A tale of two coaches

Jake White has just coached his national side to win the Rugby World Cup and (with some help from the weighting system it must be said) to the IRB #1 spot. He, like so many other coaches was on a contract that finished after the RWC (in his case at the end of the year I believe) but, to the casual observer's surprise was told he would have to reapply for his post if he wished to carry on in post.

This is the guy that just coached your national team to the peak of the rugby world - when England did the same they KNIGHTED the individual that did it.

Jake White is, however, deeply unpopular at the top levels of South African rugby for some reason. Winning the RWC is not sufficient to save him from the politics of his position. Mad, isn't it?!

In the mean time Graham Henry looks like he will survive as All Blacks coach is he wants to keep the post (he's in is sixties and could well decide to retire regardless) despite leading the All Blacks (with 'help' from a team of officials who had a really bad match) to their first ever departure from the RWC before the semi-final stage and losing their #1 spot. Perhaps that fact that, unlike Paddy O'Brien, the Kiwi public blame (accurately in my opinion) the referee and touch judges rather than the coach helps here - and because the public don't blame him the politicians are shrewd enough not to offer him up as a sacrificial lamb.

It's mad isn't it. The coach you'd expect to be offered a new contract will be, but in some other country. The coach you'd expect to vanish (his predecessor is now coaching a S14 franchise in Australia - brave step for a Kiwi!) seems to be safe. Such is life.

English rugby exposed?

I've just watched the Ospreys thrash the Worcester Warriors at home. I think it was 47-16. It could easily have been more, quite a bit more, one-sided.

The Warriors played a style of rugby that got England (along with some luck of the teams they met) into the RWC final. Not at such a high level, but the same style of rugby. The Ospreys played rugby that I'm moved to describe as "All Black Rugby" - although if I was a few years older I might describe it as "Golden Years Welsh Rugby."

A few broken tackles and the Ospreys exploited the gaps and scored the points. One of the things it does is highlight just what the defensive effort from the England side must have been like, because the missed tackles weren't there. Again the side, as is common for the ABs, that had less of the ball won, and in this case won comfortably. Why? It's not that hard to analyse really. Get the ball, burst a tackle, score. It doesn't take long. Defend when they've got the ball, slow it down in the rucks (not always completely legally, but often legally, the Warriors couldn't clean a ruck out to secure fast ball to save their lives all afternoon). Rinse and repeat until they give you the ball, then score yourselves and they have the ball for longer than you, but you win the match.

There were other things too. The last try, OK, the Warriors were well beaten by then, but it was pretty typical of the ambition. The ball comes from a kick-off. The Ospreys run with the ball. Someone breaks a tackle and runs on, there is a support player there, pass, tackle, next support player. When Lee Byrne trotted over the line with 5 people outside him, just behind that line of three-quarters was a line of forwards. Props, hookers, you name it. That's 80m up field at the end of the match they've just run.

Another good indicator - Shane Williams v Gavin Quinnell. Shane is tiny, amazing footwork, but if he played in an under-16's match he'd not be one of the bigger players. Gavin Quinnell might not be the biggest of the Quinnells, but he's a big, strong man. At one point, within a couple of metres of the try line he breaks off, and the first person to hit him was Shane Williams. He didn't stop him, but he slowed him down and the rest of the team hit Quinnell back, no try. Out on the wing, one on one, same thing. Put the ball in Williams' hands and a bit of sparkling footwork, two players left looking ashamed and a 60m run in for a try.

Mad though it may have been, you can see why the Warriors are bottom of their league. I could see, so clearly, why the final was so bad. A team with no ambition to try and move the ball and score ground out dull win after dull win. Kudos to their defence for letting them be that close, but they also dragged the other side down to their style of play. As soon as that style of play meets a team that is good enough not to get dragged down, it's a landslide, but at least it's fun to watch.

A tale of two finals

We had two finals played today - a big one between SA and England, and smaller one between Auckland and Wellington.

The earlier one, in the Air New Zealand Cup was fast, passionate, pulsating and fun. Auckland ran out deserved winners. Anyone except the most one-eyed Wellingtonian would probably agree.

The later one, the "bigger" of the two in most people's book was dull and grinding. South Africa ran out deserved winners in my opinion. England again looked flat and unimaginative. A fumble caused some excitement by the TMO decided the player was in touch before touching the ball down - a decision I'm pleased I didn't have to make, and far, far harder than, for example, the decision not to award a scrum to New Zealand. South Africa looked to play within themselves, more concerned about not giving opportunities than creating - judging quite rightly as it turned out that England would make enough mistakes to let them win it ugly.

If I was advertising the game to a global audience, I know which one I'd use - and it wouldn't be the big match, it would be the exciting one. It's a shame that the big match came down to this. I'm going to point the finger at Barnes, Kaplan and Spreadbury again. If they hadn't screwed it up in that quarter final, do we really doubt that New Zealand would have been a little stunned by their close victory over France and have knocked the sais out in the semi (still an amazing good result for them). Judging by the two Tri-Nations matches we'd have had a spectacle tonight too. South Africa would know they couldn't have just sat back against the All Blacks - the All Blacks will cut you to ribbons 19 times out of 20 if you do that. They'd have attacked, the All Blacks would have attacked, both sides would have defended too and we'd have had a good game. I'd guess the All Blacks would probably have won - although beating the Bokke three times in a year (home, away and neutral territory) is a big call. Rugby would have had, potentially, a great, pulsating finale to the show - just like 12 years ago in South Africa.

Ah well, it was not to be.

Next week - Guinness Premiership action without significant competition, at least on my television channel selection.

Barnes, Spreadbury and Kaplan cocked it up - it's official

According to Planet Rugby, Paddy O'Brien has admitted that Barnes, Spreadbury and Kaplan messed up at least three calls in the New Zealand v France quarter-final. This is why none of them are involved in the later rounds of matches - big call when Spreaders was awarded the opening match, presumably to set the tone for officiating!

He then, rather bizarrely, goes on to say he doesn't think it affected the outcome.

Just in case you've forgotten, the All Blacks lost by 2 points. France scored 7 from a forward pass that went unnoticed by the officials. France regained the ball illegally in a ruck near their line that went missed by the officials. There was also an offside by France at the ruck that was missed, and in a kickable position. If the forward pass was called, no try. New Zealand win by 5. If the ball wasn't handled in the ruck, possible All Black try, if the penalty was called and kicked, New Zealand win by 1, 3 or 5 depending on what happened next. If the offside was called and kicked, New Zealand win by 1 point. Now, of course, it's possible that McAllister would have missed the kicks, but if ANY of the mistakes hadn't been made there was a good to excellent chance New Zealand would have won. If NONE of them had been made New Zealand would have won quite comfortably if McAllister had kicked straight.

You can, of course, argue that if the All Blacks had played better it wouldn't have mattered, and that's a fair call. But, saying the refereeing decisions didn't affect the outcome is just illogical Paddy.

All of that aside, it's good to see that there is some clear line of "punishment" for screwing up. It's a crying shame it has to happen, coincidentally or not, in such a fashion that the clear favourites for the competition get knocked out of the competition by a team of officials that, purely by coincidence of course, are composed of people from the country they'd be playing next and the country they're most likely to be playing in the final.

Neutral referees

Is it only me that wonders about the selection of referees for the various quarter-finals? I'm not saying (although I still think Wayne Barnes had a shocker and cost the All Blacks the game) that the referees that remained for the quarters, semis and final were the wrong choices, but the way the matches were awarded seems odd.

Test matches have, for pretty good reasons, neutral referees. If France play the All Blacks in a normal week, a referee from England, or anywhere else in the world except France or New Zealand makes sense. But, in a RWC knockout stage, there might be, ought to be, more things to consider.

One half of the "pool" saw England, Australia, France and New Zealand. Whilst I, along with everyone else, assumed that Australia and New Zealand would win, picking the referees for both those matches from any of the other countries represented on the refereeing panel - Ireland, Wales, South Africa for example, and particularly for the second game is surely possible. If you are going to implicitly accept that a referee may be biased in favour of their home country - that's why we have neutrals, to make sure it doesn't happen - then how much of a stretch of the imagination is to ask if Wayne Barnes had a shocker, or if he was biased because, as an Englishman, he believed (rightly or wrongly) that his national side would have an easier time of it against one side than the other? Certainly a cynic might suggest that an England supporter might believe that England have a better chance against the French, who they have beaten this year, than against the All Blacks - and look at what the semi final is going to be!

In the other side, we had South Africa, Fiji, Scotland and Argentina. Referees from New Zealand, Australia, England (as well as Ireland and Wales) would work just fine, with no accusations of bias being leveled after the match.

Last quarter finals

We so nearly had another upset. If Fiji had been a touch luckier either of the two tries they missed could have been scored, both scored and they'd certainly have won. One scored, would the Boks have come back? The luckier team won, and there's various saying around sport about how the better side, the harder working side make themselves luckier. I would say I'm not so sure in this case, I think the Fijian did themselves proud and got unlucky, but these things happen in sport.

Argentina v Scotland went, pretty much, to the form book. The Pumas looked tired though, content to sit back. Against Scotland they can get away with that. A side that only twice looked like scoring a try (and did once) defending a 6 point lead may be nerve-wracking, but relatively safe when your defence has been so dominant for the rest of the game.

We're guaranteed a North v South final now of course. France, will they crash and burn after their heroics against the All Blacks, à la 1999? But, beating the English in France is a different matter to beating the Australians in England. England could do it, of course, but the smart money has to be on France. The other side - you'd have to say the smart money would be on South Africa, but a contest between what will, I think, be the second and fourth placed teams in the IRB rankings (they've not updated as I write) is always going to be a battle. The Boks may have the better 30, but it's about 22 - and Argentina's 22 is pretty damn good. The Boks seem to be breaking props too, NOT a good move against the Pumas.

The Boks, against the USA, then against Fiji have shown a tendency to go AWOL for 20+ minutes. The Argentinians have shown doggedness in defence, an ability to take the points, and moments of flair as well, flair to rival the French. My heart says Argentina will win and set up an Argentina v France rematch. My head says this is possible too, although it does say that the opposite results could occur in both matches and
perhaps my head says France v South Africa is the more likely outcome.

A day of shocks

Well, along with many other far more respected pundits I predicted an all Southern Hemisphere semi-final. Now we're guaranteed a North v South clash in the final.

England v Australia was anything but pretty. It did, however, prove in a game which was quite error-strewn and had a more international scrum-half as referee (someone who's pretty used to standing next to a scrum and seeing what's going on therefore) the Wallabies "massive improvements in the scrum" were shown to be smoke and mirrors AND the scrum became the road by which England's forwards generated self-belief and dogged out the match. It was nice to see the dominant scrum not get whistled off the park for once!

France v New Zealand always had the potential to be a banana skin for the All Blacks, if the French turn up to play, they can beat anyone. Let's hope that same passion pushes them through the next two matches and they stuff the English out of sight and beat the (probably) Boks - although a France v Argentina rematch is plausible and could be very exciting! I've got to say, on this one, I was a bit surprised. France dogged it out with resolute defence, helped a bit by a few shocking refereeing decisions at crucial times, but fair play to France, because they were dogging out, the forward pass from Michalak, the lack of a penalty for taking out the kicker as he chased (especially when compared to the yellow card for MacAllister, which from some angles looked terrible, from others looked like a wonderful dive from Jauzion) were able to make that difference at the end of the day.

I'm going to guess today will be a lot less dramatic, can Fiji stuff the Boks? It's possible, but I doubt it. Can Scotland upset the Argentinians? Ditto. But then, if I was a betting person, I'd have put money on Australia to beat England and (less but still some) on New Zealand to beat France yesterday.

Pool wrap up

So, the pool stages are over.

France rolled Georgia over, no surprises there. They looked good, as, in fairness did Georgia, but, hard though it is to judge, you'd have to say the ABs looked better. AB v France in Cardiff... the forecast is black, and comfortably so, although with France you never know.

Argentina beat Ireland. Sorry, no surprises there. Argentina v Scotland, no chance Scotland.

South Africa beat up the USA, although the USA looked good in patches, and their winger is rapid, it will be interesting to see him in some big contest honing his skills to go with the speed to skin Habana. South Africa improved as the game went along and they settled down to playing their structure and patterns. They'll roll up against Fiji, and the patterns will be just too good. They'd be too good even if Little was fit, but without him, despite that awesome back row, the Boks will be way too good.

Even more strongly on course for the big 4 Southern Hemisphere sides hitting the semis for my money.

You have to wonder, though. Argentina are firmly in that top 4 in the IRB rankings. They don't have a regular big contest - Tri Nations or Six Nations. They've just beaten the top two teams in this year's Six Nations, is everyone scared of them?