Aliens Ruined England's World Cup.

OK, I'll admit it: I've never been one to go to undue effort trying to find something original to write about. I mean, I enjoy writing, and moaning, and giving my two pennies worth (sometimes I'll even stretch to 5p, I like it that much) but you're unlikely to catch me awake in the middle of the night, pondering the deep mysteries of space and time whilst wondering how to reconcile said deep mysteries with the underlying contradictions, complexities and futility of the the human condition. 'To hell with sharp, insightful analysis!' I cried, as I created my username for this blogging platform. 'Hang original thinking, or creative endeavour!' I ejaculated as I confirmed my email address (and yes, that was an excuse to use the word 'ejaculate'). 'This waste of html will be just as monotonous, prosaic and platitudinous as the Daily Mail, so help me God.' Lofty heights for which to try and reach, I'll concede, but thus the goal was set.

So this blog is about Sam Burgess.

In two words: poor bloke. It's undoubtedly a sad situation this, made all the sadder by just how every single person in the world has been in complete agreement about the whole thing, with the notable exceptions of the Bath and England management teams. That it should have come to this is a sorry state of affairs and one which deserves answers for the fans, because I find it difficult to accept that the men in charge have been honest with us. As follows.

England's world cup was a shambles. You can point to mitigating factors: the refusal to kick 3 points against Wales that would ultimately have taken us through, the fact that Australia had dug up some Tasmanian devils since the last time they rocked up to Twickenham, and the fact that it didn't matter what England did because nothing less than the total and utter destruction of the human race would have prevented the All Blacks from winning this one. That said, the team didn't show up as a collective when it mattered most. When moments were there to be grabbed against Wales and Australia, England fumbled worse than bambi in a soap factory.

Let's be clear, that was not Burgess' fault. Unfortunately for him, though, he is the clearest illustration of how poorly managed the whole thing was. When league players cross to union, the most successful, historically speaking, have been in the back three. Think Jason Robinson. Chris Ashton. Israel Folau. There have been others who made a damn good fist of playing in the centre: Sonny Bill Williams springs to mind, as does Burgess' Bath team-mate Kyle Eastmond.It takes time - a lot of time - for them to make that switch a success, to learn the game and the intricacies of their position. Williams is used off the bench by New Zealand. Eastmond didn't make England's World Cup squad, despite playing most of the domestic season in Sam Burgess' team. In the position England wanted Burgess to play in. If Bath thought Eastmond was better there, what were England seeing that they weren't?

If England were playing next weekend and Lancaster picked Chris Robshaw or Tom Wood to play at 12, people would question his sanity, and rightly so. If Gatland tried to play Warburton at 12 there'd be a revolt. It's daft to play experience players out of position, never mind relative novices. Add to that: England were going up against two world class 12s in Jamie Roberts and Matt Giteau. Was anyone seriously suggesting Burgess was in their league? Again this is not a slight on Burgess, merely an illustration of how improbable and how (with hindsight, admittedly) doomed to failure the whole thing was. Burgess didn't do a whole lot wrong, but he didn't win England any games either and he should never have made it on to the pitch ahead of, say, an urban fox who lived round the corner from the Stoop. At least it would have known the pitch.

Which leads me back to the men who picked him. That last paragraph was easy to write after the event, and if England had gotten to the semis it may well have been a different story. But I seem to remember someone saying, way back when, that players had to earn their place in his team through form. One of the central tenants of the 'new England' after the last World Cup fuck-up, was that. Yet at the most important point of his or any of his players' careers, Lancaster departed - or allowed himself to be persuaded away from - his golden rule. I reckon it's a legitimate question to ask why, and that's before we get on to the question of tactics.

People seem to forget that Owen Farrell was injured throughout the last 6 nations, and if he hadn't been George Ford might not have started all Englands games. Nevertheless, they did show glimpses of what they were capable of when they put 50 wonderful, breathless , ridiculous points past France. They took the defence-first rule book and binned it, and they won a few friends in doing so.

So come the World Cup: Farrell, Burgess, Barritt. Three players who would rather run through a brick wall than show it the ball and go the other way, laughing as they saw it fall flat on its bricky arse. That can work, but it does rather stick all your eggs in one basket. And it was a different basket from the one England fans had started liking in the 6N. And the eggs were rotten. And the chickens had been carried off by that fox from earlier. And turned into nuggets.

My gripe here really is that the more I think of it, the more it looks to me like everything was done to get Burgess into the side no matter what. That might not be the case, and again it's result dependent thinking, but the whole thing now seems so divorced from logic, reason or evidence of Lancaster's reign to date that it feels like it was out of his hands. Like it was orders from on high, and like Burgess was basically promised he'd be playing in the World Cup before he'd left Sydney. I hope I'm wrong, but if that was the case then someone should be sacked.

Which is another reason to think that is was orders from on high: on high has rather conveniently been left out of the scope of the review into England's failure. Lancaster's position, meanwhile, looks more precarious by the day.

Sorry for the conspiracy theories, but, y'know, 9/11, Elvis is alive, Harry Potter is real and the letter just got lost in the post etc. Didn't New Zealand play well? Who needs world cups anyway grumble grumble grumble....

Stick or Twist, Australia?

In 2013, England went Down Under with a side that had been around a bit, but many thought were still capable of winning. A few tests later, Jonathan Trott was close to hospitalisation through cricket overload, Graeme Swann had retired and no one could cope with the Aussie conditions as Mitchell Johnson dynamited his way through innings after innings and probably through Ayres Rock between games. 

No one thought England would win the first test, but history is now firmly in their favour: sides hardly ever come from behind (1997 and 2005 being the last 2 instances) and the last time a man in a Baggy Green left Blighty with the Urn in his bag was in 2001. It is difficult to come from behind, and it is difficult to win away. Which by my maths makes it doubly difficult to do both. The England side has been re-built since it's antipodean, moustachioed mauling and now knows it can beat this lot, and beat them well. One match into this Ashes series, Australia should be looking back and learning lessons - fast.

England tried to eke just one more series out of a successful but ageing side, and failed miserably. Woefully. Tear-inducingly and suicide-motivatingly. Say what you like about Steve Smith being world class, they said it all about Kevin Pietersen. Say what you like about either Mitchell: we were assured Jimmy would find just enough swing with those ruler-impersonating Kookaburra atrocities to make him dangerous. Pre-series talk counts for bugger all, for which I am eternally grateful because in these heady days of ubiquitous media it is increasingly tedious. England failed to heed their early warning signs and were smashed to bits, box by box. 

For Australia, the early warning signs have been rung, loud and clear. Number one: down in Cardiff they'd taken the bowlers out of Australia but they hadn't taken Australia out of the bowlers. Bouncers won't get you as many wickets up here as they will in Perth. You're less likely to be able to tell an opposition tail ender to get ready for a broken arm and mean it. Pitches around the world - be they in Bangladesh or Barbados, Calcutta or Cape Town - have their own characteristics and their own ways to take wickets. Australia, first and foremost, need to wake up and realise this is not the Gabba. Bowl full. Persevere. Exploit the swing and get your nicks. 

Number two: Shane Watson is as likely to get out lbw as a crocodile is to live near water. Certain. Without fail. Ad infinitum. That can be forgiven for a series or even a season, but over 6 years for a test batsman it must have worn a bit thin and there hasn't been any obvious tinkering with his technique to try and combat it. Does he not think it's an issue? Judging by his use of the DRS, it's more likely he simply doesn't understand what 'LBW' means. When others score runs and he contributes with the ball, this particular crack has paper over it. Neither of those two things happened in Cardiff.

Number 3: Brad Haddin and David Warner averaged 58.11 and 61.62 respectively in the last Ashes. They were the top two run scorers. Warner averages 22 in England and Haddin 30, but 17.92 everywhere over the last year. Stats don't tell you everything and the fact that Warner almost survived until lunch on day 4 says bags for his character, but Broad had him on toast. He needs to work out how to score runs in England, and Haddin needs to catch his catches. His drop of Joe Root on 0 cost Australia this game and that's the end of it. Another costly miss at Lords will have even more folk casting their eyes over his age and wondering whether or not he's past it. You can't quite throw Chris Rogers in as well, but it would only take 2 or 3 failures before you could. As with Watson, there's only so loud annoying noises can get before you have to do something about them.

Number 4: Michael Clarke. Same stats: average of 46.38 in England, 31.3 over the last 12 months. More worryingly, Clarke was the main man who had to grasp the conditions and didn't. The tactics were wrong in the first innings, and then were persevered with when it became clear they were not working. A portion of blame goes to the bowlers, but equally to Clarke, who should have known better. And he has a dodgy back. 

It's a sad fact in sport that most good teams are allowed to go on playing until someone gives them an unceremonious hiding. England have earned their last 2 (out of a total of 3) Ashes whitewashes through this policy and to stick or twist is now the question facing Australia. For the second test in Adelaide at the back end of 2013, everyone said that not panicking and sticking by their guns was the right call for England. It wasn't, but whoever they brought in would probably have lost as well: it takes years of planning ahead to get succession working as an easy process and the All Blacks are the only people who do it consistently. But Australia clearly need to up their game, and the areas to do it in are there for all to see. The question is, can they? It's a tough thing to do, and I for one would like to wish them absolutely no luck at all.  

6N So Far, and How to Fix Scrums BY JOSH COOPER, TM, COPYRIGHT, MY IDEA.

Two games down, and it looks distinctly as if the 6 Nations will be decided in the next round. That's not hard and fast, obviously, nothing ever is in this competition. Unlike that southern one, which is always won by the men in black. Which is ironic, given that they play like some alien species specifically evolved to expertly handle egg-shaped pieces of leather with each of their four limbs, and probably a few more the rest of us haven't seen yet. Anyway, we should have a clear idea of the trophies destination after the two remaining unbeaten sides - Ireland and England - get together in Dublin.

As far as England are concerned, the game plan will have its reset button poked with a paper clip. Imperious in the second half against Wales, far too many tackles were missed against an Italian side who, to be fair, have more chance of brokering a bailout deal with Greece that involves offsetting feta against the Euro than they do of consistently winning games in 6N right now. Johnny May's defence, in particular, is cause for concern and that stretches back to the Wales game and, indeed, beyond. (I'd like to point out that I wrote that before the reports in todays press, 18/2/15.) Score a peregrine falcon of a try against NZ he may have done, but that was a few games back and he's been leaking tries over his own line since. I would, therefore, not be surprised to see Jack Nowell - blessed as he is with considerably less speed but far greater tackling technique - peering hopefully over Stuart Lancasters shoulder as he writes his team down. (And that.) And I can't stand wingers or full backs who insist on wearing bloody scrum caps. Defensive frailties aside, the Ford/Joseph axis is clearly working and Twelvetrees is playing like a man possessed by a tiger possessed by a wasp whenever his boots hit grass. England's midfield prospects look optimistic for the first time in bloody ages, and long may it continue.

Ireland may not quite have hit the heights they managed in the autumn but they are tactically probably the most astute team in this hemisphere, channelling Joe Schmidt's spirit on to the field like so many bulked-up, inexplicably angry Derren Browns. They are always fiercely combative and have the likes of Sexton and O'Brien back playing, which helps them no end. Sexton, especially, is cutting a crucial figure. England would not be sorry to see him ruled out after he decided that the baby elephant that is Matieu Bastareaud needed a good head butting, but as that seems unlikely, England will have to make do with Jamie Heaslip after Pascal Pape took it upon himself to give a chiropractic demonstration in the 2nd half. Pape will be lucky to play again in the tournament. The game in Dublin, though, will feature the tournaments most ruthless defence so far standing off against a lightning-quick centre who neither knows nor cares what tackling is, or how it might stop him scoring tries. Intrigue abounds.

Of the other two Celtic nations, Wales will be glad for the win under their belt whereas Scotland will be looking for someone who can exorcise the Murrayfield goal lines for them. The finishing ineptitude of the Scots aside (and Vern Cotter really will be tearing his hair... oh) the games main talking point has, regrettably, come in the shape of the ref. Two tackles in the air, two yellow cards, although they were at opposite ends of the yellow spectrum (can you have a spectrum of just one colour?) and only one of the offending players, Scottish 10 Finn Russell, has been cited. While it is now undoubtedly the guy on the floors responsibility not to take out the guy in the air, Russell was exactly where he was supposed to be defensively, did not force Dan Biggar into a salmon impersonation, tried to avoid any collision, and generally should be afforded some measure of sympathy. The severity of punishment meted for these challenges seems to depend entirely on which body part the challengee lands on rather than anything the challenger does - intentionally or otherwise - and lets be honest it's something the authorities should be clarifying and sorting out. After scrums. Do scrums first.

Seriously, do the bloody scrums.*

Meanwhile, France were rubbish and it rained in London.

Bring on Dublin!


* As a sort-of afterthought, and in an attempt to bring some serious rugby discussion to these pages, here's some thoughts about what could be done to sort the scrums out. Hopefully they will back up my whinging a bit.

We know what the problems are: they take effing forever, the laws regarding the feed are not even bloody recognised anymore, never mind policed, and teams (at least in the Northern hemisphere) use them as a way of gaining a penalty, rather than a platform to restart open play.

The first two are solved pretty easily: put a time limit on them (like there is already on penalty kicks and conversions) and TELL REFEREES TO MAKE SCRUM HALVES FEED IT STRAIGHT. Seriously, that issue is one of the most ridiculous things in sport, never mind rugby. Get tough on it, there is simply no reason to let it slide as it has.

The penalty thing is more difficult. The reason why teams go for penalties is the territory gain associated with having the throw in at the resultant line out. Even in the middle of the pitch, this is seen as more of an advantage than ball-in-hand possession simply because of the metres gained. The only way to stop teams going for it is to remove this incentive. So my suggestion is this:

Downgrade ALL scrum penalty offences to free kicks, UNLESS awarded to a defending team inside their own 22. 

This removes attacking penalties completely but retains the reward for an excellent scrum by a defending pack on their own try line. Granted it's not a perfect fix, but it'd be more than a start.

I'm going to email world rugby immediately, letting them know when I can start my new job as head of world rugby refereeing. 

It's starting when, sorry?

Last Saturday night I landed in Manchester airport having spent a week skiing in Bulgaria. I don't like heights. My thighs burn to this minute, my back feels like a Jacobs Cracker after the first bite and I'm more exhausted than that bloke from Man V Food would be if he had to run marathons between McDonalds. I'd spent the day sitting around, waiting around stood up, waiting around sat down and then standing about. I could barely keep my eyes open during the drive to work this morning, and only when someone asked 'are you ready for Friday, then?' did it finally really dawn on me that the Six Nations is starting less than a week from now.

That's snuck up on me, has that.

But being a 'keep smashing your head into it and eventually it'll fall over' type of person, here is my first rugby blog since last year, having studiously and gracelessly ignored both the summer and autumn series.

Wales v England - Friday night

Right. Well. Chalk that one up to experience then, shall we lads? As it will most probably/definitely/maybe/never turn out, it's not a great idea to ignore the teams of Welsh ninjas roaming the land, hacking at legs, knocking on heads and generally ensuring England have more walking wounded than the opening scene of Saving Private bloody Ryan. Stuart Lancaster is without two complete second rows, a raft of centres (not that he knew which ones he wanted anyway) and his most reliant goal kicker. Wales, meanwhile, have a fully fit squad (Jonathan Davies having being named in the starting line-up) an axe to grind after last year, and the support of their home crowd on an opening night. Call me pessimistic, but if England win this it will be a HUGE result. England will compete, and might well dominate the scrums, but all Wales have to do is outsmart them at the breakdown and let Halfpenny kick his merry way over the Taff into Welsh delirium land. James Haskell suddenly becomes a huge player for England, as does any forward lump capable of maintaining a steady two feet over a ruck (looking at you, Billy). Even then you feel one of the backs is going to have to do something special, but whether or not Cipriani gets on the field is another matter. I hate myself for saying it, but I reckon Wales are going to sneak this one, albeit by a tighter scoreline than the 30-3 pasting they handed out last time England were in Cardiff. Prove me wrong, England. Please, please prove me wrong.

Italy v Ireland - Saturday afternoon

Last time Ireland travelled to Rome, they were shocked for some reason and Italy won. Personally, I'm calling limoncello. With all due deference to Sergio Parrise's ability to win games on his own and with a curt nod at the fact Ireland will not have their first choice half-backs, I can't see that happening again. Different year, different coach and inarguably the form side in Europe. This is about as foregone as conclusions can get, with the main point of interest being how many points England/Wales/France will have to make up when they play the Azzurri. I bet loads.

Get this game over with, and Ireland get to welcome back Connor Murray, Johnny Sexton and Sean O'Brien to the title-retaining effort. If they don't get off to a flier they might end up kicking themselves, so expect some Irish guns to blaze. 

France v Scotland - Saturday evening

This one should be interesting. Scotland improved tremendously in the Autumn under Vern Cotter and no one, ever, in the entire history of creation, has been able to predict whether France will play like a) some jam in a toaster, b) a lumbering, confused Ox that simply wants to punch something or c) a pack of ruthless, ravening wolves that haven't eaten in weeks and can see a Chinese over the hill. Once again I enter the Six Nations period with no clue as to what France's best XV might be, but rather unusually I enter it with one wary eye cast in the direction of Murrayfield. Where England have to play. From what I saw in November the Scots had renewed bite up front and some decisiveness in attack (they've finally found a 10 worthy of the name. No offence, Duncan.) but will they be able to translate that into something tangible in Paris against a team that, at least on paper, should be stronger?

I genuinely hope they can before fading away horribly, just to put the shits under France's campaign, but I think France will prove so ridiculously unpredictable that the result will be kind of normal. A tight French win.

In case anyone was wondering, my money's on Ireland to win the whole thing and this year I actually feel confident picking a winner. They're either better, more settled or more or on form (or all three) than anyone else so barring something unexpected, they'll clinch it.

And since when did anything unexpected ever happen in the Six Nations?