Six Nations rugby is nearly upon us and as per the somewhat irritating restrictions of the EPS agreement, Jones has released all players that won't be involved in his first match day squad back to their clubs.
Those going home:
Josh Beaumont (Sale Sharks), Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs), Maro Itoje (Saracens), Matt Kvesic (Gloucester Rugby), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Henry Thomas (Bath Rugby), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Sam Hill (Exeter Chiefs), Semesa Rokoduguni (Bath Rugby), Marland Yarde (Harlequins)
Which means the following have stayed:
Forwards: Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Jack Clifford (Harlequins), Jamie George (Saracens), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Paul Hill (Northampton Saints), George Kruis (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Chris Robshaw (Harlequins), Billy Vunipola (Saracens), Mako Vunipola (Saracens)
Backs: Mike Brown (Harlequins), Danny Care (Harlequins), Ollie Devoto (Bath Rugby), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Bath Rugby), Alex Goode (Saracens), Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers).
With Dylan Hartley named as captain.
While true judgement absolutely has to wait for match day, there's enough going on to start looking at how things are going to shape up. So let's divvy this up.
The Good
Paul Hill - Hill is about to become the second youngest prop to play for England since the start of the professional era (behind David Flatman) and he's completely earned it with his performances for Northampton. I'll admit to expecting Henry Thomas, and Thomas can feel unlucky, but not aggrieved, because on form this is not a controversial call. While it remains to see how Hill goes (there's some nerves personally in sending a guy out with this little experience to play 6N rugby), he has huge potential that he is realising now and it's exciting to see him given a chance so early.
Everyone not mentioned below - That's a lazy way of doing things I'll admit, but the squad is basically good. It's basically Lancaster's squad, which is a teeny bit frustrating but that was a solid international team and a disaster would be very unexpected, while the possibility of defeat lies more in the resurgence Scotland have been threatening for some time. If it stays an idle threat, Eddie Jones will get his reign off to a victorious start and can breathe that little easier.
The Ugly
Robshaw & Haskell - I have nothing major against either player in isolation, although both have flaws that means I can't be too for them either, but put together and you get a few problems. How do we know that? Well, we saw it last 6N. Swapping their shirts isn't going to fix that. I'll stress that I'm only talking about a few problems - namely the breakdown and lineout - and that it's mostly solid. Those are pretty major problems though and seeing the exact same thing again when we know what happens is, well, ugly. Jones has talked a lot about getting the breakdown right and Borthwick is known as a major lineout nerd, so maybe coaching will fix that. But it seems a pretty big ask to me.
Ollie Devoto - Fair play to young Devoto, it's not every player who manages to get an England cap while 22 years old and very firmly second choice at their club. There is a reason for that of course, it's that most people in that position are flat out not good enough. Now, Devoto has a lot of talent and long term we could be thankful for this, and I'm struggling to say what I'd have done instead, but this really isn't an optimal position to be in and everyone knows it. An early injury could leave us in trouble.
Courtney Lawes - I like Courtney. I'm not sure what all the recent fuss about him I've seen online is about. He's a decent international player at the very least and will probably hit that level against Scotland. The problem here arises from his current form, which has put that slightly at question, and that of Maro Itoje, who has arguably been playing better rugby than every other lock kept. Lawes is a very lucky boy to be there and will need to put in a big performance to justify it. This is assuming he's subbing behind Kruis and Launchbury of course, which isn't guaranteed yet.
The Bad
Alex Goode - Some players leave me mystified as to what's going on that pro coaches value so strongly that us armchair fans discount so utterly. Alex Goode is a prime example. I don't get how anyone can have come to the conclusion that he is an international standard player upon watching his matches at this level. He reads the game very well and possesses good technical skills but he simply isn't athletic enough. His mind writes cheques his body can't cash. That isn't the worst of it though. The worst of it is that because both he and Mike Brown struggle outside of full-back at international level, we are going into this match with no real back three cover. We lost the 2014 Six Nations due to this. An early injury to Watson or Nowell could leave us in the same position again.
Dylan Hartley - This has nothing to do with him being made captain (yet). This is simply about him playing for England to begin with. Right now, on current form, he shouldn't. On current form, he'd have struggled to make the Saxons. He's had one good game since returning from injury. I will be the first to take a gigantic dump over the idea that form should be the most important tool in selection but it's not without its merits. Of course, if you're not picking on form, you're probably picking on overall ability, and Hartley looks pretty short of that too. Based on the last x, the only thing Hartley has over a lot of his new rivals is that he's proven to be military medium at international level, while they could fail. Not to be sniffed at, but pretty grim grounds for inclusion. Add form and ability together and Hartley probably shouldn't be there. What's left? Cohesion? There should be no other Saints' forwards in the starting pack, which proved a problem last Six Nations. Experience? Picking solely on experience has rarely looked that successful to me. Like Lawes, he'll probably do a job, but there's better players in better form getting less gametime as a consequence.
Of course, what tips this from the Ugly category to the Bad is he'll be captain. I'd love to know what his team mates make of it in their heart of hearts; it's hard to respect a captain who doesn't demand a place in the team based solely on his own ability. It's also hard to respect a team mate who lets you down - who knows what they make of his suspension last summer? Are they nervous that he's going to add to his 54 weeks of suspensions this spring? Worried that the scrutiny he'll get from refs will affect him, or that his own poor record will damn them slightly in the ref's eyes before the game even starts? I'd have my doubts there, but they know him better than I do. If these things affect the squad, he will be an actively bad decision.
All in all though, I am reasonably optimistic ahead of the Scotland game and if we perform well enough, the whole tournament. After all, this is roughly the same squad that has been coming close again and again.
In that respect, it's quite a ballsy selection from Jones. By picking the same players, he is inviting us to compare him to Lancaster straight away. Go badly, and it looks very bad. Go well, and there will be comments he's profiting from the squad Lancaster built, although probably not that many given Lancaster's unpopularity upon departure. Not that he's thinking in those terms of course - he simply wants to win.
Whether he will remains to be seen.
Tuesday, 26 January 2016
Thursday, 14 January 2016
The first EPS of Jones
So, we've all had a chance to look at the squad. We've had time to react and second think. To come to rational decisions on what we think about it. Rational. Cool. Calm.
... ok, I can't do this.
Chris Ashton's presence in the squad is borderline inexplicable and totally enraging. Over the past four years, Ashton has pushed the boundaries of complete pointlessness to levels undreamed of even by Match of the Day pundits. His most memorable moments have come in conceding opposition tries rather than scoring them himself. He's not shown one outstanding trait at international level in that time. He's been utter dogshit. And he's the only England player in that time I've ever had reason to wonder if they're actually a bit yellow.
I've joked with people that if I'd been interviewing candidates to be England's head coach, there's a few players where if they'd expressed an interest in selecting them, I'd have terminated the interview there and then. I never used Ashton's name in this because I never dreamt anyone would look at the last four years and think recalling him was anything other than stark raving insanity.
Sure, in Johnson's day, Ashton looked pretty good. It would be a cool trick to get that player back. Having George Ford imitate Toby Flood on his good days would be the obvious answer to that. But he's not the only winger in the country who can track the ball. And most of them have a lot of other useful attributes that Ashton lacks. Such as not being so fucking deluded they didn't think they got a fair shake under Lancaster. Or power and agility. Or not being the worst England player of the last four years by a staggering margin in a team that won sweet fuck all.
Now, Eddie Jones is entitled to think he can get more out of players than Lancaster; nay, more than entitled. It's his job. It's why he's been hired. And maybe he'll do so here. But I'll straight up hope that he doesn't and the other 14 players rescue us. Because fuck Ashton.
*deep breath* Ok, that's better.
Jones' first squad has a lot to be said for it. He's got a decent core of good internationals which means we won't be facing an unnecessary uphill struggle in his first Six Nations. He's also got a decent number of shit hot young players who could enliven a team that was falling short of glory and, in time, maybe give us the return to 2003 we all yearn for. Small details aside, it's what most of us hoped for.
Up front, we've gone for 9 front rowers. Dave Wilson is out; Paul Hill is in. Hill probably won't play at all, on account of being only 20, but his showings for Northampton this season suggests he'd do as good a job as many if injuries did force him in. He's there to be moulded and nurtured though, with the intention of turning him into the greatest tighthead of his generation. Henry Thomas has been named as injury replacement for Kieran Brookes, a further nail in the coffin of Wilson's England career. Thomas is still a little callow, but a far better scrummager now than he was when last called up and just as mobile. On the loosehead side, Matt Mullan's come in to compete with Marler.
Two changes have been made at hooker with Webber and Youngs making way for Hartley and Luke Cowan-Dickie. Enough words have been wasted on the internet about Hartley; he will never belong with the greats but, when not suspended, will rarely be exposed at test level. I hope Mike Haywood finishes the job of deposing him at Saints and goes on to do it for England, but until that time, Hartley will do a job. Luke Cowan-Dickie will not do a job but will do lots and lots of throwing practice as he bids to become more than Tom Youngs Mk 2. Speaking of English Rugby's favourite hobbit, there's a media report going around that Youngs was told to work on his carrying and tackle count. Someone has a sense of humour there.
Maro Itoje continues his climb towards the big time with inclusion at Geoff Parling's expense; I like Parling, but wouldn't dream of complaining here. The back row has a number of changes with Jack Clifford, Dave Ewers and Josh Beaumont being named in the squad. Ewers has been grafting away for this opportunity for a long time; it's a shame he's injured when it comes around but the opportunity that gives to Matt Kvesic to impress is a good thing. Clifford and Beaumont offer a pair of fast, intelligent, powerful ball carriers, the like of which we've seen only rarely in recent times for England.
Only four half-backs have been included, two of each, nailing Jones' colours to the mast early - particularly when Owen Farrell is also the senior fit 12 (sweet jesus). Joe Simpson and Danny Cipriani will both consider themselves quite unlucky and while if injury strikes both will be ready, neither will be as ready as they would be if they'd been in camp. Personally, Simpson's probably better than Care these days (being a better kicker clinches it), while Cipriani is England's best fly-half until handed the kicking tee, an objection rendered moot by the likely presence of Farrell at 12.
The 12s in the squad currently are Sam Hill and Ollie Devoto, currently deputising for the barely-fit Tuilagi and not-at-all fit Slade respectively. It's a bold move, but there's at worst a silver lining to the inclusion of the two best young English inside-centres of the moment. The presence of Tuilagi when properly fit will be a huge boost mid-Six Nations mind. At 13, there's a pretty epic fight developing between Joseph and new boy Elliot Daly, both of whom have very much the same strengths and weaknesses.
The wing selection is slightly puzzling. For one thing, the injured Jonny May has been jettisoned entirely for Marland Yarde, rather than using a free change; odd call there. Then there's the presence of He Who Shall Give Me A Fucking Aneurysm. Then there's the non-presence of Semesa Rokoduguni, the most physical of English wings and playing really well in Bath's not so great season so far. If there's one player the internet seems convinced has been hard done by, its Rokoduguni. And there's no change at full-back, which is slightly disappointing to a non-fan of Alex Goode, but good things come to those who wait.
So what will this mean for the team on the pitch? The media have had a lot of things to say, but it's worth noting that a) they weren't right about the squad and b) Jones has a bit of a history for playing media games. So, a pinch of salt is needed. No new caps at all at Murrayfield? Great news for Matt Kvesic, as he's definitely going to play if true, and picking number 22 will be interesting. So, yeah, maybe not. Haskell at 7? Maybe. Maybe not.
Truth is, it's pretty hard to be at this point. Eddie Jones enjoys being a little inscrutable. We know he'll want accuracy at the basics, physical intensity, and the ability to do something a bit special, but beyond that, who can say?
Dan Cole pretty much has to start at tighthead with Brooks injured. The Vunipolas are probably favourites to start in their respective positions. Ford and Farrell seems writ into stone. A man who wants intensity probably wants Mike Brown. I hate to say it, but Ashton is probably there for a reason and Anthony Watson's been the best back three player going this season out of those named. Does Hartley start ahead of Jamie George if he's not starting for his club? Hard to say.
It should be pointed out that, at this time, Eddie Jones hasn't coached any of these guys. He hasn't met any of them bar Robshaw (reportedly). He hasn't really watched much of them bar the internationals. Jones says he asked George Smith for his opinion on picking opensides; possibly slight kidology, but probably just reflecting that he's having to learn fast here. So, picking mostly Lancaster's team, which he's seen before, would make sense. But that is not necessarily the direction of travel. In a weird way, right now it's like Eddie Jones hasn't actually started the job, but is acting as a caretaker ahead of taking on the job for real in the summer; a limited number of changes aimed at just getting results while he gets the knowledge needed to really crack on.
The England team will probably be quite similar to that seen under Lancaster on paper at least. It might be fairly similar on the pitch too. That would be slightly disappointing. But Jones is already preparing for the future beyond that. And he might just throw in a curveball now - he's got enough of them around.
It's a time for guarded optimism, patience, and hoping Chris Ashton has a moment of clarity and runs away to Tibet to spend the rest of his life as a (hopefully happy) Buddhist monk. All in all though, the first squad looks good. I await the first performance eagerly.
... ok, I can't do this.
Chris Ashton's presence in the squad is borderline inexplicable and totally enraging. Over the past four years, Ashton has pushed the boundaries of complete pointlessness to levels undreamed of even by Match of the Day pundits. His most memorable moments have come in conceding opposition tries rather than scoring them himself. He's not shown one outstanding trait at international level in that time. He's been utter dogshit. And he's the only England player in that time I've ever had reason to wonder if they're actually a bit yellow.
I've joked with people that if I'd been interviewing candidates to be England's head coach, there's a few players where if they'd expressed an interest in selecting them, I'd have terminated the interview there and then. I never used Ashton's name in this because I never dreamt anyone would look at the last four years and think recalling him was anything other than stark raving insanity.
Sure, in Johnson's day, Ashton looked pretty good. It would be a cool trick to get that player back. Having George Ford imitate Toby Flood on his good days would be the obvious answer to that. But he's not the only winger in the country who can track the ball. And most of them have a lot of other useful attributes that Ashton lacks. Such as not being so fucking deluded they didn't think they got a fair shake under Lancaster. Or power and agility. Or not being the worst England player of the last four years by a staggering margin in a team that won sweet fuck all.
Now, Eddie Jones is entitled to think he can get more out of players than Lancaster; nay, more than entitled. It's his job. It's why he's been hired. And maybe he'll do so here. But I'll straight up hope that he doesn't and the other 14 players rescue us. Because fuck Ashton.
*deep breath* Ok, that's better.
Jones' first squad has a lot to be said for it. He's got a decent core of good internationals which means we won't be facing an unnecessary uphill struggle in his first Six Nations. He's also got a decent number of shit hot young players who could enliven a team that was falling short of glory and, in time, maybe give us the return to 2003 we all yearn for. Small details aside, it's what most of us hoped for.
Up front, we've gone for 9 front rowers. Dave Wilson is out; Paul Hill is in. Hill probably won't play at all, on account of being only 20, but his showings for Northampton this season suggests he'd do as good a job as many if injuries did force him in. He's there to be moulded and nurtured though, with the intention of turning him into the greatest tighthead of his generation. Henry Thomas has been named as injury replacement for Kieran Brookes, a further nail in the coffin of Wilson's England career. Thomas is still a little callow, but a far better scrummager now than he was when last called up and just as mobile. On the loosehead side, Matt Mullan's come in to compete with Marler.
Two changes have been made at hooker with Webber and Youngs making way for Hartley and Luke Cowan-Dickie. Enough words have been wasted on the internet about Hartley; he will never belong with the greats but, when not suspended, will rarely be exposed at test level. I hope Mike Haywood finishes the job of deposing him at Saints and goes on to do it for England, but until that time, Hartley will do a job. Luke Cowan-Dickie will not do a job but will do lots and lots of throwing practice as he bids to become more than Tom Youngs Mk 2. Speaking of English Rugby's favourite hobbit, there's a media report going around that Youngs was told to work on his carrying and tackle count. Someone has a sense of humour there.
Maro Itoje continues his climb towards the big time with inclusion at Geoff Parling's expense; I like Parling, but wouldn't dream of complaining here. The back row has a number of changes with Jack Clifford, Dave Ewers and Josh Beaumont being named in the squad. Ewers has been grafting away for this opportunity for a long time; it's a shame he's injured when it comes around but the opportunity that gives to Matt Kvesic to impress is a good thing. Clifford and Beaumont offer a pair of fast, intelligent, powerful ball carriers, the like of which we've seen only rarely in recent times for England.
Only four half-backs have been included, two of each, nailing Jones' colours to the mast early - particularly when Owen Farrell is also the senior fit 12 (sweet jesus). Joe Simpson and Danny Cipriani will both consider themselves quite unlucky and while if injury strikes both will be ready, neither will be as ready as they would be if they'd been in camp. Personally, Simpson's probably better than Care these days (being a better kicker clinches it), while Cipriani is England's best fly-half until handed the kicking tee, an objection rendered moot by the likely presence of Farrell at 12.
The 12s in the squad currently are Sam Hill and Ollie Devoto, currently deputising for the barely-fit Tuilagi and not-at-all fit Slade respectively. It's a bold move, but there's at worst a silver lining to the inclusion of the two best young English inside-centres of the moment. The presence of Tuilagi when properly fit will be a huge boost mid-Six Nations mind. At 13, there's a pretty epic fight developing between Joseph and new boy Elliot Daly, both of whom have very much the same strengths and weaknesses.
The wing selection is slightly puzzling. For one thing, the injured Jonny May has been jettisoned entirely for Marland Yarde, rather than using a free change; odd call there. Then there's the presence of He Who Shall Give Me A Fucking Aneurysm. Then there's the non-presence of Semesa Rokoduguni, the most physical of English wings and playing really well in Bath's not so great season so far. If there's one player the internet seems convinced has been hard done by, its Rokoduguni. And there's no change at full-back, which is slightly disappointing to a non-fan of Alex Goode, but good things come to those who wait.
So what will this mean for the team on the pitch? The media have had a lot of things to say, but it's worth noting that a) they weren't right about the squad and b) Jones has a bit of a history for playing media games. So, a pinch of salt is needed. No new caps at all at Murrayfield? Great news for Matt Kvesic, as he's definitely going to play if true, and picking number 22 will be interesting. So, yeah, maybe not. Haskell at 7? Maybe. Maybe not.
Truth is, it's pretty hard to be at this point. Eddie Jones enjoys being a little inscrutable. We know he'll want accuracy at the basics, physical intensity, and the ability to do something a bit special, but beyond that, who can say?
Dan Cole pretty much has to start at tighthead with Brooks injured. The Vunipolas are probably favourites to start in their respective positions. Ford and Farrell seems writ into stone. A man who wants intensity probably wants Mike Brown. I hate to say it, but Ashton is probably there for a reason and Anthony Watson's been the best back three player going this season out of those named. Does Hartley start ahead of Jamie George if he's not starting for his club? Hard to say.
It should be pointed out that, at this time, Eddie Jones hasn't coached any of these guys. He hasn't met any of them bar Robshaw (reportedly). He hasn't really watched much of them bar the internationals. Jones says he asked George Smith for his opinion on picking opensides; possibly slight kidology, but probably just reflecting that he's having to learn fast here. So, picking mostly Lancaster's team, which he's seen before, would make sense. But that is not necessarily the direction of travel. In a weird way, right now it's like Eddie Jones hasn't actually started the job, but is acting as a caretaker ahead of taking on the job for real in the summer; a limited number of changes aimed at just getting results while he gets the knowledge needed to really crack on.
The England team will probably be quite similar to that seen under Lancaster on paper at least. It might be fairly similar on the pitch too. That would be slightly disappointing. But Jones is already preparing for the future beyond that. And he might just throw in a curveball now - he's got enough of them around.
It's a time for guarded optimism, patience, and hoping Chris Ashton has a moment of clarity and runs away to Tibet to spend the rest of his life as a (hopefully happy) Buddhist monk. All in all though, the first squad looks good. I await the first performance eagerly.
Wednesday, 13 January 2016
Forwards the Yoot
Eddie Jones is set to end the long wait for real news on his intentions today with the announcement of his first EPS. The papers have had a few rumours, but no one seems sure on quite how accurate they are. So rather than comment on possible news when I can wait just a little longer for the real McCoy, I've decided to help waste your morning with talk on a different rumour, that being the mooted U23 tour of South Africa.
I have to say while at first I was really enthusiastic about the idea, I have had some second thoughts since first hearing about it. Many of England's eligible players would already be involved with the senior squad anyway; out of England's World Cup squad, 10 each of both the backs and of the forwards had made their full debut by the age of 23. And pretty much all of the backs that hadn't are players I'd never like to see play for England again. I'm all for it simply because it's more rugby, but the RFU should have better reasons than that and if the cream of the crop just flat out doesn't need it, who's it meant to help?
The obvious answer is late developers. There are three main types of player I can see this being really good for. The first set are the players for whom everyone had really high hopes for based on age grade but can't seem to get past the squad rotation level at club despite obvious talent. Getting them more gametime could be a tipping point just in itself. The second set are the backs who have oodles of talent but not a sniff of senior duties due to defensive frailties. Getting them involved in an England set-up so they can still be groomed for senior duties while they work on this has a lot to be said for it. The third set are the forwards who are still a little callow on their set-piece work. Is this going to make a big enough difference to be worth the resources?
Looking at that World Cup squad again, you do have to question how sensible our current development policy is. At the moment, coaches have been picking the best of the litter very young (good) and then sticking with them regardless of how well they develop (not so good). The U23s wouldn't just be about developing the next best, it would also be about giving the coaching set-up a better idea of what they could have had instead, hopefully ensuring a better level of competition for the England squad going forwards. That in turn should force the players who get in early to either keep developing or lose their place; based on the number of players who never ironed out their fatal weakness, this seems hugely necessary. The U23s could never produce a player for England but still be worth it if it puts more pressure on the EPS to raise their game.
It would produce players for England though. Of course it would. And I don't just mean "tight five forward destined for greatness plays a year of U23 at 21 and then goes into the seniors at 22 instead of going straight into the seniors at 22". I'm talking about marginal or incomplete talents who could seriously benefit from a couple of years in a halfway house environment when it comes to turning them into proper internationals. There may only be a couple of such players in each World Cup squad, but that is the sort of marginal gain that's possibly the difference between perennial underperformance and getting our shit together.
There is one further caveat though; the need for proper pre-seasons. If we want our young players to avoid burnout and reach the peak physical performance needed to get the best out of them, we can't be flogging them all season and then every summer too. Some players only ever do proper pre-seasons in the small gap between being an U20 international and being a full international; this could possibly remove even that. It wasn't that long ago George Ford was left at home to ensure he could have a proper pre-season once in his career; that sort of thinking will be needed from time to time if we go through with this plan.
If we do, then who should be involved? It's a bit hard to predict given we don't know who's in the EPS yet and that as it would be a summer tour, injuries should give a few unexpected players a run out with the seniors, but assuming no injuries, no U20 players used, and the standard format of turns 23 that year (i.e. born 2013 or younger), a hypothetical squad might look like this:
LHP: Alec Hepburn, Ellis Genge
HK: Luke Cowan-Dickie, Nathan Morris
THP: Scott Wilson, Kyle Sinckler
LK: Charlie Ewels, Elliott Stooke, Dom Barrow, Jonny Hill
BR: James Chisholm, Lewis Ludlam, Dave Sisi, Lewis Ludlow, Joel Conlon
SH: Callum Braley, Stuart Townsend
FH: Alex Lozowski, Billy Burns
CE: Harry Sloan, Tom Stephenson, Nick Tompkins, Sam James
W/FB: Henry Purdy, Nathan Earle, Tom Fowlie, Mike Haley, Simon Hammersley
This could be a lot stronger, it's true, and a few guys there are there to make up the numbers more than anything. This squad assumes that Paul Hill, Maro Itoje, James Clifford, George Ford, Henry Slade, Sam Hill, Ollie Devoto, Jack Nowell and Anthony Watson will all be involved in the senior squad. Cherrypicking the best of the U20s would surely see Jack Walker miss out on his 3rd JWC and sent on this tour in place of Nathan Morris, while there's a strong case for London Irish's Johnny Williams to continue his fast-tracking, although that's a strong enough group of centres as is. There's also the latest cause celebre of English players abroad, the still U20 eligible openside Sam Underhill who's been making waves for Ospreys. He's definitely too good to let the Taffs poach him, that's for sure.
Honestly, I'm not sure there's too many future England players there. Most are behind an established queue of players and haven't really persuaded me that they've got it. But there's potential there and very few players I'd absolutely rule out. And you could definitely make a watchable team out of that.
So here's hoping it happens.
I now return you to your normal fear and loathing of the prospect of Chris Ashton getting back into the England.
I have to say while at first I was really enthusiastic about the idea, I have had some second thoughts since first hearing about it. Many of England's eligible players would already be involved with the senior squad anyway; out of England's World Cup squad, 10 each of both the backs and of the forwards had made their full debut by the age of 23. And pretty much all of the backs that hadn't are players I'd never like to see play for England again. I'm all for it simply because it's more rugby, but the RFU should have better reasons than that and if the cream of the crop just flat out doesn't need it, who's it meant to help?
The obvious answer is late developers. There are three main types of player I can see this being really good for. The first set are the players for whom everyone had really high hopes for based on age grade but can't seem to get past the squad rotation level at club despite obvious talent. Getting them more gametime could be a tipping point just in itself. The second set are the backs who have oodles of talent but not a sniff of senior duties due to defensive frailties. Getting them involved in an England set-up so they can still be groomed for senior duties while they work on this has a lot to be said for it. The third set are the forwards who are still a little callow on their set-piece work. Is this going to make a big enough difference to be worth the resources?
Looking at that World Cup squad again, you do have to question how sensible our current development policy is. At the moment, coaches have been picking the best of the litter very young (good) and then sticking with them regardless of how well they develop (not so good). The U23s wouldn't just be about developing the next best, it would also be about giving the coaching set-up a better idea of what they could have had instead, hopefully ensuring a better level of competition for the England squad going forwards. That in turn should force the players who get in early to either keep developing or lose their place; based on the number of players who never ironed out their fatal weakness, this seems hugely necessary. The U23s could never produce a player for England but still be worth it if it puts more pressure on the EPS to raise their game.
It would produce players for England though. Of course it would. And I don't just mean "tight five forward destined for greatness plays a year of U23 at 21 and then goes into the seniors at 22 instead of going straight into the seniors at 22". I'm talking about marginal or incomplete talents who could seriously benefit from a couple of years in a halfway house environment when it comes to turning them into proper internationals. There may only be a couple of such players in each World Cup squad, but that is the sort of marginal gain that's possibly the difference between perennial underperformance and getting our shit together.
There is one further caveat though; the need for proper pre-seasons. If we want our young players to avoid burnout and reach the peak physical performance needed to get the best out of them, we can't be flogging them all season and then every summer too. Some players only ever do proper pre-seasons in the small gap between being an U20 international and being a full international; this could possibly remove even that. It wasn't that long ago George Ford was left at home to ensure he could have a proper pre-season once in his career; that sort of thinking will be needed from time to time if we go through with this plan.
If we do, then who should be involved? It's a bit hard to predict given we don't know who's in the EPS yet and that as it would be a summer tour, injuries should give a few unexpected players a run out with the seniors, but assuming no injuries, no U20 players used, and the standard format of turns 23 that year (i.e. born 2013 or younger), a hypothetical squad might look like this:
LHP: Alec Hepburn, Ellis Genge
HK: Luke Cowan-Dickie, Nathan Morris
THP: Scott Wilson, Kyle Sinckler
LK: Charlie Ewels, Elliott Stooke, Dom Barrow, Jonny Hill
BR: James Chisholm, Lewis Ludlam, Dave Sisi, Lewis Ludlow, Joel Conlon
SH: Callum Braley, Stuart Townsend
FH: Alex Lozowski, Billy Burns
CE: Harry Sloan, Tom Stephenson, Nick Tompkins, Sam James
W/FB: Henry Purdy, Nathan Earle, Tom Fowlie, Mike Haley, Simon Hammersley
This could be a lot stronger, it's true, and a few guys there are there to make up the numbers more than anything. This squad assumes that Paul Hill, Maro Itoje, James Clifford, George Ford, Henry Slade, Sam Hill, Ollie Devoto, Jack Nowell and Anthony Watson will all be involved in the senior squad. Cherrypicking the best of the U20s would surely see Jack Walker miss out on his 3rd JWC and sent on this tour in place of Nathan Morris, while there's a strong case for London Irish's Johnny Williams to continue his fast-tracking, although that's a strong enough group of centres as is. There's also the latest cause celebre of English players abroad, the still U20 eligible openside Sam Underhill who's been making waves for Ospreys. He's definitely too good to let the Taffs poach him, that's for sure.
Honestly, I'm not sure there's too many future England players there. Most are behind an established queue of players and haven't really persuaded me that they've got it. But there's potential there and very few players I'd absolutely rule out. And you could definitely make a watchable team out of that.
So here's hoping it happens.
I now return you to your normal fear and loathing of the prospect of Chris Ashton getting back into the England.
Friday, 20 November 2015
Goodbye to a giant
My first exposure to rugby was some sort of article about the 1995 World Cup in some magazine that was lying around the house. I didn't grow up in a house that followed the game; my dad had played a bit at school and that was it. I went to a primary school that did no organised sport at all. I can't even recall it being on the TV. Family legend says I only learnt to read so I could follow Crystal Palace's results but that was as far as my interest in the sports pages went.
No, I didn't read about Jonah Lomu being awesome then. I mean, I probably did, but it doesn't stick in my memory. I vaguely recall hearing on the news about England getting knocked out, to no small extent down to some oversized freak of a wing. I was aware, in my distant way, that was a remarkable time for rugby; professionalism, black men in Springbok jersies, and 19 stone wingers. I knew I wanted to play this game. But I only really got involved when I went to secondary school and, the glories of 2003 aside, I only became truly fascinated with the game after I completed university, drifted back to my rugby club due to peer pressure and got sucked in by the 2009 Lions tour.
In all that time of half-interest, I knew who Jonah Lomu was. I knew he was amazing. I watched the 2007 World Cup final without really knowing a single one of the players, but Lomu? Yeah. Who could forget that video of him running over Mike Catt? In much the same way even people with no interest in Basketball know who LeBron James is, Lomu was unforgettable.
As my interest in the game has grown, so has my appreciation for what Jonah Lomu has done and his status in the game. He was rugby's first superstar and he did it by changing the game. Wings of about his size are the norm now but looking back at the highlights, you know damn well that if he was around today he'd still be terrifying. He mightn't have scored 15 tries in 2 World Cups today but he'd have got close. The most incredible thing is he did it all with the kidney condition that would eventually bring first his career, and now his life, to a premature half.
The biggest loss is to Lomu's family. To see your son die is heartbreaking; to grow up always missing your father scarring. None of the acclaim and love for their loved one will take away their pain. It is a loss for all of rugby though. I think in all the sport's history, we've possibly only had one icon, and now he is gone. Wilkinson? McCaw? Carter? Amazing athletes but I don't think any of them have seized the global conciousness like Lomu did. My girlfriend is an American with no particular interest in rugby. She heard about Lomu's death.
And because rugby is a small game, if you listen, you soon hear what players are like. Some are wazzocks, some are mad, but I've yet to hear a bad word spoken about Jonah Lomu. He was just a really nice guy.
A gentleman and a giant - may we see his like again.
Rest easy Jonah.
G'day Mr Jones
This morning, the RFU announced the appointment of Eddie Jones as the new England head coach, with a four year contract starting in December.
That was quick, wasn't it?
Last time around we'd only just had news of Johnson's resignation, nevermind the appointment of a new man. The plan had been an extensive search to find the world's best which ended up going on and on until we hit the Six Nations and Lancaster secured the hearts of most of the RFU. Everything about this time is different and speaking cynically, the fear remains that we are still fighting the last war and have made a mistake.
It is very easy to imagine this going wrong and not just because it involves the RFU, who specialise less in shooting their own feet than in blowing their own legs off. Reading around the internet to see what the learned men of the press have to say, it swiftly emerges that Eddie Jones can at times be, well, a bit difficult. Alex Sanderson's comments here put it most succinctly:
That was quick, wasn't it?
Last time around we'd only just had news of Johnson's resignation, nevermind the appointment of a new man. The plan had been an extensive search to find the world's best which ended up going on and on until we hit the Six Nations and Lancaster secured the hearts of most of the RFU. Everything about this time is different and speaking cynically, the fear remains that we are still fighting the last war and have made a mistake.
It is very easy to imagine this going wrong and not just because it involves the RFU, who specialise less in shooting their own feet than in blowing their own legs off. Reading around the internet to see what the learned men of the press have to say, it swiftly emerges that Eddie Jones can at times be, well, a bit difficult. Alex Sanderson's comments here put it most succinctly:
"He is very much his own man and unwilling to compromise. You can see that from the turnover of jobs he has had. In the wrong environment, people can find it hard to work with him. He pushes you so hard and that can be to the detriment of your own enthusiasm. It is a make-or-break scenario."
To a certain extent, this is a good thing. One's reminded of Jim Telfer laying into the Lions pack and telling them he's the judge. A good coach is not just a judge though; he's also a salesman. Should Eddie Jones push the players as hard as he can, harder than they think they can endure? Duh. Is it going to work if the players don't understand what Jones think he's getting from it or see what they're getting from it? No. Does it sound like Eddie's definitely one hundred per cent going to ensure they do get it? Hmm. Hmmm. HMMMM. It's probably quite a small chance, and nothing in life is guaranteed, but it is a bigger chance than I'd like.
If things could go wrong with those below him, there is even bigger potential for them to go wrong with those above. We already know that Jones isn't too impressed with the structure of English rugby which as far as I'm concerned, just goes to prove he's a sensible chap. If he means to put words into practice and try to start changing how the whole organisation works though, rather than merely sharpening the pointy end, then he may find himself running into a metaphorical pointy thing himself. Or maybe trying to insert one into the Teflon Don. I'm never going to tell a man not to fight for the betterment of English rugby but Jones would be advised to tread very carefully here.
If no culture clash or internecine conflict intervenes, what can we expect from Eddie Jones? Anyone expecting a guaranteed attempt at sexy rugby would be well advised to read this article by Dean Ryan - he will have no problem in deciding his team is not up to an expansive game plan and that victory lies in grinding away. He's also successfully worked with Jake White, in case further evidence is needed.
Before anyone says it - yes, England have looked good playing expansive rugby at times recently. Yes, we have no shortage of speed merchants who like to see the game played wide and there's a case to be made for England building a team to exploit that. The problem is that while we have the speed merchants, we have a problem when it comes to the technicians and generals needed to create the space out wide to begin with. Disagree? Comment please. Come at me and all that waffle.
Expansive or not, Jones likes big back lines. Look at the 2003 Australia back line. Wendell Sailor? Big. Stirling Mortlock? Big. Lote Tuqiri? Big. Larkham was pretty big for a fly-half as well. The 2007 back line he ran for Jake White was along similar lines as well. To date, he's usually put out a playmaking 12 and some big lads with a bit of toe and decent hands. If he sticks to type, that's good news for Manu Tuilagi, and not so good news for Jonathan Joseph... or most of the current England back line, in fact, which is quite small. Would he prefer Rokoduguni and Yarde to May and Watson? Time will tell.
He likes his sides to be technically adept and he likes them to keep the ball in play - Lancaster has tried to build in this direction, with mixed results. He played with two opensides in the 2003 World Cup final. If I could, I'd tell him that over here, Robshaw and Wood are considered opensides and nothing need changing there, simply to see the look on his face. I suspect his priorities will be to build a scrum so steady you could use it as a table for Christmas dinner, a line-out of similar reliability (I see some quite boring drill sessions in the England players' future), find a back row with pace and breakdown ability as well as an inside-centre who can distribute, and then work on the England players' handling and ability to use space. Minor things, really. No big sweat. I'm sure Lancaster never considered them... wait, no, most of them appeared on Lancaster's list, with mixed results. The set-piece can be fixed quite easily I suspect, particularly if Jamie George keeps up his form and comes into the team. Henry Slade might be odds-on to be England's starting inside-centre next Six Nations. Matt Kvesic and Will Fraser have big opportunities to become part of the team but neither seems as guaranteed to me as Slade, perhaps unfairly. The intelligent use of space... well. One thing at a time.
The main thing we expect from Jones though is success. He's had plenty of it, from the upwards curve of Japan that thrust him back into the rugby world limelight with that victory, to his initial successes back in Australia back at the turn of the millennium. He's had his failures too - just ask Queensland rugby fans - but that does mean he's erratic and prone to getting lucky, or a man who's learned the most essential lessons before coming here? This job is arguably going to answer that question for many; this will probably be his defining moment. Success, and he joins rugby's greats - particularly if he can go back to Japan in 2019 and win the World Cup there. Fail, and there will be no second chance to do so, or cast off the aspersions that he's just the man who inherited Rod MacQueen's hard work. There is everything to play for.
There is everything to play for with England's players too. They have a new coach to please now; a demanding, exacting coach looking for outstanding rugby players and workers to come and fulfil his vision and make them winners. Everything starts with the player's desire to be among that number.
After that, it's up to Eddie Jones. Good luck.
Thursday, 19 November 2015
Post-Mortem 7: The Unforgiven
So, let's talk about Stuart, shall we?
In my mini-break it's been less a case of watching the grass grow under my feet and more a Rip van Winkle-esque trip to the future where we download rice and Davina McCall is the Pope. Stuart Lancaster is gone and debates as to whether that's the right idea are completely irrelevant. But then, the point of this series has been more "What went wrong" than "What do we next", so this article's still (hopefully) relevant which is just as well as I'd like to get a few things off my chest.
Here's the first thing. I thought he was a mistake at the beginning and barring a brief period during the 2013 Six Nations I've thought he was a mistake all the way through until now. I didn't expect the World Cup to happen, as he'd looked more competent than that to date, so I can't say "Told you so", but I can say "Thank fuck I can stop feeling like I have to be positive about a bad idea."
I can also say "This article might be biased against Stuart Lancaster". I like to think I'm fair and objective about everything but that is a damnable lie and the fairest thing is to be open from the beginning. I did not think he'd deliver anything particularly of note for the English rugby team and I'm happy I won't have to hear any more of his PR.
That said, I wished this had ended better for him. He seems like a decent guy who only wanted to do his very best for English rugby and it feels like this experience has crushed him. That's shit, he didn't deserve that. As Clint Eastwood once said though, deserve's got nothing to do with it. It's happened and the question is "Why?"
Ignore the World Cup for a moment. Lancaster's got us to 4 6N second places. 4 wins out of 5 every time. If he'd got us that final step further once and he might have stayed regardless. Twice and I think he definitely would have. Think of all the close games lost to the SANZAR teams. England have had a demonstrable issue with crunch games all the way through Lancaster's tenure and come the two big games in the World Cup, we got the same thing again. In retrospect, maybe the outcome should have been more predictable; there's nothing too out of the ordinary about what happened. Personally speaking, I backed England because I saw Twickenham as a big factor. Relatively few of England's missed opportunities have come at Twickenham; maybe I'd have revised that opinion if I'd properly considered the pressure the England team was going to be under.
Pressure. The word is inescapable when talking about performances in big games. Lancaster can be partially absolved here because the best way to deal with that pressure is to have done so before and very few members of the team had done as much of that as their opponents. Only 6 members of the team had Lions test caps - both Youngs, Vunipola, Parling, Cole and Farrell. Only James Haskell had won the Heineken Cup and he was a bit player; only the Vunipolas, Goode, Farrell, Wigglesworth and Lawes can join him in saying they've at least been in the final. Only Haskell, Cole, Easter and Youngs had 50+ caps. We can quibble over the exact worth of some of these measurements but the overall picture I think withstands these quibbles and the overall picture says there were very few guys with lots of big game experience in the England team and it's not exactly a surprise when they fall down at the last moment as a result.
However, there's things Lancaster could have done. One of them was to pack the team with experienced, big-game players where possible. Danny Cipriani could point to a Heineken Cup winners medal plus the experience of time spent playing in Australia. Tom Croft might have only just been back from injury but with two Lions tours and a Heineken Cup runners up medal, he had more pedigree than half of the forwards picked there. Mathew Tait, completely ignored, had played in a World Cup final - how many other Englishmen playing today could say that? Just three; Easter, Matt Stevens and Toby Flood. One wonders whether Lancaster regrets not persuading Flood to stay. Some might look at this list and protest at the point of including them as options - I know there's plenty who don't mourn Flood going. Some will look at Lancaster's reliance on young players as the best part of his reign, providing a legacy for the next man. There's something to that but there's quite a bit of work on for those players to make bombing out of a home World Cup worthwhile. I look at those players and see players who were good enough to be involved and think their experience might have been key in avoiding what happened.
The other thing he could have done was to prepare them for the pressure better. A coach's role here might be limited but when you see the captain making a hash of a late penalty when 3 behind in a World Cup then, well, you know it's bigger than Lancaster was filling. Every possible scenario that could have occurred in the last 10 minutes should have been tattooed on the leadership group's eyeballs. Whether that's Lancaster telling them what to do, or the players discussing it before hand is besides the point; the group needs to decide their best course of action before it comes up and then it needs to be backed up by every member of the group in public. Bitch about the execution if you will, but the course of action is a matter of collective responsibility. Lancaster's comments in the press conference didn't really feel like that was happening; England's performance definitely felt like he hadn't ensured they had all the information needed to succeed.
Of course, inexperience aside, one of the traits considered most useful for winning big rugby games is a really good rugby team. I know, I'm fucking brilliant me with these radical revelations. It's pretty hard to have a good team of any sort if you keep replacing team members. We should all accept that rugby's a damn attritional game these days and that interferes with this but 14 different centre combinations sounds pretty damn extreme. 14! The problem here is slightly more serious than the never-ending case for an international 12 (you know things are bad when Shontayne Hape seems a good England inside-centre) though when you consider the big stylistic changes the England team have undergone since 2012 because if changing team members hinders a team, asking it to keep doing very different things is just not a good idea. The change from defence above all to Ford-inspired running from everywhere, from Barritt trundling to playmaking 12s and back again, and from big powerful forwards to skinny fit ones, all slowed the team's evolution. In the case of the latter, the last minute rush to do it may well have been responsible for the generally powderpuff nature of England's forwards, a key part in our failure. As for switching from Ford back to Farrell at the last moment - well, so much for learning from the last World Cup, eh?
Pretty much everything England did wrong at the World Cup - and most of the last four years to boot - can be traced back to either flawed big game preparation or indecisiveness leading to less than razor sharpness. And it's really super tempting to link those two things to a lack of experience on Stuart Lancaster's part. I'd hesitate to say I'm completely right to do so, because it's hard to definitively prove, but it does make total sense. Getting Leeds promoted and then relegated again followed by a stint with the Saxons doesn't provide much of an education in managing big games, nor does it give a comprehensive internal encyclopaedia of what works and what doesn't at the top. Inexperience, both as a club head coach and in terms of never playing international rugby, might also account somewhat for the reliance on his assistant coaches and particularly Andy Farrell - they were the guys who knew, so maybe Lancaster deferred too much.
The biggest flaw of this argument is that by the World Cup, he was fairly experienced as an international and head coach. Not as much as many of his competitors, but a World Cup cycle as England's head coach is not to be sniffed at. The problem with experience is you have to learn from it and here we reach the crux - Lancaster didn't. The kick to the corner defines that to my mind - it's shocking that after the criticism Robshaw copped for it early in his captaincy that they didn't hammer out how to handle the situation properly from then on - but there's elements of it where ever you look.
It should be noted again at this point that Lancaster's had to deal with a lot of impediments, some of his own making and many that weren't. Spending as much time with sponsors as he allegedly did is ridiculous. He's had less control over his players than most international coaches and his senior players represent the tail end of one of the less talented and lucky generations of England internationals. Then there's his own daft decision to lean heavily on Farrell while also taking on the seemingly diametrically opposed advice of Catt. He's had the CEO gob off about him not doing well enough for most of the last year. He's been a put upon man and for all I don't reckon he's the right man, the next man could do worst as a lot of those pressures aren't going to go away.
If the man with the chance does not learn though, it seems reasonable to gamble, particularly if the RFU will finally live up to its word and bring in someone who's done most of his education already. The rumours about Eddie Jones are piling up and frankly, I'm now in a bit of a rush to finish this all before they go and announce that as well. Really, this is the way it should be. I'm not saying England should never give a man his first chance at international rugby ever again - that would be fucking stupid - but the man should have earned it through prodigious feats at club level. Bonus points if they've demonstrated ability with one of the international age grade teams or as an international assistant. Sure, sometimes you can lucky if you punt on someone with potential. Sometimes you get Lord Baldermort.
Most of the time you get Stuart Lancaster. A fine and decent coach out of his depth.
Friday, 16 October 2015
Post-Mortem 6: The Frayed Ends of Sanity
Most fans don't talk about the RFU much for obvious reasons. Rugby is far more lovable than big bureaucratic companies full of in-fighting. However, we can't talk about what just went wrong with English rugby - and the twelve years preceding - without mentioning the guys ultimately responsible.
One of the problems with talking about the RFU is that most fans are pretty fuzzy about what goes on there. That's not just simple lack of interest but also evidence of an organisation that doesn't really talk about itself. The media spotlight is only really thrown briefly on them when there's a change at the top and more sustainedly when there's a crisis - such as now.
Most of what I know comes from reading the odd post from the truly informed on forums and the picture they paint is of an organisation muddled as to its true purpose. The RFU exists to make money; to promote a game; and to manage an elite sports team. It is a muddled set of objectives and few of those organisations trying to do all of them have good reputations. With the RFU, people tend to remember the "57 old farts" quote (Will Carling's finest moment) but the problem is as much the professionals as the amateurs these days. Like all good businessmen and administrators, those of the RFU pick objectives and targets they can achieve and set great importance by them. Do they forget the national team a little, providing it continues as a cash cow, in these circumstances? Maybe.
We have now seen four coaches appointed since Lord Baldermort (aka Sir Clive Woodward) gave up in disgust and not one of them has been a success. Most of them have had relatively little head coaching experience, with the nadir of that trend coming with Martin Johnson, but neither Brian Ashton or Lancaster could claim comprehensive amounts. Most of them have had some form of prior involvement, making them company men to an extent, with Lancaster the foremost of these. There is room to speculate that the thinking at the RFU is to pick head coaches they can mould, convinced they'll grow in ability and success like Lord Baldermort did, but with less of that maverick streak. Certainly, the thinking of the RFU has not been to find the finest head coach they can, or at least I hope so - for they are utterly delusional if that was their aim.
They certainly seem guilty of fighting the last war. Ashton replaced Andy Robinson in the hope of reintroducing some swagger to the backline. The players revolted and Martin Johnson, most fearsome of the White Orcs, was brought in to ensure none of that nonsense. The players ran riot and so the RFU decided on Stuart Lancaster, with his emphasis on culture and discipline, to ensure there'd be no more scandals. After all, sponsors hate scandals, and sponsors mean money, and money is one of the RFU's achievable targets.
Much has been made of the likeable culture and decency of Lancaster's England; allow me to say that I think that's a pile of total bollocks. Lancaster says people have been telling him they like what England stand for. With the greatest of respect, I am quite happy if the England team stand for nothing but success, and do not care what else they stand for if they also stand for utter failure. The latter is currently the case. That's a cheap jibe, but also totally accurate right now. They are not winners.
I do not agree with the separation of discipline for off-pitch events and on-pitch events. Dylan Hartley has done more to erode the image of our game and team then any amount of public urination, police pushing, or dwarf tossing, and yet is straight back in the team after every ban. He's picked up two more bans since his final warning from Lancaster back in 2013, one effecting his availability for this tournament, but Lancaster has not yet called time on his career. Calum Clark performed the single worst act I have ever seen on a rugby field since two Kiwis mistook Brian O'Driscoll for a pneumatic drill and was straight back in after serving a ludicrously short ban. I accept that Lancaster is in a difficult position weighing morality with winning games, and everyone's morality is different, but it sits poorly with me.
Over the last few months, we've seen English players arrested for drink driving, convicted for assaulting police officers, and going off on at their own team in public, with allegations of cheating on their girlfriend in the tabloid press for good luck. There have been all sorts of leaks about player discontent over headphones, over not being allowed to go the pub, and who knows what else as people continue to settle their grudges. It does not sound like a transformed culture. A certain amount of trivial misbehaviour and for it to be blown out of proportion by media is only to be expected. This goes beyond trivial though. I don't have an issue with it, but please do not expect me to buy into the entire of this shiny happy culture.
My main source of anger at the players at the moment though is Tom Wood's comments about the coming review. He said:
“You’ve got to filter out some of the nonsense, the white noise and the individual frustrations to make sure we get a group appraisal, rather than 31 voices coming from everywhere.”
What I, and virtually other England fan I've spoken to, heard was "We've got to make sure all the people with real criticism get drowned out so Lancaster stays". It's not a good look, especially when it looks like he's already angling to be the next England captain, prompting this furious burst of trolling from Harlequins' Dave Ward. A kind man would say it's an example of extreme loyalty, the cynic would say Wood knows exactly where his England career is going if Lancaster goes.
There are limits of what should be expected from human beings and I don't agree with the notion that being a role model means you have to be a saint. It would be naive to suggest that other nations don't have troubles either. I don't expect our players to be better human beings than anyone else. I do expect them to be fully disciplined towards being the best they can be in these moments though. That does not seem to be happening - and if it's not, what's the point in Lancaster's culture?
The RFU are another body who I'd expect to be completely committed to making English rugby the best they could be, to get back to the subject. Not only is that not the case, but they make the players look subtle with their intention to whitewash. CEO Ian Ritchie has already said there'll be a review, but he doesn't see why it should concern itself with him and Rob Andrew. This is an utterly ridiculous position but it is not the first time we've seen RFU people simply wash their hands of any responsibility for appointing the men who've failed. It happened in 2011 too with Rob Andrew saying he saw no reason why he should resign as well.
Most of the feedback I get from this blog comes in the form of Facebook comments (thinly veiled more comments request). This simple comment - 'The importance of getting rid of Rob Andrew cannot be overstated' - got more Likes than some of the posts do. Considering how few people know what exactly he does, that's saying something, but then that's the point. Andrew hides his light under a bushel until it's time to take credit for something. He's credited by some as being a driving force behind recent good relations between RFU and PRL; others suggest that's not the case. Something Andrew hasn't been able to hide is his involvement in the hiring of three disastrous coaches but that's ok, because somehow it all slides off: the nickname 'Teflon Don' is well deserved.
Hopefully we are about to see his run come to an end. There has been a slow rumble across the media about RFU's culpability in this mess and talk of a special meeting to call a vote of no confidence in the board. It is said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over while expecting different results: the definition fits in this instance.
It is time for the RFU to cure itself before its members shove the straitjacket over its head.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)