Reading that argument, you might think Melville is ploughing the old furrow of the side has dismantled itself by retirements and injuries. But that is not the case he is presenting. He places the blame firmly at the door of the management and goes on to state that the situation is not getting any better with the approach taken to this year’s Churchill Cup and the loss of so many of the coaching staff to the Lions.

Is Melville right?

The first part of his argument is that the RFU nor Clive Woodward nor even Andy Robinson appears to have had a robust plan to retain the William Webb Ellis trophy in 2007. If there were a plan – it would have been defended so that distractions such as a Lions tour would not have happened. Andy Robinson should have been with his team for three years coaching them through thick and thin. We did some thin with this year’s Six Nations but instead of putting right all that went wrong, Andy Robinson is going to New Zealand. Meanwhile, poor Joe Lydon has the job of developing the team with reduced coaching support. Melville goes on to criticise the use of Joe Lydon – most of whose career has been as a rugby league player and coach. I think that part of Melville’s argument is unfair on Joe Lydon but he is right to question the draining of coaching and team support for England. If retaining the World Cup is THE priority, Andy Robinson has gone AWOL at a critical time.

The second area of Melville’s argument is around the team – he argues that the core of team to retain the World Cup returned from Australia in 2003. Melville believes only Lewsey, Thompson and Robinson should now be in that core. He criticises the selection of players for the Churchill Cup, asking what Olly Barkley, Andy Gomarsall, Andy Hazell, James Simpson-Daniel, Mike Tindall and Phil Vickery are going to gain from the tour. I think he is right to ask and I have no idea why they are going except to perhaps to teach the younger players – however, six players seems overkill for that role (and does not include the likes of Pat Sanderson!). England team selection has been a mystery to me for some time – many of the younger players who should be on tour are at home whilst those that are complaining of burn-out have been selected.

The second dimension to Melville’s argument is that because the core has gone from the team, the imperative must be to find the replacements – this tour will not provide the start it should do. And we are only two years away from France.

Finally, Melville questions the value of the Churchill Cup – true it’s not a trophy any English player is going to aspire to but these summer tours have provided great development opportunities both at the individual and team level – remember that match against Argentina in 2002. Both Vickery and Thompson blossomed after that one game. The trophy is not really relevant – the opportunity to develop as a team is.

So for once I find myself largely agreeing with Nigel Melville – the RFU and England management teams need to work out where their priorities are.

If they don’t, 2007 could be a painful year.

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon