Building a team

When you think about a rugby team, and many other teams to be honest, you think about the mix of roles to be filled. Some are obvious - you need a tight-five, a back row, half backs, back three and centres.

If you want to think of it that way, they're the posts you've got to fill.

But watching Gloucester crash out of the Heineken Cup yesterday and last week against Cardiff it's obvious that there's a different way you can consider it.

You have a number of roles that you need to have available to the team. Some of these match closely to the positions - it's very hard to play good rugby without a good tight five, and propping, hooking and locking a scrum, and without someone to get the ball off the ground out to the next player quickly, which is classically the scrum-half's job.

But you have some roles that are more flexible. You need a number of crash-n-bash or hard yard carriers of the ball. In the All Blacks of last year, Kaino, Thompson, Soaialo, Sommerville, Hore, Meealamu, Nonu, Thorn, Muliaina, and somewhat surprisingly Sivivatu fulfilled this role at various times. McCaw attempted it, but it's not his thing to be honest. You need the fetcher role, where McCaw rules supreme, but Soaialo, Thompson, and very surprisingly Smith showed up regularly in this role. You have a tactical kicker role - Sivivatu, Muliaina (of course, job description), Carter (of course - goes with the job description), Cowan (also of course and goes with the job description), Smith all filled this role admirably and expectedly, but Williams and Soaialo kicked often enough and well enough that it wasn't a shock by the end of the year, but it's very unusual for people in those positions.

Most sides have a second ball-starter - the person that shifts the ball from the ground out to the first receiver position. That's typically done by the scrum half 90%+ of the time of course, but sometimes the scrum half is injured, has been tackled and is in the ruck or otherwise unavailable. Wales have Shane Williams who played scrum half to a high level and still trains for the role. French sides usually use the fly-half and scrum-half interchangeably in such situations. The All-Blacks seem to use everyone EXCEPT Carter in such a role, although Carter has filled in on occasion.

Some jobs go on merit - it's usually a 10 that kicks goals, but it can be a 12, 15 or other positions - memorably Eales who played lock was Australia's best goal kicker for a number of years for example. Some jobs now go with the role - why do hookers always throw in to line outs? When I started watching rugby the French were in the process of changing from scrum-halves throwing in to hookers throwing in. I agree it makes sense to have someone in a single-digit number at the thrower, but if your best thrower is a number 6, why not have him do the job and the hooker as a lifter (or more rarely a jumper?).

There are, of course, defensive roles too, but this post is getting long enough.

But, on to Gloucester. Gloucester's problem was a lack of bodies able to do the smash-n-bash yards successfully, combined with enough defenders to stop the other side doing it well. When it comes to playing in the cold and wet, you need probably more of those than normal, in both offensive and defensive roles. You know the other side are going to pick and drive, pass one-out to a big runner who will crash into your line, hopefully over the gain line, and set the ball up to recycle it. The conditions (driving rain, deep mud and all) don't really make for regular use of flowing moves along the back line (although to be fair Biarritz tried them and scored on the back of one, as did Gloucester). But Biarritz wone because they could try the high risk moves when the situation meritted it, but could get the ball and smash it forward a metre or two at a time for phase after phase after muddy phase. They weren't likely to score from this (and they didn't) but they were perfectly positioned to stop Gloucester scoring, because of course Biarritz kept the ball, and to make it less likely that Gloucester would score when they got the ball back - and Gloucester didn't score in the second half - because they were tired, slow, and rarely given the ball in a good position to counter-attack. Biarritz could, and did, grind the ball forwards and choose whether to keep grinding or whether they'd got the ball far enough they could pin Gloucester back and let their wingers chase the ball forcing a hurried kick that ended up with Biarritz most times gaining yards, throwing in to the line-out and starting again...

It wasn't a great match to be honest, but the conditions dictated it was never going to be. But Biarritz could play rugby suitable to the occasion, and that let them, when the circumstances permitted, to also break out and score. Gloucester, who play such a nice game when the conditions are good, couldn't adapt to the mud, and you would say were really fairly lucky to be able to score the 10 points they did. It's telling they came in the early and middle part of the first half whilst the players were still energetic, warm and willing enough to throw the ball about successfully - an extra 10 minutes of grind from Biarritz (who scored 17 of their points in the first 15 minutes, and the other 7 from a charge-down) meant they never looked like threatening for the rest of the match.

There are problems at Gloucester - until Spring is sprung (and Tom Lehrer fans are poisonoing pigeons) and the ground gets harder again, they're vulnerable. They won't always be playing in cold, wet bogs of course, and they won't always lose, but they'll always be at risk.

Interesting side note here - If you look at most of the current good international sides: Australia, New Zealand, Wales and lets throw France into the mix too they all have a number of players who play well in multiple roles. They all play well in their expected role-positions, but it's a rare player in their squads who ONLY plays the roles expected of their position (Woodcock would be an obvious example, but he plays superbly in his role). The other sides don't have that unexpected range of skills. South Africa tend not to do this, but have good-to-great players in all roles and work well as a team, the 2003 England didn't do it either, but the bulk of the sides that can do it well keep their team work of course, but can suddenly, unexpectedly do things well from the "wrong" places. You're not going to drop your back three each time Williams gets the ball in a kicking position, unlike when Carter gets the ball, but perhaps you should. Of course if you do, and Williams also gets tackled and offloads, (which he can also do quite nicely) then you've got an AB winger with space to run too...

Sic Transit MMVIII

What an odd year it's been.

New Zealand reappointed Graeme Henry, and let Robbie Deans escape to coach "West Island" (or Australia as it's more commonly known). In the short term that has proven to be a good choice, in the longer term, who knows? Robbie Deans record in Super-14 suggests he's a brilliant coach, and 4 years to work with the Wallabies should let him weave his magic somewhat. However, the All Blacks bounced back from the disappointment and, with the odd hiccough, smashed through the Tri-Nations in convincing style, won a Grand Slam on their November tour - and for the first time in their history played test matches on 5 consecutive weekends, winning all 5 (they beat Australia in Hong Kong as a Bledisloe extra before their grand slam started).

Wales went from ignominy and exciting the RWC before the quarter finals to winning a 6N grand slam too. It wasn't just a flash in the pan either - come the November tests they were the only team that lived with New Zealand (albeit for only the first half), South Africa (which could and probably should have been a win for Wales), and were the only NH side to win, beating Australia (although France pushed them damn close too).

England, happily for me, went the other way. From a surprise appearance and a close-run thing in the RWC final, they slumped, spectacularly - mid-table in the 6N, thumped in all three November internationals against recognised sides, and to be honest struggling against a scratch team from the Pacific Islands. It would be interesting to see the Pacific Islanders and maybe Argentina incorporated into a SH five nations (maybe the penta-nations to keep the naming convention) because the Pacific Islanders have the talent, but not the chances to play together to make a solid international team.

The build-up to the 2011 RWC has started too, with preliminary rounds being played already, and the draw for the pools having being made.

Then there's the ELVs. The SH sides have played under 3 different sets of laws this year - their early version of the ELVs, the old laws for the June/July tours, and the IRB's global ELVs for the November tours. Oh, and in the case of NZ and Australia, courtesy of that Hong Kong test, the current SH ELVs which are the IRB ones with offsides at tackles, free kicks rather than penalties and another tweak.

My take? I think the IRB and NH old fogeys need to be shot. Their version of the laws, combined with the new interpretation that the English referees in particular have fallen in love with to the point of insanity, has stifled the game in the NH, particularly England, into a largely sterile contest. The SH by contrast seems to be producing even fitter, more aware players, widening the gulf between the two hemispheres (with the exception of Wales where the players play the game with verve and passion even as the WRU officials try desperately to stifle it, but nothing new there!). The SH contests are also producing rugby that's more fun to watch - that isn't supposed to be the aim of it, but if you lose your audiences, you lose your game very quickly, certainly as the big money spectacle it's become.

And finally, a rant that isn't new - big money in the English and French game.

If you look away from England, France and to a lesser extent Italy, there are small numbers of foreign players (as low as 0 in Australia, maybe a dozen in all of NZ and SA). The Magners League has more foreign players, but there are still strong cores of each of the teams from Ireland/Wales/Scotland although most teams have a few overseas international players. But if you come to France and England, the situation changes - just about every team has a truck load of internationals. In an earlier post I wondered how many of the England-qualified players would make a premiership top-XV. I *still* think the number approximates to 0. In fact, I think they'd struggle to get many players in a second-XV.

There was a comment in an analysis program I watched, which said that world-class players are those in the top three players in their position in the world. I think top three is probably harsh, so let's say top 5.

If you restrict yourself to players still eligible for international selection (so no Kiwis playing abroad except Carter who is on sabbatical), who would come from England in your top 5? There are NH players that make my top 5 - Martyn Williams, Andy Powell, Lee Byrne, Dwayne Peel (if he gets back to top form based on his end of year performance), Hook, Henson, Mike Blair, Shane Williams, O'Connel, Jenkins, and normally I'd list some French players here, and I think I should, but I'm lacking names and inspiration. But England players? Forget it, at least this year. Next year... with more experience Delon Armitage could make it, Flood or Cipriani might, but not this year.

But, looking at that list, perhaps it's no surprise that Wales are the best NH side we've got - there's 8 top-5 in the world players in that list. There are others lurking around too - Halfpenny might make it in next year. The other Welsh props aren't bad, just not top five and so on.

Predictions for next year? You'll have to wait a day or two for them I'm afraid.

Blog changes, 6N predictions and more

First, if you actually visit the blog (you do actually look at it don't you?) you will see some new gadgets on the side from LocateTV.com. They should update automatically to show you the next live rugby on TV, the next Rugby Club and the next French Rugby on Eurosport.

Six Nations: Assuming they play like they did in November:

Wales

France

Ireland

Scotland

England

Italy

Of course these things are not set in stone - injuries and the like might change the teams, England might suddenly wake up and start playing, who knows what Lievremont will do with the French... but that's my guess.

Over on Planet Rugby they ran a team of November. I don't propose to do that, but it was interesting to note that Lee Byrne and Shane Williams forced their way in to the top 15. I'm not 100% sure of this... but I certainly agree they should have been in the mix. Andy Powell just missed out, but was in the mix too - bright times for Wales!

Finally, we all know rugby is a team sport. However, the Baa-baas v Australia really highlighted that. On one side you have George Smith, one of the four greatest fetchers in rugby. On the other side you have Ritchie McCaw and Shalk Burger, both also in the top 4 (Martyn Williams being the other one). Who wins the battle of the breakdown? Well actually that varied, but who won the war? Smith outplayed the other two because he had a side that reacted well, they didn't and they didn't really work well with each other. I'm sure given time they could learn to, but they really didn't do that well together without the practise. Frightening thought really.

A weekend of glorious results

The All Blacks beat England. No surprises there, but the All Blacks were far from their best all round (if they'd played like this against Wales, they'd have lost) and England still got thumped 32-6. They still didn't concede a try against the home nations, and England gained the dubious honour of being the only side to score in the second half against them.

Bad as the ABs were, England were worse. The margin of defeat, on another day, would have been worse too - the ABs butchered a couple of tries, and Dan Carter left his kicking boots behind and missed about 4 penalties and 2 conversions. If he'd been on song, and if the squad as a whole had been, there could easily have been an extra 20+ points on the score line. The tried to play a disruptive, aggressive game. There's nothing wrong with that, and it did seem to disrupt the All Blacks' rhythm too, but it led to them giving up a horrible number of penalties, and to having no less than 4 players sin-binned (one possibly harshly, but 3 dead cert sin bins). The AB line out wobbled but held, the AB scrum, particularly in the last 20 minutes, was a thing of power, technique and beauty. My comments last week about the SH ELVs making players fitter seems to have been born out in this match too - in the last 20 the ABs just ran rings around England.

Is there anything positive to take from this performance? No, not really. Even when presented with the chance of points from a restart on a platter, they didn't manage it. They had a couple of other moves that looked OK but then fizzled to nothing as players went off their feet and the like, or just delivered slow ball. You would have to say that a decent side would have beaten the ABs on today's performance. South Africa or Australia would have stuffed them, Wales would have won. England whimpered.

Wales, on the other hand, were glorious. They too missed 3 penalties and butchered a couple of chances at tries, but they were still good enough to hold on, and to deserve the win. With about 3 minutes to go, I was wondering if they were good enough to run in another try and get the 15+ point margin of victory to raise them to world #4. It was the Aussies that scored that last minute try, but Wales were still sufficiently fit and sufficiently confident to defend for the next phase of play, and come away with the victory.

That's not to say Wales don't have room to improve. Their line out was poor (not quite shocking, but definitely poor) and actually gave away 7 points. Some of the individual players have areas of improvement... Andy Powell had a good game, but there is definitely room for improvement. Ryan Jones had a good game too it's worth saying. There was a lot of OMG he's lost it after the first match. But he played well last week and a blinder this week.

It would have been nice for Wales to win big and get into the top 4, but you would have to say that the ABs, SA, Australia and Wales are the 4 form sides of world rugby. What do they all have in common? They are creative. They go out to play and win, rather than grinding out a  "not losing." They are fluid and (mostly) smart in attack - making good decisions about when to pass, when to offload and when to go to ground. They are, by and large, ALL capable of all three skills too. In defence they are all skilled and smart too. All of their players know how to hit a ruck, defend the ball, steal the ball, and at least as importantly know when to do these things. Generally speaking they make their tackles, and when the don't complete the tackle, they slow the player down and a team mate adjusts to finish the job off. Their defences can be breached - they're human and make mistakes, and they can run out of numbers eventually as well, but their defences are fundamentally clean (unlike England's), fast and efficient.

I've mentioned this before, but I think the Guinness Premiership is to blame for England's woes, whilst the Magner's League and Super-14's are also to be credited with Wales' resurgence and the might of the Tri-Nations. The Magner's League should also help Ireland and Scotland - but Ireland is getting old and needs to rebuild, Scotland is coming out of a rebuilding phase and looked good against SA for example... so it might be helping them at last.

What's the difference? Relegation. Sure, relegation can manufacture excitement in a huge range of matches in the last week of the season (at least sometimes). But it encourages teams to make sure they don't lose rather than making sure they attack and try to win. Losing bears with it the spectre of relegation after all. Wasps may be the exception to this rule - they start badly, get to a position of having to win everything, and so when they get the last 4 and the other sides have to change mind-sets to winning, they're already there, used to playing that way, and so doing a great job of it. This year, it might not take, but it still might. In the Super-14s and the Magner's League there's no risk of relegation, so the players go out and attack. There are definitely matches that are rendered more or less meaningless thanks to this, but as a grounding for test matches, it's great. Test matches don't have relegation after all, they're one-off (even if they're part of a bigger tournament they're still really one-off matches for long term impact) and they're winner takes all.

There is another issue, I believe. If you were to look at the GP sides (and the Top-14 sides in France to a lesser extent) and write up a team sheet of the best players on current form - forget injury and nationality here - how far do you think you'd have to go to find a home player? I don't know the Top-14 well enough to be sure, but I think they'd have quite a few in the first team. In the GP? There are places (inside centre for example) where I'm not sure they'd make the THIRD choice team. I wonder how it feels taking the park for your country knowing, however deeply you bury it, you're not the best in your position in your domestic competition? There are players, for sure, that could go back home and compete for their national side (Jack, McAllister, James, Peel etc.) but there are enough players that are past it really (McDonnell, Hayman etc.) or never really challenged at the highest level (Braid, Hamilton) who are here now and would make either the first or second team in most people's eyes.

Should Jonno go?

The English press are starting to sniff blood in the water around the England Team manager and, unusually cautiously, starting to bite and snap at him.

Let's be honest - being hammered this weekend is well on the cards. New Zealand have a tighter defence and a better attack than South Africa, and England don't have obvious alternatives in most of the positions where they most need them (12 and 13 being a possible exceptions in the short term, and maybe the injury to Flutey will help make that decision).

If New Zealand do the business and win their grand slam (it is possible England will win, but I'd put my money on a hammering thanks, the bookies are giving unattractive odds (6/4 on England not scoring a try, and 10/1 on them not scoring a single point!) then that's too early, really, for the sharks to go into a feeding frenzy.

However, how about come March? Where do England have to finish to assuage the sharks? On this month's performances England will lose to Wales, France and probably Ireland. They stand a decent chance of losing to Scotland too. Could they lose to Italy? Yes, actually. I don't think they will, but they really could. Is 4th in the 6N enough to save Jonno? Is 5th enough to see him pushed? Last would almost certainly be enough to see him pushed or jump.

One thing that those who start this frenzy will have to consider is who will replace him? Jake White is a possible candidate, but there aren't many others out there. Then you have to wonder who would do better with the available tools. England were playing with inexperienced (at test level) players from 6-15. One of South Africa's not particular senior players came on as a replacement and had more caps on his own than ALL of England's back line. That makes it hard to judge what's going on and who is to blame. Yes, it's easy to say that Cipriani is as fault for the charge-downs, but he's getting service from a scrum-half that isn't used to the pace, and his outlet, whilst a club colleague and so there's some understanding there, is also new to the international stage. That puts extra pressure on the player.

The back-line has talent, but little or no chance of firing against the experienced, powerful, and well organised defences they've faced recently, nor against the better ones they'll face in the spring.

The tight-five should work better, they've got more experience, but they seem to have a model to play to - pods and standing shallow. A few of them have good running skills and good passing skills, but mostly they trundle and slow things down. Australia was defending rucks they couldn't win with one player to England's four (thanks to the pods) giving them three extra defenders, and they were STILL slowing the ball down. When you're playing sides that can think on their feet, where the forwards run good lines, can offload and pass (and that's all of them, or almost all of them) you're going to struggle.

English rugby might think they deserve to be the best in the world - but in the grand scheme of things English rugby just isn't good enough. It plays to a model that was tired in 2003 and has been swept aside in 2008. The defences and the attacks cope with England's style of play and chew it up and spit it out. Until England change and learn rather than look back at past glories, they're stuffed. If Jonno can't deliver that, and perhaps here his icon and RWC winner image is a hinderance, England either need someone that can, or to fall into mediocrity as, as a proud Welsh person, I think they should.

They're just better than us

The big three Southern Hemisphere sides that is.

Wales for 40 minutes of almost flawless rugby on their part, stayed even with an All Blacks side that didn't look quite settled - as many All Blacks sides haven't in first halves this year. But when the All Blacks stepped up from a rusty first gear to a comfortable second gear, and Wales fell back a little from their flawless best, the difference in class was obvious. The All Blacks said before hand that this would be their sternest test, and I think they were right - Wales looked like they were pushing them close for half the match and didn't really look out of sorts, just a poorer side, in the second.

England, on the other hand, were roundly, soundly and thoroughly beaten. They looked poor against a South African side that had stuttered against Wales and Scotland, and fell to their heaviest ever defeat at home. Oh dear. Perhaps they will end rather lower in the 6N than I expected if they don't turn it around soon.

But why? I think the ELVs, in particular the SH set of them, is making the difference more obvious. The SH-ELVs have lead to faster games, more running, fast taps instead of kicks at goal and the like. This is leading to fitter players, and so when you give the McCaws, Burgers and Smiths of the rugby world the time to catch their breath with the kicks they're even more dominant. It has led, too, to better defending. Because you might be out of place and alignment with a free kick, everyone has to play a stronger role in defence wherever they are. Sure, a winger will usually skin a prop for pace still, and you have you better and worse tacklers on the side, but all of the players on the SH sides understand the defensive patterns of the whole team and can adapt to it and they will attempt to defend, whether successful or not, and against the NH sides they usually manage it. On the back of this better defensive understanding comes two things - better ball retention and better understanding as well in attack. Now, in fairness, both of these elements have more or less been there for all of the time I've watched rugby, but when you watch the internationals it is basically only Wales that look inventive enough from the NH to trouble the SH sides (I think they might beat Australia on the basis of their first half), and that is due to their speed and running lines being better.

The SH sides are beatable of course - but it requires a speed of thought and action on both attack and defence that the SH-ELVs enhance and the NH-ELVs don't. They're making the gulf bigger, and unless someone realises it and changes the ELVs they won't get closer I suspect.

Worst test match ever?

It's hard to know what to say about the Ireland v New Zealand match. For most of the match it was error-strewn. There were times that the referee made some odd decisions - in particularly to deny Sivivatu a try - but mostly it was the players conspiring to not play well, the players on both sides.

In fairness most of the All Blacks only made one or two mistakes, but, most unusually, they all did, or almost all of them. The Irish were more error-prone, and largely because of that couldn't really mount serious pressure on the All Black try line - even when they got down there they didn't really threaten because they knocked-on, gave up penalties or gave up the ball.

The All Blacks only played well for about 15 minutes, but it was 15 minutes that gave them a penalty try and two more conventional tries. It also gave them a stupid piece of commentary about the penalty try. Would a try probably have been scored? Yes. Not certainly, but probably. Did a penalty offence prevent this? Yes. Is a penalty try therefore the right result? Yes, absolutely. The yellow card to go with it seemed harsh, but then for something between a punch and shove Lawrence was interested in whether a yellow card was harsh enough, so the yellow card wasn't that bad in that context.

The All Blacks deserved to win. They made fewer mistakes, they dominated the set piece, they kicked better, they received the kicks more accurately and with more intent. But OMG this was a bad, bad game.

If the All Blacks play this badly they're in risk of losing to Wales to next week. It sounds unlikely but good to say that.