Not the only one to think Auntie was biased

In my write up on the England v France match I commented on the amount of pro-English bias at the end. It appears I wasn't the only one, although I don't make the headlines as much as an MP who formally complains to the BBC (story from Planet Rugby).

It's rather odd actually. I was just thinking that Brian Moore is starting to mellow into a much more reasonable commentator. He knows the laws (he's not perfect, but he's far better than many commentators) and he no longer assumes England are perfect and Johnny Foreigner is always in the wrong (be he the referee or the opposition). This is a nice change from him, because having a former international hooker commentating on front row play is actually pretty instructive. Having a lawyer (which is his day job now) discussing the laws of the game is also instructive. Having him miss out the huge chunks of bias is a definite improvement.

But those thoughts were swept aside in the "ZOMG England will win the Six Nations" BS. It's possible they will win it. That relies on at least one of Ireland and France beating Wales, ideally both, otherwise Wales are still in the hunt on points difference, and Wales rather racked up the points difference against Italy (+40-odd) whereas England only managed +4 or so... Then it relies on points difference with whoever finishes on the same number of points as them. Oh, and on England winning, almost certainly their last two games. That would be Ireland and Scotland. Ireland might be Wales (being Welsh I don't think they will, but they might). If Ireland beat Wales, I'd put long odds on them stuffing the English. Ireland or France for the championship. At the moment you'd look at England v Scotland and say it's a shoe-in for England. But... England v Scotland matches are a bit like England v Wales matches. Did it matter 4 weeks that Wales haven't beaten England in Twickenham for 20 years? That they were coming off a miserable RWC? That they had a brand new coaching team? Even that England were comfortably in the lead at half time and just had to shut up shop as they used to do so efficiently (if boringly) to win? The history books answer all of those with a resounding no.

Do I believe England will beat Scotland? Yes. And Ireland? No. Will Wales beat Ireland and France? Yes, I think so. I won't be shocked if they lose either, or even both, but I think, as well as hope they'll win both. Will England win the 6N? Fat chance. It's mathematically possible. Will it happen. It would be a hell of a shock.

Le Crunch

So, England beat France again. To be honest, despite the screaming plaudits I'm hearing, it was more a case of the English tight five beating up the French tight five at scrum time, and France's back three, particularly Rougerie, having a shocker. They conspired to give England easy defensive moves, penalties at the scrum and so on. Will it save Ashton? Probably. Is it a new leaf? I'm inclined to say not, but time will tell.

Both new scrum-halves had good games, despite the problems France had at the scrum. The very English commentators are now talking England v Ireland as the decider for the Six Nations. They could still be right, but the only way that will matter is if Ireland beat Wales in a fortnight. Will they do it? It's certain they can, but will they?

To be honest, I don't know. I slept through most of the Scotland v Ireland match. The bits I did see, Scotland had the ball a lot and no clue about how to score tries still. Ireland only played for about half the match, but sliced Scotland open relatively easily and scored, although not that fluently. Wales will attack better than Scotland, and defend most of the time better than Scotland. Wales are still getting better. Ireland are still getting worse. Will Wales be good enough on the day to do the job at Croke Park? Yes, I think so. After that, if I'm right, all these commentators will be swallowing their words. If I'm wrong, will I? Well no... I'm still saying "I think so" after all, and they're saying "It will be..." mind you, I bet they don't pay pundits to be uncertain.

Wales stomp on Italy

Perhaps this shouldn't be a surprise based on this year so far, but Wales v Italy is often uncomfortably (for me at least) close.

Wales are still not a great team, but, a bit like a genuinely great team that plays in red (and black) against a team in blue yesterday, they had a slow start, then clicked into gear and never looked at risk. The adventure, the speed, the effort were there again, with shades of 2005 (grand slam year) peeking through. A fortnight's time will see Wales v Ireland, with Wales aiming for the triple crown. It will be interesting to see how the next match goes, but Wales are looking better and better with each game - and at the moment I'd make them close favourites to win in Croke Park.

Something has to be said about Italy too. Masi is still not an international fly half, but he is improving. The Italian backs suddenly remembered how to handle the ball, how to run, how to pass. If they could all have remembered it at the same time, Italy could easily have scored 2 more tries in the first half, and probably another 2 through the game. Shaun Edwards will be shouting about that on Monday at training I'm sure - but actually they didn't get the passes to hand, Wales survived. I'm reminded of one of those clichés about "great teams find ways to win when not playing well" overall Wales played well today, Italy played pretty well too. But, in the patches where Wales didn't play so well, they still did enough to be in the lead.

Bull-baiting and ELVs again

In case you didn't see the match, nor read a report, I watched, with glee, the Crusaders v the Bulls match yesterday. You could describe it as a game of 3 parts really.

For 30 minutes, the Crusaders were resolute (but sometimes foolish) in defence, and lousy in attack - as a team they looked like they'd forgotten how to handle the ball, although all the big names still performed. Scoreline 12-0 Bulls, and looking good for it, although the Crusaders had denied them at least 2 tries thanks to good defence. Then the Crusaders woke up, and for 45 minutes played high-speed, intelligent, attacking rugby, and it was 49-12. In the last 5 minutes the Bulls got a lucky try, courtesy of a kick that even the South African commentators described as poor, and an even worse attempt to dot it down safely by Hamilton. We'll be kind and say after 75 minutes at altitidue he was tired, because he is a better player than that. It wasn't even a consolation as McDonald knifed through and scored another irresistible try for the Crusaders. When was the last time the Bulls gave up 50+ points at home I wonder?

In terms of the ELVs, this was the sort of game they were meant to make. The Bulls weren't penalised that much, but there were a few free kicks that would have been penalties. As free kicks, they were scrummed or run, and turned into tries. Under the old rules, the score would have been closer, still rather one sided, but probably more like 30-19 than 54-19. Except for the Bulls fans it made for an attractive, fast, entertaining match. Result for the ELVs I think.

I also heard Stuart Barnes moaning about the ELVs recently. His complaint was that rugby is a game that isn't only about speed, it is sometimes about structure. You could just hear the old saws about "keeping the scoreboard ticking over" waiting to spill from his lips. Let me say I think some of his complaints may have merit: in a game where people choose to play negatively they may choose to give away free kicks even more freely than they currently choose to give away penalties rather than tries. But, his chosen ground for complaint was a little foolish - this is the man that advocates, regularly, harsher penalties for those who slow the ball down, because fast ball makes for more attractive rugby. He may disagree with how the IRB are trying to achieve this, but moaning that it is making a faster game is silly.

Whilst we're on the subject of giving away free kicks, there was a pair of incidents around 25 minutes that might be a good way forward. In very quick succession (within 2 minutes and one move) the Bulls twice infringed within 5m of their own line, playing the ball off the feet. Free kick offence these days. For the second one, the referee decided to upgrade to a penalty for foul play (repeated offences). Even the most cynical Bulls hater would say it was too early for a yellow card, but you can bet the next time the tackle evolved into a ruck the Bulls players were rather more careful. It served its point admirably. If this becomes the standard tactic of referees, I think it will lay another of Barnes' moans to rest - if you start playing cynically you will be penalised and sin-binned still: it's not a smart move to keep doing it, even if it's not a penalty offence first time.

More on ELVs

Well, I've not really closely watched the two games (Chiefs v Blues, 'Tahs v 'Canes) that have been broadcast so far today, but I've seen some highlights and some parts of both matches.

It's worth pointing out that in both games one side (Chiefs and 'Canes) didn't really show up for some reason (although in the first half of the 'Tahs match which I did watch properly) Jerry Collins certainly showed up. That makes it a bit tricky to be sure, but we're still seeing a situation where there were far fewer penalties than you'd expect - more free kicks awarded, and the free kicks close to the opponents try line sometimes taken as free kicks, sometimes as scrums. This appears to be making the score-lines more one sided - consider the Wales v Scotland match where the underdogs scored all 15 points via penalties. I think only two of those offences would have been penalties under the ELVs and Scotland would have only scored 6 points. Wales might only have scored 21 mind... but I think 24 actually.

It was noticeable in bits I have watched that the teams in these matches seemed more willing to use kicks to touch: the phobia in yesterday's match seems to have been restricted to them. There were still a few times where the "passed back inside" rule meant a kick was kept in bounds rather than kicked out, probably 5-10 per match, and so 5-10 fewer line outs (it will be interesting to see the comparative stats) but although the space makes for more attacking rugby, the reduction in line-outs is (again in my rough opinion, without numbers to support it) is countered by the increase in scrums, so all the forwards are still involved, although possibly their skill set and training will change as the laws become better embedded: giant locks that can't push will move out in favour of locks that can be shorter and scrum well and carry well.

Who will benefit? Well, France and New Zealand would be the obvious two countries at the moment. Space for their backs and the loose forwards to do more - could be just what they need. Wales will probably do well, and so will Argentina: increasing the emphasis on the scrum for the Pumas, and the space and handling skills for the Dragons. Ireland with the O'Driscol of two years ago, yes, this year and next? Less sure. Italy, Scotland and England? Not so good for various reasons. All of them because it will emphasise creativity, England in addition because Johnny will become less important - fewer chances to kick at goal.

Super-14 starts with ELVs

Today saw the start of the Super-14 season and the ELVs. We actually saw most of them come into play as well, although the game wasn't great.

It's hard to be sure on the highly scientific basis of one poor game (possibly early season cobwebs, possibly getting used to the new rules in serious competition, possibly just two teams that aren't going to shine this year despite the pundits expectations, possibly a combination of two or three of these), but a few things did show up.

Penalties were uncommon - there were only about 5 in the whole match, and only 2 penalty goals kicked. Quite a lot of things that would have been penalties were free kicks. Goodbye 10-man rugby and the number-10 who is solely a goal-kicking machine.

Line-outs were also uncommon. There were times where I wondered why they didn't kick the ball into touch - they would have before the ELVs and the circumstances with them would have been the same: I think this will change over time. But, line-outs will remain, I suspect more uncommon, as one set of ways to gain ground via the boot have gone. Another kick for 10-man rugby.

Scrums look very odd with the 5m offside lines, there's a load of space. Even in this rather disappointing game that was exploited a bit. A good scrum will, I suspect make the snipers (Marshall, Peel, Howley, Gommersal) and the pick up and run No. 8's have more of an impact because they will have more space in which to run. I wouldn't be hugely surprised to see a situation where loose forwards become more and more multi-skilled, the kind of thing where at attacking scrum-1 No. 8 plays at 8, scrum-2 No. 6 plays at 8, scrum-3 No. 7 plays at 8, rinse and repeat. In defence they probably fall back to their "natural" positions. How will this affect the MacCaw, Waugh, Burger etc. specialist fetchers? We'll have to see. I think they will have a huge role to play still, and if they can't skill up to be a power ball-carrier (it's not something MacCaw is good at for example) will swapping the other two places work well? Will some other tactic evolve? This will be interesting on the international stage. Consider Wales v England (historically, not just that glorious day a fortnight ago) England tend to the bigger, stronger scrum, Wales tend to the faster, pick-up and snipe scrum halves and No. 8's. I think, but I'm not quite sure this will have changed the nature of the scrum a little, clean scrum ball to pick up and run with will be more important, but having the mobility to exploit it will be too. I know Corry and Dalaglio have gone, but I think this might have been their death knell anyway. There are, probably, more scrums. Free kicks given (that used to be penalties) in areas where they're not a good bet for a drop goal (didn't see this option taken at all in fact) were converted into scrums - at a rough count, about 8 of them in this match. They didn't get exploited for tries in this match, but you can see they will be.

All tackles making an offside line caused one of the few penalties. I think it makes the tackle laws clearer, but we need a bit more time to see how it goes.

I'm not sure I'll be watching the games starting at 6:30am tomorrow live, but I will be recording them.

First impressions? Well, scrums are more common, and a stable scrum is probably more important. Line-outs and penalties are less common. Does this make them more critical to get right, or will it de-emphasise them? Time will tell, but my feeling is that a 90% goal-kicker will become less important (scoring tries will be the main way to score, so a fly-half who can make the scores will become more important. If he can also kick well, bonus). I think line-outs will become harder to get right (hookers will be more tired because of more scrums and more running around without a breather) but more critical to get right because they will remain a way to get the ball, and on occasion steal the ball. Possession will become more critical.

The only ELV I think will be routinely significant that we didn't see was defending sides at rucks and mauls getting the ball at the scrum. When we see a MacCaw, a Smith, a Waugh, a Burger doing their thing and slowing the recycling down enough, just how critical will that be?

The other laws, if you're not aware, hitting the corner flag isn't out. Touch judges are now assistant referees (face it at international level they're all international referees anyway) and can advise the main referee about anything they see. To be honest, I don't see that being much of a change. They have done this, tacitly, for a while, but now it's official.

Dismal England once again

England managed to stumble to victory in Rome. One flash of brilliance from Johnny Wilkinson, a better kick that wasn't charged down, any of 3 line outs working right for Italy, or Jamie Noon missing an ankle tap and the story would have been very different.

Yes, it was that close and that nervous. In the first half England looked professional. Italy looked much better than in years gone by, but they're still lacking flair in their backs even more than England. In the second half Italy didn't look much better - they really only mounted one good attack, but then so did England - but England suddenly looked inept. They kept giving the ball back to the Italians as the Italians suddenly competed at ruck and maul and England didn't know what to do with the competition.

Having said it was nervous, it was also curiously lifeless. Brian Moore at one point in the commentary said how bored he was. I don't often agree with him, he's the most one-eyed patriot I've ever heard commentate, but he summed it up nicely this time. Italy had the ball, but never gave the conviction they could really use it excitingly. England kept giving the ball back to them, or more often the Italians took it from them.

Nick Mallet must give great half-time talks. Brian Ashton rather less so. I don't know what Mallet's contract is like, but he's struggling with lack of players, depth and talent, Parisse aside. Masi is a centre pressed into playing at fly-half. Sadly, he still looks like a centre, and from there the backs stutter and misfire. (In fairness, he plays like a good centre, but that's not so great in a 10 shirt.) But, if was making a choice about the two coaches - one can stay and one can go, Brian Ashton would be out. Mallet it making his poor resources work, and they've scared Ireland and England in successive weeks. They'll struggle more if France turn up and play, and they'll struggle if Wales keep their form going, but they'll probably beat Scotland unless Scotland suddenly turn the corner. England, on the other hand, are the largest rugby union in the world, the most players, and certainly right up for the rest of the structures and support (I prefer Super-14 as a training ground to Heineken Cup say, but it's not a clear cut choice). Given all of that, they look incredibly lacklustre. France should rip them apart, Ireland too. Italy were genuinely unlucky that they lost to England today. Did anyone ever think those words would be written about a rugby match I wonder?

Ninth Feb Internationals

Today we saw Wales beat Scotland and France beat Ireland. Both home sides winning.

Wales v France is looking more and more like the show-down of the championship, despite the claims of Ireland and England before they started. England's performance tomorrow, unless they do a 100 point margin on Italy and look good doing it, won't really be an indicator, and I'd be surprised if the margin is more than 20 points and Italy looking good for parts of the game.

Wales were exciting, but ill-disciplined. Scotland finished within 15 points, all of them from penalties, most of them from penalties that a more disciplined side (SA, NZ, England even) wouldn't have conceded. It might sound harsh, but basically Wales scored 30 points for them and 15 for Scotland, (well 12 maybe) and Scotland really did look that bad, even as the game looked close for 60 minutes. You have to wonder what's going on in Scottish rugby, and will Wales tighten up on the bits they need to, whilst keeping that flair that is letting them make the game fun to watch? My money will be on yes, Gatland and Edwards will do that, because the team believe, the public believe, and whilst they might mess it up against France they will go down trying. Scotland have to hope they manage to do better than last year against Italy, or England really implode drastically, to avoid the wooden spoon.

France and Ireland was the classic "game of two halves" France had the game wrapped up by the end of 40 minutes. Ireland nearly stole it in the next 40. If France manage to play like the first half for 80 minutes they'll beat almost anyone (probably even Argentina). If they play like the second half, England will grind them down (whoever is kicking the penalties by then) and Wales will rip holes through them. Ireland, however, have come away with a bit more pride I'd say. They looked like they finally remembered how to play. About bloody time, because when they get it right, they are good to watch. The question, however, remains, will they be able to carry it onto the pitch next time, or do they need the release of "the game being out of reach" before they relax and remember how to play?

Un Comedie Des Erreurs

A French title because I'm sure it's only the French that are laughing after this match. It would be unfair to say that only Scotland made mistakes, France made just about as many, and certainly blew several try scoring chances with silly mistakes.

The difference was, the French made the mistakes in the Scottish half, in the midst of flowing attacks in the main. Scotland made their mistakes in their own half, usually near their try-line and got punished by it. I could, I almost did, run with title "la fortune favorise le braver" instead (fortune favours the brave) because that would also have been a fair summary. France tried, and sometimes succeeded, sometimes failed. That is acceptable in Rugby - the commentators talk about the need to take your chances because every team will not convert 100% - rarely even in a game, certainly not over the course of 5 games in the Six Nations, and even more so in longer contests. France, if they'd converted their chances more ruthlessly could have been close to 50 points. Scotland really only looked like making one chance in the whole match. France swarmed to the threat and forced another mistake (a knock-on over the line). But, Scotland didn't look like making those chances, didn't look like a side that had courage and belief. It's hard to win any match with that attitude I'm sure, but again France?

In my previous post I asked if this was Wales' year. I asked that because I wondered, as everyone did I think, how France would cope with the mix of new faces - and new faces in some key positions. Well, they've answered that question now I guess. There's room for improvement still, but this was recognisably France as a fluid, creative, risk-taking side, the France of years gone by. I'm sure that they will improve and settle down as a unit, and that is, frankly, scary. It could come down to the show-down between France and Wales still, it's not impossible, and I'm sure that's a phrase that no one thought, including me, they would be writing about this year's Six Nations.

The dragon roars

Wales upset the apple-cart of international rugby yesterday. Having crashed in an exciting, in my opinion the most exciting (and painful), RWC pool match and left the tournament early, they were playing the losing finalists at the former Fortress Twickenham. It's 20 years since Wales have won at Twickers - their grand slam years they have England in Wales. That's how big the mountain is.

Until yesterday. For 60 minutes it looked like the old story, with a twist. Traditionally Wales have been creative, imaginative and highly skilled, but playing the riskier rugby. This has foundered against the stolid, well-executed but much more limited and structured game plan. English rugby started the "10-man game" remember, and they still play it mostly, but with some cross-kicks to big wingers added. (Dave Strettle is an exception to this rule, he is a creative player.) The twist this time: Wales' skills in the contact area abandoned them and they were turning the ball over in the tackle far too regularly. Their defensive structures were all over the place (new defensive coach, new system and not enough time for it to be natural yet), but the swarm of men to the barricades in times of emergency was still there and kept the score down, as did, in my opinion, England's rather limited scoring ambition.

Then, suddenly, for the last 20 minutes, England forgot their basic skills. Passes went awry. The dancing Welsh feet, which had caused problems but relieved the pressure with poor passes or poor catching skills, continued to dance, but the balls went to hand and stuck, and the feet danced twice over the try-line. The poor passing, and the blocked kick exposed a difference between the sides too. When the Welsh do this, everyone floods back instantly and tries (not always successfully) to stop the try. When the English did it, it looked more like they looked at each other and said "WTF did you do that for?" for a heartbeat or two. At international level giving the opposition 2 whole seconds before you react gives them a lovely chance to score. Wales proved that yesterday - 2 big English mistakes, 2 tries.


It will be interesting to see how Wales go in this championship. My hopes were high, of course, but my expectations low. New coaches and totally new systems take a while to settle in, even for international quality players, add in playing England in England, not usually a good thing, and a championship where we didn't do well, but saw signs of (hopefully massive) improvement by the end of the 7 weeks seemed like a reasonable expectation. Now? Well, it's only one game. There are still flaws and a need for improvement. But have Gatland and Edwards instilled that winning habit already? Could we have a good championship in terms of being top 2 or even winning it overall? Maybe, just maybe.