Game of Footy: "My Life and Rugby: The Autobiography" by Eddie Jones, Donald McRae

England played their final in the semi-final as Warren Gatland pointed out at the time. The mental fall-off in the final was to be expected though a great pity & with benefit of hindsight, etc., different tactics might have been applied. SA, who played the world's most god-awful rugby, nonetheless deserved to win on the day, soft route to the final notwithstanding and tbh you'd need a heart of stone not to be heartened by seeing Kolisi as SA captain. How things *do* change. What Word Rugby does need to do is address the issue of size. Smaller players are quite literally being muscled out of the game and that is not healthy (in any way).

The change we've spotted in the behaviour of English teams is largely down to (finally) understanding the modern game that’s mainly due to Eddie Jones work in the Saracens and English Rugger team: to succeed teams need to have all-round capability and to have a culture which can bring together and bind players into a common set of beliefs and faith in their disparate strengths and outcomes. The great sides of World Rugby - South Africa and New Zealand - have those qualities at their core. The issue for English sides and sportsmen and women has always been how that culture is to be constructed. Coming from a country which does not have a positive attitude towards itself, and which seems more interested in disassembling structures and apologising for the past it has always been difficult to find a route to commonality. That's why there has always been such a focus on technocracy - Clive Woodward's whiteboard acronyms, Brailsford's marginal gains - and while this has a role it has been refreshing to find England sides in many sports finding an unembarrassed, unapologetic, unencumbered way to be positive about representing the country.

I can only really speak for England and refer to the underachievement of 2004 to 2015 and unequivocally say that someone like Gatland would have done better, won 2 or 3 more 6 nations, found a way of playing that would maximise our talents. There was just enough talent to go for a defense and scrum first team that was hard to beat. That said there are 2 qualifiers. Firstly EJ was lucky to come on board just as the Aviva Prem began to prove it could produce International class youngsters and as Sarries went into Galactico phase. Secondly up to 2011 at least I think his successors were hampered because Woodward had left the cupboard bare, had no thought to succession and ridden a great team to a point where they all retired together. So I would say it would be interesting to see how an English coach like Baxter would do with an elite crop of players. However I think the RFU will be loath to take a chance and will go for the instant success someone like Jones offers. Final word; Greenwood, the guy has absolutely no coaching experience why even mention him. Hate it when Media darlings get shamelessly pushed out there, there are plenty of coaches out there with experience who are more than qualified, harrumph!

There are plenty of people in New Zealand who could put their hands up for fast tracking to All Black coach. I am sure there are in England too, for their team. There are so many Kiwis managing other countries too, who could be seen as an apprenticeship for the job. I was surprised when we first put a Kiwi in charge of Aussie, but an Aussie in charge of England... that was an eye opener. I could be cheeky and say we could have a Kiwi in charge of England too (we already have one in the England coaching team) and he'd be good for managing the Kiwis in the squad... ahah But England certainly do have many contenders who could put a fresh spin on the job. No more imports for coaches or players should be the end goal here, you have a smashing rugby playing nation and talent everywhere.

Jones’ England played one absolutely exceptional game in 2 years. You have to assume the kiwis eeked that out of them. The long term trend was however, sadly, seen in the final when they were poor and lacked cohesion and intensity. One mark of a great leader is consistency. Jones’ England lack that, Gatland’s Wales showed it. Gatland knew England couldn’t do it for two games on the bounce.

This was the best ever assembled England Rugby squad, we were reliably told 'the best prepared', and "we've been preparing of this match for four years" said Eddie Jones. Only the day before Jones was insistent that they were ready... but clearly they weren't were they? Despite the fact England had swept aside a much improved Wallabies in the quarter-finals, humbled in no uncertain terms a hugely talented World Champion All Black side in the semis, with a breath-taking display of control and verve, all they were required to do in the final was to take on a predictable bish-bash-bosh outfit from South Africa, who only know one dimension of how to play the game. But they failed, and they failed miserably. They were never in the game, never looked like scoring, let alone winning. Didn't succeed in even getting over the try line. If they had played just half as well against the Springboks as they had the previous Saturday they would have walked it! If the one objective for employing Eddie Jones was to win the World Cup it hasn't worked - presumably he'll do the decent thing now.

Hansen had no answer to England, and Eddie no answer to the Boks, you can only prepare so much, and what happens on the day happens. The issue for the All Blacks was definitely an inexperienced back line, which the English targeted all day, and equally the Boks targeted the young English forwards and backs, who shone against the AB's but were shadowed by the Boks. Let's remember that you play as well as the other team lets you. South Africa blotted England out of the game in much the same way that England blotted out New Zealand.

As for the future, I think if I were picking a World XV after this World Cup, two of the first players in would be Itoje and Underhill, who were tremendous throughout the tournament. So that's a pretty good start, looking ahead. Ford and Farrell do what they do, and the wings are good. What's missing, in my view, is penetration in the centre. Very few teams actually look to break the line here anymore - the focus is on having bulldozers who bend the defensive line rather than runners who pierce it. But if there were an English centre who could make even a half break to create space for the men outside, then you'd have quite a side.

It's hard to let go of players with great records of service and exceptional play. But the sooner it's recognised that they're just passed their peak, the better it will be for introducing new players. In particular, it could be time to let go of Farrell (if you have a four-year outlook) sooner rather than later. Still brilliant, but . . .

The way Kolbe side-stepped him was a thing to behold, particularly given his late-tackling ways against us. Not directly relevant here, but it was also fascinating to listen to experienced coaches speak about what sport psychologists say about defending while under a penalty advantage. It's apparently incredibly difficult mentally to keep defending to the fullest knowing that you've got a penalty coming against you. Will England survive the impending implosion of Saracens? Can't help but feel that without the Saracens core England might not be all that.

NB: Sinckler is getting a lot of stick for the medal thing, but he is a hot head, and he probably feels that he didn't even play.... They rest not so excusable.

As for the next RWC? This core will be there, but so too will a core of SA and NZ, but they will be forced to blood new players at a rate England might not need to, which means that they are not as likely to be faced with older players breaking down come next RWC. Plenty of retirements by 30. It would be unwise to not cast the net out (which will be harder to do, as expectations are much higher now). Whilst England played some good games at the RWC, their form was hard to assess, given the rather low key group games and the loss of France. The Aussies haven't beaten us in ages (2015?) and so the key match was the NZ game in many ways - where England showed what they had threatened to do - play at potential for 80.

Regardless - looking over the longer period - the areas of concern in the 6Ns and even in SA last year, are still the same ones. My list is Daly at 15, Youngs and 9 cover, who should play 10/12 and a game plan that looked to Billy perhaps too much too often. Jones was a little late in altering the squad, for me, in 2018 (look at some of the 6Ns selections...) but did make the side play at potential, just not for a whole game very often until now. But - agree or not with that, it’s all water under the bridge. Refreshing a team is very hard, even for the best, as football teams have shown many times. Jones has been very hard on players, coaches/backroom (over 20 changed) and indeed the finances! If he pulls it off, if will be quite an achievement, as it’s not the technical side so much for me, as the mental side of having a team that if on top is virtually unstoppable, but can "go gormless" for whatever reason far too easily.

Whatever we might think, it will be more than interesting to watch.

Meaning is where you find it. Sport is no less important than art or music. None of them literally put food on the table, but can feed the soul. None are enough on their own, but we're much poorer for the absence of any one. Far from being sad, enjoying sport, or art or music, goes to leading a richer, likely happier, life. Folks have preference s on the balance. I'm sure England's loss in the RWC final will be picked over for months and there are, as they say, lessons to be learned. But this team bears no comparison to the disorganised and lacklustre team that shambled out at the pool stage four years ago and for that, Eddie Jones and his team, along with the players past and present (that's you, Chris Robshaw) deserve enormous credit for the way they came together and rebuilt. More importantly, I hope there's a structure and a legacy that will sustain English rugby in the same way that New Zealand is consistently excellent (and I want a pony for Christmas I can hear you saying…)..

NB:  I always thought this was a World Cup too soon for England when you look at their ability to self-destruct over the past year. Anyone who watched them in the 6 Nations wasn’t massively surprised by the result against SA. I have massive hope though, the bulk of the players will be round for the next 4 years and the Aviva Prem has shown itself capable of producing top class youngsters. A few niggling doubts; no depth at scrum half, will England ride the same crop of players through to retirement a la 2003? Is inability to adapt a cultural issue? Although it might sound strange I am hoping that France turn the corner and turn the 6 Nations into a proper 4 way scrap so that England have that constant yearly challenge. In any case England are only an inch away from greatness if they can make their scrum scary and can fix the tendency to freeze. If EJ quits then they will also need someone who relishes feeding young players in, don’t rush them but don’t stifle them either.

Rugby World Cup 2019

Cricket is a game for gentlemen played by gentlemen,

Football is a game for gentlemen played by hooligans,

Rugby Union is a game for hooligans played by gentlemen,

And Rugby League is a game for hooligans played by hooligans

I've never been so excited for a RWC. 2011 and 2015 were too nerve wracking. Next Saturday morning (05:45 Fiji vs. Australia)/early afternoon is going to be a complete write-off. I haven't told the wife yet...

RWCs are unfortunate that unlike soccer, the small differences in standard between teams makes for some very one sided and ultimately rather dull rugby. Much as I enjoyed the first 15 minutes of the recent NZ vs Tonga game, there was little entertainment value for the neutral in such a once sided game compared to for example, a NZ club game. Of course, its the shocks that stand out, Japan - SA most recently, but it was one result across a tournament, the only other near "shock" was Samoa losing to Scotland by only 3. They stand out because they are shocks.

It's a shame - it was the same across the amateur RWC I was lucky enough to go to in '87, looking at the pool stages, not one shock result. It shows that rugby hasn't managed to spread the money and the power - if anything - its more concentrated in the usual places. We're pretty sure that the winners will be from a small number of starters. I'm certainly going to be a keen spectator - I enjoy the minnow fixtures and am looking forwards to seeing the USA play Tonga and I'm certainly looking forwards to seeing NZ- SA in a pool match as well as the fixtures between the 6Ns teams and other top teams.

My main hope is that games are not decided by injury or sending-offs. That alongside some consistent application of the breakdown laws and offside would go a long way to making the game less constricted and some sympathetic reffing for the scrum would be useful - I have safety concerns at scrum time when the minnow teams play the big boys. My other hope is that we get to the last 8 without any major injuries so these games represent the best each country can put out and that all the knock games are close. Reading that back - it does seem a bit negative - but international rugby (for me) does have some questions to answer. I love the game - loved playing it - but for me it needs more competitive countries to be in place - we've had 24 years of professional RWCs and really, too little has changed.

There are a small core of teams, the rest are fodder. As against football, there will rarely be shocks. If World Rugby want to increase participation and their audience, I would have added a shield competition in parallel with the WC, like the Challenge Cup in Europe. Reduce the main tournament to 16 teams and have a Challenge Cup of four groups where the winners would go into a quarter final with the last four teams in main competition. I find the games with the tier 2 countries to be more entertaining. The issue is that World Rugby don't really have the power many think they do. They can and do carry out some great promotion, they make free TV shows that are shown globally and you'll always find a rugby video on an aeroplane. They are paying the salaries now of a few of the tier 2 coaches, they offer coaching courses anywhere. That's where most of the RWC money goes. What they can't control are things like player release and fixtures. Tier 2 teams get rare games and almost always on the other tier one team's terms. They have nothing really to build on when they get players for a week to play random games at an away venue once a year when their name comes out of the hat. I think the Nations Cup thing was quite flawed but you could see the intention was to bring another 2 teams up into tier 1 status and the unions voted it down.

Some big games the first weekend of the tournament: Opening game – Japan v Russia should be a nice win for the hosts. Aus v Fiji and indeed Fra v Arg, which should help decide one of the qualifiers in Pool C. The NZ v SA game is huge IMO, because the winner is almost guaranteed to meet Scotland, Japan or Samoa, fighting it out for 2nd place in Pool A against Ireland. The winner of Pool B, should therefore have on paper, what is likely to be the easiest quarterfinal across the board. So, the team for this match, can play one really big game, then have 4 relatively easy games, spread over more than a month, then potentially a semi and final - for which they will be relatively well rested. Whoever wins this game out of SA and NZ, could potentially miss Arg/Fra/Wales/Ire/SA in the quarters and semis, on the other side of the draw. Those are all extremely good, one-off knockout game teams, that would cause concern. Hence, I think this match is almost an early final, with a chance to have a rest if it all goes wrong. History has shown also, that winning the pool game, usually leads to a win further in the tournament, if those teams meet again. If England win their pool, then they would come into their semi having played some tough games - Fra/Arg/Ton and then likely Wales or Aus in the quarter (admittedly for knockout rugby, sometimes an advantage). Injuries could be more of a factor though. Another advantage to the winner of the NZ v SA game, is if they keep going, they go into Semi-final 1, which is played on the Saturday before the final, as opposed to Semi-final 2, played on the Sunday – an extra days rest, which as we know these days, can be crucial to get tired bodies and minds, in top shape for the final. The AB’s beat SA in Semi-final 1 on Sat in 2015. Australia played their semi the next day, so had a day’s less rest for the final.

AB-wise, clearly 2019 is not the same team as 2015. The 2015 AB's will rank as one of the top 2/3 ABs teams of all time - along with the 1924 Invincibles (played 32 games/ 4 Tests) and either Whineray or Lochore AB teams. (apologises to Fitzpatrick, Mourie and Shelford teams)

My view the RWC 2019 ABs will depend on:

1. Retallick playing all the finals

2. Retallick playing all the finals ( I think he is that important to the AB forwards)

3. Injuries to any key players

4. How refs whistle the games - what does world rugby want to focus on?

5. ABs play style - how do they beat rush defense and what is plan B?

The rest is just noise -- all the talk of how good the wingers are ( Bridge and Reece) etc or how poor Ben Smith is count for nothing if the forwards don’t get at least parity in possession, set pce and don't miss tackles.

Someone is going to have to beat New Zealand. They are the bench mark but are not unbeatable like teams of previous years. I’ll be backing England all the way but have South Africa as slight favourites provided Pollard stays fit. Without a fit Retallick, it will be a lot harder for New Zealand in the bigger games. In respect to Ben Smith, he has been one of my favourite players to watch over the years and will go down as one of the greats. But from what I’ve seen of him recently (which I admit isn’t as much as the England lot), maybe this World Cup is a step too far? He can probably still do a job at 15, but as an England fan, would be very happy with him on the wing against the likes of May, Watson etc.

RIP: Cordeiro do Vale/Serafim Marques.

NB: I was discussing this with a rugby union fan a few days ago about how the draw could work against England as they have their two "easier" games first up and then they'll have to play 5 tier 1 nations on the bounce (if they want to win it) starting with Argentina and France in the group and with no opportunities for resting players or shrugging off injuries. It's a tough ask and there will be injuries I'm sure and because of it I find it difficult to see England winning the tournament much as I'd love them too.England has probably the most difficult road to reach the final. Their pool draw means England will have to peak for four really tough games in a row with Argentina, France at the end of pool C. Then a probable quarter-final against Australia, semi against NZ then final. Achievable yes. Realistically not really. Team-wise, England's recent form does not suggest well win the RWC. The SA tour, 6 nations and losing at the principality stadium. Eddie is a great coach and has improved the team but we don't have players like Wilkinson, Johnson, Robinson, Dallaglio, Greenwood, Cohen or Sheridan. Vunipola, Itoje, Kruis, George, Farrell, Tuilagi & may as pretty handy (Curry looks alright too), but they're not the same as the mythically invincible 2003 side. I watched Farrell play against Jonny Wilkinson in the Heineken Cup. It did show the difference in class that exists between players from 2003. Compare Greenwood with JJ or Slade who seem incapable of beating anyone on a 1 to 1 basis. England has a full squad of good players but no one except perhaps Itoje who is top international standard. I am a passionate England supporter since playing rugby at ISA in Lisbon but "Engaland" just doesn't have the players to worry the likes of SA and NZ. The decline in English rugby since 2003 is largely due to the lack of competitive rugby played in state schools in my opinion. English local teams have dwindled through lack of players since the early 1990s. Everyone rightly raves about Wilkinson for his kicking, defence and organisation (I certainly do) but Greenwood was the player that made the England backline purr, by instantly assessing what needed to be done in any situation and then doing it. He wasn't quick but had a fantastic rugby brain and made decent journeymen (at international level) like Tindall and Cohen look like world class players by reading the game and doing the basics very, very well. On song and without injuries I would think that England could beat anyone in world rugby. But it's a hard, complex game. Farrell could forget that he has arms - red card. Vunipola, Tuilagi more injuries, a certain player in the front row could lose it, and on it goes. Mako, Sinkler and Genge are not selected for their set piece. They are good enough but no more. However they all run and two have hands like backs. All of the second rows are fair in the set piece. But none are selected because they dominate. They are in the squad because they have additional; pace, passing ability, off loading games, tackle and win back possession. As for Billy, Curry and Underhill all liabilities in the line out but fantastic in the loose and in defense. Who out of that lot do we rely on and who do we take for granted. Farrell and Ford work brilliantly together, on his day Manu is unplayable and the back 3 of: Daly, Watson and May (in that order) is fantastic and rapid. Like (almost) all teams England needs luck...On the other hand, world beaters don’t rely on luck to win repeatedly. That’s why England are unlikely to win it, but they do have enough talent to go far. It’ll be a shame if they don’t.

Indistinguishable SF: "Nightflyers and Other Stories" by George R.R. Martin

Dragons have always been cool, Video games have always been cool, real ale has always been cool. (Union) Rugby has always been cool, Science Fiction has always been cool, and Fantasy has always been cool. Football has always been shit, same as radio 4 depressing plays that the controller seems to think everyone has been to Cambridge/Oxford and therefore they like this sort of thing as it’s so highbrow. Kill a mockingbird yada yada, the Royal Shakespeare Taliban society again shit. Give me dragon slaying and space ship battles any day of the week. There's very little in life that can't be improved by adding dragons. Anyway, since when was a game of thrones considered to be fantasy? To me, it is fantasy with the guts ripped out of it. Take away the undead and the dragons, and you would see no difference to the overall story. It is a medieval soap drama with fantasy elements tacked on. Fair enough, Martins wants to move the genre on - he wants to go beyond epic sagas and doomed heroes, and the romance that underpins all fantasy, but what has he replaced it with? Sex and misogyny. And death...meaningless death...If you constantly kill off your characters left right and centre as it also happens in "Nightflyers", you're admitting a failure to move their development on. After all, it's the easiest thing in the world to kill a character and start again with somebody else, it's a lot harder to have him face the consequences of his or her actions. That takes a skilled author. Fantasy used to be about something. Even Conan had more intellectual heft than the present generation of so called 'fantasy' fiction. Granted, it was a thing of mostly ugly meanings if you looked at it hard, but it least it was carving out a place to stand on and defend. Instead of a genera where the magic was used to place a light on man's imagination and philosophy, it's become a canvas of sound and fury signifying nothing. 90% of the fantasy on the shelf these days is indistinguishable. "Nightflyers" and some of the stories in this volume suffer from this same malady as well. There is more complex fantasy around than Martin, but it tends to not be as commercial. Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen is certainly more complicated and dealing with a much vaster set of themes (he even has a Conan-like character who actually channels Howard's philosophical viewpoint instead of just having muscles and a sword). Scott Bakker's "Prince of Nothing" series deals with philosophy, existentialism and nihilism. Matt Stover's "Acts of Caine" series might just melt your brain. That's not to say they are all better than Martin, and none touch Martin's gift for varied characterisation, but the genre is in a much healthier state now because of the authors that Martin helped get off the ground and get on the shelf by simply re-popularising the genre. Elizabeth Bear's excellent "Eternal Sky Trilogy" can be read as a subtle rebuke on Martin's overly-simplistic take on the Mongols with the Dothraki, for example.

SF = Speculative Fiction.

The Greatest Game Ever Played On Earth: All Blacks vs Wallabies

I'm of course refering to Rugby...I believe New Zealand will have the advantage at the lineouts, goal-kicking, forward ball carriers, speed and agility in the backline and all round attack, while the Wallabies have the advantage in the scrum, the breakdown and defense.

I WANT TO SEE HUGE OFFLOADS!!!

Tackle, Scrum, Ruck, Maul, Line-out: “Jonny – My Autobiography” by Jonny Wilkinson (and Owen Slot)

Published 2011.

“For me, the pure basics of rugby are not passing, catching, kicking; the basics are simply working yourself into the ground and doing whatever it takes for 80 minutes. The only reason that you don’t change things, or that you don’t work hard enough, is that it doesn’t matter enough to you.”

I started playing Rugby Union in 1985/1986 at ISA (Instituto Superior de Agronomia) when doing a VAX-VMS class. I was a fly-half, like Jonny Wilkinson. It was my last year before going to college, and I liked it so much that I thought I’d do my studies there. Unfortunately Agriculture was never my forte so I’d to go someplace else, but the Rugby Union drive has always been with me since then. In my humble opinion Rugby is the perfect sport in terms of camaraderie and subtlety. For me it represents the ultimate achievement sports-wise (Tennis and Football come a distant second in terms of practicing them). Rugby encapsulates life in a kind of art form as far as I’m concerned. No other sport raises me to such heights as can be achieved by a fly-half in the rarified atmosphere of a Rugby World Cup during a drop goal (Jonny Wilkinson’s drop goal in the 2003 against Australia comes to mind as well as the bulldog-like nature of Jonah Lomu leaving Mike Catt stranded; both were one of my highest prized memories, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. Make us all feel wonderful. We’ll never forget.” No Portuguese team playing; England is instead my team for motives not worth going into here). No other sport allows a man (or a woman) the kind of elations and exaltations rugby does. And no other sport permits a guy 80 minutes of hard slog wheezing from one lineout to another, in order to get hopelessly and completely trashed. Better than this only 5 Dunkel Biers in a row…

Forgive me the rambling. 

When I start talking about Rugby Union I usually get sidetracked, so please excuse the mutterings and thoughts of a mid-forties, and useless fly-half (and sometimes scrum-half). Those were the days…The feeling of backs-against-the-wall is something priceless. On top of that, Rugby Union is one of the most highly skilled, and stylish sports I’d the pleasure of playing. The word "stylish" might surprise people who don't know the game and see only a bunch of guys on a field charging into each other, but I can think of no better word. It is 15 people on one pitch, each with a different role, but coordinating together into an amazingly team effort and subtle whole. What I enjoy the most were the laughs and friendship that Rugby Union brought. I simply loved practicing after a tedious day of studying, and being able to lose the stress and worry of the day in the rhythm of rucks and mauls and passes.

Reading Jonny’s book (with help from Owen Slot), it all came back to me in the best possible way. While watching rugby watching and Jonny in particular, I always knew Jonny had some “issues” (between quotes because we all have issues; only some are better at hiding them than others). He was always so fiercely reserved that, until I read his autobiography, I’d never really seen beneath the surface, beneath the stance: bum out, hands clasped, breath just escaping out the side of the mouth as the left foot hardens itself for impact. Who would have thought? I’m not sure how much is Slot’s writing and how much is Jonny’s. Probably none at all when it comes to Jonny. As I kept reading that was one of the things I kept thinking of. Just to be able to know Jonny a little better was worth the reading. As autobiographies go, it’s not one of the best, but it’s also not one of the worst (the emphasis on Jonny’s obsessive side seemed to me a bit excessive to say the least; at times it started grating on my nerves. Slot’s hand at play here?).

He’s still very much one of my heroes, now more than ever. And I’m not thinking in Rugby Union terms.

NB: Review written on 17/08/2015 before the start of the 2015 Rugby World Cup (England vs Fiji).

"Martin Johnson Autobiography" by Martin Johnson

Rugby as I see it is a game of the mind: for all the strength, all the bashing all the dark dark places you go to (in the scrum for one) you need to have a clear mind to make the move that takes you beyond the try line. As a player Martin Johnson was great. As a coach not so much. View the 1997 Lions DVDs, going back 14 years and see that Martin Johnson's pep talks are very elementary. He's a brute of a man who could play second row and lead from the trenches. What is required now is a far more cerebral approach with good man management skills. As a Captain both for the Lions and England he was surrounded by good lieutenants and captains. Easy to be a leader then. He did not make the transition to General where he could see the whole landscape and arena of the upcoming battle. Any venture of this nature and it is so, requires the ability to connect up the dots from the microcosm to the macro. This demands, at the most basic level, to know your own strengths and weaknesses, employ staff who compliment you and to hold actions accountable to a clear vision. Johnson failed on all levels. Maybe he would be a good forward's coach, but that's about it. At least he finally stepped down which shows his self esteem isn't at rock bottom, unlike Andrews.

But the book is great...