“Small things make perfection, but perfection is no small thing”. Sir Frederick Henry Royce, First Baronet of Seaton, and Charles Rolls knew something of perfection but it was in conversation with the Great AK that Royce’s words made sense to me. All week my mind has been awash with AK and rugby; the great victory in Rome overshadowed only by the great English victory in Cardiff. But what of the great French victory in Paris?
Well, I was struck by something Guy Novès said recently in excusing narrow losses in last year's Six Nations; the small things were the difference, he said, the implication being that France were close.
At rugby's elite level the environment is in constant flux
It's very fine to be close but that small gap is huge. I'll delve deeper into France next Friday and their small things, but by way of Scottish illustration, let's take Stuart Hogg: he has been phenomenal; however, in the end, it's the small things that make perfection.
Two plays hurt him and hurt Scotland, and possibly his Lions Test ambitions too: his poor defensive man-on-man effort to stop Gael Fickou for France’s early try and being easily dispossessed by Yoann Huget as he broke out of his own half to chase the try Scotland required.
Now the Great AK’s rugby knowledge is “undisputed” but his ability to handle and overcome adversity is remarkable. For those who know him, it’s always been about his ability to adapt and change in a constantly challenging environment.
At rugby’s elite level the environment is in constant flux; hot off a wonderful autumn series, I was always wary of the challenges ahead. Why?
Because although we are improving, so too are the others. Hence two questions: how to measure improvement from a loss to Scotland and a hammering of Italy? And what style is best to enhance this improvement? The small things for improvement next weekend start with team selection; a slight change is required.
Tweaking
Can we expect the performance from Rome to see us through against France? I fear not. It was a marvellous effort of angles, options, offloads, George Gregans, set-piece and variety throughout. But real French pressure will impact this variety and as Scotland struggled, with the small things proving the difference, so there is room for a slight tweaking of personnel to counter the massive challenge France pose.
Stander's style is to dominate physically and then adjust to the potential post-tackle
Rob Kearney's possible absence will answer a question that's not even asked, with Simon Zebo slotting in at 15 where his creativity forces his team-mates into a whole new mindset of anticipating his outrageous shot selection and reacting accordingly. I've long been a fan of Craig Gilroy but have grown towards Tiernan O'Halloran. Although mindful of Gilroy's hat-trick, I still can't understand his fast promotion over O'Halloran.
The backrow was outstanding in Rome but here's a subtle view based around France's ability to stunt CJ Stander and Seán O'Brien and curb the phenomenal feet of Jamie Heaslip. A different balance might swing the odds in our favour. By starting Josh van der Flier, Ireland gain subtlety. He can carry but not as powerfully as Stander or O'Brien; but his different style adds many more subtle advantages.
In fact, he’s a super-ball carrier but not in the ‘the bus is full, get off the bus’ way of Stander and O’Brien. He is more of the classic trail-runner, alternating his depth whilst surveying his options; supporting the ball-carrier (not being the main ball-carrier), preparing to win the breakdown but in the classic openside way of also accelerating into the gap to receive the offload; less confrontation often offers more team value.
Stander’s style is to dominate physically and then adjust to the potential post-tackle. This is a fine methodology, especially against Italy, but the French are less intimidated. In this way Stander will often miss greater team opportunity pre-contact or even during contact.
Heaslip, for instance and especially in Rome, ran lines which gave him yards. Those lines also gave his team-mates yards and opportunity, such as his receipt and give to Robbie Henshaw that led to Stander’s opening try.
Time zone
Van der Flier is in Heaslip’s mould as a carrier but because his position as a seven is more coal-faced and as he’s not a primary ball-carrier, he has a totally different time zone and positioning to his approach in attack and defence.
O’Brien is phenomenal in his ability to balance his openside role with ball-carrying but there is a purest trade-off and, for this very reason, van der Flier has real value in starting.
Equally the ever-maturing Garry Ringrose will need a different type of backrow support against France; the ease with which Ireland moved forward against Italy will be less evident and van der Flier's instinct is more openside than O'Brien or Stander. So if van der Flier was to start, who would sit on the bench? There's a crazy but legitimate argument for any one of O'Brien, Stander or Heaslip to sit it out.
That Heaslip is so integral as a leader with the best rugby football brain of the three should ensure he starts. That leaves Stander or O’Brien. Ruthless adapting and changing in selection could prove the difference over France; not to mention the massive subsequent bench impact.
PS: Sir Frederick Henry Royce would be delighted to know that my conversation with the Great AK (Alan Kelly, the physiotherapist) took place in his new BMW!
liamtoland@yahoo.com
