SOME YEARS ago, when I was still “on the tools” on a regular basis, and writing too-many obituaries, I was charged with writing the obituary on a well-known Scotland cap of the 1950s. Fulfilling this task brought me into contact with his son and although our relationship has been carried-on via the internet, we are still in regular contact and I value the son's opinions and observations on our game as much as the likes of the late Norman Mair and Hughie McLeod valued those of his father.
I will respect his anonymity, but Ian, to give him his Sunday name, as a former teacher and coach knows his Rugby Union. The following words in italics are his views following last weekend's game, and I feel they are worthy of wider consideration.
Three observations:
The Haka
I concur with Aristotle. He mentions the 1967 Scotland match. A glance at video footage of that tour reveals Lochore, Meads, Laidlaw and Co in a semi circle to perform the Haka, waving their arms but otherwise largely stationary (they did, however, have unusually large numbers on their jerseys to portray the impression of power and size)
And then the 1972-3 All Blacks abandoned the Haka until the finale against the Barbarians at Cardiff - no thought of cherishing cultural heritage on that tour....
It was Buck Shelford who turned the Haka into an aggressive ritual. I have subsequently held the view that the Haka does give the ABs an advantage, in effect providing a final warm up while the Opposition have to stand still with muscles seizing up in the cold. And the 'new' alternative Haka, with its gesture of throat slitting, is borderline intimidatory and offensive
Fiji have it right. Their Cibi is the right length for the occasion and just as entertaining
I feel that is a particularly-good point about the “Warm-up” aspect of the Haka; I also agree with his view on the new version.
Substitutions
About five years ago, I had a conversation with a former student who was breaking through into the ranks of England and GB Men's hockey.. He told me that when he took the field he would know exactly how many minutes he would play before being substituted. He added that this would be the case irrespective of how well he was playing or the state of the game (on hearing this, I concluded that I was really out of touch with modern coaching !)
Although hockey is fundamentally different with roll on/roll off substitutions, I wonder whether some of the same tactical mentality is entering into rugby
Borthwick has of course fielded the media flak with his substitution of Ford for Smith, although I suspect that the volume would have been considerably more muted if Ford's penalty attempt had bounced in off the post rather than rebounding into play
Smith had an iffy first half with two hashed attempts at a drop goal, but he came into his own in the second half; his interception was followed by a beautiful feigned pass that fractionally drew in the covering defence before he passed to his left. That score turned the game and England had the momentum. There was therefore no on-field reason to substitute Smith
More telling, however, was the wholesale replacement of the front row around the 57th minute. The first half penalty count was approximately 8-1 against New Zealand, including the concession of a couple of scrum penalties. With the fresh England front row on the field, the scrum penalties (coincidentally or not, given the arbitrary nature of many referees' scrum decisions) started to go in New Zealand's favour
And at the final scrum in front of the All Black posts when a stable platform was required to allow Ford time and space for his drop goal attempt, the England scrum was fortunate not to be penalised when the front row stood up to nullify the New Zealand forward shove
Are coaches being overly influenced by the statistics generated on their laptops rather than trusting on what is happening in front of their eyes?
That final paragraph in particular is a very-interesting observation.
Leadership
A really good captain/pack leader, namely someone who possesses the personality and skill to exert a game changing influence on the field, should never agree to being substituted. Imagine the reaction of Ian McLauchlan if Bill Dickinson had tried to get him off the field after sixty minutes! Or Douglas Elliott in my Father's early matches. The last really imposing forwards leader for England was Martin Johnson, ŵho only departed the pitch if a yellow card was waved in his direction!
I don't buy the modern argument that a team operates with several leaders. A leader by definition leads from the front - which of course is why forwards tend to be chosen for the role. Leaders should therefore aim to complete the full match. England's captain currently takes the field, knowing that his time will be up after sixty minutes; he is therefore a part time leader, and part time leaders are not the best recipe for winning matches
Enough of this ramble, as I fear that I am entering 'old git' territory......meanwhile I trust that you are keeping well !
More good sense on this issue. I must admit I find the current fashion for co-captains and vice-captains a bit strange. In my day we had a Team Captain and, particularly if the Captain was a Back, a Pack Leader, who called the lines-out and kicked erses when extra effort was called for – I reckon we should go back to that situation.
The England team to face Australia this weekend has been named with a Captain and three Vice-Captains (all forwards), but no Vice Captain named in the Backs; a move which strikes me as strange in the extreme.
No comments:
Post a Comment