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.
Colin N
Guest
Bloody hell, if that's the only thing you've got to complain about, he must have done an amazing job!! But yes, it was a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Everyone was calling for Cipriani to play, so what does Johnson do in that situation?
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
Who are all these imaginary people who advised Johnson against selecting Cipriani because he wasn't ready? Not Ian McGeechan of Wasps - who said he was "as quick and as strong as before the injury" - or Shaun Edwards and Margot Wells. Not England's medical team or coaches, and certainly not the press. It's almost received wisdom now that Cipriani probably needed more time before playing for England again but that absolutely wasn't the mood at the time. Cipriani returned for Wasps weeks ahead of schedule and you can find several newspaper reports describing him as showing "England form". Wilkinson had just dislocated his knee and was not going to be available for the Autumn Internationals. Cipriani immediately jumped to the head of the queue to replace him. Read the previews of his England comeback match against Australia and you won't find anyone suggesting Cipriani was being thrown back in too early. All talked about him being the team's main danger man. You'd think, if Johnson really was that bad, then there'd be enough evidence around for his critics without them needing to rewrite history to conjure up a case against him.
rugbymum
Guest
Throwing a 20 year old on against the world champions 16 weeks after snapping his ankle when all around him told him he wasn't ready.Maybe he wanted him to fail.Sorry wrong man for the job in my opinion.
dwc
Guest
there are plenty of south african bloggers who feel PDV has ignored alot of great talent ..
Rob Ashton
Guest
As a Saints fan, Gerighty was a disaster His kicking was woeful but every now and then he would show a glimpse of brilliance running with the ball. He was way too inconsistant playing for the Saints hence he would come off the bench with 10 mins left of a match. He is never a national team player in my opinion.
Ben S
Roar Guru
'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?
Ben S
Roar Guru
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?
Ben S
Roar Guru
Oh dear...
Ben S
Roar Guru
'Johnson apparently didn’t like Narraway as a person and so didn’t select him.' Excuse me? How do you have the gall to keep coming out with this sort of stuff?
HardcorePrawn
Guest
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.
Saints Fan
Guest
I actually think England are in a better position then alot of their international counterparts, RSA will have a complete rebuild and the All Blacks are ageing, as are Ireland. Wales have had a good run but are they really that good (3 losses and we beat them 2 ot of 3 times this year) as for the Wallabies it has been shown time and time again that if you put pressure on at scrumtime they collapse, in the last 4 years Ireland, scotland, wales and England have beaten them, not to mention the lack of quality centres and Flyhalf.
stillmatic1
Guest
your usual response when trapped by your own hypocrisy!! havent you been telling people to stick to the post at hand? so you dont follow your own advice? can you refute what i have said?
stillmatic1
Guest
arent you on the record saying that very good players dont really need a good coach!? you often defend your criticism of Graham Henry by saying that anyone could coach the ABs with the talent they have. conveniently forgetting the same excuse for roobie deans with the crusaders now wallabies. so what is your actual position, KPM? do very good players need a top coac? and if they dont, then why the vitriol against Johnson? and the praise of Deans? and the vitriol against Henry? just be honest, your opinions are not based on anything but your own emotions and feelings about someone, and yet it is the RFU that are supposed to be nepotists!! for the record, i applaud your actual knowledge on the subject, and may be right about him being a poor manager. unfortunately, your bias completely drowns out the scant details you provide to voice your agenda.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Don't drink, and post.
stillmatic1
Guest
if johnson is all you say he is, how do you define yourself? are you not exhibiting the same things you complain about? do you not have the un-natural ability to disregard all logic and evidence and believe your own opinions, to push your point of view? whatever "facts" you may have cobbled together, im afraid your agenda and bias is set from your first 2 paragraphs. the ironic thing is, is that you think that those paragraphs are fair and balanced. a bit like fox news in the U.S i suppose!! where is the evidence that Johnson was the most inept manager in the history of rugby? because he didnt select players that you like!? so in that case, robbie deans and graham henry, are also inept. his results are just as good as what the "master" coach robbie deans has achieved!! it would be fair to say that you dont have much in the way of knowledge about the relative abilities of both the players you deride and those you advocate. to call some "diabolical" whilst being effusive in the praise of others to the point of nausea, when said players are far from complete, further dilutes your argument. where is the evidence for johnson coaching "thuggery" into the team? have other teams not conceded yellow cards/penalties? your claim of an "old boys club", happens to not be exclusive to the RFU, theroar could also be accused of this. and certainly every major business on the planet has an "old boys club" running the ship. how do you think company boards/directors get selected? you say the RFU is a business and then claim they shouldnt have vested interests!? what world do you live in? if the board (the RFU) felt Ashton wasnt up to it and they had someone in mind who they liked and could fit the image, then they did exactly what every single company board has done since the beginning of time. your guess about the reasons, is just that, a guess, and cannot be verified. your criticism of the ability of the RFU to harness their resources in this point in time, could be argued for their entire history aswell!! johnson's record happens to not be too far off the teams historical average, and just shows that having money doesnt mean that you will win. you will agree that many, many other factors contribute to the consistant success that is required and money is just one of these factors. to assert that southern hemisphere rugby is run much more professionally does not stand up to reason nor any kind of inspection. are mark hammett and todd blackadder considered high quality coaches? both have more or less jumped straight into coaching after playing with little top level coaching experience. will you also take them to task? there is no point wasting time in arguing how you believe the players you advocate are infact the best available, simply to say, you have considerable form in ignoring the actual abilities of players you love or loathe!! dont know how you could consider grown men going out to a pub and having a lark, doing nothing illegal, as being "mob" behaviour. i guess you just sit home with the knitting right? i hope when you drive your car around that you follow the road rules to the letter (never speed, indicate correctly, stop on a yellow) because im sure thats much more serious than anything the english rugby players got upto!! rugby is built on physicality and intimidation, just like most endeavours in life, and one must impose themselves in which way they can to achieve the desired results. rugby, like life, doesnt favour the meek, and sport is the pinnacle of this ideal. the illegal acts on the field were dealt with, so what more do you want? some guys tried to go that extra bit (like the evil CEO or stockbroker) and got caught. again, what do you want? both the french and australia clearly do NOT have an overwhelming fear of the english, and a small sample size of wins in WCs doesnt change this. maybe it has something to do with the style of play that both the french and wallabies continue to struggle against time after time against ALL opposition. again, do you apply those machiavellian ideas to yourself aswell? which one do you think you fall under? the loss of talent is regrettable, but happens in all sports and jobs in life, so not exclusive to Johnson and his reign. just another chance to take a shot at someone who you obviously dont know but at the sametime seem to loathe!! and yet you claim you are fair and balanced in this piece, or any!! if you think both italy and greece will change because a different "puppet" is in charge, then i suggest you study history a bit more. the trials and tribulations of countries are an indictment of us as people, not just those people that hold the reins. we are ambivalent to things that dont directly affect our lives and then we expect our politicians/sportspeople etc to be different!! we may all claim that we dislike the nepotism and the power of vested interests, and i believe we should, but its all just talk and never followed through with. i hope you recall the many times you claimed the ABs deserved to lose the WC if henry et al didnt use SBW as you wanted him to be used. you also claimed it was inevitable that the ABs would lose by not playing SBW and being too conservative!! so how do Johnson's decisions now correlate to be "inevitable" when looking back in hindsight? finally, how can calling someone you dont know, never conversed with, blogged with, or probably even seen in public a selfish,cruel, egotistical character not be a character assassination!? maybe having a mirror handy would do you wonders, and you would see the answers to your own questions.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Rugby fan first thanks for a wealth of arguments which are far more interesting than the simple condemnation of articles out of hand,as has happened elsewhere. I don't think Johnson had an eye for quality and went more for character in his players. Look at Tindall: a few years ago he was a good player when he had his pace, but once that went and he could not make the gainline, Johnson kept him on the basis of character, as before this RWC Tindall had a reputation as a leader and for seriousness. Johnson, because of the Ashton incident, had Cipriani down as a wild and disreputable figure. However Cipriani didn't actually do anything bad off the field while selected by Johnson, but the manager had his stereotypes and castigated him nonetheless. This drove him from the field and into a crisis of confidence and finally out of the country. Had Johnson possessed Ashton's experience, he surely would have made a success of managing his brilliant young player. Ashton was able to punish one week and then coax a superb performance out of Cipriani the next. Johnson could only punish, and for no crime. Geraghty's loss of form was a direct result of his lightening passage in and out of the England team. Johnson should have realised that he was another brilliant talent who required work and attention, but he simply catipulted him out of the team at breakneck speed. Another case of flawed management. Johnson apparently didn't like Narraway as a person and so didn't select him. Simple enough! When New Zealand toured before Johnson arrived despite losing the backrow of Rees, Haskell and Narraway performed outstandingly. Why didn't he select Narraway at some point after that? Tait was never given a run in his best position outside a creative fly-half, so it's not suprising he didn't fire as he could. Johnson never understood that you need a creative fly-half at 10 to unleash the backs. Simpson-Daniel has been fit the whole last year and is the outstanding strike-runner in England, but for no imaginable reason Johnson doesn't select him. Nor is it really a question of chosing the weaker of a huge group of excellent players, as might happen in New Zealand. Here it is clear that Cipriani, Geraghty, Simpson-Daniel, Narraway and Tait are the outstanding individuals in their positions and that the likes of Goode, Erinle and Banahan are not. Johnson could not judge, nor could he manage when he did play these talents. Johnson could read everywhere in the press that Ashton was being disgracefully undermined, and although the RFU were the instigators, Johnson was fully aware of what was going on, was a full part of it, and could have refused to negotiate if it meant humiliating Ashton. He continued, and it is to his great discredit. Johnson never showed the slightest ability in selection, strategy or management. His only apparently impressive wins were actually due to the psychological collapse of France and Australia when facing their nightmare opponents. Both have such hoodoos towards England having been knocked out of numerous RWCs by them that almost any England team could beat them. Against opposition performing well, Johnson's team never actually played a good game. It seems today that the RFU are doing everything to persuade Nick Mallett to change his mind. Should he do so, expect an amazing transformation in the Six Nations and a completely different team from the one of the last four years, which should show up how bad Johnson really was.
Brett McKay
Expert
KPM, that might be because Eddie Jones has put his hand up! "Hi Nick, we'd like you to reconsider your lack of interest. ... Yes, we realise you would be very busy in this role, but it's just that something has come up that we'd like to avoid. ... Yep, you got in one, Eddie bloody Jones...."
Brett McKay
Expert
And Col, that's what I picked up from Hewett's piece. His decision making as a manager might have been flawed, but the respect for the man, the player, and the former captain is most certainly still there..
Colin N
Guest
I would like to see why they think it's the best synopsis they've read
Colin N
Guest
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.