From The Times
Six Nations: Silent Bill Sweeney still wedded to Project Eddie Jones with England
March 20 2022,
The RFU chief executive did not hold back in his criticism of England’s disappointing Six Nations campaign, making it clear that the highly funded, highly remunerated national team had fallen short of expectations once again. His analysis was blunt and left no one in any doubt what Twickenham executives expected of the England coach. “It is not acceptable. We should be, as a country, winning more in terms of grand slams, Six Nations championships, other things,” he said.
The RFU’s “brutally honest” review 12 months ago concluded that a campaign in which the highly funded, highly remunerated national team won only two games was “sub-optimal”. Which corporate lingo did they use to spin away another failed campaign, another losing record of two from five, to disillusioned supporters?
Before any formal process, before gathering 360-degree feedback, deep diving, cross-pollinating or reaching out to anonymous advisers from outside of rugby, the RFU concluded that England had made “solid progress” and taken “strong positive steps”. It was like a lost script from W1A, a parody on corporate spin.
On Sunday morning, Jones called for disillusioned supporters to keep the faith, arguing this experience was a necessary part of rebuilding the team. He vowed it would all be right on the night, some 18 months hence when the World Cup final is played back here in Paris.
Within seven hours the RFU was on board, issuing a statement of jarring positivity that effectively endorsed the notion that a World Cup was all that mattered. “Eddie Jones is building a new England team and against a clear strategy and we are encouraged by the solid progress the team has made during this Six Nations campaign,” a spokesperson said. “The RFU continues to fully support Eddie.”
The bar of what is now deemed “acceptable” to the RFU has not only been lowered since Jones took charge but the whole word redefined. There is no question that Lancaster, given the standards to which he was held, would have been sacked had he delivered two wins from five in successive championships.
Those standards do still apply in some corners of the RFU. Tom Ilube, the chairman, said after his appointment that England’s “rightful place” was to “consistently be ranked one and two in the world”. They are fifth at present.
However, it is widely believed that Bill Sweeney, the chief executive, was never minded to make a change, partly because he was so wedded to the Jones project and partly because the pool of potential replacements was so shallow that the RFU was reluctant to risk the cost and upheaval.
We do not know Sweeney’s thoughts for sure, however, as he has not spoken publicly on anything to do with the RFU, England or English rugby for eight months. Most of the advisory panel that will conduct the performance review over the next fortnight are not even prepared to be named, although Jones is on it along with Sweeney and Conor O’Shea, the director of performance.
How much accountability is there? How many tough questions will be asked of Jones, who wrote in his most recent book, Leadership, that he had learnt the value of managing upward? “I really do understand now that it works to everyone’s benefit if I keep Bill Sweeney, the CEO of the RFU, informed about our strategy and how we operate and manage it,” Jones wrote.
The publication of that book, in which Jones criticised Maro Itoje and other England players, is one example of how long a lead Jones is given by the RFU.
During his time in the job, it is believed that he struck independent sponsorship deals that Twickenham executives knew nothing about and that he initially worked as a paid consultant elsewhere without the knowledge of the RFU. Every time something comes to light, the RFU falls into line in defence of its man.
The public version of last year’s Six Nations review apportioned no blame to Jones or the management team, even though Simon Amor was dismissed as attack coach shortly afterwards. Instead, it singled out issues such as Covid restrictions (which applied to every team), the poor form of Saracens players (who were picked anyway) and deficiencies with decision-making and breakdown technique in the Gallagher Premiership.
Jones has always felt the club- country system in England holds back the national team and he has become much more vocal on that subject of late, both in the build-up to the defeat by Ireland (who were the most “cohesive team in the world” with 11 Leinster players) and in the aftermath of the loss in Paris.
“It is harder to coach in the Six Nations than it is in the World Cup, particularly for England. We are like a transit room,” Jones said. “We have players coming in and out. We have players in for two days and then they leave so it is a difficult balancing act to get the cohesion of the team right.”
France have been held back for years by their internal politics but Bernard Laporte, the FFR president, created a club-country synergy with all parties cognisant of the wider benefits of a winning national team before the 2023 World Cup.
The success of France’s age-group teams, the focus on encouraging the selection of home-grown players for Top 14 clubs and the strength of their second division have been key factors in the rise of Les Bleus, who won the slam after two second-place finishes.
The RFU has work to do in this regard. “I’m not certain our system continuously generates those absolutely world-class players,” Ilube said in September. “Year after year after year we should be there [in the world’s top two] and to do that we need that cohort of absolutely world-class players so something about the system needs to generate them.”
As part of last year’s Six Nations review, the RFU said it would engage a panel of “external rugby experts” to “inform all future debriefs to provide additional insight and support for the head coach”. However, not one member of this panel was prepared to put their name to being involved either. Window dressing.
The review also established an annual pre-season seminar in a bid to forge closer alignment between club and country, addressing a number of issues including breakdown indiscipline and the importance of ruck speed. Jones gave a presentation on it to the Premiership directors of rugby.
Sweeney was never minded to make a change, partly because he is wedded to Jones and partly because the pool of potential replacements is so shallow that the RFU was reluctant to risk the cost and upheaval
On Saturday night, England conceded four breakdown turnovers in the first half and such was France’s dominance on the floor that 40 per cent of their rucks were under two seconds, according to the statistician Ross Hamilton.
As he reviewed both the France game and the tournament as a whole, Jones said England’s attack had been “very good” but they just needed to learn how to finish. That’s like saying Michel Roux Jr was very good at buying the ingredients, he just needed to learn how to cook.
England scored three tries in their games against Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France, only two of which they created themselves. Jones said he had “never been more excited about the development of a team” and the situation is a bit different from last year, given the new players making their mark.
In Ellis Genge, Freddie Steward and Joe Marchant they had men who took big strides forward this campaign. They have world-class players already in Itoje and Tom Curry, plus promising talents in Marcus Smith, Harry Randall, Raffi Quirke and Alex Dombrandt.
Jones insisted he would forge from that group a World Cup-winning team during their three-month camp in the summer. The RFU is convinced by rhetoric and his record of guiding England from a Six Nations fifth place in 2018 to the 2019 World Cup final plus two titles (2017, 2020) and a grand slam (2016).
But that was six years ago. The RFU should be concerned that England fans have lost patience with the endless promises of jam tomorrow, given the team’s recent Six Nations record, excluding Italy, is eight wins from 20 Tests and two away victories from 11.
However you dress that up, it is suboptimal — or unacceptable, in the true meaning of the word.
Always a Wasp
