Jeff Probyn column: Onfield revival is just one of many battles facing England
Jones himself has referred to the fact that this is virtually the same group of players that were pilloried by nearly all the Press after the World Cup as not good enough and yet they have come out of this competition hailed as winners by the same people.
Some praise must be given to Stuart Lancaster for the foundation he laid in preparing and identifying virtually all of the players in the current squad although it needed the ‘Jones effect’ to regain support, especially from the media.
In truth, Jones and his coaches would have had little time to have a major influence on how the players performed during this year’s Championship with just a few weeks in the job but I think his presence has succeeded in changing the perception and expectation of the team.
The Jones style at Press conferences is much more relaxed and light-hearted than the stoical nature of Lancaster, added to which he always says something that gives the Press headlines – even if it’s not about the game.
The young squad has come of age and a big part of that would have been as a result of their collective failure at the World Cup. It’s an old saying but it remains true – winning is good but you get stronger and learn more by losing.
Strong performances from some of the new boys also helped with George Kruis and Maro Itoje stepping up and putting in a level of performance far beyond what you would expect of their years.
Itoje reminds me of the young Wasps flanker Francis Emeruwa who, if he had not suffered a broken ankle, would have become a legend in the game and played a very similar style of ‘aggressive’ rugby.
Kruis, bought into the squad by Lancaster, has worked largely unnoticed by those outside of the forward fraternity but his efforts have been of the highest quality and consistency throughout.
The good news is that this squad will only get better. It is young enough to stay together for at least the next four years and, barring injuries, should do well in Japan.
More good news for England was the unopposed elections of Bill Beaumont as World Rugby chairman, a position he had sought before but had failed to achieve. Bill is widely respected throughout the game and has a wealth of knowledge and experience that should stand him in good stead for the political battles on the horizon.
From Sevens, now an Olympic sport, and the potential threat that brings to the 15-a-side game as governments invest in the truncated game in search of Olympic glory, to dealing with the consequences of the professional game and its impact, financial and otherwise, on the majority amateur worldwide game.
Those battles will include player movement and qualifying periods as more seek a professional career at the expense of the developing nations, stifling the growth of the world game. How World Rugby grows the game while trying to balance the ambitions of all, may be Bill’s biggest challenge.
Such as making the World Cup a truly all-encompassing competition instead of a chance for the professional countries to humiliate the amateur countries denuded of their talented players who chose to carry on playing for their professional clubs while waiting to qualify for their adopted nation home.
A microcosm of those battles is about to be fought here as the RFU prepare to sign off on the new eight-year agreement with the Premiership (PRL) that will see 19 per cent, (rising to 20 per cent after four years), of all rugby-related RFU earnings handed over to just the 12 clubs of PRL.
I say battle because you can be sure that what amounts to rugby-related earnings will be highly contentious as both sides try to agree just how much of the RFU’s earnings are arguably rugby-related in some form or another.
Debentures, match-day corporate entertainment and stadium tickets sales, through to food and beer, supporters travel, kit sales and stadium tours and possibly television and sponsorship, could all be classed as rugby-related in that they are all subject to the games played by the national team.
With the RFU losing a fifth of all earnings to PRL there could be a negative impact on funding for the rest of the game as the governing body struggle to balance the books.
Increases in revenues over the next eight years won’t help as it would only raise the amount that is given to PRL which, in turn, could be a disaster for the league system in England. Increasing the divide between PRL and the rest of the game which would probably bring to an end promotion and relegation.
It is my understanding that the full details of this agreement are not known to any of the RFU council and will only be bought before them when it is virtually too late for any debate or alteration.
The grassroots of the game are expected to fund themselves and balance their books; the sooner PRL do the same the better for all.
