Why this MI6-style secrecy over RFU’s panel for Jones?

WHEN Bill Sweeney and Conor O’Shea briefed the media this week on the terms of reference for the RFU debrief panel which will decide whether Eddie Jones stays or goes as England coach, they should have had a clear mission statement.

It should have started with naming who will be on the panel – which is due to report in midApril – and should then have emphasised that the RFU would reserve judgement until the panel’s report had been received and and its findings and recommendations considered carefully.

Instead, by the time RFU chief executive Sweeney and director of rugby O’Shea had finished the question-and-answer session of their lengthy communiqué, it had become clear that the debrief, to be conducted by an unnamed panel, will be a whitewash.

In fact, it could not have been more obvious if they had each appeared in overalls with a paintbrush in one hand and a roller in the other.

Sweeney had his script prepared about it being a “brutally honest analysis of what went wrong, and why, and what the issues are”. However, the brutal honesty element took an early hit, because when the subject of transparency was raised things became, shall we say, a little blurred around the edges.

When I questioned the RFU chief executive why he had decided that the panel would remain anonymous, and asked what there could be to hide, the obfuscation came thick and fast.

“There is nothing to hide,” Sweeney said. He added: “It is not unusual…I’ve seen it in other sporting organisations.” He then tried to justify the anonymity of the panel on the basis that after England’s 2019 World Cup final defeat by South Africa there had been a similar debrief, although in that instance neither the panel, nor its findings were made public.

It prompted the thought that if they had been, England would probably not be in the mess they are now. However, Sweeney was insistent: “There is no intention not to be transparent. Some on the panel might prefer to remain unnamed, and we have to respect that. The fact is that we have said that we will do a full and honest debrief, then come back and present those findings to the media – that is being transparent.”

Sorry, Mr. Sweeney, no it is not – especially when you are the chief executive of the RFU, which is a members’ organisation of about 1,900 amateur and professional clubs, registered as a co-operative. This gives the membership the right to know who will be asking the questions of the England head coach.

That is what you call transparency. It is also why, if an RFU invitation to join the panel is issued to someone who does not want to be named, why not simply replace them with someone who is comfortable with their reputation for rugby expertise being in the public domain.

Furthermore, Sweeney’s suggesand that many sporting organisations convene anonymous panels does not reflect best practice. For instance, it was the subject of widespread publicity that the investigation into blooddoping in Russian athletics in 2014, which led to the ban on Russia’s participation in the 2016 Rio Olympics, was led initially by former WADA head Dick Pound and Professor Richard McLaren.

So, why adopt an MI6-style secrecy around a panel asking the England head coach, and presumably assistant coaches and players, questions about where they went wrong in this season’s Six Nations, how they intend to put it right in the two and a half years leading into the 2023 World Cup?

This only encourages conjecture that Sweeney and O’Shea might be intent on stacking the panel with those who are unlikely to ask the hard questions of Jones that might either unearth the solution to England’s fifth-place malaise, or persuade him it is time to move on.

Yet O’Shea, who, like Sweeney, is expected to be on the panel, showed all the signs of having already endorsed Jones before it sits. This is not entirely surprising, because Jones and O’Shea have featured regularly over the past year as a double act on the RFU’s Eddie Jones Coaching Podcast, and appear to have a good relationship.

It could explain why the former Ireland full-back gave short shrift to suggestions that Twickenham is a Jones fiefdom in which he gets what he wants and answers to no one.

O’Shea said: “For anyone to intition mate that someone might have too much power or doesn’t get challenged, it’s rubbish – it’s living in Walter Mitty land.”

He added that Bill (Sweeney), would not allow that – which was towing the party line, because the chief executive had already made it clear he is touchy about the perception that Jones is the boss of bosses at HQ.

However, O’Shea then demonstrated the dangers of prejudging the current issues surrounding the England squad when he ventured support for Jones’ selection strategy, choosing to highlight the perils of prematurely axing established players like Owen Farrell (29) and George Ford (28) as a knee-jerk reaction to the 32-18 defeat by Ireland last weekend.

“You have to be bloody careful not to overreact… When people call for transition, be careful what you wish for when you write people off. Alun Wyn Jones is 36, and Johnny Sexton 35, so compare them to some of our players who some are saying should be got rid of.”

O’Shea has confused the calls for Jones to encourage competition for places by dropping some of his outofform “untouchables” with bringing their Test careers to an end. Being dropped is not usually career-ending.

O’Shea, and, more importantly, Jones, should recognise that giving sinecures to some players can kill the aspirations of others. It is, to borrow a phrase, like dousing a squad in rat poison, and the panel should explore whether the head coach has made a serious error by getting himself stuck in a selection cul-de-sac.

For the moment, Sweeney and O’Shea do not see another way out either, because there are no obvious top end coaching replacements for Jones knocking on the RFU’s door.

That is why, while Sweeney did not offer any direct assurances to Jones, and said that he would be given targets and judged on results, he confirmed that he would be coaching England against the USA and Canada this summer.

It came with the Sweeney proviso, “if we had concerns and worries through the summer, then we would act on it, one way or the other”, and also the assertion that there was another break-clause that could be activated if adverse results in the 2021 Autumn series triggered it.

All of which indicates that, whatever the panel says, there will be enough whitewash to paint over the cracks and give Jones another chance to make good.

“They might stack the panel with those unlikely to ask hard questions”