Jeff Probyn column: Why these jibes at England review panel are laughable

Am I the only England fan to be sick and tired of the continual criticism of everything the team or the RFU do when the national team lose? First, we had Martin Thomas, former chair of the RFU management board, saying that he warned the RFU against the appointment of Stuart Lancaster and that Clive Woodward should have been appointed instead.
As the man in charge when Woodward stepped down after a run of bad results 11 years ago, you would think he would realise that it is highly unlikely that Woodward would want to retake the head coach job at any price, particularly as he hasn’t been involved in the game in any capacity at any level since.
Then we have had a series of complaints as to the make-up of the review panel following England’s early World Cup departure with some ex-players calling for Woodward’s inclusion despite suggesting that the panel should also review Rob Andrew’s role and his possible replacement as the RFU’s Professional Rugby Director, by Woodward.
I may be missing something, but if Woodward was to be the likely beneficiary of the panel’s recommendation to remove Andrew, he would have a massive conflict of interests. Woodward, if he has an interest in taking Andrew’s role (should it become vacant) would know this and would refuse to take any part in the review – even if offered.
Then we have the panel itself led by RFU CEO Ian Ritchie, who has always said that he, as CEO, would ultimately take responsibility for England’s performance, good or bad which, I believe, makes him the obvious choice to lead the inquiry.
Ian Metcalfe, chair of the Professional Game Board, has the respect and trust of the professional clubs; he is also the chair of the Commonwealth Games and has undertaken a review of the last games held in Glasgow and so has experience of reviewing sports performance at the highest level.
Ian Watmore, former permanent secretary to the cabinet and former CEO of the Football Association is obviously highly respected by government and Sport England who invested heavily in this World Cup (£20,000,000). Ian McGeechan doesn’t need explaining and Ben Kay is a World Cup winner under Woodward and currently one of the best game analysts; to me, they seem as qualified a group as any.
I have to say in my opinion some of the criticisms that have been raised against them are laughable. First, Ritchie not having a rugby background and the fact he was party to Lancaster’s appointment. He has been running the RFU for four years, if he doesn’t understand the game by now he never will and as CEO I would think that he would naturally be a party to all hiring and firing by the Union.
Then the fact that Ian Metcalfe shouldn’t be included because he was at Cambridge University at the same time as Rob Andrew. As there are around 20,000 students at Cambridge in any given year, is that really a reason to question his impartiality?
If the panel had been made-up solely of rugby people, it would have been difficult to find enough of those qualified without a vested interest in the outcome one way or another, and then there would have been claims of a potential whitewash or a witch hunt.
By picking a balance from the Union, the clubs and other stakeholders (government etc.), it has led to the panel being open to criticism of a lack of international rugby knowledge which, it is said, makes it impossible to do the job properly.
I don’t share that view. In fact I would say almost anyone with knowledge of sport, any sport at the highest level, are more than capable of reviewing the bare bones of preparation for elite competition.
Whether it’s RWC, Olympics, Ashes, Commonwealth Games, FIFA World Cup, or any of the major sporting competitions, preparation and execution is very similar; in fact, sports quite often borrow from each other in terms of how they prepare, so all can also share a similar reviewing process.
That said, it was not only England that lost out at this World Cup and yet to read the papers you would assume that all the other Home Unions had excelled while England were an embarrassment. I disagree.
I, like all England fans was disappointed when England failed to beat Wales, a loss that ultimately led to them crashing out of the World Cup – but because they were in the only pool to house three teams from Tier One, we all knew any loss was going to prove costly.
Despite England’s recent successes against Wales and Australia, they have never dominated either team to a degree that inspired you to believe that they would definitely beat them again.
The problem for any England sports teams is that our media reports every win like a ‘gold medal’ performance and every loss as a complete collapse of the whole system.
Although England’s exit was a disaster for the game in England, it was a boost for the game in Wales, even if it was short lived and, like England, they along with Ireland and Scotland will review what they did right and what went wrong.
However, unlike England, the media seem to have taken a view that they were all ‘unfortunate’ or ‘unlucky’ and they will be able to undertake a constructive review – without a universal call to cull everyone involved!