You know it’s a big game when the All Blacks aren’t playing but the New Zealand journos are still writing it up.
Chris Rattue, the excellent analyst for the New Zealand Herald, hit one of the best sentences so far in the tournament with his killer line about the England versus Australia match this weekend:
“The bookies have England as favourites but they are calculating with a hole in the head because England have a bolt through the neck. They are the Frankenstein of world rugby, a scientific experiment with an ugly result.”
Rattue’s super-entertaining assessment could be a fraction blunt, but it was speaking to the essential difference between the two sides, which is that Wallaby teams play running rugby instinctively, whereas England teams colour by numbers.
There has been an uncomfortable ring of the 1991 Rugby World Cup final about this week’s preparation, at least for England. That year, the English plodded through a series of dour results, only to make the final against Australia and start making attempts at running the ball.
They had the cattle at the time to play a running game – Will Carling and Jeremy Guscott were as good a centre pairing as world rugby has ever seen – but you can’t develop a style with a team over a long period and then change it and expect to win.
Indeed, after the ugly win over Scotland in that tournament, manager Geoff Cooke said of his team’s gameplan, “If England went out to entertain and lost, we would never be forgiven.”
Cooke’s comment alluded to the great terror always lurking below the surface in England rugby – the fear of being sliced up in the press after losing to a traditional enemy.
The English media is merciless. One can scarcely blame England rugby players for going into their shells when the pressure comes on. In Australia, a team which throws the ball about daringly and loses narrowly will be applauded for ‘having a go’. An England team which does the same, particularly at Twickenham in a do-or-die match, will be drawn and quartered.
Despite this, England maintain a strange insistence that they too, can play for tries. Mike Catt commented yesterday, “We have total belief we can go and score tries against teams. Australia love an open game, but we are also capable of scoring tries. Wasn’t it 25 points we scored [against Wales]?”
One never sees Australia desperately insisting that they can score five-pointers. It is a generally accepted truth that while the Wallabies may fluctuate in their forward fortunes from time to time, there is never any question that they can damage you out wide.
England’s ‘we can score tries’ line sounds awfully like the Wallabies’ ‘we can scrummage with the best’ line. Only the Wallabies, for once, appear to have the necessary artillery to back it up. The jury is out on England’s backs.
This is because, despite Catt’s rhetoric, most of the players that might give truth to the try-myth either aren’t in the World Cup squad, or if they are, aren’t likely to play. Whatever you might say of the shortcomings of Danny Cipriani, Billy Twelvetrees, Luther Burrell, Manu Tuilagi and particularly Henry Slade, at the very least they would cause uncertainty in the Wallaby camp.
If Catt expects England to score tries, he has landed some fairly benign ammunition in Owen Farrell, Brad Barritt and Jonathan Joseph, with Sam Burgess on the bench. At the very least it should be George Ford at 10 and the exciting Henry Slade at 13, flanking the useful Barritt.
But Stuart Lancaster doesn’t know what he wants, and hence he has saddled himself and his team with the unenviable task of trying to beat Australia in a critical knockout World Cup match with its 18th different centre pairing of his three-and-a-half-year tenure. Just looking at that number brings about an involuntary shake of the head.
The most successful World Cup coaches are always good selectors. Bob Dwyer and Rod Macqueen both made early pick-and-stick decisions on players who turned out to be all time greats – Phil Kearns, Jason Little, Tim Horan. It’s impossible to imagine coaches like Dwyer and Macqueen, or indeed Clive Woodward or Jake White painting themselves into such a corner as Lancaster has done.
For his part, Lancaster is already copping it for his selection of the honest but unspectacular Chris Robshaw as captain. And as a result, he is getting a double dose because of Robshaw’s decision to go for the lineout in the final minutes against Wales.
Incidentally, there was no problem with making the call. Winning rugby matches always takes some degree of daring and verve. The problem was Robshaw’s attempt to emulate the great Martin Johnson and call the throw to himself at two in the lineout.
I’m certain that Robshaw decided to make the call because he wanted not only to win the game, but win some respect for himself. For a much-maligned player, doing his best, the vision of playing the lead role in a winning try must have seemed a duty that he could not ignore. Unfortunately, the effort came unglued.
Speaking of selections, the whole Sam Burgess thing is just getting silly. Why anyone thought that an NRL prop would make a good rugby centre is baffling.
Burgess has minimal footwork, loose-forward-level handling skills and moderate pace. He is a physical equivalent of Jerome Kaino or Schalk Burger but without the rugby sense.
To cite Sonny Bill Williams in the debate is to miss the point entirely. Williams was probably the most skilful league forward of the last decade, a large, fast back in a forward’s body. Anyone who thought that Burgess was any sort of equivalent needs their head read. Bath know the score – they’ve already declared that Burgess won’t be playing 12 again for them anytime soon.
So it is fair to say that the England backline is in a horrible mess, missing much of its strikepower and relying on an Easter Island statue for impact off the bench.
They are not to be underestimated at Twickenham though. Who could forget their 38-21 demolition of New Zealand at home in 2012? Unfortunately two of the main architects of that victory, Manu Tuilagi and Chris Ashton, were left out of the England squad entirely, further victims of Lancaster’s questionable selection nous.
The last piece of the dilemma for England, unfortunately again is Robshaw. In the lead-up to this World Cup, I bored several people stiff by repeatedly insisting that this tournament would be won by the side who dominated the 12 inches of space above the ball on the ground.
This is because the chances of scoring from the set piece are seriously limited these days. Quality defence is de rigeur. The best chances of scoring out wide are from turnover ball when the defence is not yet organised. This of course is the mission of the openside flanker – the fetcher, the jackal. His mission is to win it, spoil it, or get a penalty.
In this capacity, Robshaw brings to mind the Wallabies’ ill-fated Ben McCalman at 7 experiment, against Ireland at the 2011 World Cup. McCalman is a noted worker, as well as a quality ball carrier and defender, but as a jackal he is well down the pecking order. It was baffling that Robbie Deans considered him then, and it is equally baffling that Stuart Lancaster considers Robshaw now. Again, Lancaster has painted himself into a corner.
There is no possible way that the England coach can appoint a new 7 for this match because it would mean finding a new captain. As a result, he is forced to pit his uncomfortable-over-the-ball, 6-shaped skipper against the dual threat of Michael Hooper and David Pocock, who are both in rare form. It seems bizarre that two of the top sides – South Africa and England – essentially dismissed the open-side threats of Pocock, Hooper, Richie McCaw, Sam Cane, Sam Warburton and Justin Tipuric at this tournament; England by continuing with Robshaw, and South Africa by leaving Heinrich Brussow at home.
This lack of balance in the English side, particularly in the backrow and the midfield, will unsettle their team. Mike Catt will very likely have to wait until the Uruguay game to see his tries scored.
And as a result of his strange selection logic, England coach Stuart Lancaster has placed himself squarely between a brick wall and a floor covered in wet paint.
Should England lose, stand by for him to be whited out on the team sheet.
Taylorman
Guest
I understand what you're saying Chivas and although the lines are often blurred for me it still comes down to a simple concept...attitude. Yes we vary our approach up and yes you get variations and hybrids of the 10 and XV man games but I still believe the game sits between the Two fundamentally in terms of attitude and that most sides are fundamentally geared for one or the other, and that England particularly lean towards one directly relative to the pressure they are under. Their going for the corner against Wales is an example where they were caught out between the two. Their hearts said go off the try but their minds and instinct had no idea how to achieve it. They put the ball out, get the crowd on their side but in executing the lineout had absolutely no idea how to achieve the scoring of the try, clearly had not prepared for the scenario. A XV man approach would have had all the combinations and possibilities worked out in their heads before the lineout was even formed..an initial plan and a readiness to execute anything that meant going over the line. The English had none of that, weren't ready and gave it up as soon as the ball went in. They were lost, and that's because when the chips are down its not their game to score something from nothing. There's no control, there's no predictability, all the cornerstones of what they fundamentally believe will win them matches. Time to set up, control the variables, apply pressure. None of that was working for them here. Lost, out of their comfort zone despite their best intentions. A XV man approach finds a way because it has to. It works with what it's got, it believes fundamentally that it's training and selection of its side will find a way through. It doesn't need as much reliance on structure but more trust in its abilities to find a way. So you might say they're cliches, I say there are at the heart of most of the top sides that win at the top level two fundamental approaches going on and for want of a better description 10 and 15 man rugby separate them adequately. Oz, NZ are at one end of the spectrum, England and SA at the other, and it's no coincidence that the four are generally the top performing sides, the only to win this tournament. Ireland and Wales are typically on the NZ path though Wales have for some time struggled with opening up their attack...it should be better with the personnel, particularly the backs, and Gatland may be stifling that a little too much. I think you'll see the end of pool play see those sides stick with what they know best but heading towards the final the ten man game will start to take over all sides as they begin to feel the heat mentally and physically. World Cup finals don't suit XV man rugby as the minds and bodies are usually spent by then, tries a rare commodity in finals. NZ has a good chance of playing the open game because of its weak pool and hopefully it gets a tiring pool A opponent if it makes the final.
Colin N
Guest
He didn't have a great season for Gloucester actually despite being captain. He rather epitomised Gloucester last season; some excellent moments followed by unbelievably bad mistakes.
Jizzcannon
Guest
You continue to dismiss both Francois Louw and Duanne Vermeulen as ball-pinchers at the ruck. The last time Duanne Vermeulen played the All blacks was in 2014 with the GREAT Richie McCaw on the field as well. Do you happen to recall how exactly the final whistle was blown in that match? :)
Worlds Biggest
Guest
JimmyB by just sprouting off is contradictory mate !
Suzy Poison
Guest
Pocock is brilliant, but let see if the Refs allow the same leeway as the RC. I don't think they are reffing the breakdown the same. Let's talk after Sunday morning.
Chivas
Guest
My point is you make comments like NZ's foundation is built on it. I believe teams play to their strengths, not built on the back of a cliche. I provided examples of where that has not been the case. Second point is England teams of recent have been able to counter and as Moa says there have been times when the AB's have gone inside their shells. Will England play it more down the middle and mostly truck it up through the forwards? Will they do this at the expense of having a crack through the backs and setting up rucks wider out? Let's say they don't have the speed to the ruck that the Walkabies so play it a little closer. Does that mean they are playing ten man rugby. How will they look to breakdown the Wallaby defence? How will they kick and nullify Folau at the back? I think England will play to their team and play a game they feel will win the game against the Wallabies. You saying they are stuck with playing 10 man rugby compared to teams like NZ who's foundation is 15 man is just rubbish. NZ beat the Wallabies on Eden park by tightening up around the rucks and mauls, because the Wallabies were playing loose and fast. It is not 10 man versus 15 man, but of course SH teams play 15 man, 10man is a NH thing. That is why Ireland are doing so well. They have a NZ coach who knows how to play 15 man rugby. The rest of the NH coaches and players only know one style. The problem with that argument is it has little basis in the actual rugby facts, but more to do with perceptions. And perceptions are easy to pass off as facts where there is insufficient time or merit in discussing the detail. And by the time you have the game has been played and it is on to the next one. My point is simply I think there is more to this game than 10 man style footy meeting 15 man because this is the mentality of the team. and boiling it down to that comes across as condescending (not saying you are or intend to be.. but it often goes hand in hand with this cliche). Playing a narrow forward dominated game works for teams that have the forwards and vice versa. If that is all you meant, fine, but that is not the way it reads. And for the record every team talks about respect for the ball and committing the opposition forwards (earning the right to go wide). Failure to do those things won't win you many games regardless of style or flair.
JimmyB
Guest
Yep, very unnecessary really. It seems that England are wasting a lot of time and energy on things that won't help come match day and if anything put them under more pressure. Australia will also be delighted by the Wales v Fiji result over night.
moaman
Roar Guru
In fact,PeterK--England has double the number of sheep Wales does! And Australia has 7 times more than England!!
ScotandProud
Guest
Yeah losses to British economy and grassroots rugby in Uk equally substantial..
ScotandProud
Guest
no way there's been any talk of 'conspiracy' in the Uk that I've seen or heard. People are depressed that Lancaster's chickens have come home to roost.
RobC
Roar Guru
Hes afraid of contact Colin. He played a major part in their loss to ABs game 2 last year. Game 3 was also poor. He was creamed by Toomua when Brumbies defeated BIL 2013. I agree he has the tools. Its unfortunately his potential hasnt materalised. Perplexing tbh
ScrumJunkie
Guest
Poey is even better than Biz, refs allow it if you show them your hands.
Die hard
Roar Rookie
I was just at high school when the Lions came. I remember Barry Johns and JPR and Gerald Davis, and I remember our famous three man scrum. Much of the reporting back then was papers and radio and 14" Black and White TV. Duckham was there too but I kinda thought they were all Weshmen.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes and that's gotta be a concern. dominating for sixty minutes at home, then losing while Wales were losing players to injury and well behind on the scoreboard suggests either poor relative fitness or not making the most of their opportunities.
taylorman
Roar Guru
I'm not saying that 15 man is necessarily stronger Chivas, if you read my point it was that I said England don't play it where they continue to make comments that suggests they think they do. That was my point. And it is a valid one, where I can't really see you making one here, other than suggesting that I am not making a point, and I'd say you'd be wrong on that. Played well 10 man rugby wins matches but it generally results in less tries, and that is what typifies England's game in critical matches. It's not a myopic view, it's just a fact. Other than that, don't really see your point. Seems like you think I shouldn't comment on it Anyway, as you say...welcome to your view. I just don't see that you have one. And as for outdated commentary or rugby cliches, pretty sure I've seen one or two of those on this site...hey perhaps you've even made the mistake of making one yourself from tine to time...I mean imagine the embarrassment of that?
RobC
Roar Guru
yeah, does alright w/Gloucester though. Laurie Fisher's captain :)
JimmyB
Guest
36, one of Lancaster's better selectorial decisions.
Mike
Guest
So you're telling us that the British tabloid press can be nasty, especially to their own. Thanks for the revelation, Nostradamus.
Digby
Roar Guru
:) Of course you know where the bus is, it's where you have to pack the bags!
RobC
Roar Guru
yes, true Jimmy. I read that part from Andrew, and thought to point out re 36. btw youre referring to 36 not being in the squad or Toomua not in the 15, or both?