6 Nations 2018: The Force Wakes Up, Thinks 'Nah Sack It', and Goes Back to Bed.

Another year, another miserable misty January disappearing under the glow of 6 Nations rugby. Who will win? Who will collect yet another wooden spoon in aid of their already thriving baking industry? Who will start the last game with a full 23 players in the match-day squad? My ill-judged, ill-informed and generally nonsense musings on some or all of these questions are summed up as follows. 

England

'Crisis? What crisis?' was the incredulous assessment of Italy coach Connor O'Shea, who would kill for a team that could have 18 (potentially) (since confirmed as a number lower than 18) absentees and still field 8 British Lions. England's problem isn't necessarily the number of injuries as the number of injuries in 2 positions, however; for all their depth they are one more injury away from starting they're 6th choice (at best) loose-head in the 6 nations. Given the impact that could potentially have - especially at scrums - and Eddie Jones could be forgiven for hiring a squad of ex-special services bodyguards to shadow Mako Vunipola until Joe Marler's latest suspension expires.

The back row looks easier to cover, with Simmonds in rampaging-tiger form for Exeter and Underhill looking good in the autumn until he decided to head-but an Argentinean hip. Itoje and Lawes have both played 6. It is the front row, the Irish and Murrayfield that are the obvious banana skins on the way to a 3rd successive title.

France

It feels like every year I have to upgrade the sentence 'they can't possibly be any more of a mess than they are now'. France, who have very much been the France of post-millennial rugby, could buy Trump tower with the money in their league. The shame is their team looks increasingly like his government, they play alternative rugby (POLITICS JOKE!!) and generally make a total hash of it. They were lucky to draw with Japan, and this lead to the unceremonial guillotining of then coach Guy Noves along with the unceremonial dropping of most of the team. Apparently now, they've found this amazing 19 year old fly-half who would be the saviour of Gallic egg-chasing, but he can't be because they run the game from 9.

Their problems now include but are not limited to: not knowing their best team, not having a game plan, having a new coach, not having as much training time with their team as other nations and away trips to Scotland and Wales. The smart money is on a recall for Frederick Michalak and a resurgence of Racing's bow-tie kit. Complete with champagne at half time. Would anyone be surprised?  

Ireland

If England are leading the 'my injury list is bigger than yours' competition, other teams with less depth are also feeling the pinch and Ireland have problems of their own. The current toll sits at 11, with Sean O'Brien, Jamie Heaslip and Gary Ringrose among those keeping physio's benches warm.

Though Ireland beat England last year and played a full part in helping the Lions to not-lose against New Zealand, their away form in the 6N has been poor in much the same way that Mark Zuckerberg isn't. I.e. very. Ireland have 3 matches at home but play England at Twickenham, on the last day of the tournament, and quite what the state of either side will be by then is anyone's guess. I've not played loose-head before but I'll be keeping my boots (which I haven't yet bought) handy.

Italy

One of 2 traditional 'easy' games for the bigger nations in this tournament, Italy were slightly later than Scotland in restructuring their domestic game in an attempt to benefit the national side. This all comes from the top-down: Connor O'Shea is not just running the national side but all of Italian rugby. Treviso have become Benetton, and passion is now being allied with cautious optimism.

The question remaining is how long it will take for results to make it back from Stadio Olympico with any consistency. You can't win games without quality players and unfortunately, on paper at least, Italy are simply the worst team in the tournament (despite having the best food. Hands down. I will brook no argument; France can do one.) Despite this, O'Shea has warned that his side will not die wondering, and scribes and scholars the rugby world over have been up late into the winter evenings, pouring over the laws by candlelight to try and find the next 'no offside line' loophole that will make England look like dicks for 40 minutes.

Scotland

Injury news: Scotland have injuries. Specially in the front row, where no short of 8 part-rhinoceroses will not be locking horns with anyone else any time soon. Scottish ambition has moved on in the last 5 years, however. After a decade of watching forwards repeatedly batter at the line 5 metres out and get no closer, someone suggested that the backs might like to have a crack. And it turns out they're a bit handy.

The biggest statement of pre-tournament intent from Edinburgh has come in the naming of the captain: not Greig Laidlaw, but John Barclay. Extrapolating from basic principles leads you to the conclusion that Laidlaw will not be starting at 9, with live-wire and Finn Russell club-mate Ali Price looking favourite. All the backline now has a very Glasgow feel to it, and they can do things like this (skip to 1:35):

Make no mistake, Scotland will have a say on who wins this tournament, one way or another.

Wales

Injury news: yes. Warburton, Lydiate, Davies, Biggar, Webb, Faletau. Wales have also expanded their ambition but there has always been the suspicion that the team hadn't quite settled into it, or perhaps that selection was one or two players awry. Some scintillating running - most notably against New Zealand away - has been mixed up with being, well, er, iffy. Offloading to fresh air and the like. With their first 3 matches against Scotland, England and Ireland, the fear amongst Welsh fans will be that their title challenge will be over before it has begun.

That said, you never write them off. If Glasgow have been good in Scotland, the Scarlets have been excellent in Wales. The talent is there for Warren Gatland if he can harness it, with the likes of Rhys Patchell looking to make a name for himself on a bigger stage. If some of the relatively inexperienced players can shine this far out from the World Cup, the attrition rate may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for more than one nation.

Predictions

Most are billing this as a 2 horse race between England and Ireland, egged on by World Rugby rankings that mean about as much as a French limerick. France usually win after a Lions year but look a shambles. Wales are always dangerous but have suffered from a lack of confidence in recent years. Can Scotland do better than their 3 wins last year? When trying to seriously predict a winner it is tough to look beyond the final day showdown between England and Ireland, but as this tournament has delighted in stuffing predictions up peoples noses for years, stick your money on Scotland. You'll get better odds.

(England will win.)

6N Interim Assessment

Has everyone gotten their breath back? The second fallow weekend of the 6N, and the moment when the sides left with a shot at the title take a deep breath before the icy, head-first plunge into their last two games.

Unusually, one of those sides this year is Scotland, who have already lived up to expectations and are succeeding in crating a feeling that there is still more to come. The make-up of the Lions squad will be interesting indeed. Although they struggled to make headway in Paris after losing their captain (and most of the rest of their team, actually) in a freak hail storm of injuries that belonged more to the trenches than international sport, at home Scotland have mixed breakdown solidity with some ruthless back play. Some of their tries have been wonderful and the way they closed out their games against Ireland and Wales, under no small amount of pressure, was impressive. They face their toughest match next against England at Twickenham, and will want a free-for-all against a forward pack that thrives on set pieces.

England themselves are three-from-three, and have been involved in the best and oddest matches of the tournament so far, against Wales and Italy. If it has been far from convincing from the defending champions, it has also not been nearly as bad as certain journalists (mentioning no names, Greg Crowden) have been insisting on insisting. England played a full part in an even and brutally-contested game in Cardiff, and won after the execution of high skill under great pressure by players who had been on the field for the full 76 minutes. This after Wales had done extremely well, repeatedly, to save themselves on their own try line. You can call that 'luck' to Owen Farrell's snarling death-mask of a face at your own risk. The biggest disappointment for England was how long they took to adjust to Italy's breakdown tactics, but they still scored more tries in one half against the Azurri than Wales managed in an entire game and some of those tries would have troubled much better sides than Italy. If this is playing badly, I assure you England fans will take it and everyone else needs to worry about what happens when they play well, because someone is going to be on the wrong end of a hiding. Like everyone else, though, England are fallible and have it in them to lose, which is exactly what everyone else wants them to do, as reading between the lines the overriding conclusion is that the rest of the world seems to have decided that the winning run has now gone beyond a joke.

Italy had to come up with something, because lets face it if they hadn't that hiding would have been dished out: the second half was evidence enough of that. Italy were well within their rights to do what they did and it was an immensely clever tactic for shock value alone, adhered to with admirable commitment in execution. Unfortunately, it is not a tactic that is going to win them any games as it makes it easier for teams who have heads on their shoulders - as opposed to bird-watching in the south London clouds - to attack through the middle and generate quick ball. They need to come up with something else in defence and a method of scoring points. Especially a method of scoring points. Whoever they want as their goal-kicker should be working on it around the clock, and then a bit more. They should be dreaming about kicking penalties. It's difficult to imagine what they could do to cause more chaos without the ball but what was interesting after the England game was the tantalising prospect of more up the Italian sleeve, hinted at by their coach, Connor O'Shea. Personally, I can't wait to see what they come up with against France, who doesn't want to see some headless chickens?

Ah, France. The penny has dropped over the channel, hasn't it? And not just on the field, with the top-brass finally taking some steps towards knobbling the clubs and giving succour to the national side. Little things, like being able to train together before the 6N, apparently make all the difference. France are the team who can feel most hard-done-by by their result against England, who didn't turn up until the last 15 minutes and still won. Les Bleus, simply, have forgotten how to do that. They contained Scotland well in an agricultural, bull-in-China-shop kind of way, and have shown flashes of offloading brilliance without it really clicking enough. But they have resisted the urge to go full bulldozer - there have been no prop-sized centres anywhere and you get the sense that, for the first time in a decade, they know which direction they are going in. Scary for the other 5, going forwards, but they have still lost twice and so will not be challenging this year.

Much like Wales. On paper they're a brilliant side, yet they only really roused themselves for the England match and still came up agonisingly short. Dan Biggar was immense in that game and played himself right out of Lions contention with an aplomb and brilliance that will surely see him go down in history as the best 10 who should not be allowed anywhere a test in New Zealand. During the middle 40 minutes of the game, the Welsh forwards dominated England, yet the only time Wales looked like scoring a try was from a set play off the base of the scrum. The Lions, simply, will need more against the All Blacks. Wales, meanwhile, backed up their best game in a long time against England with an indifferent and inaccurate display against Scotland, dominating territory and possession only to play through the second half without scoring. The word 'disappointment' probably isn't enough to cover the strength of feeling in Wales right now. They are capable of much more, and could potentially do England a massive favour against Ireland in Cardiff.

Ireland look the best-placed team to de-throne England, with the Sexton/Murray axis reunited and the home fixture against Eddie Jones' side on the last day. Cardiff on a Friday night remains a significant hurdle, however, especially if the Welsh value their pride above England losing. They will be ruing their opening day stumble against the Scots with accomplished displays against both Italy and France and Sean O'Brien and CJ Stander bossing the back row contests. Should England beat Scotland, then the world will once again be looking at the Irish to end a ridiculous winning run, just as they prevented New Zealand from reaching 19 in the autumn. While it will not be the Grand Slam decider that was hoped for before the tournament began, Dublin on St Patricks weekend may still decide the destination of the title.

I'll get the Guinness in, see you there.

Six Nations Annual Preview/Piss Take

Another year, another January of whiling away hours, staring listlessly out of windows, moaning at rain and counting down the until the 6 Nations starts. Well, January is over. February is here, and with it comes the annual blood-letting, amateur dentistry and tribal warfare that constitutes Europe’s premier Rugby tournament.

So England, Scotland and Wales probably won’t be allowed to play anymore. (Get them in early.)

There is added spice this year with state of rugby itself in flux. The World Cup proved to be the watershed that snapped the Northern Hemisphere out of its defend-and-kick, win-by-not-losing attitude. Kicking 21 points is not enough to stop New Zealand scoring 5 tries, never has been, and sides have reacted accordingly. Bonus points are in, with the caveat that a grand-slam still takes all. Fly halves are small again, which is a bugger for the likes of Courtney Lawes aiming to rattle a few rib cages, as you can now expect to be sin-binned for the heinous crime of playing rugby.

Much has been written elsewhere – and at great length – about the new tackle laws, or new punishments to laws that have always existed, or whatever else these things are. I will limit myself to the observations that: 1, players have been sent off when they previously would not have conceded a penalty, so clearly something has changed despite Wayne Barnes' protestations to the contrary, and 2, that placing 100% of the responsibility for the outcome of contact on the tackler is nonsensical and unfair when the bloke with the ball is trying to step, weave, jink, dodge, duck, dip, dive or dodge around him. There are plenty of instances when it’s the ball carriers fault that contact becomes potentially concussive.

Preamble done. Let’s take a shufty at the runners and riders, shall we? Alphabetically (See, I’m not biased.):

1. England

One year and 13 games unbeaten under Eddie Jones (+1 under the outgoing Stuart Lancaster) represents the best record of any 6 Nation going into the tournament by some margin, even if England were, at times, playing an Australia side that displayed the game management qualities of week-old trifle. 'About bloody time!' the Englishmen cry. 'He's Donald Trump!' retorts Jim Telfer, which even for him is a bit strong. I've been unable, despite extensive* research, to unearth an interview where he compared Clive Woodward to Hitler and Martin Johnson to Goebbels, but I'm sure it's out there. England have been hit by the traditional one-side-cops-for-it injury curse this year, but also have the depth to cope with that the best, and a back row of Itoje-Hughes-Wood isn't bad for a completely different one to last year. They will need to start well against a (Possibly. I mean, who knows really?) resurgent France but folk are already talking about the last game, against Ireland, as the one that will decide the champions. Certainly their new-found ability to win from any position, like 20-odd nil down against Australia inside 10 minutes, will be tested to the max in Dublin.

*I did no research.

2. France

Resurgent, I said. Did I? Yes. Should have beaten Australia in the Autumn. Could have beaten New Zealand. But then... they didn't. Anyone who watches the Heineken Cup - whatever that's called now - will know that Clermont are flying, but also that Wesley Fofana, actually playing in his right position, has been a big part of that in a superb midfield. Do they possess the wherewithal to take on England at Twickenham without their catalyst? Maybe. They certainly pose more of a threat on turnover ball than when a certain Basteraud was* blundering around the midfield like a lost bison: a props body trapped in a centres shirt, with all the passing acumen and attacking vision of a pigs dismembered trotter. France have 3 away games, with England and Ireland being two of those and representing perhaps the toughest fixtures around. You'd be a brave man to bet on them, but then, as always, bloody anything could happen with them.

*I've not actually seen the French line-up: Basteraud might be playing for all I know. I hope he is.

3. Ireland

If anything, people seem more convinced by Ireland than England. Some of the quality of their rugby in the autumn was breathtaking, admittedly, and any side that beats New Zealand is to be taken with the same seriousness as a rabid shark. They will be without Sexton and O'Mahony for their opening game (away to Scotland) which won't help the bid to get off to a flyer. Can they maintain the momentum, gained in no small part from the tragic death of Anthony Foley during the Autumn, all the way through a 6 Nations? Connor Murray is a key player whom the opposition will look to target and disrupt*, and a large part of Ireland's chances will depend on their ability to keep both first-choice half-backs on the field. A more-than-decent Scotland also present a large, if dark blue, banana skin first up. It may well be that I am simply trying to convince myself. Is Henshaw fit?

*For 'disrupt', read 'injure early on'.

4. Italy

I love Italy. In fact, if England don't win, I hope Italy do. Their country is amazing, they have the best food hands-down* and Sergio Parisse bloody well deserves it. I mean, seriously, the man is a machine. 2003 he started. 2003! All the chat after last year was whether or not Italy even deserved to be in this tournament. That discussion is still, I believe, valid purely for the carrot it would dangle in front of the likes of Georgia, but should not be limited to Italy. Connor O'Shea has been drafted in not just to get results on the pitch, but put long-term infrastructure in place that will develop players and a competitive team far into the future. The early noise is that progress is being made, and they have some young, actually Italian (as opposed to imported Australian or Kiwi) attacking players such as Michele Campagnaro and Carlo Canna who are extremely talented and could be the lynch pins of a team, post-Parisse. The battle for the wooden spoon will certainly not be short of quality. The danger is that their best players get injured early doors: they simply do not have the depth of other nations.

*Hands. Fucking. Down.

5. Scotland

And ditto for Scotland. About the emerging talent, not the good food, although I am partial to a bit of haggis. Finn Russell, Stuart Hogg, Johnnie Gray; make no mistake, these boys can play.* As with Italy, the confidence is starting to grow, though they do not yet have the results to show for their hard work. England and France away are tough assignments but Scotland will fancy anyone at home, where they can simply wheel out Telfer to growl intelligibly at the opposition until they are bemused enough to not notice that the game has started. If there is one difference between this Scotland and previous versions, it is the attitude that if they're going to lose, then they're damn well going to go down fighting and trying to score tries running it through the backs. It's refreshing to see, and good for the game.

*Don't worry: there will be no more rhyming.

6. Wales

A strangely absent force from European rugby in the last couple of years, given the talent in their ranks. Wales were past masters at the old, powerful, bash-it-up style of play, so much so that it was even named after their coach, so maybe it should not be so much of a surprise that an adaptation to heads up rugby has come as a slight culture shock. A summer tour to New Zealand is an unforgiving task when you need to get results as a side, but for all the intent they showed on that tour they were then stodgy in the autumn. Like pudding,* or some bricks in a bucket of custard. The task facing Rob Howley will be to unleash the likes of Scott Williams on a regular basis, and the question then becomes the best fly-half to do that. Dan Biggar is a fine player, but running with his head up is not his best quality and Sam Davies has been keeping him out of the Ospreys team, which takes some doing. Whatever the combination they settle on, you'd expect an improvement from the autumn.  

*The good kind, with suet. Not the American kind.

So who's going to win? It's difficult to see a Grand Slam, but then people say that most years and there usually is one. The law of averages tells me England have to lose sooner or later and they have 2 tough away games. Ireland will be without Sexton for at least one game. Matches could be decided on one genuine accident and the needless reach of a crimson card from a referees pocket. Tricky, but I'm sticking my neck out and backing...

England, on points, potentially of the bonus variety.

Here's to Round 3, when stuff happens.

There's a lot to catch up on.

After an autumn in which everyone (including Japan) played rugby except England and decided New Zealand were the best, England have taken a break from not playing rugby and joined in the Six Nations rugby tournament. France have switched from barely playing rugby to barely playing rugby but with different people barely playing it. Ireland are trying to play rugby from hospital, Scotland and Italy are trying with some success to play rugby but without winning any games of rugby (or chess. Or conkers. Let's face it, they couldn't beat a carpet.) and Wales are playing rugby, but not the rugby they were playing earlier on.

Now that we're all back in the swing of things, we can talk about what an interesting position the tournament is at. Try as the southern hemisphere might, no amount of better-quality play (tries? Who needs 'em?) can match the 6N. It's a bit like the premier league in football: stick them in Europe and they get murdered by Barcelona, but the league is competitive enough to guarantee intrigue and many, many millions of shiny, shiny pounds. Rugby may lack the cash, but there's no denying the alluring call of the 6 team round-robin, so: defending 2-times champs Ireland are all but out of it after 2 games, and Wales are playing catch-up because of their draw but with power to take the unbeaten teams down. Of these - France and England - France have barely scraped the results and England look better placed (but not convincingly, securely or inevitably so) to pull off a Grand Slam. Italy and Scotland have done what they do every year, which unfortunately for Italians or Scots is talk optimistically, play optimistically, and lose habitually.

Perhaps that's me being harsh on Italians and Scots, but it does seem to be a repeating pattern. Like winter. For all the talk of Scotland being within minutes of a World Cup semi, they didn't extract a sweat from England (who didn't enter the World Cup, so who knows how far they'd have got?) on their home patch, though they did improve against Wales. Italy fared better against the French, then crumbled against England - again - when an interception try took the game away from them. Perhaps it's England being good: they're certainly the common denominator, but even the most vehement of fans would be hard-pushed to say they've improved that much.

Which is not to say they haven't at all, because they have. Just not drastically. There have been flashes. Filthy, tempting flashes. Owen Farrell's try against Italy was a glimpse and the way the pack controlled the second half against Scotland was a thoroughly professional job - but Eddie Jones is no miracle worker. The team as a whole still has a tendency to daft mistakes - like a man asking for 'EVERYTHING!' on his 2am post-match kebab. Everything was right up to that point, just - why? The way they've used the ball from the scrum has been... well, they haven't, have they? Coaches come and go, it seems, but old habits die hard. The hookers ARE hooking, apparently, and England have no problem winning their own ball, but quick ball from the base might be better than trying to buy penalties and giving the ball away again, maybe. Especially on the opposition 5m line. The midfield still doesn't have a settled pairing, something that dogged Stuart Lancaster like a bad penny (or a terrible pound) throughout his tenure, but then you can't expect Ma'a Nonu + Conrad Smith to be conjured up after 2 games. England remain a work in progress, but the yardstick the RFU will measure their investment in Jones by is championships. So the question is: have they progressed enough? The next 2 games, against Ireland and Wales, (and both at home) will go a way towards explanation.

Ireland, meanwhile, are desperate for a win. A raft of retirements and/or life-threatening hospitalisations have seen their pack lose the cutting edge that has seen the last 2 championships end up being presented under green ticker tape and being soaked in Leprechaun-scented champagne. To throw away a 13-point lead against Wales was bad, to lose against a French team that couldn't find it's arse with both hands would have been unthinkable with certain names - Paul O'Connell, Brian O'Driscoll, Cian Healy, Peter O'Mahony, Sean O'Brien - fit and at their best. Healy, at least, should be back against England, but Ireland need to remember how to unlock defences without the help of a certain TV pundit. They will be praying Jared Payne gets through his fitness test, especially travelling to the home of a team who have yet to concede a try in the championship.

Who's left? France. I've given up. If anyone would like to fill this paragraph in with what the hell is going on over there, who this 'Noves' chap is (if that IS his real name) and why in the name of Johnny you would leave your first choice front row ON THE BENCH to play the defending champions, or let the 2nd best kicker in the team have first dibs at kicking the 50m penalties ('ee needs dee prac-teese, Monsieur) then be my guest and send me the word doc. France remain as baffling as ever, which is fun if you're not French but must be bloody infuriating if you are. They seem determined to take under-performance to as-yet unplumbed depths, scouring their not-inconsiderably sized country for the cream of European rugby talent only to let it ferment into rancid vomit-inducing shit-cheese come match-day. This is, of course, a shameless attempt to reverse-mockers them into playing well against Wales.

Wales are also playing. Some of them are named Davies. The lad Biggar has epilepsy, which everyone seems to be ignoring, and Jamie Roberts has taken it upon himself to prove, once and for all, that all anyone needs in life is a good piss-up (he's been back to University). The play-two-sevens experiment has been ditched for tonight's game against France (everyone in this hemisphere ignores the fact that Aus play their second 7 at 8, not 6. That means you still have someone doing the hard graft so the pretty boys can practice their art of legal burglary at breakdowns, but you sacrifice the big-bulldozing ball-carrying tackle-smashing 8, and for Wales to do that you're talking about dropping Faletau. Aint gonna happen. Either copy Australia properly, or don't bother.) which should see balance restored to their back row. Roberts is in great form (Centurions.) and North took advantage of  Scotland panicking about him (Roberts) running at them to find a bit of touch himself. If they don't beat France, I will eat one of those daffodil hats. This is, of course, a shameless attempt at mockers-ing (?) them into losing. Preferably badly.

To sum up, then: going into week 3 all six teams are still in with a shout (at least theoretically (in the same way that the story of Genesis is a theory)) of winning the championship. By Saturday night, that number might have been chopped in half, so this is crunch time for some teams. Will Wales be aiming to vomit spectacularly on the carpet of another England party at Twickenham? Will Ireland give themselves enough of a chance to justify stockpiling speculative amounts of Guinness? Will France - err - what will France do? Who knows, but it should be fun to watch.

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?

All Blacks Definitely the Best. Maybe.

Sometimes, stereotypes can wear a bit thin. Like the school of thought that says all Irishmen are drunken, brawling louts. I know two and only one of them is. Or the assumption that all Northerners must needs own either a whippet or ferrets. That's nonsense; stoats are just as good at taking burglars' fingers, and greyhounds are just as quick.

Or that the All Blacks always win and play rugby of the Gods. This stems from the pokey jibs and jabs of the uppity New Zealand press, who have (apparently) slammed England's 'go-slow' tactics, specifically at the line-out, and have been backed up by the coach Steve Hansen - at least in public. Their assertion is that England lack the lung capacity (honestly, that's what they're saying, look: here's the article) to keep up with the All Blacks, who play the game properly.

Never mind that England ran more metres or made more breaks in the first test. Honestly, if it wasn't the All Blacks, you'd think for all the world that England have rattled them. Like they've played three games against them under Stuart Lancaster, hammered them once and pushed them very close twice, or something. Like they have refused to roll over and invite the kick to the goolies that all teams must take when paying homage to the southern throne-seated deities of rugby union.

That article goes on to call England cynical and questions whether referee Nigel Owens should have allowed them to decide what they were going to do at line-outs before taking them. How very unreasonable of him.

As far as cynical goes, why don't we talk about Ma'a Nonu's tug on James Haskell? Or Conrad Smith killing the ball a metre from his own line? Here's a replay of the game, said incident being at 1:19:50 on the youtube clock, with some pretty telling commentary: 'bordering on a professional foul.' Er, bordering? Fast forward to 1:26:30 and you get to see Marland Yarde sin binned for something very - some might say 'exactly', 'precisely' or 'identical' -  similar much further from his goal line. This time Owens 'HAS to go to the pocket here'. The Ma'a Nonu incident is on 5:20.

The point of all this is not to moan about Nigel Owens (the 'whinging Pom' being another accursed stereotype, Owens being by far and away the best referee on the planet, and the Yarde thing being a stone-wall yellow) but to highlight some New Zealand hypocrisy. They can hardly claim to have been whiter than white themselves. Certainly if the Smith incident doesn't count as 'slowing the game down' I'm not sure what does. It's well known that they 'do what it takes to win' and that sometimes 'goes very close to the line' of what's legal. If they want to do that and they get away with it, no one can blame them, this is professional sport. But don't then hark on about other teams doing something that's actually legal to try and give themselves the best possible chance of winning.

Looking ahead to the second test, England will undoubtedly make changes with the players involved in the Premiership final coming back into contention. With Twelvetrees and Burrell working the midfield so well in the 6 Nations, the talk now is whether or not Lancaster will reinstate that partnership and put Tuilagi on the wing. The plan here being that he will exploit the resultant space to the maximum - if it takes 3 guys to tackle him at the best of times, he usually marmalises the one-on-ones. Like a rogue dragon chasing a lady rogue dragon in heat. It might not be a bad plan. And no doubt the speed-freaky New Zealand public will welcome Danny Care's quick taps and drop goals with open arms. Unless it's against the spirit of the New Zealand game to drop a goal? Who knows. They booed Freddie Burns on the stroke of half time, anyway. Incidentally, Burns had a cracking game and proved a few people, myself included, wrong. Good on him.

Whatever the side, England will have to improve dramatically, because the All Blacks have a history of doing just that. Last year, France thought they had done well to lose by 10 in the first test only to lose by 30 in the second. The year before Ireland ran them close in the second test, losing by 3, before they were dispatched quite unceremoniously 60-0. This side is at it's most dangerous coming off the back of a dodgy performance, and they will be out to put the Poms in their place.

What is refreshing and heartening about England, though, is that they were bitterly disappointed to have lost. This team is clearly sick of the 'plucky loser' tag and is desperate to shed it. They have not gone half way around the world to be beaten by a supposedly better team, they are there to win. New Zealand, I think, know that, and articles like the one above are almost proof of it. Lancaster, one hopes, might well read it and smile to himself. New Zealand resorting to pretty name-calling? Jog it on. And bring on the second test.

End-of-Season Niggles

With the close of the regular Premiership rugby season at the weekend and with the benefit of having watched at least 1, usually two and quite regularly more games per weekend, there are a couple of changes I'd like to suggest. If someone from the IRB could give this a read than ring me up to arrange employment/fiscal reimbursement, I'd be grateful. These are mainly to ensure the sanity of all involved and to give Austin Healy fewer opportunities to whinge down his microphone, but they would also definitely (maybe) speed the game up and improve it as a spectacle. Rather predictably, then, I would like to write briefly about the TMO and the scrum.

Re the TMO, I'm an advocate of using technology in general but it's simply being used far too often for too many inconsequential calls in the middle of games. What rugby has always had (and it's one of the great benefits over football) is retrospective punishment, which has served the game excellently as a means of dispensing justice, and endless replays on a screen at the ground for things like marginal forward passes or the slightest of obstructions are really helping no one. Least of all the fans at the ground, who cannot hear the referees explanation for something visually cryptic. What it is also encouraging is the now commonplace-and-inexorably-sliding-down-a-slippery-slope player 'advice giving' to the referees. That, above all, has to stop.

Further, there has been at least one example in a crucial game of the TMO adversely affecting the course of the game, when a referee gave a penalty advantage to Bath in the last minute. Believing it to be a kick to nothing, George Ford went for a drop goal - as you would expect - and missed. Upon watching the replay it was decided there was no penalty. Giving one would not have been fair on Saints, but not having one was equally unfair on Bath. Even with the tech, howlers can still happen (just ask a cricketer). The TMO can be pulled back and restricted to try scoring and serious foul play. It'll be better for everyone. Please.

Next, the scrums. They are better than the were with the hit (which was never legal in the first place and represented appalling dereliction of duty by someone, somewhere) but they are still a farce, following the pattern of set - mess - whistle. Simply, the rewards of milking penalties outweighs the uncertainty of, you know, er, playing the ball. There is currently zero incentive for the front rows to do anything other than force a penalty for their side, and equally zero incentive for the 8s and 9s to get the ball out the back of the scrum while they wait for the front rows. So you either need to get very harsh on offending props, which in some cases would simply not be fair (like sin binning someone for coming off second best in a tackle) OR you remove the penalty incentive for every front row offence known to man.

I do not wish to reduce the scrums to rugby league stuff (boring) but what used to be a contest with the aim of winning and using the ball has now become a game of woo-the-ref. Let's make no bones about this: props are perfectly capable of keeping it up, square and stable if that's what they want to do. They don't because the greater rewards are to be had by not doing so. So my solution? Reduce the penalty offences at scrums to free kicks. You take away their throw to any resulting line-out and the kick down-field becomes much less of an option and the penalty goal disappears. That almost guarantees stable scrums between the two 22s. Within the 22s the defending side would probably try and win the free kick in order to alleviate the pressure, but the attacking side would want the ball out quickly to stop them from doing so. It would, at worst, even out. And let's face it, it can't get much worse than it is now.

So there we are, and I hope the common sense isn't too much for the people in charge. If they could get those changes in place in time for the World Cup, there wouldn't be many complaining, I don't think. Over to you, IRB...

England's Mission Impossible

There have been some ever-so-slightly sensationalist reports about England's 'injury crisis' in the last 24 hours, with the combined effect of crocks and the premiership final meaning that a very difficult task for England, namely beating New Zealand in New Zealand, is rapidly becoming an impossible one. In fact, the first test is looking a lot like trying to play snooker with a rope at this point.

I say 'slightly' because the injury reports focus on the following names: Tom Youngs (not technically injured, but staying home with his ill wife. Quite right too, and my best wishes to them), Tom Croft, Alex Corbisiero, Jack Nowell, Christian Wade and Billy Twelvetrees. Of those, Croft, Corbisiero and Wade have been out for ages. England played a full 6 Nations without any of them and only narrowly missed out on winning it. They can cope, although (and with all due respect) the All Blacks are likely to present just a slightly sterner challenge than Scotland or Italy. Or even Ireland or Wales, for that matter.

Of the others, Nowell is capable but not world-set-alighting, not yet anyway, and there are other wingers on form vying for his place. He may not have started. The fact that Twelvetrees might miss all three games is concerning but there are other options at 12, not least Brad Barritt, who has tasted victory against the All Blacks before, and Luther Burrell, who plays 12 regularly for Northampton.

But then you look at the front row and you start to get seriously worried. There is not so much a crisis there as a scrummaging double-dip recession. Youngs would have played, at least from the bench, and first choice hooker Hartley is himself coming back from a shoulder injury, although expected to be fit. England's third choice hooker, Rob Webber, went down at the weekend for Bath. If the Saints make the premiership final, England will be fielding their FOURTH choice hooker against the best team in the world (possibly of any sport at any time ever, although that is another can of worms for another day) on their home turf. Ouch. I don't even know who England's fourth choice hooker IS. (David Paice, apparently.)

Then there are the props. First-choicers Corbisiero and Cole are out, and we've known that for a while. Although England do, at least, have cover in the loose in Joe Marler and Mako Vunipola (although a Quins v Saracens final is not totally out of the question and would take them both out of the first test) the tight options aren't exactly world-beating, although the same as the ones England finished the 6 Nations with. An injury to Dave Wilson at this point would be nothing short of disastrous.

Back to the first test. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that England will be coming from 1-0 down. It's not just the front row. If we assume hypothetically that the premiership final will be contested by Saracens and Leicester, then there go Owen Farrell, Brad Barritt, Alex Goode, Chris Ashton, Ben Youngs, Manu Tuilagi and Anthony Allen from any potential back row, not to mention the likes of both Vuniploas, Matt Stevens, Geoff Parling and Ed Slater from the pack. Quins making the final would render Danny Care, Chris Robshaw, Joe Marler and Mike Brown more useless than a fire proof match. Saints do well and there go Hartley, Lawes, Wood, Dickson, Myler, Burrell and Foden.

To sum up: this really is a no-win situation for Lancaster and you wonder how the organisers could have let it happen. For any England fans with plane tickets to New Zealand, especially front-rowers, I'd consider taking your boots. There's every chance you'll get a game. If England manage to win even ONCE, however (especially given the front row), then who'd be willing to bet against their world cup hopes?

Seeing red. But not Alex Goode, apparently.

So, Jared Payne, the Ulster fullback, has been banned for two weeks for knocking Alex Goode out of the air like a clay pigeon. To continue the metaphor, Goode was then removed like a clay pigeon (i.e. carried off in a bucket) and Payne was shown a straight red card that has been causing much, much consternation on rugby forums up and down the land. Especially, it seems, if you happen to be an Ulsterman.

Opinion at the time was divided, it must be said, with Will Greenwood on Sky supporting the referee's decision and the other two (Irish) pundits maintaining it should have been yellow. Hmm. Meanwhile, RugbyDump's facebook page has gone literally mental with sage social-media users bemoaning the demise of the Gary Owen, the advent of diving in rugby and the mental state of the referee, among other things. I have yet to read a piece of serious journalism that says it shouldn't have been red, but then I've not looked at the papers from Ireland, give me an minute...

That didn't take long. Belfast Telegraph, anyone?
Ulster Rugby launch fight for justice over Jared Payne red card.

The point is, they would say that, wouldn't they? Further, their assertion that the decision caused consternation among 'the vast majority of supporters and neutrals alike' is simply not true, in my experience. I can only assume they haven't been asking the neutrals I've been keeping an eye on, or asking me. I'm neutral.

Anyway, I watched that game (Ulster should have won, in the end. One shudders at the size of the thumping Saracens would have been dealt if the Irishmen hadn't given them a fighting chance by having a bloke sent off) and will hereby chuck in my penny's worth, despite it being worth less than said proverbial penny, ironically. But it will give me something to do while I listen to the cricket (incidentally, if anyone fancies giving me a job and/or money, feel free to leave your contact details/bank account access information in the comments section). Also, as it turns out, the IRB have quite a nice website for those who wish to research the laws.

So, then: preliminaries. As far as I have been able to read, no one but no one is disputing the following:

• Jared Payne took Goode out in the air
• Goode went down on his head
• There was absolutely no intent or malice on the part of Payne, who had his eyes on the ball the whole time
• It was a stonewall penalty

We effectively have a guilty plea, m'lud, as it cannot be argued from any of the available evidence that Payne did NOT, in fact, take Goode out like that peeping Stark lad in the first episode of Game of Thrones. The case for the defence says that Payne is perfectly entitled to compete for the ball, and he clearly didn't mean to take out Goode like he did.

Here's the rub, because to my mind, that last point is in fact a case for the prosecution. Bear with me.

Payne is, indeed, perfectly entitled to compete for the ball. But it is also Payne's (and anyone else's) responsibility to ensure that he places no other player in danger while doing so. What made this dangerous, not only to Alex Goode but to Payne himself, was not bothering to look for a split second and see where the defenders were, then ploughing straight into someone's legs at full tilt. It's a bit like driving a tank through a building, then claiming you didn't see the building. What did he expect? How often do you NOT have to battle a defender to reclaim a Gary Owen? He should have known, as a professional rugby player, that there would be someone underneath the kick and it was his duty to make sure he didn't hurt them. That he couldn't be trusted to do that is, to my mind, the most damning thing about the whole incident. 

Now, following the laws, that clearly constitutes a dangerous tackle, and we come to the severity of the punishment. As I said, no one (not even the good people of Ulster) are disputing the penalty but many are saying that it was a yellow, tops. I have to admit, my first inclination was 'yellow, borderline red'. You don't see a lot of red cards for tackles in the air, but then they are hardly ever that reckless. What the referee has to look at is HOW DANGEROUS the tackle was. Nothing else. Not the intent, or the extent of Goode's injury, but how dangerous the tackle was. Given the facts that Payne went into his legs with absolutely no thought of Goode's being there, the speed at which he did so and the fact that Goode went down head-first (regardless of any injury), this amounted to it being about as dangerous as a tackle in the air can possibly get, hence the red.


Thankfully, Goode was OK and rejoined his team mates on the bench. But it could have been much, much worse and remember: the laws that govern the Heineken Cup are the same laws that govern Sunday league matches between clubs you've never heard of. If you were allowed to do things like that without punishment, then sooner or later someone would end up losing the ability to walk. If Payne, the next time he chases a Gary Owen, sees the defender, slows down, then smashes him as he lands, then Mr Garces will have done rugby - and indeed Payne - a service. I understand Ulster feeling hard done by, but I think the Belfast Telegraph would actually find a lot of neutrals agree with the ref.


Options at 10?
In a totally unrelated note, Danny Cipriani has been named Premiership Player of the Month. Good for him. The lad's had a great season generally and comprehensively out-played George Ford when the two met down in Bath 2 weeks ago. Given Freddie Burns recent 'form' a trip to New Zealand surely beckons for Cipriani.

Umpires are Rubbish. Fact.

I was just about to slate Jos Buttler on facebook for botching a simple run out vs the Netherlands, citing the incident as evidence of why the lad, as good as he is, should not be anywhere near the test team if Matt Prior can score runs at an average of more than 5.

If you haven't seen the incident, the Netherlands batsman (apologies for not knowing his name) was miles of of his ground trying for two in something like the 18th over. The throw came in, and Buttler duly removed the bails, with the batsman so far out that he continued running in the direction of the dug-out without further ado. But wait, the umpires are checking something - there is a suspicion the Buttler knocked the bails of with his elbow before he caught the ball. For those of you sketchy on the laws, if both bails are removed pre-contact of ball with glove, a stump must be removed from the ground to constitute breaking of the wicket. If one bail stays on and then is removed when the keeper has the ball in hand, that's fine.

A couple of replays (or more accurately, the same replay a couple of times) is shown from the square leg position which appear to show, very clearly, the bails being removed before Buttler catches the ball, and it doesn't take long for the 3rd umpire to relate his 'not-out' decision. Shortly after the batsman is called back to resume, another replay from the bowlers position is shown on TV which shows, even more clearly, that only one bail was knocked off, then Buttler caught the ball and got rid of the over. It should have been out.

Now, notwithstanding the fact it it really shouldn't have been an issue if the wicket keeper had been doing his job properly, it gives me something else to write about which should kill at least half an hour: namely, umpiring incompetence in the face of flaw-exposing technology.

This was further illustrated in England's earlier game against Sri Lanka, when a clear catch (as clear as it gets, actually) being given not out because low catches always look dodgy on TV. That's a line that is routinely used by umpires to justify their dodging making a decision. And that's not to mention the 2013 England Ashes series, where there were more DRS-based mistakes than a pre-school spelling test. These errors are compounded by (sometimes) ambiguity over the 'protocol' (think of Trotts first ball lbw, where some of the tech wasn't available because it was being used for another replay) or (always) by bad decisions being paraded in front of the crowd on a massive screen. When you have 20,000+ boozy Englishmen and Aussies gathered in a relatively confined space and stick replays like Usman Khawaja's phantom nick (not out - given out) or Ashton Agar failing to get his foot behind the line (out - given in) in front on them for scrutiny you're simply asking for trouble. Because every single one of those drunken fans, dressed as nuns and cartoon characters, now know themselves to be a superior umpire to the two blokes in the middle and the muppet in charge of the replays. Which is a ridiculous situation and should not be allowed to happen.

You hear a lot about DRS being introduced to 'eliminate the howler'. All well and good, but giving captains more reviews not less means that they will be used tactically, especially in tight situations and especially now that they are reset to 2 after 80 overs in tests. Batsmen have referred nicks they probably got bat on on the off chance that hotspot would show nothing, especially the last recognised batsman with the team at 100/5. And every batsman, EVERY batsman, is going to refer the low catch, given umpires track record with giving benefit of the doubt. Personally, I would like to see a change of policy as far as these are concerned, with the catch assumed to be clean unless you can see it bounce clearly - as in change direction and move up. 90% of these are clean catches that just aren't being given.

Other than that, proposed changes include giving discretion over whether a decision is reviewed or not to the umpires. Hmm. Well that would certainly lend a different dynamic to the situation and it seems to work in rugby, but then how long before they review everything? Umpires would effectively be absolved of responsibility for their decisions, unless limits are imposed on WHAT they can review. So where do you draw the line there? Can you check whether a ball pitched outside leg for an lbw but not have the benefit of the predictive path to see if it would have hit the stumps?

Or - and I'm about to suggest something a bit controversial here so bear with me -  how about simply finding competent umpires? I don't know if you've ever noticed, but nobody ever complains when the umpires get stuff right, it's only when they get it wrong. So the answer, it seems to me, would be to get new umpires, or improve the ones we have, until they get the decisions right. And, lets face it, if 20,000+ pissed up half naked lunatics can tell if a foot's behind the line or not, why can't the sober, extensively trained and experienced umpire watching in high definition at close quarters in the comfort of a van, brew at hand? How hard would it have been to check that second stump angle for Jos Buttler's run out? How difficult would it be to give more benefit of the doubt to the fielder, to use balance of probability rather than working out if the batsman has a straw to clutch at?

Overall I'm a fan of using the technology. It's a constant source of exasperation to me when the most lucrative sport on the planet (i.e. football) refuses to use simple technology not to get more decisions right (and in football, there are no foots-on-the-line. Decisions are far more obvious and work over much wider margins, with the possible exception of tight offsides). But it's far easier for the idiots at FIFA to dig their heals when they can point to these issues as evidence that the tech doesn't work. My point is, the tech DOES work. The people don't, and the ICC should really be doing something about that. So far, their response has been to chuck more reviews at the captains, which simply does not address the root of the problem.


In other news...
England, as I write, are 37-4 chasing 134 against the Netherlands. Speaking as someone who has said, for a while, that I don't think Ashley Giles is the man for the coaching job and that the likes of Moeen Ali and Jos Buttler shouldn't be considered for test selection, I face a moral dilemma as to whether I want England to win or not. 

6 Nations Round-Up

I appreciate I'm a little late on the uptake here, and that there certainly has been more than enough reaction, post-reaction, analysis and verdict giving to render this totally pointless. But by George, I started so I'll finish. I can only offer my not getting back from Rome until early Tuesday morning, and then taking the Wednesday to recover from the most nerve-racking taxi journey of my life, as explanation. Rather than reviewing the games, I'll run through the teams one by one and do my upmost to avoid the blindingly obvious. In ascending order:

Italy

Unlucky not to pick up a win somewhere, the Italians will be disappointed. While it is heartening to see them play with more ambition, the side is clearly a work in early progress, although potential is there. The two new centres showed glimpses, but they did not help themselves with indecision as to their best half-back combination. They need to settle on a 9 and a 10 and then stick by them.

Meanwhile, I can report that the Italians love Sherlock Holmes, do some astonishing pistachio ice cream and would be served very well by banning the selling of flowers by bloody-minded miscreants who don't know the meaning of the word 'no'.

Scotland

New coach Vern Cotter can't come quick enough. There are only so many amusing interviews you can paper over gaping chasms with, and this was the tournament when Scott Johnson's metaphorical platitudes finally stopped washing. Muddled and misguided selections went a long way to helping that happen, with decisions to leave out Kelly Brown, Dave Denton and Richie Gray akin to hunting polar bears with a zippo and a pointy stick when you could have been using a semi-automatic. Otherwise, Scotland simply lacked attacking zeal and have strikingly similar issues at half-back to Italy, which just goes to prove how crucial those two positions are.

Winners of the Alan Titchmarsh award for Soggiest Cabbage Patch.

Wales

Mixed bag for the reigning champions. Anyone who says the Lions tour didn't take a toll is deluded, but that should not excuse some pretty clueless performances against Ireland and England. Tactically, Wales were comprehensively out-thought in Dublin and Rhys Priestland was then given a kicking lesson at Twickenham by Owen Farrell. Sorry to bang on about this, but now that I think about it, the only two teams with a settled first choice 9 and 10 were the two teams that finished top. Neither Priestland nor Biggar is completely convincing and, for whatever reason, Gatland does not seem to like James Hook.

The challenge now is to re-build and refresh. Wales are still a very good side but there is a sense that maybe they have been found out slightly, and Adam Jones and Gethin Jenkins won't be around forever.

France

No one knows how they finished 3rd. France were lucky against England in the first game (and ultimately cost Lancaster's side a Grand Slam) and then failed spectacularly to kick on. The thick fog of denial that prompted Nicholas Mas to storm out of his press conference was to recall certain French football teams of the past, and most observers' surprise at how badly they were playing was equalled only by their surprise that France went into the last game with a shot at the title. As it was, they nearly did England a favour, but then the chronic anti-rugby they have been playing reared it's head and some nutcase chucked it forwards.

With such as the case, the most satisfying aspect for the French will be denying the English the title not once but twice: one by beating them in the first game, and again when they failed to beat Ireland. He did it on purpose.

England

Indisputably one of the two form teams of the championship, although they will face sterner tests next year when they have to play both Wales and Ireland away instead of at Twickenham. The pack is now a bona fide force to be reckoned with and the backs produced the best attacking rugby seen from white shirts in years.

For an England fan, now is the time to start being critical. The side has shown vast improvement since Lancaster took over and has now finished 2nd for 3 years running. Next year, they need to win the 6 Nations, but there is opportunity to set down an even more telling marker. If you can beat the All Blacks in New Zealand, you can beat anyone anywhere. Any sort of victory in the summer will make the world sit up and recognise England as genuine World Cup contenders.

Ireland

No one who knows anything about rugby begrudges Ireland this win, because O'Driscoll deserves it and that is that. Filling his shoes will not be easy, which is a bit of a pain when you consider his knack for unlocking stubborn defences in this tournament. In Joe Schmidt, though, they also have a coach who could make a game plan out of ashes and thin air: he'll come up with something. And Ireland remain a very talented side with players to come back, Sean O'Brien, for example.

With all due respect to Argentina, the Irish may now wish they were going to one of the big three the summer before a World Cup year but, with a relatively easy fixture list you'd back them to at least make the semis. Where they may well play England.

Overall, the best thing about the tournament was it's unpredictability, with 4 teams in it after 3 games. The standard may be better down south, but they'd kill for the 6N history and drama. Probably.

Worst Game: Wales vs France
Scrums were a mess and France played like a club team. At least Italy v Scotland had last-ditch drop-goal drama.

Best Game: England vs Ireland
A non-stop roller coaster of a game that swung one way then the other, with some brilliant rugby played by both sides. What the 6 Nations is all about.

Round 4 Preview

It's been a brilliantly close 6 Nations so far, with 4 teams level on 4 points after 3 games. After this weekend, that 4 will (probably) have been whittled down to at least 3 and possibly 2, depending on how useless the French continue to be (maybe). In a year that has perpetually defied the sagest of predictions it seems almost churlish to carry on, but here we go anyway.

Italy v Ireland

A potentially title-deciding tie if the Irish have their try-scoring hats on, it's very hard to see Joe Schmidts mean slipping up against Italy in Dublin, where they saw off Wales so impressively. While they will have been disappointed not to beat England it's not as if they played badly, and with points difference looking like it might be crucial expect the Irish to come out with all pints of Guinness blazing. Johnny Sexton has been confirmed as fit and starting, which is obviously a boost, and if Peter O'Mahony's absence will be felt at least it's at blindside, not opensi... Sean O'Brien's still injured, is he? Well the breakdowns might be interesting, then. Especially seeing as Parisse always seems to be in several places at once on rugby fields. He's like some sort of bald Michael J Fox.

Italy have been pretty good and extremely unlucky in all their games, especially against Scotland, where a Wilkinson-esque drop-goal in red dead time from Duncan Weir denied them a win that everyone had backed them to get. Though they've not been exactly setting the world alight, they have definitely displayed a greater sense of cohesion amongst the backs and were displaying far more ambition and attacking acumen than Scotland until the two met in Rome. Will their incessant pluckiness be enough to get a result in Dublin? Probably not. Especially with Ireland chasing the title on potential points difference. Did I mention that last bit?

Prediction: Ireland by 14, probably more.

Scotland v France

I could literally write entire blogs on the respective coaches of these two teams, if I a) had the time and b) was a psychologist of some description. I'm not, though, so it would be silly to try and second guess the inner thought processes of two guys who have had far more experience of international rugby than me and have so far exhibited all the selectorial and tactical competence of a knife-wielding baboon being presented with the original manuscript of War and Peace and the pitch for TOWIE before being asked to make a decision. Scott Johnson has, to date, sacked his captain, accused the replacement debutant of naivety, dropped his best ball-carrying forward, left out one of the few world-class players at his disposal, recalled his captain, claimed that black is white, cried wolf, mused on the merits or otherwise of bikinis and replaced the Murrayfield pitch with what appears to be Kendle Mint Cake. I have no idea what Scotland's game plan will be and can not for the life of me muster a prediction as to form, because he's changed a load of his team.

Phillipe St Andre, meanwhile, has thus far played his best player out of position for three years, stuck by a 10 with the game management qualities of a drunk goldfish, complained about the attitude of the French clubs, complained about the attitude of his No. 8, dropped his No. 8, flown in the face of decades of French rugby playing tradition, picked wingers on the basis of their Grandads being a bit handy and replaced the Stade Francais pitch with something that looks suspiciously like Brie. Watching the French last week was like watching a bunch of kids with only a dim grasp of the rules having a bash with blindfolds on. They can't possibly be that bad again, can they? No idea, because he's changed - literally - more than half his team.

Prediction: You're having a laugh, right?

England v Wales

Now we get to it. If we accept - and I am doing - that Ireland are almost certainly going to beat Italy and that the French points tally/being-a-bit-crap all but rules them out, then these two are battling it out for the right to challenge for the Championship. After the leek-handed mauling England suffered last year, they will be out there aiming to choke a few daffodils on a rose bush on their home patch and, if the Ireland game is anything to go by, it will be edge-of-the-seat, finger-chewing stuff. Under Stuart Lancaster, England have gone from absolutely nowhere after the last world cup, to being damn difficult to beat, to suddenly being a force to be reckoned with. The backline looks the most threatening it has since the days of the Wilkinson-Greenwood axis, with Tuilagi still to come back and Owen Farrell continuing to improve.

Wales, on the other hand, started the tournament looking like they'd rather be back in Australia. On the beach. Having a lie down. Cows with tetanus have been observed in more energetic fits of ball-playing. Maybe. Anyway, they were definitely better against France (although they would have done bloody well to lose against that lot) and having Jonathan Davies back means they have a potential right-foot/left-foot midfield kicking option to try and wrong-foot the so-far imperious Mike Brown with. As with Ireland, they travel to Twickenham with a team chock full of experience and game-playing nous attempting to shoot down Englands young guns. With Roiman Poite set to ref Wales will fancy their chances at the scrum, an area England got away with against Ireland by dint of losing the ones they lost deep in Irish territory. They still lost too many.

England will be looking to go out and prove that their pack is far tougher in the loose these days, after the pounding they took in Cardiff. Expect it to be ferocious up front. Actually, England could do worse than watch the Ireland game and maul them into the ground - even Ireland didn't fancy taking on the English at that game. When was the last time you saw a team defend a maul by stepping off? (As a side note: that definitely happened. I tried to find it on a replay of the game but failed and I couldn't be fussed watching the whole thing. The idea is to step everyone back from the maul at the setting up point when the line-out hits the floor - instead of piling defenders in - causing the attacking side to collapse under their own shove against thin air, looking a bit silly in the process. The reason you don't see it is because it's against to so-called 'spirit of the game'. In the incident in question, England kept their shape, walked forward and pulled Ireland into the maul anyway. Trust me.)

Prediction: Reverse mockers worked last time: Wales by 5.