Rugby reflections Japan 2019 — a great World Cup? And what about England?
Host a major event in a storm?
Praise for the 2019 Rugby World Cup and its host nation continues, and it’s all getting a bit unctuous. It’s been great, chiefly because it’s non-stop rugby, but we cannot pretend there were not serious issues. It is pretty much universally accepted that the standard of referring and TMO has been very poor (further analysis of this under subheading below). What hasn’t been spoken of, as far as I have read, is the decision to host the tournament during the typhoon season. This could have easily led to the integrity of the competition and it’s eventual winners being severely undermined. The game between Scotland and Japan was arguably the game of the tournament. Also, perhaps not coincidentally, it was one of the few Pool games with actual genuine importance for progression to the knockout stages. The decision to go ahead was made literally the morning of the game. A game of historic significance and crucial importance to the tournament was that close to being pulled.
For this to receive such uncritical comment is baffling. In the upcoming Olympics, events can be more easily postponed and run on a later day. It’s not ideal but it’s more manageable. The time constrained nature of the Pool Groups make this impossible and contingency for other stadia similarly so. There was no plan B. The cancellation of England France gave an unfair advantage to both teams in terms of recovery (and who knows, may well have changed the progression to the knockouts) whilst many Italian players missed out on the chance to face the All Blacks in a World Cup game. But the key point for me is that the disruption could have been even worse.
That this was the first World Cup in Asia reinforces the point. Its success was vital to rugby’s growth and to its prestige. Therefore, change the dates. September 2018 saw the strongest storm in Japan in 25 years. The one in 2017 was mercifully brief, with an October typhoon killing seven people. I am trying not to write ‘only’. To put the World Cup into this mix, unnecessarily, was folly. The solution, of course, would have been to run the tournament February to April. This would have been responsible, sensible and ethical. What, no Six Nations? I think spectators could have missed it for one year.
Please don’t tell me there are more important matters at stake, such as the 48 (at the time of writing) estimated dead. That supports my argument.
Who was so desperate for the tournament to take place in the autumn?
Standard of referring
It is hard to comprehend why a sport with frequent use of video replays struggles so much to implement a consistent, fair policy of decision making. Add to this World Rugby’s desire to grow the sport, which is hardly helped by spectator confusion, and the risk of serious injury, which this World Cup did little to abate (despite World Rugby’s feelings to the contrary) and one is left with the distinct feeling ‘could do better’.
A list of odd decisions that bugged me during my viewing is at the end of this article. You will no doubt have your own. I didn’t watch every game and didn’t record every incident I saw that I thought was wrong. Who had the time for that in a tournament so full of errors and inconsistencies? You may disagree with some of my thoughts, but let’s be honest, who knows anymore?
Clueless England
OK, we beat the All Blacks. But the Ford Farell combination has never convinced me and I feel is reminiscent of the Gerard Lampard experiment.
One (admittedly amazing) game alone does not justify the system, and the fact that Jones chopped and changed this pairing in our preparations and during the World Cup suggests it is one for a certain set of circumstances. Jones received many plaudits for the semi-final and rightly so. It was an almost flawless performance and his selections, such as the Lawes-Itoji gamble, paid off. But the game was so one sided, the All Blacks so poor, that our game, our system, was not really tested.
If plaudits are to be given for tactical success, then it is only right that criticism be leveled in the face of abject failure. This was surely the worst England performance in living memory, far worse than the 2007 final, when England were performing above their level to get there.
England were so so poor in the face of pressure in this game and perhaps it was not really a surprise. A faltering performance against Tonga followed by rudimentary victories over the USA and a 10 man Argentina didn’t really set the pulse racing. Did we know what we were doing? Victory against Australia suggested that we might, but this was an opposition that fully embraced the notion of kamikaze (or, better, seppuku), which left a very flattering scoreline. And, of course, a different back line.
Put this into context. A failure to win the Six Nations in 2019 despite it being there for the taking (again, implosion under pressure) that came off the back of a dismal 2018 campaign. In tournament rugby, England aren’t the best team in Europe, never mind the world.
I’m not putting it all on Ford Farrell (see below for another issue). However, I feel it symptomatic of a regime, and a team, that has often felt, semifinal apart, on the back foot.
Lack of impact substitutions
This subheading is another way of saying that Jones picked the wrong squad, and then picked the wrong bench. No disrespect to the surprising choices that Jones made in his squad selection, but I found them baffling. With 40 minutes left to play in a World Cup game and the need for tries, who would you rather call on, Chris Ashton or McChonnochie? Jones answered this question by barely playing the latter during the tournament and finding no place for him beyond the pool stages. Ashton is a try sniffer extraordinaire and his omission was a shame for England and for rugby.
It goes on. Care or Heinz? For me, it’s self evident, and as a poor Youngs imploded in the Final (after a pretty lacklustre tournament as a whole) one was left to ponder what Care might have made of a full 40 minutes to battle the outstanding De Klerk. Piers Francis? Yet Cirpriani sits at home. Yes, I said it. And I know he has become a real outlier but one can’t help feeling that players with verve and creativity are not quite to Jones’ taste. I also can’t help feeling that the leaving behind of quality, experienced players such as Ashton and Care smacked a little of spite.
Which leaves Cokanasinga. Jones clearly doesn’t trust him. But he should have picked him for the bench for all three knockout games. Substitutes are there to cover injuries and they are there as players tire, but they are also there to bring something different to the table, to change the game. Jonathan Joseph is a silky centre and one of my favourite players, but to be brought on at 70 minutes, chasing the game, is just not his strength. Never mind that he came on for May, England’s best back in the final and the most likely to actually score a try.
In Cokansinga, Jones had a weapon that few other teams possess and one that rugby fans across the world were looking forward to watching. He should have played a bigger role in this World Cup. Against South Africa, he could have been thrown on at 50 minutes and made a few charges at their back line. Heaven knows, we were desperate. Who knows? He could have made a difference. He could have taken the burden off of Tuilagi. He would have made an impact.
Which brings us to Jones. Like Lancaster, albeit less spectacularly, he has failed. His selections and his tactics are suspect. The first half of his tenure was a success but the last 2 years have been pretty turgid. He says that he prepared 4 years for the World Cup. It didn’t show and he is not the man to take England to the next level.
Time to return to specialists?
When the pressure is brought to bear, the fashion for players being able to rotate between positions looks more Jack and less master. Scott Barrett thrown in as a flanker (albeit to try and undermine a possible lack of specialism in the England line out) left him so exposed I almost felt sorry for him. The bonkers strategy of playing the world’s best fly half at full back was shown as such when the pressure mounted. Mo ‘Unga is quality but was lost against England, whilst Barrett was unable to influence the game as he might have. Yes, the All Blacks system worked in the Pool game against South Africa, but they were on top. As the saying goes, and I appreciate that’s two for one paragraph, you are as strong as your weakest link. When the opposition turns the screw, it’s often the non-specialists that pop.
The Final was a case in point. Take Farrell, one of the world’s best at fly half, playing inside centre. He struggled to influence the game and who can blame him? Daly plays a variety of positions in the back line, but his best and preferred is outside centre, yet for England he is full back. Boy, did Pollard enjoy exploiting that one. Lawes, who had an immense tournament, is somewhere between a lock and a back rower. When the South Africans put on the squeeze, he looked out of sorts. Ford didn’t seem to know where he was and was constantly forcing things.
Contrast with the men in the green. Pollard is arguably not as good as Farrell but is allowed to flourish as 10. He’s the man, and that’s it. He is ably supported by a genuine inside centre in Allende and so it goes on. Vermeulen reminds us all of what a classic number 8 does, and the two South African locks couldn’t play back row if they tried, nor would you want them to. Their captain, blind side Kolisi, is hewn from the same rock as Richard Hill and Thierry Dusautoir. Opposition players seldom venture there with success.
Don’t get me wrong, this is not a call for a return to the days when the front row barely ran and the locks could only catch a pass if they were standing still. But, as the scrummage also reminded us in the final, rugby is a game for specialists.
Thomas Linanne, November 2nd 2019
Some of the many strange referee decisions Rugby World Cup 2019
Australia Wales.
Hooper deliberate late no arms tackle on Biggar. TMO refers it, but only a penalty given. Looks like clear yellow card.
In a later World Cup game, a yellow, I think to Fijian player, for same offence.
Patchell stands up in tackle, endangering himself and tackled player. Receives a forearm shove off. Player was not leading with forearm, was tackled dangerously by Patchell, but penalty given against him.
Scotland Japan,
Illegal tackle by Japanese player, throwing player in air like Judo. No action taken, no TMO intervention. Immediately afterwards, Ritchie takes his own action, throttling Japanese player on the floor with his forearm. Nothing done. Should be two yellow cards.
In 22, Jonny Gray tackle attempt, high and makes direct head contact with Japanese front row. Player looks concussed. Blood. No offence given, a “rugby incident” according to referee (also, note no HIA).
Japan South Africa quarter final.
Wayne Barnes let’s forward passes go in first half. Strange. Rediscovers knowledge of forward pass rule in second half.
South Africa Wales semi final
Moriarty jumps to catch kick in Welsh 22. Clearly tackled in the air, knocked onto his back. Nothing given (in fact, I think it was given as knock on against Moriarty!)
Welsh line out on 35 mins. Hooker in line with Welsh receivers, not stood in centre. This happened often in World Cup but this was so jarring. Stood completely inline with his players to throw the ball.
39mins. Counter ruck by South Africa in Welsh 22 from kick off. Penalty given for going over the top.
Seems harsh, players piling through a weak defence and then inevitably falling past the ball, not killing the ball at all.
England South Africa final
Etzebeth isolated on floor. Itoji goes over to steal ball. Elzebeth holds on and, in doing so, forces Itoji to knock on. Scrum given for knock on!
England finally win a penalty at the scrum! Pack pile through the South Africans, with Youngs at the feet with the ball. Immediate whistle blow. No advantage!
(Ok these two are from a desperate England fan struggling for some kind of respite from a relentless South Africa. But rugby hinges on such moments and for me, especially the first, it is so clear and obvious. A great attempted steal by Itoji should be England penalty in SA half. Instead, scrum against. Very very strange.)
