Post-Mortem 2: Welcome Home (Sanitarium)

A more energetic and on the ball blogger would have created "World Cup Bingo", a scoresheet allowing fans to tick off the more common and annoying comments. One of the first things I'd have put in the grid would have been 'Steffon Armitage'. The usual conversation at this point goes:

Person 1: "Why aren't we playing Steffon Armitage, he's the only openside we've got."

Person 2: "Because he chose to play in France and be unavailable so please stop repeating this."

Person 1: "So why don't we just pick people from France then?"

Well, why don't we? I have been very much Person 2 in this, frustrated by the repetition of the unrealistic, but a proper post-mortem means discarding all pre-conceptions. Whether we have harmed ourselves and whether we are doing the right thing in this situation is one of them.

As things stand, the situation is a little unclear. To sum up:

The RFU has a ruling that only those playing in England may be considered for the England team, barring 'exceptional circumstances'. The reason for this is widely reported to be part of their EPS agreement with Premiership Rugby Limited (PRL) in which the England team gain access to players outside of international windows. PRL gains in that the best English players are forced to stay in the Premiership, the RFU benefits in that the best players are all available under the agreement with PRL. There's a few technical questions to be asked here - what are exceptional circumstances, what role does the coach have in setting this - but there's also some big questions like 'Is this even a good idea' and 'Did it even matter this World Cup' to answer as well. 

Looking backwards, there's a fair few unknowns about Stuart Lancaster's role in this. Previously/at the moment I had assumed the following from what information we had:

a) Exceptional circumstances doesn't mean if Stuart really wants them, it means if the plane with the squad on crashes.

b) The policy came from above and Lancaster could lump it or like it; he could not change it.

c) Lancaster didn't care too much as he had the players he wanted in camp anyway and that people had the cart before the horse; Players aren't being ignored because they're in France, they're in France because they're being ignored.

This was based on a mixture of things and may not be entirely accurate. In particular, it relies on dismissing the April rumours about using 'exceptional circumstances' to bring Armitage and Abendanon into the squad. At the time, I did - there are so many rumours and the RFU PR machine is not a small thing. Now? Daniel Schofield brings it up in his Telegraph article here and I ponder. For the sake of argument, let us accept this as totally true.

It changes everything. Lancaster did, it seems, have the power, but was unwilling to use it in the face of heavy opposition. This is perhaps wise - annoying your whole squad prior to a World Cup is a poor move and we'd have criticised him if he'd done it. In fact, annoying is possibly too mild a term. Overthrowing all the previous rules they'd followed, to their own detriment, to basically tell them they're not good enough? That's pretty corrosive stuff. Maybe that would have been the lesser of two evils, but that is the best to be said of it. In any case, he wanted to use it so maybe that changes C - but then again, maybe it doesn't.

Nick Abendanon's international career was going nowhere when he left England. Steffon Armitage had been in France for a long time without it particularly seeming to bother Lancaster, his public statements being somewhat mixed. At the beginning of last season, the possibility of a loan move to England was floated. Some say it failed due to financial demands, some say it failed due to Armitage demanding an EPS guarantee and Lancaster saying 'Nope', some say Armitage wanted a guarantee of a starting day berth although I never saw that one. Whatever the reason, it failed.

We have seen Hartley and Cipriani dissuaded of going to France and we've seen Burgess lured to Union; the management are willing to and capable of intervening. Nothing happened with Abendanon and Armitage though and therefore, I still believe that they ended up in France come the start of 2015 because they were not wanted. Of course, when Lancaster changed his mind, it was too late and they were in France. Is the issue here then that the players were in France, or that Lancaster didn't realise he wanted them in time to persuade them to move back home? The former could not have been a problem if the latter hadn't occurred.

I am still not certain I believe that Lancaster was seriously preparing to invoke 'exceptional circumstances' or that he would have been allowed to, or that the management even definitely wanted him; the team has not set a high store by the breakdown in general. That is something I am going to return to in another article. However, while it's a very big point in judging Lancaster, in terms of looking at the 'Home Players' rule, I think it's not a huge deal whether it's true. A last minute attempt to include Armitage and Abendanon does not change that in general the management hadn't sought to include them for most of their time in charge and that the bigger problem to Armitage's inclusion wasn't his location, it was Lancaster.

Would Steffon Armitage have made the necessary improvement to the England team single-handed, when short of cohesion with his team mates and international experience anyway? That is a really big ask and I'm not sure there's any player I'd back in that situation. Steffon Armitage has shown himself to be a class act, most particularly when stuck into a pack of strangers for the World XV vs South Africa friendly, so I wouldn't quite rule it out, but the odds are against it. Too much else went wrong and given how much most of the forwards underperformed, there really is no guarantee Armitage wouldn't have done otherwise given he'd have been following the same fitness regime and direction.

As for Nick Abendanon, I find his sudden popularity exasperating and would have been mildly alarmed if Lancaster had included him. There's no doubting he has tons of talent but it is combined with a penchant for costly mistakes and I have no issue with a coach ignoring such a player. Abendanon claims he's a better player for his move, but the mistakes have not gone, and I'm suspicious as to whether any Bath coach would share his view. Delon Armitage would have been a better option had they fancied a France-based full-back but was probably ruled out of Lancaster's values-driven England simply by being too big a twat. That leaves Toby Flood - the one player who went despite Lancaster's interest - but I can't say I noticed the Toulouse fans being effusive about his form. I have a lot of time for Jug Ears, a better talent than most of those he was forced to play with for England, but if he wasn't bothered about being involved, then neither am I. It would be really interesting to hear his unvarnished views about an England camp he decided to abandon, and would have been great if he'd stayed, but a fly-half really needs to be on the same wave-length as those around him.

So, I don't think the salvation to our tournament lay in France, although I wouldn't argue hard with anyone who thinks Armitage might have tipped the balance against Wales and got us off the hook. My view is he would have improved us, that this has impacted us, but it's not the difference alone. Too much has gone wrong and it's only one part of that. I do think the Home Players rule might have got in the way and forced Lancaster to make different choices than he wanted to, but I'm honestly not sure what did go on. It's possible the problem was not the rules, but rather the domestic opposition that Lancaster faced over it. The main issue either way seems to be Lancaster's indecision over who he wanted and didn't want though, and at the risk of spoilers, the word indecision and it synonyms will probably pop up a lot in these articles.

Going Forwards

It is likely any new head coach would wish access to Steffon Armitage at least. If appointed soon, they'd probably be able to have a chat with Armitage before he negotiates his next contract, which I believe is expiring at the end of this season, and persuade him to return. If I'm wrong, then there's still the option of broken contracts and compensation - which covers the others if wanted - if a Premiership club is willing to play along. Toulon would gripe, but I suspect would give in. He'd still play in France next season and that technically still renders him unavailable for the next Six Nations but it seems easy enough to handwave a contract for next season as playing in England on grounds of eligibility and he'd definitely be available after. Whether Armitage would go along with this remains to be seen, although I'd really have to question whether he had the desire to succeed in an England team if he didn't.

That is short term though. Long term, what if this happens again? What if a player heads across the channel and improves a lot over there - or what if, say, Joe Launchbury decides he wants to spend his playing days in the Cote d'Azur instead of Coventry? Or even Canterbury? Is it even a good idea to begin with?

The logic behind the idea it to create the strongest possible domestic league, which therefore creates the best players for the England squad, who we then get more access to than if they were elsewhere. The outcome is desirable. That does not mean it is the best way to get what we want.

Right now, England has the third most competitive league in the world. Anyone who goes to Top 14 or Super Rugby will face a better calibre of opposition. Obviously, we would like to change that and keeping our best players would be a key part of that, but some we would say we are harming our short term chances for possible long term gains. They have a point but before we settle on that as a conclusion I would direct people's attention to Ireland and Wales, both of whom produce many fine internationals in the comparatively calmer waters of the Pro 12. Quality of domestic league is perhaps not the most important thing here - although that cuts both ways in this argument.

Going abroad is not all about opposition levels and sacks of dirty lucre though. Travel broadens the mind. It gives players and coaches new ideas and it takes them out of their comfort zone. Life experience can be as vital as rugby experience in making a player; all heartbreaks make us stronger, all lessons learned make us wiser. If a player feels the need to travel to become the best they can be, penalising them is harsh. The argument can be taken too far - many a player has grown to greatness without playing outside his home turf - but everyone is different.

In short, we do not need the strongest possible domestic league in which to sharpen our players. Yes, that sentence seems completely nonsensical to me too I'll admit, but that appears to be what the evidence says. This leaves the question of access. Some players in France already have release clauses for international camps written into their contracts - could the RFU simply ask players going abroad to ensure they have those clauses? If it costs a little extra money, we are constantly told that the RFU is the richest union.

The question of whether it would affect the English national team much seems quite live and it certainly seems to do more for PRL. It should be noted that there are worse ideas in the world than staying on good terms with PRL, There are strong arguments for a strong domestic league, one that attracts and excites young fans, even if the exact relationship it has to an all-conquering international team is hard to fathom. To tilt the question the other way - if the quality of the league played in doesn't matter too much, are the fate of a few eccentrics straying from England's shores as important as the RFU's relationship with PRL?

This ultimately is what it is all about - the RFU's relationship with PRL and how valuable it is. It's easy to see why fans say "Just do it, they'll get over it", but when you're Ian Ritchie or Rob Andrew and constantly aware of whatever frailties exist, its going to be a bit different. The exact details of the EPS agreement are unknown but extra contact time with the players and rest periods are necessary to keep England level with their rivals. This is why, right or wrong, the rules will not be changing much. 

In what are quite clearly famous last words, I would not expect that to matter much. I would not expect to see head coaches squander England's brightest in such a fashion going forwards. I know I've just guaranteed this, but it shouldn't happen. In terms of professional fulfilment, the international game is more highly rated; winning a Six Nations probably means more than domestic trophies. In terms of financial reward, only the very best are going to substantially increase their pay in France. Bakkies Botha was the 10th highest player in the world on £389,000 last season; not many of the current England squad would be getting Bakkies Botha wages. They can get up to £120,000 a year from their England duties before even considering their club contracts though. They might fancy the lifestyle but waiting a few years until their international career is done is not a major sacrifice for most. There is no reason for this to be a regular thing providing the management pick the right players to begin with.

Whether it matters overly is not the same as whether it is right though. The answer: I don't know. Yes, I have just made you read 2,353 words (and counting) to reveal my ignorance. You should be used to that by now, I'm a bad human being. In this case I think it's justified though. Most people are ignorant of the full ins and outs of this subject as the RFU et al are not in a hurry to enlighten us and as such, it's difficult to form a firm opinion. All I can do is to try and present as much of what's known as possible and let people make their own minds up. Personally, I am not too bothered about the way things are, although I believe the RFU should be asking for more control over players from PRL given what each gets out of the arrangement. A compromise such as allowing the head coach some wildcards, or maybe allowing internationals to play abroad for two years without compromising eligibility, could be of interest but I neither expect such a thing or am overly concerned. This is because I expect the players the coaches want to be in England and I am a cruel man who doesn't care if the players would rather live in idyllic rural France. The team should work.

Of course, the team hasn't worked recently. Part of that is down to this rule but only because mistakes were made to begin with and as such, I still think the no foreign players issue is a bit of a red herring. The problem was that Lancaster and his coaches didn't seem to rate Armitage - or breakdown experts in general. It's almost like there was a loud voice that perhaps didn't understand the breakdown (big spoiler about the next article there). I hope I'm right about these things, because it's probably not going to change, and the best we can ask for is to be able to say "Welcome home, Steffon".