By Garth Hamilton
May 15th 2008 @ 12:50am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
The changing face of English rugby
Why do Englishmen play exciting rugby for their clubs and dour rugby for their country?
Bath’s 66 – 21 humiliation of Saracens last fortnight was a performance that all Southern Hemisphere commentators should watch.
Johnson names six uncapped players for NZ tour
The exciting, positive and attacking rugby the home team used to put the ‘fez heads’ to the sword belonged at once to both and to neither hemisphere. It was simply great rugby.
Ever since rugby turned professional, a growing procession of Southern Hemisphere talent has been heading north, and it has changed the way rugby is played in England. This is especially so in traditional strongholds like Bath, where the best exponents of the running game are no longer exclusively imported.
Player by player, the English are producing a generation who love the open, ball-in-hand game and are increasingly able to produce it at a very high quality.
The home team’s victory, at one of England’s best rugby grounds, was a great example of the evolution that is taking place in English rugby.
Bath’s forward pack, among whom there must be several certainties for English selection, played a style of rugby that is rarely adopted by the national team. Matt Stevens is already well known as a great scrummager. However, his emergence as a dangerous ball carrier and distributor has been remarkable.
Watching him throw around both his bulk and an array of sublime passes, I couldn’t help but wonder why he doesn’t play like this at international level.
Locks Steve Borthwick and Danny Grewcock were equally transformed in the loose, and flanker Michael Lipman showed the benefits of his time in Australia with his stylish, open play.
Bath’s backs displayed the changing shape of English rugby with even greater clarity.
Playing outside an understated South African halves pairing of Michael Classens and Butch James, the verve and enthusiasm of Olly Barkley and the giant winger, Matt Banahan, were perfectly encouraged.
Barkley’s performances at international level have, at times, been stifled by the shuffling and shovelling of Jonny Wilkinson. However, with James, he finds himself presented with far higher quality ball to work with.
Across the Guinness Premiership there are many young English rugby players of similar mindsets and abilities. Players of this new generation, like Wasps’ Danny Cipriani and London Irish’s Shane Geraghty, have grown up watching Southern Hemisphere imports bring their running-rugby ethos to their clubs.
The result is a grassroots change in English rugby that can only continue to propel England’s national team towards a more well-rounded and enterprising style of play.
Brian Ashton’s greatest mistake whilst in charge of England was to ignore what was happening in the county’s clubs.
Lazy selections like those of Andy Farrell and Lesley Vainikolo revealed a lack of belief in the true depth of talent outside the squad he inherited from Andy Robinson.
Ultimately, Ashton’s sacking was in line with the RFU’s slow embrace of England’s clubs that started with the appointment of Newcastle’s Rob Andrew as its Director of Elite Rugby.
Bath’s coach, the Australian Steve Meehan, is now being proposed in some quarters as a potential member of England’s new coaching staff. If selected, Meehan’s biggest challenge won’t be teaching the English how to play fifteen man rugby, but simply letting them know it’s okay to do so.
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(24)
Loading ...
Ian Noble said | May 15th 2008 @ 1:16am | Report comment
Garth
You are one of the few commentators who has recognised the change in English club rugby over the last season or so. Something myself and others from the NH has been banging on about for the last few months. Why such a transformation, it is multi levelled.
The influence of SH and league coaches at all levels have had a big impact. They have brought a new dynamic to the English game.
The introduction of quality overseas players whether from France, Italy and the SH has allowed the younger English players to play with this talent and realise that they can as good as, if not better.
The increasing TV audiences and match spectators have demanded a higher standard of play
The England squad to NZ reflects this transformation with a number of player being selected on merit having performed well in the GP. The big challenge is whether they step up to the international arena and a tour in NZ could not be harder test of the games progression in England. It will be an interesting series, perhaps with a few surprises along the way.
Ian Noble said | May 15th 2008 @ 1:22am | Report comment
I forgot to mention that it looks as though Brian Smith the Aussie/Irish head coach of London Irish will become backs coach to the England elite squad. I think he played for the Wallabies in the late 1980s and subsequently he played for Ireland. It reinforces the influence of SH coaches if it happens.
jools-usa said | May 15th 2008 @ 2:26am | Report comment
Imagine how even more entertaining the new English talent could be playing under ELV rules, or some version of.
Jools-USA
bob said | May 15th 2008 @ 3:38am | Report comment
anotehr reason, not just SH influence, is that with pro rugby now a viable career, a lot of biys who would ocne have chjosen football are choosing to play rugby. The game is breaking into the inner cities and kids who used to go into the manual trades are now looking to union to earn their wages… so a different mindset is arriving… without the dumbing down of the ELV’s.
Reg said | May 15th 2008 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Head coach of Bath, who’s backs have looked fantastic, his Steve Meehan. Former head coach of GPS in Brisbane. Hopefully he comes home and gets involved back here.
Hugh Dillon said | May 15th 2008 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Has anyone told Stephen Jones, Chris Hewitt, Paul Ackford etc about this outbreak of running rugby? For years they have been banging on about the looseness and frothiness of S14 and hyping the merits of games in which one try is scored in among the barrage of penalty goals.
Players want run the ball — spectators want to watch them run. If they will do it without ELVs, whacko. If they need ELVs to bring back the running, so be it. We should be one church on this, not northern v southern fanatics entrenched in our own faiths.
sheek said | May 15th 2008 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Garth,
Illuminating article. As you get older you realise you shouldn’t believe everything you read when you were younger.
It might suit some southern hemisphere commentators to trot out the line the SH plays more attractively than the NH, but these things tend to go in cycles.
When I first became aware of the existence of rugby union in the late 60s, NZ & SA were coming out of a period of running rugby, especially the ABs. The Boks played an attractive style of rugby in Australia in 1971.
By the 70s, it was the British nations, led by Wales, who were producing the razzle dazzle, while both the ABs & Boks became dour in their approach.
In the late 70s, as a new Australia began to emerge, they relied on the new found strength of Queensland forward power. In the early 80s, this Qld forward power clashed with the enlightening back play of the Ella led NSW backs.
Even the French eschewed their traditional backplay in the 80s in their quest to emulate the consistent success of the ABs. South Africa, although isolated in the 80s, had a very attractive backline, right up there with their 37-38 mob, & out of character with supposed traditional Bok play.
Don’t believe that Botha couldn’t run the ball. This might be a Aussie myth! I’ve seen TV footage of Botha against the 1980 Lions, 1981 ABs & 1986 NZ Cavaliers. The guy could run the ball when he wanted to.
As the Wallabies began to fumble in the mid 2000s, it has increasingly dawned on me that it is a con to believe Australia has always run the ball, & England hasn’t, for argument’s sake. It might make a cute catchphrase, but it is based on falsehoods.
Look at England’s track & field history. It has enjoyed outstanding athletes over a long period of time. I think England’s problem is a societal one, where prejudicial class is preferred to athletic class. You know, style over substance, going to the right school, having the right connections, etc. This has been England for 1000 years.
Until England changes the way it selects its players, this problem might not right itself soon, unless of course, by weight of overwhelmingly outstanding talent. It’s frightening to think, had Ella & Campese been Englishmen, they might have only played a handful of tests each, if that!
Let’s be clear here - ALL countries are capable of producing & playing an attractive style of running rugby. It’s traditions, customs, prejudices & habits that get in the way. Which is to the detriment of rugby union.
n world football, it might be simplifying things to say Brazil always plays attractively & Italy always plays boringly. Yet historically, Brazil has gone through dour periods, while Italy has shown a capacity to entertain at different times. It’s cyclical.
Sorry, off the soapbox now……….
Greg Russell said | May 15th 2008 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Garth,
You neglect to mention the weather and pitch conditions for the Bath-Saracens match. The dour English style has just as much been a function of necessity as of mentality: it is very difficult to play expansive rugby when the weather is cold and damp and the ground is soft. Of course no rule is absolute, but just look at how the Wallabies usually play in November in Europe; even NZ rugby becomes rather dour as winter bites.
Given reports of an early summer in England, my guess is that the Bath-Saracens match took place in unusually warm conditions on a relatively hard ground. Just like cricket, rugby is a game where conditions play a significant role in dictating the optimum style of play. Much English rugby takes place in conditions that simply do not favour the style of rugby that most of us prefer. This always has to be remembered in critiquing what goes on over there.
Photon said | May 15th 2008 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
It’s for the same reason people like Lampard,Gerard, and Rooney look world class in Liverpool, Chelsea and MAN UNITED shirts but rathert crap in a English one!! In a club rugby and football these players are surrounded by world class players who allow them to blossom and fulfill their potential,in English shirts the service isn’t there, and in team sports you so often are only as good as the players around you!!
P.S. Speaking of football, All hail the Red Tribe,can’t wait to collect another trophy on Wednesday, and to all you Scousers out there I’d just like to say, Only 2 more championships!!
Martyn Riddle said | May 15th 2008 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
and yet Bath can still find room to include Shaun Berne in their squad…..;-)
Lazza said | May 15th 2008 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
Read the English press today about a pay dispute with the Rugby players. They want 100k pounds a year while the RU is only offering 60K. I didn’t realise Rugby players were paid such a pittance. Don’t think those wages are going to attract too many kids away from Football?
Reg said | May 15th 2008 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Lazza, that’s just from the RFU. Its the clubs over there (the real ‘owners’ of the game) who pay the real salaries I believe.
TembaVJ said | May 15th 2008 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Sheek I love it when someone brings unknown history (at least to the youngsters) into the topic. If only I knew rugby back in the 60, I remember watching Botha but I was to young to add anything of value. I am also surprised and intrigued on you theory of the “running game” cycle. It makes sense now but I have always thought its purely cultural that’s why Aussies claim the running game and the Boks/England claim forward as its always been that why. This puts a new spin on ELV’s for me particularly who supports them and who doesn’t.
Wilco is a great player make no mistake but he does not exactly make the game flow, Same with South Africa, they have had a problem at 10 since Honiball that restricts the backline. Do you think these cycle are triggered by legendary players being in certain positions like 10/12/14 for backline/running rugby or 1-7 forward game?
Examples in the last RWC are the English pack/ Wilco combo and the Lineout’s for The Saffa’s With Matfield/Botha combo. I don’t know I am trying to get something said here but I am losing it fast
TembaVJ said | May 15th 2008 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
For those who don’t know Henry Honiball, He is the best 10 South Africa has ever had (as far as I’m concerned) and plays the same game as Steven Larkham.
Ian Noble said | May 15th 2008 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
Lazza
The dispute with the players association is over appearance money for playing for England, At the moment England players get £9000 appearance money if they are picked.The RFU want to change the basis of payment to be more results orientated with probably a lower initial fee with add on for wins etc. It appears that all the top execs at the RFU are on performance related salaries including Barron, Andrew etc. Sign of the times as the RFU has staggered into the 21st century.
The players continue to be paid by their clubs plus all the sponsorship deals/personal appearances they enter into. Johnny Wilkinson with newspaper articles sponsorships and major advertising contracts was earning between £500K/750K pa. One will never the true figure but a number of England players have done very nicely.
Garth Hamilton said | May 15th 2008 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
Thanks all for your comments.
Ian,
Coming from the SH myself I am no doubt a little biased in my assessment of the reasons behind the change in English rugby and of course I agree with your initial comment that there are many other reasons behind the developments of the last couple of years. It is certainly not just the result of SH imports, its just that that is the most obvious influence to my SH eyes.
Watching guys like Dan Hipkiss or James Simpson-Daniel play for Leicester and Gloucester I could easily see either of them not looking out of place in a Waratah or Crusader jersey. This isn’t me being condescending about their abilities but rather my feeling that the difference between the styles of rugby played in the backs in the club/provincial competitions on either side of the globe is not that great. I think the ELVs have more of an impact on forward play and at the moment forward play in the north and south is diverging.
Hugh,
I refer you to the writing of Mr Stuart Barnes and Mr Gerald Davies.
Greg,
I agree the weather definately does play a massive part in any team’s approach to the game. I have a theory that the English make good forwards because at schoolboy level it is more enticing to be wrestling in the warmth of a ruck than standing out by yourself all wet and cold as a back. In Australia’s heat the opposite applies.
I would argue that in the past a lot of home nation teams have had a ‘wet weather’ attitude - they played their best in bad conditions but when the sun did come out they were still essentially a ‘wet weather’ team playing in good conditions and didn’t have the ability to change their approach.
Now these clubs are adopting a ‘dry weather’ attitude. They want to run the ball even on bad weather days and what’s more they now have the skills to pull it off.
As an aside, that early English summer you were talking about, which hadn’t really kicked in at the time of the Bath/Sarries match, has already been washed away and we’re back to wet and overcast again.
Sheek,
Since arriving in London I have had my perception of how the NH play rugby almost completely turned on its head. I quickly came to realise that I was letting my perceptions stop me from enjoying the reality. A swift uppercut and two tickets to Twickers later I was much happier.
sheek said | May 15th 2008 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
Garth,
I’ve long wondered why the poms could play attractive rugby at club level but not international level. At least for most of the time I’ve been following rugby.
But the selfishness in me hoped the poms never figured it out & changed their ways. After all, they have the most players, & if they utilised their resources effectively, they would be the best rugby nation in the world.
TembaVJ,
I don’t suppose I have ever considered the questions you ask, too deeply. Firstly, Wilko. He doesn’t play the running game confidently, but he could learn, as he has the athletic skills.
Historically, it is said Australia favoured the running game because of its hard & true surfaces, & favourable weather conditions. If this is so, why not the Saffies also? Although the Saffies could be explained by cultural differences.
Why did Australia only rarely try to fix its lack of forward power? There might be some machismo here. The Aussies thought it “more meaningful” to win with running rugby. They also had to compete with RL re entertainment value. In any case, the Wallabies often ran the ball out of desperation. They couldn’t compete with the power game, so they tried to outflank their opponents through flair & guile.
NZ have taken the running game one step further, & play the true “15 man rugby”, with forwards interacting with backs. With the occasional exception from the French, no-one consistently plays 15 man rugby like the Kiwis. Their often variable conditions - hard surfaces to slush & mud, warm sunshine to howling winds, blinding rain & bitter cold - have made them the most adaptable of rugby playing nations.
Watching the ABs is often like watching a team on permanent fast-forward. It’s almost as if they want to get the game over as quickly as possible, before seeking the warmth of the sheds. And boy, don’t they make proper use of their allotted 80 minutes!
Yes, you have to have the players in order to play any particular game. The Wallabies have often played running rugby, but rarely as well as when they had Ella, Campese, O’Connor, Hawker, Moon & Gould in the backline (no more than 5 of those at any one time).
Like you, I don’t know if I’ve really answered your questions, except to reaffirm that all countries go through various playing & success cycles depending on the talent available, & also the coaches’ whims.
Yes, Honiball was very good. You have to wonder if the Boks might have prevailed over the Wallabies in that epic 1999 semi-final had Honiball been fully fit, available & in form. As it was, his only starting game was the 3rd-4th playoff against the ABs, when the chance of a final appearance had been already lost.
The Reiver said | May 15th 2008 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
The reason why GP club performances have never been recently equalled on the international field is very simple.
Up until this year (this June / July coming I beleve) the England squad has been thrown together at the last minute with no time to prepare.
If you want to play running rugby, you need time together (i.e. pre-season & quite a few squad sessions) to perfect the job or you end up with a back line of headless chickens. If you’re not given that time, then the easiest thing to do is revert to type and play the tight / percentage game.
Brian Ashton - one of the most progressive backs coaches you will find - and also responsible for the emergance of the likes of Cipriani & Geraghty through the England Academy - did not have a hope in hell of achieving anything with the system that was in place. History will probably make him the scapegoat for poor performances, but the real blame lies with the constant battles and bickering between The RFU and Premier Rugby plc over player release.
For example: This years 6 Nations had a rest weekend in the middle of it. You may think as I did, what an ideal time for squad development as surely the England squad needs it. But no. all the GP teams demanded their players back for their weekend matches.
The build up to the RWC was no different. GP teams wanting players for their own pre-season sessions and refusing to release for England squad sessions. Ashton was left with little choice but to pick tried and trusted vets.
Wether this new agreement achieves anything better is still open to question. Already one GP team is using it as an excuse to try and sell off its’ England internationals because they will have less access to them during the season.
I doubt if the England team (many of the players have hit 30+ games this season) will do more than show a few glimmers of what it could be capable of in NZ.
But even a few glimmers of hope will do for me because ithat will be better than what we’ve seen in a while.
swifty said | May 15th 2008 @ 11:20pm | Report comment
Reiver,
that sounds like a cop out. The english team surely had a lot of time together before the world cup didn’t they? Whilst they did get to the world cup final it wasn’t through pretty rugby. no running rugby at all. Their first couple of games were terrible and nothing to do with how long they had been together. Same with the 2003 world cup. woodward gave them heaps of time together and they still played 10 man rugby. I thnk you are heading down the wrong track with that excuse mate.
Lindommer said | May 16th 2008 @ 12:13am | Report comment
87 points in a game of Pommy rugby! Sounds like “basketball” to me. Has someone told Simon Barnes or Stephen Jones?
This has to be stopped.
Ian Noble said | May 16th 2008 @ 1:45am | Report comment
Spiro in an article on the theme of scrum is king under th ELV’s
“There were 34 tries in seven matches, despite the fact that two of the matches were played in wet conditions - the Crusaders-Sharks and Bulls-Waratahs games - in which there were only three and two tries scored. It is obvious that under the experimental law variations (ELVs) rugby remains a physical contest for all body shapes where an essential element in play is a continuous battle for possession. It is equally obvious, unfortunately, that the opposition to the ELVs from the Rugby Football Union (the England rugby union that still believes it should run rugby as it did before 1949) and a group of influential rugby writers on the leading English broadsheets is not based on fact.”
On the same weekend 37 tries were scored in the GP in six matches, no bragging rights just a recognition that tries are being scored under the existing rules, sometime greater than S14 sometimes not, but to base the success of rugby on the number of tries scored is too simplistic. The beauty of rugby is the contest. I was at Quins v Sale on the same weekend, a close absorbing match between Quins young inexperienced side and Sale full of internationals only four tries scored. The only SH player on show for the entire ganme was McAlister. Unforunately Quins lost 25-16, but fabulous atmosphere with both teams striving to make the play off.
Moving on the Quins first XV had 12 Englishregistered players all of whom had come the Quins academy with the exception of Streetle.
The Reiver said | May 16th 2008 @ 2:07am | Report comment
Swifty, What cop out ? Just pointing out the truth.
Why should I need to make an excuse for a team that won in 2003 and reached the final in 2007. I ain’t.
If you’re a fan of your national side are you all that bothered what style of rugby they play with that record. If only some teams had the ability to play 10 man rugby as good as that. But by going down the RWC road you are missing the point. It’s what happened between those two tournaments that folk should be aware of.
Oh, and also the fact that not all of us commence our season in February.
RWC ‘07 commenced (for England) 8th September.
2007 / 2008 GP season commenced 15th September.
Can you see a clash in pre-season / tournament preparation between club and country, or is it just me ?
Englands lack of preparation for the 2007 RWC is pretty well documented………..Google it !!
New coach with under a year to do anything. One week together before the French warm up matches etc. Back to club between warm up matches and RWC. So, no they didn’t get much time together. They were lucky to come away with what they did. That’s why everyone up here was stunned and pretty impressed by the final outcome.
The new release agreement that has been formulated between The RFU and PRplc has come of the back of that pre-tournament debacle. That’s a fact not a cop out.
In some aspects the S14 set up has a clear advantage of being partially linked to its’ national unions. Players are released for international duty / squad sessions without much hassle. If only that were true up here where the clubs rule………hopefully it may be now.
Wales won the 6 Nations with virtually all their players from one club team that’ve had plenty of time together.
Gatland & Edwards were no fools.
stuff happens said | May 16th 2008 @ 11:23am | Report comment
England has been poorly coached for a number of years. The 2003 winners were built around a a very good pack led by MJ and Jonny,who at the time was in a class of his own in that environment. Post 2003 their coaching has been very poor.Having said that, the way they extracated themselves from nowhere land at the beginning of the 2007 RWC to the final is one of the great comeback stories in rugby.
ickle said | May 16th 2008 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
One of England Rugbys biggest problems, which I believe also applies to France, is the structure of the top tier.
Allow me to explain. In the Super 14 and the Magners League, the players are, I believe, centrally contracted. The competitions are also ringfenced - there is no promotion to, or relegation from either of these competitions. If a club/region finishes at the bottom of their respective league, it isn’t much fun for them or the fans, but they can rebuild and have another go the following season, with no serious cost implications. As a result, if players are unavailable due to international duties, so be it.
In the Guinness Premiership, and France’s Top 14, the players are paid by their clubs. The clubs who provide international players are compensated to a certain extent by their national unions, but during international periods, those players called up are unavailable to them. Because these competitions continue during international periods, there is a direct impact on the teams involved. For a significant portion of their domestic season (over a third in some cases), these clubs are weakened by callups. When the consequence of finishing at the bottom of the table is relegation, and at least one season spent in a lower league, it is no surprise that some clubs are reluctant to part with their best players for any longer than is absolutely necessary. There are parachute payments to those clubs relegated, but I doubt they cover the cost of the reduced gates clubs are likely to suffer.
If the season was rearranged to result in less impact to the clubs during periods of international games, it is highly likely that the clubs would be far more co-operative with the RFU. After all, I don’t pay my money as a season ticket holder to watch a weakened side for a third of the season.
Just my meagre thoughts on the issues affecting English rugby…