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.
No comments:
Post a Comment