Foot in Touch

Entries categorized as ‘RWC 2011’

France 7-8 New Zealand: All Blacks good value for World Cup win

October 23, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Brad Thorn and the New Zealand players celebrate their World Cup win

France (0) 7

Tries: Dusautoir; Conversions: Trinh-Duc

New Zealand (5) 8

Tries: Woodcock; Penalties: Donald

The All Blacks finally ended 24 years of disappointment by beating France 7-8 in the rugby World Cup final at Eden Park, but they didn’t do it without a serious scare.  The French, justly labelled the worst side ever to reach a World Cup final, were the better side on the day, but  missed kicks and some borderline refereeing decisions conspired to defeat them.  Although the French will look back and believe that they should have won, few would deny that the All Blacks were worthy winners given their performances throughout the tournament.

The game began in much the same way as the group game between the two teams, with France in the ascendancy.  A willingness to put width on the ball was causing New Zealand problems and was denying their back row the chance to spoil possession at the breakdown.  Just as had happened a few weeks earlier, however, France’s bright start was eclipsed by a breakaway All Black try.  Already reeling from the loss of Morgan Parra, who was forced off as McCaw’s knee caught his head in a ruck, the French went to sleep at the lineout and allowed Tony Woodcock to stroll through from 7m out.  Although Weepu missed the conversion, New Zealand were 5-0 up and France’s bright start was wasted.

With the All Blacks starting to control proceedings, only Weepu’s wayward kicking prevented the men in black pulling further ahead.  An early penalty had already skewed wide, in addition to the conversion, before his third attempt also flew off target from right in front of the posts.  Despite this, however, the home team were controlling both territory and possession, aided by Joubert’s liberality at the breakdown.  The South African referee was in a lenient mood, and it allowed Kaino, Read and McCaw to make a mess of every breakdown they could reach, much to the frustration of France’s backs.

As the match approached half-time, the French finally established some phases and field position.  As they barrelled forwards, Trinh-Duc attempted an ambitious drop goal from 40m but sliced it wide of the right-hand upright, and it seemed the chance had gone.  When the clearance again fell to France’s replacement fly-half, however, he set off on a fantastic break, scything through the All Blacks’ chasers and leaving Kaino for dead with a cute dummy.  Weepu’s desperate tap-tackle halted the attack and kept the half-time score at 5-0, but France had served notice of their capabilities.

The French start to the second half was nothing short of explosive.  First, McCaw was finally penalised by Joubert for having his hands in the ruck, but Yachvilli pushed his kick inches wide.  A soft penalty then allowed Stephen Donald, on for his World Cup debut in place of the injured Aaron Cruden, to extend the lead to 8-0, and it looked like a promising beginning might again be wasted.  Then, as the All Blacks paused at a ruck on half way, the impressive Aurelien Rougerie stuck a foot through the ruck and kicked the ball through.  As Weepu instinctively hacked at the ball, Trinh-Duc burst forward to intercept his flick and set off for the posts.  Although the supporting Yachvilli lost his footing, giving New Zealand time to reorganise on their own line, Dusautoir cut a brilliant angle a touched down under the posts.

Suddenly, the French were in complete control.  Yachvilli and Trinh-Duc began to pin the All Blacks back with clever touchfinders, and Mermoz and the outstanding Rougerie carried with relish in the midfield.  New Zealand couldn’t get near the ball, let alone the French half, and even the refereeing began to go against them, as two penalties cost them 50 yards and gave Trinh-Duc the chance to seize the lead on 64 minutes.  France will forever wonder what might have happened if the kick had gone over, but the pressure told and it missed by a good 10m.  Even so, it seemed impossible that New Zealand could hold out under such relentless attack.

Yet hold out they did.  Donald and Dagg both managed to buy some respite with booming clearances, and marginal knock-ons began to creep into the French game as their desperation increased.  With the clock running down, France strove to get into drop-goal range but could not fashion an opportunity.  The irrepressible Rougerie finally gave them momentum, smashing through Conrad Smith and surging forward, but Jean-Marc Doussain, making not only his World Cup but also his international debut at the age of 20, knocked-on at the base of the ruck and New Zealand were able to clear their lines.  As they ground down the time until the final whistle, an entire nation contemplated the end of two generations of heartache, and no one outside France could begrudge them their moment.

Despite coming so very, very close to losing the final, New Zealand were absolutely worthy winners of the 2011 World Cup.  By far the best team over the previous four years (and arguably over the previous eight), they consistently rose to the occasion from their first game.  They destroyed France in their pool and overcame Australia at a canter in the semis, even absorbing the loss of the talismanic Dan Carter.  While Joubert’s generosity and two missed penalties were required to see them home, no one could claim that another team had better players or better form over the past six weeks.  Attention will now turn to 2015, where England will hope to emulate the All Blacks in pulling off a victory as the host nation.  In the meantime, keep checking back on Foot in Touch as we reflect on the World Cup, look forward to the Six Nations and the 2013 Lions tour, and also get into club rugby with some interviews and revealing profile pieces.

Categories: All Blacks · France · RWC 2011
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wales – quit your whining

October 17, 2011 · 1 Comment

Clerc's head drops below his hips as he is tackled by Sam Warburton

I think it’s fair to say that this post isn’t going to win me many friends, especially not on t’other side of Offa’s Dyke.  But, in short and at odds with our Welsh Welsh Correspondent (think about it), Wales need to shut up, man up and realise how big an opportunity they let slip by.  What lost them this game was poor kicking, an inability to fashion a drop-goal chance at the death and, I suspect, an insufficient ‘big game mentality’.

First, then, the source of the controversy – that tackle.  On 18 minutes, Sam Warburton lined up Vincent Clerc and absolutely smashed him.  He hit him hard in the chest and, as Clerc went backwards, he wrapped his arms around him.  Unfortunately, because Clerc was travelling away from him, his arms actually fastened around the player’s legs, meaning that his subsequent drive lifted the winger’s hips above his shoulders.  Realising this, he released the player and dropped him on his head, rather than driving him into the ground in what would’ve been a classic, and extremely dangerous, ‘spear tackle’.

The French players got pretty angry and shoved whoever was nearest, shouting ‘zut alors’ and other expressions of Gallic outrage; Clerc lay prone while medics tried to establish whether his neck was still doing the time-honoured job of holding his head in place; and Alain Rolland, with a minimum of fuss, gave Sam Warburton a straight red card.

Cue pandemonium.  Cue speechless commentators, past and present players decrying the decision on Twitter and the whole of Wales getting the collective hump.  Perhaps worse, a man called Allain Rolland had an entire Twitter trend of vitriol directed at him, which seems unfair given that he a) is the Vice-President of Research & Development at a pharmaceutical company called Valentis Inc. and b) was almost certainly asleep, as he lives and works in California.

The problem for those who didn’t like the decision is that the real Alain Rolland was absolutely, unequivocally, unambiguously correct.  Here’s why:

1) Law 10.4 (j) states ”Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.”  This tackle was therefore dangerous play – Clerc hit the ground head first while Warburton still had his legs at chest height.  The fact that he was dropped, rather than driven, is irrelevant – that only matters when the disciplinary panel hand out their subsequent ban.

2) On 8th June 2009, the following memorandum was sent out by Paddy O’Brien, IRB Referee Manager: “In 2007, the IRB Council approved a ruling, which essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and constitute dangerous play.  At a subsequent IRB high performance seminar referees were advised that for these types of tackles they were to start at red card as a sanction and work backwards.  Unfortunately these types of tackles are still being made and the purpose of this memorandum is to emphasise that they must be dealt with severely by referees.”  A red card is, therefore, the correct punishment for such a tackle.  Nothing in the law or the memorandum gives us grounds to consider Warburton’s tackle outside its remit, nor to consider it worthy of less than a red card.  As mentioned, dropping and driving are not distinguished by the law, and the timing of the tackle and the importance of the game do not affect the punishment.

3) Just in case there was any doubt, Paddy O’Brien continued: “Referees…should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4) of the circumstances of the tackle.”  So the fact that Sam Warburton is a nice guy, and quite young, and has a good disciplinary record, is also irrelevant.  As it should be, frankly.  Warburton’s genial character would hardly have helped Clerc if he’d ended up with a broken collarbone, after all.  Also, crucially, the genuine attempt to back out of the tackle by dropping Clerc rather than driving him down is immaterial – Clerc still landed dangerously, and the responsibility for putting him down is Warburton’s.

So, in sum, Alain Rolland did exactly what he’s supposed to do.  He acted absolutely in accordance with the law and with subsequent clarifications.  Not only that, he should be praised for being just about the only referee who is doing this consistently (he dismissed Toulouse centre Florian Fritz for a similar tackle in this year’s Heineken Cup).  In fact, given that the law is so unambiguous, other referees have something to answer for here.  If everyone had been refereeing with the same clarity, consistency and adherence to the law as Rolland, no one would have been surprised at this decision.  Indeed, this is the only area where Wales can feel genuinely hard done-by – that similar and worse tackles have attracted lesser punishments in rugby at every level recently, including at this World Cup.  The fault for that is not Rolland’s, however.  That problem lies with the rest of the referees.

There is, finally, a further consequence of this inconsistency, which is that the IRB have not been encouraged to reconsider their stance on the laws governing tackles.  What has happened, in effect, is that every referee except Rolland has gone away and decided, consciously or otherwise, to distinguish between dropping and driving, to take into account the game state and the player in question.  The problem is that the law doesn’t give them any scope for doing this, and so such unlitateral action positively advances the likelihood of the situation that has now occurred – one referee stuck to the law, where others have not, and everyone thinks it’s a travesty.  The law should be a strict set of criteria for every decision in the game, taking the need for individual preference out of the equation.  That way, theoretically at least, you get consistency across the board and everyone knows what to expect.

If everyone had done this, the IRB would quickly have been forced to review its stance as a series of very soft looking red cards were handed out.  If every tackle similar to Warburton’s had suffered the same fate, we would probably by now have a law which takes into account the clear distinction between picking a player up and smashing him into the floor, and losing control of a player’s weight and dropping him.  This is a distinction which should be made, and which lies at the heart of much of the public dissatisfaction with this decision.  But while referees continue to apply this distinction in practice without the support of the law, the possibility of another unfortunate-looking red card remains as present as ever.  Thank goodness it has been brought to our attention – perhaps now something can be done.

The second part of this post has a simple message – even if you remain convinced that Warburton’s sending off was the biggest injustice since the O J Simpson trial, it wasn’t the reason Wales lost.  Wales lost because, despite bossing territory and possession for the entire second half, they failed to turn pressure into points.  Including drop-goals, they missed six out of seven kicks at goal, and no one wins World Cups with a success rate like that.

It was, certainly, a titanic effort to compete so well with only fourteen men on the field; and, yes, if Warburton had been there then they would have found it easier to play at that level (if you ignore the fact that their performance was almost certainly spurred on by a sharp sense of injustice).  But Warburton not being there wasn’t the reason that two drop-goal attempts went wide, or that Halfpenny dropped a foot short with his kick, or that Stephen Jones missed a fairly straightforward conversion.  The point is that, once they had achieved the incredible feat of dominating the game with only fourteen men, they straightforwardly messed up.  The last play covered 26 consecutive phases of Welsh possession on and around the French 22.  Not to fashion a drop-goal attempt in that time is criminal.  And, even if Warburton had been involved, there is no good reason to suppose that they would have managed one then.

That indecision and failure to step up to mark suggests mental frailty to me – and a series of Welsh players saying how proud they are of what they have achieved anyway only reinforces this impression. Don’t come off after losing a semi-final and talk about how proud you are – come off and feel gutted! World Cup semi-finals don’t come around very often, especially ones against eminently beatable opposition, and you just blew one. If that sounds unsympathetic, it’s because I am. This is elite sport, and no one gets any prizes for being a plucky loser.

So, in conclusion, I understand why the Welsh feel aggrieved but the only conclusion that can be reached by an objective consideration of the facts is that Rolland made the right decision. Furthermore, given the incredible potential of this Welsh squad, it would be a crying shame if they allowed resentment at the red card get in the way of a drive to improve this team. I hope Warren Gatland has sat his players down and worked out exactly what they need to do better to win tight games, against teams like South Africa and France. Because if he gets that right, they will absolutely destroy the 2012 6 Nations – even if they have to play with only fourteen men.

Categories: France · Refereeing · RWC 2011 · Wales

New Zealand 20 – 6 Australia

October 16, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Nonu scores the opening try for New Zealand

Chris Gollop

Forgive me if this reads more like a eulogy than a match report, but this World Cup semi-final was all about one man, Richie McCaw. The most remarkable aspect of the game was that he was not man of the match. That accolade fell to Cory Jane, who reigned supreme in the airways. McCaw was absolutely everywhere: winning turnovers, slowing ball down, carrying powerfully and, crucially, leading this outstanding All Black team to the World Cup final.

During the week we heard much about David Pocock’s great performance against South Africa in the quarter-final, and he did not disappoint this morning. Pocock won turnovers, supported runners excellently, and made some great carries. The problem for Australia was twofold: McCaw did these things better, and McCaw was not acting in isolation. The contest between the sevens was epitomised in the 61st minute when Pocock won a brilliant turnover. Genia picked up the ball and was immediately snaffled by McCaw who then appeared somehow with the ball himself, as he so often does.

There has been great discussion about the opensides in this tournament, with some making the frankly blasphemous claim – and, before you ask, there is no black blood running through my veins – that McCaw might be the fourth best openside in the world. Warburton and Brussow are very good players; Pocock and McCaw are in a different class. The comparison between the two is fascinating: Pocock is a fine physical specimen, with his bulging biceps and immense upper-body power – both over the ball and with ball in hand. McCaw is not as impressive an athlete to watch – there is something so aesthetically pleasing about Pocock’s position over the ball, as he rips it from the tackled player with one arm and braces himself with the other – but what he lacks in physique he compensates for in nous, bravery and determination. Craig Joubert penalised Pocock twice early in the match for being off his feet, and McCaw once for failing to release. Neither gave away another penalty, but that did not stop McCaw slowing the ball down with highly dubious methods. He has the great skill of appearing to be stuck at the bottom of a ruck, normally facing away from the ball, and yet somehow managing to keep his hands on the ball for just the right amount of time to slow the opposition down but not make the referee suspicious.

I suppose I ought to write about other aspects of the match, but none was as compelling as this contest. There was a fitting ring composition to the game: the mercurial Quade Cooper sent the kick-off straight into touch, and ended the match in touch with four All Blacks on top of him. When the game opened up, we witnessed brief glimpses of his fast footwork and remarkable ball skills, but this game highlighted his lack of composure. This was emphasised by the calm and controlled performance of Aaron Cruden at ten. The skater from Manawatu showed his running abilities with some fine dummies, and his poise with a beautifully struck drop-goal in the 22nd minute (he has almost as many as Carter now).

Israel Dagg lit up the field near the beginning of the match with a stunning outside break: he dispatched Rocky Elsom with a powerful hand-off and scooted around O’Connor before delivering a sensational one-handed offload to Nonu, who ran in the only try of the match. Dagg was outstanding throughout. With his drinking patner Cory Jane seemingly catching every kick the Wallabies hoisted in the air, the New Zealand back three was brilliant in defence – Dagg’s towering clearances stood out in particular. They were dangerous with the ball in their hands, and Richard Kahui certainly made his presence felt with a massive hit on Cooper after a perfectly timed kick chase.

But this match was not won by New Zealand’s back three. It was won by their forward pack, which was supreme. The scrum was solid, the lineout highly efficient, and Australia – with the exception of Pocock – could not live with their ferocity at the breakdown. As great as McCaw was, I must admit that he had the advantage of tireless support from his back row colleagues and the rampaging Brad Thorn. Keven Mealamu, as we have come to expect, made lots of metres with niggling charges and was very good in defence, assisting his back row on the floor. The only negative for New Zealand was the 73rd minute sin-binning of Sonny Bill Williams for a stupid shoulder charge.

Australia did incredibly well to appear to keep themselves in the game for so long, but in reality they had no chance with New Zealand in this form. Their defence too was outstanding, but they did not have the same intensity as the All Blacks – perhaps a result of their astonishing 147 tackles in the quarter-final last week – nor was their set-piece secure enough. Ioane looked dangerous when he received the ball and, on one occasion in the first half, got very close to the try line with a bulldozing run. But he was not given any space by the all-encompassing All Black defence.

Australia ought to be genuinely proud of their efforts – unlike Wales, who should have been testing themselves in the final next weekend, but lacked the composure to defeat an inferior team. Australia were blown away by a sensational performance from a much better side. No one was going to beat the All Blacks today, even though Piri Weepu was not at his best and looked like he very much needed a rest when he came off in the 57th minute.

This was one of the best defensive displays I’ve ever seen, with great performances from one to eight. But, as you may have gathered, one man stood out. The man on one leg. The fourth best openside in the world.

Categories: All Blacks · Australia · RWC 2011
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Wales 8 – 9 France

October 16, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Warburton upends Clerc in a defining moment of the match

Jon Main

This was a bitterly disappointing result for Welsh fans, as their side fell just short after a heroic 14-man effort.  The turning point of the match was undoubtedly the highly controversial dismissal of Sam Warburton, the Welsh captain, for an 18th minute spear tackle.  Missed kicks then ultimately cost Wales a first ever World Cup final.

The Welsh started the game well and took the lead through an eight-minute James Hook penalty.  However, just a few minutes later Hook dragged a second attempt wide, leaving the score at 3-0.  Replays showed that the fly-half’s standing foot slipped from beneath him, the first in a series of events that suggested it might not be Wales’ night.  Despite this, however, the industry of Williams, North and Faletau was giving Wales a great attacking platform.

Then, so early in the game, came the moment that will haunt Welsh players and fans for some time – possibly even for a generation.  Sam Warburton picked a French lineout move and put in a huge tackle on Vincent Clerc, landing him on his head.  As the French and Welsh players began an unseemly scuffle, cameras and fans alike missed the decision of Alain Rolland to issue a straight red card for the tackle.  As a Welshman, this will forever be a complete injustice.  It was an incredibly harsh decision, and left Wales with 60 minutes to survive without a full complement of players.

After a French penalty made it 3-3, however, Wales started to show the heart they would demonstrate for the rest of the contest.  Halfpenny did brilliantly to clear under pressure and the Welsh defensive line refused to buckle, forcing a knock on.  Indeed, as they returned into the French half, they earned another penalty attempt, which Hook again missed.  There was a growing sense that these missed attempts could be costly – and, ultimately, so it proved.  As France took the lead for the first time through a second Parra penalty, just six minutes before half time, Wales again engineered field position, only for Hook to skew his drop-goal off target.  The men in red trailed 6-3 at half time.

The first score of the second half was always going to be important, and it went to another Parra penalty.  Despite the big defence of Lydiate, as he attempted to compensate for his missing colleague, France were starting to turn the screw.  Then, from nowhere, Mike Phillips pulled Wales back into the game with a piece of individual magic.  Spotting a prop on the fringes, he executed a lovely show-and-go and dived over for a superb solo try.  Stephen Jones, thrown on for the misfiring Hook, had the chance to seize the lead, but his attempt came back off the upright and France remained just in front.

Suddenly, despite the missed conversion, it was all Wales at Eden Park.  Roberts, doubling up as a flanker in the under-pressure Welsh scrum, and Faletau were smashing into Blue jerseys to create momentum and yet another drop goal attempt was crafted, which again went wide.  With time running out, Wales won a penalty on half way and Halfpenny decided to kick for the points.  From 49m, his kick dropped just a foot under the crossbar.  Despite a huge last push, involving 26 consecutive phases, the Welsh could not build to a drop goal and they exited the World Cup.  The question for those of us who supported the valiant losers, however, will always be: how different would it have been if Warburton had not been sent off after just a quarter of the game.

Categories: France · RWC 2011 · Wales
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

7th Heaven

October 14, 2011 · Leave a Comment

So the quarter-finals have come and gone, and I’ve given it a week before posting anything in case my next contribution just turned into a long, disappointed diatribe about how poor England were.  The World Cup campaign of Johnson’s team was, overall, fairly calamitous, as they failed to make friends on or off the pitch.  I, along with the coaching staff, players and a large part of the rugby public, was somehow fooled into thinking that you can win a World Cup playing badly, which of course you can’t.  You don’t have to be the best team in tournament; you don’t have to score the most tries; but you can’t play badly and win a World Cup.  So England got what they deserved, and the Rugby World Cup is probably richer for it, as teams in better form progress into the semi-finals (with the exception of France, who remain terrible).

Onto the semi-finals then, and the battle of the opensides.  It’s always dangerous to focus too much on individuals in what is the ultimate team game, but I agree with a large number of learned commentators who are talking about the semi-finals as direct battles between opposing flankers – Warburton vs Dusautoir and, even more enticingly, Pocock vs McCaw.  Whilst it would be an exaggeration to say that these clashes will decide the game, it would be extremely surprising if the winner of each of these clashes were to end up on the losing side.

A good number 7 is, of course, one of the things that England lack.  Throughout the tournament, there has been a continuing debate about the value of a genuine openside flanker in the team.  This has been prompted by teams such as England and Ireland, both quarter-finalists, who travelled without a first-choice specialist in that position.  Originally, I was tempted to reconfigure this debate along the lines of ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ numbers 7s.  This sees the traditional player as a slightly smaller, very quick player whose speciality is causing problems at the breakdown and slowing down opposition ball (if you want a paradigm of this type of player, you couldn’t find much better than Neil Back).  The modern 7, meanwhile, is a player like James Haskell or Sean O’Brien – not necessarily a sneaky operator who gets under opposition bodies at the ruck, but a powerful, mobile jack-of-all-trades who focuses on a high tackle count and puts himself about, without worrying too much about the darker side of the position.

Reading the situation thus, I didn’t take it too seriously when commentators pointed to England’s lack of specialist openside as a weakness.  After all, if you look at a position and James Haskell is filling it, there doesn’t seem to be too much of a problem.  But it isn’t that players like Haskell and O’Brien aren’t good rugby players or that they don’t try hard enough – it’s that a genuine, ‘traditional’, died-in-the-wool number 7 gives you something that no other player can, even if they have that number on their shirt.  The ability to turn over opposition ball, or at least to slow it down, is the defining characteristic of a good openside flanker – and it is something that England, in particular, missed hugely in this World Cup.

The two biggest quarter-finals last week were decided by openside flankers.  Ireland vs Wales was a titanic clash which the Welsh eventually won reasonably comfortably.  This was in a large part down to Sam Warburton’s success in nullifying the carrying threat of Sean O’Brien, his opposite number.  If O’Brien had created the sort of momentum that he has against just about everyone in the last 10 months, Wales would have lost.  Instead, the day was carried by Warburton’s tireless tackling (I heard an unconfirmed report that he had made 16 tackles by half-time alone) and his ability to win crucial turnovers when Ireland were camped on the Welsh line (notably in the early stages, when Ireland failed twice to take points having been camped on the Welsh line).  O’Brien is a very good flanker but is naturally a 6.  Although his freakish strength and mobility mean that he could never be considered a weak link, it is telling that Warburton’s impact ultimately outweighed that of the bigger, more brutal player.

If Warburton’s effect on the Welsh game was considerable, however, then David Pocock’s influence against South Africa was seismic.  Somehow, despite having no possession, no territory and a kicking game that resembled an under-16s training exercise, Australia managed to come away with a win.  South Africa had 75% territorial domination – 75%! – and yet were unable to convert pressure into points, largely because of Pocock’s work on the back foot.  Despite not playing the entire match, the Queensland player made 29 tackles and stole possession 9 times, truly astonishing figures.  With the South Africans’ own breakdown specialist, Heinrich Brussow, leaving the field injured in the first half, this was almost certainly the area of the game that went the furthest to deciding the match.

In my mind at least, therefore, this tournament has conclusively demonstrated not only the value of but also the necessity of a talented, specialist number 7 in any world class team.  It is no coincidence that Warburton, McCaw, Pocock and Dusautoir (an often under-estimated player) have carried their teams to the semi-finals and it has shown that, however good the replacement is, you cannot swap a 7 for a 6 without losing something from your game.  The challenge now for those sides without such a player is to find one and to promote him, quickly.  It would take a brave man to drop two of Wallace, Ferris and O’Brien in favour of a less rounded, specialist openside, and the same is true when weighing up Haskell, Wood and Moody.  If England are to start a meaningful assault on the top of world rugby, however, they’re going to need to do it with David Seymour, of Sale, or Carl Fearns, of Bath, playing a prominent role in their starting XV.

Categories: All Blacks · Australia · France · Ireland · RWC 2011 · South Africa · Wales
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Quarter-final preview

October 6, 2011 · Leave a Comment

The Celtic clash between Ireland and Wales is the best of a cracking quarter-final lineup

In a Rugby World Cup group game, the average winning margin is 28 points.  In a knock-out game, it is 14 points.  In a final, it is 10 points, and three finals have been decided by less than one score.

The newspaper in which I read those statistics used them as evidence that knock-out rugby is boring.  I strongly suspect the correspondent was a football fan, because the actual reason is quite the opposite – it gets close in the quarter-finals because that’s when the best teams start playing each other.  This is where it gets fascinating.

While there are those who will complain that the competition has again failed to produce a group-stage upset, it is difficult to be too downhearted about this because it guarantees an immense weekend of rugby.  The obvious weak link is Argentina, who are extremely unlikely to overcome New Zealand (30/1 last I checked), but then Dan Carter thoughtfully ruptured a tendon he never knew he had, giving the game huge resonance for Colin Slade and those who put their house on the All Blacks instead of a pension plan.  I for one will be tuning in with rapt attention, not only to see if Slade can fill the winged sandals of Carter but also to seize upon the first sign of choking, spluttering or even mild heart burn from the men in black.

Elsewhere, England and France will renew an historic rivalry with both sides looking to improve.  This may turn out to be hubristic, but I make England heavy, heavy favourites.  Not only have England won 4 from 4, including two games that thoroughly resembled knock-out rugby, they also have pedigree in this type of game.  Add to that the abject form of the French, the deteriorating relationship between coach and players, their weird selection and the psychological impact of a certain J Wilkinson, and I will be astonished if England lose.  That said, it is a World Cup quarter final, and if ever there is a game where form goes out of the window, it’s a knock-out game in a World Cup.  France are always capable of a mercurial turnaround.  I just think that in this instance, it’s more unlikely than usual.

As if that wasn’t enough, the really mouthwatering clashes are the two I have yet to mention.  Australia vs South Africa will be titanic, with large numbers of travelling supporters set to create a pulsating atmosphere.  David Pocock against Heinrich Brussow, Will Genia against Fourie du Preez – huge clashes in a huge game.  Australia are favourites, having beaten South Africa in their last four meetings, but I actually fancy the Springboks to win.  Not only is this side the most experienced in their history, with 836 caps, it contains a number of players who are World Cup winners, where Australia have none.  Ireland showed that you can beat the Wallabies by kicking your goals and having a blanket defence, both strong facets of the South African game, and I expect that will have had a psychological impact.  The onus is on Australia to make the play quick and loose, and in the knock-out stages I always bet against the side who have to break free to win the game – it’s just not how knock-out rugby works.

That is in turn what makes the Celtic clash the pick of the round, as neither side should look to stifle the other.  Wales will never abandon their free-flowing style, regardless of circumstance, and a Northern Hemisphere opponent reduces the chance that they will execute badly because of nerves or psychological weakness.  Ireland, meanwhile, have the pack to play it tight, but they cut loose against Italy and their dynamic back row will want a broken game so that they can scavenge possession.  Although it would buck the trend of late-stage rugby, there is a genuine chance that we’ll see exciting, fast-paced, incisive rugby.  The last time Wales and Ireland met in an ultra-pressured game was the 6 Nations decider in 2009, and that was an absolute belter.  I really can’t pick a winner, although my heart just about says Wales.  Ultimately, whichever of the outstanding back rows wins the day will lead their side to victory, and Warburton against O’Brien is too close to call.

Categories: All Blacks · Argentina · Australia · England · France · Ireland · RWC 2011 · South Africa · Wales
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

England vs. Scotland – a tactical view

October 1, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Jack Lewars

Saturday morning saw Scotland effectively depart the World Cup, barring a remarkable performance by Georgia against Argentina, but England’s relief at avoiding an early exit will be tempered by their continuing problems on the pitch.

England have a limited game-plan, based around generating momentum on the fringes and in the midfield in order to create space for their dangerous back three.  They are not, and will never be, a team that throw the ball wide straight away to create opportunities – and, indeed, they probably shouldn’t be.  The two international teams who most use their backs to attack from first phase are Australia and Wales and both have consistently come unstuck against well-organised defences, most notably Australia against Ireland a fortnight ago.

So there is every reason to respect England’s brand of rugby, which seems to marry exciting players like Chris Ashton and Ben Foden with a pragmatic approach to winning rugby games, abiding by the oft-quoted adage that you must ‘earn the right to go wide’.  The problem is that they are simply not executing this game plan well enough.

First, their indiscipline kills them in attack as much as it does in defence.  When England strung phases together against Scotland, they looked dangerous – indeed, in their best period of the first half they forced three kickable penalties in just five minutes (although Wilkinson missed all of them).  However, for the vast majority of the game, England seemed completely unable to avoid coughing up possession, most often through penalties and free kicks.  They lost four scrums against the head, three of which were turned over by infringements, and their supporters were driven mad by the amount of good ball which was surrendered by a mindless act at an attacking ruck.  Scoring tries by smashing it up and then going wide depends on stringing together at least three phases, and more usually between seven and ten.  If you can’t go more than five without a forward flying off their feet, you are bound to struggle.

The second major area for concern is the decision-making axis of the team.  The absolutely crucial players in England’s simple approach are the scrum-half and fly-half.  They are the ones who must decide when enough momentum has been generated, who must identify the moment when a defence is vulnerable.  In international rugby sides are rarely disorganised for long, and so realising when a drive has left the defence off-balance and striking at that exact moment is vital.  The players who do this most effectively are invariably the most valuable players in world rugby – Genia, du Preez, Dan Carter, James Hook.

England’s decision-makers seriously struggled against Scotland.  Ben Youngs had his poorest game in an England shirt, consistently failing to move the ball away quickly when the attack was short of numbers or when England’s control was slipping – indeed, he gifted the Scots three points when he left the ball in a solid defensive scrum and Cole then slipped on the wet pitch, losing his binding.  He also dallied with his passing, with was itself inaccurate, and he threw a dreadful interception on a rare England attack near the Scotland 22.

Wilkinson also had a poor game, mixing the brilliant with the misguided.  His place-kicking radar was wayward, but he did nail important kicks in the second half; he hit a fantastic right-footed drop-goal to claw England back into the game, but missed an absolute sitter when England really needed the points in the first half.  In particular, his desire to keep the scoreboard ticking over meant that he barely threw a wide pass in the first hour.  The missed drop-goal was a shocker in itself, but the decision even to take it was questionable, given that England had momentum and quick ball in the Scotland 22.  Had Wilkinson been on the pitch, I doubt England would have scored their try (the only time, incidentally, that the game-plan was executed to perfection) – he wouldn’t have kicked to the corner, and he wouldn’t have fixed the defence and thrown a wide pass to Ashton, as Flood did.

With both half-backs struggling, England were never going to be able to open Scotland up.  The idea was to hit hard in the centre of the pitch, twice or three times; for Youngs to decide that the ball was quick enough to cause problems and bullet it to Wilkinson; and for Jonny to distribute it to Foden, Ashton and Armitage.  Instead, the hit was often wasted by an infringement; Youngs dallied, crabbed sideways and passed badly; and Wilkinson didn’t spread the ball even when it was on.  There was and is a good team struggling to get out when this England squad play a match, and when they get it right it results in scores like the decisive-try this morning.  As things stand, however, all they can be happy with is that they just keep winning.

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

England 16 – 12 Scotland

October 1, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Ashton's 77th-minute score saw England progress at Scotland's expense

England 16

Tries: Ashton; Conversions: Flood; Penalties: Wilkinson (2); Drop-goal: Wilkinson

Scotland 12

Penalties: Patterson (2), Parks; Drop-goal: Parks

A late Chris Ashton try was enough to seal England’s place in the World Cup quarter finals in a dreadful game against Scotland at Eden Park.  Defeat means that Scotland are almost certain to exit the competition, but England will take little from an error-strewn performance that lacked continuity and rhythm.

The game began in poor conditions, with both sides struggling to keep a greasy ball in hand but both looking to put width on the ball.  Scotland had the better of the opening exchanges as England’s familiar indiscipline surfaced, allowing Chris Patterson to open the scoring with an eighth-minute penalty.  Dan Parks (a fourth-minute substitute for the hamstrung Ruaridh Jackson) then added another three points after Dan Cole was harshly penalised for not rolling away, the TMO confirming that the kick had just crept over the bar.

Stung by these early concessions, and conscious that Scotland were closing in on the eight point margin that would put them into the quarter finals, England finally began to exert pressure, winning a penalty at the ruck on the left hand side.  Despite the acute angle, Wilkinson opted to go for the points but missed his attempt, the first of three misses within five minutes.  Although England’s pack was making good inroads, and the outstanding Manu Tuilagi was causing huge problems for the Scottish midfield, they had nothing to show for it on the half-hour mark, trailing 6-0.

Scotland continued to threaten with ball in hand but England’s cover defence stayed strong and forced Parks into a missed drop goal, before Wilkinson’s charitable mood eventually expired.  After Scotland entered the ruck illegally on 34 minutes, England’s record points scorer finally reduced the deficit to three points with a successful strike.  There was still time for Parks to slot a drop-goal, however, and England were six points adrift at half time.

The start of the second half saw much greater urgency and penetration from England, with Tuilagi the stand-out player.  Almost straight from the restart, the Leicester centre flew out of the defensive line to sack Sean Lamont, turned the ball over and fed the lively Delon Armitage for a surge down the wing.  England were still struggling to get points, however, and their plight was summed up when Wilkinson somehow missed a drop goal from just 15m out, bang in front of the posts.

Emboldened, Scotland again gained ground and spread the ball to winger Danielli, who kicked ahead.  As the ball bobbled, Ben Foden did brilliantly to spoil Danielli’s own chase, only for the chasing De Luca to knock-on with the try line at his mercy.  Wilkinson did arrive to make the cover-tackle (indeed, his scramble defence was the only part of his game that was fully firing) but De Luca’s frustration was obvious as a golden chance went begging.  From the resulting scrum, however, Patterson was able extend the lead to 12-3 after England’s front row collapsed.  For the first time, Scotland held a crucial nine point lead and England were heading for an early exit.

The England response was immediate – indeed, their ability to respond to necessity will be the biggest positive they take from the game.  First Wilkinson shrugged off his earlier woes to slot a 30m drop-goal, and he then cut the gap to 12-9 after Scotland collapsed a maul.  As Scotland chased the game, England controlled possession and won a line-out in the Scottish 22.  The forwards drove on, Tuilagi crashed the ball up and Flood’s wide pass found Ashton with enough space to scamper over.  England continued to squeeze the life from the Scottish players, finally controlling possession and territory, and they finished the game in the ascendency.

Although England will be pleased to win the game, especially from 12-3 down, they were still light years from the exciting team of last Autumn.  England have a game-plan that doesn’t revolve around flinging the ball wide, which is fine, but they just could not build momentum in the first half as penalties, free kicks and handling errors continually turned the ball over.  For Scotland, meanwhile, a performance of great heart should not hide the brutal truths of this campaign, which has again shown their inability to cross the try-line.  The real knockout blow was delivered by Argentina last week, and Andy Robinson must build a team capable of closing out a game, something which they failed to do in each of their crucial pool matches.

While Scottish hearts were broken, the Auld Enemy stumbles on; but England will have much to work on before next week’s meeting with France.

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

Pick ‘n’ Mix

September 23, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Jack Lewars in Cloud Cuckoo Land

Can someone please check the drinking water in New Zealand, preferably as a matter of urgency?  I only ask because there must be some reason why half the coaches in the tournament seem to have gone stir crazy with their selections this week.

First up, we’ve got France.  Now in many ways this is the least surprising one, given that Lievremont has form here.  As a mate of mine said recently, you never play for France, you just play one game for them.  Then there’s every chance you’ll be out of the squad the next week and captain in a fortnight.  Even given the truth in this, however, the French coach has gone properly overboard this time.  This is one of the biggest games of the tournament, certainly the crunch match of Pool A, and Lievremont has dropped Trinh-Duc, his established fly-half.  Oh well, you say, England have changed like that effectively in the past.  Well, yes, they have, but they did usually replace the dropped player with another fly-half.  Lievremont has put Morgan Parra there, a man with 35 minutes of test rugby in that position.  Ever.  And twenty minutes of those were against Japan.  Can you imagine what David Skrela must have said? 

DS: ’You’re doing what?’
ML: [shrug] ’We’re going with Parra.’
DS: ‘Yes, you said.  I just wanted to know who’s playing fly-half?’
ML: ‘Parra.’
DS: ‘I see.  In that case, can I start at prop please?’
ML: ‘I was thinking more water boy.’

Now the New Zealand press have gone to town on this, as tabloids over there are wont to do (thank goodness ours are so down to earth - today’s Mail led with ‘Staring Down the Barrel of Economic Disaster’).  They have claimed that this is match-fixing, as France want to end up in the quarter-final draw with England, Wales and Ireland – the half of the draw that the IRB officially renamed on Sunday as the ’easy route to the final where the All Blacks will crush you’ half.  The media have further pointed out that people who bought a £241 ticket for the game are unlikely to be too happy about it, leading Lievremont to tell a reporter “I will speak to the players to see what they decide. Perhaps they will decide to give up if it’s easier for us afterward.”  Ah, the old ‘tell the truth sarcastically enough and people won’t realise’ trick.  How wiley.

Imanol Harinordoquy was a bit more direct, saying that the idea of the French deliberately losing the game is preposterous - a cunning line to take, as it distracted attention from the French squad and selectors, who are dead keen on deliberately losing the game.  He added, “I feel like telling them that I’ve bought four tickets at 250 euros (£217) each, and I’m not complaining.”  In fairness, he probably bought them in case Lievremont dropped him in favour of Carla Bruni.  Let’s hope he at least gives one to David Skrela.

Next up on our carousel of bafflingness is Andy Robinson, a man normally associated with stolid predictability.  This week, however, faced by an absolutely crucial game against Argentina, he decided to spring a tactical surprise.  Unfortunately, the only surprising thing he could dream up was to drop his captain, Alistair Kellock – it was that or tell them to wear odd socks, and the Argentinians haven’t fallen for that one since the Falklands.  Now I am a bit cautious about taking on a man who was assistant coach of the immortal 2003 England side, but I think we can be pretty sure that he wasn’t much involved in selection back then.  “I know Martin Johnson’s good, but have you considered Iain Balshaw for the final?” “Just wait outside and watch for eavesdroppers Andy, like we agreed.  Leave the socks.”

On the subject of England, they are (predictably) the one rock of solidity in a sea of surprises.  After resting several key players against Georgia – a reasonable enough decision, even if it did backfire a little when England weren’t very good – Johnson has named the team that he hopes will take England to the final, minus the unavailable Stevens, Easter and Lawes.  Thank goodness – some sanity.  Sorry what’s that?  They’re doing what?  That’s right folks – the Romanians are putting out a second XV.  They’ve made 11 changes since the Argentina game?  Of course they have.

Now hold on a minute.  Clearly while the rest of the rugby-watching world turned to the man on their left and went ‘there really aren’t any minnows in this tournament, you know’, they had all forgotten the one glaring exception: England.  Thank heavens the Romanians are here to remind us what a pushover the English are.  After all, their World Cup form since 2002 does read played 16, won 14, lost 2.  Many of you will no doubt read this and say ‘they’re obviously resting players for Georgia’, which seems fair, until you realise that the Georgia game is undoubtedly the last one they’ll play in the tournament.  Surely their players can lift themselves for the only winnable game they’ll get in the group, especially as it’ll be ‘one last push’ time?  And anyway, what are they resting them for?  God forbid that, after two games in four days, the Romanians won’t be fit for their next match, the always-crucial European Nations Cup Division 1A tie against Portugal in February.  I’m not trying to be rude about developmental rugby, but Romanian players live to play in World Cups, and they only get four games every four years.  So why not give who deserve to start the chance to play the most successful Northern Hemisphere team?

I may, of course, be wrong on all of this.  It could all be genius.  Scotland may win convincingly, thus securing the quarter-final spots for themselves and England, in turn allowing Johnson and Robinson to pick their teams solely on height for next week’s meeting; Romania may lose heroically, discovering a new generation of young superstars who will sweep to glory in 2015; and France may thrash New Zealand, with Parra scoring 80 unanswered points and breaking both the New Zealand backline and Dan Carter’s sense of self-worth at the same time.  But I doubt it.  So perhaps someone could spare a thought for the real losers in all these shenanigans, who are the players.  After all, they don’t go out there just to get in a bit of dwarf-throwing.

Categories: All Blacks · Argentina · England · France · Romania · RWC 2011 · Scotland
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ireland rise whither England aspire

September 19, 2011 · Leave a Comment

Ireland celebrate a famous victory against Australia, putting them on course for a quarter-final against Wales

Another weekend, another round of thought-provoking rugby.  Some have said that we saw the best and worst of the World Cup, with Ireland’s stirring win over Australia counterbalancing England’s performance against Georgia.  Whilst I agree with the first part, however, I am not at all convinced by the latter.

What is certain is that Ireland have provided an excellent blueprint for beating Southern Hemisphere sides in the World Cup.  Australia were most people’s pick as New Zealand’s opponents in the final, as the TriNations finale saw them combine their usual attacking flair with a new-found physicality.  As so often in the past, however, one good performance from Australia’s forwards hath not a good pack made.  Ireland bullied the Wallabies up front, especially in the scrum, and questions will again be asked about their front row and ability at the breakdown in the absence of the preeminent David Pocock.

The really encouraging thing for other Northern Hemisphere sides is that Ireland were not brilliant.  They blew several good try-scoring opportunities, Sexton was poor with the boot and their outside backs failed to find or create space.  The one thing that they got absolutely right, however, was their defence.  Much like England in 2007, Ireland recognised the threat of the Wallaby backline and worked overtime on stifling it, creating a blanket of green which enveloped any attacks.  As long as this defensive system was working, they were always confident that they could manage Australia’s forwards and drag the Southern Hemisphere side into a kicking contest, which could only be to Ireland’s advantage.  The Australian pack did not manage to create momentum (always a hard ask against a pack which contains Sean O’Brien, Paul O’Connell, Jamie Heaslip and Stephen Ferris) and Cooper was reduced to trying trick passes as he strived for an opening.  When one of these went straight to Tommy Bowe, wasting the last meaningful field position that Australia gained, it was not a lucky escape, but a testament to the suffocating nature of the Irish defensive game.

There is an extent to which we should be cautious about saying that this game plan will beat any Sourthern Hemisphere side.  Australia are particularly vulnerable to it, because their forwards don’t make a lot of yards with their carrying and because they lack a rock solid goalkicker.  New Zealand are more muscular and have Dan Carter to punish any transgressions, and South Africa would relish a blood-and-guts battle of ten man rugby (indeed, the carrying of inside centre Frans Steyn against Fiji probably surpassed that of Australia’s front five).  I do think, though, that the Southern Hemisphere sides are less comfortable in tight games.  Their much-vaunted attacking rugby thrives in the Super 15, where some of the tackling is laughably poor, and in the TriNations, where two sides will come out fully expecting to score four tries each.  If a side comes out looking to kick their way to victory, however, even New Zealand’s game seems to suffer, as was shown in the Investec International against England last autumn.  This could be why the mercurial Welsh have such a poor record against the antipodes, where England in particular have had more success.

Which brings us to England, who supposedly delivered another performance of stultifying ineptitude.  Now it’s worth noting that I haven’t seen the whole game, because ITV Player was only able to deliver 16 minutes of poor quality footage before looping me back to the beginning again (if anyone from ITV is reading this – I tried two laptops and three browsers, so it’s not me, it’s you.  Sort it out, it’s a worldwide spectacle, and you had sufficient warning in the 2010 football World Cup, which you also butchered).  However, I have managed to track down the tries and I think a sense of perspective is needed.

England were, as the coaches and players have recognised, not as fluent as they would have liked.  They also continue to give away penalties like they’re on special offer, which will seriously hurt them later in the tournament if it is not rectified.  On the other hand, just about every learned commentator has spent the whole World Cup stating that the days of cannon-fodder minnows are over.  Even Pieter de Villiers has noticed it, a man for whom common sense and clarity of thought are as rare as a Mike Tindall sidestep.  Anyone who was expecting another 80-point drubbing, therefore, was already in the wrong ball park.

Georgia, in fact, were initially very good.  They had easily the best half of World Cup rugby in their history, with their outstanding physicality and England’s indiscipline keeping them more than in touch.  As the game wore on, England’s greater skill levels and superior conditioning saw them gain the upper-hand, and they ended up scoring six tries.  Both sides should really be satisfied, especially given that the Scots failed even to cross the try-line against the same outfit just four days earlier.

So yes, England will want to improve and, yes, their indiscipline is a serious problem.  But you still wouldn’t bet against them in the latter stages – especially if they can emulate Ireland’s inspirational example.

Categories: Australia · England · Georgia · Ireland · RWC 2011
Tagged: , , , , , , ,