Johnno’s dilemma: IRB rankings point the way
As England fans welcome another new dawn, the turning of another leaf, and yet another England management structure, thoughts inevitably turn to the future.
The country is once again tingling with excitement about the opportunity to finally see our young guns develop and flourish in the right environment. There is a wealth of talent in England, and with the right man in charge, England’s fortunes may just be on the up at last.
“Select Haskell as captain” they cry, “Pick Care and Cipriani”. It’s all with the future in mind, ideally to foster a team to peak in New Zealand and steal the Web Ellis Cup from under the All Blacks’ noses.
However, this grand plan could fall flat on its face if there aren’t any immediate improvements in England’s performances. Seedings for the World Cup draw will now be based on IRB rankings, rather than the performance of teams at the last World Cup, and the cut off point is at the end of this year.
The top four seeds used to be determined by the four semi-finalists at the previous World Cup and the position in which they finished - hence England, France, Australia and New Zealand were all the number one seeds in their groups in 2007.
Under the old system, South Africa, England, Argentina and France would have made up the top seeds in New Zealand, and with the All Blacks, Australia and Wales to throw into the mix, there would have been some interesting groupings and possibly more than one ‘Group of Death’. However, brown envelopes must have been exchanged somewhere along the way and the system is changing just in time to spare the All Blacks’ blushes.
Seedings will now be based on the official IRB rankings as of December 1st 2008, a system whereby New Zealand has not been out of the top four since it was devised by our sport’s governing body in 2003.
England is currently in fifth place behind Australia, Argentina, New Zealand and South Africa, with Wales hot on their heels in sixth. To give themselves the best opportunity in 2011, they must break into the top four this year, which means they simply have to win matches.
Unfortunately, their 2008 fixture list makes worrying reading in this context. Ignoring the Barbarians game, first up is the two Test tour of New Zealand, a country in which England have won once - back in 2003 when Johnno’s men were at the peak of their powers. In the autumn, Twickenham will be opening its doors to the Pacific Islanders (a game which will not affect the rankings), followed by Australia, South Africa and New Zealand.
The rankings work on an exchange system, in which teams take points from each other depending on the match result (click here for a full explanation). Australia looks like a vital game to win, since they are closest to England in the rankings, but by then New Zealand may have stolen so many of our points that we are out of contention.
So Johnson’s primary objective is to get through to Christmas with at least three wins out of five, which should guarantee a place in the top four. With that in mind, what approach should he take?
Is it a long term plan, blooding youngsters in difficult fixtures this year, perhaps taking the view that to win the World Cup, you must be good enough to beat every team, so the seedings are in fact a moot point?
Or is it a focus on the short term, with a must-win approach, even if that means playing it safe with a 10-man game? The winning margin affects the ranking points, so should it be a damage limitation exercise, rather than throwing caution to the wind and accepting a 70-point drubbing because the experience will do the players some good?
It’s a difficult dilemma. England fans may need a little patience before we see the team fulfill its potential - consider the next few performances in this context before making judgements about Johnson’s ability. If people start losing faith without an understanding of this predicament, we may end up taking another step backwards.
The last thing we need is another review by Rob Andrew, which ultimately bows to the influence of the baying media and takes an almighty, albeit popular, gamble - but don’t get me started on that one.
By James Hutchison
Cipriani the anti-Jonny ascends the throne
It’s almost as if Danny Cipriani is going out of his way to be as different from Jonny Wilkinson as possible. Not content with having been dropped for going to a nightclub last week, he has now sworn on BBC1 at teatime. That puts him in a pretty exclusive club with the likes of the Sex Pistols. There will be plenty of left wing whingers lodging complaints, branding him an oik and yearning for his predecessor, the man whom everyone would like to marry their daughter. To be honest, that probably says more about them than about Cipriani. Personally I thought it was hilarious and rather endearing, but you would never catch Wilko uttering such obscenities.
Cipriani possesses none of the almost crippling self-doubt which haunted the young Wilkinson. If Wilkinson did 99 good things in a game, he would stay up all night worrying about the 1 thing he did wrong. With Cipriani you sense it is the opposite, that he could mess up several times in a row but it would only take one moment of success to reaffirm his faith in his own ability. This is not to accuse him of arrogance or of ignoring errors when he makes them. It is a tremendous attribute to have, the attitude that what is done is done, and to retain the belief that your next action will be outstanding. This is another area in which he is the anti-Jonny.
Cipriani is a very different player and person to Wilkinson but what they share is a huge desire to excel, a tremendous work ethic and the fact that they are pretty good at rugby. Wilkinson’s quest for perfection is well-documented but Cipriani is reputed to always be one of the last men off the training pitch and pays for his own sprint coach in his spare time. Everything in his life is channelled to being the best rugby player he can possibly be and with his natural talent that could be something to behold.
Cipriani was absolutely outstanding against Ireland. Journalists and commentators were bandying around words such as ‘maverick’ but that does him a serious disservice. He possesses very sound basic skills, excellent vision, a sharp brain and good decision-making. He is lightning quick and always has an eye for a gap. It is only in England’s arch-conservative rugby culture that a fly half who likes to run is branded a maverick. If he starts chucking 30 yard Carlos Spencer-esque passes behind his own line when one point up in the last minute (as Spencer has done on occasion), then he may be considered a maverick. As it is he possesses the distribution skills of Charlie Hodgson, the attacking intent of Spencer and the pace of Jerry Guscott. That is a pretty compelling combination with the potential to produce as complete a rugby player as any.
The main worry in Wilkinson’s absence was that England would miss his metronomic goal-kicking but those concerns were allayed by Cipriani’s flawless display. Cipriani retained kicking duties after Wilkinson came on and chose that period to hit a touchline conversion straight through the middle in a swirling wind. Not bad.
I promoted the Cipriani-Wilkinson 10-12 axis before the tournament and it certainly looked decent on Saturday. However, Toby Flood looked rejuvenated when released from Wilkinson’s shadow and played with an imagination and liberty which we had not previously seen this season. With Olly Barkley in excellent form and Shane Geraghty going well between injuries, England suddenly have options in midfield.
I am sure Wilkinson will rise to this challenge and strive to improve himself further but I think he can wave good bye to the 10 shirt for the time being. Wilkinson is a guy who has made the absolute most of his talent through his sheer desire to succeed. Cipriani has more raw talent and if he retains his hunger to the same extent then Wilkinson will struggle to compete. For now it is all about Danny. He got one thing wrong yesterday though. Forget the forwards and Jamie Noon; he should have been f**king man of the match.
by Stuart Peel
The trials and tribulations of England
Not many could argue that the opening two weekends of the Six Nations have been particularly encouraging from an England perspective.
The build up to the tournament was filled with excitement and with confidence - England had just reached the World Cup final, and seeing the wealth of young talent on display in the Premiership and the potential for England’s future was mouth-watering.
There was talk of looking forward, of creating a core team with continuity of selection, of building for the next World Cup, of looking forward to 2011.
Our expectations were largely met during the first half at HQ with total domination of the Welsh - there’s not much better in rugby than that. Yet here we are, played two, lost one, narrowly won the other against Italy.
Stu Peel wrote last week of the lack of leadership, and this has been well-documented since - Stephen Jones obviously picked up on the idea for his article in The Sunday Times - but from my armchair view, the England team is also desperately missing any sense of teamwork.
This may indeed be a symptom of the absent leadership, but the players seem to be playing for themselves as a bunch of 15 individuals, almost as if it’s a trial match. Perhaps they feel as though they are on trial to be selected in the core team that will start the first game in New Zealand 2011?
Against Wales we saw the eagerness of James Haskell to impress, resulting in the concession of a number of penalties; we saw that excruciating phase of play where one player shipped rubbish on to the next in desperation; and we saw Iain Balshaw under pressure and being charged down for Wales’ try. Against Italy in the second half, the forwards looked lost, each battling on his own against the collective defensive might of the Azzurri; and there was Balshaw’s 30-metre pass in front of his own posts.
We have also seen Lesley Vainikolo criminally underused in both games. We have had glimpses of his power, such as early in the Italy match when he stomped along the touchline and nearly put Haskell in for a try, but hardly anything else. Are the other players reluctant to set him free in case he steals the limelight, the headlines and the coveted England jersey for the next four years? I admit this might be stretching the argument slightly too far, but I thought I’d throw it out there.
There is then the question of the second half ‘collapse’ in both matches. Anyone that has played a trial match will know how exhausting it is trying to be everywhere in order to stand out and impress - maybe this explains the loss of shape and direction in the latter stages of the game. Fitness is usually an area where England excels, but this side seems to run out of steam for the last 20 minutes of the game.
Looking at the last few years, the successful England teams have been just that - a team. In 2003, the forwards in particular always played for each other - the 6-man scrum in New Zealand springs to mind - and in 2007, the spirit of teamwork is largely credited with overcoming adversity on the march to the final.
Against France, England’s current crop will need to join forces and play as a unit, supporting each other in defence and driving each other forward in attack. With everyone working towards a common goal, England should be more dynamic, conceding fewer turnovers and enjoying quicker, better quality possession.
If they fall to pieces in the second half again, Vincent Clerc and Cedric Heymans will simply cut them open at will and England will be desperate to beat Scotland to avoid the Wooden Spoon.
England’s footballers make me proud…to be a rugby supporter
The woeful performance of England’s football team left me grinning with pride at rugby and its values as a sport compared with its more common relative.
The fact that a multi-billion pound business can fail disastrously at such an elementary level does not reflect well on the game of football, but it was the spiritless display by the overpaid celebrities, devoid of any pride and determination, that was so disappointing for the nation.
The so-called ‘roller-coaster ride’ over 90 minutes last night merits comparison with England’s Rugby World Cup highs and lows. Phil Vickery and his team were the laughing stock of the rugby world following the 36-0 mauling by the Springboks, but they rose from of oblivion and forced their way through to the final by coming together as a team that was perhaps greater than the sum of its parts.
England’s run to the final was characterised by the refusal of the likes of Martin Corry, Andrew Sheridan, Andy Gomersall and Jonny Wilkinson to fail. They showed fierce passion and courage to haul themselves out of the Pool, and then overcome Australia and France. The nation was behind them, proud of their fighting spirit, teamship and willingness to sacrifice themselves for each other.
Steven Gerrard’s eleven superstars (can you call it a team?) suffered a similar early setback against Croatia by conceding two early goals, and although they levelled the scores in the second half, it was more by luck than any admirable personal qualities in the players. A soft penalty kick-started their comeback and then a good combination of skill from David Beckham and Peter Crouch brought them back into contention.
It was then that they needed to dig deep in their soul and cling on for the draw for just 25 minutes, but alas it looked like they didn’t care enough. If 90,000 people at Wembley and millions watching at home is not enough, then at least show some determination to win for each other.
Indeed, when Scott Carson gifted the opposition that first goal, none of the England players appeared to console him. In rugby, you’d at least get an arm on your shoulder and a slap on the head from the captain encouraging you to fight for redemption. What the 22 year-old would have given last night for Gerrard to say, “Don’t worry, we all make mistakes” or Sol Campbell to offer, “Keep your head up, make up for it in the rest of the game.” But there was nothing but a message of, “You’ve messed up, you’re on your own” and the young goalkeeper made error after error in that first half.
Is this the sort of message we want to be conveying to the country’s youth, via the celebrity icons of the national sport? Would it not be better to get everyone playing rugby, instilling in children the importance of pride, determination and selfless support for one another?
The ramifications of the latest footballing catastrophe will be widespread - or at least they ought to be - but rugby can stand tall and proud of the values inherent with the game while the sport of the masses crumbles around it.
Campaign to make rugby the new national sport of England
By James Hutchison
World Cup Final: How to beat the Boks
Despite the 36-point debacle five weeks ago, Brian Ashton’s men have the opportunity to make history on Saturday. It’s easier said than done, but here is my view on the areas they should concentrate on to avenge that defeat.
Field position
The gameplan for Phil Vickery’s team will be to play rugby in South Africa’s half so that Jonny Wilkinson can take the points whenever they are available - it’s not boring! - whilst preventing Percy Montgomery and Francois Steyn knocking the ball over from anywhere within England’s half. That means the forwards must dominate and Wilkinson and Catt must be deadly accurate.
England must continue to destroy the opposition at the set-piece as they did against France and Australia. South Africa’s boast two of the world’s best lineout jumpers in Bakkies Botha and Victor Matfield, but Simon Shaw has been immense and will look to spoil Springbok ball. In the scrum, it will not be as easy for the front row against the solid CJ van der Linde and Os du Randt, but neither are devastating scrummagers and if Andrew Sheridan et al can create a platform, Jonny will be able to dictate field position.
The kicking game from Wilkinson and Mike Catt will therefore need to be first class, and this was the most painful area for England in the group game against the Springboks. They’ll need to kick into space and have two or three chasers closing down South Africa’s back three, preventing them wherever possible from getting distance on their kicks, and not even giving the opportunity to run it back.
Turnovers
The back row will need to be ruthless at the tackle area, but Schalk Burger and Juan Smith will be more aggressive in looking for turnover ball than anyone else England have faced. Lewis Moody needs to be his usual mental self and not give anything away, with Nick Easter and Martin Corry close behind him to the breakdown. If South Africa win too much turnover ball, Fourie du Preez and Bryan Habana will hurt England.
In defence, the English pack must get three or four men to the breakdown to compete for the ball. A few early turnovers in England’s favour, and they could build a score.
Mistakes
South Africa were not hugely creative in attack against Argentina in the semi-final, but they did not need to be - they just pounced on the numerous mistakes made by the Pumas. If England make as many errors as they did in the 2003 final, they will get beaten. Their experience on the biggest stage of all should work in their favour, whilst the Springboks may feel the burden of expectation and wilt in the spotlight.
England should put pressure on Butch James and Francois Steyn - both of whom can be prone to the odd mistake - and be sure to pile on the points given any opportunity.
The Springboks are beatable, regardless of what Jake White says about winning being their destiny - it would be a surprise if England retain the Web Ellis Cup, but this tournament has been full of them.
By James Hutchison
The North / South divide
The first weekend of the Rugby World Cup has confirmed fears that the Southern Hemisphere teams will dominate proceedings.
Having followed England’s stuttering build-up, I had turned to France and Ireland to try to ensure that the Web Ellis Cup remained north of the Equator, but teams from the South appear to be in much better shape.
England managed just three tries in their victory over the United States - the World Champions could not convincingly put away the side ranked 15th in the world. On this evidence, the South Africans next week will be a challenge too far, and I just hope it’s not embarrassing, whilst the Samoans will be a real threat and could prevent England progressing from the group.
In Pool B, Wales were down at half-time against Canada - another of the supposed minnows. Although they showed resolve to fight back and ultimately win comfortably, they looked scrappy, shapeless and made too many mistakes. If they make as many errors against Australia, they could be on the end of a drubbing.
The Scots scored a half-century of points against World Cup debutants Portugal, and were possibly the pick of the European nations. They scored 8 tries and always looked in control against a brave Portuguese challenge, but were still not particularly clinical against probably the weakest team in the tournament.
And then there’s the ‘Pool of Death’ where Argentina ruined the hosts’ party on the opening night and put a huge dent in the chances of the third favourites - read Stuart Peel’s article here. The other match in this pool saw Ireland looking nervous and clueless as they staggered to a 32-17 win over Namibia - the side that claims the record for the heaviest defeat at a World Cup (142-0 against Australia in 2003).
In contrast, the big three Southern Hemisphere teams were ruthless and unsympathetic in their thumping victories over lesser nations. New Zealand destroyed Italy (a far stronger team than Namibia, Portugal and USA), Australia amassed 13 tries against Japan, and South Africa dispatched Samoa by 59 points to 7. All three teams looked sharper, more aggressive and more clinical, and most importantly demonstrated a desire to win far greater than their northern hemisphere counterparts.
The fact that Scotland were the best performers says a lot about the prospects for Northern Hemisphere teams, and Argentina’s win over France confirms the growing North / South divide in rugby quality. The European nations will need to improve dramatically if they are to make any impact at all.
By James Hutchison
Keep it tight, or throw it wide? New Zealand seem to have all the answers
Many countries have now named their squads for the Rugby World Cup in September, and it’s a good opportunity to evaluate the styles of rugby that will be on display.
The top nations will have had one eye on France 2007 since Australia 2003, and have been building their teams and developing their game plans. Each national coach will have a different idea of what it takes to win the Webb Ellis Cup, and there will be a fascinating mixture of playing styles on display in September and October.
The Tri-Nations in the south and the warm-up Test series in the north have provided us with a number of clues as to how the top 6 challengers will approach the tournament.
The defending champions have named a squad that suggests they will focus on forward power as they attempt to defend their title. Expect to see a big forward pack, with giants in white shirts running directly into the heart of the opposition defence, and look out for Jonny Wilkinson kicking for the corners and taking any opportunity to score points with his boot. Their backs have been selected for their size and defensive prowess, rather than their cunning attacking abilities and their line will not be easy to breach. The English ‘ten-man rugby’ will not be the most exciting to watch, but it means they will be competitive.
England’s Pool A opponents will also employ the power game. South Africa is known for its physicality on the rugby field, with its huge, aggressive forwards living on the edge of rugby law. The Springboks will look to blitz their opponents at the breakdown, forcing turnovers and allowing them to release their flying back three on the counter-attack. Butch James at fly-half will look to kick behind defences, knowing that his forwards will chase and apply pressure in the opposition territory and any mistakes will be punished with a score. The inimitable Schalk Burger will lead the ruthless forwards and Bryan Habana will offer the greatest threat on the wing.
In contrast to England and South Africa’s forward-dominated approach, the Wallabies will look to play their matches away from their pack. Australia’s front five is lightweight compared to some other teams, and John Connolly’s men will aim to use their hugely experienced backline. Captain Stirling Mortlock will control the game from centre, and fly-half Stephen Larkham will launch wave after wave of attacks, releasing the likes of Lote Tuquiri at pace to put defenders on the back foot and create gaps for the next phase.
Ireland will also focus on their strength in the backs - the exciting centre pairing of Gordon D’Arcy and Brian O’Driscoll has the potential to dazzle opponents with quick feet and speed off the mark. However, their pack is not to be underestimated - with Paul O’Connell and Donncha O’Callaghan, they have two of the best locks in world rugby. Fly-half Ronan O’Gara will kick for the corners, looking to use the lineout as an attacking platform from which to deliver quick ball to the quick men out wide.
Bernard Laporte’s France team is notoriously unpredictable and as the host nation, and with an unforgiving rugby public, the pressure on the side will be immense. Judging by their display against England on Saturday, they will be solid in defence and very difficult to break down. They have a phenomenal back row, a powerful front five and in Serge Betsen, they have one of the strongest opensides in the tournament. Expect ‘les bleus’ to soak up attacks by ferociously defending at the fringes of a breakdown, and then pouncing on any mistakes. David Skrela at fly-half will be unforgiving in his goal-kicking, while Yannick Jauzion, Aurelie Rougerie and Clement Poitrenaud will be difficult to stop in attack.
The All Blacks are favourites, and when considering playing styles, it is easy to see why - they seem to have it all. Traditionally, their strength has been their back line and their tendency to attack at ferocious speed and offload to the seemingly endless queue of support runners. This will be their main weapon, but they have the ability to adapt their style to whatever it takes to win. If they need to keep it tight and slug it out up front against South Africa and England, they can - as they showed in the final match of the Tri-Nations. New Zealand have the strongest front row in the world, Chris Jack is an outstanding lineout jumper and Richie McCaw will dominate at the breakdown. If the game opens up and they need to put width on the ball, Joe Rokocoko and Sitiveni Sivivatu are the ideal candidates to do just that.
In 2003, England won the World Cup by employing the right strategy at the right time, knowing what it would take to beat each side in whatever conditions were thrown at them. New Zealand look as if they now have that quality and the trophy is theirs for the taking.
By James Hutchison
Is this the calm before the emerald storm?
Ireland’s World Cup preparations have been taking place somewhat beneath the radar over the last couple of months, and some may have forgotten the challenge they pose to the southern hemisphere giants.
Eddie O’Sullivan’s top players were rested in June whilst a squad of hopefuls were taken on a gruelling tour of Argentina, where they lost both Test matches against the Pumas. The players have all since been to Spala in Poland for a training camp, and are now gathered in Limerick preparing for warm-up games with Scotland and Italy, where they seem to be keeping themselves to themselves.
Despite facing the grim prospect of the World Cup Group of Death, Ireland may represent the Northern Hemisphere’s greatest chance of success in France. The hosts themselves are contenders, but are frustratingly inconsistent, whilst everyone knows how far England have fallen since 2003. Ireland on the other hand have consistently been the stongest side in the Six Nations, and have claimed impressive victories over South Africa and Australia.
Ireland has won three Triple Crowns in the last four years, and came achingly close to a Grand Slam in this year’s competition. Indeed, their last-gasp defeat to France typifies their one weakness - the inability to sustain their performance for 80 minutes.
At the heart of Ireland’s team is arugably the best centre partnership in the world - Gordon D’Arcy and Brian O’Driscoll. The pair have played with or against each other since their schooldays, and they complement each other perfectly. Moreover, defences often commit two players to tackling the elusive O’Driscoll, creating additional space for D’Arcy’s light feet and turn of speed.
There is strength all around them in the Irish backline. Inside, the experienced half-back partnership of Peter Stringer and Ronan O’Gara have learned how to control matches, whilst outside there are fliers like Denis Hickie and Geordan Murphy with superb finishing abilities.
To compete with France and Argentina, not to mention South Africa and New Zealand, Ireland’s pack will have to be at its best. Paul O’Connell, the talismanic lock, must lead the forwards with his exemplary work rate, whilst quality players like Simon Easterby, Denis Leamy and David Wallace must follow.
Against England in this year’s Six Nations, Ireland’s forwards were outstanding, ruthless at the breakdown and forcing turnovers upon which their backs could capitalise. Against France, it was the same story for 50 minutes, but they failed to close out the match and let France in to steal victory - something they cannot afford to do against quality opposition.
Their seemingly unlucky draw in the same pool as Argentina and France may work in their favour. They will be looking for revenge against the French, who may capitulate under the pressure of their fickle supporters, whilst they will want to restore order against Argentina who beat their second string this summer, and who will give their pack a stern test.
If Ireland can win this difficult group, they will reach the last eight battle-hardened and no match for Scotland or Italy, the likely runners-up in Pool C. From there, two big performances and O’Driscoll could be lifting the World Cup, but South Africa and New Zealand will probably stand in their way. Ireland will need the inner belief that they can sustain a world-class performance against the best teams, that their forwards are as big and ferocious as their southern hemisphere counterparts, and that their backs have both the devastating finishing skills and the defensive solidarity.
It’s a tall order, but perhaps Ireland’s low key build up away from the media spotlight will help them to build their collective confidence and maybe this is the calm before the emerald storm.
By James Hutchison
Ashton sends mixed messages with his team to face Wales
Brian Ashton’s team selection this week has left me with mixed emotions - delight at the potential in positions 10 to 15, and utter bewilderment in the back row selection. It has also left me thinking that Ashton is still not clear in his approach to England’s defence of the World Cup.
Ashton appears to have mixed objectives for the match against Wales. There are some combinations that look to be the first choice - Ashton will want to see how they fare and give them the opportunity to develop. For others, it looks like one last chance to stake a claim in the final 30-man World Cup squad.
The midfield of Jonny Wilkinson at fly-half with Andy Farrell and Dan Hipkiss in the centres is a potentially formidable prospect. Wales will do well to breach the line in this area, with all of those three having exceptional defensive records. They also offer some creativity in attack, with Farrell’s quality distribution and Hipkiss’ ability to run at angles and make breaks.
Moreover, with Farrell and Hipkiss making breaks and half-breaks, they will create opportunities to offload in the tackle and unleash the back three, where David Strettle, Jason Robinson and Mark Cueto will offer speed and undisputable finishing ability.
With this in mind, Shaun Perry’s role at scrum-half will be to deliver the ball, rather than make ground by himself - just as well, given that Perry has a bullet-like pass, but provides little threat in attack.
Up front, there are some unusual selections, most notably in the back row. Why Ashton feels as though he needs to find a position for Martin Corry is beyond me. Yes, he’s a good player to have around when your back is against the wall and he will offer everything in pursuit of victory, but he does not have enough pace to be an attacking threat - he runs in straight lines and is easy for defences to deal with. It was thought he would only be considered in the second row, but his selection at blindside flanker raises further concerns over Ashton’s thinking.
Joe Worsley, a competent blindside flanker with a good tackle rate, has been named at openside. Again, he does not have the pace in attack and will not get to the breakdown quickly enough to win turnover ball. Perhaps Ashton is looking for backup for Tom Rees - England’s clear first choice in this position, but not selected due to a slight knee injury - but perhaps he should have thought of that when releasing Magnus Lund and Andy Hazell.
Nick Easter at number eight will do a solid, but unremarkable job. The more surprising aspect of this selection is that Lawrence Dallaglio is on the bench. Dallaglio was included in the World Cup party for his experience and leadership abilities, and to provide those qualities for 50 or 60 minutes before making way for an impact player from the bench. Instead, it looks like he is actually being used as that impact player, but this is not sensible - he may give the team a lift in spirits as he runs on, but he doesn’t have the speed to trouble tired defenders in the same way as James Haskell might.
The front five is just big and heavy, and the coach probably has one eye on Samoa and South Africa with this selection. For Simon Shaw and Steve Borthwick in the second row, it could be their last chance to shine, given that Ben Kay and Martin Corry appear to be favoured in this position. Combined with a powerful front row of Andrew Sheridan, Phil Vickery and Mark Regan, the forwards will want to keep the ball tight and dominate in the set pieces. This is at odds though with Ashton’s vision of playing ‘Total Rugby’ and is reminiscent of the early ’90s ten-man rugby England was famous for. This puts a huge question mark over the direction and gameplan that Ashton is trying to employ, and at this late stage it is very worrying.
I will no doubt be watching the game with mixed emotions as well - excitement at new partnerships in the backs, watching people play for their positions, mixed with growing despair as I lose confidence that Ashton knows what he is doing.
By James Hutchison
Clutching at straws - 5 reasons why the All Blacks won’t win the World Cup
Many pundits have talked about the 2007 Rugby World Cup as being a one horse race for 3 and a half years, such has been the dominance of the All Blacks side since the 2003 tournament.
Since Graham Henry took over the reins as coach, he has implemented a plan that has seen him regularly rotate players in his squad, develop the most powerful forward unit in the world, and turn his men into fitter, leaner and stronger men than anyone else in the game.
The upshot is that New Zealand now have two teams that can compete with any other nation. On their Grand Slam tour of Europe, Henry would make as many as 15 changes from one week to the next and they’d still win. Their first choice line-up is already head and shoulders above the rest, and they have the strength in depth required for the testing schedule of a World Cup.
Nevertheless, to lift the spirits of all the other rugby nations, here are 5 reasons why New Zealand’s 20-year wait for a another World Cup title may go on.
1. Pressure from the New Zealand public
If the All Blacks do not win in France this year, there will be uproar at home. Graham Henry will suffer the same fate as John Mitchell in 2003, and there will be sweeping changes in the team. Rugby to the New Zealand public means as much as football does to the English. When England gets knocked out of the football (soccer) World Cup, the nation is sent into depression, and there is a downturn in the economy - for New Zealand it is worse, given that England’s football team are never really expected to win anything! That pressure could play on their minds in tight games in the latter stages.
2. 20 years is a long wait
Everyone knows that despite coming close on a number of occasions, New Zealand has not won the tournament since the inaugural event in 1987. Every four years, the All Blacks start among the favourites, but disappointing defeats have left them with the unenviable title of ‘The best team in the world between World Cups’. This stigma will add to the significant pressure from supporters and may contribute to their demise.
3. Easy group
Of all the top seeds, New Zealand has the easiest group. Scotland and Italy will be battling it out for second place, but neither will offer stern opposition for the All Blacks, and they will go through to the knockout stages untested. In the quarter-finals, there is a realistic chance they will meet Argentina (the Pumas need to beat Ireland to go through as runners up to France - a feat they achieved twice this summer), and even that game should not prove too much trouble. So New Zealand may cruise through to the semis, where they could face Australia, battle-hardened after a more strenuous route and determined to cause an upset against their local rivals like they did in 2003. New Zealand will need to beware.
4. Reuben Thorne
Why has Thorne been named in the All Blacks squad over the more dynamic and versatile Troy Flavell? Is Graham Henry cracking up already? Thorne will not be selected in the first-choice team, nor will he make any impact from the substitutes bench and so his selection is mystifying. Henry will effectively have 29 players to choose from, and if the Kiwis have to rely on Thorne in a World Cup final, they could be exposed.
5. Schalk Burger, Juan Smith and Pierre Spies
South Africa’s back row is on a par with - possibly even better than - New Zealand’s trio. If the Springbok loose forwards get the better of their Kiwi counterparts, they could starve the dangerous All Black backline of possession and kill their running rugby gameplan. Burger and Smith are brutally physical and will force turnover ball, while Spies has the pace and power to be a threat in attack. If the final is a contest between these two sides, the Springboks manage to keep all their players on the field and out of the sin bin, and Reuben Thorne lines up for the All Blacks, the Springboks could sneak a result and lift the trophy.
Should all these factors combine, the All Blacks’ could fail once again in their World Cup quest. However, New Zealand’s performance against Australia to secure the Bledisloe Cup and the Tri-Nations allayed fears that they were beginning to decline - they remain overwhelming favourites to lift the Web Ellis Cup, and rightly so, but let us all take solace that there may be a glimmer of hope for the other teams.
By James Hutchison
Recent Comments