6 Nations Half-Back Evaluation

This has not been a vintage tournament for half-backs.

For England, the distinctly average stop-gap Lee Dickson was eventually found out against Ireland and Ben Youngs thankfully returned to somewhere near form. Owen Farrell is ready to play international rugby but his passing is too often behind the man.

Mike Blair also returned to his form of 2009 but his teammates were too often slower in thought and deed. Greig Laidlaw is arguably not the answer at fly-half though he did provide much needed direction even if direction did not manifest itself in penetration.

Conor Murray impressed me as an all-round scrum-half and will hopefully recover quickly so that he can push his case for the Lions. Sexton confirmed his place as the most capable and rounded fly-half in the competition.

For France, several combinations were tried and more often failed. Yachvili missed out through injury though Parra should have automatically replaced him and not Julien Dupuy. Lionel Beauxis sadly failed to produce his early season form and PSA should surely stick with Francois Trinh-Duc.

Italy have no half-backs of value except perhaps Bennvenuti. Burton plays so deep and so lateral his backline has no chance.

For Wales, Mike Philips seemed to find the right balance between passing, kicking and utilising his strong running game, a balance that he lost for a season. His performances have been tidy, understated, and classy. Wales’ success has come in spite of Rhys Priestland and not because of it. He fell apart at Twickenham and I feel he is too keen to kick the ball. His confidence and composure from the world cup was non-existent. This was no doubt related to his aberrant goal-kicking.

"Oh Danny Boy"

Such clichéd headlines that very closely match the title of this piece are now obsolete in relation to Danny Cipriani. He is no longer a boy and certainly not a boy wonder. He has served his apprenticeship, albeit an atypical one, and is now surely ready to push for a place in England's national side from the dog pound of unwanted and undervalued players that is the Sale Sharks.

I have long been a fan of Danny Cipriani. He burst on to the European scene at a time when defences were very much on top (possibly like Kelly Brook) and the chances of a 10 breaking were definitely as slim as her. We'll get on to that lithe temptress that so distracted young Daniel very soon. Here was a 10 with genuine pace, the quickest in the team. He wasn't just a sprinter though, he was a footballer too, with a very cultured left foot.

And he had swagger and was good looking and there were 'human interest' stories about his mother driving a London cab to help make ends meet. He was undoubtedly naive and stories about training ground fights with Josh Lewsey over missed tackles didn't help. This is the first time I have mentioned Cipriani's tackling, or lack of tackling. It is not his strong suit and I am often too keen to sweep this awkward fact under the carpet to focus on the parts of his game where he is is outstanding.

He made a wonderful test debut at Twickenham against Ireland where he exhibited such control and poise, qualities that Owen Farrell has shown recently, although with a harder edge and a greater willingness to tackle than Cipriani. He even swore on the BBC. Irresistibly rock star and everyone loved him.

Of course, to think these thoughts was naive in the extreme, though not as naive as Danny. It was exciting though, seeing a 10 who could do all these things in such an audacious fashion not seen since Carlos Spencer. There were few detractors that day, though hordes have emerged since.

Two months after being crowned the new King of Twickers, he suffered one of the worst injuries around, the fracture dislocation of the ankle. Awful luck. But he came back 6 weeks ahead of schedule,a  testament to his own hard work, a much-questioned virtue of his, sometimes correctly, and sometimes not.

Back in the England side under Martin Johnson, chargedowns became the symbol of Danny's downfall. He fell out with Johnson, got injured again and then came Australia.

I still find it staggering that some questioned his move to the Melbourne Rebels. It is a tournament made for Cipriani and what 22 year old would turn down the opportunity to move to Australia and get paid loadsa money to play rugby on hard, fast pitches across the Southern Hemisphere. Sounds better than the bus to Newcastle...

But he'll be unavailable for England, they crowed. And? He was never going to be there forever, he was 22 and looking to broaden his horizons. Surely there was no problem with sacrificing two years of England caps which were never going to arrive anyway because the dogged Leicester streak in Martin Johnson hated everything that Cipriani stood for from the very beginning. So good luck to him, that was my view at the time.

Since then Cipriani has had 'disciplinary' issues. He leaned over a bar and nicked a bottle of vodka, hardly a crime, though was treated as if he'd then brought it down with a crash of alcoholic glass over Rod MacQueen's grey head rather than pouring it down his throat. The Australian move hasn't gone all that well, with moments of brilliance tempered by that old inconvenience, the need to tackle.

With his contract with the Rebels coming to an end and keen to return home, few clubs were interested in a prima donna who may well make searing breaks but who also is an arrogant celebrity before before professional rugby. Shame on these clubs. What an indictment of their club that they have such little faith in their own abilities and values, that Cipriani might flourish there.

Sale Sharks are the real winners in all of this, and Cipriani may well be too. With Steve Diamond and his strong personality running the show, they are hoovering up talent that other clubs have either missed or feel isn't quite right for them. Andy Powell, the first problem child and world renowned racer of golf buggies, was the first. Apparently he needs a minder with him to make sure he behaves. But more importantly, Sale have trusted him, they have put in place the necessary measures to make sure he repays that trust and is doing well. Other clubs have missed a trick.

Hopefully they can do the same with Cipriani and his clichéd personality of flawed genius. Being in Manchester and not London (or Melbourne) should help and the ethos of Sale may well closely resemble the 'Once a Wasp, always a Wasp' feel of that club. He can do things that very English players of his generation can. Whether he will learn to tackle well enough to convince an England coach of his talents is arguable, but even if he doesn't make it back to that international level, Sale can hide him around the backline in defence before reaping the pacy rewards of placing their faith and trust in a lost soul. I hope he does well - players of his calibre, flawed as they may be, and they are all the more interesting for these flaws, are rare, and we should enjoy them while they are around.

On Saudi Arabia, the Olympics, and Women

If you try to navigate from the IOC website to that of the Saudi Arabian Olympic Association, you are met by an internet silence. Perhaps it was my dodgy internet, but this accessibility failure struck a chord. The Saudis do not believe in accessibility. They believe in denying accessibility of the most basic kind, that of a woman's right to play sport. They deny plenty other rights, too, but sport is the area in focus as the Olympics approach. Saudi Arabia do not buy into the most basic tenets of the Olympic movement, Olympism and the Olympic Charter. They should be expelled from the IOC until they include a female athlete in their Olympic team.

Even the most basic glance at the IOC website confirms what the Olympics are all about: 'Sport For All.' All, all all all. Everyone! Some more aims: "to build a better world through sport;" and the true Olympic values of friendship, excellence, respect. Again, Saudi Arabia falls short. They do not respect women. Janice Turner summed it up perfectly in the Times: "sexual apartheid."

The IOC's 6 fields of activity are: development through sport, grassroots, environment, education through sport, peace through sport, and finally, women in sport. So how can a country that so flagrantly and so blatantly disagrees with everything the Olympics stands for be allowed to compete? Many have pointed to Saudi Arabia's oil wealth and the resulting influence they hold with power to wield. I think it goes a little further.

The answer lies in a growing uber-liberal apologist attitude in the West so keen to uphold and respect a nation's right to hold beliefs, especially if they are different to how we view the world. Such an attitude misses the point. Saudi Arabia is welcome to make laws on whatever it wishes but, crucially, it does not have a pre-ordained right to take part in the Olympics.

Some might argue that it is Saudi Arabia's religious beliefs the leads to their 'sexual apartheid' and so who are we to meddle in their affairs and impose our ideology on them? This is also missing the point. Religion doesn't make it any less abhorrent and certainly not less open for question.

The Olympics stand for certain things, certain ideologies - this needn't be a dirty word. Women in sport is one of these. This is not a political issue, it is one for the IOC. When South Africa excluded black people from its teams they were excommunicated until they sent a team representative of their nation. The same should happen with Saudi Arabia.

Are we, the Olympic community, so scared of offending people and saying, "No, this is wrong, women do deserve to represent your country and if you don't agree then we will carry on without you." There is a definite and clear Olympic ideology - a very positive one, in my opinion. This is not an imposition of our view of the world, it is simply laying out the conditions of entry - no team has a divine right to be a part of the Olympic movement.

What are we scared of? The IOC should have enough faith in what it believes in to put a stop to this and say that they will not be bullied by misogynistic, sexist rulers who don't sign up to what the Olympics should be all about.

The Olympic movement, from Pakistan to Peckham, should wake up and start believing in Olympism with such a fanatical force that the IOC can no longer ignore everything they believe in. The Olympic message is a positive one, we must not be afraid of shouting this from the roof of the Olympic stadium. It's time the IOC put some firm action behind the slogans and say good riddance to any countries that disagree.

The Pre-Pubescent Unionist

You know, I never made it in Scottish rugby. Couldn’t hack it, wasn’t up to it. That’s why I left to join a French professional club.

That was the argument used by my SNP chum to expose my views on Scottish nationalism. My views were invalid because I never made it in Scottish rugby.

The next attack was on my age and, bizarrely, my pubescence. My views, my beliefs, are not valid because I am 19 and therefore not fully pubescent. I was quite game for sending a photo at this point and letting my nationalist pal judge for himself whether I was pubescent enough to hold views on the subject.

I was told that I have never worked and my views are therefore invalid. I have indeed worked.

My views, my beliefs, are also invalid because I have never “paid taxes, had a mortgage, domestic bills, been responsible for others welfare...” I wasn’t aware that my thoughts on Scottish nationalism would only become valid at a certain age and after fitting several criteria.

Given that most 19 year olds have not fulfilled these obligations, perhaps they shouldn’t be allowed a vote. Or maybe they should be allowed a vote, heck let’s give it to 16 year olds too, but no one under the age of, say, 25 should be allowed any views.

I questioned whether 19 year old SNP members would be allowed any views. 19 year old SNP members do have a massive advantage over me, of course – they’re in the right and I am simply wrong.

So I’ll be spending the rest of the afternoon trying to get better at rugby – maybe by tea-time my tackling will have improved enough to validate my right to have views on certain subjects. Maybe I’ll be closer to adulthood by that point and be better endowed and it will become okay to hold views, even if others disagree with them.

I can’t wait till I’m all grown up.

On Encountering the 'Cybernats'

This evening I couldn’t help but engage in debate with what is commonly known as the ‘cybernat’. This is an internet dweller who scurries into the open to challenge anything said against Scottish nationalism before scurrying away again.

What had I done? I re-published excerpts from George Orwell’s essay ‘Notes on Nationalism’. Nothing more, nothing less. Having read widely on the subject of nationalism, Orwell's thoughts struck a chord. 

The responses ranged from the bizarre to the sensible and several revealed much Scottish nationalism to go much deeper than the desire for Scotland to be independent.

I shall attempt to guide you through the twisting and the turning of the ‘cybernat’ when challenged. One thing that Orwell mentioned was confirmed: “The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organisation, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort.”

At first, some nationalists clearly realised that they didn’t want to be associated with what Orwell was talking about. This is encouraging. So several deflected attention to the Prime Minister. For a while, ‘nationalist’ became a dirty word – David Cameron is the nationalist. When I pointed out that the Scottish National Party is inescapably nationalist, these few cybernats scurried away.

Next up they tried to escape nationalism by claiming that the SNP actually fit Orwell’s definition of patriotism rather than nationalism. Here is what Orwell says:

                [By] “‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but which has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

More power, more prestige. The cybernat response to Orwell’s words? The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320. This is the just first time that this particularly worrying strand of ‘Braveheart’ nationalism appeared. This failure to recognise that, impressive as the Declaration is, Scotland has moved on. There are better arguments for independence than the Declaration of Arbroath.

Are anti-nationalist views ‘misinformed’? Apparently, an independent Scotland is the logical end point to all this and, when everyone knows the facts, then they too will agree. If your beliefs are of a Unionist nature, sorry, you are ‘misinformed’. As if there is some final answer that is ‘correct’, like a maths puzzle and we’re all just trying to work it out and we’ll all get there eventually. I’m one of the slow ones! Thank goodness there are those who have already solved the puzzle and know the right answer. They can inform me.

Question: ‘Would we have greater or less individual power in an independent Scotland?’

Answer: I don’t know. My response to this was, ‘I would have greater individual power with no government at all but no one is advocating that’.

The Proclaimers wrote a lovely song about the Scots going ‘Cap in Hand’ to the English. I’m listening to it now, it talks about when Hibs goalies were good. This phrase is so unbelievably demeaning to Scotland. It basically suggests that Scotland is so weak that they have to go ‘cap in hand’ to the English. If highlighting the weakness of Scotland is an argument for independence then forgive me if I rest my case.

Common sense broke out around half past nine, with discussion centring on whether independence would leave Scotland in a better situation. Obviously no conclusion was reached. So the cybernats then started to wage a class war. “For us to get a better UK deal would take removal of every single Tory in Westminster.” Ah, so this is what it rests on. The Tories hate Scotland and are deliberately grinding it into the ground!

I was encountering a nationalism based on the dislike of one political party.

My point that it is very possible to be Scottish, British and a Tory was rubbished, with Malcolm Rifkind and Michael Forsyth attracting much ire. I asked if they were anti-Scottish but apparently they’re ‘counter-Scottish’ which is an Orwellian shifting of language if ever I saw one.

Orwell said that Scottish nationalism often takes the form of ‘a class hatred tirade against the B.B.C. accent.’ And sure enough, the BBC are apparently biased. They call Andy Murray Scottish when he loses and British when he wins. A call to arms!  Comrades, claim back your country and your tennis players!

The debate descended into bringing up the Highland Clearances and turning it into what I interpreted as an England vs. Scotland event – simplified history.

In the end, it was argument for the sake of argument. I am guilty for not being able to resist a scrap. This remains an issue of debate and there is nothing dialectical about it. Orwell: ‘all nationalist controversy remains at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory.’ I’m not trying to win anyone over to what I see as a correct point of view. I don’t see anyone else’s views as ‘misinformed’ and subject to change when I lay out all the evidence. It is good fun, however, and the ideals of a proper debate are worth sticking to for their own sake. Sadly, not all agree. The final word on this Thursday evening belongs to Christopher Hitchens who said, “My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, anytime, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

Orwell on Nationalism

Having long been an admirer of George Orwell – who isn’t? – I came across an essay he wrote on nationalism. After reading it, there’s nothing more that needs to be read on the subject, so precise is his understanding of this movement. The clarity of his prose is unrivalled. It is a long essay so I have selected and general points about nationalism.

“There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist – that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating – but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.”

[Nationalism is] “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nationa or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.”

[By] “‘patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

“Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right.”

“Obsession. As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organisation, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort. If the chosen unit is an actual country, such as Ireland or India, he will generally claim superiority for it not only in military power and political virtue, but in art, literature, sport, structure of the language, the physical beauty of the inhabitants, and perhaps even in climate, scenery and cooking. He will show great sensitiveness about such things as the correct display of flags, relative size of headlines and the order in which different countries are named.”

“All nationalists consider it a duty to spread their own language to the detriment of rival languages, and among English=speakers this struggle reappears in subtler forms as a struggle between dialects. Anglophobe-Americans will refuse to use a slang phrase if they know it to be of British origin, and the conflict between Latinizers and Germanizers often has nationalists motives behind it. Scottish nationalists insist on the superiority of Lowland Scots, and socialists whose nationalism takes the form of class hatred tirade against the B.B.C. accent and even often gives the impression of being tinged by belief in sympathetic magic – a belief which probably comes out in the widespread custom of burning political enemies in effigy, or using pictures of them as targets in shooting galleries.”

“The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world.”

There Are Two Types of Sports Journalist

There are two types of sports journalist. To outline my thoughts I will take two Sunday Times rugby writers, Stephen Jones and Stuart Barnes. You would be forgiven for thinking that the two types are 'bad' and 'good', but that isn't my point.

There are those who have played sport at the highest level and there are those who have not. Both have their place, and those who represent the common man should be careful not to step into the territory of the other.

There is always the nagging fear that anyone who has only ever written about sport will forever be a 'commentator' and not a 'doer'. There is something sickeningly fawning about it, interviewing the heroes, forever being the link between the public and the hero, so close but so far in every respect. Surely the worst fear for any upstanding sports journalist is to be lambasted by a sporting professional, "What does he know? To what level did he play?"

This is the risk that too many sports journalists of the Stephen Jones type take. They are too close to the line. And any sportsman who did moan about a journalist in that way would be right to do so. It doesn't make for good reading either.

It all relates to the standards by which a professional sportsman is judged by a journalist. The safest way is to judge them by their own standards. "He would have expected to kick that penalty...He kicks them 9 times out of 10". This is acceptable to read (clichéd but acceptable) - it doesn't cross any lines.

The wanton, arrogant and often disapproving tone that Jones takes too often smacks of a man who thinks he's the champ, the champ of rugby writing, what Norman Mailer was to boxing. This seems to give him equality with those champs in the field he is writing on. He's been around for 30 years after all, covered every World Cup and every Lions tour since McBride. But he has never gotten any closer to a rugby pitch in all that time.

He judges players by what he's seen. This, to a certain extent, is fine, and often makes for interesting reading, especially for those of us who never saw Barry John or Gerald Davies (Jones' heroes are nearly always Welsh). Jones takes all the inside-centres England have ever had and ranks them and then attempts to place the current incumbent. This is how he decides whether the young man is a worthy wearer of the shirt. This is more problematic as it fails to accept that a player is often the best available. At this point Jones can become unbearable in a short-sighted tirade about modern standards and so on. Again, he is left as the commentator who always knows best but is never willing to do anything about it.

Stuart Barnes also falls in to this trap occasionally. As a former player he is naturally inclined to be nicer towards players. He knows the pressures that Jones has never faced. Never. As such his insights are often more interesting. He has the stories from touring. And everyone knows that a story about players on tours is always going to be more interesting than one about drunken hacks, sniffing about for a story.

Where Barnes falls down is his remarks on coaches, for he is nearly always right about players. He has played with and against some of the greats, drank Merlot with them, sung Leonard Cohen with them and is a better judge for it. He never was a coach though, too much of a maverick player, so his comments on coaching must always be taken with a pinch of salt. Having said that, he played under many coaches and his judgements are aided by the fact that he got along spectacularly with some and abysmally with others. He knows what he is looking for in a coach. Jones knows what he is looking for in a coach - one who wins. His experiences are narrow and so are his judgements.

Both types of journalist have their place. It would be tiresome to constantly hear the musings of those who were once at the pinnacle. We can be amazed and enlightened by their words but we will never be them. They have seen things we never will. So we need the more literate of the remaining majority who lack the playing experience to put forward their views. They must become expert watchers and the things that they pick up on are the smaller things that the competitor naturally has no time for. The view from the press box is a very good one but those who inhabit it and make it their home should remember how far away it is from the arena and temper their writing with appropriate levels of sympathy, along with the awe for those who compete. For that is what the reader feels. As soon as an everyday journalist loses their sense of awe for what they are watching, they are finished.