Which is not to say that the situation is not desperately serious, but that’s focusing on the outcome rather than the cause.   More on that later.  Let’s start with the cause.  Or at least, the cause of our current despair - Saturday’s result.  

 

Worcester had a stonking game.  It all went right for them.  They were always going to win a match in the ZP, it was simply a question of when.

 

Ever Played for Quins, Old Chap?

 

Perhaps the fact they had several Quins’ old boys in the team with a point to prove was a strong motivator -  especially for people like Tim Collier and Matt Powell, who unlike Pat Sanderson did not move for ‘an offer they couldn’t refuse’.  Was it entirely coincidental that Sanderson was Man of the Match, with Powell a close runner up?  I think not.  And Collier hardly had a shabby game either, including showing how well skills learned on the High Street can be transferable to the rugby pitch.  

 

Worcester had the good fortune this week to be playing at home against a Quins team that looked like it was at rock bottom, confidence-wise.  Having said that, the Warriors were themselves coming off the back of a thrashing in Manchester that based on Saturday’s performance beggars belief – whatever did the coaches do with their charges during the week, one wonders?  Credit to them, whatever it was. 

 

Talking of coaches, ex-Harlequins coach Andy Keast - another who didn’t leave the club for greener pastures reasons – just happens to be Worcester’s director of rugby.  Hmmm. 

 

In the Sixways hospitality suite (great value at £9.95 for two courses - white tablecloths, private bar...) they had a couple of players answering questions from the floor before the game.  Apparently, the Wuss coaches studied at least three of Harlequins’ previous matches on video this week.  Maybe that’s normal in the ZP these days, but I think we can guess what were the weaknesses they identified to exploit.  With a little help from the Harlequins’ alumni.  

 

It’s easy to simply blame Quins for a poor performance, but the stats also suggest Worcester had one of those dream days.  Mark Evans observed: “We only put in at two scrums.  Two scrums!  That says that Worcester made virtually no mistakes, no knock-ons, no forward passes, nothing!”

 

And as David Llewellyn noted in Monday’s Independent: “While Harlequins were staggeringly bad in just about every aspect of the game, Worcester were staggeringly efficient, recycling rapidly at the rucks, providing clean ball, thus allowing halfbacks Matt Powell and James Brown to run the show”

 

More on ‘staggeringly bad’ Harlequins later, and particularly the fact that ‘the Worcester forwards looked unstoppable for much of the game’. 

 

Zinzan Must Go

 

It is hardly surprising that in the wake of five straight defeats many supporters question the tenure of the incumbent management.  There have been plenty of calls for people to fall on their swords, with a few volunteers to do the foul deed themselves, of sticking the knife in the backs of Messrs. Evans, Kingston and/or Turner.  But is this rational?

 

I for one don’t think so.  It’s easy to rush to analogies with football or business, but I think those are misplaced.  When Zinzan was relieved of office, we had Mark Evans to step in and take over.  And what a fine job he did at the time too.  Very frankly, he’s done a fine job all round since then.  The siren voices calling for him to go come from a tiny minority, some of whom refuse even to identify themselves and enter into grown-up debate face-to-face with their peers. 

 

That is not to say mistakes have not been made – on to that in a moment – but I am convinced that sacking anyone will achieve nothing.  Mark Evans resigning as a matter of principle (‘I take full responsibility’) would be equally counterproductive.  Please don’t, Mark.  Only if he had completely lost the confidence of the team should he even contemplate doing such a thing, but I very much doubt that’s the case.  Calls for dear Jason Leonard to be appointed, or Sir Clive Woodward, are so hilarious they’re almost not funny.     

 

Let’s look at what are the problems, and their causes.

 

Our weaknesses are actually nothing new – they have been developing over the past year, but were largely obscured by last season’s partial successes; that is, a decent league position, in a year affected by the World Cup, and a last minute triumph in the Parker Pen Final. 

 

However, these latent weaknesses in the team have finally come to full and dramatic fruition. 

 

Forwards or Backwards?

 

I can remember writing last year about Harlequins’ underpowered forwards, although I can’t for the life of me find the article.  In any event, this particular chicken has now very firmly come home to roost.  We were just blown away up front on Saturday – men against boys.    

 

The club has been very well aware of this weakness, despite no public acknowledgement of the fact.  That is, apart from a little snippet that crept unnoticed into the Northampton match programme under ‘Fitness Focus’. 

 

“A big focus during the summer conditioning programme was to get the majority of players bigger.  We calculated that the Quins pack was naturally lighter than the average pack, so we took some steps to help players reach their bodyweight goals.  This included a focus on weight training at the start of the summer...”  

 

It’s not just about weight of course, otherwise a couple of supporters I can think of would be rushed into the starting line-up.  No, it’s about power and strength.  Professional rugby has become a power game up front, and Harlequins simply does not have enough of it.  The major difference when a National One side lines up against a ZP team is exactly this.   And that is where our principal problem lies.

 

Writing in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, Stuart Barnes hit the nail right on the head when he said:

“Whether you call it 'go forward', as they do in the southern hemisphere, or 'impetus', as we do here, without it teams go nowhere against the well-organised modern rugby defence.

'Go forward' is more than just a direct path taken by a team. It is what individuals, forwards in particular, must possess, if they are to keep defenders on the back foot and, therefore, their own offence at an advantage.

'Go forward' forwards are adept at charging with such intent that one defender alone cannot be detailed to stop one attacker.  If the runner can make 10 metres and take three defenders out of the game, the chances of his team-mates finding a glaring gap somewhere across a retreating opposition line increases manifold.

If a team possess no impetus among their forwards, the backs are largely neutered, except from first phase.  If the first phase crumbles, they become little more than peripheral figures called upon to tackle opponents, now and then.  Or they try and run unsuitably slow ball and are smashed in turn”

Does any of that sound familiar?  Recognise that in any of the matches you’ve seen so far this season?  I think so. 

Barnes again:

 

“It is one of the more obvious lessons to have been highlighted in last year's World Cup but not one that Mark Evans of Harlequins appears to have learned.  His team who lost to Bath on Saturday were as light on impetus as they are on league points.   

 

The match with Bath clarified the club's problems.  The balance of the pack is dreadful.  Ace Tiatia apart, there is not a single ball-carrying forward to dent opposition defences ... a new pack needs to be quickly shuffled”

 

Spot on, Barnesy.  It’s one of the oldest sayings in the book, but ‘Forwards win matches, backs simply decide by how many points” 

 

No offence intended, but I didn’t think that the Worcester backs were up to much on Saturday, although I liked the look of Delport – the real difference was in the pack.  Harlequins’ three-quarter resources seem fine, especially when Matt Henjak is playing, which he will surely do at Gloucester next weekend.  I think the backs could be dangerous, but not until the pack gets sorted. 

 

 

 

Why Are We Where We Are?

 

Now we begin to move from what I think is fairly indisputable fact to what must of necessity be speculation.  Why is it that we are we where we are?

 

It must of necessity be speculation, because no-one at the club has commented on it, or at least, not directly. 

 

My own theory runs like this.  Mark Evans is and was fully aware of the weakness, but calculated he could get away with it for another season.  After all, we’d just about managed OK last year.  And with the new stand to pay for, plus pressure from the owners to deliver a break-even year, he reckoned he could make do and manage. 

 

He realised that not so long ago one of the main criticisms was that the squad lacked depth, so he recruited a number of ‘good value’ players and promoted the best of the Academy, to gain greater strength in depth.  The success of the Zurich ‘A’ team is testimony to that achievement.  Sound move, so far as back-up to your first-choice team is concerned. 

 

But it was in recruiting for the first team that we have been found lacking.       

 

Evans tried and failed to get his first choice, world-class scrum half, Agustin Pichot, who at his motivated best would have been an exceptional signing, so short-term he had to settle for Steven So’oialo, an experienced Samoan but hardly in the top-drawer.  Despite the ‘spin’ when he was recruited - is Alistair Campbell now in charge of press releases at the Stoop? – about his credentials, he looks much better suited to being a star in National One.  Once again, a recurring theme - good value for money, but there is surely an element of ‘you get what you pay for’. 

 

It must quickly have become obvious, if it wasn’t at the outset, that the third scrum half signing had to be a first-choice player, hence grabbing Henjak on a short-term contract.  This was perhaps the first public signal of emerging panic in the management camp.  After all, it goes right against the grain of everything Evans has ever said about squad-building.  You build for the long term, you try to keep together a settled squad – which takes some years to build up – and just make a few additions year-to-year, just as teams like Leicester do.

 

Ah, you say, but what about Dafydd James?  Yes, a British Lion, but just coming back from injury and on the market because his club had folded.  A famous ‘name’ to tout around, which should please the sponsors, who like that sort of thing – but was it also the case that, because of the circumstances, lo and behold, he was a lot cheaper than you’d normally expect? 

 

Let’s return to the problem of the pack.  Evans would have looked at his existing resources and known it needed beefing up.  Unfortunately, no Simon Shaws or Danny Grewcocks were available, or at least not at the money he wanted to spend.  Pat Sanderson had left and Jason Leonard and Billy Davison had retired, so we needed some equivalent signings.  Or so you would have thought. 

 

When in doubt, they say, sign a Samoan.  Or in this case, a Tongan and a Samoan, in Molitika and Palepoi.  However, once again, we were adding to our strength in depth without signing a top drawer player.   

 

Basically, it seems Mark Evans took a gamble.

 

For example, relying on a first choice second row of Evans, Rudzki and Miall.  Why was this risky?  Well, if you look at their profiles, Evans and Rudzki are both only 24 years old.  They may be tall enough – 6’ 7” and 6’ 5” respectively – but do they have the muscular development of players with several years more experience behind them?  We all know that building muscular bulk takes time.  And although Miall is a more mature 28, he has only two years’ ZP experience, having joined after Oxford University, making his debut only in August 2002.   

 

Jim Evans, of course, who would probably have been a first choice lock, sadly picked up a long term injury.  This exacerbated the gamble. 

 

I reckon any one of these three would have been fine, playing alongside a big hairy monster, but on their own they look lightweight and underpowered.  Particularly when you look at some of the other weaknesses in the pack.  Jon Dawson may be a good scrummager, but he too is also only 24 years old and not exactly highly visible in open play.  And Luke Sherriff is no Sanderson, at least not yet.  There is no balance in the back row when playing two openside flankers, Vos and Sherriff, the latter of whom doubles up as an emergency back (NB - he played at centre in the Varsity Match three years ago!) 

 

Where are the ball carriers?

 

This is the reason those who say “play the Second XV instead” are so wide of the mark.  They would get even more blown away by the same Premiership packs that are blowing the First XV away. 

 

Finally, Diprose is an enigma.  He seems to have lost some of his never-legendary pace this year, and seems content to try to make up in positional sense for what he is not achieving in terms of getting around the park.  He also does not seem to be applying what should be some considerable strength – or are the rumours about his training effort and fitness to be believed?  Is he marking time in his final year before retiring to the Sky Sports booth?  Dippy is, or at least was, a very talented footballer, but has he become a luxury item?  I hope not, because even in an emergency like this one, we can’t replace everybody! 

 

And what does the sight of him twice trying to kick the ball out of hand on Saturday tell us?

 

We have some great young forwards prospects at the club, and their day will come, but they need to be told this is crisis time and not their fault that they are at a stage of development where, without outside recruitment, collectively they are not going to be able to compete.  

 

 

 

 

Coaches Demand Better Players, CEOs Demand Lower Costs

 

Overall, there is a clear impression that Mark Evans has tried very hard to save money all round.  The salaries bill must have come down considerably in the last couple of years, but it appears he has been just a bit too successful in avoiding re-deploying it.  The CEO in him has triumphed over the coach in him. 

 

In a recent interview, he said: “I make no secret of the fact that my primary interest is in leading the development of this club in the broadest sense.  But I'm also heading up the coaching, and that leaves me performing a fairly challenging juggling act”.  The interviewer took this to mean in the ‘doing two jobs at once’ sense, but it seems to me he means in the money sense, with a big new stand to pay for and pressure internally to cut costs.  If there’s a conflict, it’s not workload but budget. 

 

I find evidence for this in another comment in the same interview: “I think I've done OK, with the resources available.” (emphasis added)  And when he adds that “we've taken a firm decision that we won't operate at a loss.  We won't fund deficits year after year, with the same bloke writing the same cheque to help us fire-fight our way through another season” he is speaking only common sense.  But it’s the common sense of a CEO, not a coach who would have seen the shortcomings in the pack and demanded international-level replacements for at least two of them – a big second row and a big ball carrying blindside, perhaps. 

 

Did Mark Evans’ last comment betray the expectation that we might indeed be ‘fire-fighting our way’ through this season, I wonder? 

 

The scary reality is that, with the probable exception of the outstanding Vos, we have no-one in the squad who would currently be considered a first choice international for one of the major nations.  Now there is a lot to be said for building a team that will not be affected by international call-ups, but that’s slightly besides the point. 

 

If now were close-season, I would be saying the squad needed strengthening to the tune of five new forwards, all of appropriate quality to be ‘first name on the team sheet’ selections, injury permitting – two second rows, a prop, a blindside and a number eight.  

 

Where Do We Go From Here?

 

In the aftermath of the Worcester debacle, Mark Evans, quite properly, said “I am not going to sit here and belittle the players by talking about other people”. 

 

He may not be talking about other people, but he sure as anything will be thinking about them.  And on the phone to the directors (to get approval to spend the rest of the salary cap – “sorry chaps, it didn’t work.  I said it was a risk that might not come off and it hasn’t”) whilst Scotty is on the phone to the agents (to see who’s available, at short notice).  

 

The main trouble he faces is this: the problems are not of a nature that can be resolved through more work on the training paddock.  Or fewer errors (although that would help). 

 

Even so, we could write the draft notes for this week’s ‘Scotty Speaks’ now:

 

“Very disappointing result”

 

“We didn’t follow our game plan”

 

“Came up against a very good Worcester side, who were on form on the day and will give a lot of other teams a run for their money this season”

 

“Squad just lacking a bit of confidence”

 

“Need to reduce the error rate”

 

“Several encouraging signs we just need to build on”

 

“Everyone in the squad working very hard this week in training and determined to get it right on Saturday”

 

Even if Harlequins go into the transfer market, as Squeaky did not so long ago in similar circumstances, they face problems.  The pack clearly needs new recruits, but the club has already spent some of the budget on players that is no longer available now to spend on others.  This is what scares me.   

 

Even if two top quality forwards (who we probably still have room for within the cap) were available right away, which is questionable, these signings may not in themselves be enough to raise the overall standard of the pack high enough. 

 

After all, we have already lost three away matches that we would probably have targeted as likely wins, and therefore now have to put together a team to win some matches we wouldn’t have expected to, to regain lost ground.      

 

Realistically, we are going to have to see out at least the next four matches – two ZP and two Europe – with the existing resources.  We may have to wait until after Christmas for the Cavalry to arrive. 

 

A Final Thought

 

I speculated on the board that Mark Evans might know something we don’t – namely, that there will be no relegation this year and so he could take a chance on recruitment.  The only bases I could see for that, though, were the prospect of there being no-one in National One who would want to come up into the ZP (after all, look at the risk you take – Bristol, Rotherham...) or, that none of the grounds of the likely contenders were up to it.  Until someone reminded us of another possibility – expansion of the ZP, which would render relegation redundant.  In which event, the worst that can happen to Harlequins this year would be humiliation.

 

There’s a comforting thought.