More on Ashton and Johnson

So, depending on what papers you read and when, all hell is breaking loose, or it's all a public misunderstanding of a well-handled process.

Before I delve into that, I guess I should say I believe Ashton would have accepted a team manager as a subsidiary role to him as head coach, and that Johnson would only take the team manager role if he was the boss of the coach. It certainly would make for a rather tense situation if you wanted to have them both, and one or the other was destined for disappointment. Given that, it is possible that Ashton saw, or was told, which way the wind was blowing as so stepped aside. Johnson's statement that he feels for Ashton and the difficult position he was in was a nice touch - whether it came from a personal touch, or was a sign of managerial professionalism.

However, to misquote Buffy, I "have but-face. You know, the face that means you're going to say 'But...'" And I do.

But, if Brian Ashton agreed to step aside to let Johnson in, why wasn't it announced that way? Unless all the media conspired to cut the footage that way, the presentation was

Ashton is fired and offered a consolation position (almost as an afterthought), Jonno is our new saviour.

It has left a rather bitter taste in everyone's mouth, except probably Jonno and perhaps Ashton, Andrew and the board of the RFU. How hard is it to make an announcement that says something more like:

After deliberation the RFU determined that they wanted a team manager responsible to X with the coach reporting to him. Brian Ashton was not willing to remain as coach in this structure and has agreed to step down. He is currently considering a role as director of the England Academy. In the position of team manager we have...

I'm sure the PR people could spin it into a somewhat more sexy statement, but even if they didn't, it's a good punchy story. It's talking about a change at the top, which always has impact. It's making it clear that, whether or not Ashton is really happy, he at least got involved in the process and made a choice rather than being pushed. It might have been the choice between going gracefully and being pushed, but he made the choice. It makes the RFU and their appointed officials look like they have made a hard decision, but they have remained principled to some extent and have taken into consideration their earlier offer to Ashton to stay for a year. They might even have managed to get both sides to agree that, since Johnson can't take over until the summer, Ashton would stay in charge for the summer tour - as it is, we'll probably have a care-taker for the summer tour, then a change at the top and another new coach before the autumn internationals. This may, in 3 years time, not matter, but it's not going to look good to the players between now and say, next year's Six Nations. It's not going to look good to the press and the public either, unless Johnson manages to find a wonder coach and appoint him, and England turn it around as spectacularly as Wales did under Gatland and Edwards. But, how many such coaches are there in the world?

It makes you proud to be Welsh

Well, maybe not proud, but certainly relieved in the current circumstances.

I'm talking about the total balls-up that the RFU made of the situation with Ashton and Johnson of course. Now, it has to be said that the WRU hasn't always covered itself in glory: the departure of Mike Ruddock being the most recent example, and it's not only the Welsh that do it - questions about Eddie O'Sullivan and his contract renewal before the RWC made folks wonder what was going on.

But, renewing a contract until the end of the year, then sacking someone in April is not good. Indeed, according to the press Ashton might have a case for constructive dismissal, unfair dismissal, breach of contract and (just for fun) age discrimination. Leaks suggest that Rob Andrew was opposed to the appointment of Martin Johnson. Not necessarily on the basis of not wanting Johnson, more on the basis of doing the right thing: he had recommended Ashton remain, and was told to go and get Johnson instead. And, as commented on The Rugby Club last night, the forwards and backs coaches seem to have remained, giving some continuity of skills coaching that must be making the rest of the world rub their hands with glee - how do you feel the skill levels for England were during the Six Nations? Even during the RWC. Yes, they went a long way thanks to some luck and some moments of good play, and the fact that Australia had no scrum. That sort of papered over the cracks of almost not exiting the pool stages though.

There was also an interesting comparison of success rate. By some fluke, Ashton and Robinson were both in charge for 22 games. Ashton won 12, Robinson 9. Sir Clive, that supposed paragon of English rugby, ended up with a far more impressive record, but in his first 22 games he won 10 games and drew 2. That makes him a worse coach than Ashton you'd have thought? But, we won't know now, will we.

You have to say, the RFU really fucked this up in a way that the WRU never managed. It shocked the Welsh public to see Ruddock go, but go he did, and then there was the appointment of a new coach. The politics of the dismissal might never come entirely to light, but the rest of the process was handled well given the starting point. They did rather cover themselves with glory with the appointment of Gatland and Edwards - and they went and did things the right way to stand by them both to make it work. Ruddock was probably not happy, but went with, we assume, enough of a handshake to make him accept the process with outward grace.

Appointing Johnson should have been a publicity coup. It is looking more and more like a publicity coup d'état.

That's before we get down to the nitty-gritty of his skills for the job. Johnson's training, coaching and managerial experience? Nil. That's not to say he can't do it, but he is an unproven, untested even, quantity. Former RWC winning captains have either not entered coaching, or have entered and left as they've proved less than stellar.

Of course some proportion of players do convert to be good and even great coaches, but how many of them manage it immediately as head coaches in high profile jobs? Dean Richards managed it at Leicester, but when he went to France he flopped somewhat. He's managed to prove it wasn't just a fluke by his coaching at 'Quins, but from the outside you have to wonder how much he learnt about his trade in the dark days in France. Will the RFU put up with Johnson having that dark time?

Rob Howley, to choose another great of recent times, has taken the more usual route: he's skills coach in club rugby (at Cardiff), learning how to be a coach before, sometime or another, probably moving on to a head coach role.

Gatland has gone through the whole process - coaching club, provincial and now national sides having time and space to hone his skills. Shaun Edwards, who could well be the next person in Johnson's role, isn't even a Rugby Union player. He came as a skills coach for defence, and has learnt the trade under Gatland, then McGeechan, now Gatland again at a higher level.

The NZRU, who ironically have rather covered themselves in glory this week with the handling of the report about the RWC exit, have some different rules - all the "must be in NZ to play/coach for NZ" stuff isn't there for England, but their criteria for being head coach of New Zealand are simple. I don't remember the year count (I think it's three), but a minimum number of years coaching a super-14 franchise. To get there, a minimum number of years coaching a NPC club, and so on. I think the NZRU missed a trick not appointing Robbie Deans, especially now he's going to Australia, but, I have to admit, the choice between Deans and Henry seems like a nightmare even from the outside. A Kiwi equivalent to Johnson would never have been considered. This might prove to be an oversight on the part of the NZRU, but most people would say that, to be the national team manager or whatever the official job title is, you'd normally appoint someone with a track record of doing it at a lower level - as the NZRU rules require!

Of course things might work out. But, lets imagine they don't. I'd normally say the odds favour the latter. Will the RFU admit it might be the cause of the problems? As far as we see Ireland, Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, France, South Africa and Australia have a reasonably harmonious relationship between their clubs and country. Argentina doesn't, but is getting there. I'm not sure who I've missed from the top 10 of rugby nations, (Fiji? Samoa?) but I don't know enough about their structures to comment. England certainly don't have anything like a harmonious relationship - 6 months ago the Premiership owners and the RFU were slugging it out in court! Relationships on a more personal level between Jake White and the SARU weren't great, nor between Ashton and the RFU. Perhaps that helped them get to the RWC final, but White at least had the support of his players, and not to worry about the club v country pull. Ashton had the lot to contend with.

Will things get better for Johnson? Well you have to ask how?

• Things between Johnson and Andrew, who seems to be his boss, aren't starting well, although they may work it out: I can imagine Johnson accepting that Andrew wanted to keep Ashton as he'd recommended rather than having anything against Johnson personally.
• Things between the RFU and the clubs are always tense. There's a lovely quote from Jim Mallinder's boss: "I'd rather sell The Big Issue than work with the RFU." Rumour suggests Johnson wants Mallinder as the England back's coach.
• Things between Andrew and the RFU look likely to be rather uncomfortable. They've just thrown his review out and forced him to instigate this mess.
• It's hard to imagine that things between Johnson and the RFU will be entirely smooth.

Can it all work out? Sure. Look at the 1993 general election. If you'd asked anyone before the election will John Major win, they'd have said no. If you'd asked (as someone did on Question Time last night, about Gordon Brown) "Can he win?" you would have to say yes. Is it that much of a mountain to climb? I'm afraid for Johnson I rather think it is, but, being Welsh, I'm looking forward to a few more years of stuffing the Sais on the rugby pitch.

Funny old game

So, last week the Ospreys (who are basically Wales' Six Nations winning squad, but with a few Kiwis in places where the non-Ospreys were in the Wales squad) got dumped, unceremoniously out of the Heineken Cup by Saracens. Sarries aren't a bad side, but they're far from great.

This week they equally unceremoniously dumped Leicester out of the Angl0-Welsh cup final. Leicester may not be the all-monstering team of yore, but they're still appreciably higher in the league than Sarries, and they didn't field a no-name team.

What makes a team fire one week and fail the next? If there was an answer of course, I'd be the greatest coach ever!

Just to add to the mix, in the Super-14s the top team played the bottom team. At half time the score was 6-3, and not to the table toppers. Of course, by the end of the game the cream had risen to the top and the score was something like 32-6, with 4 tries including a couple that will probably get into "try of the year" contention. The Crusaders have some excuses for a poor start - there were 8 changes from their previous match's team, and their captain was taken off after 10 minutes with what it later turns out is a broken hand. Both of those will disrupt a team somewhat. Perhaps the more disturbing thing for world rugby is that, with that many changes, an absent Dan Carter, Ritchie MacCaw and others (through injury in the case of Carter) well, they took a little while to bed down, and then they played like the red-and-black machine that they can be.

But it just goes to show - sometimes you have to play the game, because the results that all the pundits predict get thrown out the window by actual results and how the players do.