The only problem with the underdog winning is that somebody always pays the price.
Fiji made a mockery of the 20-point start handed to them by most bookmakers, to record a famous 38-34 victory over Wales on Saturday, in the shock of the Tournament so far.
For Fiji - A place in the last eight, and hopefully some long-overdue recognition.
For Wales - An all-too familiar game of coaching musical chairs.
In a knee-jerk reaction which is sadly par-for-the-course for WRU heirarchy, the services of Coach Gareth Jenkins are no longer required. Lets face it, few can say they didn't see it coming.
Jenkins' plight had a lot in common with that of Brian Ashton. Both left to carry the can, not only for the performances of their respective teams, but also the downright failure of the systems put in place by the Home Nations. Unfortunately for Jenkins, few have shown him any support whatsoever. Nor was he afforded the luxury of matters improving on the field.
The Welsh are guilty of wanting too much. In reality, a Quarter-Final spot was the best they could hope for. Unfortunately it wasn't to be, and it wasn't as if they were guilty of a poor performance, they were simply outplayed.
Jenkins is the perfect scapegoat. Now roundly despised by the same members of the press who were hailing him as the 'Saviour of Welsh Rugby' just over a year ago. Short memories indeed.
The writing was on the wall shortly after the 62-5 thumping by England. A freak result which was treated as a National crisis. In a Country where Rugby is all-important, Jenkins was crushed by weight of expectation.
If there is a list of potential successors, it is likely to be quite small. The WRU have a fanciful notion that they still have the pulling power to attract top names from around the World. This isn't the case. In all reality, the most position will probably go to another Welshman.
Will he be granted the time needed? Or will he be judged strictly on impossible short term goals?
I know what my guess is...
Saturday, 29 September 2007
Friday, 28 September 2007
Vindication!
England beat Tonga!
Pre-World Cup, many would have expected the above statement to be a foregone conclusion. However, those England fans who have endured the uncertainty of the past couple of weeks must be breathing a collective sigh of relief.
Without romanticising what has simply been below standard, England have faced their demons, and are now a stronger unit because of it.
The performance may not have been vintage, but it was an improvement. There was ability to match the effort, and a sense that lessons have been learned. Tonga were enthusiastic, England were pragmatic. Another game, another step forward, and more momentum.
It was a case of movement. The lateral lines that were evident against the South Africans were replaced by exciting angles. The pack were constantly in motion rather than static. Tonga were eager to open the game up, England decided to fight fire with fire - and it worked.
The press had their knives sharpened in preparation for an English disaster. It never came.
Even Andrew 'The Human Dartboard' Farrell got in on the act, crossing for a try which was a just reward for a measured display from the bench. Not even the most hardened hack could find fault with his performance, although some will probably try.
Putting things into perspective, it will be tough for England to progress past Australia and a place in the Semi-Finals. England's hunger is matched and bettered by Australian flair and an unrelenting belief. As unpatriotic as it may seem, I think the Wallabies will triumph, and go some way to laying the ghosts of 2003 to rest for good.
Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Moving In The Right Direction?
No baffling mathematic equations. No hardcore number-crunching. For England, it's simple - Win and you're in.
Victory over Tonga on Friday evening, and a place in the last-eight is assured. The optimism - which for a while was replaced by furious head-scratching - is slowly returning. This England side are steadily withdrawing from the brink of abject failure.
Qualification has been far from the formality predicted by some, more of a laboured slog through the murky waters of uncertainty. A lacklustre performance against the USA, and the 'back on track' victory over Samoa came either side of a shocker against the Springboks. Has Mr Ashton steadied the ship?
The answer is a resounding yes.
Like it or not, this has been a World Cup of transition for England. A much needed jolt to the system for many. The game has evolved since 2003 and the English mindset hasn't. Only now - under Ashton - are things moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.
And so onto Tonga. Yet another test of hearts and minds, and a dose of the physicality similar to that served up by the Samoans last week. After being edged out by South Africa last time out, they have another chance to crash the party.
The main threat lies in their forward unit, who allied size with speed and can attack with flair. Impressive Back-Rower Finau Maka is the embodiment of the Tongan ethos - powerful yet tenacious, reckless yet reliable. Such contradictions add to the almost cryptic nature of the task facing England.
Once again Ashton has tinkered with the side, although this time it is done with a clear vision. The fact that Matt Stevens is preferred to Phil Vickery in the Front Row indicates that players are now being picked according to the here-and-now as opposed to the way back when. Tom Rees once again misses out, but Lewis Moody adds some much needed dynamism to the Back Row.
The Backline remains untouched. The Gomarsall/Wilkinson axis will surely become the number one combination at 9 and 10. Lack of size in the Centres is a worry, but both Tait and Barkley are elusive and intelligent enough to cause problems for even the most well-drilled of defences.
England have rediscovered their ability to tough it out, and perform for the full 80 minutes. Victory is far from assured, but more than possible.
Victory over Tonga on Friday evening, and a place in the last-eight is assured. The optimism - which for a while was replaced by furious head-scratching - is slowly returning. This England side are steadily withdrawing from the brink of abject failure.
Qualification has been far from the formality predicted by some, more of a laboured slog through the murky waters of uncertainty. A lacklustre performance against the USA, and the 'back on track' victory over Samoa came either side of a shocker against the Springboks. Has Mr Ashton steadied the ship?
The answer is a resounding yes.
Like it or not, this has been a World Cup of transition for England. A much needed jolt to the system for many. The game has evolved since 2003 and the English mindset hasn't. Only now - under Ashton - are things moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.
And so onto Tonga. Yet another test of hearts and minds, and a dose of the physicality similar to that served up by the Samoans last week. After being edged out by South Africa last time out, they have another chance to crash the party.
The main threat lies in their forward unit, who allied size with speed and can attack with flair. Impressive Back-Rower Finau Maka is the embodiment of the Tongan ethos - powerful yet tenacious, reckless yet reliable. Such contradictions add to the almost cryptic nature of the task facing England.
Once again Ashton has tinkered with the side, although this time it is done with a clear vision. The fact that Matt Stevens is preferred to Phil Vickery in the Front Row indicates that players are now being picked according to the here-and-now as opposed to the way back when. Tom Rees once again misses out, but Lewis Moody adds some much needed dynamism to the Back Row.
The Backline remains untouched. The Gomarsall/Wilkinson axis will surely become the number one combination at 9 and 10. Lack of size in the Centres is a worry, but both Tait and Barkley are elusive and intelligent enough to cause problems for even the most well-drilled of defences.
England have rediscovered their ability to tough it out, and perform for the full 80 minutes. Victory is far from assured, but more than possible.
Sunday, 23 September 2007
Simplify And Reap
Functional, yet lacking a killer touch. That was the verdict of New Zealand's 40-0 drubbing of a weakened Scottish side on Sunday. A performance which provided more questions than answers for some.
For myself, it only served to reinforce the fact that the All Blacks are exactly where they want to be as they bid to become World Champions. Cool, unforgiving and totally dominant was how I would describe it. Low Risk? - Yes, but very effective.
Graham Henry has his troops looking at the bigger picture and has instilled a stubborn winning mentality into the team. It's not about entertainment, it's sheer hunger. There are still many people clinging to the vain hope that the tag of 'Overwhelming Favourites' will not sit well with the Kiwis. I fear they could be wrong.
This All Black vintage have pace, flair and the power to match. However, a new found maturity is their most impressive attribute. There are many subtleties to their game nowadays, teams aren't just killed off with tries - but game management.
On a personal level, I feel that England's 2003 triumph set the trend. Under Sir Clive Woodward, structure ruled. The Forwards relentlessly made metre after metre, and - when in range - Wilkinson and his boot did the rest. Predictably, the Australians weren't impressed, but in the end it was an overwhelming success.
Before I'm accused of talking nonesense, I will say that McCaw and co aren't offering up a stodgy version of the game, but they do possess a clinical edge evident in all World Cup winning teams. With territory and possession comes points, it may sound simple, but all the greatest plans are.
As if to mirror their dominance of the game in recent years, the All Blacks are merely taking things to the next level. Forward intensity is cranked up another notch, potency in the backs is amplified, there are more options and fewer teams capable of stopping them.
This pragmatic approach isn't likely to win many friends, but the New Zealanders have travelled to France to collect the silverware. Their focus is ominous.
For myself, it only served to reinforce the fact that the All Blacks are exactly where they want to be as they bid to become World Champions. Cool, unforgiving and totally dominant was how I would describe it. Low Risk? - Yes, but very effective.
Graham Henry has his troops looking at the bigger picture and has instilled a stubborn winning mentality into the team. It's not about entertainment, it's sheer hunger. There are still many people clinging to the vain hope that the tag of 'Overwhelming Favourites' will not sit well with the Kiwis. I fear they could be wrong.
This All Black vintage have pace, flair and the power to match. However, a new found maturity is their most impressive attribute. There are many subtleties to their game nowadays, teams aren't just killed off with tries - but game management.
On a personal level, I feel that England's 2003 triumph set the trend. Under Sir Clive Woodward, structure ruled. The Forwards relentlessly made metre after metre, and - when in range - Wilkinson and his boot did the rest. Predictably, the Australians weren't impressed, but in the end it was an overwhelming success.
Before I'm accused of talking nonesense, I will say that McCaw and co aren't offering up a stodgy version of the game, but they do possess a clinical edge evident in all World Cup winning teams. With territory and possession comes points, it may sound simple, but all the greatest plans are.
As if to mirror their dominance of the game in recent years, the All Blacks are merely taking things to the next level. Forward intensity is cranked up another notch, potency in the backs is amplified, there are more options and fewer teams capable of stopping them.
This pragmatic approach isn't likely to win many friends, but the New Zealanders have travelled to France to collect the silverware. Their focus is ominous.
Friday, 21 September 2007
Ireland's Fall
So France finally clicked, and found a clinical edge to compliment their abundant flair. For Ireland, a tame surrender and a World Cup encapsulated in 80 minutes - limp, lifeless and lacking any discernible cohesion.
The body language summed it up. Irish heads were bowed, bodies willing yet unable. The French were liberated by the pressure, individual players wholly embracing the team-work ethic, and finding great pleasure in turning the screw.
The decline has been rapid. From Dark Horses to World Cup also-rans, a plan for glory that is stuck in the starting stalls. Did the Irish players start believing their own hype? or the rumours of a team-at-war true?
More importantly, What Next?
Where Brian Ashton can be blamed for tinkering with his side too much, O'Sullivan is at fault for poor selection. Dropping Geordan Muprhy and Peter Stringer robbed the Irish of two potential gamebreakers, which given the lack of squad depth was hardly the greatest of ideas.
The time had long since passed for Irish experimentation. O'Sullivan's squad selection pre-tournament was largely predictable, his tactics in the friendly against Italy - predictable. The choice was simple - adapt or stagnate. The Irish chose regression.
Genuine World Cup contenders have options. More than one way of playing the game, and squad depth that enables them to rest key personnel and still be competitive. Ireland have a much celebrated 'Plan A', but beyond that, the sum of the parts promise style yet lack substance.
Compared with the Southern Hemisphere sides, the Irish pack lacks pace, power and genuine ball-handlers. It's a problem that should have been addressed long ago. A potent backline hides the deficiencies of the forwards somewhat, but the sad truth is that this is a side built for a gameplan ten years out of date.
Should they defy the odds and qualify for the knock-out stages of the World Cup, it will be a victory for grunt over application. Ireland have to rediscover their sparkle against Argentina and hope that they can paper over the cracks for the time being.
At the moment, Mr O'Sullivan is the conductor of a one-note symphony. His audience is tiring of it's repetitiveness.
The decline has been rapid. From Dark Horses to World Cup also-rans, a plan for glory that is stuck in the starting stalls. Did the Irish players start believing their own hype? or the rumours of a team-at-war true?
More importantly, What Next?
Where Brian Ashton can be blamed for tinkering with his side too much, O'Sullivan is at fault for poor selection. Dropping Geordan Muprhy and Peter Stringer robbed the Irish of two potential gamebreakers, which given the lack of squad depth was hardly the greatest of ideas.
The time had long since passed for Irish experimentation. O'Sullivan's squad selection pre-tournament was largely predictable, his tactics in the friendly against Italy - predictable. The choice was simple - adapt or stagnate. The Irish chose regression.
Genuine World Cup contenders have options. More than one way of playing the game, and squad depth that enables them to rest key personnel and still be competitive. Ireland have a much celebrated 'Plan A', but beyond that, the sum of the parts promise style yet lack substance.
Compared with the Southern Hemisphere sides, the Irish pack lacks pace, power and genuine ball-handlers. It's a problem that should have been addressed long ago. A potent backline hides the deficiencies of the forwards somewhat, but the sad truth is that this is a side built for a gameplan ten years out of date.
Should they defy the odds and qualify for the knock-out stages of the World Cup, it will be a victory for grunt over application. Ireland have to rediscover their sparkle against Argentina and hope that they can paper over the cracks for the time being.
At the moment, Mr O'Sullivan is the conductor of a one-note symphony. His audience is tiring of it's repetitiveness.
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
A Lesson In Defeatism
Maintaining an air of confidence is the perfect way to battle uncertainty. A bit of chest-beating does wonders for self-belief. Unfortunately, we English have yet to master the art of the bluff, and consequently the noises emanating from the England camp in the run up to their do-or-die clash with Samoa are more 'Wounded Kitten' than 'Roaring Lion'.
Predictably, changes have been made. Although, what was once done for the good of the team is now merely for the benefit of the press. Ashton et-al have succumbed to criticism, and sacrificed continuity for the sake of an easy life.
The inclusion of both Wilkinson and Barkley merely serves to highlight the rather baffling tinkering that is taking place. Both have been fast-tracked through rehabilitation, Wilkinson adds the familiarity factor at number 10, and thanks to a competent game against the USA, Barkley finds himself shoe-horned into the side at 12.
The confusing thing is the timing. The Samoans rely on their physicality, so why play a Fly-Half out of position? With the knives still out for Andy Farrell, what better vote of confidence than to play him in a game that is sure to suit his strengths? It is unfair to relegate Farrell to the bench whilst persevering with Paul Sackey on the Wing, both hardly covered themselves in glory against the South Africans.
The pack has been moulded for domination. The power of Joe Worsley preferred over the go-forward of Tom Rees. The threat posed by Samoa more than justifies such a switch, but also serves to highlight the lack of bulk in the Back-Line.
A solid England performance should silence the critics, or at least give them something else to focus on instead of last Friday's performance. I stand by my comment that time is needed, rather than daily poisoned-pen attacks on varied percieved shortcomings both on and off the field.
Predictably, changes have been made. Although, what was once done for the good of the team is now merely for the benefit of the press. Ashton et-al have succumbed to criticism, and sacrificed continuity for the sake of an easy life.
The inclusion of both Wilkinson and Barkley merely serves to highlight the rather baffling tinkering that is taking place. Both have been fast-tracked through rehabilitation, Wilkinson adds the familiarity factor at number 10, and thanks to a competent game against the USA, Barkley finds himself shoe-horned into the side at 12.
The confusing thing is the timing. The Samoans rely on their physicality, so why play a Fly-Half out of position? With the knives still out for Andy Farrell, what better vote of confidence than to play him in a game that is sure to suit his strengths? It is unfair to relegate Farrell to the bench whilst persevering with Paul Sackey on the Wing, both hardly covered themselves in glory against the South Africans.
The pack has been moulded for domination. The power of Joe Worsley preferred over the go-forward of Tom Rees. The threat posed by Samoa more than justifies such a switch, but also serves to highlight the lack of bulk in the Back-Line.
A solid England performance should silence the critics, or at least give them something else to focus on instead of last Friday's performance. I stand by my comment that time is needed, rather than daily poisoned-pen attacks on varied percieved shortcomings both on and off the field.
The lack of confidence is worrying, but this is a direct result of trial by media. Games aren't won in the pressroom, they're won with clarity of mind on the field. My hope is that we will see an England performance full of fight, and a team ready to go to the trenches in order to seek redemption.
Sunday, 16 September 2007
England - The Aftermath
It's a thankless task, but a necessary one nonetheless.
Picking through the wreckage of Friday night's humiliation at the Stade de France, I am compelled to look for positives and seek out a possible path to recovery, rather than provide you with an essay on how badly England performed.
However - for those seeking clarification - they were absolutely shocking.
The positives are few and far between. We didn't concede 50, and things can only improve. Small crumbs of comfort I know, but it's the best I can do.
Already, the media have gone into overdrive. I can't blame them, as there is no richer seam to draw from than that of English sporting failure. But for the occasional false dawn, underachievement is probably our greatest achievement.
I should probably make this clear. Brian Ashton has to stay. It is unfair that he should be made a scapegoat for such a poor display. Why single out one man, when the blame can be hung on the shoulders of so many?
Preparation was the key to England's success in 2003, four years of meticulous planning and preparation to be precise. Sir Clive Woodward had the backing of a Nation, and the grudging respect of the RFU hierarchy, Ashton was left with an alarm clock, the sound of which could be heard - loud and clear - from Paris on Friday evening.
Yes, mistakes have been made. Most notably regarding squad selection. Faith in the tried, tested and visibly faltering has - quite predictably - proved fruitless, yet hindsight is a wonderful thing. Those who think that disaster could have been averted simply by including a Haskell or a Cipriani in the touring party are wide of the mark.
Few have looked at the style of play, choosing instead to pick holes in the ageing patchwork. England are attempting to compete on the World stage, equipped with a club rugby mentality.
The application is there in abundance, the effort is also evident. However, for all the strained sinew, there is an overwhelming lack of confidence. South Africa were quick to take their chances, whereas our backline seemed intent on butchering every bit of decent ball they had. Putting boot to ball was almost comforting for a group of players who seem to have forgotten how to create the most valuable of commodities on a rugby pitch - space.
England are simply not good enough to be considered genuine World Cup contenders this time around. The grinding triumph of 2003 will never be repeated. The evolution of the game dictates that - allied to an imposing pack and metronomic kicker - teams have to possess unbelievable pace and fluency, as well as an element of surprise. The only surprising thing about Friday's performance from an English point of view was it's predictability.
It maybe an unbearable truth for some, but the class of 2007 is overburdened. Dwarfed by the shadow of past achievements and struggling to find the continuity needed to halt the slide towards mediocrity.
There is no easy answer. The cards have been shuffled too many times before. Thoughts of healing the rift between Club and Country have to be put on hold. England face a Pacific Island double-header, with games against Samoa and Tonga, tough games made even tougher by weight of expectation. Hopefully, we will see a fearless England, rather than a side who come unstuck in the spotlight.
Picking through the wreckage of Friday night's humiliation at the Stade de France, I am compelled to look for positives and seek out a possible path to recovery, rather than provide you with an essay on how badly England performed.
However - for those seeking clarification - they were absolutely shocking.
The positives are few and far between. We didn't concede 50, and things can only improve. Small crumbs of comfort I know, but it's the best I can do.
Already, the media have gone into overdrive. I can't blame them, as there is no richer seam to draw from than that of English sporting failure. But for the occasional false dawn, underachievement is probably our greatest achievement.
I should probably make this clear. Brian Ashton has to stay. It is unfair that he should be made a scapegoat for such a poor display. Why single out one man, when the blame can be hung on the shoulders of so many?
Preparation was the key to England's success in 2003, four years of meticulous planning and preparation to be precise. Sir Clive Woodward had the backing of a Nation, and the grudging respect of the RFU hierarchy, Ashton was left with an alarm clock, the sound of which could be heard - loud and clear - from Paris on Friday evening.
Yes, mistakes have been made. Most notably regarding squad selection. Faith in the tried, tested and visibly faltering has - quite predictably - proved fruitless, yet hindsight is a wonderful thing. Those who think that disaster could have been averted simply by including a Haskell or a Cipriani in the touring party are wide of the mark.
Few have looked at the style of play, choosing instead to pick holes in the ageing patchwork. England are attempting to compete on the World stage, equipped with a club rugby mentality.
The application is there in abundance, the effort is also evident. However, for all the strained sinew, there is an overwhelming lack of confidence. South Africa were quick to take their chances, whereas our backline seemed intent on butchering every bit of decent ball they had. Putting boot to ball was almost comforting for a group of players who seem to have forgotten how to create the most valuable of commodities on a rugby pitch - space.
England are simply not good enough to be considered genuine World Cup contenders this time around. The grinding triumph of 2003 will never be repeated. The evolution of the game dictates that - allied to an imposing pack and metronomic kicker - teams have to possess unbelievable pace and fluency, as well as an element of surprise. The only surprising thing about Friday's performance from an English point of view was it's predictability.
It maybe an unbearable truth for some, but the class of 2007 is overburdened. Dwarfed by the shadow of past achievements and struggling to find the continuity needed to halt the slide towards mediocrity.
There is no easy answer. The cards have been shuffled too many times before. Thoughts of healing the rift between Club and Country have to be put on hold. England face a Pacific Island double-header, with games against Samoa and Tonga, tough games made even tougher by weight of expectation. Hopefully, we will see a fearless England, rather than a side who come unstuck in the spotlight.
Friday, 14 September 2007
The Overwhelming Case For Progression
It would seem that some people are simply not content unless they can find fault in something, and - true to form - the knives are out for the Rugby World Cup.
Not important, not competitive enough, too predictable, too many 'nothing' games. It would seem that our annual feast of
It is difficult to know what is expected of a tournament which is still essentially in it's infancy. Indeed, in relation to most other sports, the amateur game is still fresh in the memory. In little over 10 years, the entire landscape of the sport has changed drastically.
Whilst it would be unfair to say that the professional era has had a negative effect on the growth of the game, the gap between the haves and have-nots is now more pronounced than ever.
For some, the answer is simple. A two-tier competition. Split the elite nations from the rest. More competition across the International game, more winnable games, theoretically, it's a viable plan.
However, to partition the International game in such a way would do irreparable damage to the overall growth of the game.
To deny the emerging Nations the chance to compete on the big stage is simply wrong. Rather than increasing competitiveness, it will simply serve to stifle it.
Sportsmen of any level thrive on the big games. For proof, simply watch how the Namibian and Portuguese sides - supposed World Cup 'no hopers' - raised their games against the Irish and Scots respectively. Both sides offered hope to both the IRB and the watching millions. There is a beating heart beyond the big-guns of the game.
Inclusion - rather than exclusion - has to be the order of the day. Strong foundations are more important than a quick fix. Growth takes time, but careful planning can bear fruit.
The
The utopian dream of a completely level playing field is obviously never going to materialize, however, the nightmare scenario of a game that is dead in the water is even further from reality. As
Ignore the nay-sayers. We are in the midst of an incredibly successful World Cup. Big crowds, big exposure, and ultimately big money. It is imperative that such giant strides are used as a starting point for continued progression.
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Welcome One And All
Hello and welcome to a new outlet for my occasional rants.
Expect debate, discussion and downright bloody-mindedness as I attempt to force my views upon you, the unsuspecting public.
Only kidding!
Comments both positive and negative are more than welcome.
Enjoy
Ross
Expect debate, discussion and downright bloody-mindedness as I attempt to force my views upon you, the unsuspecting public.
Only kidding!
Comments both positive and negative are more than welcome.
Enjoy
Ross
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)