Mind games par for course

By WYNNE GRAY at the World Cup

It is the game within a game, the chance for rival coaches to highlight other teams' marginal tactics, for the media to latch on to any sniff of misdemeanours.

This event is promoted as the World in Union, but there remains serious disharmony about the uniformity of the tournament rules.

World Cup favourites England have been most targeted for their perceived illegalities at the breakdown, accused of dancing to the beat of professional fouls as they slow possession for their opponents.

Without doubt England muscle up and squeeze the flow of ball at the breakdown, but they play the percentages. They concede some penalties, and are adept at making that judgment without (so far) incurring the punishment of the sin bin.

They show their experience, their big-game nous, their savvy in a tight tussle. Rugby matches at the highest level are won by sides playing to the limit and beyond of the law, and England have learnt those margins well.

It must be said that England are an easy mark. Favourites always attract attention, opponents look for any avenue to derail better sides, to take their concentration away from their usual pattern.

When sides are constantly criticised it is generally a sign they are feared.

Psychological warfare between coaches has always been a huge part of international rugby, it is an accepted practice to needle the opposition or try to court favour with match officials.

Most famously at the 1991 World Cup final, the Wallabies, and especially wing David Campese, challenged England to abandon their stodgy 10-man rugby and embrace a game of vibrant movement.

England bridled at the taunts and went away from their master-plan with ruinous consequences.

The greatest question is how far coaches decide to push their grievances in public, as constant grizzling can be counter-productive. Even the most thick-skinned referees prickle at criticism of their work.

There is a risk that constant harping will antagonise rather than correct alleged malpractice.

The more careful coaches do not aim the blunderbuss at the opposition or referees before matches. They send out a few warning shots, or trade on the media thirst for controversy by planting ideas about problems, by challenging them to make some assessment.

All Black coach John Mitchell opted for that route as he spoke about having to restore his side's attitude towards rucking if bodies continued to litter the breakdowns.

Others have access to compliant journos or can get their advisers to nudge some major rugby figures who will deliver the salvos for them.

John Eales's television appearance last week to point out the way Neil Back broke the laws at the rear of England's rolling maul was a prime example.

At this tournament, like the Lions in South Africa almost two decades ago, England coach Clive Woodward got his retaliation in first.

After the Wallabies' awkward opening win against Argentina, Woodward accused the defending World Cup champions of using illegal decoy runners as Joe Roff scudded in for a try.

It has been a common theme for Woodward, who offered similar criticisms of the All Blacks late last year when they embarrassed his defences at Twickenham in scoring four tries.

Naturally the Wallaby response was to suggest all they could do was play to the whistle. Referee Paul Honiss, a man noted for his rigid adherence to the laws, had not found fault with the Wallaby moves.

Since then there has been the humorous concession from Woodward that if decoy runners are allowed he will instruct his side to follow suit.

Woodward, a coach with 19 technical staff to assist his every whim, has videotape compiled for him to take to discussions with referees before matches.

He has learned from his wayward attempt to speak to referee Wayne Erickson at Carisbrook at halftime in 1998.

In the lead-up to the crucial pool game between England and South Africa there were varieties of criticism of Woodward's men.

Eales offered a valid perspective about the illegal detached ball-carrier at the back of their rolling maul. It was an observation Eddie Jones and Rudolf Straeuli commended, though both were careful to explain they were just joining the conversation.

Straeuli waited until after the match for his real needle, although he continued to proclaim England as the team to beat.

"When they [England] see they're on the rack and we're going to score, they will go offside," he said. "Slow it down here, take your centre out there.

"It's part of the game if you get away with it."

England did and they won. And like the All Blacks always used to, they can just point to the result.

Senior Wallabies George Gregan and Stephen Larkham questioned England's ability to make headway other than through the boot of Jonny Wilkinson.

The Australian newspaper ran a full-page picture of Wilkinson on the cover of their sports section with a headline, "Is that all they've got."

Strangely, there was no comment or story inside.

That came a day later when senior Wallabies George Gregan and Stephen Larkham questioned England's backline firepower, their lack of bite outside the superboot.

Just for variety, coach Jones distanced himself from those comments.

"I must have been watching a different match," he said switching from the lash to the ladle.

"I thought that their performance was first-class. There is criticism about the way they won the game, but it was a grinding test match.

"It was won at the game [sic] line, it was at the tackle contest and England did that superbly."

The game within the game continues, all part of the fascinating backdrop to international sport.

Full World Cup coverage