Jose who?

A smile may seem more forthcoming from a snarling black bear than Avram Grant, but no one quite expected such brutality in the new Chelsea boss. On Saturday he, and his side, put Sven's upstarts to the sword and with it ruthlessly ended the prolonged mourning of Mourinho.

Where this will lead only Roman knows. What was common thought, though, is now contestable; Grant may not be destined to fail. But with performances like six to zip, it is not a bad run for a manager supposedly under immense pressure and unrivalled expectation .

But the opposite is true. There was little pressure on Grant, because there was little the expectation of him. The only anticipation was of disappointment, as he was written off as a failure before being given the opportunity to fail. Pressure cannot exist in a vacuum of expectation and any expectation had been released by a barrage of media cynicism.

An upturn was near enough inevitable. He had players like Lampard and the essential Drogba to return and players like Wright-Philips and Pizzaro to drop. Players have made the immediate difference. The Grant factor could well turn out to be negligble if not necessary negative.

The headache now for the grizzling Grant is that the results that supposedly relieve pressure have only istigated it.

Favours run out of faithful Ashton

They were his greatest mistake in the group stages,
they became his trump cards (played twice) in the
knockout stages, and now the grumpy old men that took
England to the final have turned on the coach that
invested such faith in them.

Brian Ashton’s character transformation was one of the
big mysteries prior to the World Cup. He was seen as a
yoda-like visionary – with his many years making him
wise to the promise youth and the virtues of – of
running rugby, a romantic with credentials; tactically
a revolutionary whose era had past but was waiting to
shape the future.

He became a pragmatist. Experience is what defends
world titles he said. The calls went out to Dallaglio,
Catt, Shaw, Robinson, Farrell, Gomarsall to lead
England with dignity and strength if not genius.

To begin with it went wrong. Stoggy performances in
the group stages meant the absence of x factor ilk
such as Haskell, Abendanon, Ward-Smith, Palmer, and
(dare I utter his double-barrelled name)
Simpson-Daniel, went from curious to comical.

But after South Africa 1 it turned. The senior players
who Ashton brought for their leadership, their proud
and precious egos that would revile at defeat,
challenged him and assumed responsibility. It was
what Ashton had been waiting for. He had saved them
from international rugby obscurity so that they should
save him if required.

And they did. It may even be said, in style.

Whether they were in need of greater verve,
enterprise, liberation in the final reckoning can be
debated. But they had preserved their reputations and
dabbled with greatness. Mission pretty complete.

But now the senior players have upset the alliance.
The recent could not be more belittling of the coach’s
contribution. It was all them. They had assumed
control, they had taken responsibility, and they had
defended the country’s honour in foreign lands. It is
said.

Few favours left then for faithful Brian.

The World Cup’s finest finishers contest the final

It stands to reason the two sides that will contend the World Cup final are, irrespective of aesthetics, the most successful rugby team of the tournament. They have been the most successful because they have been the most clinical.

The Springboks, like England, have not shown a great deal enterprise with the ball. But they are the best counter attacking side around and have the potential to play a devastating pressurising game. They have stolen New Zealand’s mantle of the kings of the turnover. With Du Preez and Habana they have players fleet of foot and of mind that can identify and take opportunities before they become apparent. And with the big back row runners of Burger, Smith and Roussow, if they get behind the first line of defence it is almost impossible to stop the momentum.

But if the Springbok are the ultimate finishers from 60yards, England are the ultimate finishers 60 minutes.

There it seems is no more confident or competent side at finding a way to win a game with 20minutes to go. With Wilkinson’s boot swinging in unison with the forwards shunting, England have a control and precision to confound the most nerve shattering of moments. Their game plan at the business end of proceedings is devastatingly effective. Wilkinson’s strike rate may not be at the highest it has been but few doubt his finishing in the final moments. If England are in the game at 60 minutes the Springbok may deflate. England will certainly grow.

With such faultless finishers, the world champions will afford the opposition the fewest opportunities.

Lunacy sweeps France

Save the surgical blade of Wilkinsons sword, there is precious little logic left in Paris after England’s victory over France.

Saturday’s game was a desperate scramble for possession, position and points. Besides the errors and turnover count – the result of the height of competitiveness – there was little overriding tactical or strategic narrative. It was a true World Cup semi final: the teams so swayed by not losing, the path to winning was blurred; attacking aspirations were inhibited by defensive necessities. Had a penalty shoot out been a realistic possibility both sides would have taken their chances with the gods.

And the gods have revelled in their meddling throughout the tournament. Where the have not been upsets there have been results so close to shocks they remaining in the realms of upsets. What right does Georgia’s 400 strong rugby nation have of pushing Ireland all the way. No team that arrived in France with an established reputation has retained it throughout with each of the traditional powers at some point being embarrassed on the world stage. New Zealand, (France) France (Argentina), Australia (England), South Africa (Fiji), England (v. South Africa), Wales (Fiji) Ireland (everyone), Scotland (refusing to play NZ). Maybe some are harsh but that sentiment only reinforces how far marginalised sides of world rugby have risen in the unbalanced professional era.

Every tournament needs a theme. Although unpredictability and the day of the underdog are amongst the oldest sporting themes, they are relatively new to rugby and never has it been so prominent. Unlike football where a single score weighs so heavily in the result and therefore renders greater significance to chance, rugby is supposed to be different. Pedigree, class, and the perform book are supposed to matter.

But in Paris, a residence for the Enlightenment, the irrational reigns.

WILKINSON THE ANSWER TO ASHTON'S VERY OWN LEFT SIDED PROBLEM

For many years successive England football managers toiled over who to pick on the left flank, at one time David Beckham was suggested for the role and even Jonny Wilkinson got a tongue in cheek murmerer. For Brian Ashton the inside centre position is quickly becoming England rugby's very own left sided problem, unfortunately him there is not the luxury of changing formation.

So he has cratched around desperately for an answer. Only injury has prevented Andy Farrell, the squarest of those pegs being droppped into a very round, and for that matter very deep, hole. And just two days before the quarter final match up with Australia - the greatest world cup nation - no such solution ahs been found.

The selection of Andy Farrell was bold but the prospective sums looked optimistic at the best. Farrell was selected to add braun and guts to the midfield in both attack and defence especially in the face of the aggressive running of captain Stirling Mortlock who returns on Saturday after a shoulder injury. But more often than not it would have been the electircity of Matt Giteau surging at Farrell. Would the lumbering league man have had the agility to go against Giteau's wit. Giteau is just as fine a manipulator as a runner. He along witht the bright Berrick Barnes would have brought Mortlock into the game where he will be most effective - Mathew Tait's outside centre channel - safe in the knowledge that Farrell would struggle to cover his midfied partner. Sometimes bravey is little more than aggression and desperation.

Now one position looks to be between three; Barkley, Hipkiss and Catt. The inexperience of a Hipkiss and Tait tandem would surely result in the biggest Aussie bbq of the year; The leftovers would last till boxing day. While pre tournament favourite Catt has suffered like Dallaglio and looks to be running low on lives. Barkley, however, was in the unique position of having impressed against the US and took his former Bath teamates mantle: the 2nd five eight. But against Samoa and Tonga he looked ill at ease in the centres. The intimidating figure of Brian Lima persuaded him to stand far too deep in attack and agianst Tonga Epi Tiaone exposed his and Tait's defensive frailty; It was the tale of the tenacious and the timid. Barkley looks far more comfortable at first reciever when there is less time on offer and the instincts take over.

And what of the other midfield man; the maestro, the orchestrator. The headlines have been good to Jonny but the performances have been ambiguous. His goalkicking despite the ball shape problems has saved England from utter humiliation but his all round game has been shaky. Against Samoa the tactical kicking was poor, nearly costing them, and though it has never been the most pronounced of his attributes he has failed to ignite the backline. An area of the game where Barkley could argue to be his better. Wilkinson is certainly Barkley better in the physical and mental bravery stakes, as well as experienced nouce. Elements that will be severely tested in the centres battle on Saturday.

May be then a partnership of the spritely Barkley at 10 and the resolute Wilkinson at 12 can hold up against Australia's dream combo. May be England's golden boy can smooth over the gaping gaps. It is certainly not as fantastical as David Beckham on England's left wing. Now who plays 13??