Wasteful Wallabies allow the English to win it by numbers
AS TWICKENHAM erupted and victory became a reality, Stuart Lancaster punched the air and permitted himself a rare smile. He then acknowledged his debt to the principal architect of England’s triumph by reaching across to embrace the forwards coach Graham Rowntree. It was a generous gesture, and it told the tale of a revealing afternoon.
To watch England was to see the years roll away, back to those initial days of Martin Johnson’s stewardship, when success was frequently delivered through attrition. Back even to the Will Carling side of the early Nineties, when the pack called all the shots and the ball used to blink whenever it was exposed to daylight. The game has changed beyond recognition since those narrow-eyed eras, but Lancaster’s England are keeping their memory alive.
Seeking World Cup indications at 10months’ range is a foolish exercise; one might as well turn to tea-leaves or Tarot cards. But it seems as if Lancaster and his assistants have decided that pragmatism will rule and muscularity is the only way to go. You could sense as much in Lancaster’s slightly defensive demeanour last night whenever strategic issues were raised.
He spoke of England playing ‘intelligently’, of playing a ‘smarter’ game. He paid tribute to the work Rowntree and the forwards had done, how they ‘created the platform’. He mentioned the way the team had played in ‘the right areas of the field’ and repeated three or four times his prepared statistics on the number of tries scored by England’s backs. He was wary, conscious his methods would not meet universal approval.
No matter; that appears to be the way that England have elected to play. All other options have been tentatively tried and regretfully ditched. And if purists are not enthralled by the performance, then Lancaster will lose no sleep. And yet… it seems a shame, an admission that England cannot compete with the world’s best on attractive terms.
It is difficult to imagine England living with South Africa by placing all their faith in their pack. And as for New Zealand, they have already demonstrated in the opening autumn international that they can accommodate any approach England decide to take. They will not be intimidated at the front, nor outwitted at the back. Indeed, with a developing Wales and a rejuvenated Australia to be faced early on, blinkered intensity may not be sufficient to lift England out of the group.
In fairness, England executed their narrow plan with stern efficiency. Courtney Lawes set a soaring standard of high technique and fervent commitment, Chris Robshaw performed quite brilliantly at the breakdown, while Ben Morgan, whether carrying the ball or laying his body on the defensive line, did a great deal more than his two bullocking tries and fully deserved his man-ofthe-match award.
Australia’s approach was quite different, but so too was their execution. Having chosen to run the ball on almost every occasion, they piled up handling errors with abandon. They will forever curse the genuinely crucial mistake, seven minutes from time, when the endlessly impressive Israel Folau strode on to a pass, drew the last white-shirted defender and flung a desperately reckless ball to Rob Horne. It should have sent the Australian wing stretching round beneath the posts. Instead, it flew into touch, and both the chance and the match were lost.
That single cameo said everything about Australia’s approach and their shortcomings. They spent 80 minutes intent on finding space, inventing opportunities, indulging their attacking instincts. With a touch more precision, they might have left England with an autumn to forget, instead, at the close of an arduous tour, they perished under a cluster of self-made errors. Lancaster will now contemplate the lessons of autumn. There will be spreadsheets and video analysis and statistics galore, since that is his way. And he will take great encouragement from the way in which certain young players have been tested and have emerged with credit. George Ford is now looking like the out-half who will shepherd England through the next few years, while the wings, Anthony Watson and Jonny May, have demonstrated a willingness to inflict all manner of damage when they are in possession of the ball.
The Twickenham crowd, who may have a part to play in events next year, showed every sign of getting behind their team in full-hearted fashion. One senses that they prize destinations far beyond mere journeys.
And there are others who will be ready to come in. As Lancaster was eager to point out, England have seven Lions currently unavailable; players capable of making a real difference.
And yet… there is little to lift the spirits, to enthuse the soul, to persuade anybody but the most ardent loyalists that England’s journey will culminate in the ultimate success. ‘We’re not getting carried away,’ said Lancaster. ‘There’s still a lot of work to do.’
Indeed, there is. And if they could go about that work with just a touch more flair, a shade more enterprise, and the merest dash of bright invention, how very much more confident England would feel. nENGLAND’S top rugby stars have blocked a move to introduce genetic testing of all professional players over fears of a Big Brother-style invasion of privacy.
The Mail on Sunday has learned that senior figures from within the RFU proposed a ground-breaking research programme two years ago into a reported link between a specific gene and the incidence of concussion.
A high-level delegation from the RFU’s medical department – including head of medicine Dr Simon Kemp – presented to club representatives at the Rugby Players’ Association (RPA), urging them to consider participating in the study.
It came following research carried out in the US by worldleading head injury expert Barry Jordan which reported a link between the APOE4 gene and concussion in a sample of boxers and American footballers.
‘There had been no precedent for this. We were effectively being asked to be guinea pigs in a trial,’ said one RPA insider who was present at the meeting.
‘The players had serious reservations about giving up sensitive personal information which could have been used against them in contract negotiations or by unscrupulous insurance companies. We were promised the study would be anonymous but no one bought that. It just felt wrong on a number of levels,’ the insider added.