1
{{item.n}}
Simon Middleton: 'The World Cup was absolutely huge, but I do worry for the game'
It was a truly great Rugby World Cup for many reasons, and it all starts with the magnitude of it. The engagement between the players and the crowds, along with some strong team and individual performances and the overall spectacle, significantly contributed to growing the game.
ADVERTISEMENT
But on the field, nothing can be 100% perfect, and I do think, alongside some great performances, we also had some disappointing ones.
An example of one of the success stories is a team I have observed closely over the last couple of years and that’s Japan. I have witnessed how they have developed their game, and I thought it was reflected perfectly at the World Cup.
In what was a very tough pool, aside from that initial first 20 minutes spook, they enjoyed good moments against Ireland and created a great opportunity to make it a one score game with 25 minutes still to play, that interception by Eve Higgins ended up defining the game.
Then, when they faced the Black Ferns, their set-piece was outstanding, with a 100% scrum and a 82% lineout success, against the Black Ferns’ 73%. Aligned to that they scored first in both halves and finished with 19 points on the scoreboard, something no other side achieved against the Black Ferns until their semi-final defeat to Canada.
And finally, that comeback in the second half against Spain, turning a 5-14 half-time deficit into a 29-21 victory.
Their outcome goal was to get out of their pool, and although they didn’t achieve this, they still achieved many of their performance goals. Which for me, and in the context of their world ranking, made it a World Cup they could be proud of.
We can add Fiji to the same ‘success’ category, particularly their 28-25 win over Wales in their final pool match.
However, on the other end of the spectrum, I thought Australia were disappointing. Some may disagree, but in the end, the Wallaroos only won one game, clinched a 31-point draw and suffered two heavy defeats. Considering their trajectory from before the World Cup, their potential didn’t materialise in the tournament.
ADVERTISEMENT
At the same level, I would put Wales and Italy, who were my dark horses, as I had predicted them to qualify for the quarter finals or even potentially for the semi finals. Unfortunately, they didn’t play for most of the tournament and only regained some of their prior strength when they clashed with Brazil. I felt Wales were also a letdown, not just because they finished with no wins from three, but because of the nature of their defeats.
They need a big change, and I do think it is coming, as (head coach) Sean Lynn has already opened the door to new young players, which for me is the light at the end of their tunnel.
Now, let’s get down to the stardust players’ discussion, here’s my best seven. First of all, Ellie Kildunne. She delivered, doing so many unbelievable things and was so influential in England’s World Cup victory. Then, New Zealand’s Jorja Miller and Braxton Sorensen-McGee, who are two phenomenal talents.
Hannah Botterman was immense in everything she got involved in. Aseza Hele has to be included because she was so exciting to watch and was so influential in South Africa’s tournament performance.
ADVERTISEMENT
And, of course, Sophie de Goede, who was outstanding from start to finish. She is the type of player I would take to war with me, as she can do everything! She has so many facets to her game, from being a strong ball carrier, a remarkable jackler, a sharp kick taker and a great leader.
As for the standout teams, England and Canada were outstanding, mainly the Red Roses. Whilst I thought England were superb in the final, for me Canada had the best game performance from the whole tournament, when they completely dominated the Black Ferns in the semi-final.
But there’s a third team who deserves to be added to this class as well, and that’s South Africa. They frightened the socks off the Black Ferns in the quarters. That first half was such a marvellous tactical masterclass by the Springbok Women and Swys de Bruin, who completely bamboozled New Zealand. It was maybe the best first half of the entire World Cup as it had it all.
With all that said, I do worry for the game. The World Cup was absolutely huge in promoting the game, and pushing for more engagement, reaching more corners of the world. However, in terms of competitiveness, I’m not sure. England demonstrated they are even further ahead of everybody else than before.
This is due to several reasons, the investments in infrastructure, the PWR, the pathway programmes and most critically, the guidance of head coach John Mitchell.
It’s fair to say, and as Mitchell acknowledged, he inherited an outstanding squad and a well-resourced programme. But he has taken them to the next level. I think this is down to a couple of key areas.
Firstly, Mitchell spoke early in his tenure about the programme, although well supported, was in his opinion still under resourced. This is clearly an area he has targeted, in terms of improving the staffing, the facilities, and the other add on details that improve the performance environment and help to support those crucial off-field one percent gains.
Secondly, early on in his appointment, when it came to their on-field performances Mitchell regularly referred to the phrase ‘letting the handbrake off’. What does that mean? Well, I understood it as, freeing the players up from a structured to a more unstructured game and in doing so allowing them to play more freely and take more chances. Certainly, if you look at some of England’s earlier performances under him you can see this reflected clearly in their game.
In essence the team moved almost completely away from any form of attacking structure and adopted a just run/play approach. Whilst England scored points, they also made plenty of errors and although they kept getting the job done their performances were in general, inconsistent.
Over time, this approach has been tempered and adapted to a point where some would say resembles the pre–John Mitchell England. Their game model being centred more around field position management and set piece dominance.
However, for me, you can now clearly see how the start point of the ‘letting the handbrake off’ philosophy manifested itself into the psyche of the team, of certain individuals, which ultimately paid off in the Red Roses World Cup performances. Mitchell’s philosophy seems to have been to create an environment, that allowed key players like Meg Jones and Kildunne to perform at their mercurial best, and we all saw how influential those players were for the Red Roses.
At the same time, he seems to have created an innate ability of the side to seize the moment and the opportunities in front of them. Their attacking momentum was simply irresistible, with teams unable to contain their attacking pace, power and relentlessness.
On reflection, in terms of a game model, it seems Mitchell may well have gone around the houses to get back to pretty much where he started, a territory based, set piece dominated game that relied on forwards to get the job done. But the intricacies of his route to getting their clearly brought the best out of his most influential strike players, who in the end stuck gold.
With England travelling at even greater knots, the question is: can anyone catch them?
Right now, I can’t see how without significant investment. Is anybody capable or willing to invest in the women’s game like England is? Categorically, I would say not.
It can seem quite daunting for other international sides when they look at England and realise that they need to invest strongly in multiple areas to have a chance of reaching the same level.
I’m not sure if all governing bodies look at it in the same way as the RFU, as they might be asking the question of whether there’s any guarantee of success even if they invest millions of pounds, euros, or dollars. And for the game, this could be a problem moving forwards.
We've ranked the best women's rugby players in the world, from 50 - 1! View the Top 50 now