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.