CLIVE Woodward knows that, come kick-off in Sydney today, England will have to find another level if they are to overcome this very able and confident French side.
Despite stuttering through to the semi-finals with a couple of close calls against the spirited Welsh and Samoans, the English are capable of so much more. By contrast, the French have reached the same point at little more than a canter, and have tak
en all comers in their stride. They have not, however, been confronted with the physicality of this English pack, and this set-to, between the two most powerful eights in the world will not be a place for the faint-hearted.
Woodward laid it on the line to his troops that, unless there is a marked improvement, England would find themselves squabbling over the minor places. The coach has made some inspired calls in his time, none more so than his late inclusion to his squad of Mike Catt, the Bath utility man.
When the wheel was spinning off the barrow last weekend against the Welsh, it was Catt who was thrown on in the second half to bring some much-needed poise to the England side. Catt again will be the most influential man on the pitch, for he gives confidence to the young man inside him, Jonny Wilkinson.
Woodward is certainly no fool, and his counterpart, Bernard Laporte, is no mug either. During his term in office, he has harnessed all the best aspects of French rugby, and transformed the players’ ill-discipline.
An enthralling contest is in prospect. Both sides are so evenly matched in virtually every position, it is almost impossible to call the result, however I go for England, by a whisker.
The captains, Martin Johnson and Fabien Galthie, know that, at their age, this will be their last chance. To the winner, the opportunity to take the spoils next week; it was always thus.
But should Johnson or Galthie decide to call time at the end of the tournament, then I trust they will depart in a similar fashion to our own captain, Bryan Redpath, who did so last weekend with enormous dignity.
It is a great shame that the outgoing forwards’ coach and SRU director of rugby, Jim Telfer, did not follow his exemplary lead. If ever there was a time to enjoy a statesmanlike departure, this was it.
After reaching the last eight in the tournament, it was an ideal opportunity to thank supporters who had dug deep into their pockets to follow the team in Australia. At the same time, he could have thanked the many people back home who continue, week in, week out, to keep the sport alive.
Even had he chosen not to thank anyone, he could perhaps have offered an olive branch, and admitted that while mistakes have been made, and will continue to be made, it is only together that we can go forward. Not a chance.
Whatever his motivation, Telfer felt it more appropriate to mark his departure by taking a swipe at almost everyone connected with the game, at all levels, apart from, that is, those within his inner cabal.
"The pace we develop the game in Scotland is determined by the clubs, not by me or the pro teams, but the quicker we separate the professional game from the amateur game the better, because it is too slow," was just one of a number of grossly-unfair comments reported.
In June 2001, after much discussion, a vote was taken by the clubs to establish a third professional side in the Borders. This was to be followed by a fourth team, to be set up where and when the SRU felt appropriate.
The union still hold the mandate, so why do they not just get on with it? The clubs are certainly not stopping them.
Not even his own club, Melrose RFC, where he had been a member for the past 47 years, escaped a mention, and he vowed that he would never return there in any capacity.
What Jim failed to understand is that the clubs were not fighting him, they were fighting for their very own survival, as we are now witnessing with various mergers and impending closures.
Telfer said, too, that we should move to summer rugby and develop the game in the schools. Have I missed something? Is it not the job of a director of rugby to steer these changes through while in office, rather than on departure?
Telfer has done untold damage to his own reputation, which I suspect will not bother him greatly. Taking a parting shot at the structure of the game is bad enough, but then to take it to a personal level, and malign one of Scotland’s favourite sons, John Jeffrey, was one step too far for the public. Accusing John of doing nothing for the game since he retired "other than lining his own pocket" is simply untrue.
Let me assure you that John Jeffrey’s respect for the game remains intact. Long after many others have thrown in the towel, the White Shark continues to help on Tuesday and Thursday nights at Poynder Park, home of Kelso RFC. While John never claimed to be the best coach in the world, he does possess an extraordinary knowledge of the game, which the Sunday Times invite him to share with their readers. In keeping with every other journalist, he will receive payment.
No, John has been singled out for special mention because he admitted that, while at Murrayfield, he had supported a structure for professional rugby which he feels now is no longer sustainable.
John is a highly-respected man in so many different walks of life, and to suggest that he has remained in the game only to line his own pocket is not only deeply offensive and hurtful to him, but also to all those who know him. Sadly, for Jim Telfer, this will be the last thing he will be remembered for; it has all ended in tears.
