Super-Final

I'm sure it won't be, but it would be nice if this final was the thing that took the boring old farts and said, yes, the Super-ELVs were a good set.

It might seem odd for a 20-12 victory, but in a way that the Heineken Cup final never was, this game was pulsating, fast, furious and wonderful. Some of that might be because the score, somewhat at least, flatters the losers: 27-12 or more would probably have happened but for a punch.

In the first half, in fact in the first 25 minutes, the Crusaders had almost all the ball and almost all the territory and yet were 12-3 down. The one real attack that the 'Tahs managed produced a try from a good cross-kick and a matter of millimetres in the difference in the jumps. The second came from an interception and a moment of blistering pace, and from about 80m away. For the next 15 minutes, the 'Saders increased that dominance and managed to get it back to 12-11 and could have been in front if Dan Carter had landed the conversion, albeit an attempt from right on the touchline.

In the second half, the 'Saders were the only side to score, and the only side to look like scoring really, despite having Brad Thorn in the sin bin for 10 minutes for the punch that cost Wyatt Crockett an unlikely long-range try. Despite being down to 14 men, the 'Saders defence was so good that it didn't really look like being punished.

Granted, there were moves in the second half where the 'Tahs got close: there was a memorable tackle on Tiquiri by former team-mate Thorn within a couple of metres of the line for example, but without exception these raids that nearly got home led to turn overs of one variety or another: because the players in blue were isolated, and gave the ball up correctly, or held it and gave up the free kick, or because on a couple of occasions the 'Saders just got more bodies there at the right time and counter-rucked strongly enough to win the ball.

And because of this the game was immensely gripping: good attacks were blunted by amazing, last-gasp defence. Poor but penetrating attacks were blunted, turned over and frequently led to strong attacks in the opposite direction. As you might expect in such a game, the back rows were everywhere. It's probably fair to say that the Number-8's more or less cancelled each other out. That's a testament to their respective skill levels: it wasn't that they were anonymous, they both had their moments, but with the exception of Tuial'i's try, there moments balanced and cancelled, and it was often thanks to their opposite number they were bought down. Given Palu is almost certainly going to be Aussie No 8 that's a fair old compliment to Tuial'i, and might have him in the starting 15 for the All Blacks in the June tests: I don't remember Soaialo doing the same when the 'Tahs and the 'Canes played, and head-to-head last week Soaialo was far from dominant too.

Waugh and Elsom were good, and got around the park and did their stuff. But, you would have to be very one-eyed not to say that they were both outplayed by their opposite numbers. Those critical moments, the essential turn-overs, the critical times for slowing things down, and the critical carries in the right direction all went to Reid and McCaw. Henry may feel Reid is too young and inexperienced for the international stage, although he's not normally shy about putting young players in. On the evidence of the last few weeks, Reid deserves to be in the squad I'd say (but then I don't do the picking and I don't see all the games from over here).

In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that all 15 of the 'Saders could be making up the All Black machine rather than the Red and Black machine in two weeks time. There are Chiefs, Blues, Hurricanes and even the odd Highlander, and certainly fans of those sides that would disagree with me. I don't actually believe it will happen either: Hamilton showed some frailty that Sivivatu doesn't any more, and Sivivatu has blistering pace too. Bateman might miss out at Number-12, and Laulala has struggled on the big stage in years gone by so might have used up all his chances with Henry (although I think he's playing better this year than last and probably does deserve a good look if not a starting spot). If Flynn had played, he'd have more chance than his understudy of starting, Mealamu is far more likely. Who will prop along the line from Sommerville is a fair question, and you'd have to say Crockett is probably going to get tapped, but might not quite make it.

Ellis for the last two weeks has demonstrated a great all-round grasp. I think he'll get the nod for number 9. His only mistake today was a kick that drifted out on the full, and that only just. He chivvied his pack, he passed neatly, he defended like a hero when needed. He made the correct decisions each time, and just slipped that once. He also, playing a side that will almost certainly form the bulk of the Australia side, played a full 80 minutes. I think he did last week against the 'Canes too. That's rare in a scrum-half, and a nice thing to have.

Thorne swapped for Thorn for the last couple of minutes. Deans and Thorne are both leaving, although in different directions. They're both departing as seven times winners in a contest that's only been running for 13 years. I don't think, after last week, anyone really doubted the 'Saders would give them that send off, except for the 'Tahs camp you'd hope, and the 'Saders didn't disappoint. How Deans will do in Australia is something that I rather suspect has a number of Kiwi minds wondering and hearts trembling: He's worked miracles in and around the Christchurch region after all. How the Crusaders will do next year without them both, but particularly Deans, is something we'll have to wait and see: and I'm sure some Red and Black fans are nervous about that too - who do you choose to replace such a successful coach? But for the moment, congratulations to them both, and the rest of the Crusaders. They were certainly the better team on the day. They were the best team of the tournament too, only slipping up twice, and playing poorly a couple of other times, albeit well enough. New Zealand rugby is certainly missing bodies to playing in Europe, but it's got new people emerging to fill the gaps judging from the last two weeks.

Bad refereeing and comparing

What I had planned to write today was my impressions of the Super-14 semi-finals (both exciting matches, even if the decision in both wasn't really in doubt for that long) and the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup finals. We'd be comparing, more or less, like with like after all.

The trouble is, we're not comparing like with like. The Super-14 semis were both great games. There were errors, attacks, entertainment, tries, penalties and the works. The H-cup final was tense, a try each way (the Toulouse try was probably the best of the weekend) but not hugely exciting for the neutral observer, well not this one anyway.

Close games can be good - Gloucester v Bath (8-6 final score) was a good game because the teams tried, there were sweeping attacks and stout defence throughout. The 16-13 win by Munster didn't have that - it was error-ridden and unattractive. There was also a shocking decision to yellow card Pelous, and although I'm not 100% sure there was bias by the refereeing team in general (I have a lot of time for Nigel Owens normally) I would say that Munster got enough of the rub of the green on other occasions too that I can understand Guy Noves thinking there might have been bias.

The Challenge Cup final was worse. It started looking like there was going to be an attacking, fun game. In moments there were. But oh boy, Christophe Berdos had a shocker. Grewcock should have been sin-binned twice (which would have left Bath down to 14 players for 25 minutes or so). Mears should have been sin-binned. Another Bath player should have been sin-binned. Klaarsens kicked the ball from a mark into his own player in front. Offside? No - take the kick again. WHY? Whether or not it was deliberate, the referee failed to stamp his authority and the game was full of niggle and unpleasantness, and it's hard to think that Worcester wouldn't have managed to do something more if they'd played against 14 men for more than half the match, in fact 13-men for a few minutes.

The IRB and the various competitions need to do something. If the referee has such a shocker, there needs to be some come-back. Saying, as they did, Barnes, Spreadbury and Kaplan can't referee further in the RWC didn't help New Zealand who had been knocked out several shocking decisions. It won't help Worcester if Berdos has his wrist slapped for a bad game. Referees need to be respected and left to run the game. But when a referee has a bad game, there has to be something else done - perhaps particularly when it's so clearly a big game, like a knock-out match or a cup final.

ELVs, bizarre choices and stupid commentators

So, about 10 days ago the powers that be decided, in their infinite wisdom, what the future of the game will look like. The accepted about half of the ELVs that had been proposed. Of course, they couldn't decide to adopt the ones that have been in the Super-14s this year... that would be too easy.

Some of the Super-14 rules have got through, but they've ditched the "most offenses are free kicks" rule. Shame really, there are so many situations where the difference between being excellent play and a penalty is a matter of less than 1 second. Having a free kick in there, and then a penalty for the more blatant or repeated abuses, and a yellow card for the really blatant, bad position or long term repeated offenses makes sense to me.

The one I can't believe they've accepted (that Super-14 wisely IMO ignored) was "it's legal to collapse a maul." Now, I happen to think that rolling mauls are too powerful. There is no defence against them in essence (not even having a big, strong pack) but they are a thing of skill and power - two of the things that make rugby attractive - even if it's only the real purists that would regard them as a thing of beauty in their own right. Having the ability to just collapse the maul - well any idiot can do that, so you're removing an option of skill straight away. Replacing it with things like "as long as you join from onside you can work around the sides of the maul staying bound to attack the ball carrier" would, to my mind, make a lot more sense. Teams can still attack using the rolling maul, but there is a defence that doesn't deny the attacker the skill and power and requires skill and power rather than just the ability to lie down in the way. Obviously that's too easy...

The other reason I can't believe it happened this way: collapsing mauls was ruled out originally not to allow Leicester to score tries that way, but to prevent injury to players as it goes down. Players now have unbreakable necks presumably? Bizarre.

The commentators that I saw were all "OMG it's terrible" and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." They then chose, rather stupidly, to demonstrate it ain't broke by saying the two Heineken Cup semi-finals produced good matches. They did, it's a fair comment. But are semi-finals between four of the best teams in Europe on a good weather day a representative sample? No one has denied that the existing rules CAN produce great games of rugby. But, about 2 weeks before this game an (equally unrepresentative sample of 1 game) produced a stolid 16-9 game with 1 try, lots of slugging it out in the middle of the field. It was a rugby match, but not one that would make me go back to watch another match if I was a newcomer.

The Super-14s, even in some pretty horrendous conditions (driving rain, howling winds, etc.) has usually produced interesting games. The Guinness Premiership and the Heineken Cup produces them as the weather gets better, but produces 9-6 dull, slow, boring games too in conditions not that dissimilar to the weather we've seen in some of the Super-14 games this year, where they're producing 3 and 4 try matches. Comparing overall... well I don't have the stats and some of it is about personal opinion, but Super rugby produces far fewer dull matches in my opinion than either of the big Northern Hemisphere contests that I can see here.

That brings us on to the final thing... who is Rubgy for? The commentators would have you believe it's for them. What crap. Rugby is for the fans at this sort of level. Sure, at the local club level it might be for the pleasure of the players, but they're the sort of people that still pay subs to play for fun. Professional players and clubs almost certainly contain a majority of people that enjoy what they do - but they don't play for that. They play for the wage. The wage comes from bums on seats and sponsorship. But sponsorship comes from TV revenue and bums on seats potential. TV revenue comes from bums on comfier seats. Rugby at the top level is predicated on pleasing the crowd so they keep paying to watch the games. I don't know what the viewing and attendance figures are like, but adjusting the game so it keeps the things that make it good and attractive but so that it showcases them more, making the game MORE attractive is surely a good thing?

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.

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.