« Pumas make an early appearance at Twickenham | Main | Gameplans Explained! Scott Gibbs »
What is the common thread in the England rugby team's crapness?
The years since 2003 have not exactly been a picnic for England fans; or if it has been a picnic it is one at which it consistently drizzles, the sandwiches are all chicken paste and the occasional wild animal turns up to savage you and your kids. There have been some sunny intervals of course - World Cup final in 2007, and some recognisable improvement in this year's Six Nations - but all in all, this period has been a pride-swallowing siege for all who follow the red rose.
The years immediately after 2003 saw of a number of pivotal persons retiring or suffering long-term injuries, plus the loss of Clive Woodward. Since 2006 there has been no such ready-made excuse.
Leaving aside RWC 07, when every other team played into England’s hands by allowing a slow, forwards and kick dominated strategy to dominate the tournament, in the last three years England have consistently failed in the part of the game that matters most: securing decent possession, particularly at ruck.
The reasons for this are many: lack of penetrating runs, poor rucking technique, lack of ideas around the fringe, the endless pick-and-gos; I could go on. Securing ball, even in this modern era is still primarily the job of the forwards, something they have signally failed to do in three years. Who is to blame for this is very simple in my eyes; it’s the bloke responsible for England’s forwards since 2006 – John Wells.
If you accept that this is the case - and I’d be interested to hear any arguments in support of him as I can’t think of any - then it begs the additional question of why he is still in the job.
Up until this year you could put his survival down to the turmoil raging around him, with the turnover of head coaches happening at such a rate that the powers that be felt stability in the second coaching layer was probably sensible. However, since Johnson was appointed as the long-term coach last year then this argument looks increasingly shaky. Given that, with the possible exception of Scotland, England’s forwards look the worst in Europe most of the time and last Saturday against the Wallabies was yet another game to add to the litany of soul-splintering failures of recent times, you have to ask what it would take for him to lose his job?
I have no desire to see people sacked when there is a long-term strategy that they are part of. But, if a man who has presided over not a single iota of consistent improvement in three years is part of your long-term plan then surely your plan is a SHIT one? Only Martin Johnson knows the answer to that and we can only hope that he is considering his forwards coaching options very carefully, otherwise it's more chicken paste and drizzle in the run up to the next World Cup.
Why not subscribe to Blood and Mud? You can get all our updates fresh in your inbox via email, or add us to your favourite feedreader
November 10, 2009 in Autumn Internationals, England, Rugby comment | Permalink|
Comments
Man youre onto something here :)
I think what summed it up for me was during a phase of attack in the second half (yes read that again, attack). England had made some decent yardage up the middle. Instead of shipping good ball (yes, the ball was quick), everyone kind of stood still and didnt know what do to.
Care looked on in a daze... Jonny must have been at the bottom of a ruck, because not one idiot in an England shirt knew what to do. So what did we do. We stuck it up our jumpers and turned quick ruck ball into that utterly dire SHIT they call the pick and go. Except England don't know how to pick and go. They pick, run backwards 5 yards and go to ground and repeat until they give a penalty away for killing the ball. I screamed at the TV so hard that the neighbours next door in my Sydney home who were having a party with the music on full blast thought they'd heard a murder.
What SHITS me is that our club sides dont do this. English Premier League is relatively half decent. (Despite what you sheep lovers think). But as soon as our players get to fucking Surrey for, they turn into mongs. Borthwick and Deacon in the second row, fuck me. I could draw on a piece of paper their movements during the whole game, it would involve moving forward 2 yards at a record pace of .000001 miles per hour and then getting shunted back 10 yards faster than the speed of light. Repeat 26 times during 80 minutes. Anyway... a long winded way of saying, get rid of Wells.
Posted by: Dan | Nov 10, 2009 11:40:47 AM
Simple fact is that we win loads of possession in almost every game we play and we try to use the forwards as a battering ram to win games. We play the ball out to our back line slowly giving any half decent defence plenty of time to stop our static attacks.
With the quality of backs we have we should score tries regularly and it has to be down to coaching and nothing else. I appreciate it's the start of the season for internationals but these players score a lot for their clubs and looking at some of the things that Geraghty did at the weekend it should be plain to see that we have enough quality.
Sort it out England!
Posted by: Simonplink | Nov 10, 2009 1:05:53 PM
paint it anyway you like but the common string here is the words England and shit,
Think about it you need different front row, different back row and some other backs......thats nearly the whole fucking team!!!!!
Posted by: Kenny | Nov 10, 2009 1:19:34 PM
as much as it pains me kenny might have a point! but enough of that... Wells. Wasn't it him that the 2007 RWC team said eff off to and then started to play, we couldn't win fast ball when SA dicked us 36-0 until we abandoned our coaches and let the forwards get stuck in.
one of teh rugby writes hewitt or cleary said that of the 2 things you could really on coming to twickenham was shite prematch entertainment and at least knowing your forwards had been in a game! Rocky elsom said that felt they could pull back!! pull back well f*ck me if that isn't a sad indictment of a coach I am not sure what is...
Posted by: gav | Nov 10, 2009 1:33:06 PM
Kenny - I think you'll find we do actually have the players that perform week in, week out - and quite a lot of depth. It HAS to be the coaching - there can be no other explanation - be that poor selection (and at times it makes Marc Lievremont look almost conservative and not like an eccentric loon) and dreadful coaching / lack of understanding of how the game needs to be played. And that latter point is pretty shameful for apparently international coaches...
Posted by: BigR | Nov 10, 2009 1:58:57 PM
As a sheep lover, I have to partially agree with Kenny. I'm not so sure England do have the players? A lot of them look half decent when playing each other in the Guinness, but they don't seem to take that through to either inter-league club rugby or international? Taking the Geraghty example mentioned above -> he tapped and go a quick one against Munster to narrowly win at home, but against the Scarlets he was pretty anonymous? The bloody Scarlets, I mean, my nan could take on the Scarlets.
As for the main point, it's not just coaching, it's culture. The England game is based on being bigger and harder than the other guy, of running at men rather than around them.
Going back a few years, remember all that stuff about Ashton being a "visionary" coach? This is an anecdote, paraphrased, from Josh Lewsey -> "Brian put up 3 tackle bags and asked us what we saw. We said 3 defenders, he said no, two gaps." Lewsey was just amazed by this idea, when everyone else just remembered back to being told exactly the same thing when they played mini rugby, everyone else it seems except the English. To me it summed up the bish bash bosh approach of English rugby, so I don't think changing the forwards coach is going to change it. Look at the hoohah that surrounds Sheridan just cos he can bench press half a house. The selection of Banahan. The excitement around the Tuilagi's, the anticipation when Volcano gets the ball. The choice of an ex second row as head coach. It's all about smacking into guys. Then you have people like Tait and Sinbad who can't even get into sides, Geraghty offloaded by his original team, etc. To quote the ex Gloucs coach about Sinbad -> "We put him on the wing because he does things the other players are not expecting". There you have it in a nutshell -> all that unpredictable creativity is a bad thing really, too messy. Look at the way you fete Jonny, nearly all his press talks about how awesome he is in the big hits, how metronomic his kicking, how dependable his passing. It's not a big surprise then that the English team's game is played in the same stodgy way?
Posted by: brighty | Nov 10, 2009 2:33:26 PM
Seems I'm not the only one who thinks this -> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/nov/09/england-george-stowers-samoa-wales
Posted by: brighty | Nov 10, 2009 3:06:21 PM
Brighty - Geraghty hasn't played the Scarlets this year, so I think you may have your people mixed up a bit, but...
...is your wider point not 'the' point anyway - that we have these players doing well enough in the premiership, but that they don't take that through to the international game. What's the change? The coaches, coaching them to play an alien way, or a way that is out of date, as per your Ashton example (something I shall use when coaching my mini's on Sunday!)
Posted by: BigR | Nov 10, 2009 3:24:43 PM
BigR, my point wasn't that these guys are great and just don't take it through for England, it was that they tend to look great when playing other Guiness Prem teams but results in the Heineken this year indicate they struggle against teams outside. This isn't about me saying the GP is rubbish, the ML is great, etc. I am just saying I don't see the evidence that England have undoubtedly superb players around? Where are players like BOD, Jamie Roberts, Gethin Jenkins, Martyn Williams, Brian Kearney, Mike Blair, Keith Earls etc. in the GP teams? Obviously I mean where are the English players?
So my point is that I don't see it's just John Wells, it's a lack of players with the skills you want and I think that comes down to a deep seated ethos in England about how the game is played i.e. in England it's about smacking through the other guy, not going around him.
Posted by: brighty | Nov 10, 2009 3:32:57 PM
Couldn't agree more! How Wells is still there is beyond me, but I think you've let Callard and possibly Ford off way too lightly. Since Callard has been in charge of the kicking side our kicking game has gone to the same level of shite as the forward play.
Posted by: Si Uttley | Nov 10, 2009 5:40:56 PM
I agree with Brighty, I think its a cultural thing. There is a dearth of basic rugby skills being displayed by the players, whether its passing, running at space or just making the right rugby decisions. Frankly they look clueless.
Equally where is the coaching innovation? Look at Engs staff - Johnno, Wells, Callard, Rowntree, Smith. Only one of these is recognised as an innovative coach. The rest are cut from the same conservative cloth.
Conservative coaching + average players = shite
If Geech can mould a side to threaten the Boks on their home turf in a few weeks then it beggars belief that England can't put together a decent squad over 18 months.
Changing coaches is one of your answers but unfortunately it isn't the only one. Despite following Ireland I bow to no-one in my admiration of Johnno but he needs a team of coaches who think outside the box and some serious thought as to how he can develop players that can play the rugby thats in front of them on the pitch rather than whats been drilled into them at Pennyhill Park.
Posted by: GazP | Nov 10, 2009 9:32:21 PM
The other common thread is Rob Andrew. Pretty much his only job is to pick the correct guy as England manager and make sure he has the right structure in place.
So far we have had:
Sir Clive: Great job, won a world cup no complaints. Except that while Sir Clive was doing that, instead of gorging himself on the positive plublicity, RA should have been makign plans for the future, the next coach, the players to take over from the retiring/injured heros - any fool could se the majority of that squad wouldn't be about the next time it cam round. So we got....
Andy R - great coach under a proper manager like Sir CW. Over promoted - good luck with Scotland.
Brian Ashton - mixed results at best, chosen by RA, backed by RA then dumped in the least professional manner possible by RA, after he'd actually looked like he might be making some progress (unless it really was all the players.)
MJ: Poor fella. He's a big whole hearted Englishman with Titanium Cahooners. Why would he say no? And RA gets to sit there in his Ivory Tower and say: "well I gave you who you wanted."
Just so RA gets it: Your job is not to bow to the baying public. You job is to get the right man for the job. Now Johnson may have been a good choice as mentor, forwards assistant, line out manager, phychologist even. If he was successful it was going to be luck, rather than a case of drawing on his experiance and coaching/management knowledge. What possible credentials did he ever have for the job?
They don't put the best sniper in charge of the army do they? They put him in right place to get the best shot at the enemy. Ring Ian Mchgeechan. beg him to take it, use Johnno in the right way and see the difference.
Or get rid of Andrew and give that job to Sir Clive.
Posted by: dave | Nov 11, 2009 12:33:20 AM
OK i had another look at the England game and well Geraghty is shit... England kept going across and across the field there was no punch to their game. Hence Elsom says we were never afraid of them getting through.
What England need is someone small and strong with a touch of the unpredictable about him.
Someone who will go into contact and wriggle around to offer the ball in contact.
There was no offloading in the contact area. It was pass pass pass into contact ruck pass pass pass into contact ruck and then mistake.
The centres have to be Hipkiss and the big black fella Erinly(please please excuse my shitty spelling). Both are strong and fast. Hipkiss is the closest England have to a small wriggler as i like to call it.
Quick feet, low centre of gravity, powerfull shoulders and hips, strong quick arms to get the ball offloaded in the tackle. And here is where the big guy comes in. Erinly (sorry bout the spelling) is constantly running off his shoulder waiting for the offload. And with that offload you bring the back row in, like moody and haskell who will support this.
England need to break the line, not go over with shitty chips or through it with that plank banahan, its too obvious.
Thats the word to describe England on Saturday, obvious, there was no game plan from the centres.
If they play that obvious game next week they are playing into Argentinas hands because thats waht the pumas will do all day. DEFEND with an iron will and they will push England back everytime.
Posted by: Kenny | Nov 11, 2009 9:55:04 AM
And Crane is pure muck he is slower than a crane and cant pass. He actually offers nothing to the team. Haskell was so much more mobile and just better. Deacon as well, hes shit, play laws, again more mobile, stronger and just better.
The more i say it the more it becomes....The England team on saturday was shit, pure shit.
At least if i was coach there would be a game plan as i have outlined above. Any commenst on kennys game plan for England are welcomed.
Oh and get rid of Banahan, hes a liability on the wing, he looks petrified of a high ball against his wing and takes an eternity to get going. He cant step, has tunnel vision and is just too predictable.
He should be a back rower or something wit a few more stone on him.
Posted by: Kenny | Nov 11, 2009 10:01:02 AM
And last but not least, given that Australia have a crap line out, why were England not playing for field position on every single kick.
Just put in to touch and test their line out. Keep them in their own half.
If you dont have a good enough back line to play around or through them. Then play over them by kicking to their corners constantly. With Wilkinson there it should have been a done deal.
THis is the problem, England think they can play passing Rugby, they cant. They should just play ugly rugby, they might even play that well, kick for long touch finders behind their wings.
Infact Australia played alot of touch finders, youd think England coaches would have picked up on that at half time and either closed it down or told Geraghty, MOnye, Cueto and Wilkinson to do the same....peg them back in their own 22 with touch finders....Gezz i sound like Englands saviour here lol!!!!
Posted by: Kenny | Nov 11, 2009 10:54:36 AM
Hi Kenny, a few comments re your game plan. Your opening statement is just wrong. Geraghty is a world class player playing in the wrong position, in an under performing team, with a bad game plan. I thought you, being Australian, would have some sympathy with him, as that pretty much sums up your entire back line throughout the Tri-Nations.
Agree re: the centres, although I'd rather see Tait and either Hipkiss or Erinlee. Agree re: the obviousness of England's play.Crane and Deacon aren't shit, they're just the 5th best players in their position in England. Why did Johnson pick them? Banahan, agree, neither strong enough or quick enough to trouble international defenses. Why did Johnson pick him?
Also agree re: touch finders and play to Aus crap lineout. Why did Johnson pick average line out jumpers, and one of them as Captain?
My worry is the lack of a coherent game plan and the selection of the appropriate players to execute it. We should stick with Johnson, but its just very painful watching him learn about coaching in front of our ours with the glorious boys of the Red Rose.
Posted by: Baz | Nov 12, 2009 9:05:43 AM
Baz im not Australian.......im Irish, thats like me calling you scottish!!!
Seriously though Haskell v Crane, Laws v Deacon?? come on thats not rocket science!!!!
Borthwick is good in the line out, just muck in the loose, I constantly saw him standing around watching the play and neither fast enough to keep up with it or intelligent enough to predict it hence like a statue standing near a ruck picking his constantly bloodied nose.
And Geraghty, if he is a world calss player playing in the wrong position, than he should be on the bench as hes in the wrong position!!!
There is no excuse playing a world class player in the wrong position. Do you think he is better than Wilkinson, as out-half is his obviously favoured position??
And Geraghty also isnt strong in the tackle, if your gonna pick a strong reliable tackling midfield pick Hipkiss, Erinly, Wilkinson, leave the grunt work to Hipkiss and Erinle and leave the kicking to Wilkinson solely.
If you want to see an example of how effective the two centres (Erinle and Hipkiss) together are, get a copy of the HCup final last year and watch them shut out probably the most effective centre partnership in Europe this decade in O' Drisoll and D'arcy for Leinster. The two boys were constantly shackled and Hipkiss kept breaking the line and drawing the defence in leaving gaping holes in the Leinster line.
Posted by: Kenny | Nov 12, 2009 9:48:11 AM
Apologies for the insult Kenny, my mistake.
I think we're vociferously agreeing and my point is that the selection was terrible. Play Gerahty at F/H and I'd rather see him come in over Wilko in order to build for the future.
Second row selection was terrible. Neither should be playing. Again, bad selection.
The biggest mystery is why can't Tait get a spot at either full back or centre. Agree H and E are boshers, but Tait can find holes no one else sees.
Posted by: Baz | Nov 12, 2009 10:38:30 AM
Ben Foden anyone? A real line-breaker sent back to his club so Banahan can come in and run at some tacklers.
While I agree about the coaches I also think the players have to take some responsibility surely, surely, no one has told them to trundle slowly into contact time after time after time? And even if they have someone should show a bit of leadership and ignore it...
Posted by: W | Nov 13, 2009 7:49:05 AM
As odd as it sounds, Banahan has become slowly more shite since the begining of last season. By his standards of a few seasons back, he is a shadow of his former self. He shouldnt be playing for Engalnd (and this from a Bath fan), but he will get better, and will be back, presumably on the wing. Although, that said, he would add an edge to the blindside. (just not centre, eh Kenny?)
Posted by: ScrumGuru | Nov 15, 2009 8:20:59 PM
I think it may be that crappy shirts they wear. The last one looked like a fuckin fanny pad and this one with the plum socks make them look like gay bikers on acid. The sponsors must be delighted !
Posted by: Big Shags | Nov 21, 2009 8:43:20 PM
