It
has been an intriguing Rugby World Cup so far with more than its fair
share of surprises and talking points. Great that England were given
the opportunity to play host and good to see that matches have been
spread around the country to give as many people as possible the
chance to see a game live. The only downside in using some of the
larger football grounds to host some matches is that not only are the
pitches too small to accommodate a reasonable sized in goal area but
there is a difference in the surface needed for each game which makes
a soccer pitch cut up a lot easier than a dedicated rugby playing
surface. That said, nowhere has the state of the pitch spoiled the
entertainment of the game.
South
Africa's defeat to Japan will undoubtedly remain as one of the
outstanding highlights not only because it was a cracking game but
you could sense that the way the Japanese were playing there was a
strong belief that the victory was possible.
It
did not come as a shock to me that England failed to make it out of
the pool stage on this occasion, what I did feel was unnecessary was
for the captain, Chris Robshaw, to publicly state that the English
players had let the country down. In reality it was a very tough
group with the probability of one of the top 5 rugby playing sides
failing to qualify. It could be argued that in the games against
Wales and Australia players may have let themselves down but I don't
see that in any way did the side let the country down.
It
has been estimated that England's early exit from the tournament will
cost the country around £3bn in lost revenue. I even read somewhere
that failure in previous tournaments has seen a blip in the
stockmarket of 1.3%. £3bn is one hell of a feel good factor but I
don't think it will spoil the overall enjoyment of the rest of the
tournament since there is still a lot of good rugby ahead and there
is no particular side that is a shoe in for the title. New Zealand
look strong as ever yet Australia sent a powerful message of intent
in their display against England and South Africa looked more like
themselves against Scotland. Wales have had a horrendous time with
injuries and no one knows what the French are capable of (least of
all the French who can beat anybody on their day). For me, the best
prospect for the northern hemisphere in this tournament has always
been Ireland, they just seem to have a stronger squad that functions
better as a unit and has more composure on the ball.
It
could be argued that England should have beaten Wales, though
indiscipline and a few wrong decisions let them down, but yesterday
they were simply beaten by the better side. They had no answer to the
menace of David Pocock and Michael Hooper who dominated proceedings
in and around the pack. The England back row hardly got a mention all
match, such was the efficiency of the Australian counter-rucking.
As
usual the press had cranked up the hype for the English side to fever
pitch, totally overlooking the fact that this is a relatively new and
inexperienced squad of players, something that was evident in the way
they played against Australia. Yes, England have some very good flair
players but they have not really played that much together as a unit.
Undoubtedly there will be those calling for immediate change but I
think there needs to be a period of reflection after the tournament,
where those involved in the game at the elite level can reflect on
what went wrong and decide how best to learn from those mistakes.
This
is not the first time a young and inexperienced side has found to be
lacking, the England side were outclassed in 1999 yet we all know
what happened in 2003 when we went to the tournament with pretty much
the same side who were selected 4 years earlier.
Away
from the pitch, I have found the TV coverage rather disappointing, or
more correctly irritating. I do not have one of these £2000+ super
entertainment systems that allow you to count a player's teeth in
hi-definition. Maybe it is something in the type of cameras that ITV
use but on numerous occasions the picture on my screen would go
'fuzzy' particularly when they replayed passages of play. This I was
able to rectify by switching channel and switching back. Which was
pretty much what I do whenever that wretched theme tune splurges onto
the screen. I am guessing that ITV blew their budget on punditry so
decided to regurgitate the theme they used successfully for the
previous world cup. I have nothing against Paloma Faith as a singer
it just strikes me that her rendition of 'World in union' sounds as
if she's suffering from a strangulated hernia.
Equally
irritating is the orang-utan used to market the tournament. So far I
have found no body who can tell me what the relevance of the animal
is to the game. I could see that there may be an issue if the company
had used a wallaby, a springbok or a puma but why an orang-utan? Why
not a giraffe or ostrich? And why does the poor animal have to wander
around listening to the various national anthems? Is he/she a musical
aficionado? I know that these media bosses like their artists to
perform for peanuts but even so, there would have been plenty of
C-list celebs who would have jumped at the chance of this gig.
At
least they haven't attempted the other trend that seems to be
increasing in adverts, using computer graphics to syncopate speech.
Having a bird and a cat 'serenading' each other to a motown classic
is bad enough, an orang-utan 'singing' 'World in union' would be a
step too far.
