Influential lock Courtney Lawes insists that England’s Six Nations campaign shouldn’t be viewed as a failure, despite the side finishing second for the third year in a row and continuing a barren run that has seen them claim just one Six Nations title in over a decade.
RFU CEO Ian Ritchie was scathing in his assessment of the latest campaign, branding it “unacceptable” despite England missing out on the trophy by just six points. Several players, such as Mike Brown, Richard Wigglesworth and Billy Twelvetrees, have since come out in agreement with Ritchie.
Lawes, speaking at a MaxiNutrition media day about the importance of nutrition, was quick to admit that England did not achieve their pre-Six Nations goal, but added that they should not be too downbeat.
“Obviously the goal at the start of the campaign was the Grand Slam,” said the Northampton second row, “We didn’t achieve that, but does that mean we should be hard on ourselves and say we’re not good enough?
“I don’t think so at all. Circumstances happened in different games and we came second this time round.”
England finished their tournament with the greatest display of attacking rugby we have seen during Stuart Lancaster’s tenure. But more than the free-flowing rugby they played, Lawes says the steely determination shown to keep on fighting, and keep on believing that they could win the title, was a kind of watershed moment for this side.
“Everything we did in the Six Nations we can learn from, especially the France game. That was a big turning point for England – being under the sticks after France had scored those two early tries, it was a big turning point for our mentality and our belief in each other and ourselves as a team.
“When you’re facing a task of 26 points, which is hard enough, and then go seven or eight points down, that deficit just looks impossible. To turn it around, react and come back how we did – I thought it was great.”
As supporters seeped out of Twickenham after that game, there was a strange mix of disappointment and awe in the air. Yes, England had missed out on another Six Nations title, but they had just viewed one of the greatest games of rugby the stadium is likely to ever play host to.
That said, not everyone was impressed with the on-field fare. A spiteful article appeared the following week, picking out Lawes for one bone-crunching – but completely legal – tackle on fly-half Jules Plisson.
It was a strange article from a writer who more frequently covers boxing, making his assertion that “if it had happened in a street outside the stadium police may well have been called” particularly confusing. What happens if people start throwing right hooks at each other in the street, exactly?
When asked about it, Lawes is as baffled as everyone else but admits he didn’t really pay it too much heed.
“Saying things like parents are stopping their children from playing rugby because of one tackle that happened in an international game when there’s a whole season of big tackles – I didn’t really understand it. It was an article by someone who doesn’t appreciate the sport.”
Plisson’s name has been added to an illustrious list of fly-halves – Charlie Hodgson, Toby Flood, Luke McAlister – that have all been levelled by a Courtney Lawes special. As a fly-half, there can be few more unsettling things than seeing the hulking second row line-up opposite you.
Lawes insists, however, that smashing number tens is not something that he unduly thinks about before games, claiming instead that it’s just something that happens once he gets out there. If you believe that…
“It genuinely is something that just happens when I get out there,” he insists. “They’re pretty few and far between – I don’t put in big hits on the fly-half every game or even every other game.
“Sometimes the opportunity just arises and if I can get that timing off the scrum-half’s pass, and know that I’ll be able to get to the 10 as he passes the ball or before he passes the ball, then I’ll go for it.”
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Courtney Lawes is an ambassador for MaxiNutrition – the sports nutrition product which is recommended by experts and chosen by champions. To find out more, visit www.maxinutrition.com
16 replies on “Courtney Lawes: We shouldn’t be downbeat about Six Nations”
It doesn’t mean we aren’t good enough and won’t be successful in the future. But it means we weren’t good enough, again.
Let’s start with the Slam, we weren’t good enough against Ireland. Yes we were missing Brown, but we weren’t good enough up front in the forwards either. I think Ireland will be annoyed they didn’t win that by more, to be honest.
But despite that lost, England should still have captured the Championship. Forgetting about that ridiculous match against France (and cooler heads at the death could have seen the 26 points overhauled), England should have beaten Scotland by closer to the 30 Ireland managed than the 13 we did. We knew points difference was the order of the day after Wales beat Ireland, but we butchered some easy chances in the first 20 and then scored just 5 points in the final 30 despite dominating possession and territory.
We also conceded a round 100 points. A third of those were in the France game, but we also conceded 17 points in a home games against Italy that managed 3 at home to Ireland and 0 at home to France. Morisi’s last minute try for Italy against England cost us the Championship as much as any lack of last minute heroics against France.
We need to get a nastier forward pack to match the O’Connells and the O’Mahony’s of the world and we need to improve our execution both in attack and defence (question marks over Catt and Farrell, in my opinion). Otherwise we’ll be in the same place, playing some good rugby but missing out on trophies.
Lawes says’ Everything we did in the Six Nations we can learn from, especially the France game’. I am again baffled by this & prev, similar,statements because NO ONE ever says precisely WHAT they’ve learned!
Maybe, not leaving holes in ‘D’ might have been 1 lesson?
Or Ford’s pointlessly kicking vital possession away in the last 10 or so when England NEEDED to score a try! Besides didn’t he miss a couple of kicks, incl into touch & getting a couple charged ? Not repeating these errors might also be lessons to be learned.
And as for the ‘non late’ hit by Lawes (is it being resurrected for {more} clicks?), watch it in slo mo. The ball had actually gone. Logically, how can it therefore not be late?
The game isn’t played in “slo mo”. He’d committed to the tackle before the pass was made, which was perfectly legal and so doesn’t qualify as a late hit.
Yr 1st statement is irrelevant. Committing to a tackle, equally so. The only ? is, was it late? Slo-mo proves that it was. End of…. almost.
In order to assist you, ask yrself; ‘Why do TMO’s view, review again & again incidents in slo-mo’?
I think it’s to assist them technologically in marginal situations or issues of doubt like, e.g., tries, or er… late tackles.
Get with it!
Why wasn’t he yellow-carded, then?
How would I know? Ask the ref? Colour blind? Chickened out? Error? I mean, wasn’t he the same geezer who awarded a ‘try’ to the AB’s in SA not so long ago, then changed his mind & went to the TMO, then re-awarded it? Fallibility? I mean they all constantly ‘fudge’ issues such as the good old ‘crooked’ feed don’t they & you don’t even need slo-mo for that 1 do you?
You seem to be attempting to state that ‘commitment’ justifies a transgression because of its marginality… & because Lawes is English perhaps?.
Slo-mo proves it was late. The ref likely made the same error as you.
I watch a lot of rugby (a lot more than you do, by the seems of it), and time and time again you see decisions like this where the player has no physical way of pulling out of the tackle before the pass is made, and so nothing is given. It doesn’t matter which club or country the player plays for. It’s akin to a player slipping into a tackle and hence it not being high.
So if u, IYO, watch a lot more rugger than me, you’re right then?
As I’ve likely lived here longer than u, by yr stds, I’ve seen/heard more of this rose tinted stuff than u have when it comes to things rugger. Therefore I must have more knowledge than u mustn’t I? Hah! Nonsense.
Are you also suggesting that If a an illegal act is repeated often enough, it becomes legal? Farcical, non arguments.
I’ve got eyes in my head, which were open. Maybe yrs were shut, or maybe u ought to watch even MORE rugby… like some TMOs should.
Refs, TMOs, like u, get it wrong; e.g. when Goode (I think it was, not Ashton as a report stated) shoulder charged (you’re meant to use yr arms) the Clermont wing man into touch over the in goal line. It (illegally) prevented a certain try, therefore a pen try is the rule. After reviewing the incident… it wasn’t given, but no complaints from the English press that I’m aware of. The pt is that they, like u, get it wrong @ times.
The ball had gone @ the time of contact as the vid shows, so by the laws of the universe, physics & any std of logic u can think of, apart from yrs of course, it was late.
Can only reiterate; ‘You seem to be attempting to state that ‘commitment’ justifies a transgression because of its marginality’.
Furthermore, I’ll again venture, that if it’d been say, Keiran Read, similarly flattening Ford, u’d be singing a diff tune.
The fact that you’re telling me what I would think annoys me no end. If you read any of my posts on this blog, and your response suggests that you don’t, you’d realise that I’m not one of those one-eyed fans of which you speak.
I’d say this was a legal tackle whoever did it. As you don’t read people’s responses properly, I’m not going to bother engaging you any more in future. Have a good one.
Ok. Wilko. Besides, Courtney Lawes is getting feed up with the 2 of us anyway.
PS I do read yr posts BTW. We just disagree & each tries to convince the other, otherwise that’s all. More of an arm wrestle than last w/ends 2 matches! Phew!
PS2 I thought I was venturing, not ‘telling’ you. Suppose I too was annoyed @ how I perceived yr tone as being a smidgeon patronising. Still, I could be wrong.
FFS not this again!!!
Committing to the tackle isn’t “irrelevant”. In fact it is quite the opposite and the main deciding factor for the referee. Had the ball been passed when player committed to the tackle? No, could the player have pulled out of the tackle? No, therefore legal.
So why did Wayne Barnes send Ali Williams of Toulon off for ‘committing’ to that catch in the air then?
Or is it a diff sit when it’s not a tackle?
Can’t have it both ways FFS!
Don P
The red rose/kraut trout brigade will say it is perfectly fair to tackle an opposing No10 like this but when their players are on the other end of it they will cry ‘foul’ like they usually do.
Paul Ringer went for much less than what Lawes did way back in 1980 at the same ground.
But that was after the English Broadcasting Corporation/English media hounded Ringer for a whole week b 4 the game. Joseph Goebbels could not have done a better job!
Hi Enoch
I recall the ‘Ringer’ incident @ Twick. Ruined the game.
I equally recall how the media ‘hounded’ another, Keith Murdoch, ‘the lost AB’, after he ‘clocked’ a ‘security’ (insecurity, perhaps?) guard (srry, the latter was likely Welsh) @ an after match thrash.
It’s an issue I have with the medya. Too often packaging over content in their lust for h/lines?
Anyway, back to the issue in hand, I think I did ask that, if the tackler had been a Fr’chman tackling Ford similarly, would the Red Rose supporters have been equally magnanimous in expressing their approval of same?
Absolutely…. unlikely, methinks.
Ah, well that’s jingo wotsit? for you.
Murdoch was an absolute brute mind, albeit in an era where it was more acceptable to be so.. on the pitch at least.
Was it Bergiers that he kicked so hard in the derriere, it made him bleed?! Ouch!
Can’t recall. You might ask the security guard tho.