By Rich W
September 8 2003

OK call me a harbinger of doom or just a grumpy old one-eyed git but the last few days has seen all the hope which I had felt had grow up around the England squad dissipated in one of the most disappointing, confusing and downright insanely incomprehensible weekends of Mr Woodward’s tenure ... as England head honcho.

I confess that my opinion (for what my opinion is worth) of Mr W. has not always been favourable, but I genuinely felt that this summer’s performances; for their pragmatism and appropriate ‘style’ as much as for their results, had seen this England team finally move forward towards where it always should have been as realistic World Cup contenders. That allied with the final securing of a long over-due Six Nations Grand Slam and I thought: “maybe they really are getting there.” I was almost won over.

Hence the true profundity of my disappointment.

Firstly there was the performance at Twickenham. Against a second string French side, an almost full strength England produced the kind of disjointed, unfocussed performance which I had felt that they had put behind them. The same old weaknesses suddenly reappeared: the selfish runners incapable, it seems, of off-loading in the tackle or slowing down the break as they run away from their support; the absence of those very support runners; the rudderless, nay clueless lack of direction after the removal of Johnson and Wilkinson from the field of battle; the lateral running (mid second-half England retain the ball through some six to eight phases all of them lateral moving the ball from side to side between the French 10 and 22 metre lines and finally that paragon of incisive running big Jason Leonard manages to achieve what not a one of the back division can apparently manage and straightens the line), and arguably the most effective broken field runner in the world banished to full-back.

Now, accepting that this was the first time most of these players had run out for several weeks and therefore one didn’t expect a performance of rapier like bravado but this was close to England’s starting XV, who have had weeks to hone their understanding of each other, months to develop that intuitive relationship of trust and empathy. The southern hemisphere (and maybe Monsieur Laporte) will not have been quaking in their boots. Put simply, England’s first half was adequate considering the long lay-off and the patchy opposition. Their somnolent, plodding and aimless second half was nothing short of abject. All that I can see that England learned from this game is that they will have to risk injury to the 1st XV versus Georgia in October to sharpen them up as they cannot afford to perform like that against the Springboks.

Secondly, there is the madness of the final selections for the big event. Graham Rowntree must be fuming. A little over two months ago he excels as part of the 6 man pack that keeps at bay the New Zealanders and now he’s the 5th best prop in the country and not worth a place in the RWC? How to reward effort, commitment and excellence Mr W! I wouldn’t mind if there was a sensible policy as concerns selection of the tight five but to go with only three second rowers and four props but three hookers is simply incomprehensible and smacks of indecision, an inability to fix on a deputy to Steve Thompson; particularly when one considers the avowed repudiation of the value of ‘utility players’ and the new regulations on front row cover. Ah well England’s loss…

Ditto Simon Shaw. Never, I confess, my favourite player (he always seems, to me, a passenger in the lineout), he has been immense of late: superb against the Maori, Wales and the French and not included, despite the apparent excess of cover at 2, 9 and in the back row, in a distinctly under resourced tight 5. Unintelligible madness and I haven’t even started on the stand-off situation! I can only assume that Mike Catt must either have something on Mssrs Woodward and Robinson or has offered them a substantial inducement.

I jest of course. Catt is, or rather was, a fine midfield player. He has, however, hardly played for a year. His well documented injury problems make him a dubious inclusion in any team and he has done close to nothing in playing terms (in two pre-season friendlies) to suggest that he has the form or fitness to play international rugby. Only a matter of ten days ago Mr W. was commending the first raft of unfortunates to miss ‘the cut’ for their quality, hard work and contribution to the squad, telling them how unlucky they were and how he felt for them. Then all of a sudden Dave Walder, without so much as picking up a ball, finds himself behind an ageing, injury prone, yesterday’s man who hasn’t played in anger in nearly a year!

The irony of this is that the only way for Catt, who cannot possibly be match-fit even if he’s mentally attuned to international rugby, to acquire that necessary match fitness is to play games – which he would have done with his club and which he will not do with England. Far better that he had been put on stand-by, told to go and get match-fit and for the selectors to have used his place to take another player in one of the inadequately covered positions – prop, full-back, centre. Beyond short sightedness this is simply the worst example of favouritism that I have ever seen – and as a follower of English cricket for many years, I’ve seen a few [Mark Ramprakash!].

In all honesty I’d have to say that if I were in Walder’s position I would seriously be considering my position as regards England in future. If they can show so little loyalty to him what does he owe them? What exactly are Mr Woodward’s words worth? His club may well be more appreciative of his commitment. I say this is the worst example of favouritism I’ve ever seen, and it is. But only just. Iain Balshaw’s inclusion comes close: simply dreadful in his earlier efforts this summer and in Marseilles, I clearly differ from the consensus view of his performance on Saturday: merely adequate, if lateral, at Twickenham he had a good15 mins after his try but then went awol again. His try on Saturday evening, a case of fortuitous opportunism, his ‘pace’ exposed yet again for the myth that it is he generally looked clueless – though to be fair, so did many of his ‘compañeros’ – hesitant and short of confidence. Whilst I accept the argument that he covers two positions – we’re not taking utility players though – if there’s not a better winger/fullie in England than he then we really have got problems. What, one wonders, has James Simpson-Daniel got to do to get a break? Did Michael Horak do something wrong in North America?

The final England squad for the World Cup is an inconsistent mess. Firstly we are not going to bother with utility players but then we’ll leave ourselves so short in one position as to necessitate the [welcome] inclusion of Martin Corry in a utility role whilst leaving ourselves exposed for cover in the hardest, most demanding place on the park. We are going to reward hard work commitment and no little skill and talent with contempt. We are going to look backwards to ensure the inclusion of old favourites regardless of their evident unsuitability and despite the potential for undermining crucial esprit de corps.

The first XV remains strong enough to win the big prize, and indeed I still believe they have as good a chance as any, but gods help England if there are injuries in key positions. The cover looks weak, brittle and imbalanced. There is a shortage of authority beyond Johnson and Wilkinson with the experiment of, the otherwise estimable, Will Greenwood as captain succeeding only in placing him in the same category as both Dawson and Dallaglio as flawed and erratic. One can only hope that the two rather more pragmatic, level heads of Back and Vickery will impose themselves with greater authority, should such a situation arise down-under.

As I said, all in all I’m deeply disappointed at a weekend which has surely and sadly seen England’s hopes undermined.

OK rant over. I’m off to return to my darkened room to soothe my aching head.