Boon or gloom?

So England won. Now we get the ‘a win is what counts’ message from the team and the ‘dire performance’ message from the media. The question is which is more right and what should we worry or be pleased about?

First away win
The stat that stuck out the most was that this was the first away win England have had since Martin Johnson took over. That is a frightening statistic really, but i’ll come back to that. The second stat is that in the first 13 minutes there were 22 kicks out of hand. As a hard core rugby fan, even I am now seriously depressed by the kicking, and not just because it is boring, which it most certainly is. It represents a completely different game – it's like Ronnie O’Sullivan suddenly making 50%+ of his shots safety shots, even when a pot is on. It turns a game from doing what you can to win, to avoiding doing something that might cause you to lose. It’s that mindset that depresses me so much. The England team (and others) no longer want to create a try scoring opportunity, but hope that one comes about through error or luck.

Crucially though, not only does it seem that the kicking is not a good approach from a strategic point, England’s execution was rubbish, balls were kicked directly to hand with very poor chasing. We lost out over the game on most kicking duals. So the real worry (it being dull aside) is that even when it is so poorly executed, we continue to avoid alternatives, which means kicking must be here to stay.

Solution to the kicking game
There may be reasons as to why this won’t work and if so, I’d like to hear them. But I think the solution to the kicking is the ball. Surely if we made the ball heavier (or with less pressure), the resultant kicks would travel much less distance (instead of from 22 to 22) and running would become a higher % play as a result. Additionally, it would affect the place kicking, so that would not be possible from inside your own half, which is no bad thing either, or those ridiculous Francois Steyn drop goal attempts (success rate is what, around 10%?).
It shouldn’t affect any other part of the game, not the lineout, scrum or passing. So come on Gilbert (or Mitre), let’s do it. Speaking of which, why are there 2 differently shaped balls in professional rugby. That is just ridiculous. So whilst the rugby authorities start working with the manufacturers on heavier balls, can we please get an agreed shape, and give professional players the respect that it needs.

Italy
By listening to the team and some of the press, you’d think that Italy was a top team in the world. Because apparently, they have the ability to completely control how a game is played. Of course they can lie over the ball and disrupt quick ball, but this game should have been about creating space and supporting the runner. The more the ball is killed, the less we should have stuck with the strong arm approach through the forwards (which is undoubtedly where the Italians are the most effective). And dare I say kicking should have played a part, but since when did kicking to touch become obsolete? It’s not as if the Italians have such a great lineout. Spoiled possession from a lineout would have rushed the kicker much more than the aimless kick, and even more aimless chase that England pursued yesterday.

The Try
Even this came with a missed tackle on Monye. Watching it replayed face on, you see the opportunity was great, but the passing and running was slow and ponderous – it was a missed tacked that made the chance, followed by not great passes, but enough to get over the line. None of the backs had a great game, but at least Flutey and Tait tried to change the point or angle of attack, although most times Flutey tried, he was unsupported by runners or not spotted by the ball carrier – how many times on replays did we see Flutey screaming in the background to no avail? The backs seem to have no concept of angles of attack – the only evolution since last week’s aimless effort was to go for the inside ball, which proved effective, even if the runner was still running on the outside. Flutey is always looking to cut back in, but there doesn’t appear to be any understanding of that by the supporting players.

Metronomic Wilkinson?
I’m not sure how many times we heard this about Wilkinson in the lead up to the game (the commentator said he’d practiced for half an hour and not missed one kick). The debate is now whether we sacrifice Wilko and his kicking for a back better suited to unleashing the back line. What I don’t understand is why people go on about his kicking at all. If you look at international % for fly-halves, Wilko is hardly miles ahead of anyone (in fact, I presume Patterson and Carter are above him). Looking up stats, in Oct ’07 (the only ones I can find!) his percentage was 60% (17/28 and number 16 in the world). I know in his early days, Johnny set a new high water mark for % accuracy, but he’s been caught up and overtaken – and for years. The idea that we need him for his goal kicking is completely redundant.

Cole and Mullen
Italians often got the nod on the contact, but we regularly held up the scrum solidly, even if going ever so slightly backwards. Good job by the young lads and hopefully a bright future for them and England.

Ahead to Ireland
I don’t know what to take from yesterday. Yes a win is good. But on that argument, that’s your entire world cup winning strategy – just keep winning – and clearly to build a team successfully requires more than just squeezing out wins. I found the game dull, very very dull. I was impressed by Italy’s backs as they so rarely show endeavor out wide and I was pleased that it was mildly effective. But for England, it was miserable hard work. No leadership, no continuity, no thinking. I don’t care about the positive noises from the England camp because, really, what else can they say (although at least Moody rarely plays ball on the ‘optimism over realism’ thinking). I do care about the approach. In the first minute we nearly scored a try and then within just over 10 minutes we had resorted to ‘aerial ping-pong’. Why? I just cannot get my head round that at all.

Positive note?
Ireland were awful. At least I think that is a positive note. More seriously, I do understand that by grinding out wins, teams develop more trust and can be more adventurous in a less risky manner. But I go back to the kicking – if we can’t look to attempt something against Italy, how many years are we going to have to wait until we have that trust and can push for greater things? Back to the ‘first away win’ stat. What this tells us is that perhaps it’s us, the fans who are at fault. Perhaps this is just not a very good team and it will take years to start to compete again right at the top of the game. My belief is that it’s somewhere in between, but that with the slow rate of progress the coaching team want to pursue, we may never develop to a great side as teams promote talent and gel more quickly around us.

Quick word about Scotland
Why oh why or why, when you went for the restart, didn’t you just kick it out??? The clock had past 80 minutes, you were down to 13 men – surely it was worth protecting a draw? I’m not sure on the laws, but given kicking it straight out would normally result in a scrum (and not a penalty), the game would have ended. Insane decision and the draw was the least they deserved.

England - Wales: it was not about Character

Having watched the game and read the press, I thought I should do my own review. A lot of what has been written is wrapped in narrative rather than truth and so I wanted to do my own summary of who fared well, the positives and the concerns.

Haskell and Care
Both described as having played very well, been crucial even to the victory. I disagree entirely. Yes Care made that break and a couple others, but his ponderous service from the base of a scrum or ruck completely neutralised our potentially exciting back line. The first set of phases took us back at least 20 metres. It's very difficult to quantity the positive/ negatives from this, but if you give a back line no opportunity to break and go forward, then it's almost impossible to build territory through possession and put the fear of God into the opposition. The net result was that when Wales stepped up, we had no response. The Care strategy leaves us reliant on breaks, not patterns. And the fewer patterns we play, the less able we'll be able to do them.

Haskell had an OK game, yes he got 2 tries and it is impressive that he was there to support the second. However, he wasn't that impressive otherwise. He was relatively anonymous on the pick and drive and doubt he made that many yards. I have a suspicion that he is not strong enough (however muscular). Easter is immensely strong and frankly should have been man of the match. He provides ballast and a focal point for attack, along with excellent defence. What worries me about Haskell is his ever being picked at 8, assuming an Easter injury. Then we'd have a massively devalued back 3 in terms of strength. Haskell with Easter? Maybe, but Haskell without Easter, no.

Midfield
It was probably the most anonymous midfield I've ever seen (although some excuse given for Care's slow delivery). I think Tait will be excellent playing outside Flutey who will straighten, (half) break tackles and give Tait the opportunity to run at pace and create space and opportunities. Against Wales, we drifted and shipped the ball along the line. This is the easiest 'attack' to defend against. I'm not even sure I can remember a single set move - even a dummy or scissors. I can't say that they both played badly, but it was just so short of creativity or strategy.

Back three
Most press describe them as not having had much chance, with Delon under-performing. I think on balance that assertion is fair. However, they don't point out what they did well with the limited opportunities they had. Cueto was as commanding under a high ball and with the boot as Armitage was on debut. When he took the ball, he looked purposeful and his first instinct was to run, not kick (to the point that he started taking the kicks at pace, rather than stationary). Even more so, I thought Monye was fantastic, rampaging through tacklers, in much the way that we all imagined Jamie Roberts would. I don't think I've ever seen him do so much with rubbish ball in an england shirt. More of that against Italy and it will be a blood bath.

Front Row
Hartley was surprisingly 'weak' - he didn't penetrate with much depth. However, he did his core job very well and was busy and made himself available. In the days of the pod system, having him constantly putting his hand up is a great boon for the backs looking for better and faster ball. Props were a worry. Not in the least because of the binding on the arm (even I noticed these a few times!). Wilson and Payne seemed very underpowered. It was noticeable that when Cole came on, the scrum seemed so much more assured. I know we are suffering with injuries, but this was clearly not the best available prop pairing. Next week against Italy, Cole must start. It's the perfect platform to demonstrate we can pick a competitive front 3.

Borthwick and Moody
These guys obviously made a pact before the game to swap places. Moody was completely invisible and Borthwick actually played well, in particular doing something good for everyone to see in that crucial turnover. Moody does have quiet games occasionally, so hope that's his one out of the way for the 6 nations.

Extraneous
Kick and chase - absolutely appalling yesterday. Even from the kick off, Moody wasn't 'mad dogging' it to get to the ball. Wilkinson kept having to chase his own kicks, as did Cueto. Where was the support?

Team response
The team is talking rubbish about how they would have lost it 2 years ago, but their character pulled them through. Absolute rubbish. An opportunist (and crucially, a defensive) intercept try was the difference and potentially a 14 point swing, given Delon was covering 2 attackers. He didn't intercept out of character, but necessity. It may be true that going forwards, England can derive character from the win, but it was certainly not the other way round.

Optimism?
I am happy with the win and some things were good and we certainly have areas to build on. Against Italy next week needs to be about endeavour and a relatively high risk game. Unless our backs begin to get some continuity, we'll continue to always feel relieved to win, rather than it being fully earned. Against Italy, we can afford to play to the backs strengths, to give them the opportunity to test themselves. Yes it's high risk, but unless they start to understand and trust themselves (and in a game situation, rather than training). We won't be able to push on and really bully opponents. The order of games is perfect, we just got away with a win and next week, we can really set the backs free. Come the 3rd game, we'll have confidence and continuity to take into a hugely competitive match, which we then could win. Without either, we'd be lucky to do so.

How much do you want to own an iTablet

I have drawn a graph for you to help you understand if you want to own an iTablet.

The line down the middle denotes Apple Love. The closer you are to it, the more you want it and the further away, the less you care

Click on the image to enlarge

An Apple a day? Call the doctor

I know that a lot of journalists make a point of letting the reader know what device(s) they are using, but the disproportionality of the current coverage (vs importance) must be verging on some anti-competitive, story-fixing, conflict of interest issue. I'm sure there are many people like me who are not interested and don't care, but are unlikely to have their voice heard in the current 'I'd die for Steve Jobs more painfully than you would' competition that is currently playing out in the media.

Reasons I don't care:
I have never used an iPod, nor ever felt the desire or need to have my music stored digitally. It’s invention has had zero impact on my life, except loud music on buses - ergo a negative impact on my life. (I did actually own one, but my computer wasn’t high spec enough to run the software).

I don't own nor have ever used an iPhone. The revolution here is really the app store (which was not new anyway) and the community that it encouraged to get creative. Suddenly people worked to make useful, personal, locally relevant information and tools available to the user. I understand the touch screen is a big part of its success, but that has little bearing on the global phone market (even though I’m sure we’ll all go touch eventually).
The iPhone itself is not that great as a phone, by all accounts. Clearly it has Apple'ness, in that its beautiful and so easy to use. So the iPhone has had no impact on my life to date (it’s had long enough), but will do so through an app store (not Apple’s) and a touch screen (not Apple’s).

So now the iXXXX is about to come. I don't care about the product one iota. There will be interesting publishing consequences (more for the magazine than book industry, I believe) and I am sure the product will look and feel good. Do I want it? Do I need it? Will it change the world? No. Will there be 100,000,000 articles in just one newspaper about it, of course there will be.

Apple products are great, but expensive. Most of the world does not use them (even within affluent media circles it's not as frequent as the Marlboro Light's brigade). People think that Apple has a huge proportion of the phone market because of how it is reported (it doesn't). The media is played for fools by Apple, taking every rumour which is slowly leaked out of Apple HQ and using it to run another full page. I'm actually amazed that their editors have not turned round and said: "excuse me, but have you not got something else to write about today".

The only thing I find interesting about the whole affair is this. If you have a quality product, then you are in charge. It is not that Apple's marketing is great (it's actually very 'inactive'), it's just that the products, their look and feel, are great. With that the interest and hype will follow.

This is a great lesson for all companies looking to promote their latest products. Spend less time worrying about the wizz bang marketing than making sure the product itself is what people want (which is really just another way of saying you can’t polish a turd).


Update 1
I did a google trends search on Apple yesterday and noticed that news coverage peaks after search results peak. Could that possibly mean that the media are just responding to interest or that the media response reduces the need for search (hence the peaks being out of sequence). Interestingly also, is that Apple search is relatively stable over the last year (whilst news increases, but still not massively).

http://www.google.com/trends?q=apple&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0

Update 2
I will bow to Apple if it launches a sensible non-proprietary micro-payments system. Whilst NYT, Murdoch and others are heading behind a pay-wall, making easy small payments for published material (that is sent to your tablet) is crucial in taking the publishing industry into the digital world.

Which online sites are important?

I've just had to endure the most painful conversation and one that I very much doubt will be the last. Below is as close to verbatim as I remember:

Person: "What online sites should we also cover?"
Me: "BBC, FT, Times, there are loads out there"
Person: "No, I mean, which specific ones that are online should we target?"
Me: "they are online. What are you trying to achieve?"
Person: "But there must be some online sites that we should target?"
Me: "Twitter, google, facebook...."
Person: "no, business ones"
Me: "listen, what exactly are you trying to achieve. These are all online."
Person: "I guess I should probably give you a proper brief"

Why do people who consume media, and mostly online I would guess, seem to think these hugely influential 'online titles' exist in the same was as the FT or Times and can just be added to the target media list. When I ask questions back, they don't like the answer and go away.

It's such old school thinking - number of clips. We got 5 magazines and one online hit. What does that mean, where is the conversation about people you want to reach - buyers, influencers etc. Then the consequential: "how do we reach them".

I was in a meeting the other day and had to make the point that it was perfectly possible that all the business goals could be achieved without PR. After all, media is merely a conduit, a medium. Traditionally it was fundamentally important to work with the media to 'speak to your audiences'. It is perfectly feasible that this can be done in direct, 2-way conversations with them.

We are going through a phase change and it will be painful at times, but giving out honest advice to clients and taking advantage of what digital can bring should be a must for all agencies at the moment.

Back to that lovely conversation. I bet I never get the 'proper brief' or be asked again.

Ham, no, not the sandwich stuff, but Jamón

Last night, I was lucky enough to be taken to Brindisa in Borough market, to a Jamon carving course. I should add the caveat that I am a humungous fan of Jamon, Pata Negra, Joselito - all Spanish cured hams in short.

What a fun night it was, starting with the history of hams, we had a plateful of 4 different hams in ascending order of age/type and tasted each one in turn, with an explanation of what we were eating and why each one tasted differently. The flavour is influenced by 3 things, Breed, feed and age (could prob add environment, at Joselito would say so). So we started with the 'entry level' ham, leading up to the most complex, purest breed, longest aged, the Joselito, the grand daddy of hams. In short, fed on acrorns - best. Iberico breed - best. Then the longer the cure the better (up to 4 years).

Now for those of you who know and love Parma ham or prosciutto, this is in a completely separate world (although when you pay up to nearly £20 for 100 grams, it should be). The flavours are so complex: sweet and nutty. The textures are wonderful. Because the meat is of such a high quality, it can be hand carved slightly thicker than the Italian equivalent, which is always sold paper thin. We were served Sherry throughout (so only have 1 drink before you go), although I normally eat Jamon with a glass or 2 of Rioja, a Cune or Campo Vieja crianza 2005 is perfect. Interestingly we were assured that the drink to really have it with is Dom Perignon! I'm not sure I can afford to develop an addiction for Jamon and Dom Perignon, so will stick to the Rioja for now.

The best part was a chance at carving. It is very frustrating when spending that much money at other outlets, like Whole Foods, only to get home to find it had been carved too thick. So to get a chance to have a go and understand what you are doing and why, was just fantastic. Everyone had a good go at it, I'm sure it just goes to show that if you really love something, you'll give it proper attention and respect it.

My adorable girlfriend took me and she would claim that she was a better carver than me, well I think that is up for debate. Either way, we'd be confident to carve our own leg. Now we just need to start saving the £400 or so we'll need for the Extremadura one which was just too good for words.

Thank you my darling, thank you for a genius Christmas present, it was great to get close to and learn about something i've been loving ever more each year.

Thanks also to Zac Fingal-Rock Innes, the master carver at Brindisa. He has clearly got the passion and will help to ensure that this fantastic product is available in the UK. I look forward to learning more, tasting more (and presumably making it myself, or is that sacrilege?)

The only negative, I think, is that I've finally resolved my 'death row' dilemna of what would your last meal be. A glass of rioja with the finest Jamon, perfectly sliced cannont be beaten. I could do it every day and the joy doesn't diminish.