Northern Hemisphere winner? Fat chance

We're half way through the Six Nations. For most of these sides there are 5 matches before the RWC starts in New Zealand. (Hopefully including Christchurch, a city I didn't particularly like but which is suffering massively after a second series of earthquakes and after-shocks in a few months and didn't deserve that.)

The predominant feature so far? The side that makes the fewer mistakes wins. You can, of course, argue that's always the case in a rugby match, but it's not usually the predominant feature of an international series. Take the last Tri-Nations. I think it's probably true that the side that made the fewest errors won, but the predominant feature was the speed of the All-Blacks at the breakdown in both attack and defence and their ability to convert their pressure, speed and fitness into victories. The other feature was a rather lacklustre Bok display, probably not helped by starting off getting hammered in NZ twice and then travelling to Australia and getting beaten there on the back of their Kiwi pain.

But look at today's results. England beat France, but despite Les Bleus making a right pig's ear of just about every scoring opportunity with ball in band, the scores were close because the English kept making mistakes and giving away both scoring and possession opportunities. Italy lost to Wales in part because the Welsh defence proved capable of keeping the Italians from the try-line except when sheer brute power was enough (I'm not sure that's something to be proud of, Italy's backs are not noted for their creativity in rugby), in part because Hook and Shane are world class and flashed together for moments of brilliance, but also because they kept making mistakes - as did their foes.

Two weeks ago France didn't so much win as Ireland conspired to lose by playing badly. That was better than Scotland who conspired to lose by not playing at all. The week before against France Scotland possibly played the most creative rugby of the teams, but conspired with the French not to bother defending. It was a good, high-scoring match because of that, but France were just better and managed to score more points - helped in no small part because all their tries came directly from Scottish mistakes.

So, facing up against Australia, New Zealand, South Africa... if they don't play out of their skins compared to this we might see some massive scores in favour of the South. England, maybe, have the hoodoo over Australia. But so close to home, in a RWC, and with plenty of chances for Robbie Deans to sort out his best front row I'm not so sure. Because if it's fewer errors, the Southern Hemisphere sides will be a class apart.

Reflecting on the November internationals.

Because this time next year some nation will be basking in the glory of being the World Champions of Rugby, this Autumn series has been very closely observed by the pundits.

And what can this amateur pundit tell you?

Well, New Zealand are the favourites to lift the trophy on home soil. Mind you, they are normally the favourites and don't lift it - proof that everyone raises their game against the AB and you need some luck too to win the tournament. But they have the skill, the depth in most positions, the belief and home-field advantage.

Beyond that? Not sure. In alphabetical order of the "big" sides:

Argentina maybe don't deserve to be here. More than any side they're looking old and one-dimensional. Three years ago they had a great side but retirements, age and playing in France have seemingly removed that. If they don't play well they might not get out of the pool stages this year.

Australia are a team that is close to getting it right. They are a year or so on from England in that building process, getting it right more often than not. They still mess up - England for example - but they should be a real threat. Semifinalists at least, and a reasonable chance at lifting the trophy.

England are a team that is building. If everything works for them and their opponents have an off-day they can beat good sides - Australia take note. If their opponents bully them and keep the ball, they can lose to experienced sides not playing very well - South Africa for example. They are firing, on this November's evidence less than half the time at the moment. That will probably improve a bit by RWC time. They could go all the way - they'll be a bit further along by next year - but they could crash out in the quarter finals too, and that's my guess.

France are in a "because we are French" place right now. Some key injuries hampered them against Australia and their strength in depth is oddly questionable but you never know. They should storm out of their group stages and probably into the semis.

Ireland are a team where it appears, more and more, their stars are past their prime. Their big names can still produce moments of magic, but it's moments whereas last year it was minutes, 2 years ago it was most of the game. If they get lucky those moments of magic could turn a game still but you think it's a matter of luck whereas in 2008/9 it could have been a matter of merit. Getting past the quarter finals seems unlikely.

Scotland are also unpredictable. But, they will have the pool stages to knock the rust off and then they're dangerous as they proved against the Boks. Given recent results, if they play to their potential, quarter finals, maybe, outside bet, semis.

South Africa are hard to judge. They have a number of players getting old, but unlike Ireland's old boys most of them are still performing most of the time. Another year and will they still be doing that? It's hard to see Matfield and Botha getting too old in that time, and they have some younger players starting to slot in and some talented players to return from injury. Smit seems to make them gel and if he can be playing well enough to be there, they could be dangerous. Semi-finals are a must you think, finals are reachable, defending their title might be a match too far though.

Wales are hard to judge too. They are clearly, badly, lacking in strength in depth. I wonder if the magic of Gatland and Edwards is getting a bit stale too. But a lucky run with no injuries and some confidence beating Italy, Ireland and maybe Scotland in the 6N, England and France could fall too - maybe England in the summer are more likely than in Feb - and they played well enough for parts of November to do well. Quarter finals should be achieved. Possibly the semis.

Everyone else? Sorry... partly because our coverage isn't great but I didn't see much by which to judge. Samoa could do nicely, Fiji too, Italy could improve with a year of Magners etc. behind them.

My prediction:

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
France

for the top 4 in that order.

England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland as the losing quarter finalists.

Last weekend of North v South

So who is up or down after the last three weeks?

New Zealand and South Africa up you'd think. Both have some question marks around the depth of their squad and fitting the newer players in to the mix. On that score I think the AB have an edge. Their big change around came last and against Wales - a weakened Wales but still a Wales with 7 Lions in it. They struggled, but won. South Africa really struggled against Italy, and whilst Italy are a far better team than 10 years ago, IN SA they should have handled it a lot better.

Scotland, although they didn't play this week, overjoyed. They beat Argentina twice IN Argentina, and the next week the Pumas stuffed France. Result.

In the "some positives" group you have England, Wales and Australia. England finally beat a big S. Hemisphere side away. Losing to the Maori will have taken the gloss off it though. Australia will be similarly upset by the loss to England despite the circumstance and a lacklustre performance against Ireland. Wales lost twice, but certainly improved and look to have gained valuable experience and comfort playing in New Zealand. Argentina just scrape in here. They were seriously looking a shadow of their former selves against Scotland, but looked great against France.

Those in trouble - France and Ireland. No wins on tour. Seriously not good at this remove from the world cup.

Today's results

Whose up, down, etc?

Well Graham Henry must be up, despite a couple of injuries. Wales looked good for half the match, threatening for parts of it, despite missing two first choice props, first and second choice open sides, first choice outside centre and one winger. The All Blacks coped with Wales whilst they looked good and as soon as they ceased looking good, they cut loose.

Warren Gatland is probably not that pissed off despite Wales getting hammered. Playing the All Blacks in New Zealand is always a big ask. He's found out things about his squad, including some positives and some negatives. And living with the All Blacks for half a match is not a disaster. Shaun Edwards will be more upset because the Welsh defence just went away in the second half and that is his bailiwick. But it's an angry in a "we can work on this and improve" way rather than a "you were useless" way. Lets hope they can improve by next week.

Deans will be disappointed... Johnson happy if not elated. Australia shouldn't have lost, but Giteau forgot how to kick. His front row stood up far better than last week and whilst his loose forwards looked... well were anonymous this week, he's got to know they won't all be anonymous at the same time each week. Johnson, however, produced a team that played some good attacking rugby and doing it won the game. Will they keep it up? Let's hope so.

PDV ought to be worried. Mallet, apart from shaving his head, happy. The second string Boks looked very second string. Worryingly so, if you look at the NZ Maori's performance over the last two weeks alongside the All Blacks. Italy were still thumped, but put up a performance.

But two entertaining matches... better than nothing, even if England did win.

First June tests

Everyone is announcing yesterday's tests as the unofficial start of the RWC campaign - which starts in 15 months or so, and fewer than 20 test matches time.

After the four matches, it's hard to guess who is happiest.

The Boks stuffed Les Bleus. That's been a bogie match for the Boks for a few years, so it must feel good for PDV et al. There's that little question of was it just a bad day for France that will linger but still a great result for South Africa.

Australia must be happy too. Their front row started with 2 caps, and it showed. England dominated the scrums completely and essentially scored all of their points via the scrum - a penalty kick and two penalty tries. Australia showed willing there but were completely outplayed. However, in every other aspect, the opposite was true. Even when Foden and Ashton combined to counter-attack, the next pass was to the only player supporting them... Simon Shaw who was promptly wrapped up, tackled and turned over. That's not to be critical of Shaw, he at least was doing the right thing but where were the other runners to keep pace on the move? Australia completely deserved their win, and as front row forwards come back their scrum will improve. No panic from Deans and a happy glow of satisfaction I think.

New Zealand will be happy too. The red card and sin binning in short order destroyed the game as a contest. Despite that, Dagg, Franks, Vito, Whitelock and Stanley all produced very accomplished looking performances. Crudden - a bit less accomplished but looking like he could grow into the replacement for Carter that the All Blacks have been lacking for some time. Muliaina in particular must be feeling a little worried about Dagg's performance. Franks, Franks, Woodcock and Tialata will make an awesome pool of 4 high quality props. Thorne and Williams are probably still the dominant locks, but Boric, Eaton and Whitelock in some order look good for stepping up to the plate. Thorne will probably go after the world cup, but New Zealand won't be lacking in replacement options.

And, of course, New Zealand have the Maori side too - playing Ireland next week, so a complete second 22 playing internationals gaining experience, match practise and the like.

And finally Andy Robinson must be happy and proud. Beating Argentina in Argentina is always hard. They'd never lost at that stadium until yesterday. He must have concerns too though - his side are still looking limited, albeit less limited than England.

It's also a toss-up for the angriest between Johnson and Kidney. Heaslip and ROG should both know better and they gave the game away. England just looked flat and clueless. It's hard to believe that even if Johnson was solely concentrating on the forwards he'd produce a team that clueless.

But apart from Scotland, it has that feel of business as usual. The Tri-Nations this year and next will sort out the pecking order and barring a miracle it will be a Southern Hemisphere side keeping the RWC on this week's showing. They're only going to build and improve after all.

Non-neutral refs and big wings

Two thoughts from this weekend.

I'm biased - I'm a Crusaders fan. That pass looked questionable to me before it hit Franks' hand. It then looked like it went forward from one player without being kicked to another player on the same side, which sounds like offside to me.

I could be wrong. But the honest answer is, I'm not sure and it's really easy to look at it and think it was a home-town decision. (Interestingly a friend of mine is South African and although he's not sure about that decision he's also not sure, not convinced it was a good call, and he's totally convinced there were a number of other home-town decisions so it's not just my jaded eye.)

And that's really the problem. I don't think, even for the really crap decisions (Spreadbury and Barnes in the RWC07 quarter finals say) that the referees are usually malicious and biased. I do believe that even the best referees are human and occasionally have bad games (ones with several critical mistakes) and will make mistakes in all except their very best games. These mistakes are, hopefully, minor - missing a knock on that doesn't make a difference, making a choice about who to penalise at scrum time when you can penalise anyone etc.

However, when the assistant referee with a broad South African accent tells the referee with a broad South African accent that the side from South Africa made a legal play to beat the side from New Zealand AND it's a play that fills observers from both sides with doubts that it was legal, then there's an extra layer of doubt about the try. Even if it was the right decision and he's vindicated by hours of replays, (he's not because there aren't good enough replays) was he right? Was it an honest mistake? Was it a mistake made by an unconscious hope that his home side would win? No implication of malicious bias, just some doubt... and that's not good.

And then onto wingers. I found myself, for some reason, wondering just how scarred the England management is by Jonah Lomu and that RWC in South Africa. Bannerhan was the person I was watching, who unlike Jonah strikes me as a big, useless lump of a wing. And that, I think, is the problem. They're still fixated on Jonah and his barn-storming runs through defenders, fixated on his size and strength. They're missing the fact that he ran good lines, he pulled defenders, he would (sometimes) pass the ball inside to a player running into a gap he'd made. He wasn't a great, all-round winger (his defensive play could be weak for example because he didn't turn well) but he wasn't just a big, strong lump, he was a skillful attacking player. Bannerhan isn't. He's a big, strong lump. He rarely runs good lines. He doesn't defend. He doesn't create for others. He doesn't threaten well, in a rugby sense - he doesn't pull players to him like Lomu did and like Shane Williams, Vincent Clerc and the like do now. And notice, two of the best wingers in the world today aren't that big. Sivivatu, Habana, Williams, Clerc - that's probably the top 4 in the world and only Sivivatu is a big winger. Rococoko if he gets back to form is another great winger and a big one; Howlett though, not big. Medard, not big, Halfpenny, Earles etc. not big. Great wingers can be big, or small, or like Medard more average in size. It's about lines, speed, finding gaps, attacking the try line, covering the ground and so on. If you're Jonah, or Sivivatu, and you create the odd extra gap by shoving through the maul, that's great, If you're like Habana and Lomu and never think about passing but still score tries, that's fine. Sivivatu actually has a relatively low scoring rate in this Super 14 for example. But he's MADE about half the Chief's tries by breaking the line, penetrating, attracting the last defender and then offloading. That's not to be sniffed at either in a winger.

A good big'un won't always beat a good small 'un, not on the wing, when the ability to shimmy and sidestep can also be critical, but a good small 'un will always run rings around a bad big 'un. And Bannerhan, at club level doesn't really shine. At international level - he looks like a big lump imported for being big. Makes you wonder why...

A tweak to the laws?

The Super-14 is being played with an interpretation to the laws that gets the ball back at the breakdown for the side in attack more often. The Guinness Premiership at least is starting to move the same way (thank god).

However, this change, particularly the "tackler(s) must roll away immediately" implementation is making the definition of the tackled player being held hard to play.

What I propose is the following amendment:

The tackler(s) should hold the tackled player for a quick count of 3 (not 3 seconds, but counting in a normal voice and cadence 1, 2, 3, which is around 1 second). and must have released by the count of 5. The tackled player may hold the ball for a count of 5 from the time of the tackle, but must have released/placed by the count of 7.

Now, there is one obvious problem with this... the tackler(s) will find it much harder to roll away in most circumstances because by the count of 5 there will be a ruck formed around them. So, rather than roll away, that law needs a tweak too. Although the lawyers will have to look it over, something along the lines of:

The tackler(s) must release the tackled player. They must move as far as possible to clear the ruck area. Ideally this is to move away completely and return to their feet however moving their arms clear of the ball and moving so that their torso, arms and legs have minimal impact (e.g. lying on their back with their legs still and arms well clear of the ball and on the ground, granting clear access to the ball for the other side)

would do I think. Maybe with a reinforcement of "the tackler cannot actively involve themselves in the game in any way before returning to their feet."

Heck, with a little work, you could even restore rucking. You might not want to of course, but something along the lines of

Players may be moved from the immediate proximity of the ball by a predominately backwards movement of the foot applied to their body. Rucking must take place on the torso below the armpits, the central parts of the arm, forearm, thigh and shin. The rucking action must be controlled, with one foot clearly planted on the ground (no "rock climbing" style rucking) and must be safe in the opinion of the referee - clearly avoiding the head, neck and all joints

would work, don't you think? Maybe combined with making offences to the rucking laws clearly yellow card with a strong bias towards red cards for dangerous play should be included, along with the ability for the referee to ask the TMO for advice on rucking when he is not sure if there is an offence or of its severity. The TMO should quickly be able to rule on one foot on the ground, predominantly backwards movement, missing the joints after all. If all of those are OK, then you're really in penalty-only territory if you're missing the "near the ball" bit... which might be harder to rule on but the ref can usually tell that.

Overall, hopefully, it clears up a messy grey area and reduces the number of daft penalties... More rugby, less kicking at goal. Result!