Run it Wilko!

While I've been mightily impressed with the Wallas' improvement, I just don't think they're good enough to win the WC. I might also say, after the crap the Wallas have served up most of the past 3 years, they don't deserve to win. Consistency of performance should count for something. Either NZ or France will win the cup, barring unforeseen events. The Wallas will do fantastically well to finish 3rd. They have to get over the bump of the ABs in the semi-final, presumedly. It is testing the fates too much to expect we're going to stop the ABs in a semi-final again. It might happen, but having been sensationally rolled in each of the past two WC semi-finals, don't you all think NZ will move heaven & earth to prevent it happening again. Surely, the ABs couldn't be over-confident, even arrogant, & perhaps complacent, 3 times running? Surely??? But then, there's the lesson of the Kookaburras, Australia's national men's hockey team. The kookas had a torturous road to winning the gold medal in Athens 2004. From the 70s, right through to the present, the Kookas have almost always been in the top 3 hockey nations. From about the late 70s, & for a decade, & often through the 90s again, they were mostly the top hockey nation in the world, the ABs of men's hockey. But their Olympics record was abysmal. No sorry, it wasn't abysmal, it just wasn't what they expected, considering their talent. 1976 - silver, hot favourite. 1980 - did not compete, due political boycott, world champs. 1984 - 4th, lost both semi-final & playoff, hot favourite. 1988 - 4th, ditto 84. 1992 - silver. 1996 - bronze. 2000 - bronze. 2004 - gold at last! Ric Charlesworth, Australia's greatest ever hockey player, was a bit like Sean Fitzpatrick's career. At least Fitzy got a 1st place! Charlesworth competed in 4 Olympics, winning just a silver. Despite winning several World championships & Champion's tournaments in the inter-twining years. A warning, both of hope & despair, for all concerned in the upcoming WC!

MATTY - you're absolutely correct. It was Jauzion who scored. I was wrong. Farrell was fooled by the switch and so was I. But whatever, it's always hard to stop a big, hard running center from 10 yards out. England made the same mistake as we made in Oz: they thought a league star would easily transpose into a union star. And it didn't help the poor guy one little bit when his club coach, sneering at the English RU, played him at breakaway. It's all over for England. The Boks will stomp them and they'd better watch out for Samoa, too.

Actually the try was scored from a good angled run from the centre Jauzion. But he still made the big, supposedly hard tackling Farrel look like a turnstyle. Which is the point, I think, Barry - Farrel may have handled them well the rest of the game, but in the one well-executed backline move of the game (by either side) he looked all at sea and missed the tackle which conceded the try which conceded the game. He did overrun it as pointed out. Would another, better defensive centre have stopped it? I wouldn't purport to be such an expert in backline defensive play to decide definitively, but my thoughts watching it at the time was that Farrel (a) hadn't read the play and (b) didn't look nimble in reacting to it. Hence, he just straightened out Jauzion's collar for him on his way to the tryline.

SHEEK - you're right about Dawn Fraser - circumstances were unkind to her, just as they were to Rod Laver. Both of them would have put up some astounding records if..... The surprising thing about so many early Aussie track athletes - like Marjorie Jackson, Shirley Strickland, Marlene Mathews and John Treloar -was that they were so good in spite of below-standard coaching. Dawn was lucky to have Harry Gallagher who also handled Hendricks and Wendon, and John Marshall had Bob Kipurth at Yale, but besides a fine coach and great natural talent, Dawn had a physical development that was rare in women althetes back then. Back to that early coaching - I had a gym teacher at High named Peter Mullins who had to virtually teach himself the disciplines of the decathalon. For example, there's was nobody to show him how to pole vault because pole vaulting wasn't an event at any Aussie track meet. But he still came sixth in the Olympics. Sheer talent. But as the Brits can never hope to match us in the pool, we can never hope to get close to their sprinters. But then, track and field has never been that popular in Oz (except in the Kathy years). No other world stadium ever tore up its cinder track like we did at Homebush. SPIRO - I ran the FR/Eng Marseille game again. Michalak made that try - Traille stepped inside him and ran a slightly circular route. He didn't break Farrell's tackle - there wasn't a tackle. Farrell had overrun him and could only stick an arm out. Farrell defended very well during the rest of the game and handled Traille and Jauzion as well as anybody could. You wonder what Mortlock and Giteau will do to Farrell if he can't cope with the French centers - this implies that Morto and Gits are much better than Traille and Jauzion. I don't believe this is so. Gits, at IC, has been very quiet of late, and Morto made those breaks against an out-of-position McCalister. If France and the Ws happen to meet in the RWC, I get the impression you feel the Ws will prevail. I won't be able to watch France/Wales on Saturday as none of my providers are showing the game. I hope you get to see it wherever you'll be. If you do, watch those French forwards. With the exception of George Smith, there are about a dozen of them who are streets ahead of anybody we could field. And you've got to love the way Cedric Heymans runs. There's not a hint of hesitation about him - he dashes in the manner of the old-time wingers.

Farrell did begin his league career as a back rower but such is the interchangeability of league that he also played in the second and front row. Switching codes is difficult enough without switching also positions and wasn't helped as Saracens and the England management couldn't decide which position Farrell could best add value and succeed in. I remember watching a game played between Wigan and Bath (I think) where each code played by its own rules in each half, it was purely a marketing exercise and proved how different each code really was. For the record Wigan won that match and Farrell and Henry Paul outshone their union counterparts with their running and passing ability as well as their peripheral vision. Farrell was a talented footballer and considered one of Britain's best league players but time has caught up with him and I think he is out of his league now. I agree with Spiro, the English problems in the backline can't be attributed to just one person or a few, the players are merely the outcome of a disjointed and regressive coaching period since their triumph in 2003. For that the blame lies squarely at the feet of the RFU.

Spiro - I seem to recall reading somewhere that Farrell was a back-rower (11, 12, or 13) in league. I don't think he was a prop. I would think that it would be asking a lot for a guy to change codes and in the process of doing so wind up in a position that requires more skill than where he was used to playing, to say nothing of the ability to read what's going on around him. Then again, he might be smarter than we think. He did get Saracens to pay him an awful lot of money to make the switch.

I would think that Jonny Wilkinson is only part of England's backline problems. Brian Ashton seems to be obsessed with Andy Farrell as his inside centre. When England played Ireland in the Six Nations, the Irish centres carved up Farrell who played as if he were a former league prop, which when I think about it he may have been. I noticed in the clips of the France-England test at Marseilles that Damien Traille scored a simple try by coming inside his five-eight and breaking the tackle of - Andy Farrell. What will Stirling Mortlock and Matt Giteau do to Farrell if he can't cope with the French centres?

Barry, I'm not surprised Australia won only 11 more Olympic medals than England 1964-96. I know we're drifting off topic, but historically, Australia was succesful in a narrow band of sports. Generally speaking, we were always good for 2-4 golds in swimming, 1-2 golds in athletics, while equestrian & cycling were our other two staples, & occasionally sailing & hockey. I think it was 1992 when Australia branched out into other sports & disciplines. But weren't we dudded in swimming? In 1956, 60 & 64 Dawn Fraser had no 50 metres free or 200 metres free or 4 x 100 metres free relay to compete in. The only events available to her, were the 100 metres free, 400 metres, free 4 x 200 metres free relay & 4 x 100 metres medley relay (from 1960 on). 400 metres was getting a bit long for Fraser. But at 50 & 100 metres free in 1956, 60, 64, she would have been unbeatable. And add the 200 metres free definately in 56, probably in 60 & possibly in 64. At the Melbourne Olympics, with today's program, Fraser would have won 6 gold medals - 50m free , 100m free, 200m, free 4 x 100m free relay, 4 x 200m free relay, 4 x 100m medley relay, plus a silver in the 400m free. But the only events available to her were the 100m free, 400m free & 4 x 200m free relay. Fraser finished with 4 gold, 4 silver & one bronze. racing back then with today's program, she would have won 10 gold medals over 3 Olympics.....easily! Sorry, I digress..........!

Hey Barry - what about England's "cricket" team, or their netball team, or their basketball team, or their swimming team, or... I think Sam and Sheek got it right, they throw up an occasional (relatvely speaking) gem but by and large the land of the shopkeepers doesn't do too well at team sports - not even in their national game, Soccer, where they also regularly fail to perform to "expectation" in world events. Wilko is in the class of "once was great", along with others still playing such as Gregan and to an extent, Larkham. IMHO his protracted injury period post the 2003 cup final cost him game sense and timing - quite frankly I think he forgot some of what made him special, or perhaps never quite got the confidence back to have the impact he once did (I also think Larkham suffers a little from this, incidentally). He is still someone to treat with respect, because given opportunity he will punish you (again, not unlike Larkham), but he is not the player he was in the early noughties.

Watching Saturday's England/France game, I think Dewey Morris got it right when he said that the way Wilko runs (jinky little stop-and-start steps) makes it difficult for the backs outside him. However, It's not totally Wilko's fault. After his apotheosis as the world's greatest fly half, the English rugby powers felt that the finest 10 on the planet should run a bit more in the mold of great penetrators like those SH upstarts, Ella, Bernie, Carlos etc. Score a brace a tries each game. So they told him to start running, and running isn't Wilko's bag. He's a first-rate distributor, tackler and kicker, but they're trying to make a silk purse out of a five-eighth's ear and it doesn't work. SHEEK - Bill McLaren saw Rob Andrew during England's 10-man rugby years, and nobody can figure out how a Scot like McLaren, who called so many games when a truly fine No. 10 like his own countryman, John Ruthersford, was on the field, could give the nod to RA. However, when it came to wingers, Bill always said that Campo was the best he'd seen, so at least he got that right. Re. your take on English athletes - they produced a lot of tremendous talent in a large variety of sports. If you disregard the Sydney and Melbourne Olympics, in which Oz had the home advantage, and go back to Tokyo '64 through to Atlanta '96 - a span of 32 years - how many more medals would you say Australia, with our great swim, cycling and rowing teams, has won than GB? 100? 75? 50? The answer is a very slim 11. Oz and NZ are the best sports nations in the world given their relatively tiny populations, but the English aren't that far behind excepting, of course, this year's rugby team.

It must be so frustrating to be an English supporter. They are not a world champion team but they do possess some wonderful talent in the backs and not just among the youth brigade like Strettle, Tait, Flood, Cipriani and Geraghty but also experienced players like Hodgson, Ollie Smith and James Simpson-Daniel. The personnel is there but they just can't work out how to harness it and combine it with their forward strengths. When Wilkinson first gained prominence in international rugby I noticed how he liked to carry the ball to the line and throw long flat passes, very similar to Andrew Johns. His value lies of course in his kicking ability but the hesitancy in his play sums up the problem of the English team. They don't quite know how they should be playing the game and are not playing as a cohesive unit. In that type of environment it would be difficult for players with flair to express their natural talent and skill and they're almost paralysed by fear to try something different on the field. Maybe Matt that is why they appear intent on not selecting one of their genuine creative backs in Tait as they may regard him as too much of a risk. Ironic as that is what they are being roundly criticised for, their lack of creativity in the backline. This is a pale imitation of the side that Aston was involved with from 2000 - 2002 when they were playing with great confidence and attacking with width and pace and it will take more than Wilkinson to run with the ball for the 2007 England model to restore those glory days.

Garth, In the euphoria of their WC win back in 2003, too many poms were spruiking Jonny Wilkinson was the greatest no.10 in the game's history. Just because he could kick a stack of penalties & the odd drop & even rarer conversion (you need to score tries to kick conversions!). If this is England's idea of what makes a great rugby player, then it's easy to understand why they aren't regularly good at the game. And Bill McLaren, the former "voice of rugby", lives just over the border from England, & he thought Rob Andrew was the best flyhalf he saw. Pleeaasseeee! Just goes to show even someone like good ol' Bill has his blind spots! Andrew was good, but not that good. Mind you, as a 14 year old in 1970, I remember seeing the visiting British Lions rugby league team, which won back the 'ashes' - the last British team to do so. Not only did these poms out-bash us, they out-dazzled us also with wonderful, running rugby league. So I do remain respectful. As with David Duckham, Ian Botham, Daley Thompson, Seb Coe & Steve Redgrave, etc, the poms do throw up occasional gems. Even occasional good teams!

If you think Gregan takes a few lateral steps, it's nothing compared to Wilkinson. I really feel for the guys outside of him, they've got no chance. Having said that Garth - they did manage to win the last world cup with (or should I say because of) Wilko. You've obviously been watching a different England team under Ashton than I have. Yes, better than Robinson's tenure (not difficult) but still pretty clueless through the backs under any sort of pressure. I agree Tait is one of the brightest back-line talents to put on an England Jersey since Guscott, but where is he in the England set up? They seem to be actively trying not to select him, bringing in the greenhorn Hipkiss rather than give him a run.