RWC week 3: England/Romania and NZ/France

This morning, England finally produced a performance they could be proud of. Admittedly, it was against a weakened Romania team, but you can only beat what is put in front of you, and England did so handsomely. Of their ten tries, nine were scored by the backs and the tenth by Tom Croft in a backs move. They took their opportunities well and were clinical in their finishing. Not even once did I think that they should have scored when they hadn’t. The lineout looked good, the scrum creaked a bit but then held, and some of the players whose form had been questionable coming into the tournament began to show signs of what they are capable of. Ben Foden in particular looks like he is beginning to find the spark that made him such a force at the start of the Six Nations. Cueto is back among the tries in his first World Cup start. Tindall has better hands than he is generally given credit for, although he did botch a few moves. Tuilagi brings much-needed directness and pace. After all the on-field and off-field issues of the past two weeks, it looks as though England are back to where they want to be. Seems that the clear-the-air talks that they had earlier in the week have done their job, as indeed they did in 2007. However, this was Romania, so it is important not to get too far ahead of ourselves. Against Scotland, who have a habit of making games very difficult for England and are beginning to develop a back line of their own, it will not be so easy.

On paper, NZ/France should have been the highlight of the group stages. I think most of us expected a tense, close, nail-biter, particularly as France seem to have had the World Cup mockers on New Zealand. All the talk about Lievremont putting out a B-team was, frankly, inflated. Only at hooker, fly-half and possibly no. 8 could that argument have been made. Parra at fly-half, though, was odd even by Lievremont’s standards. New Zealand, on the other hand, put out very close to their strongest 15. Even with all the talk about how the loser in some ways has the easier path to the final, it did not seem as though either team was taking the game lightly.

France started well, looking bright with ball in hand and strong at the breakdown, but they could not make their possession and territory tell, nor could they break down a superb New Zealand defence. The All Blacks, on the other hand, had few opportunities but carved the French apart every time they got, and once they were 19-0 up after 22 minutes, the game was up. France were made to look poor at the scrum, weak at the breakdown and ponderous, slow and hesitant in attack. For a French side that is known for counterattacking at pace, it was their lack of threat with ball in hand that was so surprising. As an England fan, I’m very relieved that New Zealand won, as on the form they displayed today I’m not sure we have it in us to beat them. But I’m eyeing up France with some relish. If the French play as they did today when they play against England, I think we have every chance of beating them, and beating them well. However, the cliché that you can never tell which France is going to turn up still holds, and it is also true that they were made to look poor by a superb New Zealand performance. Whether England can display as much skill and commitment at the breakdown, I’m not sure.

Finally, a word on Israel Dagg. I mentioned him in my NZ/Tonga post, where I said I thought he had a superb game. He had another one today. Graham Henry took a gamble starting him ahead of Muliaina and it paid off handsomely. It must be difficult competing with a legend for your place in a legendary side, but Dagg has taken his opportunities extremely well. He deserved his man-of-the-match award today and has played himself into the first-choice 15.

Rugby World Cup begins!

I can only imagine what the atmosphere across New Zealand must have been like this morning (evening NZ time, of course) as the World Cup finally kicked off after what seems like months of waiting, anticipating and wondering whether the All Blacks might 'choke' yet again. Unsurprisingly, Eden Park was packed to the rafters, although not entirely with All Black fans - I do hope that the other matches will also play to large crowds.

To the match itself: NZ vs Tonga seemed on paper to be a fairly easy start for the hosts, facing the weakest of the Pacific Island teams, and the first half certainly went that way, with two tries apiece for Kahui and Dagg. Tonga stepped up in the second half, though, and managed to score a consolation try with a series of pick-and-gos on the All Black line.

NZ were not at their fluent best, as a number of passes failed to go to hand. There were a few too many knock-ons, scrappy passes and conceded turnovers for Graham Henry, or the All Black fans, to be entirely happy. More clinical teams than Tonga would have punished these. When it did click, though, they once again looked as though they could score from anywhere, at a moment's notice, even from scrappy ball - the Ma'a Nonu try in the second half was a great example of this. It did make for a fairly free-flowing game, though: there were few penalties or lineouts and comparatively few scrums.

Tonga weren't as physical as I was expecting them to be. Sure, there were some big hits, but there were far too many bigger misses, with defenders flying up out of the line and then missing their tackles completely. Even when they made tackles, NZ were able to make a couple of metres, and to get quick ball from the rucks. By contrast, NZ were stopping Tonga in their tracks and driving them backwards, then slowing the ball down so that it came back at a crawl. If World Cups are indeed won by defence, the All Blacks have put down a decent marker.

Israel Dagg, whom I had not seen before, had a storming game. He seemed to be everywhere, showed deft hands and a powerful right boot, and was in the right place at the right time for his tries. Not only that, but he brought extra spark and creativity to a back line that, admittedly, is already fairly rich in these. I think he's done enough to keep the legend Mils Muliaina out of the starting line-up. The other standout player for me was Jerome Kaino, whose work-rate was immense and was rewarded with a superb try under the posts.

So all in all, not a bad opening game. I do think that the other big games this weekend: England/Argentina and Wales/South Africa are likely to be more intense matches and in that respect more exciting - check back here for more on those matches!

Sport on the radio - World Athletics 2011

As I'm in the throes of moving house, I've been driving rather a lot, often accompanied by Radio 5 Live, which means that rather than seeing the athletics on TV or catching up with the highlights I've been hearing it on the radio, a rather unfamiliar experience. I just happened to be in the car during the men's 100m final, listening to Steve Backley predict a false start literally moments before it happened, and the shocked disbelief in the voices of Darren Campbell and the other commentators when it did happen. The race itself felt almost an anticlimax, as I am sure it did in any other medium. By contrast, Dai Greene's gold in the 400 hurdles was an unexpected triumph, and there was a palpable sense of mounting excitement as he stormed through to win, with Tasha Danvers jumping up and down (so the presenter said) back home in the 5 live studio. Anyway, it got me thinking about sport on the radio, what works and what doesn't work so well.

I've long been a TMS fan, and cricket is probably the most radio-friendly sport there is. Lots of slow periods in between when the commentators can chat and take the mick out of each other, or talk about cake, or respond to viewers' texts, emails and twitter messages. More importantly, though, the intricacy of cricket terminology means that every ball can be described accurately, often with nuances that are missed live and hard to spot on the TV without the aid of expert commentary (e.g. swing or spin, whether the batsman was late on the shot). There's a reason why those TMS earpieces at cricket grounds sell very well. Cricket on the radio works because it's possible to commentate in such a way that the listener can visualise every shot in vivid detail, and get a sense of the tension, drama and atmosphere of the game.

I was also pleasantly surprised at how enthralling tennis commentary was, again on occasions when I was driving and had no other way of watching Wimbledon, though I was constantly frustrated by it as I didn't feel as able to visualise what was going on. I did notice, though, that there were nuances in the radio commentary that I wouldn't have necessarily got as a TV viewer, notably the explanation of the different spins that Nadal put on the ball in successive shots.

I would never normally think of listening to sport on the radio, apart from TMS, and I'm still not sold on it for sports like rugby, but after all this driving around I will definitely be doing so more often. Which sports work for you on the radio? Are there any that you watch on TV with the sound off?

England v Ireland, August 27th 2011

Five things we learned about England

My first post on this blog is going to follow the time-honoured and admittedly rather boring 'five things' format.

1. We finally have a centre partnership that might work

Tindall had one of his best games in an England shirt with Tuilagi outside him, and they seemed to be on the same wavelength in both attack and defence. Tuilagi brings energy to the game, his defence looked solid throughout and while the try resulted from Earls' poor defence he looked sharp in taking it. Definitely an improvement on Hape, and Tindall at 12 looked good too.


2. Quick ball can make any scrum-half look good

Bit of a cliche, but we definitely saw this in the Ireland match. Wigglesworth had a reasonable game, but this was mostly because the forwards had a better idea of how to play the breakdown, they got numbers in and managed to secure some quick ball. With the forwards that we have, we should be aiming to secure quick ball more often, and more efficiently, than we seem to be able to do at the moment.


3. Heads-up rugby is not yet out of fashion in England

Both England tries were scored not from planned moves but from players (Tindall mainly) actually looking up at what was in front of them and responding accordingly. Tuilagi exploited the space well for his try, while Tindall's grubber kick for Armitage's try was gloriously unexpected (I do wonder if it worked purely because it took everyone by surprise, including the Irish players on the field). England are often accused of playing boring, 10-man, up the jumper rugby and all too often that accusation is justified, but it's so clear from the tries against Ireland that behind that stereotype is a creative side desperate to be unleashed. Let's hope MJ and coaches don't coach that out of the players completely.

4. Play the ref!!!

England were abysmal at playing the ref... constant infringements at the breakdown, particularly coming in from the side of the ruck and not rolling away in the tackle. It's another time-honoured cliche, but England are liable to throw away perfectly good winning positions by giving away soft penalties. Ireland didn't take full advantage of this, particularly in the sin-bin period, so we got away with it. Against the SH sides, we won't.

5. Cut the error count

Along with the penalty count, England's error count was a serious cause for concern. I lost count of the number of times we turned the ball over in contact, knocked on or threw dodgy passes. Sadly, Wilkinson was to blame for some of the most glaring errors, especially in the tactical kicking. I'm hoping that this can still be attributed to rustiness, and luckily we weren't punished for many of them, but that won't be the case in the World Cup.

Still, it was a thoroughly enjoyable match after the despair and frustration of the Wales match, and gave me some hope that we're not going to crash and burn horribly in the World Cup.

Comments and constructive criticism much appreciated!!!