Rugby

Rugby.
A sport.
A lifestyle.
A stereotype.

Technically 2 major stereotypes of players, thus of most fans.
1. The Forward

• Level-headed
• Unimaginative
• Simple
• Implacable
• Big

2. The Back

• Flighty
• Inventive
• Clever
• Light-footed
• Small

Obviously there are exceptions to this, 2 most notable to myself are Matt Banahan and Lee Mears. Matt Banahan is the Bath left wing, who is basically a forward, and Lee Mears is the Bath Hooker, though could comfortably play scrum half.

Then there are those who define the moulds. I shall take two players from playing history Jeremy Guscott, an iconic inside centre and ever the back, and Martin Johnson, the man mountain, captain of England's 2003 greats.

The more astute of you may have now caught onto where this may well be going.

As I said earlier the players are generally fans, and Martin Johnson is now the England Manager and responsible for the worst series of results since the world cup. He was brought in because English rugby was in dire straights and the then chairman of the RFU refused to bring back Woodward. So step into the ring our immovable talisman. Martin Johnson. With no managerial experience we all thought that he would still bring us out of the doldrums, myself included.

Since then he has led us from mediocrity to ignominy with little to bring us hope... Until now?

NO!

Martin Johnson is almost what the forward stereotype was based on. He has a plan and will stop at nothing to achieve it. He wants to repeat the 2003 World Cup. The evidence? Well Simon Shaw and Mike Tindall are in the team. True they are in good form, wrong they are the best in England. Mike Tindall is part of the English style of rugby that only Leicester can maintain. Leicester still play the pack dominant and tactical kicking game. That is how Martin Johnson has played all his professional life, England and Leicester. It is how he still wants to play, even when the premiership has moved along. It is why Ryan Lamb of London Irish, and Nick Evans of Harlequins will never get a look in under his management. They do not build their game on the tactical kicking like Jonny Wilkinson, Toby Flood, Charlie Hodgson and Andy Goode.

Last Saturday we got a taste of what Johnson thinks is the way forward, where the inside centre is second string at club level to his team mate Olly Barkley, who was on the tour and was not even picked for the "Third Test". Olly Barkley is the form inside centre of the Premiership, guiding Bath to a near miraculous comeback, only failing to beat Leicester twice (probably only encouraging Johnson). The semi-final bath lost at the line-out, where Bath just could not win their own ball. A fact that Johnson probably glazed over.

The England pack are far from the dominance that the Leicester pack commands.

This has the knock-on effect of harming a tactical kicking game. The solid platform that is essential for a kicking based game plan. This however is not the biggest problem, as we saw a fortnight ago when England were shamed by a vastly understrength Australian team. The tactical kicking game, with the most solid of foundations can be broken by poor kicking.

The main reason we should not start believing in an English renaissance IS the kicking game. Though it is the chase where we lose every time. A fundamental rule I had hammered into my head when I was old enough for kicking to be allowed was this:

"A good kick and a bad chase is infinitely worse than a bad kick and a good chase."

 

England, or perhaps Martin Johnson and his coaching staff, must never have learnt this, thought it was a myth or simply have forgotten it. We will never challenge a full strength Australia, let alone the better teams of New Zealand and South Africa, if we cannot do this. The Southern Hemisphere sides thrive in broken play. If a kick is not inch perfect we will be punished and we cannot hope that a 3rd string front row, and second string backline are sent out against us all the time.

Until Johnson addresses this issue, or leaves. England will not be 1st or 2nd in any competition.

The Average of the Armchair

Not for the man from the armchair is the century at Lord's.

Not for the man from the armchair is the 5 minute mile.

Not for the man from the armchair is sprightly spring to steal the lineout.

Not for the man from the armchair is the taking part.

The man from the armchair is the encyclopaedia.

The man from the armchair is the fountain of knowledge.

But what of those who join the man in support of the nation's team? He who has only a passing interest in the sport or a fierce national pride kept quiet out of respect of those who might not feel quite so. What is he to do in the face of this fountain of knowledge? What of the many? What is the average of the armchair?

I ask this as, like many of my friends, I have only a passing interest in football (in rugby I have some knowledge but not really past the borders of England) and with the pre-world cup fever gripping the newspapers and media outlets, why should I feel upset that I don't know anything about it?

I have one friend who refuses to acknowledge it, but that is not for me. I have an Englishman's pride. It is not showy and it is not vocal, until challenged, and to this end I support my national teams in all their exploits. I never feel comfortable watching the football at home with my father, because he has frown extremely tired of my comments on the ability for moths to knock professionals over with a look. In the pub I feel rather overwhelmed by the complete lack of conversation outside of the topic of the sport or the match. No political, musical or philosophical discussions there.

So how am I going to watch the football I hear a voice ask... In all probability... It will only be by accident, not intent that I shall see this competition of physical, tactical and psychological mastery. I find this a shame. Football is supposed to be the game of the people, a game for everyone, from youngest speaker, to oldest man of the armchair. Yet I find myself isolated.

So what of us average men of the armchair? Those of us who would rather play the sport than watch it? Those of us who don't have an interest in any other part of the sport than the national side? Where can we watch this extravaganza with like minded fellows?

The pub? Certainly not. Any that are showing it will be frequented by the 'Real Men'.

The trendy bar? Nope. This will have the 'Modern Men' in. 'Modern Man' is not the pure passion of the 'Real Man' but will love to hold his superior knowledge over your head.

The friend's house? The best option of the 3 so far. If he is letting people over for the game, he will obviously care about it and he will have friends that do too, you will most likely still be a minority but at least you'll be in the company of friends.

Your house? Again getting better. Here you can choose who to invite, but if you don't invite any of your friends who are passionate fans, you will either see it gate-crashed or a poor turnout as those who aren't passionate drag them along to the pub.

By yourself? The worst option of the lot. If you care enough to want to watch the game, you make pretty poor company for yourself, and what is so wrong about your mates gathering at  a house or the pub.

So, as always, the average man is decided by the vocal minority.

The man from the armchair is better than the player.

The man from the armchair is right.

Not for the average of the armchair is the discordant choir.

Not for the average of the armchair is the trivia topping.

Not for the average of the armchair is the contest the day

Not for the average of the armchair is the armchair.