Rugby Union: Outdated and outpaced

New Zealand's free enterprise culture exposes limitations in Rowell's thinking in an unforgiving international world; Chris Rea argues that the harsh truth has yet to be accepted by England

I must confess to being baffled by the theory which has been gaining powerful support that the New Zealand Barbarians' victory last week somehow represents a step forward for English rugby. On their last visit to Twickenham in 1993 the full might of the All Blacks lost. Yet here we had a scratch side, well below Test strength, six weeks out of season, playing for the most part festival rugby, against the England side playing it for real. If that represents progress then I'm the founder member of the Sir John Hall fan club.

Just imagine the New Zealand reaction if our own Barbarians, on an Antipodean junket, had given the All Blacks a roasting at Eden Park. There would have been a national inquest. But in the aftermath of England's loss there was scarcely a word of criticism to be heard. It was, we were told, a spirited performance with the lads giving as good as they got until the final few minutes.

Little wonder that so few of our national sides perform up to the public's expectation when the expectation levels of those involved are so low. When the 21- year-old Carlos Spencer came on and, like Barry John on speed, won the match for the tourists, it was no more than the New Zealanders had expected of him. It was no big deal, any more than it was when Andrew Mehrtens, at 22, played a major role for the All Blacks in the World Cup in South Africa. Mehrtens performed brilliantly and was a key player in the All Blacks' strategy, but it was no more than was expected of him and no more than he expected of himself. So it was when Spencer appeared. Not for him the luxury of a 30- point lead. He came on when the match was delicately balanced and with three lethal strikes, two from the boot and one treasured memory, on the run, he won the match. Only to be expected, said the New Zealanders dismissively afterwards.

I suppose the main difference between Spencer and a host of his similarly talented predecessors, players such as Frano Botica for example, is that Spencer is not regarded as a profligate maverick likely to pollute the system. In the game as it is being played today the Spencers and the Cullens of this world are the system. England are in a state of transition, but the rebuilding process began so long ago that it is impossible to remember when the foundation stone was laid. If Jack Rowell were a builder bound to a fixed-term contract he would have been bankrupt long ago. It has surely not escaped his attention that the average age of his new back division is 25, three years older than the brashly extrovert New Zealand backs last week. Once again, however, we appear to need this comfort cushion to alleviate the disappointment of defeat and to take the strain of responsibility off those in charge.

There is the view that we are not really that far off the pace in Britain, and that we are too easily seduced and influenced by what goes on in the Southern Hemisphere. What we need, apparently, is to concentrate on the things we do well rather than imitate the styles, tactics and techniques of others. So what did England do well last Saturday? Their line-out, with four giants in the back five, functioned satisfactorily and Martin Johnson had a cracking game in all respects. Simon Shaw was not far behind. But the match was not won at the line-out.

The fact is that the All Blacks have never been impressed by size alone, and even less so in today's fast-moving game. The English scrum, as we would expect, held its own. But then the match wasn't won in the scrum either. Chris Sheasby's explosiveness gives the back row more of a cutting edge than in the past. But in mobility, athleticism and nimbleness of thought and deed, the England pack were far behind their opposite numbers.

Behind the scrum it was no contest. Both individually and collectively the New Zealanders were in a different street. Yards faster and more skilful by miles, they made England's backs look second rate.

In the case of the England half-backs that is doing them a huge favour because both played with woeful lack of judgement. To kick as badly as Andy Gomarsall and Mike Catt did, especially out of defence, would have been bad enough had the opposition been bereft of counter-attackers and England devoid of line-out jumpers but in the circumstances it was inexcusable. The same could be said of the passing. With the New Zealanders operating in an area which allowed no margin for error, England's sloppiness was all the more glaringly exposed. And remember we are talking about professionals here. The plain truth is that whatever it is England do well it is not nearly enough. And what they do best is out of date.

Rowell, of course, has a big problem, albeit one of his own making. By committing himself to Phil de Glanville as captain, he has seriously reduced his options in midfield. Will Carling, well though he is playing, is patently uncomfortable alongside a player of such limited pace. Although I always felt that Carling was equally well-suited to the outside centre role, there was no doubt that the value of his partnership with Jeremy Guscott lay in the contrasting yet complementary strengths of the two.

Carling and de Glanville do nothing for each other and as a consequence even less for those around them. Tim Stimpson, despite his try last week, has not yet been seen to advantage in attack and we are still no closer to knowing whether Adedayo Adebayo has it in him to be an international wing. One thing is for sure. Catt is not and never will be an international fly-half and were I Rowell I would now rebuild my midfield around Alex King, Catt and Guscott. But were I a betting man and knowing Rowell as I do, I wouldn't risk a bouncing bean on it.