My team of the tournament

Let me start by saying this is going to be, by and large the Welsh 15 that played most of the matches. Individuals may have had better games on one occasion, Cipriani was probably better than Hook on Saturday for example, but overall the Welsh team outplayed everyone. Anyone who doesn't like that - tough: It's my list and the fact they won a grand slam has to indicate that, week by week, they outplayed their opposition.

The other thing is they've got to have had an impact on the tournament. Cipriani is out, only had an impact in one game of the five that he could (perhaps should) have played in.

So let's start:

Back three: All dragons thank you. Top try scorer of the tournament was easy. That's Shane Williams. Other contenders? Well, England, Scotland, Italy didn't use their wingers much. Their full-backs didn't shine either. Ireland changed full backs, which might have hampered Murphy, but Byrne just looked more solid in defence and equally slashing in attack. Unusually Ireland didn't shift the ball to the wingers that much, and whilst they both had their moments, it wasn't consistent enough to depose the Welsh. France also suffered a bit from player rotation, but they put out their best players against Wales in that match, and Wales outshone them.

Centres: Still all Wales. Lowest number of tries conceded, most tries scored, tournament leading scorer. Centre, despite Henson, BOD, etc. isn't always a glamour position, but they made their wingers and full back look good on attack and were rocks on defence. They play well together as well.

Half backs: Here, there's a quandry. Wales & Ireland are in the mix. Ben Blair is in the mix for scrum half too. France are out - too much change (although Yachvilli and Elisade, and Tranh(?) all had good games, they didn't have the run). England - not convinced, Wilkinson was poor, the scrum half looked OK but didn't shine to me. If O'Gara had played well against England, he'd have got it. But, he didn't, so he's out. Phillips was a clear winner at scrum-half, despite his moment of stupidity. Hook played enough and well enough to get the nod.

Loose forwards: Two Welsh players (7 and 8) and, perhaps surprisingly an Italian. I'd play Parese at 8 and move the Welsh captain over to 6. I might be being unfair here, blind-side is always a hard position to get noticed from, and the Welsh unit played very well in all their games. But, Parese was immense in all his games and certainly deserves to be included, and this was the compromise I came up with.

Locks - we'll come back to.

Front Row: Jenkins and Jones at prop. The Welsh scrum didn't really buckle at all, and whilst that's the whole tight 5, it starts with the props. Their ability to tackle and carry the ball productively and pass from contact tips the vote for me - Sheridan & the Italians were the other contenders. Ireland looked weak against Wales and England, France looked worse against those two!

Hooker, and Locks: This is an issue for me, and for Wales. The Welsh lineout wasn't wonderful (although not always terrible) and whilst the scrums were good, lineout is the other core duty for these three players. After much deliberation I'm going Red, Red, Azure - the Welsh hooker just edges it. Bortolami and Wyn Jones. England might have got in with Mears if he'd played more. France with Szarsevsky (sp?) too. The English second row ruled themselves out with Scotland and giving away stupid penalties. Ireland creaked at line out, and the bad scrummaging in two games counts against them too. Italy's hooker looked solid, rather than shining enough to make the list I'm afraid. Thion was a close run thing, but that scrum running back at the Millennium stadium - well if it had been in match 1 I might have forgotten it.

So, there we have it. I'm quite surprised - not that it's full of Welsh players, that was always going to happen after a grand slam. The surprise to me is that the two who aren't Welsh are Italian. To some extent that reflects England and Ireland in some disarray, France chopping and changing and Scotland being terrible throughout the tournament save that one moment of glory. I would hope it also reflects an improvement in Italian rugby. They've proven they're not always the whipping boys in the Six Nations - but hopefully it won't be long before they're not fighting to avoid the wooden spoon, and not long after that they will be genuine contenders to win one year.

Cymru am byth (and the Crusaders too)

Italy managed to squeak past Scotland. My only surprise? Scotland scored a couple of tries. England seemed to remember their forwards could play, Cipriani looked good with go-forward ball, Ashton is probably safe for a little while longer. The trouble being, changing Wilkinson to Cipriani didn't make the forwards play better and smarter. Why did they play this week and not last week? Without an answer to that, how safe is he? O'Sullivan might get the boot now... should have after the RWC.

And Wales... were glorious. The first half was quite tense, but Wales were really the only team that tried: the kudos has to go to France for stopping them scoring, but Wales made all the chances. In the second half it was probably the right two people to score, (Shane and Martyn Williams) and put the game, and the Six Nations, Grand Slam and all out of reach.

Even Brian Moore, English through and through, didn't sound like he begrudged Wales their Grand Slam, and to be honest, they played, consistently, the best rugby of the tournament, even if some (including me) would suggest their first victory of the campaign included a big slice of England self-destructing to help them along.

The Crusaders? This is really about ELVs again and how they are working. Imagine the scenario: you've yet to win in the competition, you're visiting the 6 times champions, and one of the two undefeated sides in the contest. Last week, against a strong side and on the road they ran in 5 tries. You might be forgiven for going out to play "negative rugby" and restrict the scoring however you can. This would, if you believe Stuart Barnes, include repeatedly giving away free kicks rather than penalties in the red zone. What actually happened? Well, the Crusaders scored some long range tries where that just wasn't an option. But they played quite a bit down in the Cheetah's half too, and it certainly was. Did it happen? No, basically. I'm not saying there weren't free kicks conceded, but it wasn't an endless stream of them at any point. In fact the most negative thing was much later on with a big off-the-ball tug on Dan Carter. By that point the Crusaders had scored 8 tries... it looked far more like frustration than really negative play. Roll the ELVs out up North! Except, of course, the close-minded, negative English will winge and moan and work out ways to use them to just kill the game. How dull for us all.

Why was (only) Johnny dropped?

Brian Ashton shocked the rugby watching (and playing I suspect) world by dropping Johnny Wilkinson.
Not that Johnny didn't deserve to be dropped - he's been playing poorly and don't deserve his place to be honest. It's more that this was the only change to an inept, clueless squad.

Wilkinson has to bear much of the blame for the dire performances from the England back line - that's part of his job as a Number 10 for example. But how is he personally responsible for forwards diving over the ball in rucks to give away penalties to Scotland? He didn't push them. He shouldn't really take any part in saying "Get in there lads!" (the scrum-half might take some blame, but again he probably didn't say "Cheat in front of the referee after he's warned you not to"), so why didn't the ones that played as if they were only playing with 1/3 of a brain get dropped too?

If Cipriani pulls the rabbit out of the hat (aided, perhaps, by the absence of O'Driscoll) he will be hailed as the saviour. If he fails, will he be lambasted as a failure? Possibly, the English press is that bad sometimes. He might have a shocker and deserve it of course, but lets assume he plays reasonably well with what he's given and Ireland still win. Ashton will go, surely his position will be indefensible? Jake White is about the only coach of any stature in world rugby who doesn't have an international role: I don't think the RFU will tempt Gatland away, and I don't think Shaun Edwards, for all his talents, is yet in a position to be national coach. But, you have to ask what is going on in the England set-up.

Ashton came in after the "old hands" had blown it for England and two coaches on the trot. He experimented a little, then selected a mixed bag, but mostly old hands for the RWC campaign. Those players more or less performed well. Come the Six Nations, they performed terribly. But, Ashton, as Robinson and Woodward before him, have selected the old hands who are playing poorly despite claiming they would pick on form, would bring a new broom and the like. Now, Sir Clive I wouldn't trust to tell me the time. He's worse than a politician, but, three coaches on the trot say one thing and do another. Why? Are they being allowed to do their job, or is someone telling them who they can pick?

Anyway, a little comment after insulting the English forwards for not thinking. There was a highlights clip of last weekend's Super-14s on earlier today. That Crusaders v Force game was on, and there was a fascinating shot. The ball got moved by the Force, and they scored a try. A Crusader was miles offside, but looked at the play, hung back a little so as not to interfere and so the move developed. It was a really smart bit of play by him (yellow card territory, even if not penalty try to have interfered from there), but it was also obvious that the Force players quite rightly trusted him not to get in the way, when he equally obviously could have done. The referee quite rightly saw him offside and not interfering, and didn't blow the whistle. What other sport would give you that?

A tale of two matches

This morning (my time) saw the Crusaders and the Western Force meet in Perth (in their evening). The match was an object lesson in what the ELVs are trying to achieve. It was fast, it was exciting. Attacking flair was rewarded. Good defense was rewarded too. Mistakes weren't always punished, but it was usually close. People played positively in the main, there was certainly no tendency to dive over the ball and mess about and kill it. Until the very last pass went into touch either side could have won, and although I'm biased I think most neutrals would say that the 'Saders deserved to win. Oh, and there were nine tries to keep everyone happy, some from driving forward play, some from the backs. There are few rugby matches I'll watch twice, but this one is one of them. I watched it live, had a nap and got up. It was on again... and I watched it again, quite happily.

That was more of a contrast to yesterday's boredom in Murrayfield.

France v Italy was interesting. Italy have vastly improved over this tournament - particularly at number 10. You wouldn't say he was world-class yet, but he no longer looks like a rabbit in the headlights. But, their number 13 needs catching practice. Two fluffed tries in two games will not look good on the c.v. (though he did do some other good stuff). France? It's hard to know what to say about France. They mixed and matched again. This mix of youth and experience worked, albeit against far less streetwise opposition that last time. The older heads made it look far easier than the younger heads had - no real surprises there, since they came on late in the game when the gaps were starting to appear and experience helps exploit gaps on the rugby field (unless you're English or Scottish). But, the young heads didn't look lost and hopeless, nor hapless. Who knows what next week's French side will look like. Wales, however, could well do the grand slam, they have self-belief and players playing well in all the positions. If Gatland can keep this up, the Wales summer tour will be the one to watch.


Lievremont will be happier than Mallet. Both will be happier than Ashton.

Next week? Ireland without O'Driscoll - dare we say they might improve again? England to curl up and die. Wales to do the Grand Slam. Too much self-belief and enough flair to cope with the French. Italy might just beat the Scots. It will be in Rome after all, and Italy keep on getting better. On a better pitch under better conditions, Italy at least look able to (and did) score tries, Scotland still can't.

Scotland, ha, ha, yawn

I didn't get to watch all of Scotland v England. I did record it, but having caught the game over my shoulder whilst presenting at a conference in Second Life, I don't intend to catch it all.

Scotland seem to have given up on even trying to score tries. This is a sad, but accurate, reflection on their level of ability at the moment, and further proof that there are many ways in which you can play and even win at rugby. England seemed to get sucked in to playing the kind of game that Scotland wanted. If you plan to win games by kicking penalties, that's actually easier to do when you have the ball and can be somewhere in the opponent's half. Whilst there are an equal number of ways for attackers to be penalised, it certainly seems far more common for defenders to handle in the ruck, enter from the side and so on - that would be because the attacking side are usually going forward so entering from the back is a shorter journey than going round to enter from the side, and the ball will usually be placed so it is accessible without a sneaky hand.

So, why did England kick the ball away so much? Given the wind and the rain, it's an understandable tactic a few times, to try out the back three, but when the ball is well handled time after time after time surely you change something? Since you can't change the fact that Southwell is having a great game in lousy conditions, and you can't change the weather, you change the fact that you kick the ball to him. It's not rocket science.

My post last week now looks prophetic. Scotland not only could beat England (leaving them out of the running for the championship as well, despite the stupidly enthusiastic pundits of a fortnight ago) they did. So, kudos to Scotland.

For my next prophecy... Ashton will go. I think it's a shame, he strikes me as a nice man surrounded by a team that doesn't really believe in him. Rugby needs more nice men at the top, although both sides of the Tasman will have one come the Tri-Nations (this is all based on what I see of them on TV etc. never having met any of them btw). But, Gatland (who doesn't come across as all that nice: passionate, dedicated, very skillful, but not nice) must surely be the model to look at? The nice, or not, is more or less irrelevant: a good coach nudges, suggests, cajoles, brow-beats, whatever, his team into being a team and playing together, and playing to execute (in broad terms at least) the plan he puts out for their defeat of the opposition.

Some of that is about looking at your best tools and using them. Some of it is about teaching them your way of doing it. All of it is about empowering the players to go and execute the plan with their full understanding. Whether the players don't trust Ashton, or he doesn't communicate to them well... doesn't really matter. England have done the opposite of Wales. Their self-belief, belief in the coach and their cohesiveness as a team have gone poof. Ashton must either find a new crop of players who believe in him, or he will have to go.

A Triple Crown for Wales

Well, part one of my prediction for the weekend has come to pass. Wales beat Ireland, and it was quite close.

Actually, although the scoreline was close, after the first 20 minutes when it looked like it was all Ireland I was never really in doubt of the result. If Stephen Jones had made all his kicks, which to be honest he should have done, there would have been a 10 point margin of victory. Wales also blew a couple of decent scoring opportunities, although sometimes you have to wonder if that's really blowing a chance or a good, or lucky, Irish defense.

Apart from being elated, of course, there were two interesting things that came out of the match.

Rugby is often described as a game in which the team that best takes their chances wins. Ireland kicked 4 of 4 penalty attempts (and passed on a couple), and blew one try (that one was definitely excellent defense by Phillips). Wales missed 2 from 6 penalty attempts, and 2 or 3 try scoring opportunities. In any way I'd count it, you would think Ireland took their chances better, statistically speaking (scored on 4 of 5 attempts cf. scored on 5(or 6 with conversion) of 10(or 11). The old truism forgets the important fact that, whilst you can win on fewer attempts if you score them all, if you make twice as many opportunities and score enough of them, you can still win. I don't think any moderately fair Irish person would say Ireland deserved to win on the day.

The other thing that came out was just how much rugby is a team game. Wales looked dominant because at 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 they were better. The tight five also played well, but I would say that was pretty much honours even. Jones v O'Gara was a harder call - I think O'Gara played better at times, and Jones at other times. The Hook & Jones combination was certainly better than ROG though. Whilst ROG's kicking was often excellent, it very oddly lacked nous, acumen and intelligence far too often. Both Jones and Hook kicked more consistently. At their best they weren't at good as that magnificent first half kick to touch for example, or any of the other really good kicks. However, their worst wasn't much worse than their best, and was better than ROG's average because some of his kicks were appalling. Even though the Welsh 7 and 9 got sin-binned, they still out-played their opposite number, head and shoulders in both cases.

It is also ironic that two teams with bad line-outs throughout the championship met for this decider. Was there a line-out lost to the other side? They weren't all 100% solid of course, but they never are, even for the best sides. Was the fact that they were both not that great the decider here, or have they both worked on line-outs and managed to improve that much?

Mention must, sadly, go to Wayne Barnes again. I'm not sure whether or not the sin-binning of Phillips was the right call. It was certainly stupid by Phillips, and in other circumstances potentially very dangerous, but like there are high-tackles that deserve penalites and high-tackles that deserve sin-bins and even red cards, I don't see why the same isn't true of a knee to the back. Now, Barnes took his touch judge's recommendation there, but in the second half an Irish front row replacement drove into the entirely unprotected back of the Welsh No. 8. The guy Phillips kneed was holding onto the ball and preventing a quick penalty. It doesn't mean he was right to do it, but there were mitigating circumstances. The Irish hit didn't even have that. Why, oh why wasn't that hit also a yellow card pray? It was certainly dangerous, possibly more so, and had no mitigating circumstances at all. Where was the consistency Mr. Referee?

Still, it's all done and dusted (unless the citing commissioner gets involved). Wales are the triple crown winners 2008. Cymru am byth!