Great news! Because we’ve recently reached our preliminary sales target for

Just click the GRASSROOTS RUGBY banner bottom right!

We’re on hold!

Due to the pressure of other projects I have decided to put this blog on hold for an indefinite period. I hope to return to full-time or at least part-time blogging in the future. In the interim may I thank my many readers for their interest.

PS
Rugby Coaching Notes at (http://www.eurekastreet.com/rcn/ahcoach.htm) continues in full operation and I’ve just (January 30th 2008) added a Backs Drill.

While whiling away these drear days of not quite Christmas by sifting through my Mediazone video downloads to try to answer some of my outstanding technical questions about the 2007 World Cup (What happened to Ireland? Did England actually change their game after the South Africa debacle?) I suddenly found myself with another series of questions to answer.

These largely fall under the heading of:
“Why is general TV coverage of rugby so bad?”

To my mind, the only thing that can explain this lamentable state of affairs is that the TV companies believe their audience to be a bunch of rugby-illiterate morons who are looking only for thrills and spills and are probably half drunk to boot! This criticsm, by the way, goes for all of the rugby channels Mediazone, Sky, Canal+, BBC, RTE etc. etc. (I am well aware that the transmitting companies usually share the video feeds and add their own commentary and analysis, by the way, but why do they compound the shortcomings of their commentators by accepting the available slovenly and uneducated video direction? Maybe, heaven forbid, there’s really only one company world-wide responsible for it all and I’m now in danger of slandering a single poor soul who never wanted to do it anyway. If so, my advice is, “Do yourself a favour, my friend, and go back to day-time game shows where you belong.”)

So enough of the rant: with nearly a couple of months to go before the Puma-less Six Nations what do I, as a reasonably intelligent and often sober, ex-rugby player want to see on TV?

1. The actual grounding of the ball to score a try is only interesting if there’s a question about it’s legality. What I want to see is how the try came about. Where and how did the movement start? What were the key moves and mistakes that made it possible? The average try takes only 45 seconds to score says Sir Clive Woodward so why can’t I have the 45 seconds of play leading up to it (maybe from a better angle) instead of three fifteen second sequences of an unopposed player crossing the line, dotting down and receiving the soccer-style intimate caresses of his team-mates? (There’s plenty of time for such replays while the kicker goes through his interminable ritual, anyway. Again, unless there’s a question about the kick 3 seconds is more than enough.)

2. I want to see the scrum in action and this means seeing the props’ feet if possible. When will video directors understand that the ref is almost always in the way on the put-in side? (The overhead camera at Stade de France gives a great view but why is it so rarely used?) And while on the subject of the scrum, once the ball is heeled and in the scrum-half’s hands I want to see his options - i.e. the camera needs to pull back immediately to show the attacking back line AND the defence. You can substitute ‘lineout’ for ’scrum’ and ‘lifting pod’ for ‘prop’s feet’ in the above if you wish.

3. Speaking of evaluating options available, yes it’s exciting to be close-up to the ruck or maul but it’s the possibilities for attack and defence that these actions open and how the options are exploited that are really interesting.

4. Why is the camera always on the kicker and NEVER on the kick receiver? Is it possible that our mythical director really doesn’t understand how kick-offs work?

5. I want to see a lot less personality boosting. I don’t care (Bill McLaren excepted, of course,) if the children in his class at Aughtermochty Mixed Infants are cheeering for this player or that one or about the doings of his celebrity spouse either. Let’s leave the cult of celebrity to soccer for a few more years.

Well, those are the wants. What I’d LIKE to see and hear is just a little more informed analysis. I’ve noted that it’s not the commentator’s or the colour guy’s fault if the director has no idea which bit of action to replay for illustration but with modern technology isn’t there a way of at least providing some re-play options? How about allowing the commentary team to direct the video also so that we’d find out if one video/commentary team is better than the others.

I do want to know who is carrying the ball but I can make up my own mind whether he’s doing it well or not. However, if the commentator/colour guy has an observation about WHY he thinks something is happening I’m prepared to be interested.

I’d like it, too, if the statistics could all be gathered into sequences and shown at reasonable times - the half-time and final whistles, for example - and not scattered like confetti into the proceedings.

Will I get my New Year’s wishes? What do you think?

In this series of critical review of rugby websites there will be no winners or losers. My links are to be found at Media Links Worldwide .

What to expect: Well, it depends which flavour you choose!

The Kiwi site is seemingly streets ahead in coverage with plenty of news headlines on its front page - both sites are effectively re-formatted newspapers, written largely by newspaper reporters and composed by newspaper-influenced composers - and the Aussie site is certainly more parochial but since both rely heavily on the local newswires there probably isn’t a lot to choose between them newswise. Both sites have a heavy Antipodean bias, of course, which isn’t all bad if that’s your compass.

There are some subtle differences, however. Since the Aussie site has had some sort of historical association with the Sydney Morning Herald it prints columnists, the “Experts”, from that paper - at one time relying heavily on the predictable fulminations of Greg Growden and the folksy wisdom of Spiros Zavos. In contrast the Kiwi site has a more straightforward format not, so far at least, betraying any marked editorial allegience. Both sites feature opinion from a range of rugby personalities - Grant Fox, Tony Smith, Ewen McKenzie and John Connolly among them - and as a result while the mainstream is well represented there isn’t quite the broad range of opinion that www.stuff.co.nz serves up.

As for video the Kiwi site has a certain amount of interview-type coverage - useful if you don’t know what Robbie Deans looks and sounds like - but not exactly at the cutting edge. Notably it does feature a Women’s page, a healthy departure for rugby news coverage.
Strong points: Very much the authentic voices of the Antipodean mainstream.
Weak Points: Apparently satisfied with mainstream issues - a little more controversy or at least dissenting opinion wouldn’t hurt.

I thought I was fairly familiar with the world’s rugby websites but recently I discovered one I’d never seen before. SARugby.com is a South African site and while it seems (on short acquaintance, I must admit) not very remarkable in other respects it has a Stats Center with an excellent table of every RWC statistic you could ask for backed up by very extensive and exhaustive articles, team lists, player profiles. Paradise for the statistics nuts among us and clearly a labour of love by SARugby.com. I’m sure you’ll join me in thanking them for their work.

In this series of critical review of rugby websites there will be no winners or losers. My links are to be found at Links

Planet Rugby

• |News 9| Analysis 2| Coaching 5| Gossip 2 | Topical 9|
• |Timely 7| Regional 9| Video 1| Audio 0| Images 4|

What to expect: A lot! Planet Rugby’s home page looks like the first page of AutoTrader! Literally 10s of headlines, two or three (small) topical photos, a video box (more about that later,) and various Fixtures, Results, Tables, TV schedules, links and boxes. And a few ads, of course.
Comprehensive? Absolutely. Strong editorial discrimination? Hardly. While the major “newspaper” sites confine themselves to between 5 and 10 top stories, i.e. headlines and first paragraphs with a “read more” link, plus links to various topical sections, look hard enough at Planet Rugby’s home page and you’ll find links to ALL the latest rugby stories from around the world. As a result this is hardly a site for the casual browser and certainly not a site for one-eyed supporters. All the better for that you may say!
The aim of the content also seems to be coverage rather than controversy. No correspondents are named so there’s no-one to get annoyed with. “Gimme the facts, Ma’am, only the facts.” There is however an “Off the Field” section with excellent but all too few coaching tips from the resident “Guru” and the odd article about refereeing etc. as well as betting and fantasy rugby (whatever that is?) links.
The video box works - at least on my browser and video set-up - which is more than I can say for other sites - but the content is terminally bland. Ed Turner hasn’t yet figured out that the Republic of Ireland doesn’t have a rugby team or how to pronounce Waikato but he can read the scores. Otherwise we currently get Nelson Mandela, the return of the Pumas and Jake White with the cup. Oh! and that vastly informative series of Visa “Debates”.
Strong points: Coverage and attention to detail.
Weak points: Few, considering what it is.

I have been vastly entertained by the Rugby World Cup. It has lasted a little too long – in the sense that I had other work that I’d promised myself to do – but I must admit that, in retrospect, the time was well spent. The rugby wasn’t always exactly champagne quality but I for one can happily forgive the lack of razzle-dazzle if I’m watching real play and real combat. Gaining a metre at the breakdown with a perfect pick and go is to my way of thinking not all that far short of a perfect 1st phase back move. Winning a turn-over by the efforts of two or three players in harmonious mutual support may well be better and consistently destroying the other team’s lineout demonstrates a multi-player coordination the equal of any other in any sport. Am I admitting that these sorts of endeavours make more of an impression on me that kicking a ball between the posts? What do you think?

I now have video of 20-odd matches to help while away those long winter evenings and a host of questions still to answer. What exactly did England do that was different after their humiliation to South Africa? How did Wales lose to Fiji? Was Ireland’s sickening slide really the result of a regression in skill or a regression in spirit? On the other hand one of my perennial questions has been answered. How do you beat a big, brutal team playing 10-man pressure rugby? Easy, it turns out. Play better 10-man pressure rugby.

There is not much doubt that history will show that while South Africa won the cup Argentina was the team of the tournament. A combination of several charismatic players, indomitable (almost) determination, a game plan which in the end turned out to be not quite so rigid as the analysts had decided and the overwhelming glee they brought to their victories has cemented their place in our memory banks. South Africa’s imperious procession through the pool and play-off stages was also impressive – something like watching the Queen Mary coming into dock, I suppose. They did what they had to do with an unruffled thoroughness and with not a little polish. That Habana is the Player of the Tournament is absolutely no surprise (see below: he came 3rd in my estimation!).

England’s turn-around was also a cause of amazement. Much has been made of it elsewhere and more will be but to me the second half of the Samoa game will remain an example of what an unprepared team of good players can do when it finally decides to win.

There was another source of vast amusement in the RWC and that was the antics of the rugby press. We are all inured I hope to the normal level of nonsense - how many times do we have to endure the Bambi’s mother bit? - that most rugby journalists regurgitate on a regular basis but this tournament seems to me to have taken the process to a new level. Yes, I suppose they have to make a living and yes their editors have column-inches to fill but if I never read another story about Wilkinson’s dedication it will be far, far too soon. But why did we see nothing or very little in print about the Fijian back line and their outstanding back row? How come nobody had the vision to remark that the All Blacks looked a little flat? Where was the reporting of Scotland’s lack of ambition that finally sank them? Oh well, four more years, as they say.

Everybody else has done it so now it’s my turn – my team of the tournament picked not necessarily for quality but for watchability and sometimes for sheer bloodymindedness!

15, Montgomery
14, Vilimoni Delasau
13, Seru Rabeni
12, Steyn
11, Habana
10, Martinez
9, Gommersal
8, Gonzalo Longo
7, Juan Smith
6, Akapusi Qera
5, Chabal
4, Matfield
3, Hayman
2, Ledesma
1, Roncero

And what about my players to watch?

Sébastien Chabal +1, +1, 0, 0, +3, +2, +1 Total 8
Brian Habana +3, +1, 0, +1, 0, +3, +1 Total 9
Frédéric Michalak 0, +3, +2, 0, +2, +1, 0 Total 8
Victor Matfield +2, 0, +2, 0, +2, +1, +4 Total 11
Juan Martín Hernández +1, +2, 0, +5, +2, +1, +3 Total 14

Point One: Any team can beat any other team on the day.
We saw it proved three times, now do we believe it? Argentina v France, England v Australia and France v New Zealand. All surprises, all totally unexpected - except by the winning teams one supposes - and all apparently inexplicable by the losers. Oh, it’s a good idea to reach for the usual suspects - the ref, the ball and the weather - but it’s a much better idea to take your lumps and make sure that it’ll never happen again. And just how do you do that? Repeat after me: “Any team can be beaten by any other team on the day.” Your job is to make sure it doesn’t happen to you!

Point Two: Do the basics well and the rest will happen.
They may be the sensation of the tournament but no-one is ever going to call the 2007 Pumas a wonderful team. Gusto yes, world-beating no! Of course they include the sublime Hernandez and the irritating but endearing Pichot but one to fifteen there are weaknesses. What they have done, however, almost to the last, is to show that if you execute your game plan perfectly, or nearly so, good things will inevitably accrue. Maybe it doesn’t matter too much exactly what your game plan is but obviously it must be carefully tailored to accentuate your strengths and hide your weaknesses. Mind you, it helps if your opponents forget Point One above (France - that’s if they ever knew it!) or are in a mindset from the Moon (Ireland) or have been coached into a stultifying mediocracy by a coach who is so risk averse that I bet he wears both belt and braces under his track-suit top (Scotland). Sadly, when fatigue and lack of real depth reduce the near perfection only a little a decent but certainly not spectacular team playing totally within themselves can upset your applecart (South Africa) and it’s then that the game plan shows its frayed edges. Still, thanks for the reminder!

Point Three: If at first you don’t succeed maybe it’s finally time for plain speaking.
Much has already been made of the meeting that took place in the English camp after they were demolished by the Springboks and much, much more will be made of it over the hundred years or so. Ostensibly players, coaches and management expressed their dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in no uncertain terms. What is amazing, however, is that things actually changed. A group of elite athletes playing in perhaps the best - certainly one of the toughest - leagues in the world transformed themselves overnight from a dejected rabble into a very fair facsimile of a winning team. Wonders will never cease! So it can happen no matter what our deepest fears predict. It is not possible to say that today’s England is a good team, it’s not even possible to say that the change we’ve seen will be sufficient to put them on the right track for the future but we can certainly say it is a team and my opinion is that it’s the first time in years we’ve been able to go that far.

Point Four: Never let up, ever and never think you can defend your way to victory.
Nuff said. France v England. It just wasn’t going to happen when you use the wrong substitutes - Michalak obviously with orders to control the game but too flaky to add to the defence, Harinordoquy too late to make a difference and, criminally, Poux much too late in the obviously tiring front row - and the wrong game plan - kick, kick, kick when run, run, run was obviously needed. I’m reliably informed that somebody once said that the best defence is attack. He was right.

Only four points? Yes, only four. But four crucial, central, important and indispensible lessons to learn.

Players left to watch!

Sébastien Chabal +1, +1, 0, 0, +3, +2
Brian Habana +3, +1, 0, +1, 0, +3
Frédéric Michalak 0, +3, +2, 0, +2, +1
Victor Matfield +2, 0, +2, 0, +2, +1
Juan Martín Hernández +1, +2, 0, +5, +2, +1

Looks like Habana and Hernandez are going to run away with it!

What strange outcomes! Scotland v Italy and Argentina v Ireland: two matches with an almost identical patterns and quite different qualities. If I was asked to describe the winners’ game-plans I’d be forced to say they were the same. Simply put it could be described as 10-man rugby; dominate in the set pieces, play in your opponent’s half and always take the opportunities to score that are offered. Never mind that both winners had good to excellent backs on the field these were forward-centric performances. An yet, and yet… Scotland seemed completely uncomfortable with their role. They presented what has to have been some of the flattest, least interesting periods of play I’ve seen in a long time to the extent that there was a sense that the players were embarrassed by it all. They did it and they did it fairly well against an opposition which lacked class and won on the back of penalties. It was an important but, I would have thought, totally unsatisfying win.

Argentina, on the other hand, revelled in their game-plan. Indeed, they brought a whole new meaning to the term. No only did they squeeze the life out of an opposition which, on paper at least, was dripping with class, but who on the day showed it only in a couple of flashes but they enjoyed it. And their enjoyment showed. Their pleasure when the final whistle sounded was palpable.

And then there was Fiji v Wales. What a match! It had the proverbial everything: thrilling running rugby, crunching tackles, wonderful hand skills, on both sides it has to be said, support play to die for and drama of the highest. Oh, yes, and the so-called underdogs won. What more could you ask for? Well, very little is the answer.

But hang on a minute. How exactly could a Fijian team with a non-functioning scrum - the sight of the rueful grin on the face of a Fijian prop after he had been comprehensively dumped stays in my memory - and a lineout reduced to taking the ball at the front and hence, according to the coaching manuals at least, sacrificing the possibility of quality ball to the backs do so well? (I have to mention here that for all their set-piece woes Fiji did produce one of the best - if not the best - rolling mauls of the tournament so far - and once was enough to panic the Welsh into
changing their defence pattern for the rest of the match and preparing for an attack tactic that never came.) Well, vast courage and enthusiasm at the breakdown producing a flood of fast, clean ball plus the ability to run straight into gaps had a lot to do with it.

The Welsh lost but they might have won. Their tries were no less exciting and their play in the loose was only a little less enthusiastic but they made too many mistakes, their timing was wrong and they succumbed to the idea that playing rugby was the objective. All that said it was a great match and it will sadden generations of Welshmen that their team was on the losing side.

Stellar performances this weekend? The Fijian midfield backs under Nicky Little’s leadership certainly qualify, the Argentinian forwards must be up there too - Ledesma’s grin told the entire story - but individually the top award has to go to Juan Martín Hernández, perhaps a little enhanced by the nightmare performance of his opposite number, I have to say, but stellar nevertheless. “If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs…” Simply world-class.

Here’s how our players to watch fared:

Sébastien Chabal +1, +1, 0, 0
Brian Habana +3, +1, 0, +1
Frédéric Michalak 0, +3, +2, 0
Gordon Darcy +1, 0, 0, -3
Daniel Carter +1,+2, +1, 0
James Hook -2, +1, +1, +1
Victor Matfield +2, 0, +2, 0
Juan Martín Hernández +1, +2, 0, +5