Sorry Wakefield fans but the news cycle stops for nobody. There's a World Cup to be won.
Former military man Brian McDermott is the man tasked with leading that mission after taking over from Shaun Wane. The former Wigan coach seemed willing to continue in the role but the underwhelming performances in last autumn's Ashes whitewash signalled it was time for change.
McDermott has named a 23-man squad for the tournament but it was the omission of Jake Connor that caused a lot of the debate around the selection. Though he didn't hang on to his Steve Prescott Man Of Steel award - that honour going to Wigan hooker Brad O'Neill, Connor had another eye catching campaign as Leeds Rhinos fell one stop short of Old Trafford.
But his form is only part of the argument. Leaving him out is a mistake. Not because he's the world's greatest player. He's not. He's quite maddening at times and has a temperament to justify caution. But what he does offer is the 'point of difference' which McDermott has already stated England will need to be successful in this company. And he arguably offers it in a bigger way than any of those who do have a seat on the plane.
Where Wane and many others before him fell short is in trying to beat the Australians and others at their own game. It is now perceived wisdom in rugby league that you can only win by minimising risk. Set completion. Five drives and a kick. Defend well. Avoid errors. For that you need a game manager at halfback. Harry Smith will no doubt be the man. The Wigan star has a great kicking game, makes good, safe decisions and rarely leaves his team compromised positionally.
The trouble is, as good as he and England are at that Australia and other teams do it better. We need something else. Something different. Something other. Not to play recklessly on every tackle, but to reserve the right to do something that the impossibly well drilled defences we will face are not expecting and don't want to see. Connor provides that.
To not even have him in the squad as an option feels like the rugby league equivalent of Thomas Tuchel leaving Trent Alexander-Arnold out of his World Cup party. It's the safe option, but if and when you need something nobody else can imagine let alone execute your tank is empty.
I am fully aware that Connor is someone whose risk taking could cost you at a crucial moment. Even the greatest mavericks have been guilty of believing they have seen something is 'on' only to spend the next few minutes behind their own posts, hands on head, waiting for the conversion that will finally kill their hopes. But frankly I would rather lose that way than be out-processed by a machine in green and gold.
We could lose a big knockout game 8-6 and have the players return home with their respect and dignity fully intact. But what if we'd turned over that wild card in the last 10 minutes? Thrown a few long balls, launched a couple of 40-20 attempts. This is the only conceivable route I can see to achieving more than just a heroic exit after a gruelling defensive duel. And it could have happened with Connor available.
It appears that when McDermott said he wanted a point of difference he meant Mikey Lewis rather than Connor. He's going to be the one charged with making the opposition uncomfortable if the likely starting pairing of Smith and George Williams can't. Lewis is far more likely to run at the line and provoke disruption than Smith but he lacks the vision and the naked audacity of Connor. He's Connor-lite in this regard. But he still takes risks that could be costly and he has the same temperament issue. He has the potential to be McDermott's point of difference but he's less likely to pull it off than Connor. He hasn't quite demonstrated the same passing range as the Leeds man.
I guess I'm not really arguing for Connor as much as for the idea of Connor. Someone with the passing skills to upset some almost bulletproof defences who isn't afraid of consequence. McDermott has acknowledged that England didn't ask enough questions of Australia in attack in the Ashes. He clearly feels that Lewis is enough to address that. But I don't think that solution goes far enough.
This isn't me claiming to have found a magic formula. Risk is risk for a reason. Unpredictability can blow up in your face and then everyone tells you what a fool you've been. But in not embracing something more than the 'arm-wrestle' we are almost performing an exercise in damage limitation.
Why not give yourself a chance to avoid what seems inevitable?
No comments:
Post a Comment