It was kind of Fi Tomas to confirm my worst fears (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/10/01/england-women-red-roses-natasha-hunt-lucy-packer-wxv/) about the nonsensical appointment of John Mitchell as the successor to Simon Middleton.
The RFU in its wisdom decided on the following:
- To appoint a man, not a woman
- To appoint a man two years older than 57-year-old Middleton
- To appoint a New Zealander
- To ignore the possibility that the person put in temporary charge might prove the best choice anyway
- To appoint a person with no experience of women’s rugby
- To appoint a person who was not available to take over anyway
- To appoint a person who would have no say in the selection of the Red Roses squad as it embarks on the first ever WXV
- To appoint a person who would have supervision of the squad barely two years before another crucial World Cup
- To appoint a person of the same nationality as their biggest challengers
- To expect the Red Roses to adjust to two changes of leadership in six months
- Not to let anyone know who applied for the position or how the appointment was decided on
My reactions
- The RFU is unaware of World Rugby’s attempts to increase women’s presence in positions of authority; to ignore the high qualifications of several leading female coaches in England. Ditto some men.
- How long does the RFU expect a 59-year-old to remain in office? One constant feature of Mitchell’s coaching career has been the speed with which he has switched from one appointment to another.
- By not appointing an English person, or even a resident of the British Isles, the RFU reveals grave inadequacies in its coaching structures.
- Louis Deacon was elevated from his position as assistant coach in charge of forward play to interim head coach. What were the RFU’s severe doubts about his chances of proving his worth? He has looked very sure-footed thus far.
- Middleton has confirmed that there are considerable differences between managing a men’s and a women’s rugby squad. The ability to adjust fast and sensitively is vital.
- Tomas confirms what I had long surmised: that Mitchell was in no position to influence decisions about the squad to represent England at WXV1.
- He presumably made no attempts to release himself from his obligations to the Japanese Rugby Union as an assistant coach. Deducton: we can doubt how wholehearted his approach was to the new job. The term ‘interim’ can be a mixed blessing: Bryan Easson was successfully elevated from interim head coach of Scotland to a full-time appointment. We have yet to discover whether the same will happen to Milton Haig, the newly appointed interim head coach of the USA Eagles.
- How long does it take a coach to feel properly in charge of a national squad? Most who have experienced this honour agree that it takes a long while. How is a Red Roses squad that was not selected by Mitchell supposed to adjust to a new voice and a new philosophy of the game for a second time so soon before what may prove the most challenging RWC it has yet faced, that is: for the first time managing to defeat the Black Ferns in the World Cup. And if they do, it will be thanks to a Kiwi, not an English native.
- For the Red Roses only two results are possible at the 2025 RWC: a. They will win, at home, but in the charge of a Kiwi – glory much diminished; b. They will lose, in all probablity to the Black Ferns, so that the whole of Aotearoa can mock the RFU’s decision as misguided and wrong-headed.
- Adjusting to three bosses in so short a time and with such momentous events facing them is quite unfair on the players. That means three philosophies of the game, three styles of play.
- At Twickenham Towers silence is golden. So we aren’t allowed to know who made the decision; whether it was nem con; on what grounds the decision was made.
