I’ve compiled some insights into an interesting week of rugby. Isn’t it odd that:
* England scored a try in their semi-final against France!
While it is easy to be sarcastic about this, it is a serious issue that England has reached the final of the World Cup by scoring just one try in its 240 minutes of rugby against major opponents (South Africa, Australia, France).
Is it an acceptable look for rugby that such a style should be successful?
And a nice irony is that Josh Lewsey, THE English tryscorer, has been invalided out of the final. Is he really injured or have the English banished him for doing the ridiculous and scoring a try?
* England’s rugby journalists seem to spend more time writing about New Zealand’s mental state than about the play of the English team.
Could this have anything to do with the fact that there is so little to say about England’s play? It is known in advance exactly how they will go about things, and exceptions to this unchanging script – e.g. Lewsey’s try against France – are rare.
* England did to France exactly what France had done to New Zealand the week before, i.e., conceded territorial and possessional superiority and kept within striking distance before capitalising on late errors.
Is this unattractive approach simply the optimal way to play rugby? Or is it at least the optimal way to play in matches with a great deal at stake?
* Frederic Michalak was a gamebreaker for France against New Zealand but his introduction against England was the moment where it all started to go wrong for France.
In a match were most critics agree that coach Laporte used very poor tactics, should he have been able to foresee that this was the wrong sort of match for Michalak?
* Whereas New Zealand has a fatal infatuation with using fullbacks at (outside) centre in crunch World Cup matches, France made the reverse error of using an (inside) centre, Damian Traille, at fullback.
And it cost France dearly, with Traille’s opening-minute error allowing Lewsey to score. Not only was this the only try of the match, but in fact the points conceded turned out to be exactly the difference on the final scoreboard.
* The match between England and France was decided by an innocuous high tackle by Dimitri Szarzewski on Jason Robinson.
Yes, referee Kaplan had an excellent match, and yes, this decision was technically correct. But it showed no sensitivity for what was at stake: in essence France’s entire World Cup campaign foundered on an unintended, harmless act. Should Kaplan have thrown the law-book out the window – as AFL umpires are instructed to do in such situations – and called play on, leaving England to try and overtake France by actually playing some rugby?
* The touch-judges suddenly played a more prominent role in assisting the referees in last weekend’s semi-finals than they had previously played in the tournament.
Just a coincidence? Or does this show that the IRB listens to criticism, of which there was a torrent after the New Zealand-France quarter-final?
* Australia lost a quarter-final to England by 2 points and as a consequence its world ranking plummeted from 2 to 5.
Is the IRB’s ranking system rubbish? Or does this reflect that the differences between South Africa, England, France and Australia (and Argentina?) are truly negligible?
* The final weekend of the World Cup will see a repeat of two pool matches from early on in the tournament, viz. France playing Argentina and England playing South Africa.
Such a curiousity has never happened before. What chances of getting the same results as in pool play?
* There were green jerseys scoring tries against Argentina in a way that black jerseys usually do.
New Zealand’s signature try-scoring method involves quick ball transfer following a fast turnover, but New Zealand could not have done it any better than South Africa did in their tries by Habana (first) and Rossouw against Argentina.
Will South Africa be able to fashion such tries against England, a team that does not take risks and that commits numbers to the breakdowns, thereby ensuring slow turnovers at best? South Africa’s other two tries against Argentina were from intercepts. Will such tries be possible against England, a team that does not pass the ball? (a pre-requisite for there to be an intercept!). In what other ways might South Africa be able to score tries against England? Will South Africa even need to score any tries in order to beat England?
* England has 7 days to prepare for the World Cup final, South Africa only 6.
How much of an advantage does this give England? Is it right that one team should receive such an advantage – no matter how small it is – given that this is the biggest match of the rugby quadrennium? Shouldn’t the IRB strive to ensure that everything is as even as possible for the two finalists?
* England have repeated their feat from 1991 of making a World Cup final after losing a pool match, something no other country has achieved.
Coincidence? Will England go one better this time and become the first team to win a World Cup after losing a match at the tournament?
* If England win this weekend, they will become the first team to win two World Cups in a row.
If they do this, that would surely make them one of the greatest teams of all time, yes? (note – I jest). How then to explain that the period between the 2003 and 2007 World Cups was England’s least successful in their history?
* New Zealand has a 100% record in pool play at World Cups (they have not lost a single pool match in 6 tournaments), but in knockout matches their success rate since 1987 is 50%.
Why is New Zealand opposite to England in these respects? (see points immediately above).
* At this World Cup there were significantly more New Zealand-born-and-raised players in Island teams than there were Island-born players in the All Blacks.
Is it really true that New Zealand takes far more than it gives when it comes to Tongan, Fijian and Samoan rugby?
* It was revealed that Sitiveni Sivivatu has an uncle in the Fijian military.
Relevance? Last week New Zealand denied an entry visa to the goalkeeper of the Fijian football team on the ground that his future father-in-law is in the Fijian army. As a result FIFA had to cancel at the last minute the New Zealand-Fiji World Cup qualifier that was to have been played last weekend in Auckland.
In the light of this policy about Fiji, one which Australia also possibly has (not sure), how to reconcile that the New Zealand government seemingly has no problem with Sivivatu playing for the All Blacks?
* A few days before New Zealand played France, Richie McCaw announced that he had re-signed with the NZRU for 2 years.
Why was McCaw carrying out contract negotiations during the World Cup, which surely should have been receiving his undivided attention?
Thinking about this, Colin Meads has suggested that the NZRU should revamp its contract system, and instead contract players until a year after the World Cup rather than to the end of a World Cup. He said this not just because of the McCaw experience, but also because of the many All Blacks taking up overseas contracts after this World Cup. As Meads said, these players (Hayman, Kelleher, McAlister, Howlett, Jack, Oliver, more?) cannot fully have had their minds on the job at hand – they must have also been thinking about moving their families, and so on.
Is Pinetree correct? If he is, then doesn’t this mean that the same holds also for the ARU? How disruptive was it for the World Cup campaign of the Wallabies that Gregan was planning his move to Toulon, that Larkham was dealing with the collapse of his Edinburgh contract, and that players such as Latham, Sharpe, Mortlock and Vickerman were reportedly considering overseas contract offers?
* In the ARC final, David Croft was man-of-the-match and Peter Hewat was the most influential player for the winning Rays.
Nothing against these stalwarts, but isn’t the whole point of the ARC that it was meant to unearth new talent? If Croft and Hewat were standouts in this competition, then can we really expect the Australian Super 14 teams to perform better next year?
* On the New Zealand domestic front, there was a crowd of only 7,500 for a semi-final between Canterbury and Wellington.
This in a country where rugby rules (with daylight coming second) and where Canterbury-Wellington is one of the great rivalries in the sport. Seen in this light, does the much-maligned ARC really have problems?
* Southland, an average New Zealand province (came 7th this year in a competition of 14 teams) revealed that its salary bill for the season was NZ$1.56 million.
Assuming a squad of 26 players, this makes average payments of NZ$60,000 per player for a 10-match season. Isn’t this ridiculous given that only 2 of these players are (occasional) All Blacks (Jimmy Cowan and Clarke Dermody) and only a handful more have played Super 14?
* Brad Thorn announces he is returning to the Crusaders.
Why would he do this rather than taking the far greater money on offer in UK Super League? Is it just because of Robbie Deans, who is very much like Wayne Bennett, Thorn’s beloved mentor at the Broncos?
And did any Australian rugby teams consider approaching Thorn? Surely he is just the sort of professional that Queensland desparately needs. (After all, if Thorn can make the Crusaders and All Blacks, there’s no question he’s up to standard for Queensland!)
* Clive Woodward suggests that Australia’s World Cup campaign was undone by angst over each match possibly being the last for Gregan and Larkham.
Said (Sir) Clive of England’s 2003 World Cup campaign: “It was precisely the situation I had sought to avoid when I told the England players that if any of them announced that they were quitting I would not pick them.”
According to this logic, by how much more would Australia have thrashed England in last summer’s Ashes cricket series if Warne, McGrath and Langer had not raised Australia’s anxiety levels by announcing that they were quitting? (note – I jest).
Why is so much that passes as meaningful rugby criticism really just bitter men trying to settle old scores? (e.g. also the recent comments of Eddie Jones in the Australian media). For example, compare this nonsense from Woodward with the genuinely thoughtful suggestion of Colin Meads above.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
Following on from Ben Pobjie's great article about positivity, I thought I would put my thoughts down on how Rugby should be promoted as…
Two years after a serious knee injury scuppered Nic Dolly’s hopes of running out for England against his home nation Down Under, the one-Test…
The in-form ACT Brumbies have returned from their bye week raring to go and more mentally switched on than they've been all year, Stephen…
Fijian Drua will try to end the 7-0 streak of the table-topping Hurricanes to kick off a spicy weekend of action that has split…
Four years after getting a taste of international coaching, Geoff Parling will return as the Wallabies’ new lineout coach. The Roar can reveal the…
And then, there were four. Super Rugby Women's enters it's final fortnight, and with the Reds and Rebels campaigns coming to a close, this…
