By PerryGo
February 11 2003

A pulsating match at The Stoop in front of a sell-out crowd! Very enjoyable to watch, even though it was a bit one-sided. A festival of fast, attacking rugby from the start – just what Harlequins’ fans would like to see every week…

 Yes, I refer of course to the Natal ‘Sharks’ verses Western Province ‘Stormers’ match at The Stoop last Friday night. 

 I enjoyed both of the midweek games (apart from having to pay for the car park on Tuesday night – bit unnecessary, I thought, being as how it was a Quins’ match).  And after Saturday’s mauling, it got me wondering – were there any lessons we could learn from what we saw in these fixtures?     

 My first thought was that just about every other team seems to have a ‘scary’ name these days (… or is it only true of modern, ‘manufactured’ teams?). 

Talking of which, I can’t wait for the new Welsh super-provinces to be announced.  I can see it now: the ‘West Wales Warlocks’… the ‘South-Eastern Salamanders’… the ‘Cardiff, Swansea and District Dynamos’.  Boy, doesn’t it strike fear into the heart.?

 I jest (no, really) – but, it makes you wonder.  Maybe that’s where we’re going wrong.  Talking of jesting… Harlequins’ ‘Jester’ image just doesn’t scare people enough. 

Scaryquins?

Maybe it’s the ballet shoes.  Or the twee pose.  Maybe the wee laddie should be baring teeth rather than a touch of ankle?  Or maybe he should be swinging that sword instead of doing a little dance with it…  Answers on a postcard, please.

But what can the Scaryquins (grrrrr..!) learn from Friday’s match?

Several things seemed notable.  One – the pace at which these Super 12 teams seem to play the game.  Two – the easy interaction of handling between forwards and backs.  Three – the speed of the recycling and switching of the point of attack.  Four - the quickness of the halfbacks – scrumhalf passing, outside half taking the pass - and the width the backs put on the ball.

So why don’t – or can’t – our beloved Quins play like that?  There could be several reasons:

• “You can’t play that style of rugby in England in February”

• “We don’t have enough players with the equivalent level of skills”

• “You’ll never win matches if you scorn the chance to kick penalties”

• “If you play like that you make too many errors”

Lessons from Midweek?

I think the reality is, any or all of the above reasons might be cited by our coaches – and each of them probably has some validity, in fairness.  Aside from the first one – i.e. the inclement English climate - whether any of the rest should be valid is another matter.

There are of course some crucial differences between Super 12 and the English Club game.  Super 12 teams are representative sides, not clubs, and they have a shorter season to survive injuries etal. 

For a ZP side, budgets (‘how do we go about building the best possible squad with the money we’ve got to spend?’) and availability (‘who’s fit enough to be considered this week?’) weigh heavily in the equation.  Nevertheless, these distinctions aside, the style of rugby a team wants to play surely dictates team selection to some extent.  Or put another way, the selection of the team may be telling you something about the style of rugby the coaches want played. 

One example seems to me to be the question of Luke Sherriff or Ace Tiatia in the back row.  This is not quite as simple as it sounds, since when Ace plays these days (not always in the past) he’s typically at blindside whereas GYHC is at openside.  But it’s a valid question, since having Sherriff in the side enables Vos to play blindside, where I think he’s more effective.

Ace is clearly preferred by the coaches – and the reason is simple: their desire to have his ‘attitude’ on the pitch.  To get stuck into the opposition with a full-bloodied (ahem…) and committed performance.  Showing the kind of ‘dog’ with which Quins’ teams may not always have been identified in the past.  Fair enough, perhaps.

They don’t mind that he plays on the very limits of the law, since most successful teams do that all the time - although clearly it would be preferable to have him stay on the field for a whole match once in a while.

Sherriff meanwhile is a true openside and (to my mind) a better ball player.  Faster and more mobile.  Not surprisingly, since he’s played a lot of rugby at centre.  But he’s not going to be able to put in the ‘grunt’ that Ace can.  So which do you prefer?  Maybe it depends what kind of rugby you want to play. 

Looking at other forwards who performed well on Tuesday, there may be some similar conundrums.  Simon Miall and Jim Evans, for example.  If you want to play a fast, attacking, ball-handling game, should these guys be in your first choice team?   Might one of these guys by now have blossomed into another Chris Jones (the Sale player described by Monday’s Daily Telegraph as “their quick-off-the-mark lock’) had they had the same starting chances as him? 

But clearly, the side is also losing something if that means leaving out a Bill Davison or a Tony Diprose (or, perish the thought, Alex Codling).  Including, experience.  And muscular development.

Getting the right blend between youthful enthusiasm verses age and experience is a really tough call, as, for example, Squeaky has discovered this year with the Budgies.

What about style of play?

Liberal or Conservative?

Maybe because of the poor run of results away (and the tendency to go to sleep, or lose shape, for crucial periods of matches which has tended to haunt the team for some while) together with our still-slightly-precarious league position, we have become over conservative in the game plan.  Are we instilling a ‘stick to the basics’ mentality (which is not the same thing as a - perfectly sensible - “let’s concentrate on getting the basics right” mentality)? 

That approach was a much-needed short-term fix in the past when we were in dire straits, but in the light of the wobbly start to the season, have we regressed to it again? If so, is it the right answer?   

“Let’s concentrate on cutting down the error-rate.  Let’s play percentage rugby.  Let’s tighten everything up first, make sure we keep possession, secure field position and only open it up and throw the ball around if and when we have a safe chance to do so.”  Rarely, in other words.   

That would seem to be the coaching creed.  And frankly, at this point it’s tough to criticise, if that is the case.

But if you were Mark Evans, in a quieter moment, might you not have watched Friday night’s game and thought “What wouldn’t I give for any of the scrum halves or fly halves on display tonight in my squad?”  Not to mention a few of the others. 

Maybe it was just me, but the speed of passing by the scrum halves and the taking of the ball at serious pace - and flat – by the outside halves was a joy to watch.  But you can only do that if you have the players. 

Duncombe can do it, but can the others?  Not sure.  Neither of our current fly halves look like they can play that way, in any event.  

We also don’t seem to be able to recycle the ball quickly enough via the forwards – too often we’re getting slow ball, and when we try to speed up release, we often seem to lose control of it or knock it on.  Is the pack fast enough, I wonder?  Is it fitness?  Are some carrying injuries, as Diprose is - or was - recently? 

Or is the balance of selection between speed/handling and strength/power sufficiently out of kilter that smaller - but lighter and faster - packs are too much for us to contend with?  A belief that we can muscle our way through matches and score tries via the rolling maul would be consistent with a ‘strength/power’ bias in selection.  But that’s a very tiring business, sapping the strength of the players concerned.  Is that why we fall off the pace and defence gets exposed as matches progress?

Another observation is that I don’t think that Quins’ management are willing to tolerate the same error-rate that the Sharks and Stormers produced on Friday (which may be an almost unavoidable consequence of that kind of playing style, except at top international level).  I’m not saying management are wrong in that, because if you’re not convinced you have all the players you would need, in all the positions, to play that way and you don’t have the luxury league position-wise to experiment (and if the press and supporters will be on your backs if you throw a game away by being too cavalier, as has often happened in the past) then where’s the virtue?  There are no prizes for being the prettiest team in National One.    

Of course (and it is relevant) in Super 12 there’s no relegation to worry about, so you can afford to bring on the younger players and try to change your style of play over a season or two, without wondering whether 150 years of top-flight rugby might be lost to South-West London if it doesn’t come good immediately...

Anyway, food for thought maybe.  Let’s get on to last Saturday.

Just When You Thought the Water Was Safe

As one of my friends said wryly as we were leaving the ground, at least Quins are now performing more consistently – unfortunately, it’s the wrong way around.  One can imagine the first thing Evs said when the players were back in the dressing room was “No, you idiots, I said I wanted to see you playing the same AWAY as you do at HOME!” 

Where to start?

Well, actually, Sale were excellent weren’t they?  Their defence was solid and they took their chances well.  They outplayed us in almost every position.  That’s not an excuse, but let’s not fall into the Deano habit of never giving credit in defeat to the way the opposition played.   

We were just about holding on first half, playing into the wind.  But I thought the ‘Satala try’ in the second period was a watershed moment.  The beginning of the end – we were too far behind at that point to have a realistic chance of coming back. 

It was a very simple one-on-one drift defence situation – and yet, one soft missed-tackle later and it’s game over.  Such a defensive alignment depends on players making their tackles.  As Mark Reason said in the Sunday Telegraph (just so you know it’s not just me)  “Bond ran straight through Viliame Satala, a portly shadow of the player who so impressed in the World Cup”. 

One reason we were under constant pressure in the first half was because in Williams’ absence, Burke’s touch kicking was not able to gain us more than 10-15 metres of ground from any penalty, free kick or defensive-clearance situation. 

But tactics come into that as well.  For example, why on earth did we elect to kick to touch from a free kick just inside our own 22, forfeiting possession at the throw in – and immediately putting us back under pressure again – rather than taking a tap and let a big forward carry the ball 10 metres up field, retaining possession?  Since Burke’s kick to touch only made a paltry 10 metres anyway, there was no territorial advantage, so wouldn’t that have been a more sensible option?

To say we lacked any imagination, creativity and – ultimately – shape in attack is an understatement.  We had almost no ideas whatsoever as to how to penetrate their defence.  The nearest we got was a few individual efforts.  No Plan B to turn to (for that matter, what was Plan A?).  “We were lucky to get nil” I heard someone say...

Was it just me, or did the teams on Friday night have a disposition towards ‘tap and go’ from infringements?  Do we?  Or more to the point, should we - or is that too reckless tactically?

Sale Time

Returning to the theme of ‘what kind of rugby do you want to try to play?’, it seemed like Sale had a bunch of lean, mobile forwards who were not just a yard faster to the breakdown but equally crucially a half second quicker in clearing the ball for release to launch the next phase. 

Opponents who can recycle quickly like that always seem to run us ragged after a few phases, and I can only conclude it is because we can’t match them up front for mobility… or maybe it’s fitness.  Sale also mixed up their attacking game, put width on the ball and had pace and power when needed in their backs.   Redpath and Hodgson are the fulcrum of their game – they’re such critical positions.  Just as well the pitch wasn’t a few metres wider…

Mark Reason again: “Only when Greenwood finally took a hold of the game, looking for the ball and varying his passing angles, did Quins present any form of threat. The rest of the time they were far too lateral, while their control of the ball at the breakdown was frenzied and wasteful.”

Criticism of our backs has to be tempered by the fact that I don’t think the quality of the ball they are getting is what it should be.  Not eliminated, mind, just tempered. 

The humiliation of the day wasn’t helped by the fact that we ended up with three props on the field, with the ever-versatile Jason Leonard alternating between hooker and blindside flanker.  It looked like we won more lineouts on his throwing-in than we did on Ace’s, having said that…  For anyone who wondered why we weren’t allowed to bring Tani Fuga back on, the law (with respect to scrum safety) refers to ‘front row players’ rather than to a ‘hooker and two props’.

 Was the midweek game such a good idea now in hindsight?  Defenders will point to the fact that it was a good evening out (true) an opportunity and experience for the second team (true) a decent money-spinner (true) and since Sale did the same thing, against the Stormers (true), both teams were in an equally prejudiced position (not true).  The fact is, with our injury list we were not in the same position.  Even if it can be argued it had no impact on Saturday’s starting selection, it must surely have severely impacted our bench selections.  

What happened to Nathan Williams?  To what extent, dare we ask, might his injury have been a reflection of the rigours of Tuesday night, when I believe he played the whole match? 

Pity poor Dan Luger, asked to play out of position at full back.  He didn’t look at all comfortable, but he did his best.  Before the game (rather than in hindsight, with the benefit of which everybody’s an expert) I thought that was a decent enough call selection-wise, although it did mean bringing Matt Moore in on the wing.  Before any of us criticise these selections though – or criticise Luger for his full back performance – ask yourself this: what options (with Frodo and Ugo Monye away on England 7’s duty) did Evs really have?  Slems at full back, maybe?  But he’s just on the way back from injury, had - at best - an average match on Tuesday night and may have struggled just as much as Desperate Dan (which term took on a whole new meaning).

The Right Time for the Youngsters?

I wonder what the thinking was in making a slew of replacements mid-way through the second half of the Sale match?  For one thing, the fact that the game was lost at that point - and Sale had their tails up to throw the ball around and really go for a big killing - meant that any confidence the midweek game had bred in Miall, Sherriff and Evans was in danger of being blotted out by haunting memories of being on the wrong end of Saturday’s pasting.  Was that a good idea? 

Were we protecting our first choice players at this point, or were we recognizing that some were not performing?  Taken off - or rested because it didn’t matter at that stage?  Perhaps the thinking was as simple as “OK, so let’s see what you guys can do”.  Even more of a no-win situation for them than a Harlequins’ away fixture, though, surely?  It was asking rather a lot, given the demoralized team they ran out to join up with. 

But then, it would have been difficult to put any of them in the starting line-up, since they’d already played 80 minutes of very physical rugby just a few days before (e.g. no Jon Dawson).

Nevertheless, the spirit and skill shown on Tuesday evening was impressive, even if the Natal Sharks still have some way to go before they are tuned up for their season.  I would not be at all surprised in the next match to see some or all of Sherriff, Miall and Evans in the starting line-up.  And (in the absence of Luger or Gollings) Monye given a start ahead of Moore and Jewell.   

What Next?

There’s no point people ranting about how awful it was on Saturday – tell the club something they don’t already know.  And there’s no point repeating our views on certain players’ shortcomings.  They know that too.  For the rest of this season we just have to make things work out with what we’ve got.

That is not to say that everyone is blameless.  As the Telegraph noted, there were clearly “individuals who let Quins down badly.”  The video analysis will confirm who.  Assuming the coaches are brave enough (and it takes some considerable bravery given our current league position) expect to see that reflected in selection.  So far as available options exist, that is.  In some positions, there are very, very few options.  Until the pre-season transfer market.     

The rest of the weekend’s results provide some reprieve, thankfully, at the bottom of the table.  But the fat lady is only just warming up her vocal chords, relegation-wise…

We need to draw a line under everything that’s happened so far.  It could be worse, folks.  At least we have some precious points in the bag and still a game in hand over most of the rest.

Bristol are beset by problems right now (note to Mark Evans – have you spoken to Contepomi’s agent yet..?) and may not even survive.  Our Springbok friends from Reading were apparently pretty dire this weekend and although they beat them, Wasps were apparently no great shakes either.  Bath have a relatively easy run in of matches to go, including most of them at home, but they have acquired a losing habit and are in the most uncomfortable place it’s possible to be.  Sallaries are unhappy campers too, despite a smattering of world-class players (even though Craig Quinnell has gone…) and the occasional decent performance.       

 The messageboard comments towards the players (and the coaches…) seem divided between the “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” contingent and the “they already know how badly they’ve done and they really do care” contingent.  

Well, personally I doubt there’s anything we need to say to make them feel worse. 

I don’t think letting them know we’re behind them is at all synonymous with being soft on them or suggesting it doesn’t matter.  They know it – and will be feeling the pain – just as much as we do.

It’s now a mental thing for Harlequins.  I just hope the psychological damage from this week is repairable… quickly.

So, all things considered, I say - let’s get behind the team.  Turn it round.  You can do it!.

Come on you Quinsaaaaaagh!