Cipriani signing is a jackpot for Melbourne

By kingplaymaker / Roar Guru

Most Australian rugby fans probably know very little about Danny Cipriani, as it seems do most Australian journalists. They hear some vague ideas of a reasonably talented prima-donna drifting across the hemispheres, a player given chances to establish himself at international level but unwilling to conform to team discipline and ruining his own career as a result.

All of this is nonsense: here’s the truth.

First, regarding his talent, Cipriani is a 24-carat genius, a staggeringly brilliant and blindingly fast playmaking outside half. There has rarely been a player in this position in the recent history of the game with such a mesmeric combination of spatial vision, astonishing pace and charmed hands. He is not simply a big talent, but as big talent as ever appears.

Secondly, his history.

In 2008 he burst onto the scene as the dominant fly-half in the English game, shredding defences left and right as if they were made of paper, and forcing his way into the England team for the final match of the Six Nations against Ireland, duly shredding the lines of green, kicking all his goals, and leading what had been a struggling team to a triumphant victory.

The week before he had also been selected at full-back, but dropped after the press photographed him leaving a nightclub on the thursday before the match.

This, combined with the existence of a celebrity girlfriend, led to the creation in the media of the myth that he is a lackadaiscal playboy, more interested in his own image than perfecting his game and unwilling to do anything authority tells him.

The wise, experienced England coach at the time, Brian Ashton, was then subsequently fired and replaced by Martin Johnson, a newcomer to the world of managing and coaching at any level.

Cipriani was injured badly, and then in the autumn rushed in prematurely by Johnson.

He didn’t play as well as he might, but was more hampered by the dreadful assembly of backs selected outside him who squandered every pearl of creativity cast at them and by the dire, confused overall performance of the team under its new management.

Johnson fully believed the media myth that Cipriani was a playboy, and proceeded to impose a bully-boy discipline on him, dropping him, humiliating him by choosing numerous and often inept outside-halves above him, in the hope that the young man would come forth on bended knee and declare himself Johnson’s slave. This was the England supremo’s conception of man-management.

The media myth was absurd to begin with, as Cipriani is a serious, hard-working man who occasionally flutters into the media lime-light as he has every right to, but never to the detriment of his game or the team he plays for.

A series of fierce confrontations between the two ensued, as the young genius struggled to understand why Johnson was so bent on destroying his rugby career. In the end he was thrust away forever, Johnson unable to manage him or any challenge to his own authority, and probably incapable of perceving the level of ability he was dealing with too. In despair he left this cursed world and moved to the new hope offered by Rod Macqueen in Melbourne.

Never has there been such a statement of rejection from a player to its management. But then again, never has there been such unsuccessful management.

In this way one of the greatest talents in world rugby was lost to England.

What is England’s loss is Melbourne’s gain.

Macqueen should tread carefully though, as he is receiving severely damaged goods. Cipriani’s confidence and self-esteem have been ground into the dust, his sporting dreams left in tatters.

They must be built up again.

He would naturally much rather be playing for England, and may struggle for motivation.

Lastly, after two years, despite being a committed team player, he has been angrily told he is not, and so the last thing he wants to hear is Macqueen lecturing him on how important the team is.

The wisdom behind Melbourne’s recruiting is obvious now, as the two league players they are interested in, Israel Folau and Manu Vatuvei, are in the ideal positions and at the perfect ages to crossover successfully.

In the past, league converts have normally been hired when they are almost over the hill, and have often failed in consequence. If firepower such as Folau and Vatuvei is put at the disposal of Cipriani, devastating results will ensue.

One thing is certain though, with this man at the helm, from the very first match, Melbourne will be competitive and exhilarating to watch.

The Crowd Says:

2010-03-02T11:46:15+00:00

Colin N

Guest


Indeed, but where's he gone though?

2010-03-02T11:21:44+00:00

Wavell Wakefield

Guest


Lol. That is one of the most outrageous comments I have ever seen on this site.

2010-02-26T23:49:12+00:00

Colin N

Guest


But why can't you just answer the point.

2010-02-26T23:46:17+00:00

Colin N

Guest


Well, it's certainly engaged you.

AUTHOR

2010-02-26T21:02:17+00:00

kingplaymaker

Roar Guru


Wavell it is time to let this sleeping dog lie, because it's boring listening to you. You never discuss anything but just like arguing itself. Same for you Colin. Neither of you are interested in or capable of providing an engaging discussion.

2010-02-26T14:51:49+00:00

Colin N

Guest


"Your evidence couldn’t back up your points as the points were wrong: the two did not connect satisfactorily." This is where you contradict yourself once again. As I said before you can't necessarily be wrong by forming an opinion which is what both have done. I also ask why does that mean your point correct? Refer to my Armitage point.

2010-02-26T10:03:38+00:00

Wavell Wakefield

Guest


'Your evidence couldn’t back up your points as the points were wrong: the two did not connect satisfactorily.' I don't think so, especially since you haven't (coincidentally I assume) actually highlighted what did not 'connect'. To the rugby fan who recognises the fundamentals the statistics (not to mention the actual match footage) are quite informative: a team swamps the contact zone, that forces the attacking team to put more men into the ruck, when the ball is turned over there are fewer men in defence. An aggressive defence leads to a reduced attack. France do not have an organising 10... and so on and so on. I'm bored of repeating myself. The statistics illustrate that France did not play badlyl. You have incorrectly brought out a silly old stereotype.. 'simply didn't turn up on the day'... and asserted that it was the 'worst performance in the professional era'. You have no credibility on the matter, and even less so on the entire Cipriani matter (Armitage caught 9 balls and was tackled 9 times... methodology... phil from dubai...) so I bid you adios. I think it's time to let this sleeping dog lie. I hope you enjoy your time in Australia, Danny... I mean kingplaymaker.

AUTHOR

2010-02-26T03:44:16+00:00

kingplaymaker

Roar Guru


Your evidence couldn't back up your points as the points were wrong: the two did not connect satisfactorily. I accept some of your opinions, also when you don't have 'evidence' by which you mean stastics. In fact I agree with them more than when you bring in some statistics which don't bolster or weaken the truth of your statements.

2010-02-26T02:45:37+00:00

Colin N

Guest


Also, if my points were incorrect, then technically I shouldn't have the evidence to back them up, but I believe I do. And you have therefore contradicted yourself in the next statement, when you say your points are correct. You can't say something is wrong when both points are based on opinion.

2010-02-26T02:36:52+00:00

Colin N

Guest


"Such evidence as you have doesn’t back up your erroneous points." I once against ask, how don't I back up my points? For example: I said Armitage is a threat with ball in hand (opinion). To back this up, I provided stats (evidence). You obiously disagree (opinion). Fair enough, I can accept that (I hope you could accept my opinions, although the continued dismissive use of 'no' suggests not), but all you have said is that he does 'nothing in attack,' without backing it up (aka no evidence). To at least validate this opinion, I feel you need to go deeper into why you believe this is so - is it poor footwork, lack of pace etc? You haven't even done this.

AUTHOR

2010-02-26T02:20:26+00:00

kingplaymaker

Roar Guru


You're much more insulting. Such evidence as you have doesn't back up your erroneous points. I think my points are correct. If you can't understand how, that's not my fault.

2010-02-26T00:44:45+00:00

Colin N

Guest


Instead of being insulting, how isn't it evidence; it's statistics backing up what he's saying? How haven't I been convincing? I've backed up my point with evidence. Do you think you've been correct, when you've backed up your points with nothing?

AUTHOR

2010-02-26T00:39:29+00:00

kingplaymaker

Roar Guru


No it isn't. Though to be fair to him, he's a lot closer to being convincing than you.

2010-02-26T00:26:32+00:00

Colin N

Guest


"You haven’t given any evidence, just a lot of opinions." How ironic. Anyway, look at the link he gave; that is evidence.

AUTHOR

2010-02-25T22:46:36+00:00

kingplaymaker

Roar Guru


You haven't given any evidence, just a lot of opinions. Clearly you don't understand my point that if a team knocks-on the ball endlessly (unless it's raining) then they are not playing well. It's not that these knock-ons lead directly or indirectly to tries, although they will do at least indirectly by giving a mountain of possession to the opposition, but that it indicates how badly the team are playing.

AUTHOR

2010-02-25T22:43:25+00:00

kingplaymaker

Roar Guru


No both are.

2010-02-25T15:21:02+00:00

Wavell Wakefield

Guest


Oh, is that true? I really don't know why you're pursuing such a course of stubborness? What I have previously said clearly illustrates that the French did not play particularly badly. Why on earth would you attempt to fly in the face of such overwheming evidence? I can only assume that you're aware how many knock-ons there were, and how many led directly to points. How many?

AUTHOR

2010-02-25T15:11:12+00:00

kingplaymaker

Roar Guru


No, most of those knock-ons were totally unforced, and gave England endless ball and opportunities. More importantly, they're a sign of a team playing extremely badly which is how the French were.

2010-02-25T10:42:52+00:00

Wavell Wakefield

Guest


'There is one statistic you could find which I would be interested in and that is how many times the French knocked the ball on that day. That would illuminate things I feel.' That comment doesn't even make sense. However many times the French is irrelevant, as aforementioned, because a) England didn't score all their tries from knock ons, and b) handling errors are often an illustration of the exertion of defensive pressure. I have guided you to the relevant statistics that make your assertions on this matter redundant: France missed fewer tackles, beat more defenders with the ball in hand, conceded fewer penalties than England, conceded no yellow cards and turned over a scrum. England swamped the contact zone and turned over ball. Case closed. Btw, judging by your earlier reference to Delon Armitage's 'statistics', I'm sure you can work out the knock on numbers yourself.

AUTHOR

2010-02-25T02:16:29+00:00

kingplaymaker

Roar Guru


There is one statistic you could find which I would be interested in and that is how many times the French knocked the ball on that day. That would illuminate things I feel.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar