England’s dark age at an end with Johnson gone
By kingplaymaker, 17 Nov 2011 kingplaymaker is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- England rugby, Martin Johnson, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup
Related coverage
Anyone with a passing interest in the fate of English rugby, or even rugby as an international game, should breathe a sigh of relief at the resignation of Martin Johnson: a sigh also laden with melancholy at the three and a half years’ worth of blazing wreckage he leaves behind.
Johnson is by a vast distance the most inept manager in the history of international rugby, and it would be difficult to conceive of such a diabolical performance in the wildest nightmares of an England rugby fan.
Johnson represents a broader phenomenon, the last gasp of the dinosaur age of rugby, the amateur era, when notions such as accountability and experience were given second place to vague concepts of ‘presence’ or ‘authority’. The RFU, the hopeless old boys club that appointed Johnson, exemplifies these problems.
It is simply a collection of ex-players, chosen with no regard for their ability to run a business. Instead every vested interest is favoured and the health and success of the game affected from the top by the incompetence and cronyism of figures such as Martyn Thomas, who unsuprisingly was behind the appointment of Johnson.
This appointment, a clear case of constructive dismissal, involved the systematic and humiliating undermining of the previous coach Brian Ashton, and displayed the ethical vacuity at the heart of the bully boy amateur culture running English rugby.
Johnson, fully complicit in this disgraceful victimisation of a decent and committed servant of English rugby, was chosen without any qualifications, embodying an amateur conception of how coaching and rugby worked.
It did not matter, the argument went, that Johnson had no experience whatsoever of coaching or management, because rugby is not fundamentally concerned with such things: all that is necessary to make a team successful is a great figurehead who can lead the troops into battle, a kind of sergeant major/ Lord Flasheart who can rally and inspire his charges.
This is the same thinking that leads to the organisation assuming ‘clubability’ as the only requirement of members on the board of a business. Competence, relevant experience and professionalism are not features of importance.
The absurdity of this point of view is shown by the simultaneous implosion of the RFU and downfall of the national team it created. The RFU’s calamities are too tedious and well-known to rehearse here. Suffice to say any failure of either the team or governing body is incredibly given the monumental financial and playing resources of English rugby, which loom above other nations.
Johnson’s reign itself is such an extraordinary tale of incompetence and arrogance that it must seem unbelievable to southern hemisphere fans. Southern hemisphere rugby is professionally run, and fairly accountable, so professional, high-quality coaches are always appointed.
Whatever criticisms could be levelled at any southern hemisphere or Super Rugby coach, they are all models of sublime perfection in comparison to Johnson.
There is an assumption that, for example, the team put on the field are more or less the best or at least the better available. One or two players may be out of position or disregarded, they may be ineffectively used or kept on past their best, but things are mostly correct.
Johnson’s selections were bizarre and wrong-headed. Andy Goode, Ayoola Erinle and Matt Banahan would never make a Super Rugby team but caught Johnson’s eye above reams of superior candidates.
It is as if a far worse Tom Carter had started every match of the last few years for the Wallabies, or Daniel Halangahu chosen above Dan Carter, although on his worst day Halangahu was better than Andy Goode. Erinle cannot even make one of the 12 Premiership clubs these days. Size was often important to Johnson, which explains the disastrous Banahan. He is enormous. That he is talentless matters less.
Then there was the old-boy selection. It has been six years since Johnny Wilkinson, Mike Tindall or Steve Thompson were good enough, but as they played with Johnson in 2003, that is qualification enough.
England has had plenty of talented players, all spurned. Danny Cipriani and Shane Geraghty are two world-class fly-halves, the former one of the best talents ever produced by England. James Simpson-Daniel is the best union-produced wing of the last decade (Robinson and Ashton came from league).
Matthew Tait is a gifted runner perhaps familiar to southern hemisphere fans from the 2007 final. Luke Narraway is a fast and highly skilled footballing number 8.
However, Johnson disliked all of these players. In Johnson’s mind, any player demonstrating extravagant attacking ability was somehow prissy and fanciful, not gritty enough to be effective.
Not that attacking was always disallowed. So incoherent was the tactical approach that a purely negative game and purely offensive one were often adopted in alternation across a sequence of matches, or even within the same match. A confusion of different playing types were expected to play one type of game for which they were suited, then another for which they were not.
Johnson was given a good team of coaches whose abilities he managed to squander. Whenever a good player was selected, it would be described in the press as ‘a Brian Smith call’. Johnson’s arrogance in making himself available for the position above experienced coaches is astounding: remember, Johnson had never managed a rugby team before taking on the national side.
With no experience, Johnson was unable to coax consistency from his team or control them on tour. He had several problems with players personally and dropped those concerned accordingly, though it is the final World Cup experience which sums up his mismanagement.
Following the old English amateur ethos that the biggest bully wins and that ethics can go hang, Johnson not only encouraged thuggery on the field and delighted in selecting players with a reputation as brutes (Dylan Hartley endeared himself on account of his eye-gouging ban), but enjoyed the idea of mob behaviour off it.
Disobeying the playing laws was also an aim, seen in the neverending string of penalties and yellow cards his team acquired, while the kind of illegal hits Courtney Laws employed in the RWC were his ultimate idea of combativeness.
Johnson was lucky too. Both France and Australia have developed an overwhelming fear of England having been knocked out of the World Cup repeatedly at its hands, and psychologically imploded over the last four years whenever they faced the old enemy. The moment Johnson’s team came up against half-decent opposition of course, they were pummelled. In fact the catastophic World Cup campaign on the pitch was the best his team could ever play.
Machiavelli defined princes in three catgories: those that have excellent opinions themselves, those that have bad opinions themselves but know which advice from others to listen to, and those with bad opinions and who do not know which advice to follow.
Whoever follows will doubtless appear superhuman in comparison, though three and a half years of pointlessly wasted rugby can never be recovered. Nor can that chapter in the careers of once bright young players such as Cipriani, Geraghty, Simpson-Daniel. Beyond even disastrous management of the team, it is finally the ruin of their brilliant prospects that marks Johnson’s greatest failing.
In fact the RFU and Johnson resemble Italy and Greece’s travails at the moment in the eurozone: a system based on nepotism, disobeyance of laws and wholesale enslavement to vested interests can never work. Perhaps like those two countries it is time for the RFU and English rugby to change. For now though, at least the Papandreou of the national team has left the stage.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (161)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (158)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- McKenzie or White: who will be the next Wallaby coach? (24)
- Chiefs back on top after downing Bulls (10)
- Rebels know Super improvement needed
- Quade can play way into Wallabies squad (4)
- A Kiwi’s advice to Wallaby supporters (45)
- Confessions of a rugby union traitor (16)
- Reds focus on Brumbies, not finals
- A Kiwi’s advice to Wallaby supporters (45)
- Confessions of a rugby union traitor (16)
- Brumbies vs Reds: a lesson for the other provinces (11)
- Chiefs vs Bulls: Super Rugby live scores, blog (15)
- Hola Argentina, and welcome to the Rugby Championship! (24)
- Irish coaches looking to head Western Force (15)
- Dull Super Rugby coaches equal dull rugby (51)
- Explore:
- England rugby, Martin Johnson, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup


November 17th 2011 @ 11:13am
Ross said | November 17th 2011 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Johnson should not have been appointed without having prior coaching experience but this is way over the top.
“Johnson, fully complicit in this disgraceful victimisation of a decent and committed servant of English rugby”
How?
“Johnson is by a vast distance the most inept manager in the history of international rugby”
Again how? His winning percentage is better than his two predecessors and he won the 6 Nations. Yet apparently he is worse than them, and worse than Rudolf Strauli, Gareth Jenkins, Matt Williams & Marc Lievremont. I could probably name a dozen worse managers than Johnson in the last decade.
“England has had plenty of talented players, all spurned. “
The talented players you list are all either badly out of form (Tait, Cipriani & Geraghty have all been hopping from one club to another over the last couple of year), defensively suspect or injury prone (Simpson-Daniel especially). As for the supposedly hopeless players- Goode is the premiership’s record point scorer, has been nominated as player of the year and was at the biggest club for 6 years, he’s unspectacular but pretty reliable.
There are some issues with Johnson’s selections- bizarre captaincy choices who aren’t worth their place in the team (Moody, Borthwick) and no centre partnership ever really forming. But mostly his results are what would be expected given the players available to him.
November 17th 2011 @ 11:21am
Colin N said | November 17th 2011 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Pretty much spot on, although I thougt Moody was a great captain who was playing well at the time of his appointment, and then suffered numerous injuries which meant a dip in form close to a World Cup.
It would have therefore been difficult to appoint someone else. The only other candidate was Tindall and he wasn’t the greatest exampe to follow.
November 17th 2011 @ 11:57am
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 11:57am | Report comment
From the moment replacing Brian Ashton with Johnson was discussed, while the former was still in the job, Johnson was of course involved. The unpleasant undermining of Ashton of course meant Johnson was involved and he was fully aware of this, later claiming he had not been entirely happy with it. Such unhappiness did not manifest itself at the time.
Given not only the playing resources available to him but the extraordinary funds and unprecedented access to players under the new agreement with the RFU, which was unavailable to his predecessors, and less backstage involvement from the RFU in selections and playing strategy, that which had often crippled his predecessors, Johnson’s reign is an extraordinary failure. In fact his only successes were either against teams that mentally collapsed simply because they were playing England (Australia, France), or teams underperforming as in the Six Nations this year. Even his supporters conceded that the Six Nations victory was a case of the other teams playing badly and the moment one of the opposition played well, Ireland, they steamrolled Johnson’s team.
All of the players have been fit and on form on numerous occasions over the last years and fully available to Johnson. In fact he has in many cases created a loss of confidence and form in them by his brutal and nonsensical abandonment of their careers. Goode is a mediocrity by any sane standards. As I said above, he would never make a Super team, and possesses an infintesimal fraction of the talent of several other candidates.
Johnson also got a wonderful neverending honeymoon for the press, full of respect for his achievements as a player. Now they are saying ‘remember him as a player, not a manager’. The more honest are conceding he was a calamity of unprecedented proportions.
This article is in fact not over the top, but extremely moderate and gentle towards Johnson. The truth is far blacker and more terrible than outlined here and constitutes the worst period of English rugby in the professional era.
November 17th 2011 @ 12:09pm
Brett McKay said | November 17th 2011 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
KPM, if “..by a vast distance the most inept manager in the history of international rugby” is moderate and gentle towards Johnson, I’d hate to see what you’d write if you were having a shot at him…
November 17th 2011 @ 12:24pm
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Indeed Brett the article represents a pale, embyonic shadow of my true opinion of his reign.
It’s funny that when discussing southern hemisphere rugby, one can always say this player, this tactic, this selection is bad, but really they are all wonderful in comparison to the horrors summoned up by Johnson’s non-midas wand.
I have, for example, criticised the selection of Zac Guildford this year. However, such a choice is a work of genius when set aside the acts of Johnson. There are no players to compare really, but imagine if Ben Franks were selected as the All Black starting wing: it truly is that level of absurdity. Having said that, Franks would probably give Banahan a run for his money in the position. Johnson’s whole managerial strategy is so unreal that rugby in England has turned into wonderland over the past three and a half years, although a domain closer to the grimmest rungs of hell and tyrannically ruled over by a demonic overlord.
A point I didn’t make was that now expect England to return to the fold as a competitive team. There is plenty of talent, and most of it may now be selected and competently coached. The same thing might be possible with France, although their perennial problems are psychological rather than coach-related. These two teams have the best playing resources in the northern hemisphere, and at least England should now be a force of some sort once more.
November 17th 2011 @ 1:13pm
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
I should add Brett that actually reading newspaper commentary in the English broadsheets online and it looks like my article was pretty moderate! This comes from a very balanced, fair writer not prone to extremes in any way, and look at it!
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/doomed-from-the-start-why-johnson-was-the-wrong-man-6263145.html
November 17th 2011 @ 2:31pm
Brett McKay said | November 17th 2011 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
KPM, I’d suggest you’re still leading Hewett in the race to extremes fairly comfortably…
November 17th 2011 @ 2:39pm
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Not so sure. In any case for once the issue fully justifies it ‘doomed from the start’ is fairly decisive. If you can get your hands on the Times without paying online, you’ll see both rugby writers savage Johnson in a way that leaves Hewitt and my articles looking like panegyrics.
However, it will be sad not to see Johnson’s amusing post-match press conferences anymore as he came up with the most outlandish reasons why they lost and often appeared ready to throttle the interviewer-in fact all press conferences were great. It’s been said in England that whenever you are at your lowest low simply watch a youtube Johnson interview and you’ll be laughing and joyful within minutes.
Other teams in the world should watch out though: the England team next year could be very strong.
November 18th 2011 @ 1:43am
Ben S said | November 18th 2011 @ 1:43am | Report comment
‘It’s been said in England that whenever you are at your lowest low simply watch a youtube Johnson interview and you’ll be laughing and joyful within minutes.’
Has it? I’ve never heard that ‘said in England’. I doubt you have either.
November 17th 2011 @ 11:53am
Gary Russell-Sharam said | November 17th 2011 @ 11:53am | Report comment
KPM a reasonable rendition of what has occurred in the last three years + although a tad harsh. I would hope that England for their sake get a decent coach this time around. Maybe Smith could step up to the top job for a couple of years and then after Deans leaves after getting blown off the park by the Lions, Smith could join with Link and coach the Wallabies.
November 17th 2011 @ 12:03pm
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Gary sadly Smith has been blamed by the Johnson obsessed press for Johnson’s failings. Smith had the most unfair time of all, as he was told to coach a kicking game one minute, an attacking game the next. Then the ability of the team of effectively attack was hamstrung by Johnson’s selection of uncreative players such as Wilkinson, Flood, Tindall, Banahan, Erinle, Goode, and the neglect of good attacking players such as Cipriani, Geraghty, Tait. The often one-paced backrow, with slow burners such as Easter, further prevented this.
Almost anyone with the faintest experience and talent would be a miracle after Johnson.
November 19th 2011 @ 1:09am
Ben S said | November 19th 2011 @ 1:09am | Report comment
How is Toby Flood an ‘uncreative’ player? How is Matt Banahan an ‘uncreative’ player. What does uncreative even mean in this context?
You keep making reference to Erinle. Johnson was in charge for nearly four years. How many times did he start and when did he start? The same applies to Andy Goode.
How many times did Johnson involve Tait in his matchday squad?
The often one-paced back row? Including Croft and Haskell, two of the quicker back rows in European and world rugby?
November 17th 2011 @ 12:27pm
Denby said | November 17th 2011 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Cipriani is a disaster. Very talented but defensively hopeless and terrible under any sort of pressure plus he has terrible off field issues that he needs to sort of before he will be any good to anybody.
Johnson not choosing Cipriani is sound selection in my book.
November 18th 2011 @ 3:56pm
HardcorePrawn said | November 18th 2011 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
I wouldn’t describe Cipriani as a disaster, he has shown poise under pressure for the Rebels, and in my opinion his kicking for most of the last season was exemplary.
I will agree with you regarding his defensive abilities though. When faced with a rampaging opposition player bearing down upon him, he reminded me of a few of the lads I was at school with, the ones that were coerced into playing rugby because the football (soccer) team had been over-subscribed. They would all utilise the same move in that situation: stepping slightly to one side of the attacking player’s run, positioning themselves low, then flapping their arms into the other bloke’s shins to show that they were making an effort to tackle, but didn’t fancy getting a boot into their face for their troubles.
November 17th 2011 @ 12:33pm
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Cipriani is fine under pressure, and Johnson created his off-field issues by destroying his career. His defence is a problem but so is that of Quade Cooper, and it has been got around.
Johnson disabled the development of Cipriani and he could have been a perfected individual by now with numerous caps instead of being, in the words of an English journalist ‘hounded out of town’.
Antipodeans may not now that Cipriani may not know that Cipriani left England in order to escape Johnson who had anihilated his career and caused him to seek a psychologist to discuss rugby as well as flee the country.
November 17th 2011 @ 1:29pm
nafe said | November 17th 2011 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
hard to disagree with KPM, the proof’s in the pudding. A shambles on and off the field at the WC- at no stage did they look competent against any of the teams. In terms of him being hired without any management experience, I find that absolutely incredible. with the resources and influence the RFU have at their disposal it’s inexcusable. you’d think they wouldn’t make the same mistake again, so this could be the catalyst of the awaking of the sleeping giant of world rugby.
On Cipriani, his defence is atrocious, although which coach to blame I’m not sure. IMO defence is an attitude thing from the individual, not a coach. Systems and defensive patterns can be taught, but at the end of the day it’s an individual’s decision to “hang on and bring the man down” or attempt a feeble hand grab a la Quade Cooper and Cips.
Finally, the scizophrenic approach of England’s game plans over the past few years are indicative of the fact the coach & the players had no idea what they were doing. for this the blame squarely lies with Johnson.
November 17th 2011 @ 9:56pm
Colin N said | November 17th 2011 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
Johnson didn’t coach, he managed. He had ideas about paying style and offered some advice to the players, but the coaching was left with Wells, Ford, Smith and Rowntree.
Therefore, if they were clueless on the field, then the blame lies with the coaches. The players themselves seemed very supportive of Johnson actally. Usually, if they don’t like the coach, they won’t say anything, but quite a few have come out in support of Johnson. Perhaps integrity is something to do with that. If you watched the press conferene you will know what I mean. The way he defended Andrew and the and honesty RFU when frankly, he didn’t need to, especially now he was out of a job, showed incredible loyalty, honesty and integrity
Correct about Cipriani, he doesn’t like to defend, although I don’t think he has fully recovered mentally from a broken leg he suffered in 08, as h e doesn’t like to go into contact now either.
November 17th 2011 @ 11:57pm
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 11:57pm | Report comment
He directed the tactics of the team, chose the players accordingly, made substitutions, altered tactics during the matches: he was the head coach.
On Andrew see my reply below.
November 18th 2011 @ 12:59pm
Colin N said | November 18th 2011 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Yes, but he didn’t ‘coach’ the players as such which is what you were saying.
November 17th 2011 @ 1:42pm
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
nafe Cipriani was a bright and committed young man until Johnson ground him into the dust, attempting to belittle him to a frightening degree: rumours of a near-physical bust up circulate.
Had it not led to such dire consequences, there was at times a gallows humour in selections and Johnson’s amusing explanations in press conferences.
See the link I posted above to Brett for a view on the body and process of appointing him.
Now there is no reason England can’t emerge as a powerful team: allied to their traditionally strong pack there is a good and balanced array of backs.
November 19th 2011 @ 1:12am
Ben S said | November 19th 2011 @ 1:12am | Report comment
‘nafe Cipriani was a bright and committed young man until Johnson ground him into the dust, attempting to belittle him to a frightening degree: rumours of a near-physical bust up circulate.’
Justify this comment. How did Johnson grind Cipriani into the dust and where are these rumours? Where do they circulate?
November 17th 2011 @ 2:17pm
manalien said | November 17th 2011 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Punchy stuff KPM!
Was Johnson the right man for the job? No. Did he perform to expectations? No. Were his selections wrong? Yes often. Did his stubborn bnature restrict development? Yes.
All in all his reign has not been a success and I agree with you in that. To say he is the most inept manager in the history of international rugby is harsh. No, in fact it is completely wrong. Were you asleep during Matt Williams’ riegn with Scotland? or Andy Robinson with England, or Peter De Villers with South Africa??
On other issue that you don’t seem to have addressed is the farce that was going on above Martin Johnson. I am not sure many people would have fared better with constant turmoil and in-fighting in the upper echelons of the RFU. For my money Rob Andrew is the villain of the piece. He has the sllipperiest shoulders around, brushing off blame time and again. The buck passer extraordinaire….the end of Johnson is the end of the 3rd manager since e took up his role of Director of Elite Rugby, during which time England had failed develop, perform or entertain on any consistant basis.
Should Jonno have gone? Probably. But the problem will not be solved until Rob Andrew has gone and stable structure is put in place at the RFU…only then can the new england manager be expected to bring out the best in what is a very talented pool of players
November 17th 2011 @ 2:28pm
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
manalien it’s so depressing to talk of the RFU: in fact Andrew is something of a stalking horse for them, he is in fact ok. It was the bosses Martyn Thomas and Francis Baron who appointed Johnson NOT Andrew, who was against replacing Ashton and if so did not want Johnson. Thomas, Baron and the board of old boy members are the true figures to blame, they appointed Johnson, they are stifling the game in England and they are the low quality brains behind this shambles. Andrew, like the coaches whose careers Johnson has ruined, are simply fall guys for the more powerful operators above them. The RFU and those responsible have skillfully made it appear as if Andrew appointed Johnson, when in fact he opposed it.
De Villiers was an awful coach, but a coach of immense, infinite brilliance in comparison to Johnson. De Villiers chose more or less the best players and at least simply let his assistants organise tactics: he did also beat the All Blacks three times in a row and on other occasions, while Johnson’s team were plastered all over the pitch whenever they came across New Zealand. His team had its moments when the laws favoured kicking, but when they changed he failed to adapt. Obviously he was a very bad coach, but Johnson took a highly talented group and turned them into a rabble, in the process ignoring swathes of talented players, smashing their careers, determining strategy like a drunkard. His team at no moment resembled the best XV players available and his tactics alternated as rapidly as a fly changes direction.
There are people in undiscovered tribes in the Amazon who if placed in charge of the England rugby team, with no knowledge of the rules of the game or even the English language, could doubtless do a better job.
November 18th 2011 @ 1:02pm
Colin N said | November 18th 2011 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
De Villiers took on White’s team and made very few changes to an already very good side, Johnson built to team from scratch. I’m sure you would admit yourself that picking the best isn’t necessaily a matter of finding what you think is the best players and telling them to play.
Plus, you admitted yourself that Johnson had a group of very talented players, so compare his team against France to Ashton’s final game and see how many of those players Johnson picked and nutured.
November 19th 2011 @ 4:13pm
dwc said | November 19th 2011 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
there are plenty of south african bloggers who feel PDV has ignored alot of great talent ..
November 17th 2011 @ 3:26pm
jeznez said | November 17th 2011 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
KPM,
“Andy Goode, Ayoola Erinle and Matt Banahan would never make a Super Rugby team”
Hasn’t Andy Goode played for the Sharks?
November 17th 2011 @ 10:54pm
Colin N said | November 17th 2011 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
Also, the likes of Saia Fainga’a and Salesi Ma’fu wouldn’t make a Heineken Cup side. In fact, they probably couldn’t even get into the lower Aviva Premiership or Top 14 sides.
November 17th 2011 @ 11:59pm
kingplaymaker said | November 17th 2011 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
Not if they’re lucky.
November 17th 2011 @ 3:52pm
Viscount Crouchback said | November 17th 2011 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
I do wish that KPM would stop hedging his bets and actually come out one of these days and tell us what he really thinks. “The Papandreou of the national team” no less!!
As for me, I’m torn about Johnson. I think on the one hand he was a little unlucky in that there has been a steady improvement over his four years (until the RWC at least) and it would have been interesting to see how he might have developed as a coach having learned a few hard lessons; but on the other hand all the chat emerging from behind the scenes does indeed seem to be that he was rather out of his depth and I for one am fascinated to see how some of these excellent young players perform under a top class coach.
I’m quite doubtful that the RFU actually has the nous to hire a top class coach though.
November 18th 2011 @ 12:26am
Ben S said | November 18th 2011 @ 12:26am | Report comment
I agree. He took over a very, very poor side and has developed a settled and youthful core of about 30 players. I do think he deserves to go after what we saw in the WC, but it’s also worth remembering that nobody called for the head of Kidney following Ireland’s QF exit, and France made a WC final despite generally being more crapulent than England. Johnson tends to bring out the lunatic fringe more than any other English sporting subject.
I’m not sure I’d like to see Mallinder given the role. Northampton are quite a conservative side IMO. They have a big pack, straight running centres and rely on the brilliance of Ashton. It’s not like Mallinder has brought in players from the academy like Booth or O’Shea have. He has bought a squad, and still has very little to show for that. I think O’Shea, Booth, Redpath and McCall would be more suited to bringing the best out of the current England squad than Mallinder would. I don’t want to see an England side with Hartley as captain!
November 18th 2011 @ 12:31am
kingplaymaker said | November 18th 2011 @ 12:31am | Report comment
English fans should be to use Bill Mclaren’s words ‘dancing in the streets’.
It’s disturbing that Nick Mallett apparently turned down the job because he didn’t want to work for the RFU. Should they be able to find a half-decent coach, or even someone who HAS coached rugby before, then England could emerge as a real world force as soon as this Six Nations.
November 17th 2011 @ 3:54pm
Moaman said | November 17th 2011 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
KPM,,,,whilst I don’t agree wholeheartedly with your extremely harsh compariisons of MJ’s ineptitude,I have to say that that was a thoroughly well-written and interesting piece and I doff my metaphoric cap to you,Sir!