Six Nations: are England going backwards?
“What a difference a year makes,” said Robert Kitson in The Guardian. This time 12 months ago, England had just retained their Six Nations title with a match to spare. They had won all 17 Tests under their head coach, Eddie Jones, and looked forward to an “equally rosy future”. But their 22-16 defeat by France last Saturday ended their hopes of winning a third successive Six Nations crown, and Ireland claimed the title. It was a sorry throwback to “the bad old days” of English rugby. This wasn’t just a defeat, said Oliver Holt in The Mail on Sunday. “It was slow torture.” Against an average France side, England put in their worst performance under Jones: they played “without pace, without invention, without conviction”. The idea that they could win next year’s World Cup now looks like “a deluded daydream”.
England are going backwards, said Paul Hayward in The Sunday Telegraph. Their latest loss came on the heels of a defeat to Scotland, making this the first time since 2010 that England have lost twice in the same Six Nations. “Losing the title is one thing”; losing to France and Scotland, who are hardly giants of the sport, is very “ominous” indeed. We should have seen this coming, said Tom Fordyce on BBC Sport online. In his previous jobs, Jones often “got quick improvements” from his teams. But he struggled to sustain that success: he took Australia to the final of the 2003 World Cup, only to be sacked after losing eight of his last nine matches. “There is a reason why he has never lasted more than four years in one job.”
When Jones took the England job, he was “staggered” by the side’s lack of fitness, said Rick Broadbent in The Times. So he introduced new, “explosive” training sessions. That paid off at last year’s Six Nations, when England consistently scored more points in the final quarter than their opponents. But his side are starting to look “overtrained” – and, more worryingly, “overcoached”. The players have become so accustomed to following a script that they’re incapable of relying on their own “nous and will”, even when the tactics aren’t working. Against Scotland and France, that was particularly clear in the breakdown, where England were “engulfed” by confusion. But it’s not just Jones’s fault, said Alex Lowe in the same paper. Yes, England’s haplessness in this area has been “staggering”. But that’s because the squad all play for English clubs, which have all but given up competing at the breakdown since the Premiership’s ruck law changed last year. Under the new rules it’s easier to concede penalties in the breakdown, so instead of competing for the ball, players “fan out and load up the defensive line”. It’s a strategy that has cost English clubs in European competitions. “Now it is costing England.”
To The Observer
Spit-soaked feathers lay all over the breakfast table as I and many others of my age group were accused by Phillip Inman of being in pursuit of “the holy grail of wealth”. In addition, we are held responsible for “wanting to keep saving even as [we] move into [our] 80s and 90s”. How dare we? Such irresponsible behaviour! We must be ashamed of ourselves. Or are we?
I am not. It has taken me a lifetime of hard work to accumulate sufficient funds not to have to screw up courage to open my bank statement; I now take a taxi when I wish; I can have the lobster lunch; I can buy a new hat.
I grew up in the Rhondda Valley just after the War and benefited from the Marshall Plan, Mr Beveridge’s report and Rab Butler’s Education Act. For me, there were no bicycles, no holidays, no telephone, no car and, almost until I was on my way to grammar school, many goods were unavailable or still rationed. There was a first-class public library within reach. I persuaded my parents to join so I could use their library cards as well as my own. I read everything.
All those old-fashioned values of thrift, no waste, make do and mend, do not borrow or, worse, owe money are still very much part of my way of life. If we had not saved when we could do so, there would be fewer sources today for the younger generation to borrow from. Inman mentions that “older savers resist spending some of their pension” – that is because we lived through hard times. Now we do not know what is ahead of us, thank goodness we were prudent. Pearl Mccabe, Cardiff