Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

The 'absolute b*ll*cks!!!!' match day message posted by Will Carling

(Photo by Warren Little/Getty Images)

Ex-England skipper Will Carling took a pop last Saturday at the new BT Sport film recalling the 1990 Calcutta Cup match. The winner-takes-all showdown that took place at Murrayfield 33 years ago resulted in Scotland winning 13-7 to clinch the Five Nations Grand Slam.

ADVERTISEMENT

That occasion was last month recalled in an 80-minute movie that included recollections from players and coaches from both sides, but the fixture also include coverage of the political climate that existed in the UK at the time.

In the trailer teaser posted to social media by BT Sport before the movie premiered on January 20, the actor Robert Carlyle, who narrated the movie, set the scene: “Murrayfield, March 1990. Scotland versus England, winner-takes-all Five Nations Grand Slam.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

“It was Thatcher’s poll tax, rising nationalism, animosity both on and off the field. Never before had the stakes been this high. BT Sport Films presents The Grudge.”

It was Saturday morning, just hours before England hosted Scotland in the opening round of the 2023 Six Nations when Carling took to Twitter to dismiss what he had heard about the film of the 1990 game.

“A few mates have told me that The Grudge is out on BT. It amazes me that people think that politics had any impact on a rugby match. Can imagine being in a forwards meeting discussing the ramifications of the Poll tax… absolute b*ll*cks!!!!”

Carling’s tweet drew a response from Steph Brawn, a Scottish-based political journalist who is also a rugby fan. “I don’t think that’s what was being suggested,” she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I think the political situation was having a major impact on both countries (Scotland in particular) and that, for the fans, was channelled into the game a bit. Can’t imagine for one second it had any impact on players.”

Carling, who worked as a leadership player mentor with England during the Jones era, replied: “Ok, as you say that is very possible – just heard that people thought it was a topic of discussion amongst the players!!”

Another journalist Tom English, who wrote The Grudge in award-winning book format in 2010, added: “Nobody I’ve ever spoken to thinks that, Will.”

In a RugbyPass interview ahead of the BT Sport premiere of The Grudge last month, Jeremy Guscott, Carling’s England midfielder partner and a try scorer in the 1990 fixture, explained: “It was me and rugby and my friends and the type of friends I had didn’t talk about poll tax, didn’t talk about Wales, Scotland, Ireland, didn’t talk about the rest of the world. It was, ‘Who are we playing on Saturday? Who do you think is going to be tough, Jerry?’

ADVERTISEMENT

“My friends were stonemasons, policemen, firefighters, teachers, all across the board, and because I was so new to it, this game in my head wasn’t massive, there wasn’t a lot of noise going on.

“It was, ‘I can’t wait to get out there and play’. The only part of the newspapers I used to read was the back pages – and stuff about the poll tax and strikes and everything else wasn’t going to be on those pages. It was all going to be sport, so I was oblivious to it.

“There would have been more noise, for instance, in the camp when England used to travel to Ireland and play because we would have escorts because of the service people and police involved. That was more of a disruption, more of a noise than anywhere else we went. So going up to Scotland I was unaware of the enormity of it.”

Guscott added that England weren’t complacent about the threat that Scotland posed to their title hopes that year. “Make no mistake: no matter what anyone thinks, the English team were not arrogant in the belief that all we had to do was turn up.

“Anyone who had been on the Lions tour the year before knew the quality of the Scottish players and you would have been a fool, a genuine fool, to think England were going to sail through that match and be Grand Slam champions. The amount of Lions that were in that Scotland team, the amount of Lions that were in that England team, it was quite level.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 16 minutes ago
How law changes are speeding up the game - but the scrum lags behind

Too much to deal with in one reply JW!

No problem, I hope it wasn't too hard a read and thanks for replying. As always, just throwing ideas out for there for others to contemplate.


Well fatigue was actually my first and main point! I just want others to come to that conclusion themselves rather than just feeding it to them lol


I can accept that South Africa have a ball in play stat that correlates with a lower fitness/higher strength team, but I don't necessarily buy the argument that one automatically leads to the other. I'd suspect their two stats (high restart numbers low BIPs) likely have separate causes.


Graham made a great point about crescendos. These are what people call momentum swings these days. The build up in fatigue is a momentum swing. The sweeping of the ball down the field in multiple phases is a momentum swing. What is important is that these are far too easily stopped by fake injuries or timely replacements, and that they can happen regularly enough that extending game time (through stopping the clock) becomes irrelevant. It has always been case that to create fatigue play needs to be continuous. What matters is the Work to Rest ratio exceeding 70 secs and still being consistent at the ends of games.


Qualities in bench changes have a different effect, but as their use has become quite adept over time, not so insignificant changes that they should be ignored, I agree. The main problem however is that teams can't dictate the speed of the game, as in, any team can dictate how slow it becomes if they really want to, but the team in possession (they should even have some capability to keep the pace up when not in possession) are too easily foiled when the want to play with a high tempo.

152 Go to comments
J
JW 1 hour ago
How law changes are speeding up the game - but the scrum lags behind

The essence of rugby a fair physical competition for the ball?

No, that's describing League. Rugby is a beautiful game about executing scoring maneuvers. You should take up league, right up your ally as a physical contest imo.

If that is so using the scrum as just a reset takes out the competitiveness

If we forget (or even use to help understand) your first question, I still don't understand where you're going/what you're thinking.


What do you mean by just a reset? Like league where the ball is rolled/placed at the 8s feet to play with? I don't agree with any of those crazy suggestions here (even as a reward to the team that wins the scrum, I'm not even sure it would be a reward), no ones talking about depowering the scrum. At least not in this article/instance.

If there is no penalty for being beaten in the scrum we might as well just restart with a tap

To who? The team that was previously in possession? A scrum is a means of contesting for possession after play stops in open field (as apposed to when the ball goes dead, where it's a lineout). Are you proposing that core basis of the game is removed? I think it would make a much better game to just remove the knock on, as someone has already said, scrums resulting in a penalty as punishment for knocking the ball on is ridiculous. If you want to turnover the ball when someone looses it, you simply have to regather it before they do. That's how ever other game I can think of other than League works. So just get rid of the problem at the roots, it would be a much better "drastic" change than removing the contest from restarts.

In the lineout ruck and maul successful competition gets rewarded and illegal competition gets penalised no one is arguing about that. So is the scrum different?

No one is arguing that removal from scrums either. It is the plethora of nothing offences, the judgmental "technical" decisions by a referee, that are in the middle that are being targeted. Of course this is not a unique problem to scrums, lineouts will result in penalties simply from a contact of arms by jumpers, or rucks whenever a play hangs an arm over someones shoulder when cleaning them out. This article is about tackling the 'major' offences hindering the quality of the game.


But other than these questions, if you want to know my main opinions in my post you will see I agree that the ball should need (always and in every type of circumstance) to be played if it is available at scrum time.


Otherwise the TLDR of all my comments (even thoughts in general) on this particular question is that I agree advantage should be had in instances were the team with the ball 'won' the 'advantage' and where some sort of advantage was 'taken' away. In this respect the scrum had to be rolling forward to win an advantage. But I'm flexible in that if it speeds up the game to award a penatly, that's great, but if they also stop the clock for scrums, I'm happy with way instead. That is very few instances by the way, the majority of the time the ball is able to be played however.


The big question I have asked Bull about is what advantage or opportunity was taken away from a strong scrumming team when opposition causes the scrum to collapse? What sort of advantage was taken away that they need to be a penalty reward, that would seem to be way over the top for most offences to me.


So on that point, I'll like your perspective on a couple of things. How do you think lineouts compare to scrums? Do they offer you enough reward for dominance, and do you think all such meaningless offences should be lessoned (slips or pops while going backwards, contact with the jumper, closing the game, good cleanouts to some fool whos ducked his head in a ruck etc)?

152 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Mick Cleary: 'Owen Farrell has been bedevilled by injury. But you write him off at your peril. He is a contender.' Mick Cleary: 'Owen Farrell has been bedevilled by injury. But you write him off at your peril. He is a contender.'
Search