Time to name teams closer to kick-off
Standing in the rain at Twickenham last Saturday, and realising England’s Test against New Zealand would be like playing rugby under a power shower, I decided that head coaches are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to announcing their teams.
World Rugby regulations are clear that teams must be declared at least 48 hours before kick-off although, if the two sides agree, starting XVS can be named as late as 12 hours before kick-off.
So far, we have not seen that option used. I cannot understand why. In the build-up to a cricket Test the captain and selectors keep a close eye on the pitch – is it green, is it dry, will it take spin, is it flat? The weather radars are out: will there be moisture in the air or will it be baking hot?
Generally speaking, only when they have all the information available to them – often when the captains head out for the toss – do they announce their starting XIS, which will be packed full of players who are relevant for the conditions.
In football, teams are revealed an hour before the match. Managers love trying to outfox each other, bluffing about injuries. In netball, the big reveal comes 60 minutes before games; in hockey, they are announced the same day. Alex Danson once told me that Helen Richardson-walsh had a fitness test on the day of the gold medal match at Rio 2016; the team were only announced after that.
My point is that it is rare to find a sport where you are required to announce your team or tactics so far in advance of a game. I can understand why this was the case in rugby’s amateur past, when time off work needed to be planned.
Squads were also smaller and the options for change were limited to non-existent. I asked my father about England’s match against France in Paris in 1966, when we had no replacements. Andy Hancock and Budge Rogers suffered a hamstring pull and broken nose respectively, but had to play on, while David Perry, the No 8, blew a knee and stayed on. He never played again.
In 1969, England had four players on the bench, for use solely in the case of injury. Tim Dalton, on the bench with my father, got his only cap when a player went down and he legged it down from the stands, where the subs used to sit, before anyone could tell him to stop. It was only in 1996 that substitutions were allowed on the grounds of player welfare.
I understand that from a player’s point of view, early team selections make sense. I always liked to know what jersey, if any, I had. I needed to prepare myself.
Modern players do not need that. They are so interchangeable and spend so much time together. Every single player at the elite level will know every line-out call and tiny nuance of the game plan – look at Will Addison for Ireland last weekend, who replaced Robbie Henshaw at the last moment, and did a seamless job.
The modern player can flip into game mode in an instant. So why can coaches not pick their strongest team, when they have all the information? It would make a huge difference in an outdoor sport like rugby. The phrase horses for courses sums it up. On a wet course, you do not run a horse that loves firm ground. The horse will lose; worse, it may get hurt.
Rugby is no different. You have a stock of players in your squad who deliver different options. Why pick them before you really know what the weather is like, or how the pitch will perform?
In the World Cup semi-final in 2003, as I sat on the bus on the way to the stadium to play France, it started bucketing down. I was in the side at 13. Mike Catt had been brought into the midfield for his kicking game. Mike Tindall dropped to the bench. It was a kick-fest, with all our points coming from Jonny Wilkinson’s boot. I was a bystander for most of the match – running around retrieving or chasing kicks.
I spoke to Clive Woodward at half-time and explained the team would be better off with Mike out there – a view that had been developed by a culture where we thought about the group rather than the individual. Players are mature enough to realise a coach may need to change according to conditions, and the authorities should be as well.
The game against New Zealand showed a lot about the England team on the pitch, but it also highlighted a number of interesting options that the rain could have forced.
In the wet, I would have Mike Brown at full-back and opt for Sam Underhill, on the basis that the opposition will struggle with ball handling. Maro Itoje should be at No 6, with Courtney Lawes joining George Kruis in the second row. Ben Te’o and Manu Tuilagi could play together, Jack Nowell should
On a wet course, you do not run a horse that loves firm ground. It will lose and may get hurt
be one of the wings and Owen Farrell and George Ford can be at 10 and 12 as front-line kickers. And Ben Moon should start.
In the dry, it is all change. Elliot Daly becomes king at full-back; you want more of a link man such as Tom Curry rather than Underhill, while your second row should be Itoje and Kruis, with Brad Shields at six. Henry Slade and Alex Lozowski are better options than Te’o and Tuilagi, and the wings should be Chris Ashton and Jonny May. Farrell starts either way – possibly Moon, too, although Alec Hepburn could be used.
Every team will have the same options; players with specific abilities, designed for certain weather and conditions. There are all-rounders, yes. But do we not want the teams we support to be best equipped for the job at hand?
Allowing teams to be selected two hours before kick-off would do that and give coaches the flexibility to give themselves the best chance of winning.