England Women heading in the wrong direction

By Jeff Probyn – A front row view of the game

Watching last week’s game between England’s women and their French counterparts I couldn’t help thinking that perhaps their game is heading in the wrong direction.

I say wrong direction even though England once again won against a team that they haven’t lost to in the last seven years.

That said, as the first country to create a fully professional women’s game with full time players playing at club and international level, it is no wonder that the team is so successful, as unlike in the men’s game they still have fixtures against amateur international sides who are still playing purely for the honour of representing their country.

The women’s team have reached a level of success that the men’s team should aspire to, as the women are currently continuing to dominate their game and have won their third consecutive Grand Slam, something that no men’s team from any of the competing nations has ever managed to do in either the Five or Six Nations competitions.

We did get close to it though and if we had a TMO back in 1990 and Tony Stanger’s try was reviewed, it would have been disallowed because, as their coach Jim Telfer said at the time, “Stanger failed to touch the ball down”.

With our following successes in both the ‘91 and ’92 tournaments, it made us the first England team to win back-to-back Grand Slams since 1923-24 but it would have made us the first and only male team to ever have achieved three successive Grand Slams.

Different Approach

However, after reviewing the game last weekend, I noticed a different approach to the way the England women played, being noticeably more confrontational and looking to make contact, unlike their opposition.

In fact it was more like the current men’s style of play than what I admire about how the women’s game is structured and played.

When I watch women’s rugby it reminds me of the style of game that the men played before what I call ‘the Jonah Lomu/professional style of play’ took over our game.

Coaches now go for the easier choice of putting big players in positions they would never have been picked to play before Lomu appeared on the wing, then they try to batter their way to victory.

Even though Lomu made an impact (especially against England) and changed the style of the game, he didn’t bring the success that New Zealand had hoped for with South Africa winning the 1995 World Cup final.

Mainly in the women’s game as France showed, teams try to create space by moving the ball quickly and to find holes in the defence to exploit.

England however, seemed to be favouring the physical approach by trying to knock holes in the defence by using bigger players to smash their way through.

Sadly for me, this is not a game I find attractive and I don’t think it will build the level of support that they deserve or need going into next year’s World Cup.

Crowds

There were just 7,500 seats sold of Gloucester’s Kingsholm 16,115 capacity last weekend, despite the tickets being a fraction of the prices for a men’s game.

And yesterday there was a crowd of 41,523 to watch the victory over New Zealand at the Allianz Stadium.

With tickets starting at just £25 compared to the men’s game in November starting at £129 also against New Zealand, I think yesterday’s game should have been a sell-out.

“I don’t think the way England play will build the level of support they need”

Talking of Twickenham, it seems set for another restructure in the number of employees (the third time in six years) at the heart of running the game.

Restructure means the possible removal of around 65 employees although some 22 could be moved to new roles within the Union.

It seems a strange time to do this given the money that has recently been added to the purse of the RFU with the sale of the stadium’s name.

Fortunately there have been promises that these changes won’t affect those employed in rugby development or the management of the professional game.

Which leaves only the stadium commercial and administration section where changes may be made.

Staying put at HQ

The RFU have said that they have decided to stay in Twickenham but want to be able to use the stadium for more activities other than just rugby.

Taking a short term view of the RFU’s financial position when they are currently suffering as a result the new PGP and increased hybrid contract deals could be the wrong thing to do, particularly with so many more activities being planned for the stadium.

If the RFU can manage to persuade the local council to allow these extra non sporting activities to take place it will be the stadium’s commercial and administration section that will be expected to manage and organise those events.

Plus, putting on these events will require people who have already had the experience of managing previous concerts etc, to run and administrate these events.

Then there is the new Nations Championship that will start in 2026 with London as the most likely host venue because of the number of big stadiums now available to stage games with Wembley, Tottenham Hotspur and Twickenham on the shortlist to stage the event, with three games possibly at Twickenham.

Those extra games could make all the difference to the RFU’s finances and then enable the renovation planned for Twickenham to go ahead, possibly without taking money away from the rest of the game.