The Rugby Blog’s Joe Ogden spoke to the former Leicester and England legend Neil Back to discuss who he is backing to win the Aviva Premiership, surprise names in Stuart Lancaster’s squad announcement, the ‘exceptional circumstances’ clause and England’s chances at the World Cup.
JO: With the Aviva Premiership drawing to a close, who do you think is going to go all the way and win it?
NB: We are down to the knockout stages now and it’s a difficult one to call but with Bath and Northampton having secured home playoff matches it is hard to look beyond one of them. This part of the season is all about momentum; the team that has the winning momentum will go all the way. All of the matches in the final stages are absolutely massive.
JO: Now that Jonathan Joseph has been named the player of the year, is there anyone else you feel deserved it?
NB: There were a few other names in the shortlist that I feel were strong contenders. To be named RPA Players’ Player of the year is a particular honour; it was one that was bestowed upon me when it was created. I also won the RFU Player of the Year in the same year as JJ has just done. It’s a massive thing but rugby is truly a team game and without your teammates you wouldn’t be put on that platform.
He has played outstandingly well this year. Stuart Lancaster will be keeping a close eye on JJ as well as his other key players over the playoffs and hoping they all come through for the World Cup. JJ brings such excitement to both Bath and the England team, he is a player who gets the crowd on their feet and that’s crucial for the game.
JO: Saracens have made slightly hard work of making the Premiership playoffs, leaving it until the final weekend to secure a spot. Has it been a disappointing season for the club?
NB: Yes, they have set very high standards and so there is a big expectation to be a constant presence in the top four. There is a pressure on each player to perform to that level every week and that’s incredibly difficult to achieve, it’s what the best teams are able to do. Saying that, I think they can definitely go on and win it.
JO: Turning our attention to England, do you think there will be any surprise names in Lancaster’s Rugby World Cup squad?
NB: I think the coaches will be pretty sure of their running order, they will say they are not thinking about it but there is a concern over injuries. There is particular concern in the midfield area despite the team having lots of depth, we still don’t know our favoured combinations in such a crucial part of the team. We need that little bit of X-Factor in the team and the coaches will be considering their options of how to achieve that.
JO: Do you think we will see either Steffon Armitage or Nick Abdendanon in the squad?
NB: If he brings them in and we win, we won’t be talking about it. If he brings them in and we lose everyone will say he should have brought them in. He is in a very difficult situation.
I understand both sides of the argument but my view is that you should pick your best players. The concerning thing is it’s ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous that we are talking about this now. The RFU has known for four years that the World Cup is coming to England so the fact that we are still debating it now is an absolute embarrassment. It should have been resolved and we shouldn’t be talking about it.
JO: Some have described Armitage as the missing link for this team, do you agree that he is someone who could add value?
NB: If you asked a lot of people to write down their 31 for England then Steffon Armitage would be in there. I was a part of a Green Flag panel to pick the forward of the season where I was joined by four rugby journalists. We were asked to pick our top five premiership forwards and within those lists no one chose Chris Robshaw. I found that quite significant and so for many people Armitage would bring something England don’t currently have.
JO: Looking at the draw for the World Cup, do England need to finish top of their group to be in with a realistic chance of winning the tournament?
NB: I think England, Wales and Australia can all win this World Cup as well as four other teams. That’s seven teams who can genuinely win it. Even if England, Wales or Australia lose a game in their group I think they can still go on to win the tournament because of the quality they have got. It will definitely be easier if they top the group. As with the Premiership, it’s all about winning momentum which breeds belief. This is particularly powerful in a World Cup and an early defeat can easily dent that.
Green Flag – proud sponsor of Premiership Rugby – is giving fans the chance to win an ultimate VIP experience at this year’s Final by following @GreenFlagUK and using #rugbytribe. For more information on the prize and how to enter, visit: http://blog.greenflag.com/category/rugby-premiership
17 replies on “Neil Back: Armitage & Abendanon discussion “an absolute embarrassment””
So…
Q1. Not answered narrowed down to two
Q2. Not answered
Q3. Answered but then contradicts his own answer to Q1
Q4. Not answered
Q5. Answered (hurrah)
Q6. Not answered
Ever considered a carrer in politics Neil?
Sorry there were 7 questions and I missed out Q5 out which suprisingly wasn’t answered
So you don’t like Back then?
Often people don’t answer ?’s directly. Watch any sports (or other prog full stop)TV Q & A session. However, isn’t Back fundamentally correct in his assertion that England ought to have sorted the Armitage issue yonks ago & that it’s shouldn’t even be on the agenda mths out from the WC?
Sound familiar to (KP in) cricket? A malaise in English sport perhaps? Wonkers @ the top, picking winkers just below them so that if/when the wheels come off the former simply sack the latter?
Whether you like Back or not (& I still haven’t forgotten how he cheated in the H Cup btw) & criticise his (lack of) technique, he surely has a pt?
Seems to me this issue has been well and truly sorted. The policy was set yonks ago and Lancaster and others have confirmed that policy plus doesn’t Armitage still have a court case hanging over his head? It’s only journos and others looking for controversy who stir it up.
The embarrassment is easily stopped Neil – just stop talking about it and get on with supporting Lancaster and the team.
Not according to Jones of the ST who stated that Lancaster caved in to player pressure. Of course the Rugby Writer of the Yr award could be an utter b s’itter I suppose. I often wonder myself, but he was def in his assertion.
And surely supporting Lancaster is to blindly support someone who doesn’t know if his team’s style is R1 (yep) or an all round game (nope), who stumbled across his midfield & now picks Burgess, the well known Bath flanker, in, er, midfield. Give me strength.
Or is all this just ‘stir(ring) it up’?
Need to wake up fella. There are a few of yr own out there who disagree with you & believe that Lancaster’s team has already ‘plateaued’.
No matter what Stephen ‘I’ve got column inches to fill’ Jones may write, the RFU policy on overseas players was written years ago.
Just because Jones was ‘def in his assertion’ doesn’t make it true, He’s pretty ‘def in his assertion’ that the All Blacks have pillaged the Pacific Islands for players – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10332552 – but he’s wrong about that as well
The rest of your post has little or nothing to do with the topic of discussion, but I’ll rise anyway.
Style – all good teams change their style. What style do the ABs play? The free-scoring style of their 70 point recent victory over the USA or the cagey, tournament-style rugby that saw them beat France 8-7 to win the RWC? A team that doesn’t change its style to fit the occasion is a losing team
Burgess – the chances of him making the final selection are pretty slim. But he is an incredible athelete and seems to be a consumate professional – it can only be a bonus both for his future development and for the other players to have him involved in the wider training set-up
There are always people who will disagree. There are still people out there who genuinely believe that Richie McCaw is just a cheat and not one of the best ever rugby players. As with Stephen Jones, just because they believe something doesn’t mean it has any validity.
Agree that Jones is often subjective, esp on the topic of his fav whipping boys the SH. The NZ Herald article appears to bear this 1 out, even tho it’s an ‘issue’often echoed by many of yr countrymen, incl here.
However, I was ?ing whether Lancaster was actually bowing to player pressure and why not? If Jones’ article has no substance whatsoever, then, by def, he must have been lying. However, if there is some element of truth in what he stated and there is surely SOME truth in what people generally state – & Jones must have some sources after c.25 yrs -, then it must raise some concern about SL’s cred. I personally do ? Lancs’ cred due to many of his decisions. This particular pt made me further wonder about him, much as did his, IMO, ?able decision to incl Burgess who hasn’t impressed @ centre – for a WC squad? And it keeps someone else out.
Regds style, the ABs generally, when they have the ball, aim to score tries (perhaps the NZH can verify their try scoring record as well?), when they don’t, they try & stop the oppo from doing so. However, they will adapt as you state a team ought, but they 1st look to score; as in the 1st test @ the death v England & v Ireland last up when they ‘adapted’ by sticking to this policy until it prevailed.
The ‘Richie McCaw is just a cheat’ thing is as old as the ‘raiding the PI’s’ thing & IMO sour grapes stuff & as you say ‘opinion’. Otherwise this contention needs to be provable. My guess is that he, like most players, simply plays to the ref.
Regds; ‘As with Stephen Jones, just because they believe something doesn’t mean it has any validity’; well that’s true… as is the converse of course.
Finally, in respect of; ‘The rest of your post has little or nothing to do with the topic of discussion, but I’ll rise anyway’. Well, this is not a new assertion either, but I tend to, at times, respond to other bloggers’ posts & not, or just, the article, but then that’s my right methinks.That you may not agree with this is, of course, yr right.
PS Pablo, forgot to thank you for NZ Herald article. Remiss of me. It’ll likely come in useful @ some future point when NZ gets accused of ‘poaching’ PI’s again.
Don. You are trolling here
Teh Armitage issue HAS been sorted for years. The opolicy was made and England have stuck by it. The only disucssion has come from the media, who need something to write about, and (to my mind) fans who don’t really understand why the rule was put in place.
That’s not even mentioning the fact that Armitage is not proven on the international stage and, as Ray points out, has an assault charge against him
Nothing like Pietersen in the slightest – KP is entirely proven internationally and is not in the team solely due to personality issues. Couldn’t be more different.
Perhaps you need to define ‘trolling’ Pab. Is it an alt view?
Read my comment to Ray.
Besides you’re being patronising & your assertion (‘understand{ing} why the rule was put in place’) is only yr opinion & as such, groundless, as it’s unproven. As little’s happened to undermine English rugger thus far, there is no proof the rule will actually work or not. SA & Wales (in the 6N) e.g., don’t seem to have suffered too much @ Int’al level do they?
And how can Armitage ‘prove’ himself @ Int’al level when he has hardly had as much game time as Danny Cip (another unfathomable decision)? You make a daft comment you on this pt.
Also, has Tui’s record, in comparison with SA’s, not been an accident waiting to happen? You & Ray sound like Saints! If you want squeaky clean then surely Lancs ought to have chucked Tui after he ‘king hit’ Ashton. But I suppose that wasn’t classed as ‘an assault charge’. You’re looking for reasons not to incl qual players, based on what might, might not happen to English rugger in future. Perhaps you have as much ‘vision’ as Lancaster.
You’re either obtusely missing the pt regarding the Armitage & KP comparison or YOU’RE, er, trolling?! Surely not? They both rep indecision in English sport @ the top & even further down. Unless SJ is utterly lying, then England are ignoring 2 Euro players of the yr (surely ?able thinking to do so with SL’s record v NZ, SA & one almost as poor as the sacked Johnno’s?) & Graves & Strauss contradicted each other in respect of Pietersen’s ‘inclusion’ in the national team.
Your problem Don is that you give people so much to be patronising about.
Your rent-a-mob mentality – everything that Lancaster, The RFU or English Rugby must by definition be bad in your book – is so repetitive that it’s boring.
You’re being subjective Ray. Specifically what is there for you to be ‘patronising about’? Yr comments are too general & defensive.
Your personal, subjective invective aside, what is incorrect about what I’ve posted?
Is, for example, Lancaster’s record so different from Johnson’s, who was sacked?
Lancaster swept out the old & brought in the new, then having to eat humble for instance & bring back ‘old’ Easter. A ‘U’ turn? Brought in Roko for 1 test then has forgotten him despite his stating that ‘R’ would figure in future. And he still doesn’t really know his midfield is after 3.5 yrs. Also he won’t play Cipriani, who is more exp than Ford. How is this appropriate, esp if Ford gets crocked & esp after all the injuries England have had? And he stuck to the ineffective Farrell for 2 yrs too long. If not so, then why was he eventually dropped? Farrell’s never changed his ‘style’.
Which of this is incorrect?
Also the RFU’s, e.g., policy to ‘protect’ it’s players isn’t nec proof that it will do so as contrasted by Wales’ & SA’s’ records. Doesn’t mean it is entirely wrong, but it is unproven & it has denied them 2 players whom, by almost all critics, pundits & former players’ opinions, would have enhanced England’s WC chances.
Am I making this up?
I have advocated & praised various players incl Cip & of course Armitage, for what they can do, so yr contention that ‘…English Rugby must by definition be bad’ according to my views, simply isn’t objective. Although it’s true there seems plenty to disagree with in English rugger – as you must well know you have more resources, players, £ than any other country – because they ought to be ranked higher in the rankings. Perhaps the issue is that no one, incl you, seems to want to ask themselves why England are not ranked higher.
Maybe I’ve highlighted a few reasons which you simply don’t want to hear, but if you find want I’m stating is ‘so repetitive that it’s boring’, why read it Ray? I’m not holding a gun to yr head.
Don, this blog would not be the same without your commitment to the comments. Much of what you write can be viewed as nuanced nonsense (essentially everything non New Zealand is wrong/bad, even worse if its English) but nonetheless, it is always worth a read – despite having to workout the truncations and acronyms, and thankfully avoids the spite of certain others.
So much like your kindred spirit Stephen Jones, one may not agree, and one may be amused and exasperated in equal measure by the same old bandwagon coming around again, but it is often worth a read.
Top effort.
Do you want to read ‘the same’? Surely not.
As for the ‘nuanced nonsense (essentially everything non New Zealand is wrong/bad, even worse if its English)’ stuff, you, ironically, are ‘sounding’ the same as some of the (English) others here.
Yr very ‘nuanced nonsense’ comment is defensive & too general for serious consideration. You need to be specific, which you’re not. Maybe you’re Ray’s brother?
Will endeavour to keep up the ‘Top effort.’ tho.
No problem with Back who was one of the greats in his day.
My problem is with the article. I’m not convinced it was worth publishing due to its sheer lack of content. It seems it is more an opportunity for the author to express his opinion through leading questions than Neil actually expressing his. Also what has the media come to when people are afraid to express their real opinions at the risk of their words being sensationalized and taken out of context. If you were in any doubt on this point then you just need to read the title of the article again “Absolute embarrassment” indeed
Well if Lancaster had a track record that was substantially better than that of Johnno & had’nt lost was it 5 in a row v the SH, then yr “Absolute embarrassment” statement might hold more awter.
Sorry to wade in here, but I’m interested by your assessment of the article Leon. In your first comment you criticise it for not answering the questions, in the second you complain that the questions are deliberately leading to answers the author wants to hear. Which one is it?
Also, are you saying that the headline has been taken out of context & sensationalised? Are these not Neil’s exact words about the exact topic the headline alludes to?
I actually quite enjoyed the article, and thought Neil did give some real answers – more than is often the case with this type of Q&A.