England should hire Jake White immediately
Roar Pro
By kynang, 22 Mar 2010 kynang is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- English rugby, Jake White, Martin Johnson, Rob Andrews, Rugby Union, RWC 2011
The farce that is English rugby continues its long downward spiral, a fall from grace unchecked since 2003. Yes, they played in the 2007 World Cup finals, but only an idiot would claim they were the second best team there.
They were hammered by SA in the group phases, snuck through against a bad Australian side in the quarters, and bettered a French team who lost to Argentina, and never quite recovered from the jubilation of shocking the All Blacks the previous week.
Week after week they revel in mediocrity, constantly excusing it through claims of injury and team building. It’s been 7 years! How long are you going to build (and go back to the same old dogs – what new, world-class talent has been discovered since?)
Martin Johnson has been an abject failure, but Rob Andrew’s should probably take more of the blame. Since taking over from Sir Clive, what good thing has he accomplished?
A player release agreement with Premier Rugby… and not a single international trophy.
Not a six nations triumph since 2003! You have to go back to the 80s to find an England as unsuccessful.
And the solution is so simple. Jake White has the best credentials out of any unemployed coach – and most employed coaches, for that matter.
If England brought him on now, he would still have time to prepare a team for the World Cup. His first season as Springbok coach saw him take the Tri-Nations tournament, win IRB Coach of the Year, the Boks won Team of the Year, Schalk Burger won Player of the Year … there’s plenty of time yet for England to excel under new management.
Jake White is perfect for the English game too. He is a conservative coach who builds his teams around brutal defense, a low error rate, and suffocating tactics – everything England is good at. And he has a fantastic eye for talent.
As Springbok u21 coach, and national coach, he discovered star players such as: Schalk Burger, Jean De Villiers, Bismarck Du Plessis, Pierre Spies, Bryan Habana … the list goes on and on.
In a country such as England, which boasts twice as many rugby players as anyone else, there’s no doubt Jake White could discover the talent necessary to make them a world power once more. But he does need time, which is why it’s essential they appoint him right away, so he can scour the clubs for the best and brightest.
What to do with Martin Johnson? Bump him up a notch. Send Rob Andrew’s packing, and let Johnno be rugby supremo. He can stand around looking important, keep his reputation and honor intact, and oversee a resurgent England under Jake White.
It’s so obvious that it’s never, ever going to happen and England will remain mired in mediocrity for years to come.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- English rugby, Jake White, Martin Johnson, Rob Andrews, Rugby Union, RWC 2011
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 5:30am | Report comment
“They were hammered by SA in the group phases, snuck through against a bad Australian side in the quarters.”
Australia were one of the favourites for the tournamen. Perhaps blindly, but nevertheless…….
The defeat to South Africa in the group stages could be considered irrelevant.
“and bettered a French team who lost to Argentina, and never quite recovered from the jubilation of shocking the All Blacks the previous week.”
France played to the same game plan that they did the previous week against New Zealand. England out-smarted them.
“A player release agreement with Premier Rugby… and not a single international trophy.”
That player release agreement only started a year or two ago.
“His first season as Springbok coach saw him take the Tri-Nations tournament, win IRB Coach of the Year, the Boks won Team of the Year, Schalk Burger won Player of the Year … there’s plenty of time yet for England to excel under new management.”
Yet disappointed for the next three years until the world cup came about.
“But he does need time, which is why it’s essential they appoint him right away, so he can scour the clubs for the best and brightest.”
Now, that’s a contradiction in terms.
“Jake White is perfect for the English game too. He is a conservative coach who builds his teams around brutal defense, a low error rate, and suffocating tactics – everything England is good at. And he has a fantastic eye for talent.”
Do you watch England or the English league? They simply don’t have the quality of forwards, or a good kicking fly-half, to play that type of game plan.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 22nd 2010 @ 5:45am | Report comment
Colin… one question: why bother?
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 6:04am | Report comment
I had time to kill
Wavell Wakefield said | March 22nd 2010 @ 6:13am | Report comment
You’re better than that, Colin.
Just out of interest, have you ever used Rucku?
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
I use to watch Will Carling’s rambling’s on there, as they were quite funny, and I did try a while ago to create an account and despite getting the e-mail etc, I couldn’t seem to log on.
Sam said | March 22nd 2010 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Australia were never a favourite for that tournament. They hadn’t even won a Tri-Nations title since 2001.
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
They were seen as one of the favourites, not THE favourite. Everyone was well behind New Zealand, but Australia was in the group with South Africa and probably France who if New Zealand succumbed, were then placed as the likely title winners.
Sam said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
You’re reaching a little, so they were the fourth favourites? Thats no different than any world cup, NZ, South Africa and Aust are always considered there or there abouts.
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
So why are you disputing the claim that they were one of the favourites?
My point is that England weren’t considered to be anywhere near world cup challengers.
el_Pajovic said | March 22nd 2010 @ 6:18am | Report comment
I think need England need Anthony ‘Tony’ Robbins. One seminar for 10,000 bux and they will be a different team.
TembaVJ said | March 22nd 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
MJ is the problem, they should never of made him coach… at least he is good at finding excuses. Sure the creator of this post does not have all the fact right, but what he does have right is England should be a world leader in the sport not the laughing stock of rugby.
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Quite, but the talent either isn’t there in certain positions, or if they were all put in at once, then they wouldn’t have the experience. Johnson tried that route in his first season – he was roundly castigated for the performances and selections.
People called for Cipriani to be dropped after the 2008 AI’s, now the press say he’s been mishandled – hypocrisy in it’s best form.
If Johnson continued with that team then the results might have improved after a couple of years, but the press and public probably would have called for his head, because the results would have been poor. What do people want?
Some people want youngsters to be thrown in, others want results. Johnson is trying to find that balance.
People called for Foden to be in the side at the start, but Armitage was a star player for England the previous season and was in good form for London Irish. The same went for Ashton, but Monye was also an established international player for England and had played well for the team, did he deserve to be dropped for the start of the six nations? No.
In the forwards, the press wanted Tim Payne to be replaced, but who was there? Jon Golding was injured at the start of the tournament, and Mullan isn’t a great scrummager. Flatman possibly, but you saw throughout the tournament that he is a decent player and it was actually his highly-rated front-row colleague who struggled against France (although the legality of France’s scrum could be questioned).
England simply don’t have very many good second-rows, and Lawes hasn’t been playing there for his club recently. The France game also showed how we missed Borthwick in the lineout.
The back-row is another frustrating area as there is a lot of talent, but virtually no-one’s putting their hand up. The only disappointment is that S.Armitage wasn’t given an opportunity.
To conclude, it’s not really Johnson’s fault – of course, certain amount has to be placed with him – but he isn’t the primary reason.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 22nd 2010 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
Very good. I agree wholeheartedly. Obviously Temba doesn’t have a clue what you’re talking about (or what he’s talking about), but I’m glad he took the time to share his opinion.
Stan Morris said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:33am | Report comment
England are woeful but they’ll still beat us at the next RWC
Sam said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:46am | Report comment
If you are referring to Australia, I’d disagree, the thing England had going for them was a strong scrum and a low scoring game where the margins were paper thing (step up Wilkinson). However the Australia scrum is better than the England one now – at least it was when they played in November – so I think if they face off Australia will win. A lot can change in 18 months mind you.
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
England dominated both the scrum and contact area, against a team which had competed up front in the tri-nations the same season.
It was a one-off game, but that England performance was completely dominant over Australia in pretty much every facet. Australia were more clinical – England tried their best to lose that game – but the scrum wasn’t the only area where England were better on that day.
Sam said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Yeah but the scrum was the main reason. England were dominant overall, but don’t overstate it, they couldn’t score a try and only won by 2 points. Australia didn’t deserve to win, but just because Australia had an off day (Australia against Wales in the pool matches was like a different team, they smashed the Welsh in the ruck and maul) lets not get too carried away.
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
“England were dominant overall, but don’t overstate it, they couldn’t score a try and only won by 2 points”
That’s why I said they tried their best to lose it, I’ve watched the highlights a couple of times and England could/should have scored three or four tries.
“(Australia against Wales in the pool matches was like a different team, they smashed the Welsh in the ruck and maul)”
What’s to say that Wales didn’t play like Australia did against England in terms of their performance? You could also argue that it makes England’s dominance in this area all the more impressive against a team which were very good in this facet.
Sam said | March 23rd 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment
If you are right, then England have certainly gone backwards at some rate havn’t they? Especially judging by the England-Australia matches since.
Colin N said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:29am | Report comment
In 2008, completely different team and coaches. 2009, 26 injuries. Net result – can’t judge.
klestical said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
If Link Mckenzie can turn the Reds in 6 months, no doubt Jake White can turn the English before 2011
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
But McKenzie has a small base of players in comparison to England to chose from and knows the limitations he has to work with. Not to mention that he is pretty much chosing the same players (give or take a few) than the previous coach was. Also, the style of play hasn’t significantly changed, but improved.
All the factors would probably be different if there was a change of England coach.
Banger said | March 22nd 2010 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
Not too mention that Link has got at least 5 players that would walk straight into the england team at the moment. England are suffering from a big lack of talent at the moment. They really need to find top class seven.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 22nd 2010 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Will Genia… and?
Colin N said | March 22nd 2010 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
-
Rusty said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Quade Cooper – court case pending of course
Digby Ioane – at wing or 13
Daniel Braid – I like Moody and if you had to mould the two teams I would play both
James Horwill – not better than Shaw by a mile but would be good to play both
Colin N said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Braid – nope.
Horwill – nope.
Cooper – possibly, but very few tens could stand out behind England’s pack.
Ioane – possibly.
Rusty said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment
ok ok Horwill and Braid were a bit of a reach although the latter is pretty damn useful. As for Cooper, if you can play behind the Reds pack for several seasons then you can play behind any. Ioane, hell Im not even a Reds/Wallas fan but I wouldnt mind if we had him
Colin N said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Re: Cooper, the Reds pack isn’t the best, but still generates quick ball. England, until the France game didn’t. Flood played well partly because he got better ball.
Ioane’s a fabulous talent, but he’s not the player England would need at centre and again, apart from the France game the wingers haven’t received much ball. Having said that Cueto’s been England’s best back, but he’s an intelligent footballer, I’m not quite sure Ioane is yet.
Rusty said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
See the first addition – Genia for the quick ball side of things. So a Reds/England team combo of
9 – Genia
10 – Cooper
11 – Hynes/Ashton
12 – Flutey
13 – Ioane
14 – Cueto
15 – Foden
Colin N said | March 23rd 2010 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Fair play, but I would rather have someone like Tindall at OC.
Rusty said | March 23rd 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
I think Tindalls time in the sun is over he has lost a yard of pace and that detracts from his ability to get over the gain line. In this hypothetical world Ioane has the acceleration and power to cut through gaps or if required directly though people
Wavell Wakefield said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
Tindall dominated the midfield versus France, as he did last season. He’s still the man for me.
Viscount Crouchback said | March 22nd 2010 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Jake White does seem rather a good fit on paper but it would still be an immense gamble. Would a South African really feel comfortable in an English rugby culture, and would the players feel comfortable with him? I have my doubts. One has only to look at the problems Marcelo Loffreda and Heyneke Meyer had at Leicester to see that questions of culture are enormously important in rugby. If England were to do something dramatic then Sir Ian McGeechan would surely be the obvious choice. And even Geech, as a dyed-in-the-wool Scotchman, would have to overcome a few cultural issues.
The concerning thing about English rugby is that there are very few bright young coaches on the domestic scene. There seems to be a real lack of brains and left field thinking in the English coaching fraternity. The likes of Booth, Cockerill and Mallinder are all admirable in their own way, but it would be a brave man who claimed that they were ready to take on the likes of Graham Henry and Declan Kidney.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 22nd 2010 @ 9:31pm | Report comment
Hang on, VC. Let’s be realistic: Ian McGeechan felled the Lions tour with his incompetence, and you regularly critique the obviousness of Irish rugby, which infers a certain proportion of blame to Kidney, so why the placing on a pedestal? Kidney achieved a lot at Munster, but he also had his failures (the Dragons and Leinster). I’d have no qualms with Mallinder and West working in tandem for England, but I would rather they gained a little experience first.
Jake White won a 3N and a WC. He also took SA to some astonishingly low points and gross humiliations. As soon as Eddie Jones came on board SA looked twice the team. If there is one coach that England doesn’t need it is White. He, like Meyer, is alarmingly conservative, which is a trend that England need to break out of. One has to seriously wonder why White has never found permanent employment since 2007.
Whilst VC refers to a cultural difference with Meyer and Loffreda I would suggest that isn’t the case. Meyer, despite his record with the Bulls, seemed determined, as Brendan Venter has done at Saracens, to mould Leicester into a kicking team. The players didn’t respond to such a basic strategy and the team struggled. I would argue that Loffreda also struggled because he had never been a professional coach prior to his appointment at the Tigers. IMO neither failed due to cultural issues, rather issues of quality.
Big Al said | March 22nd 2010 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Jake’s worth a crack – better than what Johnno’s doing at the moment.
counterruck said | March 23rd 2010 @ 2:08am | Report comment
i would hazard a guess that an english-speaking south african would fit into the culture of an english sporting team quite easily – there numerous examples in cricket. hennekye meyer was deeply afrikaans. also from what i can gather leicester have a very strong (and unique these days) club culture which may help explain why both he and lofredda were relative failures there.
people forget the rescue job jake white did for SA. springbok rugby was an utter shambles when he took over and some of his tactical initiatives were groundbreaking at the time – rush defence in 2004, playing 3 ball carriers in the back row and 5 lineout jumpers all spring to mind.
there is no doubt the backline only looked good once eddie jones took over and its a real shame the white/jones duo didnt have more time coaching together as they both complimented each other perfectly
Wavell Wakefield said | March 23rd 2010 @ 2:21am | Report comment
And by and large Springbok rugby was a shambles under White. If you peruse European rugby there are no South African coaches in top positions apart from Gert Smal and Brendan Venter. However, there are countless NZ and Australian coaches. I don’t think that is a coincidence. Meyer came to Leicester, bought Hougaard over and told him to kick. It was so basic as to be bizarre. It didn’t work. Leicester sold Hougaard… to Saracens, run by that other conservative SA coach, Brendan Venter. All Saracens do is kick. England do not need White, IMO. You have to wonder why he has never found a coaching job.
Rusty said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:16am | Report comment
utter crap – as you previously mentioned there were low points along the way (trust me I know) but under White the Boks went from 6th in the world to 1st. Net result a 66% winning percentage. The only thing missing on his CV was an away win against the ABs. Since Woodward, England have gone the other way and stayed there with strangely enough a 44% winning percentage. They could certainly do worse than White….well clearly they already have
Rusty said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:39am | Report comment
In a more constructive form and echoing Tembas earlier comment – as much as it pains me to say it world rugby needs a stronger England. There might be some progress in terms of continuity and I suppose thats a step but at the moment its hard to see where else England is going forward. You also have to question why on earth the RFU thought a man with the greatest scowl in world rugby but no coaching credentials would be able to cut it at one of the games top jobs. Someone like White augmented with a backs coach might bring a some form of visible approach. Then again I suppose you could say the same about the current setup
Colin N said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:47am | Report comment
I think my post below Temba’s explains the problems England have at the moment.
Johnson may not be the man for the job and he shouldn’t be exempt from criticism, but the talent isn’t quite there for England and I think the likes of Wells is more to blame than anyone else.
Rusty said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:50am | Report comment
I never figured that out – you are on to the 3rd head honcho but the support staff remain throughout
Colin N said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
yep, that’s right and I can’t quite inderstand why. I would keep Ford and Smith but replace Wells with someone like Toby Booth.
Amateur Hour said | March 23rd 2010 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
You’ve mentioned a number of times on this thread already that you don’t think that England has the forward stocks at the moment to be effective. To what do you attribute this given the large amount of players that England has to draw from and your flourishing domestic competition. Has it, as it has been suggested before on the Roar, got anything to do with the large number of foreign players that ply their trade in your domestic competion? This is a serious question as I can’t comprehend why England, which in the past has prided itself on forward dominance, now, in your view, simply doesn’t have the cattle.
Colin N said | March 24th 2010 @ 12:24am | Report comment
It’s nothing to do with foreigners in the English league, it’s at the same leve as it was when England won the world cup. Injury to Sheridan hasn’t helped England, Cobisiero looked like the next great world prop, but he’s always injured. Matt Mullan could also be a fabulous player but he’s young and not a great scrummager (it took Gethin Jenkins a few years to really develop despite all the natural talent and physique he has/had). Those are two potential world class players who just aren’t ready yet.
Hartley’s done well and in a couple of years I think he will be a very good player and possible England captain.
England have unearthed a very talented tight-head in Cole, also.
Before I move on, I must say that England almost missed a generation between 03 and 07.
Anyway, locks, potential world class locks – Lawes (21), Gaskell (19), Green (19), Kitchener (21) etc, but there’s virtually no-one in the 24 – 28 bracket I believe. Or anyone above 30 who is good enough.
In the back-row there is lots of options, but whether it is to do with age, I’m not sure, but the young players who have been given a chance, like Haskell and Croft, either haven’t shown enough consistency, or have been injured, so weren’t considered for selection in the six nations.
If I was looking at it this way, England brought back the old guard in 2007 and they showed they still had it, dominating France and Australia at the contact area. Between 03 and 07, they tried to introduce the younger players after many of the 03 forwards retired, but because results didn’t come quick enough, press pressure mean the team was changed a lot, so less continuity and England didn’t go anywhere. England rugby is complicated, it isn’t just one factor that has caused their failing.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
Rusty, SA went to 1st because they won the WC, not because they were the best team in the world. There is a big difference. Jake White took SA to the same lows (in terms of results) that Straueli did. I can recall some truly horrific disgraceful shellackings. The results under PDV have been far, far superior. White fashioned a limited side with a limited game plan. England have some exciting backs. A man who believes in kicking and defence is not the man to take England forward in 2010. Frankly, I think Johnson has done a reasonable job.
Just a Fan said | March 23rd 2010 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
Wavell your bigotry and biased is hiding any intelligence that you might have.
England are in dire need of any help….really so to turn down a world cup winning coach would be a stupid as the SA Rugby politicians.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 23rd 2010 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
Using the term bigotry is particularly unintelligent and so is the suggestion that Jake White should be England coach solely because he won the WC. Obviously a lot of rugby people agree with me which is why he hasn’t had a job since 2007. That you haven’t actually contested anything specific that I have said speaks volumes.
Rugby Fan said | March 23rd 2010 @ 3:29am | Report comment
England have managed their coaching team poorly. When Woodward left, we promoted Andy Robinson and ended up losing a man from the set-up who could still be doing a great job as England’s forwards coach if handled better. We then promoted Brian Ashton and ended up losing a man who could still be doing a great job as England’s attack coach. Dave Alred was culled as kicking coach, apparently on cost grounds which still strikes me as odd. We then missed the chance to get Shaun Edwards in as defence coach because he promised to join Gatland before anyone in the England set-up thought about approaching him.
Johnson was chosen by the RFU primarily because they were concerned that England sponsors and supporters were drifting away from the game and threatening their rich revenue stream. His personal credibility bought them a couple of years of peace & quiet from the press even though some questioned Johnson’s credentials at the time. That peace has now been shattered although I find some of the diatribes by the likes of Mark Reason & Stephen Jones to be hysterical over reactions.
I think Johnson might have had the personal authority to preside over a team including the likes of Ashton, Robinson, Alred & Edwards and they would have compensated for his lack of coaching and management experience. By having him inherit a team of coaches, with no obvious stand-out alternatives, it was always going to be difficult. It was even more farcical that there was a whole summer tour in 2008 where no-one was apparently in charge. Johnson wasn’t officially in the job and yet Rob Andrew declined to take responsibility, not least when Danny Care, Topsy Ojo, Mike Brown and David Strettle got embroiled in a sex scandal in NZ.
As it stands, we don’t really know what Wells, Rowntree, Smith, Ford & Callard are actually doing so it isn’t clear whether below-par performances are mainly down to the players, the coaches or the manager. One reason to be cautious about changing any manager now is the introduction of the new interpretations. Quite frankly, I don’t think we know what the game is going to look like by the time we get to the World Cup. England could go for someone who has been a good coach previously only to find them all at sea in this new era.
I do agree with Dallaglio that England have lost their way in terms of setting ambitious targets for the players. They don’t seem to aspire to be world beaters. That’s not to say they can’t have a decent World Cup. England have proved to be quite good at the knock-out stages compared with other NH teams, especially when they come up against Australia & France. They’ve haven’t been so adept against SA and NZ and have been quite lucky in only once having a match against the All Blacks after the group stages (in that ’95 loss). However, I’d rather we went in with some consistency and momentum rather than relying on a random set of Englishman to dog it out game by game.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 23rd 2010 @ 3:45am | Report comment
‘However, I’d rather we went in with some consistency and momentum rather than relying on a random set of Englishman to dog it out game by game.’
I think that is what Johnson is trying to do, hence his loyalty to a core group. Unlike Robinson and Ashton Johnson did not have the advantage of a large bunch of senior pros to take the team forward. Unfortunately, that means that English fans should expect some bumpy results along the way. Would Chris Ashton have kicked over Poitrenaud if he’d played as many tests as Cueto has? It really is a Catch 22 situation, especially when you have malcontents like Stephen Jones/Stuart Barnes demanding either immediate results or dawn executions. I have noticed other forums that the week prior to the France test the majority of England fans demanded changes. As soon as the appropriate changes were implemented the same people were still moaning about the knee-jerk changes. At times this 6N it has been more frustrating listening to the hyperbole and guff from fans than watching the team play. Johnson has made mistakes, but he has also done some good things. All I would hope is that the team progresses from Paris. Johnson doesn’t have the war funds or help that Woodward had, but I’m still hopeful. This coming summer will be most informative.
Colin N said | March 24th 2010 @ 5:47am | Report comment
“Would Chris Ashton have kicked over Poitrenaud if he’d played as many tests as Cueto has?”
I have an interesting theory on this, pretty much irrelevant to the point you have just made, but When Cueto came back into the England side, he was played at 11 and has played a lot of his rugby at 11. I’ve never seen Ashton played 11, so would it have been better to play the more experienced man on the left-wing?
As a result, if Cueto got that ball instead of Ashton, would he have kicked it away?
Wavell Wakefield said | March 24th 2010 @ 5:59am | Report comment
I thought that pre-match as well. Perhaps Cueto wasn’t moved due to the opposition and Johnson specifically wanted him to face Palisson?
Colin N said | March 24th 2010 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Perhaps and I’m sure there was a reason for it, but the move did surprise me.
Rugby Fan said | March 24th 2010 @ 3:37am | Report comment
“It really is a Catch 22 situation, especially when you have malcontents like Stephen Jones/Stuart Barnes demanding either immediate results or dawn executions.”
There are just so many players performing at about the same level that it’s just so easy for a rugby commentator see a stuttering England performance and then point to someone on the fringes of the squad and claim they have been “badly misused” or “criminally overlooked”.
I certainly don’t make a case specifically for any of these players but here’s a list of names I’ve seen mentioned just in the last couple of weeks: Cipriani, Hodgson, Strettle, Nick Kennedy, Abendanon, Erinle, Vainikolo. Dowson, Jon Clarke and Kay. I’m sure there are more that have been tossed around.
I see Spiro has just put up a cheeky piece suggesting England might get it right for the World Cup so I suspect some of this discussion will overlap with his contention.