Foot in Touch

Entries categorized as ‘Players’

Armitage makes pressing advertisement for South African tour

April 7, 2012 · Leave a Comment

Is Armitage's French form enough to force a place in the England squad?

Jack Lewars

Toulon’s crushing victory over Harlequins provided much food for thought on Friday night.  Jonny Wilkinson showed that international retirement has diminished him not at all, and also gave an insight into why oppositions teams have feared him for so long as he ruthlessly punished Harlequins’ appalling discipline.  From Harlequins’ point of view, they must wonder why even a weakened team was so comprehensively outplayed.  Although Jordan Turner-Hall, Matt Hopper, Ugo Monye and replacement Danny Care all showed class in the face of a overwhelming French pressure, Mike Brown and George Robson did their chances of international honours no favours at all.  For potential Premiership champions, it was a truly abject display.

The most intriguing aspect of the contest for Stuart Lancaster, however, will have been the performance of Steffon Armitage.  The doughty flanker has not really featured on England’s radar since his move to France in 2011 – he was one of those players that Johnson was happy to lose to make a point about moving abroad.  Even before that, he hadn’t held down a place and he did not seem to fit the mould of the England back row.

Like many, however, a move to France has reinvigorated him.  Playing in the star-studded Toulon team, the diminutive flanker has consistently been first choice at openside, valued for his pace and his ‘on the floor’ ability at the breakdown.  The French side have granted him the sort of freedom that Tom Croft enjoyed in the Six Nations, allowing him to pop up in the wide channels in attack where his pace is most effective.  Indeed, quite apart from his brilliant work in the tackle area, he caused Harlequins no end of problems with ball in hand, twice breaking the line and also demonstrating a more-than-useful boot.  This follows a crucial late try against Stade Français in February, when he barged over in the corner to force a draw.

For those who feel that England would benefit from a genuine openside, Armitage is surely the outstanding candidate (along with Andy Saull of Saracens).  His first notable action was to win a penalty for holding on as he timed perfectly his arrival at the ruck, before clinging limpet-like to man and ball.  With his lack of height and powerful frame, he is perfectly suited to ripping away possession, much in the mould of Neil Back.  It is a skill-set that England might find extremely useful against the powerful South African ball-carriers this summer.

Unfortunately, Armitage remains an outsider for the travelling squad, let alone England’s starting fifteen.  Already out of favour for playing abroad, he incurred further RFU displeasure when he described them as “dickheads” for suspending brother Delon in November.  Furthermore, with Croft and Morgan cementing their places during the Six Nations, the only other back row spot is occupied by Chris Robshaw, Lancaster’s captain.  This gives him a considerable amount of protection, even without taking into account his decent showings since January.  Robshaw may not be a top-class breakdown practitioner but he is an excellent leader and he deserves far more credit for England’s cohesion and backs-against-the-wall quality than perhaps he has received.

Even with these obstacles, however, I would like to see him tour in the summer.  Given England’s plethora of blindsides, he would offer good cover from the bench, as he can also play at number 8 (he lined up there for a couple of attacking scrums against Harlequins, although the visitors’ front row failed to complete either of these set pieces).  In addition, Calum Clark’s lengthy suspension and the mysterious silence regarding Tom Wood’s recovery mean that back-row spots are available.

Certainly, Armitage would seem a better impact substitute than Phil Dowson, and his pace will suit South Africa’s fast, dry pitches.  In the event of a Robshaw injury, England could field a fearsomely quick back-row of Croft, Armitage and Morgan, one that brings pace, good handling, powerful carrying, big defence and competitiveness on the floor.  With the need for Lancaster to develop and diversify his squad’s ability, England fans can only hope that yesterday’s performance brought this one step closer to reality.

Categories: Amlin Cup · England · Harlequins · Players · RFU · Top 14 · Toulon
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RFU disciplinary procedures just right in determining Clark ban

April 3, 2012 · Leave a Comment

Richard Cockerill "makes it clear what he thinks" to Calum Clark after Hawkins' injury.

Jack Lewars

Calum Clark has been banned for 32 weeks for deliberately hyper-extending the elbow of Leicester hooker Rob Hawkins.  The Northampton flanker, who was selected in Stuart Lancaster’s EPS for the 6 Nations but not included in a match squad, will not play again until 2nd November 2012.

The ban is an interesting one, not least because the RFU has published a full report from the hearing.  This offers a rare and fascinating chance to see inside rugby’s disciplinary process.  For the purist, it also offers the opportunity to compare football’s (deeply flawed) discipline procedures with those of rugby, as the FA’s report on Luis Suarez’s investigation for racist abuse is still in the public domain. I, however, am going to focus on points of interest from Clark’s report alone.

Clark pleaded guilty to the offence with which he was charged, and the video evidence was also damning.  For many, this should have carried at least a 12 month suspension, given the horrific injury which Hawkins suffered and the ugly image that the incident presented.

The 22-year old’s mitigation, however, was that he did not mean to hurt or injure the player, as he was only trying to manoeuvre Hawkins away from the ball and did not realise that he was trapped, which led to his elbow giving way.  This defence was accepted by Judge Jeff Blackett, the RFU’s chief disciplinary officer, and was a key factor in reducing the ban from a potential 5 year duration to 64 weeks (which was in turn reduced by the maximum allowance of 50% for mitigating factors).

This throws the case into an area of ambiguity and debate.  On the one hand, a lack of intent on Clark’s part does not mitigate the injury to Hawkins, who may suffer long term damage.  The IRB, for one, have made it clear that lack of intent is only scant excuse for dangerous play, by telling referees to disregard it in the case of dangerous tackles.

This also does little to save the image of the game, the concern which almost certainly led the RFU to publish of the report.  While Richard Cockerill has accepted the punishment as sufficient, even offering a few uncharacteristic words of conciliation, it is ammunition for those who see rugby’s licensed aggression as unacceptable.  Few other sports would offer the chance for such a cringe-worthy injury, and parents and young children will not view the incident well.

Looking at it from the other direction, however, one can feel a touch sorry for Clark.  Assuming he is being truthful, which his clean record and reputation would suggest, he has made a terrible mistake which has set his career back by eight months and significantly damaged his professional reputation.  This is weighty punishment for an accidental consequence.  Coming from this angle, Northampton Saints issued a strongly-worded and eloquent statement of their sense of grievance:

“The disciplinary panel found that Calum Clark had not intended to injure Rob Hawkins in the course of moving his arm. Accordingly the unfortunate injury suffered by Rob Hawkins was unintentional.

“In the light of that finding of the disciplinary panel, Northampton Saints is bound to express concern and disappointment at the imposition of such a long suspension, even after significant mitigation in recognition of what was accepted to be Calum Clark’s genuine remorse.”

Further adding to Clark’s case is the searing honesty which is documented in the report.  It is worth quoting directly: “The Player said that after the game and since he has been devastated for lots of reasons, primarily for Rob Hawkins himself.  He said that he would not wish an injury such as this on anybody….  Last weekend he went to coach local children and he was afraid that their parents would not want someone perceived as a violent player to coach them.”

There is, of course, no simple conclusion to such a case.  It is the nature of an aggressive contact sport that mistakes will occur and that serious injuries will happen.  It is also paramount for the game to protect its image.  For what it’s worth, it seems to me that Blackett has made exactly the right call here – a serious ban, but not in the order of a 5 year suspension.  Indeed, perhaps the best conclusion to draw is that it is to rugby’s eternal credit that it has a disciplinary system which is transparent but at the same time sufficiently complex to deal with such difficult cases.  The use of a strong evidence base, drawing on everything from medical testimony to character references; the ability to take genuine mitigating factors into account; and a strong disciplinary staff, headed by a respected legal figure, are all crucial in ensuring that rugby, more often than not, gets it right.

In the meantime, the published report is well worth reading, and offers a great insight into a little-highlighted area of the game.

Categories: Discipline · England · Leicester Tigers · Northampton Saints · Players · RFU
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Lions – what next?

March 29, 2012 · Leave a Comment

Jack Lewars and Chris Gollop

Following the World Cup, we suggested the following fifteen for the 2013 Lions tour:

1. Cian Healey
2. Matthew Rees
3. Adam Jones
4. Richie Gray
5. Luke Charteris
6. Sean O’Brien
7. Sam Warburton
8. Toby Faletau
9. Mike Phillips
10. Rhys Priestland
11. George North
12. Jamie Roberts
13. Manu Tuilagi
14. Leigh Halfpenny
15. Ben Foden
While some of these players (Jones, Gray, North, Tuilagi, Halfpenny) cemented their credentials during the 6 Nations, others were not on top form and the tournament has thrown up a number of fresh competitors.  It is, therefore, worth re-examining Warren Gatland’s potential lineup.
Starting from the top, Cian Healey had a torrid time at Twickenham to cap a fairly anonymous tournament overall.  The way Dan Cole took him to pieces in the final game was sickening to behold, and Gethin Jenkins must surely now be favourite for the loosehead jersey.  Alex Corbisiero did his chances no harm at all with an excellent tournament, but many England fans have reservations about his ability when faced by a brutal tighthead.  He was extremely fortunate that Alain Rolland’s generally shocking performance in Paris allowed him to get away with folding inwards whenever Mas put on the power.  Elsewhere, Ross Ford and Matthew Rees were again the stand-out hookers, although Ford seems to stay fit more easily than Rees.  Adam Jones remains as solid as a rock, although Cole was superb for England from start to finish.  Jones still leads the way, on pedigree, but his own words on Cole are worth listening to – “I don’t think there’s been a tighthead as dominant as he’s been at the age of 24.”
In the back row, none of our initial selections had a bad tournament, although Warburton only played four halves of rugby.  He has the look of a man whose body is struggling to weather the storm, and that may allow Ross Rennie a crack at number 7.  If Warburton is unfit, however, O’Brien could move laterally, allowing one of Croft, Lydiate and Ferris to start at 6.  All three had an absolutely exceptional 6 Nations, and Croft’s pace would be extremely useful in the dry, quick conditions Down Under.  At number 8, Ben Morgan made the position his own for England with pace and power, and he or David Denton might offer a bit more carrying bulk than Faletau.  Gatland might be tempted by Croft, Rennie and Faletau, if only to say he fielded the quickest back row of all time.
Scrum- and fly-half remain open for someone to stake an irrefutable claim.  Priestland distributes well, but his game management lacks conviction; Sexton seems to have faded slightly but may well bounce back.  Owen Farrell was the big story of the 6 Nations, with superb composure, crunching defence, nerveless kicking and a useful running and passing game.  He is the most ‘on the up’ of the current European fly-halves, although he is a risk owing to his inexperience.  In many ways, his game was summed up in 2 minutes against Wales – a sensational chip and gather, getting up after North had smashed him to orchestrate several more pacey phases, but then an over-eager attempt at another chip which allowed Halfpenny to mop up the danger.  A contender, at the very least.  At 9, Phillips remains the best of a bad lot, but England showed that aggressive fringe defence can catch him in possession.
Tuilagi showed his importance with a mixture of tries, powerful running and crunching defence.  Indeed, the manner in which he subdued Jamie Roberts was brutal and raises questions about Roberts’ durability – he had a very average tournament and can be marked out of the game (Joe Worsley did it very effectively back in 2009).  If Tuilagi maintains his form, he will be certain to start, which leaves Roberts, Davies and elder-statesman Brian O’Driscoll as his potential partners.  BOD has a decent chance of being captain, especially if Warburton is absent, but his comeback for Ireland in the summer will show whether his pace has diminished with age.
Finally, then, to the back three, where it is as ever a question of form.  North and Halfpenny were outstanding, especially the latter’s kicking, which has improved considerably; Alex Cuthbert’s gliding finish against France puts him firmly in the frame as well, and Tommy Bowe brings experience and an eye for the try line.  Foden had his first ever bad game for England against Italy, but recovered to his usual level against Wales, France and Ireland.  He will have fallen behind the fantastic Rob Kearney, however, who looked back to his swashbuckling best, while the livewire Stuart Hogg emerged as the best running 15 since Jason Robinson.  Here, as at blindside flanker, the Lions will have an absolute abundance of talent – it all adds up to the serious possibility of a first successful Lions tour in fifteen years.

Categories: Australia · British and Irish Lions · Players
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

6 6 6 – the Devil’s Number?

January 16, 2012 · Leave a Comment

Jack Lewars

The back row has been the most problematic area of England squads since 2003, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to settle down any time soon.  Stuart Lancaster had an opportunity to bring a fresh approach with his first Elite Player Squad but, if anything, his selection has the air of new actors performing the same script.

The make up of England’s back row will only be set in stone when Lancaster announces the team to face Scotland.  However, he has already dramatically reduced his options by including four blindside flankers in his squad, with only one specialist at 7 and 8.  When you take into account the youth and inexperience of those specialists (both are 22, both are uncapped), it raises the genuine prospect of a back row made up of three number 6′s.

Add in the fact that Calum Clark has played the majority of his rugby at blindside for Northampton, which calls into question his credentials as a genuine openside in the first place, and it seems that the most likely starting three are Croft, Robshaw and Dowson.

That team sheet would be a statement of Lancaster’s selection philosophy.   There are essentially two schools of thought when it comes to picking a team in any sport which has clearly defined formations, and by picking so many players with similar skill sets Lancaster appears to be conforming to what I call the ‘maximum talent’ approach.

Using this method, a coach will aim to identify the fifteen (or eleven, thirteen etc.) players of greatest ability and find a way to accommodate them in his tactics and formation.  Wayne Smith, the New Zealand backline guru, said that this philosophy guided the All Blacks’ World Cup squad, ultimately leading to Richard Kahui’s selection on the wing (a decision which was richly rewarded by his performances).  It is also common to see two fly-halves in a team, with one nominally the inside centre, as happened to Jonny Wilkinson at various times during his England and Lions career.

In other sports, the extraordinary formation that Barcelona employed to accommodate Eto’o, Messi, Henry and Ronaldhino is perhaps the most extreme example of getting the most talent possible on the pitch.

The other approach focuses much more on defined roles and the combinations as a path to success.  This holds that, however good your  options at full-back, you still need two genuine wingers to give you the requisite resources for success (defensive positioning, tactical awareness, timing of runs etc.).  The area in which this is paramount is the front row, where no elite team would select two hookers at the expense of a prop, whatever the quality of the hookers.  Those who subscribe strictly to this point of view would always prefer to have a specialist in each position, even if it meant excluding a very good athlete from the starting line-up.

Clearly, neither strategy can be pursued without compromise.  However rich your resources, you would never select four fly-halves in the backline, even if they were Carter, Spencer, Evans and Mehrtens.  Equally, it would have been disadvantageous to exclude one of Josh Lewsey and Jason Robinson in 2003 on the grounds that they were both primarily full-backs.  The constant balancing act of selection is in choosing which approach is right for the players at your disposal, and this is where I start to feel a touch uneasy about the EPS.

Whilst the squad does not necessarily commit Lancaster to either view, it would seem that he is prepared to compromise on having out-and-out back row practitioners (barring the extraordinary selection of both Morgan and Clark).  Although this would clearly not be without precedent, I think it would be a fundamental mistake, for three reasons.

The first is that Lancaster is not being forced to choose between supermen.  If McCaw, Pocock, Warburton and Dusautoir were all English, you could understand the need for flexibility.  However, none of the current flankers has international pedigree except Croft, and he is certainly not undroppable.  Lancaster was not forced to include any of his myriad number 6′s, and I fear he may miss the chance to develop a promising openside into a world class player.

Secondly, it is clear that certain positions are more tolerant of compromise than others.  Most backs can do an adequate job on the wing, provided they have the pace;  inside-centre is such a broadly defined position that both 10′s and 13′s can be trusted there.  However, if the World Cup taught us anything, it’s that number 7 (like prop and hooker) is not one of these roles.  The openside’s skill set is essential to modern rugby, and it cannot easily be mimicked.  Playing with number seven on your back (as Robshaw did for Harlequins this weekend, significantly) does not make you an openside flanker, and the Johnson era, which saw Moody, Wood and Haskell transferred across the back row, provides powerful evidence of the need for expertise.

Lastly, the danger with shifting players around is that you don’t get the best out of them.  Asking Haskell to play like an 8 in New Zealand may have utilised his running power, but it exposed his lack of control at the base of the scrum.  Equally, putting Mike Brown on the wing would surely waste his ability to arrive late into the line, as he does so effectively for Harlequins.  If, as seems probable, Robshaw plays at 7, he will be forced to change the approach that has brought so much success at club level.  Unless he turns out to be exceptionally versatile, this feels like turning a potentially great player in a good one.

The early evidence of Lancaster’s regime brings much cause for optimism – a very different squad, a new coaching team, a new training base and a new culture.  However, with a tricky fixture list, a number of injury concerns over the few experienced players in the squad and the possibility of the Devil’s number in the back row, this could prove to be a difficult spring for the Red Rose.

Categories: 6 Nations · England · Players · Scotland
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

England’s Saullvation

January 4, 2012 · Leave a Comment

Could Andy Saull be the answer to England's openside flanker problem?

Jack Lewars

Stuart Lancaster will announce his first England squad this week amid a strange sense of optimism.  Forget England’s form since 2003, forget the World Cup: a new regime means new players and new combinations, and that inevitably means hope.  In some instances, this is well-founded – England have their greatest abundance of quality full-backs in years, as Foden fights off Brown, Abendanon and Goode, and scrum-half and wing both look promising.  However, as Chris wrote on this blog in October, the key positions of openside flanker and creative centre remain in doubt.  Andy Saull’s recent form, therefore, could not be better timed.

Saull is one of the players who seems to have been around for a while.  He has notched over 100 appearances for Saracens without winning a senior England cap, and he seems to figure in most people’s consciousness as ‘workmanlike’.  He was not on the previous coaching team’s radar, as they preferred shifting a talented blindside flanker to seven rather than recruiting a specialist seven, and he never made the EPS under Johnson.  It would therefore be some jump for him to start in such a key position against Scotland on February 4th.

However, several things are in his favour.  First, despite his journeyman image, he is only 23, thus fitting the bill for a side that needs to build towards 2015.  In addition, he has played for three England age-group sides and, crucially, the Saxons, where Lancaster was his coach, so the new man knows his strengths.  Third, as mentioned, he is a genuine, out-and-out seven, which the World Cup showed to be a crucial ingredient of a successful side.  And fourth, and most importantly, he has been at the heart of Saracens’ fantastic recent form.

No game has better showcased Saull’s attributes than that against Harlequins on 27th December.  Despite the man-of-the-match award going to Brad Barritt (a contender for the centres, although not the most creative one), Saull was the difference between the two sides.  He won penalties which Farrell could turn into points, he stopped the home side from building momentum and he dominated the much-vaunted Quins’ captain Chris Robshaw.  Most notable of all, however, was his ability at the breakdown, where he stole, spoiled and scrapped for Harlequins’ ball for the full eighty minutes.  It is this last attribute that makes him a serious contender for Lancaster’s back row.

England have for some time lacked a player who can jackal well and rip possession.  This problem has been so chronic that I remember Steve Borthwick cementing his place as captain in 2009 when he performed the feat once against France.  In the World Cup, after the games against Argentina and Georgia, England’s back rowers had achieved three turnovers between them.  David Pocock, in the quarter-final against South Africa, managed nine on his own, at least six of which were legal.

In keeping with the world’s best flankers, Saull has the knack of arriving at the breakdown at exactly the right time, which is crucial under the current laws.  With the tackler now obliged to release both player and ball before challenging, the days of bringing a runner down and seamlessly swinging into the jackal are gone.  The most effective time to reach the breakdown is at the exact moment at which the tackle is completed – you can then drop into position over the ball and either tear it free or win a penalty for holding on.  This rewards players with a high work rate, who are prepared to chase the ball even when it isn’t in their channel, and Saull is both a tireless runner and a strong player, capable of resisting the first hit from the attacking ruckers.  Whether he is stealing possession, or just slowing it down by getting his hands on it, he is a massive asset for any team.

When Saull signed a three-year contract extension at Saracens in 2009, Brendan Venter called him a “giant stake… helping to underpin our future”.  If Lancaster tries a traditional openside for his new England squad, he may well end up saying the same thing.

Categories: 6 Nations · Aviva Premiership · Coaches · England · Harlequins · Players · Saracens
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

England – what next?

October 30, 2011 · 1 Comment

Johnson, if he survives the ongoing RFU review, will have to reinvent England if they are to win the World Cup on home soil in 2015

Chris Gollop

Reviews seem to be in vogue these days. Ever since the Ashes debacle of 2006/7, during which the only success was the heroics of Andrew Flintoff (of the drinking variety, obviously), reviews have taken over the sporting world. The Schofield Report – widely ridiculed at the time it was delivered – has clearly reaped rewards in some way, although Kevin Pietersen’s removal of Peter Moores was, as the man himself modestly admitted, the most important factor in England’s recent rise to number one in the ICC Test Match rankings.

Where the ECB has led, the RFU now follows. After England’s poor displays in the World Cup – both on and off the field – it has been decided that one review will not suffice. The RFU’s own review of the World Cup failure is guided by Rob Andrew, who will give recommendations to the board. English rugby fans will, I’m sure, be full of confidence that such an authoritative figure is in charge. In addition, there is an ‘independent’ review, chaired by Fran Cotton, into the structure of the Rugby Football Union. I should imagine that his report will be very brief. In fact, I shall summarise it for you in two words: call Clive.

The problem is that the RFU is in total disarray. It is not clear who holds the power, which would suggest that no one has the ability to sack Martin Johnson. Much, then, will depend on whether he wants to continue in his role. My feeling is that he will not want to give up the job now: this would be the first glaring failure in his rugby career. But, on the other hand, I do not think that he would be too proud a man to admit that he couldn’t quite achieve what he wanted to for whatever reasons.

Rigidity, stubbornness, and conservatism have been the hallmarks of Johnson’s managerial career. There is no flexibility in gameplan or selection. It would seem, from the outside, that whether Johnson goes or stays, a new coaching set-up is needed. England need to play with more dynamism and intensity, and skill. Basically, they need to watch videos of the All Blacks. John Wells, Mike Ford and Brian Smith should be relieved. We have seen glimpses of brilliance in attack over the past few years, but these have been too rare. And while this may have more to do with the lack of quick ball from the forward pack, and Johnson’s selections at centre, it is the ideal time for a change of philosophy. Likewise, in the forwards England need a new direction. John Wells epitomises Leicester of old: stubborn, gritty, dogged. This is not the way of modern rugby. These qualities are all essential, and the values incorporated in the Leicester teams in which Johnson and Wells played are crucial, but England should strive for a different approach these days.

The positive for England is that there is a young core of players with exceptional talent. In the current side, we know what Foden and Ashton can do when they get the ball in space; Armitage had a good World Cup and showed the form which excited everyone when he was starting at fifteen for England; Haskell carried extremely well; Lawes, Youngs, Simpson, and Cole are great prospects; and, most importantly, Manu Tuilagi showed why the regulars at Welford Road were purring about his abilities last season. This group of players can form the spine of an exciting side. Outside the World Cup squad, certain players have started the season particularly well: Christian Wade has been electric on the left wing for Wasps, and Turner-Hall and Lowe are combining very well for Quins, to name a few.

England clearly have the players. But they have been deficient as a team since their glorious victory in Sydney eight years ago. There have been numerous problems, but the most significant aspect of England’s decline was the loss of two players. While many great names retired, and others were injured for substantial periods of time, what affected England more than anything was the loss of Neil Back and Will Greenwood. Woodward axed Back immediately after the World Cup, trying to build for the future – only to bring him back when he realised his error. You cannot manufacture an openside flanker, nor can you play without one. No one has been able to fill Back’s boots. Moody, for all his effort, enthusiasm and awe-inspiring bravery, was found wanting as a top-class openside. He never had the ability of Back on the floor, nor could he provide an effective link between forwards and backs. It pains me to say this, as Moody is one of the best blindsides I’ve watched, and he formed a brilliant pairing with Neil Back at Leicester. But if this World Cup has highlighted anything, it is the importance of number sevens. Similarly, since Greenwood retired, England have not had a genuine playmaker in midfield. Greenwood brought assurance, calm, brilliant distribution, and a sensational try-scoring record to the England backline.

England need to concentrate on these positions. Tuilagi has to start in the midfield, and might even play at twelve. He has very good hands, and with experience at outside centre, could do a very similar job to Ma’a Nonu. But he needs an able partner. There has been a lot of discussion about Brendan Venter’s lovechild – sorry, I meant Brad Barritt – who has impressed with his direct running and offloading game. If I were the England manager, I should have a quiet word with Richard Cockerill and ask him to play Matthew Tait outside Tuilagi for the Tigers. Tait is a very frustrating player, who should have achieved much more – we all assumed he would kick on from the 2007 World Cup final and cement his place at thirteen. But he’s too good a player to give up on. As for Neil Back’s replacement, Dave Seymour is the outstanding candidate at the moment. He has been pouncing on any loose ball for Sale, is good on the ground, and can be a good linkman.

My choices aren’t necessarily the correct ones, but these are the selection issues which must be dealt with first. There are many options in the rest of the side, but one problem remains: the selection of a captain. Johnson was keen to trot out the old maxim that you pick your team first and captain second – something with which I generally agree. But there is a worrying lack of leadership in the current crop of players. Perhaps this is not such a bad thing, just a reflection of their youth. Of the players that are fairly certain to start, Dylan Hartley is the only one with significant captaincy experience. I’m not sure his regular presence in James Haskell’s World Cup video diary will particularly help his cause, nor his part in the inappropriate behaviour towards a female hotel worker in Dunedin, nor the fact that one of the first hits on a Google search for “Dylan Hartley” is a blog discussing whether he is the most hated player in rugby – and not because he is such a good player. Haskell himself is out of the equation whilst playing in Japan, and, by all accounts, is not the most well-respected bloke. All in all, this leaves England in a sticky situation. Tom Croft, if he rediscovers his Lions form, will be a certainty on the blindside, but he neither seems to have the presence nor the charisma to be a successful leader. Chris Robshaw? He is leading Quins very well this season, and would be as good as anyone at the job.

To conclude, I would assert these things confidently about England’s direction: Martin Johnson has failed as a selector and should not be solely in charge of  picking the team; the coaching set-up needs changing; and England need to find a genuine number seven and balanced midfield pair. There are many names linked with the England job, about which I will not speculate. However, I think it would be madness not to include Shaun Edwards in the coaching team: his credentials speak for themselves, and his passion and enthusiasm – bordering on the insane – are infectious. As for the players, let’s hope that we find a Neil Back and that Tuilagi can become half the player Greenwood was. Otherwise, it might be another disappointing four years.

Categories: England · Players
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Successful start hides selectors’ uncertainty

September 9, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Richard Kahui scores against Tonga - but he is one of several unsettled selections in the All Blacks side

Jack Lewars and Chris Gollop

Rarely has the saying ‘game of two halves’ been more accurate that in New Zealand’s World Cup opener against Tonga.  Whilst the All Blacks dominated the first half, with two tries each for Richard Kahui and Israel Dagg, the second half was a much more even, attritional affair, which New Zealand just edged 12-7.  Significant credit must go to the Tongans for their revival and the powerful efforts of their forwards – but the recovery also highlights the fact that New Zealand are not in as comfortable a position as they would like.

In many ways, the All Blacks are in familiar territory. They are entering another World Cup as favourites, and yet do not know what their best team is.  Graham Henry’s selection threw up a few surprises, not least in the back three, where he preferred Dagg to Mils Muliaina. Although Dagg played well, dropping Muliaina, a veteran of 98 tests and consistently the best fifteen in the world since the retirement of Chris Latham, was a bold move. It also creates its own pressure – as when Jonny Wilkinson was on the bench for England, one poor showing from Dagg will immediately lead to calls for the more experienced, more proven player to return.

On the wings, the success of Kahui fails to hide one of the shocks of the New Zealand World Cup squad – the lack of specialist wingers. Kahui and Isaia Toeava, the other starting winger, are both centres, with Gear and Sivivatu jettisoned from the squad entirely (how many teams would love to be able to pick them?).  This leaves Corey Jane and Zac Guildford as the only true wingers in the squad, and it would be brave in the extreme to trust Kahui and Toeava against the excellent French back three. Although Dagg’s chance at full-back is probably a wake-up call for Muliaina, the choice of wings shows hesitancy in the selectors’ minds. For a nation with such a myriad of talent both at centre and wing, it is remarkable that players have been picked out of position.

In the second row, Brad Thorn and Ali Williams were effective in combating the Tongans’ physicality, at least for the first half. However, there was ample evidence of the downside of this partnership – its volatility. Williams in particular is prone to stupidity, as he showed with several scuffles during the game, and he is a constant discipline worry. He is essentially New Zealand’s Danny Grewcock: a wonderful rugby player as long as he stays on the pitch.

Finally, the scrum-half position remains a problem, as it has since the departure of Byron Kelleher for Europe.  Cowan had a poor game against Tonga, throwing several wayward passes and seeming rattled by the attention he received near the ruck.  When Weepu came on in the second half there was a greater degree of control, but New Zealand also seemed to clam up.  Very few World Cup winning sides have come into the tournament without an established no. 9, and yet this is where the All Blacks find themselves.

What this adds up to is a side that doesn’t know its own composition.  Although New Zealand are perhaps victims of their own ability, in that an abundance of riches creates selection dilemmas, it is far from ideal that so many picks are still debateable.

At the last World Cup, Graham Henry and his sidekicks pursued a policy of rotation, with two parallel fifteens, which did not allow the All Blacks to build up any continuity or rhythm.  Although it seems that this did not diminish the confidence of their supporters (see this 2007 article for an hilarious instance of hubris), it almost certainly contributed to their quarter-final exit.

This time round, the New Zealand coaching staff are keen to avoid this error, with Steve Hansen speaking about having a core of ten or twelve players and rotating around that. The danger, however, is that a desire to protect these core players from injury, and a number of positions in which the first pick is not evident, will lead to constant chopping and changing. The All Blacks must aim to play their best side in every match: momentum and familiarity are crucial to winning tight games.  Unfortunately for them, they seem fairly unsure what their best side is – and a good start against the Tongans has not provided any conclusive evidence to help them.

New Zealand must finally decide, after today’s game, what their best combinations are, in the centres, the back three, at half back and in the pack. Then they need to stick with those selections and build momentum towards a long-awaited World Cup victory. And, of course, pray that Carter and McCaw don’t sustain injuries.

Categories: All Blacks · Players · RWC 2011 · Tonga
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

T’ n’ T’ give England something to celebrate

August 28, 2011 · 2 Comments

Tuilagi had an explosive impact for England as they overcame Ireland in Dublin

Well it’s fair to say England have found their centres.  A man of the match display from Mike Tindall, celebrating a record-equalling 72nd cap, opened the way for Tuilagi to exhibit the full range of his talents, scoring a try and demonstrating his crushing defence.  As the luckless David Wallace will testify, when he hits, he hits hard.

Much more pleasing than either man’s moments of individual skill, however, is the efficacy of the combination that  England have found.  Whilst Tuilagi’s finish and Tindall’s beautifully-executed kick were impressive, their most telling endeavour was in fact defensive, when they collaborated to turnover Irish ball inside their own 22.  With the English line under severe pressure, Tindall stepped up and funneled the attack back into Tuilagi and Wilkinson (and, frankly, that’s a bad place to be funneled).  As the ensuing hit came in, the captain was on hand to steal the ball, and England survived unscathed.

This half pitch press was so well done that Ireland failed to score a try all game, and recorded no points in the second half, despite good territory and possession.  England’s defence was absolutely rock solid, with Tindall deployed at 13 to act a decision-maker whenever Ireland were on the ball.  Much as Tuilagi’s physical threat gave Tindall the space and time to create in attack, it was the older man’s much-vaunted reading of the game that gave Tuilagi plenty of opportunity to showcase his tackling ability.  Good centre partnerships are mutually beneficial, and that’s exactly what England seem to have found.

Elsewhere, the away performance was less unqualifiedly brilliant.  The forwards worked hard, with Thompson anchoring a powerful scrum, and their tackle count and work ethic were excellent.  Also pleasing was the line-out, in which each of Deacon, Palmer, Croft, Lawes and Shaw acted as jumpers.  However, the penalty count was a constant problem; Haskell’s carrying must be offset against a lack of control at the base of the scrum; and Lawes was largely anonymous.

In the backs, Wilkinson was below par.  Although he should keep his place for the first group game, his hands were not as slick as they can be and his kicking from hand was extremely variable.  It’s probably unfair to take his goal-kicking and defence for granted but one can’t help hoping for more.  Equally subdued was the returning Ashton, and Foden was again anonymous, with Armitage the only noticeable pace-merchant.  The defensive line was unbreachable but England must learn to use their midfield penetration to bring their back three into space.  Foden and Ashton form a world class partnership that is potentially lethal, and yet they did not break the line once between them and England seem to have forgotten how to use them.  If Tuilagi bulldozes his way across the gain line, England must aim to get Foden and Ashton running at forwards and threatening to break clear.  Drifting slightly and shipping the ball to Manu  resulted in a try yesterday, but it won’t against any defence worth its salt, and England’s second phase is blunt where it should be incisive.

Despite the inevitable talk of lessons to be learned, England will be hugely satisfied to have won this game.  A successful trip to Dublin has eluded the men in white since 2003, and they’ve only beaten Ireland once at Twickenham in that time.  To return to the scene of March’s brutal reality check and win convincingly is a significant achievement which very few predicted.  The pre-game talk of England aiming to lose well has been quickly forgotten, partly because of Ireland’s inability to improve on their troubled form, but Johnson will be delighted to have won comfortably.  Indeed, if Lawes hadn’t butchered – really butchered - a try on the right, and if Cueto hadn’t been lame when he intercepted Reddan’s pass, England would have won by a serious margin.  The Red Rose is in efficient, powerful, ominous shape, while the emerald green is in serious need of answers.

Categories: England · Ireland · Players · RWC 2011
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Exciting England selection signifies change of heart from Johnson

August 25, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Johnson will give Manu Tuilagi the chance to ignite England's attack

I have to be honest and say that I’m evidently not the best person for second guessing Martin Johnson. Much as my predicted squad resembles the actual squad fairly closely, this shouldn’t disguise the fact that Johnson and I used different reasoning on just about everything that matters. Given this, however, it’s even more surprising that Johnson’s team to face Ireland is almost exactly what I’d hoped for. It’s powerful, experienced and looks more creative than before. Despite his conservative reputation, Johnson has made some bold calls, and there is reason for cautious optimism if you’re an England fan. The striking selection at 10, 12 and 13 suggests a real change of approach, and it may well sort some of England’s recent problems.

The team:
1. Sheridan
2. Thompson
3. Cole
4. Lawes
5. Deacon
6. Croft
7. Haskell
8. Easter

Subs: Hartley, Stevens, Shaw, Wood

The pack looks solid and doesn’t offer up too many surprises. You might have fancied Hartley over Thompson (and indeed Stevens ahead of Cole) but England’s abundance of front row riches here means that this is still a reassuring area. Lawes and Deacon give an exciting blend of muscle and athleticism and Deacon’s line-out work against Wales has clearly been preferred to Palmer’s thunderous defence, with Shaw offering experience and weight from the bench.

The back row is well-balanced, although I would expect Haskell to make way for Moody on September 10th. I get the distinct feeling that Johnson wants Haskell and Easter to front up to the Irish intensity at the breakdown, after England got so stuffed there in Dublin, and Haskell is in particularly imposing phsyical condition at the moment. With Moody named as captain, and so certain to start if fit, Haskell will see this as a real chance to claim the no. 8 spot from Easter. Easter has a long-standing claim to the position, but if Haskell continues his Six Nations form then Johnson will have a selection headache there.

9. Wigglesworth
10. Wilkinson
11. Ashton
12. Tindall
13. Tuilagi
14. Cueto
15. Foden

Subs: Simpson, Flood, Armitage

This is where things get really interesting. Youngs will most likely return when fit, but Wigglesworth will be keen to impress after his trial against Wales was cut short by injury. Given Youngs’ fairly ordinary Six Nations, the rugby brain and quick hands of Wigglesworth do give him an outside chance of nailing down a starting birth, especially if Youngs isn’t fit for the Argentina game.

Wilkinson is finally re-instated at 10 and, for me, the only surprise here is that Johnson was prepared to make that call. Ever since Wilkinson won the game for England against Scotland in February, I have felt that he offered greater control than Flood, who is suffering as sides work him out via their analysis. Johnson, however, has shown admirable consistency in selecting Flood, and it is good to see that he is now selecting on form, as he did when he initially dropped Wilkinson. Ashton’s return to the back three will give England greater verve and finishing power, and Wilkinson’s eye for the cross kick might well come into play.

The biggest news, however, lies with the centres. After months of staunchly defending Hape and Tindall, Johnson has finally decided that he needs more in attack. Tuilagi’s brutal physicality will be a huge asset for England, and I expect to see him and Tindall rotating their positions during the game. Of the rather thin resources at Johnson’s disposal, this is surely the partnership that offers the most go-forward and, if England can consistently break the gain line, we will see the truly lethal back three come into play. With England’s recent scoring troubles, it is easy to forget how good Ashton, Foden and Cueto are – I for one hope to be reminded on Saturday.

Categories: England · Players · RWC 2011
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

England Squad Prediction

August 20, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Johnson will announce his squad on Monday but he has some difficult decisions to make

Right.  Martin Johnson picks his squad on Monday, and I’m going to have a stab at second-guessing him.  This is not (as the centres might suggest) my squad – it’s what I think Johnson will go for, and why.

Forwards:

Props – Sheridan, Cole, Stevens, Corbisiero
Hookers – Hartley, Thompson, Mears
Second rows – Lawes, Palmer, Shaw
Back rows – Moody, Haskell, Easter, Croft, Wood, Fourie

The last two English World Cup squads have been a 16-14 split and most commentators agree that this will again be the case.  Many think that Johnson has to take five props, because the physical demands of the position mean that he risks being exposed if he takes fewer.  However, he is able to call up Wilson or Doran-Jones if someone gets injured and so I think he will want more options in the back row.  The need for cover does dictate that he take three hookers, however, as England need enough to have a starter and a sub even if one player becomes injured.  George Chuter will lose out to Mears’ mobility, youth and Lions pedigree.

The second row make-up is dependent on the degree to which Croft is seen as second row cover.  Clive Woodward chose three second rows because he had Martin Corry to cover lock and I think Johnson will do the same to give himself more back row choice.  Louis Deacon would consider himself very unlucky not to make the cut, especially after his slick line-out work in the Millennium Stadium, but I think Johnson will favour Shaw’s experience and bulk.  If he takes Deacon and Palmer, he is then left with a lightweight second row if Lawes gets injured.  Equally, although Palmer is the only outstanding jumper in the three I have chosen, Croft and Wood can offer other line-out options and Lawes is athletic enough to receive if required.

The back row is then formed from the usual suspects, with Haskell covering 8.  Tom Wood gets my vote because of his Six Nations performances and Fourie secures a spot with his recent form and ability to play open-side.  The major decision will be whether to take four locks or six back rowers, and I think Johnson will plump for the latter because of Moody’s fitness problems.

Backs:

Scrum halfs – Youngs, Wigglesworth, Simpson
Fly halfs – Flood, Wilkinson, Hodgson
Centres – Hape, Tindall, Tuilagi
Back three – Ashton, Cueto, Foden, Armitage, Banahan

The big problem for Johnson is his centres, and this has been hugely exacerbated by the injury to Danny Care.  Given Care’s outstanding work against Wales, he was a certainty to travel, and I’m sure Johnson was planning to take Care and Youngs with Foden as emergency cover.  This would have given him the chance to take four centres, as well as Banahan.  However, Care’s injury means that he must take three scrum halfs, with Youngs only just coming back from injury and thus unreliable from a fitness point of view.

In addition to this, it seems to me that three fly halfs is a must, as none of the centres can cover 10.  Much as with his props, Johnson will not risk having no replacements in the event of an injury to Flood or Wilkinson.  Equally, the starting back three will be covered by Armitage, but I think England will want another winger, especially as Armitage is not experienced on the wing.  This means that Banahan, despite his inability to score against Shane Williams, beats Sharples and makes the cut, owing to his versatility.  If Johnson is committed to three 9s, three 10s and 5 speedsters, he will need one of the latter to cover the centre, and Banahan fits the bill.

Johnson is therefore forced into choosing three specialist centres.  In an ideal world, Flutey would be fit and in form, as he offers a creativity that is absent from the other candidates.  However, he has not been convincing in recent times and so I am sure Johnson will stick with the tried-and-tested Hape, whom he continues to defend.  Tindall is a certainty for his defensive leadership and Tuilagi then gets the nod for his explosive running ability.  Whilst this will be the area that gives England supporters the most angst, I actually think Johnson will be relaxed about it, as he doesn’t seem to care that Hape and Tindall’s distribution is so bad.  Be prepared for these two to provide a defensive screen, with Tuilagi waiting in the wings for an injury or a catastrophic drop in form.  The thought of Hape being England’s only ‘creative’ 12 fills me with dread, but it is symptomatic of England’s general weakness in that position.

Conclusion:

Those, then, are the 30 that I expect Johnson to announce – and I’d be surprised if I were out by more than a couple.  Possibly Deacon will travel with fewer back rows; possibly Flutey will be included at the expense of Banahan or Hodgson.  However, the real problem for England is not so much the squad as the starting XV.  The lacklustre showing in Wales has cast doubt over 9, 10, 12 and 13 and the back row is not a settled unit, with injury worries in several key positions.  I’ll blog on this at a later date but, in the meantime, I’ll let you know on Monday what the final squad is and how accurate my prediction turns out to be.

Categories: England · Players · RWC 2011
Tagged: , , ,