Under fire? Revert to boring type

With the exception of anonymous Deacon for hard-bitten Shaw, a step that would seem to make sense in the short term whilst making no sense in terms of building for the next world cup - less than 2 years away now but would you except a 38 year old lock to be playing at that level? - Johnson's choices make a coherent if dull sense.

Geraghty, the only back that even tried to be creative, gets chopped for the much bigger and more stolid Erinle. Geraghty was pretty anonymous because he hardly got the ball, ever. On one of the few occasions he did he created the try that was the difference between Argentina and England last week. Erinle is there to try and stuff up the mid-field against Nonu.

Croft, a good lineout jumper but otherwise fairly quiet has been replaced by Worsley. Worsley is another player like Shaw who probably won't be going to the next world cup but is a quality player, no doubt there. How will Moody, Worsley and Haskell stack up against McCaw, Thompson and Read? Probably, in fairness, better than Moody, Croft and Haskell at the breakdown but certainly worse around the park.

And where is the consistency of selection pressure? Banahan has singularly failed to impress. He scored a try, yes. He scored a try that was made thanks to a string of good offloads from forwards moving dynamically inside for the first time in the match, then Geraghty sucking in the defender in the 12 channel and passing to Moody in the space between 13 and 14 rather than the line of 13, so the winger had to make a choice about who to take... Moody or Banahan and he took the choice of the immediate threat - Moody, making space for a try that any competent winger, even lower than Premiership level, should have been there to take.

Johnson has chosen to pick a side full of big lumps and old dogs. Big, defensive old dogs. He's accepted, although he won't ever admit it, that he can't win this match. He's chosen a side that is there to try and limit the damage. And if the All Blacks side clicks as history has shown just all of it can and will on the big occasions it won't be enough. Australia, a side that struggled this June/July/August ripped England apart almost at will. New Zealand, a side that beat them FOUR times this year won't have to think about defending against this stolid, unimaginative, defensive side, and whilst it might take a little while to break the patterns, they will break the patterns and run riot.

Expect egg all over papier-maché Twickers.

In the mean time... Discussing the other sides seems fairly pointless. Wales - Wales know what they have to do. They have to run better supporting lines on attack and finish off the chances they make. They might struggle against Argentina this weekend because they're down a world-class prop on one side with Adam Jones out of it and Argentina have a monster pack. If they can get enough ball their backs should hack through Argentina's and should have the time to run the support lines and finish the opportunities.

Ireland are looking both good and stable. I think they might struggle with the age of their players for the next world cup. BOD, ROG, POC, etc. in fact the whole "O" generation are getting old. They may or may not make it all the way. (My money is on BOD making it, the other two not.) This year, though, the money is on Ireland staying good this year. Scotland well... who knows. They still look limited to me. France... who knows. Who ever knows? If they play like they were reported to have played last week, Six Nations championship is theirs. But who ever can tell from week to week with Les Bleus?

This weekend:

England to get hammered. New Zealand to click. 50+ points. At least one coach to get fired. Wishful thinking? Maybe.
Wales to beat Argentina fairly comfortably. 15 points or so.
Australia to rip Scotland apart.
South Africa to FINALLY click on tour and stuff the Azuri.

England, ha, ha, ha

Well I've just wasted 80 minutes of my life watching a really dismal England performance. I also watched an error-prone Wales performance on Friday. Here's hoping Ireland v Australia is a bit better.

But let's think about it a bit more deeply. Wales changed 5, and ran out a new number 10. It showed at moments, but you have to try these players some time. Welsh errors apart from that were players knocking on, not passing properly etc. in strong attacking positions - the errors were basically all errors of finishing, taking your chances. If Wales can fix that, they will rival everyone.

England went out with a relatively novice pack against Argentina and the scrum and lineout was dominated through the game by Argentina. The breakdown was a bit more even, but shaded by Argentina. I'm sure if I was Martin Johnson or the England forward's coach I'd be disappointed and make them work harder because there was stuff to work on, but I wouldn't be that disappointed because the Argentinian pack was tough.

Argentina's backs, on the other hand, contained 4 amateur players making their international debuts. England, at least out to 14, probably had their first choice backs out there. There are a few people around that could challenge for inclusion if healthy but there's not clear alternatives except Armitage at 15.

So why, pray, did the Argentinian back line make all but 2 of the fluid attacking moves? Why, when England attacked, could even I look at the lineup and say "Ah, he's going to run the ball that way" and, EVERY time be correct - the amateurs from Argentina did the same and scythed the ball carrier down with aplomb.

And the blame has to go upstairs. There was, clearly, a rigidly imposed structure. It said "You must kick for position and then kick for points." In fairness this worked for South Africa in the Tri-Nations. But Steyn kicks from hand better than Wilkinson, and kicks from the tee further than Wilkinson too. SA could, and did, punish any mistake from anywhere in your half, and from about the 10m line in their own too. Wilkinson was missing from the 10m line in Argentina's half; that's a significant extra chunk of territory in which mistakes get punished by points. Is this, therefore, a good strategy for England? Not sure, but looking at Rob Andrew, chief architect of 10-man England in early professional era, and Johnno, who was always quite happy playing in a 10-man structure for England and Leicester through his career are you really surprised that they play this way?

If you're going to do that, why do you pick a 6 who is more of a dynamic, attacking player than a 6 who is grinding, defensive brute (who you had on the bench)? Why do you pick not 1 but 2 scrum halves who are renowned for good delivery to 10, but more than anything for picking their moments and running through the spaces. Why do you pick a 12 who is a play maker to have something like that Kiwi first and second five-eighths if you are hardly ever going to let him touch the ball?

New Zealand must be licking their lips for next week's match. Gatland talked about New Zealand losing that aura of invincibility before last week's match. Fortress Twickenham? More like the Twickenham Alamo!

World two and three canter home

First Australia snuffed out England 18-9 at Twickenham, then New Zealand did the same to Wales 19-12 in Cardiff.

Australia were unlucky not to have a bigger margin of victory to be honest. This time next year they will have that bigger margin as the nerves and stutters that have plagued them this year, plus a couple of poor decisions each of which cost a try won't be made. Worth noting that both players that made them had generally good games too. The notable exception to that was George Smith. He still has the experience but his days are looking numbered unless he starts playing better.

Although the NZ-Wales scoreline was closer, and actually that intercept could easily have led to a try and a draw, the All Blacks just looked far more assured and comfortable. A brilliant bit of work for Shane Williams stopped one almost certain try, and the knock-on that denied a try in the first half looked like a penalty try to me - it was a knock-on because of an illegally lying there Welsh arm. That's speaking as a proud Welsh person too.

Martyn Williams, again, proved just what a class act he is. McCaw seemed to be more anonymous as the match went on. That wasn't really due to Williams, more due to the sudden upping of the tempo and the possession and the sweeping attacks that New Zealand launched throughout the second half. He was still there clearing rucks, moving the ball back, carrying the ball around, but there was no need for his skills at the tackle and subsequent breakdown because the All Blacks hardly had to tackle. But M. Williams slowed the ball down often enough that the All Blacks didn't romp away with it, and turned it over a few times too - notable that in the game's only try "M" couldn't get across the field fast enough to hit the rucks. Not his fault, the ball went half the width of the field each time, quick as rocket, and the rucks were barely formed before the ball was out and moving again.

Australia will face bigger challenges - both Wales and Ireland will be bigger challenges than England - but have gone some way to proving to themselves that the reason for a torrid Tri-Nations is that SA and NZ are just that much better at the moment, not that they're a bad side. A different order of play could have been a disaster for their confidence but this will help them grow into the tour.

Wales - well Wales have some positives as well as things to work on. Their back three, under the high ball, were found lacking. Particularly Halfpenny and Hook. The balance of their 10, 12, 13 might need some work. Jones, Hook, Roberts might work better than Jones, Roberts, Shanklin. Not that Shanklin isn't a good 13, but certainly 12 and 13 are then both big, smashing centres and Jones isn't a natural runner and jinker and the soft hands and side-step that Hook would bring them should be considered. The scrums, line outs and defence were all good throughout though, except for the high balls.

England - it's hard to know. Monye doesn't look comfortable as a full back, that was clear. Borthwick dominated at line out time, an area where Australia are frankly still in need of work, but they make up for it at scrum and tackle. The side was such a scratch side that it's hard to know if the dull, pedestrian attacking lines were typical, or just the result of not knowing each other well. It is clear that England's autumn scratch side are not likely to threaten the All Blacks in two weeks. Argentina, with a bit of luck, might well take them next week too.

Good game

The question of what makes rugby a good game keeps coming up. As, to be honest, it should. I'd still watch rugby under most rules but I'd like to watch a good game if I have the chance. The rules of the game need to support the idea of rugby as an entertaining spectacle - that helps get people watching, gets money into the game, helps the game spread itself internationally and for the future.

Rugby is a game with many skills - scrums, rucks, mauls, line outs, tackles, pick and go, running with the ball, passing the ball, kicking from hand, catching kicks and passes and kicking from the tee. Added to that you can see different philosophies of rugby. Do you shut up shop, play tight and defensively, or play more expansively and run the ball at the opposition. Whilst both those philosophies may (particularly the second) have times when you play in the other style (defensive, tight play often stays tight when it should expand and move the ball) because the circumstances demand it - although there are some incredibly memorable tries scored when someone behind their own try line decides to give it a go and run with the ball.

A good game should have skill and intent. Defensive battles tend to be less attractive to me but can make for close games. That's not to say there's not a great level of skill in a defensive battle, but the play is more limited and you don't see the whole range of skills being offered and that's important too.

One thing in there that needs to be made clear is that, for most of the elements it's a team game. Not every player may be in every move, but most players have a role to play most times. And that too is a critical element of rugby.

So, if I was tweaking the rules I'd start from a position of wanting to encourage attacking intent, and emphasise the team aspects of the game. That means discouraging kicking, both from hand and the tee, and encouraging attacking rucks - although it should also encourage turning the ball over in defence ideally.

How might you do that? Well one obvious way is to reduce the points for kicking at goal. Any kick, one point, penalty, drop goal or conversion. Does this reduce the risk if you cheat? Maybe - although it reduces it evenly since both sides will have the same points so it doesn't make it unfair. And actually, it doesn't make you less penalised - sides will change their mind about how they use their penalties. You'll be less likely to waste a minute and kick for goal when you could kick for the corner and go for the line-out and try.

That sort of tweaking we've had before - when I was young, tries were only 4 points, now they're 5. In the 30's (and the origin of the word try supposedly) the scoring was the number of goals scored (each 1 point) and a try let you try to kick a goal. Down to one point seems like a big step but I don't care to watch one guy spending a minute kicking at the goal several times in the 80 minutes... so get reduce how attractive it is.

The law around rucks needs to be cleared up. It's currently a mess and inconsistently applied. Let's get rid of "going off your feet" and "handling in the ruck" and have some slightly simpler rules. Not going in from the side is good. Not sealing the ball off is good. Not playing if you're on the ground is good. But the situation where a player bridges, gets pushed off his feet by his own player and gives a penalty away when both players are trying to do the right thing - that's stupid. I'm not sure how the wording for sealing the ball off should be written - but something like putting your head, torso or legs over the ball so the opposition cannot play it when it is within their reach should do nicely. As the ball moves back in the ruck you don't move, so you're not putting yourself in the way and the ball is moving out of reach... no worries.

Want to get rid of the ping-pong kicking? Several choices - turn marks into penalties would be one. Unless players start kicking goals from the 22, it won't give points up directly but it will punish sides that kick too deeply more significantly and reduce the use of the tactic. Alternatively (or additionally) let players mark the ball out to the 10 metre line or even anywhere in their half. If you're going to change the marks to penalties you might want to have two types of mark... one within the 22 as a penalty and one further out as a free kick. It's not hard to do - we already have lots of laws about different things at different lines after all. There are attacking kicks - the "pass kick" to the winger who runs in and the grubber kick through the line. The former can't be marked unless the attacking side screws up the technique... in which case tough! The latter can't be marked because it's bounced first.

Will these changes change the sport? Of course they will, every change will. There are, almost certainly, unexpected consequences to the changes. Teams will work out ways to use the new rules to their advantage and I can't work out what those changes will be without seeing the game being played. But what they might do is tidy up the breakdown a bit, without radically rewriting the rules; reduce the desire to play dull rugby and take the points from penalties and never attack; and get rid of the ping-pong kicking game. What's not to like?

Law changes

The IRB are a bunch of wimps. They experimented with the laws to make rugby more entertaining and decided they didn't like and so a side that plays really dull 10-man rugby comes to be the top team in the world.

I'm not protesting that South Africa deserve to be there, they're playing the same rules as everyone else and they're playing them exceptionally well at the moment so good luck to them.

But as a fan and watcher of the game, 10-man rugby is a nightmare. I'm not saying get rid of the lineout - there are times that, in both attack and defence - it's the right tactic. But the ELVs were apparently criticised for removing mauls and making the game too much a running sport - odd for a sport that is all about running with the ball - the current rules make it too much a kicking and jumping sport and remove other aspects of the game.

One thing that would help is to reduce the number of penalties. 10-man rugby suffers with fewer penalties because the sides become more in need of running the ball the score the points. There would be other impacts of course but that would be changed.

So the question becomes how do you do this?

I can think of a couple of ways.

One probably doesn't have much impact, but if a change of emphasis in the offside law would help. Offside "in front of the kicker" should be a scrum, not a penalty. Offside "not retiring when in 10m" can remain a penalty because that's a specific and different thing. I'm thinking of mistiming when the fly-half kicks across field and the winger has slightly mistimed the run for whatever reason (worth pointing out that it could be due to the scrum half passing not quite right, the fly half fumbling the catch a little as well as pure bad timing). It makes an aspect of the attacking game quite high risk, so reduce the risk so teams try it more often.

Another is a trickier one. The breakdown is a complete mess. There are those that suggest that the side that takes the ball in should have more of an advantage - but that just denies the work of the likes of McCaw, Smith, Brussow, Williams. But one thing that's bad is the fact that one second you're legal, the next, in particular thanks to a referee's call that you may or may not hear, you're giving away a penalty. The law should be changed to make that a scrum or perhaps a free kick - it's an accidental offense. It's pretty simple too, if the person you are penalising was performing a legal action that by dint of the actions of OTHERS becomes illegal in the moment, that is considered an accidental offense. If, for example, you're driven to your knees and release the ball that's no problem, if you're driven to your knees and over the ball, that's a scrum - you didn't dive, you were driven over. If you kneel and try to take the ball that remains a penalty because you're kneeling and you can't play the ball. If you're the tackler and the tackle becomes a ruck as you're picking the ball up, it's a scrum not a penalty - you didn't form the ruck and if you'd been a second earlier you'd be a hero (for your side anyway).

Some will doubtless winge this is a "cheats' charter" but it's not. It's a change to the laws so that those that attempt to play well and turn the ball over legally are not pinged to the point that they give up trying. It might, somewhat, increase the number of people that try to turn the ball over in the tackle and this will reward the sides that can protect their attacking ball as well as getting defenders to the breakdown. Why is that good? That generally means more forwards tied in and a bit more space for the backs to run the ball.

And rather than introducing 30 changes at once, it's a change to how two existing offenses that already rely largely on the interpretation of the officials are penalised. To some extent the officials will always be interpreting what they see of course but a ruck becomes a ruck because the referee shouts "ruck" and suddenly you're giving away a penalty for doing what was OK before he expressed his opinion - it happened today at least once - changing that strikes me as a good move.

The Tri-Nations

I know it's not finished. And it still seems wrong to sum up so many matches in one fell swoop. The trouble is that the sides have something of a sameness about them this year, or had until Saturday.

The All Blacks have looked like a team trying, but failing. The return of a certain Dan Carter to the number 10 shirt, and the benching of a number of old faithfuls, So'oialo and Nonu in particular didn't instantly weave its magic, rebuilding a backrow and an 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 combination took a while but once they'd sorted it all out it suddenly looked like an All Black team of old. The ruthless power at the breakdown was there and the silly mistakes were gone. The passing was slick and dangerous, the support running was suddenly back and working, and frankly Australia were lucky with at least one of the disallowed tries which prevented them being drubbed.

The Wallabies though... OMG! WTF?! Robbie Deans suddenly looks mortal. I don't believe he's suddenly become a bad coach but I suspect he's suddenly found a rugby ethos that doesn't suit his style. It's remarkably hard to argue with the structures and system he put in place for the Crusaders. They're not quite uniformly used in New Zealand Rugby, but close to, and they're used at All Black level too. It's hard to argue that they're pretty good there, this year notwithstanding. But Australian rugby seemingly won't, or can't, use these patterns. And I think that's the real problem here. They buy into the game plan in training, but put them under the pressure of a match situation and some of them manage, largely, to continue the game plan, some of them revert to old school aussie rugby. One or the other might work, but the mix clearly doesn't, and it makes them look confused and clueless because if 10 and 13 are playing to one playbook, and 9 and 12 to another, no one is in the right place.

The 'Boks. What to say about the Boks? To be honest they're the main reason I haven't written before. PdV has rediscovered the dark days of 10 man rugby. If you've got a line out with Matfield and Botha it's brutally efficient. But it's so boring! In the previous match their #13 touched the ball once. ONCE. Their wingers, who you'd have to say on current form are probably both in the top five in the world, ONLY touched the ball if the other side kicked it to them. What on earth are you doing? The completely dominated all their matches on South African soil and didn't score tries that were sitting their begging to be scored - never an issue for the AB or the Aussies when they were on top - quite content to keep going until there was a mistake and slot the penalty. This week though, all of that changed. I don't know if there was a rebellion or it was a cunning plan, but suddenly the backs were running the ball, running their angles, cutting the opposition to shreds and running in tries for fun. And when you get to see that, the times when they hammer the ball into the corner and compete at the line out become fun too. Because it's a part of the game, it should stay a part of the game, but it has to be a part, not 100% too.

It's ironic, before this Tri-Nations I was chatting to a friend about it. I'm an AB fan, he's a Bok fan. We both agreed we thought that this would be Australia's year. We quibbled about who would be second (I have to say I was right about that bit I think, I just can't see Australia winning this weekend). But how wrong we were about Australia. I wonder if they can keep on being this bad, and if not, who will pay the price?

Relief and frustration

So, the Lions finally won a match. Hooray! And the series, I think, is better for it.

But, although it's so easy with hindsight, I've said since the beginning that I'd pick Martyn Williams at open-side. In the match when they final do, the Lions get fast ball from the breakdown, clean ball from the breakdown, and even turnover ball.

Whilst in some positions it's easy to point the finger and say "they were second choice players" the Bok's open-side was the leading player who'd tormented the Lions at the breakdown in the first two tests, and Martyn Williams beat him hands down.

Vickery managed to tame The Beast, which I'm sure is a relief to him on a personal level. Shane Williams found, at long last, just enough space to run at the opposition, torment them, support his mates and score two tries. If the rest of his team-mates had been awake he'd have made one two in the first half with that chip inside after a twinkling run down the line.

After a series in which on all aggregate stats save the most important one, the Lions won, how crucial was the decision to leave M. Williams out? How crucial the decision to play ROG as a reserve and put him on in the second test? Of course we'll never know, but it would be nice to know WHY those decisions were made, in particular the Williams one. What did Wallace add that Williams didn't? What do the coaches think Williams could add that Wallace didn't, and why didn't they want to use it (particularly after the first test, when Wallace didn't stand up get counted)? I'm not a rugby coach, I never will be one, but on this Lions tour it feels like they did everything about restoring the players' faith and support in the team and concept (which I think was vital after SCW's disaster in New Zealand), but they did so at the expense of winning the series, surely also what it's all about?