If England manage to reach the semi-finals, it should not automatically be seen as an acceptable improvement under Steve Borthwick. Photo: Reuters/Gonzalo Fuentes < p>Today it seems that everything comes down to learning lessons. Whether it's a by-election disaster or a handy victory over Samoa, it's about learning. This comment became so common after the match that it has become the default position for coaches and players who don't want to say anything.
Any deconstruction of any performance short of perfection will always reveal areas of failure. So why choose this platitude, if not to avoid saying rude things in public? The use of this universal cliché signifies a failure, purposeful or otherwise, to understand the nature of the lessons that actually need to be learned. There is a big difference between the lessons that great teams teach, those that surprise with innovation and excellence, and the lessons that are simply reminders that you didn't do something properly that you already knew was critical.
< p>So that's a huge difference. was with England against Samoa. Most fans would have to admit that there was a significant amount of luck in England's victory. I imagine coach Steve Borthwick would echo Napoleon's comment that he would rather have a lucky general than a good one, but the choice is not binary. History is full of teams that thought they were lucky when in fact they were just very good.
You can't place England in this group at the moment, and with each repetition of their inability to manage mauls correctly, poor ball retention and sloppy distribution, it becomes harder to believe they will master these fundamentals. However, they were handed the most favorable draw and should be confident of beating Fiji in the quarter-finals. Some will say that reaching the semi-final would be a sufficient achievement, but it should be qualified with one caveat: if England limped through the Fiji game with another average performance and then rallied in that semi-final, it should not automatically be accepted as an improvement under current management.
And so it should be, as it has become even more apparent that the draw for this tournament is the most one-sided of any World Cup. Of the seeded teams in the bottom half of the draw, only Wales can plausibly claim that they have come close to their best results, and then only sporadically. The remaining seeds performed extremely poorly, which exacerbated the unfairness of the distribution of teams three years before the start of the tournament. To their credit, no country in the top half of the list complained excessively about this, but with each passing week their fate becomes clearly unfair.
I don't care what the practical considerations were behind the draw, it can now be seen as a mistake and World Rugby must find a way to ensure it doesn't happen again. While the top qualifying teams have effectively swapped sides of the draw with the semi-final pairings, that doesn't change the fact that the situation looks ridiculously lopsided. Other major team sports avoid these types of mistakes, so competent organizers cannot ignore them. World Rugby should simply raise their hand and admit that they made a mistake and that it will not happen again.
Improve the fan and spectator experience
As mentioned last week, World Rugby must also consider ways to improve the fan and spectator experience at future World Cups. They should consider spreading out the pool games so that there are live events more than three days a week. With a little thought, it would be possible to keep a seven-day break between each side's pool games and continue to play the games for more days. Elimination rounds may be arranged so that all qualifying players have a minimum rest period. This could mean some teams have extra days off, but that has already happened with the current edition, where England had 14 days off between games against Chile and Samoa.
World Rugby should take note . the quality and quality of their broadcaster's coverage of the tournament. Naturally, the biggest concern will be how much money is being paid for broadcast rights, but the quality and frequency of programming and promotion will also need to be carefully monitored. Without formal feedback, broadcasters or rights holders cannot judge and improve on past performances.
I am told by World Rugby sources that there are concerns about the coverage of this World Cup on home screens. . This is not about what talent is being used or what commentators are being used, which is a very subjective judgement, but rather about a perceived lack of promotion and publicity. As noted above, broadcasters are hampered by the limited number of live events and World Rugby can help with this. In turn, broadcasters could do a lot more to promote the competition — remember there is a lot to learn.
Свежие комментарии