New Management or New Players

The players are failing to take responsibility on the pitch, something they and the coaches need to sort out. It's no surprise that our best performances in recent years were at the World Cup where players took control under a manager who advocated player responsibility.

I really don't want anyone new as it is too close to the World Cup for radical changes to take effect. I truly believe that the right now best person to take us out of this mess is Johnson. I'm not saying he is the best coach, certainly not, but I do think he is in the best position to turn it around and has the ability to understand the faults.

Understanding the faults and fixing them are different things. I'm not arguing he currently has the ability to fix the faults, but he has a long track record as an astute rugby player. I can't accept that someone as aware as he is will not find a remedy, or more importantly I don't believe that parachuting someone else in over the summer will automatically put us in a better position.

In picking Johnson a gamble was taken because he needed time to learn, it would be poor for the RFU to back out of it now when it was obvious at the time of his appointment that the next World Cup had to be the time period in which he is judged.

At the start of the Six Nations the consensus was Johnson had picked more or less the best 15, we al had a few picks we prefer but the team was greeted optimistically.

Now the reaction is for wholesale changes, how can people change their views so radically when we know the current players are capable of better performances and can't guarantee new players won't fall in to the same stupor.

I don't think the players and coaches are winning over fans with their bland assertions about improvements, but I do agree with the theory that we are only a few tweaks away from much better results.

I'm not entirely optimistic that these coaches can turn it round, but I do think we have the players, just not the right mix and balance, or the right approach.

A good example is Worsley, I think all but his biggest critics would accept he is as good as anyone at 'tree-felling' but that wasn't much help against the offloading of Scotland. Tait is a good defender, but was all over the place due to poor organisation from poor communication, not because he is crap.

The same criticisms of England were in place during the last World Cup, yet we turned it around quickly to reach the final.

Brian Moore on Collapsing Mauls

Using the health and safety argument against the collapsing maul, yet only recently you argued against health and safety in defence of the scrum. Where's the logical consistancy? If you don't like the collapsing maul, say why, don't resort to tactics your would normally discredit.

International Eligibility

There was a lot of debate about the eligibility of Lesley Vainikolo when he was picked for England and I get really hacked off with this eligibility debate, just because YOU wouldn't play for another country doesn't mean others can't.
My grandfather came to England from Scotland for economic reasons does that mean I can't play for England, or is it just him?
How can a player like Flutey play with such passion and commitment for Wasps, a team he has no allegiance to other than a contract, and then have it suggested he might not have the passion for England.

A hypothetical scenario to help show what utter drivel this debate is:
Three matches on successive weekends at Millennium Stadium, each match featuring a team in a red shirt playing the touring Argentinians.
Each team in red is made up of the same 15 players, 14 men born in Llanelli and one born in Leicester. Now if those three teams are actually Llanelli, Wales and Lions how can it be that somehow the Leicester bloke playing for a Wales is a travesty, unsupportable or some other nonsense, yet is acceptable for the other two teams?

I just can't accept the idea that you have to pass a purity test to play for England.

The difference between internationals and club is that internationals are representative rugby, and I just can't understand why we need to prevent someone from representing any country they choose. Surely if you are proud of England you should be proud that someone wants to represent you. But saying that they are a bit too different from me so they don't represent me is just getting too narrow and bizarre.

Surely "your country" is for each individual to decide not a committee, it is also possible for an individual to hold loyalty to more than one nation, or even to none at all. An individual can change countries, and passports throughout their life, and their loyalties may or may not change at the same time. Why should sports teams be harder to get into than a country?

I could (if I was any good) have played rugby for Wales, cricket for England and football for Scotland (or any combination thereof).
I could do this with a clear conscience and I don't see why any Committee on the Unity of National Teams should stop me.

The Best Fly-Half?

If I were picking a current World XV whilst sat comfortably in my armchair, then I would probably pick Carter. If I fell asleep and started to dream a bit I might pick Hernandez, and if those dreams became flashes from the future I might pick Cipriani. However, if my balls were on a block with a mallet coming down if I lose, then I might pick Wilkinson.

Teams for the upcoming Six Nations

For 6N, depending on form an injury:
Sheridan
Chuter
Stevens
Shaw
Kay
Haskell
Moody
Easter
Gommersall
Wilkinson
Simpson-Daniel
Flood
Tait
Sackey
Lewsey

Bench:
Vickery, Paice, Kennedy, Rees, Richards, Lamb, Varndell

Others to fill in for injury
White, Regan, Grewcock, Corry, C. Hodgson, Barkley, Tindall, Cueto, Balshaw

Saxons
Wood
Mears
Forster
Skivington
Hooper
Robshaw
Abraham
Crane
Wigglesworth
Cipriani
Biggs
Allen
Armitage
Arscott
Abendanon

Bench:
French, Titterall, Parling, Croft, P. Hodgson, Geraghty, Visser

People I can't find a place for, but wouldn't rule out!
Blaze, Hudson, Palmer, Lund, Skirving, Powell, Hipkiss, Noon

We seem to be short on young Hookers, Props, Scrum Halfs and Fullbacks. Also, lots of Flankers but few Eights.

Leadership

We have a problem with leadership in English rugby, we don't have enough players who understand how simple rugby can be, and we don't have enough players who can think for themselves rather than await orders. I think there is a problem in the English psyche, it could be due to and excessively hierarchical influence from either the military, public school system or just a hangover from our deferential class system, I don't know why and it doesn't matter too much, but the problem is there.

Martin Johnson, history has shown, was a great leader, even as a Tigers fan it took me years to appreciate his leadership. We know that before he took over at England we lost our way in matches. When he missed a game we fell apart like we did at the weekend against Argentina. When he retired England lost direction again. I also think Johnson was a perfect compliment to Woodward. Woodward did lots of thinking, trying this and that, tampering, tinkering, planning and imagining, all vital, but when the players took to the field all the complex preparation was replaced by Johnson's simplicity. This simplicity was best shown by the famous 6 man scrum in NZ, where Johnson's epic speech prior to the scrum was "Fucking Push", a clarity of thought rarely matched in history. Johnson seemed to have a simple understanding of what was required at any point in a game, demonstrated by the famous drop kick to win the World Cup, Johnson's perfect decision to take the ball for one more phase to allow Dawson to get up and deliver the ball to Wilkinson.

In too many England and Premiership matches players go by the play book, unable to decide what to do unless someone tells them. Leaders on the pitch slavishly follow the coaches orders, like Corry with Robinson. What should happen is that when the game isn't going to plan the players should revert to three simple principles:
1) Keep the ball as much possible
2) Keep as close to the opposition tryline as possible
3) If there is space pass it to the skinny quick guys ("the backs")

I had a thought once that Ashton's genius consists only of the following tactic; "Count the players in the defensive line, when you have more players than them, or equal players but they have a prop in the line, run it"

England V SA

We have three main problems:
a) Who can lead this team when the shit hits the fan. After the game Greenwood was convinved there is no one out there and I haven't seen anyone either.
b) These are more or less the best bunch of players, the numbers on the shirt in the back row being the biggest question mark.
c) Only Freshwater of the current team can play both of the next two tests giving the selectors a management problem.

My Solutions:
a) The best option I can think of is Vickery, he was playing OK and White has been playing poorly.
b)& c) Plan for the two tests:

1 Freshwater for both
2 Chuter then Thompson
3 Vickery for both
4 Jones for both
5 Kay then Palmer
6 Lund for both
7 Rees for both
8 Ward-Smith for both

9 Perry then Bemand
10 Hodgson then Goode
11 Cohen then Varndell
12 Allen then Flood
13 Tait for both
14 Sackey then Cueto
15 Balshaw then Lewsey

bench options
Turner, Thompson, Parling, Crane, Richards, Flood, Lewsey
then
Turner, Mears, Parling, Crane, Richards, Johnston, Morgan

Normally I would say it is crazy to play an inexperienced back row against SA, but they are going to have to play one match anyway, so I would rather say to them you have two tests guaranteed and see how they improve. I also pick Bemand and Goode to get a club partnership, same for Flood and Tait. I stick with Flood so he is not ruined by the last match. I stick with Balshaw not beacuase I think he was great but because he was one of the few players to improve from NZ.

World Cup Curse - The true story

Finally I can bring to you the comprehensive, complete and unproved story of the World Cup Curse. After a brief look at Which Witch? I was able to track down those involved in the World Cup Curse, a deadly agreement that meant all those playing in the 2003 final are now either retired, injured or not injured! It all began with a group of Tigers players, lead by Johnson and Back, prior to the 1997 Lions Tour, they agreed to perform unspeakable acts of foul play in return for victory in all tournaments for club and country. In return they agreed to retire after 2003 and not attempt the double in 2007, or face certain injury. A magic spell was cast but protection was given to those Tigers players not involved in the 1997 tour and by a remarkable stroke of geographical luck a few Saints players were spared the full force of the curse.

1 Woodman - Forced to retire by injury
2 Thompson - In protective shield, lost form but still injured on Saturday
3 Vickery - Injured
4 Johnson - Forced to retire to save himself
5 Kay - In protective shield, lost form but played on Saturday
6 Hill - Injured
7 Back - Forced to retire to save himself
8 Dallaglio - Injured
9 Dawson - In protective shield, but forced to dance in frilly pink shirt in front of millions after retiring
10 Wilkinson - Injured
11 Cohen - In protective shield but lost form before returning on Saturday.
12 Greenwood - Forced to retire to save himself
13 Tindall - Injured
14 Robinson - Spared by God, who told him to retire
15 Lewsey - A freak, escaped the curse, but injured on Saturday which is the same

Corry and Moody were spared the curse due to being Tigers and with only a limited role in the final, Balshaw was still hit by the curse. James Simpson-Daniel has nothing to to do with this but is injured!