow Northampton bencher Alex Waller, with Saracens' in form Jamie George sandwiched in between. Another Saracen, in the form of George Kruis, partners Charlie Matthews while the back row is made up of huge Exeter 8 Dave Ewers, lassie lookalike Luke Wallace, and Calum "Arm Bar" Clarke, arguably the most despised man in English rugby. Good blindside though.

The bench contains U20s prop Scott Wilson, promoted early for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with him being eligible for Scotland, Dave Ward of Quins, and Bath loosehead Nathan Catt in the front row. Glaws tyro Elliot Stooke will celebrate a hugely successful 12 months with his first Saxons cap if he comes - watch out for him, anyone who looks good in the current Glaws pack is made of some stuff - while Northampton's Sam Dickinson covers the back row. Dave Lewis of Exeter returns to Kingsholm as scrum-half cover, former U20 fly-half Henry Slade will be looking to link up with Sam Hill off the bench, and Rob Miller makes up the numbers as back-three cover.

Ireland by contrast look a lot more battle hardened. Loosehead Dave Kilcoyne has international caps and will join Rob Herring, the impressive Ulster reserve hooker, and Martin Moore in the front row. Moore in particular has been good recently and looks halfway to usurping Mike Ross for Leinster. The Ulster combination in the engine room of Dan Tuohy and Iain Henderson can also boast a handy collection of international caps and a very impressive level of athleticism. The back-row of Rhys Ruddock, Tommy O'Donnell and Robin Copeland offers a good mix of skills and size and a metric shit ton of carrying. Experienced scrum-half Isaac Boss will be expected to shackle Simpson when not linking up with Leinster team mate Ian Madigan. Darren Cave forms the third part of an international 9-10-12 axis, although not in his usual position, with Robbie Henshaw preferred at outside centre. He too has international caps, as do the wingers Craig Gilroy and Fergus McFadden, an interesting mix of rapier and bludgeon. I can't remember if Felix Jones has any and if he does, he's not getting many more, but he should do his job nicely.

The bench isn't a great deal kinder. It's a delight to see Richardt Strauss return to competitive rugby after a heart condition forced him to spend most of this season out, but I can't help but wish he'd waited a week. Newly minted international prop Jack McGrath will be licking his lips at the thought of getting his shoulders into Scott Wilson while Stephen Archer looks like he might have stopped being the new Tony Buckley. There's no specialist replacement second row, with naturalised Saffa Robbie Diack and Leinster youngster Jordi Murphy on the bench, but Diack or Copeland could fill in there at a pinch. Behind the scrum they have Kieran Marmion, Ian Keatley and Simon Zebo waiting. Keatley is nothing special, Marmion may be and Zebo is - providing he's properly fit.

So what's going to happen? While the Saxons have home advantage, the Wolfhounds have the advantage in terms of experience. They also arguably have the advantage in form with all but three of the players coming from HEC quarter-finalists. A quick count shows only two players from Saracens and Leicester - not helped by a huge injury list that contains Will Fraser, Graham Kitchener, Jamie Gibson, Miles Benjamin and Matthew Tait. The only caps in the England side are Joe Simpson, Freddie Burns and Charlie Sharples. A lot could rest on the half-back pairing, both to guide this team through, and as attacking weapons in their own right. If the Irish fringe defence is weak, they will shred it like pulled pork. It's not a settled defence, with Cave out of position, Henshaw raw, and none of the three used to each other. Henshaw's positioning in particular will be targeted I think and he'd be well advised to keep an eye on Elliot Daly. The second row is arguably not the best for the set piece, although it was that second row that propelled the Ulster front row near clear out of the back of Leicester's set piece the other day.

However there appear to be more weaknesses in the Saxons. The prospect of Wilson vs McGrath is a worrying one. Matt Hopper is given to the odd stupid decision in defence and Burns is no bastion of strength either. Daly's mastery of the full-back position is about to be given a thorough going over by the Irish love of the garryowen. In the pack, we are arguably a little short of carriers, with a huge amount expected from Dave Ewers. Expect the Irish to line him up (maybe a job for Tuohy and Ruddock). Good luck picking an Irishman to line up; they could all make dents. It could be a long day if our inexperience is exploited in a crucial way.

I am not expecting that, although I am worried about it. The breakdown will be crucial with both sides having a few decent jackals - the clash between Wallace and O'Donnell in particular looks a highlight. Whichever side gets clean ball, they have the attacking players to make the most of it, with Madigan and Burns both alike emerging from the Carlos Spencer Appreciation Society school of fly-half. The English back three packs a potent punch (an unusual sight for us) and if we get the ball up front, victory should be ours. But then isn't that true? I look forwards to finding out.

Saturday 25th 17:00, Kingsholm.

England Saxons15 Elliot Daly (London Wasps) 14 Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby) 13 Matt Hopper (Harlequins)12 Sam Hill (Exeter Chiefs) 11 Charlie Sharples (Gloucester Rugby) 10 Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby) 9 Joe Simpson (London Wasps) 1 Alex Waller (Northampton Saints) 2 Jamie George (Saracens) 3 Tom Mercey (Northampton Saints) 4 Charlie Matthews (Harlequins) 5 George Kruis (Saracens) 6 Calum Clark (Northampton Saints, captain) 7 Luke Wallace (Harlequins) 8 Dave Ewers (Exeter Chiefs)

Replacements
16 Dave Ward (Harlequins) 17 Nathan Catt (Bath Rugby) 18 Scott Wilson (Newcastle Falcons) 19 Elliott Stooke (Gloucester Rugby) 20 Sam Dickinson (Northampton Saints) 21 Dave Lewis (Exeter Chiefs) 22 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs) 23 Rob Miller (Sale Sharks)

Ireland Wolfhounds

15. Felix Jones (Shannon/Munster) 14. Fergus McFadden (Old Belvedere/Leinster) 13. Robbie Henshaw (Buccaneers/Connacht) 12. Darren Cave (Belfast Harlequins/Ulster) 11. Craig Gilroy (Dungannon/Ulster) 10. Ian Madigan (Blackrock College/Leinster) 9. Isaac Boss (Terenure College/Leinster) 1. David Kilcoyne (UL Bohemians/Munster) 2. Rob Herring (Ballynahinch/Ulster) 3. Martin Moore (Lansdowne/Leinster) 4. Iain Henderson (Ballynahinch/Ulster) 5. Dan Tuohy (Ballymena/Ulster) 6. Rhys Ruddock (St. Mary's College/Leinster) (capt) 7. Tommy O'Donnell (UL Bohemians/Munster) 8. Robin Copeland (Cardiff Blues)

Replacements:

16. Richardt Strauss (Old Wesley/Leinster) 17. Jack McGrath (St. Mary's College/Leinster) 18. Stephen Archer (Cork Constitution/Munster) 19. Robbie Diack (Malone/Ulster) 20. Jordi Murphy (Lansdowne/Leinster) 21. Kieran Marmion (Corinthians/Connacht) 22. Ian Keatley (Young Munster/Munster) 23. Simon Zebo (Cork Constitution/Munster)

Two rounds in...

Pool 1

The Pool of Death looks like its produced an early casualty. Ospreys' failure to pick up a single point - not even a losing bonus point at home to Leinster - has surely extinguished any reality of qualification. That away win has left Leinster in the driving seat and it seems unlikely they will be dislodged. The interesting question is how long Castres will retain interest in the tournament as, judging by previous years, the French champions are very quick to send out their reserves and focus on more important matters. If they do, Northampton will be left with two relatively uninterested sides for the final rounds, which may give them a decent shot at at one of the best runners-up finishes. For that to happen though they need to perform against Leinster in the coming back-to-backs. Anything less than five points from those games is probably the end of the road. While Leinster have taken a step back in quality since the successfully defending the trophy, they remain a difficult opponent and will be eager to kill off Northampton's threat to their first place. Getting either the try bonus point at home, or the losing bonus point in Dublin, would be a serious achievement. At the same time, Ospreys will be taking on Castres, and if the Swansea side doesn't roll over they should take points off of them. There is the quality there, even if Gatland will be worried about the form of some of the Welsh stalwarts, and Castres haven't travelled well to date. When that happens, it's likely to take the number of casualties to two, with the real question being whether Northampton makes it three.

Prediction: Leinster should qualify with ease. Northampton can follow them, but it seems more likely they'll only make the Amlin.

Players to watch out for: Jamie Elliot continues to come of age in a reinvigorated Northampton backline, Jack McGrath is making a serious impact when coming on for Cian Healy and hopefully Eli Walker will get a better chance to shine on the wing for Ospreys in the next two rounds.

Pool 2

Cardiff Blues' shock win against Toulon has blown this pool widen open for the moment. Exeter are the biggest beneficiaries, leading the pool after their hammering of Blues and bonus point loss to Glasgow, but with everyone on six or five points it doesn't mean a great deal. Glasgow and Blues will be licking their lips at the prospect of their back-to-back - a double from either side would put them in a great position. That seems more likely for Glasgow, whose hard nosed cohesiveness looks a better bet than Blues' reliance on a handful of Lions, players whose head often looks to be elsewhere. They should be focused for the Heineken Cup though and a home win each looks the most likely outcome. As for Exeter, as cohesive a side as you'll see anywhere right now, the double-header against Toulon is a huge challenge, the stuff of dreams and nightmares alike. Toulon should blow them away, but they are given to sudden, inexplicable bursts of frailty. Exeter do occasionally get blown away by sides with more quality than them but its becoming rarer and rarer. Again, a pair of home wins would surprise no one. Toulon would probably be on top due to bonus points after that but what would happen next is difficult to call. Realistically, with a visit to Toulon to come in the last two rounds, Cardiff need to be well ahead of the pack to get anywhere. That seems quite unlikely and Exeter might be quite pleased to visit them last as desire levels wane. The west country side can realistically target two wins there. A trip to Sandy Park and the visit of Toulon seems less appealing for Glasgow but does leave them with a fighting chance. As for Toulon, the visit of Cardiff should be a ritual sacrifice to revenge, but visiting Scotstoun looks a banana skin. Whatever way it falls, it seems very plausible that the winner and runner-up will bank low points tallies. Drawing Toulon in your home quarter-final? That's what European competition is all about.

Prediction: If I could accurately call this, I would be too busy fleecing bookies to write this. Toulon are the most likely, as bonus point accumulation should see them overcome slip-ups. Realistically, the match ordering probably says no to Exeter, as if they beat Glasgow in Round 5 its difficult to see the Scots doing them a favour by taking down Toulon in Round 6. However, Glasgow themselves could steal through; every match looks winnable for them.

Players to Watch: A good pool for 8s - Robin Copeland of Cardiff and Dave Ewers of Exeter have both won plenty of plaudits. Glasgow's Jonny Gray is still young for a lock, but has the potential to match his older brother Richie.

Pool 3

This pool is now Toulouse's to do with as they will. It's possibly rash to rule out Saracens returning the favour and picking up the away win, and it is certainly the standout tie in Round 5, but Saracens would have to travel a step further than they have ever done to do it. It would be a victory to turn European rugby's head, and I just don't see it happening if Toulouse show up. Yes, Sarries came close at the death in Wembley, but my impression was that they'd done everything they could. In return, Toulouse had been guilty of some stupid rugby and a number of missed kicks. They have another gear left. Mindyou, Farrell missed plenty of kicks as well, any of which would have made a difference. Arguably Toulouse's biggest threat now is Connacht, who have a taste for giant killing and a very unwelcoming climate, tailor-made by God for tripping up better sides. It is not unconceivable that after round 4, Saracens will be sitting pretty after two big wins against Zebre, while Toulouse have tripped up. Which still leaves the question of that trip to the South of France. Realistically, those two games are the group now. Zebre will fight bravely but lack the quality to get anywhere; few Heineken Cup defenders will say they wouldn't be better off in the Amlin. Connacht would need points from visiting Saracens and Toulouse to progress, and either would be the shock of the competition. Toulouse will qualify in some form - 22 points is now a conservative estimate for them. The only question now is whether Saracens will follow them or even take the top spot. At the start of the tournament, it seemed certain they would qualify as best runners up at least. That home loss has cast that into doubt, and Saracens cannot afford any more slip ups.

Prediction: Toulouse should qualify at a canter. Amusingly, it now seems fairly plausible they'd end up seeing Saracens again - Toulouse should get one of the highest group totals and Saracens are still a strong bet for a best runners up slot. However, they need to start picking up plenty of try bonus points for that to happen. 20 points looks a likely total for them. Historically, that's a fairly nervous number to end on.

Players to Watch: Another 8 - Toulouse's blonde roly-poly Gillian Galan made the benching of Picamoles look completely sensible. Connacht's kiwi openside Jake Heenan is adapting to life in Ireland very well, while Saracens lock George Kruis is continuing to build his case as a potential star.

Pool 4

When people described this as a pool of death, I laughed at them, but no one is laughing at the Stoop right now. Visiting Clermont was always a trip for a losing bonus point and little more, but losing at home to Scarlets is simply not good enough for a club of Harlequins' ambition. The exact ins and outs of Harlequins' sudden spiral into shitness would make a blog post all of its own and, while Quins could still win all of their remaining games, Conor O'Shea would probably have to use voodoo for it to happen. Lots of voodoo. Their trip to Paris next round could be one of the games of the contest. Everything rests on it. It should be noted that, for all their money, Racing Metro don't look too hot at the moment. Win that, and anything looks possible. It should be noted that both Racing and Scarlets have their visit to the home of Mandatory Away Defeats to come. Neither side can afford to rest on their laurels if they are to benefit from their strong start. Racing need to keep piling on Quins' misery; a loss in either back-to-back leaves Metro with only three wins at the end. Scarlets have to win at home against Clermont and pray for a strong finish in the last rounds. However, for all that those two sides are currently on top of the group, the real winner from Harlequins' demise is Clermont. Those two home wins are about as safe an assumption as can be. Clermont are not as strong as they were, but they still remain the team to beat in this group. If Quins and Racing can wreck each other's campaigns, then Clermont should breeze on through.

Prediction: Clermont's incredible home record should see them both rule the group and end the hopes of anyone else joining them in the next round.

Players to Watch: Rhys Priestland's return to form could be a massive boost for Welsh rugby. Harlequins lock Charlie Matthews will have a heavy burden placed on his shoulders when he returns to fitness, but he may just be up to it. Bernard le Roux and Alexandre Lapandry, of Racing and Clermont respectively, will be looking to cement their fledgeling international careers with big performances ahead of the Six Nations.

Pool Five

Another potential group of death when drawn, Pool Five has swung Ulster's way after they inflicted Montpellier's first home defeat of the season. The French club, much thought of as dark horses before the tournament, now faces a very uphill struggle indeed. Their third round visit to Welford Road is now a do-or-die mission. They could do it. They have a hugely physical pack, smart half-backs and an exciting back three, but it is far more likely that Cockerill will have worked out how to suffocate them from Ulster's victory. A great match on paper, but Montpellier's hopes are likely to end soon. Treviso's hopes are dead, if they ever were alive, but they remain a difficult opponent who will be looking to take a scalp as a mark of progress. Leicester will hope Ulster trip up in their back-to-back there as, even with just home pride on the line, beating Montpellier away is not an odds-on proposition for the Tigers. So far Leicester are getting what they need without playing particularly well. They do have a long injury list to return but, given the large international contingent the club will send off, it could still get longer. Leicester's chances of qualifying largely rest on how quickly their key men can regain form and fitness and the visit of Ulster to Welford Road. As for Ulster, there are no excuses if they fail to qualify. Their result in Montpellier came from huge defence and excellent tactical discipline, combined with a highly opportunistic and skillful counter-attacking try. The trio of tactical kickers - Jackson, Pienaar and Payne - is now being used as a weapon and Leicester will already be pondering how to deal with them and the kick chase come round six. But then, the group could already be settled by then, if Ulster are clinical and Leicester are not. If it hasn't been, and if both sides hit their peaks, it promises to be a fantastic encounter.

Prediction: Ulster should win this pool now barring a remarkable Leicester resurgence and there is a home quarter-final on the table if they can take it. As for Leicester, if they do the double over Montpellier, a runners-up spot at least opens up, and if they don't it becomes difficult. I'd probably bet against that double.

Players to Watch: Pablo Matera has yet to play for his new club Leicester, but is worth paying attention to if the Rugby Championship is anything to go by. Ulster's Stuart Olding is possibly the least known of the recent batch of youngsters outside the province, and also possibly the best. Finally, Treviso's Alessandro Zanni always struck me as a player who does not get the praise he deserves.

Pool Six

Another tight pool, but once in which Perpignan will be quite pleased by how things are going. That's largely down to Munster's failure to beat Edinburgh away, which surely any eventual group winner will do, but six points from the first two games is a healthy tally in its own right. Perpignan haven't really done much in the past couple of seasons and while they've got a decent team, it's not amazing. A quarter-final appearance would be very welcome, to state the obvious. Perpignan now have Munster back-to-back in what would have been a heavyweight tie four or so years back. Now its a little middle of the road, with Munster getting by more on sheer will than class these days. If either side can win both,games that might be decisive but neither side has an obvious advantage in personnel. Meanwhile, Gloucester can quietly get about the business of stuffing Edinburgh, a team who are not the strongest these days. Two good wins could put them into pole position ahead of the final straight and give them a chance. That's not a given, not when Laidlaw will kick virtually every chance he gets, but its there to be done. There is the talent in Glaws' ranks, assuming their tight five turns up again. If they do, it seems like the group is preparing for a decisive match in the south of France.

Prediction: Perpignan to win it. Possible runners up place for Gloucester if they turn it on, but more likely to be Munster making it into the Amlin.

Players to Watch: Lock Elliot Stooke looks like he might be become a key member of Gloucester's tight five in the next two to three years months, Munster's loosehead James Cronin is beginning to draw quite a lot of hype, and Edinburgh's Matt Scott has occasionally looked very classy at inside-centre.

Something Rotten in the State of Europe

The thing I want most from English rugby is for the international team to bestride the world like a colossus. New Zealand? South Africa? Until we can face those teams without expecting the worst, I will not be fully happy. That is the goal. World Domination.

The next thing I want most is for a healthy, competitive league, a league in which the best teams are feared throughout Europe, and the gameplay is something to really tune in for, not to endure.

That's it really. That would be my mission for English rugby.

As such, I am apprehensive and vexed by PRL's decision to abandon negotiations over a new Heineken Cup, instead setting up a new competition with the French that is "open to teams from other countries". We currently have no more details than that, so I'm not going to get carried away in my criticisms. Right now though, it feels a very risky step.

The Heineken Cup and the Amlin Cup have been great things for European rugby as a whole. It has generated money, it has raised standards and it has been a massive hit with the fans. I've been lucky enough to go to two Heineken Cup finals. The amounts of fans from everywhere, come to enjoy the day out, is huge. What is also huge is the intensity of the games. It is the closest thing to international rugby out there - on its days, its equal. English clubs should be in a tournament of this level, and the English national team benefits from its existence.

What are Mark McCafferty and co proposing to replace it with? The French alone seem to me insufficient to create a top quality competition. They were notorious for their tendency to treat the Heineken Cup as a second class competition, saving their best for the Top 14. I can understand the complaints about the Irish doing the opposite to great effect, but it was far better for the Heineken Cup than the attitude of Castres, to pick one repeat offender. The Heineken Cup as it was might have had the odd total non-hacker who did not pack the gear to serve in our beloved cup (here's looking at you, Aironi/Zebre) but between the variety of opposition, the whole-hearted commitment of most teams and the quality at the sharp end it was still a top quality tournament.

Still, what it might lack in quality, it will - to the English clubs at least - compensate for in terms of a big bag of money. Between the BT deal, and a change to the share of the spoils, the financial rewards are considerable. The numbers are foggy - Jeff Probyn goes over them here - but we appear to be talking about an extra £2m a club. When you see how little largesse PRL intended to give to the Pro 12  - a scant £1m extra compared to the £14m earmarked for both the Premiership and the Top 14 - it is no wonder negotiations have collapsed.

One can only take from those figures that negotiations were intended to fail. That the English and French clubs felt their lion's share of the viewing numbers and abilities to get good TV deals entitled them to help stop funding European rugby. That they wanted to move away from a model controlled by the six unions to something under their control. In the process, they are risking much on the Pro 12 countries falling into line and on the disparity of finance not weakening the fragile domestic games of these countries. Without strong domestic games, their long term viability as elite rugby nations comes into question.

Some will see this as fair. The law of the jungle taking over. The same law says that a predator that grows too big for its habitat to support will fail. How is the England team meant to bring itself up to the levels of New Zealand and South Africa if its Six Nation opposition are of poor quality? What glory is there in conquering Europe, when it is simply us and France? The tallest midget is still a very short man. Is the English rugby market worth as much without the Heineken Cup? This is all very worst case, "Union shrinks to League-esque levels of interest" style scenarios, but they are not beyond imagination, and English and European rugby alike will be damaged if they becoe even partially true. 

To me, rugbywise, a strong Europe is the best vehicle for a strong England. A strong Europe provides us with the competition we need, both as a national team, and as clubs. That's what I want for England. Teams that will challenge us. A strong Europe can generate more interest in Italy, with its relatively unexploited TV market. McCafferty and his friends thought the Heineken Cup wasn't generating the money it should. I can agree. It was a fantastic tournament, more varied and tense than the Super XV for my money, and as global interest in rugby rises it was a tournament where tv rights could have been sold abroad. I don't see the same interest in an Anglo-French tournament.

And now, there is no Heineken Cup to sell. Together, we and the French have strangled the goose that lies the golden egg, and put our own bird in place. How this ends, no one can say, because we don't know what the bird looks like.

This is a very hard state of affairs to be optimistic about.

p.s. Some might raise the issue of qualification. I struggle to believe that has been the real issue at any point.

That the Pro 12 clubs have been free to pick HEC games to target without fear of missing qualification targets in the league is an issue. But it is not a very major one; the Irish powerhouses have been able to cruise cheerfully to both play-off berths and European knockout rugby fairly regularly as it stands and it is doubtful that would have changed much. Besides, most media reports indicate the Pro 12 were willing to cave in on this. Issue? Clearly not the major one.

In fact, the main issue with the HEC being a fair competition, if you ask me, is the French being able to spend so much more. No mention of an European wide salary cap though - and by leaving ERC, the English clubs probably left behind their ability to get such a thing.

England's Central Problem

Ages ago, a friend of mine suggested I write an article about England's centres, and the part they played in the current non-performance of the wingers.

Well, this is that article. Sort of.

At the time (around the Six Nations) the article I would have written would have concentrated on the lack of passing. Whether it was that they couldn't pass, or they wouldn't pass, my feeling was that England's centres basically had no interest in quickly getting the ball to a winger in space. And that is still my feeling. The conclusion would have been either we need to teach them to pass, or pick players who can pass. Twelvetrees would have sprung to mind, followed by a lot of coughing and looking awkward. England's stock of centres is still in the process of being rebuilt. There’s a couple of other names - Anthony Allen, Jonathan Joseph - but the case for them feels a little weak. But now I feel there is a great deal more to it than that. Why aren't they being encouraged to pass the ball more? Why aren't the wingers coming short for offloads more? Or running off the half-backs? Speaking of the half-backs, could they get the ball to the centres quicker? Barritt in particular was left to deal with a lot of slow, crap ball.

And, does it even matter? Cast your mind back to 2011, England's last Six Nations win. The Hape/Tindall combination we used has to stand out as one of the worst distributing centre partnerships ever to play international rugby. But we won the Six Nations. We did it scoring 13 tries, the joint highest total from a winner since 2007. Seven of those tries came from Ashton or Cueto. Is our centres' handling really the issue?

Scoring tries is England's biggest issue right now. England's last two Six Nations recorded five and seven tries respectively, a poor return indeed. If you read Lancaster's latest interview, the following quote is prominent:

“I have got a vision. But it is dictated by what it will take to win. Most sides are the same from a strength and conditioning point of view. There isn’t the drop off in physical condition in the last 20 minutes like you used to get. The second tier nations – Samoa and so on – are as organised defensively, harder to break down. So the difference will be in the point of attack. If we base our game on being in good condition physically and being great defensively I don’t think that will be good enough. It has to be attack."

So, tries. As such I'm going to compare this current England side to 2011, when a very similar looking backline did a great deal better. Because, yes, the centres are failing the wings - but the wings are failing the centres and the half-backs, and the half-backs are failing both. The whole thing doesn't work, so let us look at when it did.

The first thing that jumped out at looking at the stats was at scrum-half. Ben Youngs was scrum-half then and is scrum-half now, but seems a very different player. He seems less decisive, less instinctive. This is unsurprising. When Youngs came onto the scene, he fizzed, and he was very definitely a scrum-half that loved a dart. Well not now. Below are his Kick/Pass/Run stats from ESPN for 2011 and 2013.

Youngs has stopped taking it on himself to anything like the extent he used to. He has gone from running 1 in every 13.86 times to 1 in every 27.88. Instead, he kicks the leather off of the thing, even allowing for the distorting effect of the torrential rain of Dublin 2013. The immediate questions that spring to my mind is "Does this represent him suppressing his natural game, and does that account for why he looks less decisive?" That Youngs running the ball less takes away one of England's more potent weapons and gives support runners less to work with seems obvious. Is this a dictate from above? That too would seem an obvious yes, but if we find Danny Care's stats from his start against Italy in 2013, they read 5/56/6 - very similar to Youngs two years ago. Whatever the reason, if we are to score more tries, it seems obvious we need our scrum-half to run the ball more. And, if Youngs isn't running the ball, why is he playing? His box kicking has improved, but is no thing of beauty. His passing doesn't commend him above the other options either and as noted, his decision making is erratic. 

Looking outside him, and statistically, there's not a lot of change in some senses. Farrell is a bit more likely to kick and a bit less likely to run than Flood, but their K/P/R is fairly similar. Similarly, both Barritt and Hape pass as often they run - something that may surprise their detractors. It certainly surprised me. Indeed, the greedy man is supposed playmaking messiah Billy Twelvetrees, who routinely runs about 75pc of his possession. Where the stats do differ, however, is in terms of yardage. R is Runs, M is Metres Run, and CB is clean breaks - and TT is Twelvetrees.

In terms of simply making yards, Farrell isn't doing badly. But he is far less likely to make a clean break than Flood. The real eye opener is Barritt's stats compared to, well, everyone. Say what you like about Hape - everyone did - but he made ground, and more of it than I remembered. Barritt hasn't. Now, these are just statistics, which take no account for other circumstances, so maybe this isn't his fault. But it doesn't seem to matter which fly-half he plays with for England, and both fly-halves have got good performances out of other inside-centre at this level. And, whatever the reason, it is baldly obvious that England's current favoured 10/12 combo offers far less penetration than Flood and Hape did. Maybe this is due to Youngs not fixing defenders, or the pack not performing - or maybe it's a simple matter of quality. Again, however it's happening, those outside have a great deal less to work with.

Now, it will surprise no one to learn Tuilagi only passed the ball six times in his three Six Nations starts in 2013, with only one offload. In 2011, Tindall and Banahan (yes he did play there for one game) weren't a great deal more interested. In fact, Brad Barritt has been England's greatest passing 13 of recent times, with 15 against Scotland in what was England's biggest try scoring bonanza in the 2011-2013 time period. 2011's version was the game against Italy, the only time in the tournament Tindall made more than 5 passes (7 to be precise). As such, I can confirm the shocking news that scoring tries and the outside centre passing the ball are in fact statistically linked. Just to throw in another example, Tuilagi passed 6 times against New Zealand, to pick out the other try fest. That might not seem much, but it is compared to how much our outside-centre usually passes it. Ok, maybe I should look for a bigger sample base before saying they're statistically linked in general, but they have been recently for England. Still, there's not a great difference between what has been happening in this channel between then and now - a big man ran straight forwards and passed the ball on an intermittent basis. If outside-centre is a problematic area in our try scoring, it is because we have changed our approach to the game.

Out wide, Ashton and Cueto made more more runs in 2011 than Ashton and Brown did in 2013. Ashton's contribution in particular is markedly different; 45 runs in 2011, 36 in 2013; 6 tries in 2011, 1 try in 2013. This is not explained by less passing from outside centre (20 in 2011, 23 in 2013). That Ashton has not had the same level of success with his tracking runs as he did when he first broke through is obvious. Possibly the decreased running presence of our half-backs is to blame here for why Ashton is not getting the ball as much and not scoring the tries he did. It is Ashton's detoriation which has really led to us no longer scoring tries on the wing; Cueto's swansong involved a lot of graft, but not many tries. Replacing him with Mike Brown has not changed a great deal. I'm not going to reproduce Ashton's stats in full, but it is like comparing chalk with cheese or more accurately, a world class winger with a barely international class winger. Reversing or replacing this is vital. Mind you, another possible cause of Ashton's decline is the absence of Ben Foden, with who Ashton had a very useful understanding in 2011, and who was a generally better attacking player than Alex Goode. More tries (1 to Goode's 0), more defenders beaten (9 to 5), more clean breaks (3 to 1) and more often turning up in a wide channel looking for the ball. No stats for the latter, just my opinion. Foden wants to turn up outside of 13 and look for the outside break; Goode wants to step in at 10 or 12 and create something. But he's not even doing that at the moment.

So, to return to the original thing about centres, yes they could pass more - or rather, Tuilagi could. It seems to result in more tries being scored. But this is too simplistic. Is the low number of passes indicative of selfishness alone, or are there also not enough opportunities to genuinely put the winger away? There is unquestionably some element of selfishness (Tuilagi ignoring an unmarked winger to go himself in the 2013 Grand Slam game is burnt on my retinas) but it does not appear to be the major problem. 

The major problem appears to be 12, compounded by and possibly caused by a lack of penetration in the half-backs. The extent of how much worse a ball carrier Barritt seems to be than Hape and Twelvetrees, statistically speaking, is quite worrying. Possibly this is due to other factors, such as the quality of ball provided. Barritt can produce a top quality attacking performance at international level at inside centre. He did so against New Zealand. But that match was a one-off in a number of ways. Was Barritt's performance a one-off too? I don't wish to condemn the man unduly, but the numbers seem to point at his attacking play being an issue. Consider that if this England team is a problem, you'd expect other players at 12 to struggle. Twelvetrees didn't, but that was against a Scotland team with a poor back row and a leaky defence. However, Tuilagi's also had two games against 12. Both against South Africa in South Africa, behind a patched together and weak looking pack. The result? Two decent performances with a lot of metres made, coinciding with the 14-14 draw, and the 36-27 loss. The latter sounds more impressive if you take into account the last time we scored that many points against a SH side in the SH was 2000. So other players can make things happen in this England set up at 12 - and when they do, we score points and get results. Bearing this in mind, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Barritt is a brake on attacking progress. The same can be said to a certain extent of Farrell and Youngs at the moment too (those 27 points against South Africa? Flood). As for Ashton - I do not care for his persona, but a winger is only ever as good as the ball he receives. When you look at the retrograde steps England have taken in the 9-10-12 axis - his favoured suppliers - it is not surprising he has been failing. Judgement on him should be reserved until the team returns to playing in a way that suits him.

Lancaster's next move will be interesting. There are reasons to remove all of Youngs-Farrell-Barritt and replacements available for all. I strongly doubt he'll remove all of them, but he surely has to change the unit in some way - turning ourselves into a major attacking force with such a subdued attacking presence in those positions would be an incredibly tall order. Barritt is the obvious sacrifice, with Billy Twelvetrees and Kyle Eastmond both putting up their hands as serious attacking 12s who stand their ground in attack. There's also the option of moving Tuilagi in, although that's less likely to gain popularity unless Jonathan Joseph recovers his form of two seasons ago, or some other outside-centre makes waves. Both Freddie Burns and Toby Flood could offer the running threat Farrell has not offered yet in an England shirt. Their defence and goal kicking will be heavily scrutinised if they were to replace Farrell, but then Farrell hasn't been perfect himself in that regard. Flood also may bring the best back out of Youngs again - although Care and Simpson offer the sniping option, and Lee Dickson and Richard Wrigglesworth are better scrum-halfs who never run if that's what Lancaster actually wants. It probably isn't, but you never know.

In a few months, we'll get a better idea of what Lancaster is looking for. Hopefully, it will contain a change in the 9-10-12 axis that seems to be failing England.

And maybe a shock collar to encourage Manu to look for the pass more often.

Once more unto the breach

For about 30-35 minutes, what I thought was Gatland's plan appeared to be working, and then it started to unravel.

Right now, I would express the Lions' problems as boiling down to two simple things. Both of them have dogged us throughout each Test and from them all sorts of mischief occurs.

Problem 1 is the huge difficulty we are having in getting over the gainline. We are not creating the initial dents that create the breaking up of defensive coherency that allows our backs a real chance to make a linebreak.

Problem 2 is Will Genia, who continues to look the best scrum-half in rugby and the most important man on the pitch. We cannot shackle him and as such the Australians are always a danger.

If we can fix these two things I feel very confident that this will be a Lions series victory. If we fix neither, then hope is not lost as we have shown we can stay close to the Australians even with these issues, but it will be difficult. They were far more disciplined with their kicking in the second test, creating less broken field opportunities for us. Lealiifano looks a far superior kicker than the flakey twins of O'Connor and Beale. They have seen enough of the Lions' lineout to challenge it, something that is unfortunate with Tom Youngs' throwing. They are in a stronger position than they were in the first test when it comes to the basics of their game. Look at how much better the Australian backline seems to be on the pitch and it becomes apparent the Lions need to be far better at the basics - well, the basics other than attacking play in the backs - if they are going to win. Well, we could get a backline that's as likely to score tries, but that requires the forwards to get the Ozzie backline going backwards first. Back to Problem 1.

We can probably actually roll both problems into one single problem. The Big Problem is the pack are not winning enough collisions. We obviously aren't winning enough when carrying the ball. We are not winning enough at the breakdown, in that ball is not coming back quickly on a regular basis. And we are not knocking them back enough in the tackle, which means we limit the amount of pressure we can put on Will Genia at the breakdown. Any player can cause him issues if he has to run backwards from the last ruck, if his team mates are running backwards or lack depth, and the that player has stepped forwards into a guard position. No player is really going to do much if they've only just reset their position as a guard after retreating when Genia starts to run. We could win the series without solving this problem. But it will be difficult and it is certainly not how I would do it.

So bring in Sean O'Brien and Toby Faletau. Not only will they be fresh, but they are the two most brutal ball-carriers and tacklers available in the back row. Bring back Corbisiero too if fit, and not just for his scrummaging; Vunipola's a big beast of a carrier, but he's not as good at Corbisiero and simply setting himself low and driving forwards a few metres. In the centres, Davies has to make way for one of Roberts or Tuilagi. Again, they will be fresh, and again they bring an extra level of brutality. Already that would give the Lions a more imposing look as there's only so much that can be done. Bringing back Mike Phillips would also be a good move; maybe not justified on form, but then neither Youngs nor Murray has a great deal better. Whoever is scrum-half, they should watch plenty of footage of Genia bringing his big runners onto the ball. Short run from the base, commit defender, pop to large man running really fast, repeat.

There is one other possible change I can see that would be useful, and one I hesitate to suggest. But, for all that Dan Cole has been a bit up and down in form, and looks exactly like a guy who's racked up huge amounts of gametime this season, and for all that Adam Jones has been his usual excellent self in the scrum, one guy gets to collisions around the park and the other one doesn't. And right now, we need more men at those collisions. Would I make the change? I'm not sure.

But what I am sure about is that the Lions will have to pick themselves up and go out there and finally cannon the Wallabies out of their way - or there's a good chance they'll lose what is a very winnable tour.