Five ways Graham Henry would change English rugby

So, World Cup-winning coach Graham Henry has told The Telegraph that's he'd be happy to get a call from the Rugby Football Union (once his fishing trip is over). He's made it clear he does not want Martin Johnson's job, but has said he's possibly interested in playing a role in developing English coaches and players. But where would  this Great Redeemer start? Here's five things Henry could bring to English rugby.

1. Precisely what England need and want most - a winning mentality. Henry has no interest in being a gallant or brave loser. Even when the All Blacks play well and win convincingly, it's not often that you'll see him relaxed, because he's always aiming to stay those extra yards ahead of the opposition. He expects the very best from himself, his team and his players all the time.

2. Lack of sentimentality. Whereas England have clung on to ageing players well past their best, Henry has shown himself to be a ruthless operator – even to his most loyal servants. Consider Mils Muliaina, who would have been left stranded on 99 caps had Israel Dagg not been injured for the quarter-final at the recent World Cup. Henry would never have taken an unfit Andrew Sheridan or half-speed Mike Tindall to the World Cup – no matter how well they'd played in the past. Henry picks on form, full stop.

3. Tough but in-house discipline. You'll hardly ever hear Henry defending errant players or spilling the beans on punishment meted out.  And Lord knows, he's had his fair share of problem children. Late nights, boozy nights, that kind of thing. But Henry is known for quietly taking the offenders aside, working with them on any problems, then saying to them, 'now prove I did the right thing by not cutting you loose'. Consider the brilliant performances from Cory Jane and Dagg against Australia after they'd been seen at 3am in an Auckland bar a week earlier. Henry hasn't forgotten what he learned as a headmaster in Auckland. He's used to dealing with naughty boys – another plus for England.

4. An incredible eye for talent.Henry is the master at spotting a potential World Cup winner. That player may come from some lowly league, but if Henry thinks he has something special to offer, he'll hook up the player with the right coaches and to see if promise can be turned into genuine performance. England's midfield might just become a thing of beauty again under his tutelage.

5. A master planner. Henry leaves nothing to chance – be it the game plan, the fine detail, the well-being of his players, the rehab when things go wrong. Have a read of the redhead-bluehead distinction in Mark Reason's interview. Fascinating. And very reminiscent of Sir Clive Woodward  in that regard. And then he puts the right people in place to look after many of those aspects to ensure the team focuses on training and playing well. Henry openly admitted he got many things wrong in 2007. But he went away, wiped the slate clean, identified the weaknesses and strengths, and started planning for 2011. The Webb Ellis Cup in his hands speaks for itself.

Rugby World Cup 2011: New Zealand deserved winners in the greatest final of them all

Stunner: Thierry Dusautoir's try got New Zealand fans sweating (Photo: AP)

The wait is over, but my word how the whole of New Zealand had to live on its nerves to see their precious All Blacks claim their first World Cup in 24 years.

France were simply magnificent, from the moment they advanced on the haka in an arrow-shaped formation with the captain Thierry Dusautoir at the front, they defied every prediction that they would be a soft touch.

They were resolute, unyielding and hell-bent on taking the game to New Zealand in the best World Cup final ever.

And yet it was not enough. They may rue the 48-metre penalty goal failure by Francois Trinh-Duc in the 65th minute, the ball just drifting wide but given that Wales the week before had failed in similar circumstances perhaps there was some justice in all of it.

For the victors where was nothing but relief. The exultation at the final whistle, the clamour to embrace each other, tells you just how much it meant to all of them, to the players on the field, to the packed Eden Park stands and to the hundreds of thousands that have flooded in to the city to watch the match on big screens.

Who knows what level of desolation would have afflicted this country if that one-point margin of victory had been lost. It so nearly was.

In the end New Zealand were just grateful to hang on, the forwards picking and going only inches at a time to run the clock down for four long minutes. But they managed it, and the celebrations right throughout the land began. It was going to be a long night but a joyous one.

It was a deserved accolade to have claimed in the end for the double act of coach and captain, Graham Henry and Richie McCaw, these two great men warranted all the plaudits they would receive.

It was staggering to see the transformation in this French team. Even the All Blacks, respectful throughout the week, must have been stunned by the sustained ferocity with which France played.

It was true that the All Blacks had the better of a fearsome first half, scoring a try through the unlikely source of prop Tony Woodcock in the 15th minute, substitute fly-half Stephen Donald extending the lead five minutes in to the second half, but from there on in it was all France.

Some quite sumptuous performances to behold in the France back row, noble work from Aurelien Rougerie in the centre and some nice testing ball play from the back three. It was the forward pack though, who grabbed hold of the game, dominating in the set-piece, line-out and scrummage.

When Dusautoir was on hand to round off a sharp, opportunist attack, Trinh-Duc converted and it closed the scores to 8-7 with 34 minutes to run. You felt the force was with France and that somehow they might pull off an improbable victory.

Somehow New Zealand hung on, knowing that this sort of chance might never pass their way again. That they managed to do so was a sign of their character, their togetherness and a sense that it was their destiny to finally lay their hands on the Webb Ellis trophy after such a long time.

Rugby World Cup 2011: five reasons why South Africa lost to Australia

Going nowhere: Pierre Spies breaks blind off a scrum and gets bundled into touch

The quarter-final between South Africa and Australia was one of the best games of international rugby since the Lions Tests of 2009. Actually, there's no maybe about it. It was.

It had everything: skill, commitment, heart, tension, and some of the most robust collisions you are likely to see on a rugby field.

After the match I spent nearly four hours in the pub picking over the bones of the defeat with my cousin and we couldn't find too much to fault in South Africa's tactical approach, or their performance.

Now I've had a chance to re-watch the tape of the match in the cold light of day there are a few things to be critical of from that Springbok performance, but also plenty to be positive about.

I must also add that I think it's too simplistic to boil this game down to South Africa's attack not being good enough to beat Australia's admittedly superb defence. Here are my five reasons why they lost:

1. Bryce Lawrence

I have put this at the top because having watched the game in its entirety twice it is clear that Lawrence is the dominant figure of the match. As Mark Reason has blogged, Lawrence made a complete hash of the breakdown and a complete mockery of the IRB's directives. They were handed down to make sure the breakdown was strictly refereed with no funny business. This, the IRB hoped, would lead to a more attacking game as there would be less turnovers or defensive penalties at the breakdown. Lawrence failed in this. As he failed to award two clear high tackle infringements from James Horwill and Quade Cooper in the final 10 minutes. As he failed to spot Dan Vickerman's hand in the ruck with the Boks three metres out from the line. The lack of consistency in refereeing styles continues to blight Test rugby.

2. David Pocock

The openside made 26 tackles and was a force of nature at the breakdown. He must be given credit for his chutzpah. He realised pretty damn quickly that Lawrence was not going to penalise him very often at the tackle area, and he certainly wasn't going to bin him. He rode his luck for the full 80 minutes, using his physique, fitness and technique to slow down or pilfer the ball at every opportunity. It's going to take some performance from Richie McCaw to keep this boy quiet next week.

3. Heinrich Brüssow's injury

Prior to this match Brendan Venter wrote in his column that while Pocock was clearly an exceptional rugby player he would not been given a free pass at the breakdown because South Africa had stumbled upon a great balance in the back row, with both Brüssow and Schalk Burger there. Burger went on to produce another incredible Test match performance (in fact, he is so good and plays with so much heart I have noticed a few Lions fans forgiving him for fiddling with Luke Fitzgerald's eyes) but without Brüssow there he was unable to neutralise Pocock. Francois Louw had a super game off the bench but he is not in the same class as Brüssow when it comes to pilfers. I have no doubt that had Brüssow not gone off after the first quarter Pocock would not have exerted nearly as much influence over the game.

4. Too late to use the boot

When did South Africa look their most dangerous in this game? When Fourie du Preez, Morne Steyn and Pat Lambie were aerially bombarding the Aussies. JP Pietersen also played a blinder in this respect, chasing and tackling like a man possessed. It certainly ruffled the feathers of Quade Cooper, who went missing in action yet again at the World Cup, but we didn't see enough of this tactic in the first half. Nor did we see enough territorial kicking, which is particularly surprising when you consider that the Springboks won all 14 of their line-outs and stole five of the Wallabies'. I know it sounds bizarre to say it about this Springbok team. But they probably didn't kick enough.

5. Selections and injuries

The biggest debate in SA rugby over the last year has been about what the superior starting XV was. And three substitutions yesterday showed what was the real best team. Bismarck du Plessis at hooker, Francois Hougaard on the left wing and Willem Alberts at No 8. The trio, who replaced John Smit, Bryan Habana and Pierre Spies respectively, improved the side to the extent that you wonder what might have been had they started. Smit's impact at the set-piece was clear but he didn't add much around the park other than a few routine carries. Habana took a bit of a battering with the ball in hand and a quick comparison between his contributions and those of Hougaard show who is the bigger attacking threat at the moment. As for Spies? Well Opta say he made 121 metres with the ball in hand, more than anyone in the four quarter-finals, but unfortunately for South Africa a high proportion of these were runs down blind allies. Alberts got through his fair share of carrying but he also hit rucks and tried to spoil Australia's ball. Spies could learn a lot from his work-rate.

Rugby World Cup 2011: abject England face big decisions on future of set-up after defeat to France

When the end came it was wretched, rather than noble. An ignominious exit from the Rugby World Cup in contrast to the nobility shown earlier in the evening by Ireland.

England, regrettably, saved one of their most awful displays for the most important point in the tournament.

They were abject in the first half, devoid of any sense of fluency, understanding and accuracy, looking for all the world as if they had just met up.

Now that the road has come to an end for England, the next question will be as to what the future holds for Martin Johnson.

This is England's worst performance at a World Cup since 1999 and serious questions were raised then about the suitability of keeping Clive Woodward on board.

Of course we know what happened on that occasion but this has been a World Cup riddled with controversy, ill discipline and underperforming.

Johnson will have to answer some searching questions as to the England set-up when the squad return home early next week.

Even though there was improvement after the break in England's play, with tries scored by Ben Foden and Mark Cueto.

There was a still a sense of desperation in much of what England did. France did have to hang on, grimly at times, as they conceded penalty after penalty, but no-one could dispute that they were the better team on the evening.

Given that they themselves had been such a rabble up to this stage, the fact that England were unable to take advantage of such disarray in their camp can only add to the sense of failure.

England had promised int he build-up that for almost the first time in this campaign they would make a good start. It was anything but.

Once again there were errors galore, rushed passes and when there was no need to force the issue, and a singular lack of cohesion.

Given that all the talk just prior to the match had been as to who would be England's goal-kicker it was astonishing that neither Jonny Wilkinson or Toby Flood had a penalty kick at goal in the entire match.

Wilkinson's conversion of Foden's try in the 55th minute was his only telling contribution.

As he traipsed from the field in the 66th minute for Matt Banahan you did wonder if that was the last you might see of him in an England shirt.

He has made no such suggestion himself but you feel his time might be coming to an end. As with much of his play in the pool stages, Wilkinson was again hesitant and unable to trigger anything of great significance in the England backline.

The eagerly anticipated combination with Toby Flood yielded precisely nothing. Only the man outside Manu tuilagi, was able to draw anything from the evening in terms of satisfaction.

Once again Tuilagi for long stretches of the game was England's lone attacking threat.

The journey home will be a sobering one for England and they have failed to get anywhere near the heights that they did last year when Australia were beaten twice. There was solace in their attacking game but they have shown so little over the last five weeks.

France, now, have redeemed themselves and are a threat to anybody in this World Cup.

Rugby World Cup 2011: England show they are getting better with every game in big win over Romania

This was little more than a training run for England, one in which they executed things slickly and with purpose.

In that regard they can be satisfied with their evening’s work, 10 tries is a decent return in anybody’s book, a bonus point secured and the prospect of a quarter-final place tantalising close.  They will be through if Argentina fail to beat Scotland on Sunday.

Uplifting as the performance might be for England fans, there was a sadness in the hearts of those who would like to see the second tier nations being given a fair crack. Romania, with 11 changes, had their sights set firmly on what will be their World Cup final when they play Georgia next Wednesday. These four-day turnarounds have really taken their toll with some scorelines that embarrassingly blown out this week.

England though had been looking for a more polished display and they got it. Their attacking game had been faltering, interaction between backs and forwards fractured. The fact that the backs scored nine of the tries tells you all you need to know about the quality of the ball. It was fast and decisive.

Mark Cueto made a welcome bow in the tournament with his rat-a-tat hat-trick in the first 26 minutes, the Sale wing showing that he had fully shaken off the back injury which has delayed his entrance in the tournament. Cueto’s work rate has always been admirable but his finishing has tailed off. The three tries were all well taken, Cueto being in the right place at the right time.

Chris Ashton, inevitably perhaps, couldn’t allow anyone to steal his limelight and he showed a true finisher’s instinct. He has been searching for a bit of form himself so this was good to see also.

And what of the ill discipline that so annoyed Martin Johnson last week? Well, England were not without blemish, dropping back into old errant habits when a little bit of pressure came on but there was at least some sign of improvement.

England didn’t allow themselves to get too loose and overeager even though it was obvious that Romania were there for the taking. Often in games like this individuals can go glory hunting but there was a refreshing sense of England playing as a team.

Five tries were scored in either half indicating that they were determined to keep their shape and keep their pedal to the floor.

The wings did well, of course, the fly-halves shared a half each, and performed as one would expect, reliably so in all phases. The scrummage had the occasional creak but there were sound performances from Alex Corbisiero, Tom Croft and, albeit occasionally ragged at the base, from James Haskell.

England are moving through the gears, all too aware that Scotland at Eden Park next Saturday will be a tougher test all together.

Rugby World Cup 2011: South Africa showed they are still a force in big win over Fiji

Huge: Schalk Burger put in another impressive performance (Photo: GETTY IMAGES)

In the 'Group of Death' South Africa are the chief executioners, brushing aside the challenges in front of them and bringing an abrupt end to any fanciful ideas of upsets and fairytales.

Wales produced one of their best ever Rugby World Cup performances against South Africa, but they were denied at the death by a team who knows how to win.

The 'Flying Fijians' came out of the blocks at a fearsome pace early on and tried to run South Africa off the park. The Boks' first-up defence was poor, but the scramble was excellent and this meant that all Fiji's efforts added up to nil.

Come the second half, with the defensive job emphatically done, the Boks were able to unveil their attacking game for the first time since the opening 10 minutes against Wales, adding four more tries to the two scored in the first half, and winning by a much bigger margin than people were predicting.

For context's sake they beat Fiji by 17 points in 2007, when the Islanders were arguably a much better side. Today the difference was 46, so perspective is needed.

There are still things to work on but there is also plenty to suggest that these Boks will not be giving up their title without an almighty fight.

The good:

Defence: getting better and better. First-up tackling is still a bit ropey, with 26 missed in total, but the scramble continues to be excellent. Star performers in defence were Heinrich Brussow (21) and Schalk Burger (17).

Offloading: South Africa's forwards were particularly impressive in this respect with Burger, Danie Rossouw and Brussow always looking up for the pass. If the Boks forwards can come to the party with the ball in hand in the knock-out stages then they could be difficult to stop in attack.

Discipline: referees are stricter than ever at this World Cup and the Boks only leaked seven penalties. In this context that has to be considered a bonus.

The bad:

Errors and execution:  the Boks made 11 handling errors and still looked a bit scratchy at times in attack. They will be particularly annoyed at not scoring a seventh try at the end when they had several chances to go over. Still, this can only get better.

Selection headaches: does Pieter de Villiers know who his best team is yet? Frans Steyn looked quality at No. 12 but Jean de Villiers is hardly going to get dropped if he is fit enough to play. Morne Steyn missed three kicks at goal, but to his credit came back into the game well with the ball in hand. Pat Lambie also made a big claim to be included in the run-on team. There are so many question marks for the coaches to deal with and I'm sure they'd prefer to have a definitive idea.

The ugly:

Bakkies Botha: he went off at half-time. Was this to wrap him up in cotton wool? Or is 'The Enforcer' actually way off match fitness? They could do with him when they come up against the big boys in the knock-outs.

Thoughts?

Rugby World Cup 2011: Pieter de Villiers must drop the dead wood in his South Africa team

Sink or swim: Pieter de Villiers has a big decision to make (Photo: GETTY IMAGES)

If Pieter de Villiers and South Africa are to achieve anything at this Rugby World Cup he must realise what his best team is – and fast.

The substitution of John Smit, Pierre Spies and Bryan Habana, with the Springboks on their knees against Wales, brought about an instant change in fortunes for the struggling world champions.

Bismarck du Plessis lead the way in defence and carried well when called upon, Willem Alberts brought ballast and application to the back row and Francois Hougaard made more yardage with the ball than Habana had managed for the preceding 60 minutes.

If De Villiers can extend his mea culpa even further by picking young Sharks fly-half Pat Lambie at 10 then South Africa may have something resembling a competitive team.

If the marked improvement in South Africa's performance after those substitutions was not evidence enough for De Villiers then he should look to England's campaign in 2007.

They were also world champions and they also began the tournament in a mess. By the end of the 2nd pool game they had sneaked past the USA and been thrashed by the Boks.

Player power and cold hard reality sunk in and they adapated. Tactics were changed (actually tactics were employed for the first time having been missing in action before). Also, and most importantly, players like Shaun Perry who were quite clearly not up to the task of defending the trophy were removed.

Reinventing the wheel mid-tournament requires guts, but England showed it can be done, going on to reach the final when it looked impossible.

There is however a spanner in the works for South Africa: the fitness of Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield and Jean de Villiers. If they are all unavailable (and it doesn't look good for Botha) then the Boks lose three towers of experience. If you also drop John Smit you are down four big, big leaders.

Does De Villiers have the courage to do what needs to be done? Will the players need to tell him so? Or will he carry on blindly with Plan A?

For what it's worth this is the team that I would pick for the big game against Samoa:

South Africa: Beast, Du Plessis, Du Plessis, Rossouw, Matfield (captain if fit), Brussow, Alberts, Burger, Du Preez, Lambie, Hougaard, De Villiers (if fit), Fourie, Pietersen, F Steyn

Thoughts?

 

RWC 2011: a tournament too long? Predict the scores and win sports gear and products

At last! After waiting almost four years we can finally say: the Rugby World Cup starts this week! It seems like an eternity since the lights dimmed at Stade de France in 2007 with the announcer booming: “See you in New Zealand in 2011.”

Simply can’t wait for the action to start on Friday – and looking closely at the schedule, there’s not a week that doesn’t offer some cracking, intriguing match-ups. That said, there are also games that seem ideal to combine with doing the laundry or replacing expired light bulbs; some of them just leave me cold.

Which makes me wonder – just as in 2007 – is six weeks plus just too long for this tournament? Yes, I know it’s not tennis and teams can’t smash and bash the hell out of each other every second day. And yes, I agree with calls that the game must become truly global and that the minnows need exposure against the big teams to learn.

But we’re bound to see some of the minors conceding 80, 90 or even 100 ponts – and how much do they really learn from that? All while a ‘classic’ like Georgia v Romania is likely to appeal to people in, er, Georgia and Romania, but probably not to that many neutrals – especially not at 7.30am UK time.

So what’s the solution? Let only the top eight or 10-ranked teams contest the RWC? Or have a separate ‘world championship’ for the lower-ranked teams? Or what about a hybrid? The top 10 in the world qualify automatically, while teams ranked 11-20 – irrespective what continent they come from – play a tournament a month or two before the next RWC, with the top two progressing to the real deal. That way, if nothing else, you find two relatively in-form minnows on the big stage – more likely to be truly competitive than hopelessly weak teams who happened to be best of a bad lot in their region at the time of qualifying. Would really like to hear your suggestions on this problem.

And so on to this weekend – and your chance to win choice Maximuscle gear and products. Maximuscle fuel England’s Courtney Lawes and Joe Simpson, and the Welsh rugby team, and they’ll be sponsoring this blog during RWC 2011 to get me out to New Zealand, to report on some matches, drink beer with the fans (from both hemispheres!) and hopefully let readers who can’t make it out there, share more in the excitement.

The competition is simple: predict the scores in England v Argentina, and Wales v South Africa, by leaving a comment on this blog. Winner is person to correctly predict both outcomes with the smallest total points difference in the two matches. So get your thinking caps on. Entries close 9am UK time on Saturday, September 10.

Coming up on Thursday: I do what only a fool will do, predict how the pools will pan out and who the likely quarter-finalists will be. And I’ll be asking you to also get off the fence! 

This blog is supported by Maximuscle, the sports nutrition choice of Courtney Lawes, Joe Simpson and the Welsh Rugby Team. For information on how Maximuscle is the Team Behind the Team, visit www.maximuscle.com/tbtt

Rugby World Cup 2011: All bets are off as jitters grip New Zealand and hope fills England and Australia

Crikey! Just as I thought it was becoming easier to predict the likely finalists for RWC 2011, along comes this weekend to blow many hopes, beliefs and fallacies out of the water. Only a fool would part with big money to bet on a winner (even though, as we all know, pre-Cup form does not necessarily mean much come the play-offs).

Take New Zealand. They would have woken up Sunday morning as the ‘land of the long black cloud’. Their early-season form has deserted them, and while their defeat to South Africa could be written off as their B team, their Tri-Nations loss to Australia in Brisbane is likely to cause serious self-doubt.

Entirely outplayed for the first 40 minutes – the Wallabies’ commitment was brilliant – the All Blacks should not be flattered by the final score. Many of their top players looked tired and well off the pace, and Graham Henry and his wise men have a massive task on their hands to turn their belief around.

They may just have to clutch at straws – and there’s a good one in looking at Tri-Nations history. The All Blacks won the tournament in 1999, 2003 and 2007 – only to fall flat at the World Cup. This year they won’t go into the tournament as champions, red-hot favourites or with bags of complacency. All good omens?

As for the Aussies, full marks to you. Your tight five were ok, your back-row magnificent and your backs created and exploited gaps, along with stellar defence. I suspect England – who think they have the Wallabies’ number after two successive victories – will face a possible clash with great unease.

So what about England? I make the victory over Ireland their best performance of the year. Lots still to work on, sure, but there was steel and grit in their game. Ireland stepped up considerably from their three-week horror show, but still England kept them try-less while scoring  two themselves.

Even the midfield – generally acknowledged to be England’s area of weakness – looked more than solid. I’m still not sure they have what it takes to smoke the Southern Hemisphere big guns, but on this showing they’ll fairly easily top their group and approach the knockout stage with great belief. And, as omens and portents go, England won the World Cup on the back of winning the Six Nations in 2003.

All bets are off and my only prediction will be that Romania or Namibia are not going to win this.

And then some random remarks after Saturday – and please let me know how you saw the weekend unfold:

* What a shocker for back-row forwards. Ireland’s David Wallace ruled out of RWC and Jamie Heaslip injured, New Zealand’s Kieran Read and Adam Thomson in serious RWC doubt, England’s Nick Easter and Tom Wood sidelined for Dublin but seemingly okay to travel to New Zealand and Hendre Fourie did not last long. Who’d want to be a 6, 7 or 8 given the ferocity at the breakdown nowadays?

* After keeping a close eye on Wayne Barnes (Aus-NZ) and Nigel Owens (Ire-Eng) and their colleagues, I have this horrible fear that match officials – rather than a brilliant kick or try – could overly influence tight matches in New Zealand. Both were guilty of substantial inconsistency at times and getting a few key calls incorrect. Hope they all have a proper workshop before September 9!

* Martin Johnson may just need to have a quiet word with his team over discipline (and not for the first time). Chris Ashton sin-binned (admittedly paying the price for team-mates’ repeated offending), Courtney Lawes’ stupid barge and Manu Tuilagi’s take on David Wallace – even if missed by the touch judge – was a shoulder charge rather than a legal arm-binding tackle (not that this ws the cause of Wallace’s injury). Any of them could be very costly in a close affair. 

* Why do British commentators struggle with pronouncing Samoan names? It’s Manu Tuilagi, not Tuilangi. Just as it was Tana Umaga, not Umanga. Easy to practise … the ‘a’ is pronounced similar to when you’re at the doctor, have a wooden spatula pressing down your tongue and have to say ‘aaahhh’.

* And finally, while we’re on commentators, thank God this World Cup is not hosted by Australia. That way the whole world bar the Aussies will be spared having to listen to Oz commentary. They can be funny and witty at times, but they’re blinkered and one-eyed to the extreme. Their non-stop carping at real and perceived All Black transgressions was already irritating, but then to stay mum when the Wallabies do exactly the same is simply biased. Lord, how I still miss Bill McLaren.

Your views please and follow me on Twitter @lookdownsouth