SIX-NATIONS : PART 2

Week 2 of the Six-Nations is proving a mixed bag. While the conditions in Paris were bad enough to cause the postponement of the match between France and Ireland, no doubt much to the annoyance of the full-house crowd, England finally showed a bit of form in Rome.

For the first 50 minutes, Italy's clash with England looked much like the Italy-France game last week. Italy looked decent but had no cutting edge; England took a couple of opportunities and led 6 - 0 without really doing much either. Then it was all-change. Two lapses from England and the Italians had 2 tries and a 12 - 6 lead at half-time; it was all a bit weird but England were staring at a humiliating defeat.

For 10 minutes in the second half, it was as before, except that Italy extended their lead with a penalty. Then, Charlies Hodgson charged down a kick and scored a try, exactly as last week; Farrell, a find for sure, kicked the conversion and the English were back in it but, again, without really doing anything very great.

Now came the magical stroke as Coach Lancaster started making changes and England were suddenly a different side. Full of energy and invention, they began to dominate and put the home side under huge pressure. They still didn't look a particularly strong side, but they looked much better than previously and, in the end, were good value for a 19 - 15 victory. The poor old Italians tried hard but they missed a couple of very kickable penalties and simply had no penetration. Their chances of avoiding this year's wooden spoon don't look good.

As for England, they've negotiated the 2 easiest games of the tournament and won both; they now have to look forward to games against Wales, France and Ireland, in that order, and they'll have to improve a lot more if thery're not to lose all three.

Wales then took on Scotland at the Millennium Stadium. The first half followed a predictable pattern though perhaps not what I'd expecetd. Neither side was able to penetrate the other's defence and it was rather a dour affair, though a good game nonetheless. There was genuine effort and enterprise from both sides though the Scots were probably more on the back foot than the home side. As the second half progressed, things became a bit more fraught and the Welsh began to dominate; the successive dismissal of 2 Scots to the sin bin for 10 minute spells proved decisive as Wales took full advantage and gained a good lead, crossing the Scottish line 3 times. Once back to full strength, the Scots were much more of a handful and even threatened to reduce the deficit dramatically; sadly for them, the Welsh defence held out and, despite considerable pressure and one try, it ended as a 27 - 13 victory for the home side.

In the end, the Welsh were not as good as they'd appeared in week 1 and/or the Scots were better. The Scots still lacked a real cutting edge but their defence was good and they showed promise; the Welsh defence was also good and their attack was probably slightly better, but not as good as might have been thought.  Wales may have deserved their win but it was on the back of the Scots playing for 20 minutes with only 14 men; on a level playing field it would have been much closer.

Given that we have yet to see what the French and Irish can do against each other, things are pretty confused. England beat a Scottish side that performed very creditably against Wales, possibly suggesting that they may yet prove to be better than they appeared at first viewing. The Scots are certainly no mugs and the Welsh don't look as good as first thought. Quite a melting pot, as the teams prepare for the next round of matches in 2 weeks.

MANAGER WANTED; SUCCESS OPTIONAL

England's football team has been a national disappointment for decades, in fact, since its one and only major triumph in 1966. Since that time, its had umpteen managers many of them proving disastrous. Now, with the departure of the unlamented Fabio Capello, the FA is again hunting for a new mug to take charge.

English fans believe that we have the best football in the world and yet they are regularly proved to be wrong. We may, or may not, have the best top division, but that is populated by a vast number of grotesquely overpaid foreigners who cannot play for England. Once these players, including the Scots, Irish and Welsh, are removed from the pool, what's left is the rump of Englishmen of whom there are usually an insufficient number to cobble together even a half decent team.

This is what the England manager is confronted with and expected to produce a world-beating side out of. His chances of success are not quite zero but the odds against him succeeding must be about the same as the milkman's horse winning the Derby. Over the years, the FA has appointed what must now be dozens of managers, almost all of whom have been greeted as being the 'right man for the job' or 'the man who can do it' or given some other moronic description; every single one has failed.

From Walter Winterbottom, who managed the team for 16 years following WW2, England has had a further 14 managers :

Alf Ramsey

Joe Mercer

Don Revie

Ron Greenwood

Bobby Robson

Graham Taylor

Terry Venables

Glenn Hoddle

Howard Wilkinson

Kevin Keegan

Peter Taylor

Sven-Goran Eriksson

Steve McClaren

Fabio Capello

Surprisingly, Capello has the best record of this bunch though one may need to question the quality and / or application of the opposition in many of the non-tournament games played. The much vaunted Bobby Robson had what was probably the poorest record, the side winning less than half the matches when he was in charge.

Since 1990, there have been 9 managers, a record that even many league sides would find embarrassing. Since 1974, the average length of tenure, excluding the 2 stand-ins, Wilkinson and Taylor, has been a little over 3 years - is this really long enough for a national team manager to work his magic, even if he is 'the right man for the job' ?

I've heard this morning that Lord Sugar has reportedly said that the job of England manager is a poisoned chalice that should be shunned by all; if this is a true comment, he couldn't be more correct. Expectations will always exceed preformance and every manager's tenure will end in failure. The morons at the FA seem to have no idea about how to run or control English football, but seem to be full of grandiose plans that rarely, if ever, come to fruition

Can they not see that appointing a manager for 3 or 4 years can never work ? Can they not see that appointing men in their 60s is idiotic ? What is needed is a younger man who can be given real time to succeed; a man who either is English or speaks English like a native; a man who knows and understands football and is more interested in the game and the team than in his own position; a man who is respected by the players and can communicate effectively with them, at all levels. 

We don't need a current superstar, we need a man who will become a superstar over a decade; who had ever heard of Alex Ferguson before he became Manchester United manager, or Arsene Wenger before he took over at Arsenal ? The trick the FA has to achieve is to find the 40-45 year old who will win us the World Cup in 2018, 2022 or 2026, starting from scratch. Forget 2014, it's a lost cause and should be used as a springboard for the next generation of players to learn and develop for later tournaments.

When the FA draws up its shortlist for the job, what's the betting it will be populated by no one less than 50 and no one who isn't a currently successful club manager ? They are so ingrained in their thinking that they cannot see beyond the ends of their collective noses and will end up picking yet another 'wrong man', while paying him a small fortune, more than enough for a very comfortable and happy retirement in 3 or 4 years time. And then we'll do it all over again.

FINALLY, RUGBY IS BACK !

The first weekend of the 2012 6-Nations' Rugby tournament has produced nothing to frighten the horses.

France defeated a lacklustre Italy with very little effort and barely got out of second gear. The Italians started brightly enough but had none of their usual aggression either in the scrum or the tackle; they proved pretty toothless and all the French had to do was take the opportunities given to them. How good the French are will only become clear later in the tournament.

The Calcutta Cup match at Murrayfield saw an 'all-changed' England take on the Scots in another disappointing game. The Scots were all effort, but huffed and puffed to little effect; England defended well enough when called upon, but showed little imagination or penetration themselves. The match could probably have gone either way, but England had the benefit of an opportunist try when Hodgson charged down an ill-judged kick by Parks; this proved decisive in an otherwise drab match and England came away with the spoils. Neither side seems likely to challenge for the 6-Nations crown though.

The final match of the weekend was an entirely different affair. From the kick-off, Ireland and Wales showed far greater enthusiasm and determination than had been apparent in either of the first 2 games.This was a hard fought match, with the score, and the tide, see-sawing throughout. In the end, a foul tackle less than a minute from the end proved decisive as Wales' Leigh Halfpenny sent the penalty kick through the posts for his side to finally take the lead and win 23-21. It was a good rugby match and it seems certain that these sides will be the ones to challenge the French as the tournament gathers pace. Wales were, perhaps, marginally better, but the Irish have nothing to be ashamed of in their performance.

Roll on week 2.

PUT FOOTBALL BACK IN ITS BOX.

Why is it that John Terry being 'stripped' of the captaincy of the England football team is considered of such importance that it is headline news ?

Being captain of a football team seems to have very little real significance these days, with every important decision being made by the manager and his assistants. Terry has previously 'lost' the captaincy for misdemeanours of some sort that I can no longer recall; whether or not he is a good captain, he has 'previous'.

It appears that being captain of the England football team carries a particular kudos and is a status to be protected both by the appointee and those who appointed him. Surely, it is the reputation of the game that needs protecting, not that of any specific player. Regardless, being captain of any national team is not quite the same as being Prime Minister; it is of very little consequence outside of the sport concerned.

I really couldn't care less who is captain of the England football team, cricket team, rugby team or marbles team; what I want to see is a team that has some ability and spirit, led by someone who truly believes in sporting principles and, preferably, has half a brain and is able to lead his or her side in a meaningful way.

Football has become a national obsession and all else has been pushed to one side. The world, in England, stops for football; every word of the England captain or manager is recorded, analyzed and repeated, ver batim, and ad nauseam. Indeed, it has become such an obsession that vast acres of the national media will be wasted on discussing the matter tomorrow.

Is it not time that we put sport back where it belongs, on the back rather than the front pages ? Sadly, our political masters seem to believe that sport is a great way to garner support and the forthcoming abomination of the Olympics is a prime example. Will the sane people ever be able to regain control of the asylum ?

MURRAY SECOND-BEST, AGAIN.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Poor old Andy Murray has come up short again, admittedly over 5 sets but short is short. His Australian Open is over for another year, having not even reached the final this time.

Murray may be unlucky in that he is playing in an era of supremely talented players, as some commentators suggest, but this excuse could have been used by any number of 'nearly-men' over the decades. What of those who had to compete against Laver and Rosewall, Newcombe, Connors, Borg and McEnroe, Edberg and Becker, Sampras and so on ?

On court on Friday, Murray looked a mess. His generally scruffy appearance does not encourage confidence and his demeanour likewise; his swings of humour surely cannot help his concentraion. During the second set, his opponent, the hugely talented, and far better presented, Novak Djokovic, seemed to be heading for an early bath as he exhibited clear signs of some form of debility - whether he was injured, tired, ill or simply playing 'rope-a-dope' as suggested by the BBC's inane commentators does not really matter. What does matter is that even when clearly not as his best, Djokovic still had enough talent and determination to see off the erratic and temperamental Scot.

Some 'experts' claim to have taken heart from Murray's latest defeat, suggesting that the length of the match indicates that he has significantly closed the gap to the 'Big 3'. Poppycock. When it comes to 'Grand Slams', he is distinctly 4th best; in 3 finals, he has yet to win a set, while yesterday's loss was to a man who was most definitely less than 100% fit. It seems inevitable that Murray will find it increasingly difficult to maintain his world ranking as the next generation comes up. Although Federer has undoubtedly seen his best days, Nadal and Djokovic seem certain to stay as the top 2 for some time to come; Tsonga is knocking on the door and Del Potro may yet return to his best. Whether Murray will ever win a 'Grand Slam' has to be highly debatable.

None of this is to decry Murray's undoubted talent, nor his acievements to date, but the way in which the British media continually overplays these achievements does him no service. He is the best player these islands have produced since the far-off days of Fred Perry and, given the enormous changes in the game over the intervening years, he is probably our best player ever but he is not a real winner. His talent is not as great as that of his principal rivals and his mental attitude does not bear comparison; it may be that addressing the second may help him to improve the first, but that, too, is debatable. Can Ivan Lendl, his new mentor, sort him out ? Who knows !

What is sure is that Murray is unlikely to make any sort of breakthrough at the French Open while the manic expectations of the British press make Wimbledon success even more difficult than it would otherwise be. Might he have a serious chance in the US in the autumn ? Maybe, if Lendl can work some magic, but he'll still have to find a way passed Nadal and Djokovic and, quite probably, Tsonga, Del Potro, and Ferrer as well as numerous 'up-and-comers'; and there's Federer, of course, as always. I suggest not holding one's breath.

PAKISTAN SPINNERS TRASH ENGLAND.

The total humiliation of the English cricket team in their latest match against Pakistan has to be a new low-point in English sport.

The performance of the batsmen, confronted by a couple of decent spinners, was pathetic and showed just how lacking in real ability most of them are. Put them on a flat, beautifully true English wicket against a myriad of mediocre seamers and they score heavily; send them in on a slightly less perfect wicket against bowlers who have a trifle more skill and they simply have no idea of what to do.

Today's almost microscopic second innings total of 72, when needing just 145 for victory, was shocking. That 9 of the batsmen contributed a mere 13 to that total between them shows a degree of ineptitude that takes some explaining. Playing back to a turning ball is rarely a good idea; leaving large gaps between bat and pad likewise, and yet our 'supermen' did just this with gay abandon. Added to the regular habit of several of swishing at deliveries outside of the wicket, and we have a recipe for disaster.

There remains one more match against Pakistan for the team to redeem some of its lost pride but hopes cannot be high. After that, it will be off to Sri Lanka for 3 more Tests on similar wickets, followed by competitions against the West Indies and South Africa in England and a trip to India next winter.

What price they retain their current' No 1' ranking ? What price Andrew Strauss will still be captain in India ?

ENGLISH CRICKET WILTS IN THE SUN.

England's vaunted cricket team have been brought crashing back to earth, with a crushing defeat against Pakistan in Dubai. Watching some of this event made one realise what a load of rubbish the English media spout when it comes to our assorted sports' teams.

How England have ever been rated as the number 1 cricket team is a mystery known only to the goons who work out the ratings. England's players are a bunch of decent players, none of whom are probably of real world class; that, of course, is not what the media say and part of the problem is that the players have believed their own press. They strut around as if they are the best thing since sliced bread, while performing like a bunch of amateurs.

The first innings performance was shocking. Having won the toss and batted on a wicket universally acknowledged to be benign, they collapsed in disorder; placing the blame on lack of recent cricket simply doesn't hold water. They were hopeless and horribly shown up by a bowler, Ajmal, who was simply out of their league. When the Pakistanis batted, they quickly showed that the wicket held few terrors even though England's bowlers performed more than creditably. In fact, it was only the bowlers who kept England in touch at all.

Second time around, England's batsmen were probably even worse than before. For both openers to be caught behind flicking at balls down the leg-side showed a naievty and unpreparedness for Test Cricket bordering upon the unbelievable; when Kevin Pieterson then managed to be caught near the mid-wicket boundary, playing a shot of terrifying recklessness, the game was up. Ian Bell was a shade unlucky to be trapped in front by a bit of a shooter, but Jonathan Trott, having played a well controlled innings, made an injudicious swish at a widish one to produce another 'caught behind'. Graeme Swann was incredibly lucky to survive a clear 'leg before' only after the umpires questioned the legality of Gul's delivery, but did go on to provide the only other real resistance with an innings of 39. Nonetheless, this 'great' side only just avoided an innings defeat.

The truth is that England's batsmen play so little cricket that they are never ready for a Test Match. The only first class cricket any of them play, other than the Tests, is the rare appearance for their county team; other than this, they play a vast amount of one day 'crash, bang, wallop' stuff, which is no preparation for a 5 day match. In any case, most of the batsmen lack the the technique and application necessary for 5 day cricket against good opposition; they are far to prone to flashing outside the off (or leg) stump, too eager to have a mad swish regardless of the situation, and are easily undone by a half-decent spinner. The bowlers are probably a better bunch, though whether they're as good as we're told, is a different matter. What is undoubtedly true is that the team, as a whole, is nothing like as good as the media would have us believe.

Sadly, there is little chance of there being any significant change in the make up of the team in the immediate future. Strauss will remain captain even though he has done nothing to deserve his place in the last couple of years. Pieterson, a good batsman when things go his way, is a loose canon we can ill afford, while Morgan has never really done anything of note at Test level. Bell has had his moments but lacks consistency and Tremlett is of questionable quality. This side needs an influx of new players of genuine calibre, but where are they to come from ? The current organisation of cricket in England does nothing to develop Test class players and until it does, we are doomed to days such as the England team experienced today.