England 18 Samoa 17 (Rugby World Cup)
As befits my standing as a sports editor I am inherently interested in most games and sports and regard the “thrill” of watching them in their various elite forms as one of the greatest joys that human beings can experience, not least because of the special atmosphere that great stadia filled to capacity with partisan supporters can generate and the infinite potentially random and unforeseen elements that can visit upon the action.
Nevertheless, as I sat down in front of my television mid-afternoon yesterday in order to watch ITV’s live coverage of the Samoa v England Rugby World Cup group stage clash – contemplating my fellow Rust colleagues and indeed England rugby union fans/supporters everywhere (well save for those who had taken the trouble to be there in person) doing similar – I couldn’t help but wonder whether they might be harbouring the troubled/mixed feelings as myself at what I was about to witness.
Logically – if logic counts for anything – given its history, size, resources, player base at all levels and public interest in the game, England ought to occupy a permanent place as one of the dominant countries in rugby union. As it also should – come to think of it – in football. So why does the England national team always seem to promote in its followers a significant degree of “hangdog” semi-dread of anticipated under-performance?
This has little to do with the amount of effort, time and intensity that the English national set-up puts into its preparations. Nobody could doubt the commitment and hard work of its coaches, players and support staff.
Some who I talk to on the subject hold to the view that, if anything, the England national team tends to be over-coached, thereby leaving inadequate scope for inspiration, imagination and “off the cuff” improvisation to weave its magic. If you like, it’s a case of the eternal “Roundheads versus Cavaliers” dilemma/argument in the flesh.
I don’t buy this at all. There’s a widespread dictum among players of rugby union at all levels that “The packs decide which team prevails … the backs determine by how much”. There’s another, echoing the general rule of thumb that “possession is nine-tenths of the law”, that the key element of rugby is possession of the ball. If so, why is there so much kicking – or “kick tennis” as it is sometimes called?
Back in my father’s day, a “kick ahead”, or even one into touch, was what you resorted to only when you’d run out of ideas as to how to progress by running with the ball – or, alternatively, simply wanted to relieve pressure upon your defence.
I guess in some respects this harps back to rugby union’s origins in the mid-19th Century, when it was a game more “for the player than the spectator”.
Deep in the gut I always have misgivings about any game in which success can be – or usually is – to be found in “playing by numbers” and either limiting the unexpected and/or “stopping the opposition from playing”.
And so I come to the course of the Samoa v England game yesterday.
Inevitably – some might say – England’s performance in prevailing 18-17 was distinctly under-whelming.
Never mind “flattering to deceive”, so far in this campaign the squad has seemed subdued and – with perhaps a few notable exceptions – even just “going through the motions”.
The extent to which any Rugby World Cup’s group stage can be treated as a formality and/or simply an opportunity to try out combinations and tactics devoid of pressure is wildly exaggerated.
Let’s be honest, the supporters of every country with a serious chance of winning the tournament would ideally like to witness a linear development of improvement and growing sense of confidence and purpose in each successive game.
Yesterday there was little evidence of any of these coming from the England team.
They were disappointingly lacklustre and downbeat. This may be sacrilege – and I’d be happy to be proved wrong – but I’m pretty certain that, if they were like me, well before half-time a significant proportion of 
notional England supporters were almost willing Samoa to go on inflict a major upset by winning the game.
(It wouldn’t have been “curtains” for England for this to have happened because they’d already qualified for the Quarters anyway).
As it was, with Owen Farrell’s “timed-out” penalty kick being a nadir, England eventually “nicked” their one-point victory thanks to the late contribution of a substitute (the oldest man in their squad), 36 year old Danny Care whose sniping try and then try-saving tackle did the business.
As it is, all is not yet lost and I suppose there’s one potentially positive angle to look forward to.
It’s “knock-out” rugby from now on and if England don’t manage to pull their socks up next time out they’ll be on the plane going home …
