Final weekend of November internationals

What have we really learnt?

Well, South Africa were very tired. This tour plus the Lions plus the Six Nations was too much for them. Their match against Ireland was niggly and nasty on both sides and Ireland had to play to win, but the Boks didn't really want to play so much as scrap. Nevertheless it will worry their faithful - the aura of the world champions is well and truly gone. You would think that, after a good summer on the beaches they will do better next year but.... there's just that doubt that the mix isn't quite right, that Smit is reaching the end of his career, that maybe Matfield and Botha are too.

The fans of PdV will doubtless not believe a word of it but a little bit of me wonders if he's starting to have enough influence to disrupt that "Do it for Smit" feeling that has pervaded the Boks for 4 years now and that Jake White harnesses and used to the benefit of both of them. Sadly for SA "do it for de Villiers" doesn't seem to work.

New Zealand have stuttered and spluttered most of the year. They suddenly kicked into gear against France, against a willing France too, and proved that they're worst their number 1 ranking. Although I have yet to see the game, it sounds like they suddenly clicked and produced that wonderful rugby that they can so often. All of their fans will be happy to see that the cobwebs have gone.

Australia... it's a bit harder to say. I think they suffered from the fact that the gulf between them and NZ and SA seemed huge during the Tri-Nations. But they had a better result against Ireland than the Boks and a bigger win against Wales today too. I think they're improving. There is enough belief in Deans and enough people trying to play the way he wants that they're starting to look like a cohesive side again. Everything clicked for them yesterday, and every side has that capacity you hope, but it will give them something to build on for next year too.

Wales... Wales seem to have gone backwards during the series. However, a part of me considers this might be unfair on further reflection. They do still, seriously, need to work out how to take the chances that they make. But yesterday, losing Halfpenny and Williams within 20 minutes, and with Hook at 15 instead of Byrne they certainly lacked that cutting edge and those players to exploit the chances and line breaks that they still made. That isn't really a criticism of Hook - he's not a full back and he actually had 3 very good and 1 acceptable match playing out of position. Technically he was sound, even today. His problem is that he just doesn't have the speed that you need in an international full back. That means he can't always get into position in time and he can't be that cutting, incisive extra attacker either. If you watch him play at 10 and 12, he's a jinking, creative play-maker, not a slashing speed merchant. Great full backs add that slashing attack too.

Ireland still look like they might be the form side of the Northern Hemisphere. Sexton looks like the real thing as a replacement for ROG, and about time too. You have to wonder just how long the rest of the "O" generation can keep going - BOD, POC, DOC etc. But as long as they do, Ireland will be a force to be reckoned with. You have to wonder, well I do, how good the replacements are. Sexton looks good, but can they find a replacement for BOD?

Scotland - I've seen less of the Scotland matches to be honest. They have proven that, on their day, they can mix it with the big boys. Then they come crashing down to earth again against Argentina. I know Argentina are higher in the world rankings, but they've really suffered from injuries and a very inexperienced back line and Scotland still lost. Oops.

France have sounded good, and were certainly up for the match against the All Blacks from all I've read. Is it a disaster? No. But sometime soon Lievremont has to start moving towards a solid first choice 22 for the next RWC you have to think.

Argentina... hard to say. They've blooded a load of new backs. They have seemingly grown into it and that's got to be good for the future of the side and the RWC and the Four Nations when that takes off.

England... oh dear. England look as likely to score as... well Scotland did a couple of years ago. They have the creativity of a bunch of snails. They have the imagination of a bunch of crushed snails. They can defend, sure, and that can make them look less embarrassed on the scoreline than they were this time last year but it doesn't really show progress as a rugby team, it shows that the players don't want to be embarrassed and booed off the park.

I think, for the 6N, Ireland are the side to beat. France and Wales will be in the mix. Then Scotland and England and finally Italy. In a different year, Italy might not be destined for the wooden spoon but they've just lost Parese and that's a big blow. Of course in 5 games each the odd result - the Scotland beating Australia - can make a big difference. But all of Ireland, Wales and France can defend and attack - they can not only strive not to lose, they can attack too. Scotland and England still lack that incision - and without it will rely on the weather and the prayed for inability of their opponents to finish off any chances to win. They might get lucky, but not that lucky.

Wales win comfortably. England escape humiliation

Wales performed well against Argentina. In fact, their scrum and line out looked better than England's had last week. Their backs weren't quite on song, but Hook is growing into his role as makeshift full-back, the Ryan Jones-Cooper-Stephen Jones axis is working well and Shane was back to his twinkle toed best. Tackling against an uninspired back line was always good, often ferocious and brilliant.

In a way that, all too often, only the All Blacks really manage when players were "out of position" such as Shane joining a ruck, they generally joined and contributed.

The game wasn't perfect - there were a lot of turn overs at breakdown and there were certainly too many handling mistakes at critical times but it was a step in the right direction AND an important win.

England, on the other hand, will take what I suspect is false hope from this result. There were three frantic tackles, one of which certainly stopped Muliaina scoring after about 20 minutes, the other two of which probably stopped tries too. And Carter, very unusually, left 13 points on the pitch, 2 missed penalties that he should have got and a try that he fluffed with bad hands. Guildford had an unlucky one too, when a ball that could have gone back into Muliaina's hands and given him an unopposed run in under the sticks went forward from his hands instead.

Let's not detract from England's defensive efforts, the All Blacks could easily have scored 20 more points with a bit more luck and being on song and if they'd taken those, who knows how many they would have taken?

And the positives that came out? England can sell themselves on defence if they think it's worth it. They apparently didn't last week or the week before - will in the Six Nations? Simon Shaw is a great player. No problem with saying that, he and Moody, plus Cueto at the back again, shone in this match. Of those three Shaw certainly, and possibly Cueto and Moody who have both had runs of injury and might again, are unlikely to make the next RWC. If Cueto misses out, Monye, Armitage and ... well who? make up the back three. Banahan looked willing, but actually usually ineffective on defence, and he looked terrible on attack. If Shaw misses out, who is the obvious lock replacement? Jordan neglected to play for a couple of weeks and has to improve a lot to step up again. If Moody misses out... England are in trouble - he was everywhere, spoiling and fighting for the ball (legally it should be said). Without him... England would be in a much worse place than they are today throughout this series.

Graham Henry must be quietly pleased. He's had the worst year as AB coach that he ever had, but it looks like the AB will finish the year on top of the world again. He's brought a team under fire together and whilst he might not have the doubling up of quality players at all positions he had for the last RWC yet, he's starting to show there's a lot of cover and young talent coming through.

And to end with the final heresy - Johnson must consider dropping Wilkinson. Kicking from hand today was conservative but better than last week. That's not saying it's good mind. Kicking from the tee was fine. But running the game, giving his backs a chance - no. He was deep, slow and laboured. England threatened the AB try line twice - once from a charged down pass and once after Geraghty came on and when he was playing in the 10 spot.

Under fire? Revert to boring type

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

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

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

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

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

Expect egg all over papier-maché Twickers.

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

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

This weekend:

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

England, ha, ha, ha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World two and three canter home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law changes

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

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

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

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

So the question becomes how do you do this?

I can think of a couple of ways.

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

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

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

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