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!

Dark Arts and Grey Areas

I have to admit my gut instinct is that cheating stinks and belittles the player & team doing it, I also know human nature and I know that it pushes and crosses boundaries by instinct.

For example, I know that when I was tackled, to prevent the opposition getting the ball, I used to hold the ball with my knees or elbows, if the referee blew for a penalty I cursed my self for being so stupid, if the referee didn't spot it I felt a weird smugness. I also know that every player does some similar illegality, somewhere, sometime.
The Deacon "knock-on", and the "hand of Back" were unpunished by the referee and the opposition claim that these incidents cost them the game, they didn't, or no more than the other 79 minutes 59 seconds.

If I was coaching I would demand my charges won within the laws, but I would also not allow them to complain if they lost to a side that cheated more than them. You've got to win in the conditions, whether it be wind, rain or an overworked referee.

My definitive example of how to deal with cheating is Jesse Owens account of his long jump qualification at the Berlin Olympics (aspects of the story are considered to be an urban legend, but the bulk of the story is true and demonstrates my point)

Jesse Owens had his first two qualifying jumps ruled foul, the first being a warm up run by Owens in his tracksuit, which the officials decided was a real attempt. The second looked perfect to many observers but the officials claimed he overstepped the board. As Owens was wondering how he was going to qualify in the face of the dodgy officiating he was approached by his main rival Luz Long, a German who had already set an Olympic record in qualifying, Long pointed out that Owens would easily make the qualification distance if he jumped from behind board and no one could call a foul, some accounts state that Long placed a towel on the track a few inches from the board to assist Owens. Owens cleared the qualifying distance with ease and went on to win the gold in the final, with Long taking silver.

Playing New Zealand

I am expecting simplicity at the set piece, we should win ours and although they will win theirs but we should be able to make it less than perfect for them.

If we have ball I think Hodgson's pass should be looking to find Allen and Noon running their usual angles. With Evans, Mauger and Nonu, I think a good angle should get through them. If we do get past the first line we need to get the ball out to Cohen, Balshaw and Sackey who can finish form good positions. I do have a vision of Noon stepping inside Nonu and popping the ball to a rampaging Balshaw and/or Sackey. I can also see Allen slicing through Evans and Mauger to go over from close range.

In defence, we shoulld continue Ford's plan from Australia, where he mixed the rush and drift, and moved players around so that NZ set moves don't find the defender they were expecting.

The key battle that will determine who wins possession, and the quality of it, is the breakdown. Our first plan should be to not have one, by keeping the ball alive when we have it. If there is a break down, either on our ball or theirs, we need players in quickly to do the obvious quick ball for us and slow for them. I think we will be try to get a player like Grewcock to sit on McCaw to slow him down, however I think they have picked Robinson to sit on Grewcock. I also think they have will use Thorne to hold Corry, leaving us with a fast 13 man game with no rucks and mauls :-)

So there is a chance, it is possible to win, and we should construct our game to win regardless of being underdogs.