When the word “catastrophe” starts being applied to the result of a game of rugby union a sense of proportion is clearly required. Yes, England are out of the World Cup but life goes on, clocks cannot be rewound and the competition proceeds without them. English rugby may be looking into a yawning sink hole of self-inflicted horror but this is still sport, not war, famine or death.
Even so, in terms of oval-shaped let-downs England’s failure to escape the pool stages at their own tournament takes some beating. For the second successive week, a glazed Stuart Lancaster looked as if he did not know what had hit him. Once again the wheels have fallen off the chariot and the prevailing mood is understandably sour. As the former All Blacks forward Craig Newby tweeted in the early hours, England advanced further when they were jumping into harbours and drinking like fish.
For a genuine, honest, committed, loyal man like Lancaster it is the worst of all possible worlds. All that hard work, all those cultural foundations, all that faith in his players: it has simply left England back where they started, flat on their backs with the rest of the world struggling to suppress a giggle. It makes it no easier to take that English football and cricket have recently endured similar World Cup embarrassment. Neither of those doomed campaigns took place on home soil, which further magnifies the sting of failure.
That reality will make it next to impossible for the Rugby Football Union to shrug its shoulders and carry on regardless. Its head coach, unfairly or not, has stumbled deep into “Turnip” territory, that inhospitable plateau from which few national coaches emerge unscathed. If England did not have another pool match to play, – and what an excruciating dead rubber against Uruguay now awaits in Manchester – one suspects Lancaster would be handing in his badge and holster this morning. Is it all his fault? Plainly not.
England lack even one World XV candidate and, as every coach knows, a lack of sufficient quality cattle makes life very tough sooner or later.
Australia were outstanding on Saturday night, as were the never-say-die linchpins of Wales in the final quarter a week earlier. Pool A was always going to witness a high-profile eviction and England’s muddled tactical thinking late in the Welsh game left them dangerously exposed.
At this point, though, the list of ifs and buts begins to multiply. Where was the clarity of selection that might have led to more composed on-field decisions? Did picking Sam Burgess actually benefit anyone, including Burgess? Was it really wise to ignore overseas-based players such as Steffon Armitage given the immense benefits the likes of Matt Giteau and Kane Douglas offered Australia? What on earth happened to England’s forwards when collective push came to shove?
Bundle it all together and three conclusions emerge. The first is that Lancaster’s best-laid plans had started to unravel long before Saturday night. Top of his personal list of regrets was last year’s tour to New Zealand, disrupted by the unavailability of Saracens and Northampton players involved in the Premiership final on the eve of departure. It muddied the selectorial waters so badly they never cleared thereafter. With George Ford missing the trip through injury and Jonathan Joseph not selected the management could never establish what their best back line looked like. When potential salvation materialised in the form of Henry Slade it was bafflingly ignored.
Lancaster also never entirely filled the holes left by the discipline-related losses of Manu Tuilagi and Dylan Hartley. Tuilagi, as it turned out, would have been unfit anyway but the Northampton hooker was conspicuous by his set-piece absence. Technically England were below par in too many areas at a hugely competitive World Cup where almost all other teams are raising their game. If England were facing Japan this weekend, the Brave Blossoms would quietly fancy their chances.
The nub of the issue, though, was inadvertently highlighted by Michael Cheika. The Wallabies’ tactician-in-chief, who has achieved a more spectacular on-field transformation in 12 months than England have managed in 12 years since 2003, was discussing his side’s game against Wales, now just a matter of settling the quarter-final draw. “We’re coming up against a master coach next week,” he said, referring to Warren Gatland. “He knows how to manoeuvre things around.” The implication was England lack that same ability.
That, ultimately, is the dilemma facing the RFU. Lancaster, Andy Farrell, Graham Rowntree and Mike Catt are admirable individuals but Cheika, Gatland, Joe Schmidt and Steve Hansen have now outsmarted England too often for comfort. If Gatland had been in charge of England he would surely have assembled a quicker back row to counter the threat of David Pocock and Michael Hooper – hardly a state secret – and a midfield combination with a shared sense of purpose. Whoever was actually selecting England’s team – and sometimes it felt as if Lancaster and Farrell were taking it in weekly turns – gradually lost a sense of clarity. Call it killer instinct, call it ruthlessness, call it decisiveness, call it the Sir Alex Ferguson gene – this England set-up ultimately lacked enough of it.
The result is a wilted flower now surrounded by freshly burgeoning thorns. All those millions of pounds, marginal gains, new fitness centres and home-sweet-home advantages have counted for diddly squat. If the RFU can persuade Eddie Jones to back out of his freshly signed contract with the Stormers in South Africa, it should do so without delay. Shaun Edwards would bring a harder defensive edge, Wayne Smith more back-line subtlety.
England do have some talented young players but what they really need are clearer-eyed leaders, less rose-tinted optimism and players who rise to the biggest occasions.
While they will undoubtedly be stronger in 2019 they still lack a winning mentality. Lancaster gave it his best shot but, when it really mattered, England were not good enough.
