Self-interest will always stunt a team’s evolution
With huge rewards at the top of game, players put themselves first at the expense of the squad
Selfishness is a problem that faces not just this England team, but virtually every elite sporting team on the planet. Particularly in rugby, there is an inherent contradiction that to build a strong team, you need players to work well together and to lay their bodies on the line for each other, the ultimate act of selflessness.
At the same time, elite athletes are inherently selfish. They get to where they are by sacrificing hundreds, if not thousands, of hours, and once they arrive, they do not want to let go.
They will do things to make sure, from a selfish point of view, that they stay there. I played for England when I was nowhere near fit, but I told the coach and physio that I was 100 per cent just to get that next cap and stay in the team.
A very common one, which we have seen plenty of this season, is not playing as hard for your club as you do for your country.
Once you add in a £23,000 match fee, plus all the assorted commercial benefits that come with being an England international, then that sense of selfishness only increases. Playing for your country starts off as a childhood dream and for guys such as Jack Willis, who I think could be the find of this tour, and Ben Earl, it still will be, but once you factor in that it could be an extra £300,000 a year, then commercial considerations tend to take over.
If Dan Cole picked up a longterm injury, then guys such as Kyle Sinckler and Harry Williams will probably be secretly delighted. When I was playing and one of the guys I was competing against got injured, I was happy. I felt bad for them individually and hoped they recovered, but it was one less rival. Every elite athlete is like that. Clive Woodward used to say to go up and shake the hand of the person who had taken your place, when actually you wanted to butt them.
When you keep the same squad together, as Eddie Jones largely has over the past three years, then those problems multiply. You always talk about building towards the World Cup and wanting to get there with a lot of guys on 30-40 caps. That is probably around the right number. Yes, you want a couple with 70-80 caps, but not 10 or 11 guys. If you keep picking the same players, you are devoid of new ideas, new blood, new energy. You end up with a clique where players are very protective about remaining there. That induces staleness, complacency and, most importantly, honesty.
The 2003 World Cup squad was right on the verge of reaching that point. Another six months and I do not believe they would have won the World Cup. The Australians called them Dad’s Army and they were not too far wrong.
As much as people have talked about tiredness, I think England’s problems have been less physical fatigue but familiarity fatigue. Players have been doing the same things with the same people. They have all been built up, saying how amazing they are, which is fine because they have been on the longest run of victories in English history. The reality of it was that they were not playing well, but slightly better than the team they were facing. If you are going to develop and constantly evolve you need new blood. Clive had a very good mantra that you need to cut off the bottom five per cent of the squad or your company every year in order for it to grow.
That is what they have missed. Just through his selections, Eddie has taken the fear factor away. He missed a big opportunity after last year’s experimental Argentina tour to really reinvigorate the playing group. Instead, he went back to his tried and trusted options. Picking James Haskell in the Six Nations is a prime example. With 20 players unavailable for the tour to South Africa, this is really his last throw of the dice to give this group the impetus he needs to take them to the World Cup.