England v Australia rugby preview: Eddie gets it wrong (again)
Yesterday Eddie Jones formally announced his England squad to take on Australia at RFU Twickenham tomorrow afternoon [kick -off 5.30pm GMT] and it is no surprise that the bulk of rugby media reaction has centred around the return of incumbent captain Owen Farrell to the back line and – in the starting pack – the retention of Tom Curry at Number 8.
When it comes to Owen Farrell, I must immediately declare an interest: I have long held reservations about the England captain.
Granted, he’s an international class rugby player – tomorrow will be his 100th international [94th for England, plus 6 British & Irish Lions caps to his name].
Furthermore – like his illustrious father Andy [an all-time rugby league legend with 45 international caps, 11 for England and 34 for Great Britain; in rugby union 11 caps for England; currently Ireland head coach, having previously coached with England and the British & Irish Lions] – he’s a world class character/competitor.
That much is not in doubt.
However, there are three areas of his game about which I have concerns.
Firstly, his defence.
In this department he has all the skills and attitude required of an international player and yet, throughout his career – perhaps to a degree because of his rugby league heritage – he has always had a tendency to “go in high” (above the waist) rather than the classical “around the legs”.
As a result, he has often lived on the borderline between being ‘legal’ and not – a weakness that has increased as “protection of the player” has become a progressively greater priority of the authorities over the years.
On a least seven occasions (that come to mind easily as I write) – there are probably more – whilst playing for England Farrell has either “got away” with a dangerous tackle/collision or been penalised (yellow carded) for similar.
It’s a record that makes him a potential liability – especially as he’s the “go to” man in the place-kicking and captaincy departments – in tight games that are going down to the wire.
Secondly, his captaincy.
Owen Farrell is direct, uncompromising and opinionated – nothing wrong with that. However, there is little “light and shade” in his nature. His “man management” when it comes to referees and officials is therefore limited. He makes his points or case to them in a blunt manner and, when that doesn’t work, he tends simply to make it (them) again. This can get him on the wrong side of the official.
Compare this with the way the likes of the Australians John Eales and Michael Hooper, the Welshmen Alun Wyn Jones and Sam Warburton, or most particularly the legendary Kiwi Richie McCaw – any of whom could charm a feisty errant koala bear out of a eucalyptus tree and certainly wrap a rugby referee around their little finger.
In some respects I accept that Farrell is an international coach’s dream as a player/captain.
He can always be relied upon to steep himself in the plan handed to him for any given game and deliver it to the letter.
What he’s not so good at is “thinking on the hoof”, i.e. when out on the pitch in the heat of a close contest, as a captain/senior player he sometimes “goes missing” when the situation is crying out for a charismatic leader who will recognise what is not going right for his team – or at least, potentially not going right sufficiently well for them to prevail – and [to use an analogy that may be appropriate] “gather his men around him and tell them how and why they are going to change their tactics and/or game plan” – and then be first out of the trenches to put the new scheme into effect.
You’re never going to see Owen Farrell doing what Martin Johnson did as the 2003 RWC Final went into extra time.
England head coach Clive Woodward strode onto the pitch intending to address the team but was met by Johnson holding his hand up with the crisp statement “Clive – we’ve got this …” (by which Johnson meant he had) whereupon Woodward turned around and returned to his seat.
And thirdly, Farrell’s creativity.
It would be grossly unfair to characterise him as lacking creativity per se – he reads a game well and can choose any play from his proverbial quiver that may suit the situation at hand, but then (again) he always “plays to a plan”.
What he doesn’t do so well is “take a game by the scruff of the neck” and/or suddenly produce an unconventional “rabbit” from a hat that alters the course of events during its course.
It’s that last point which brings me to the key attribute of the fly half chosen to play for England tomorrow.
Marcus Smith is at his core an instinctive player capable of doing the outrageous at any moment.
This is what makes him such an attractive player to watch – you never quite know what is going to happen – and, probably, nor does he.
The downside (the risk) of choosing a player like Smith – and before him, great creatives at 10 like the imperious All Black Carlos Spencer or the mercurial Aussie Quade Cooper – is that there is always the possibility they’re going to do something that “doesn’t quite come off” and creates chaos and/or ultimately might lose you a game.
Arguably, it’s a nice problem to have.
Personally, I’d have restored Farrell to the matchday squad – but not as a starter – and retained Tuilagi and Slade as the centre pairing outside Smith.
POSTSCRIPT
And – I almost forgot:
Tom Curry is not a natural Number 8.
I’d have picked him at 7 and started with Exeter Chiefs’ Sam Simmonds at 8.
