Robin Brooke: Mitchell tows fine line on information flow

COMMENT

Watching the way John Mitchell has set out his World Cup stall has been fascinating for someone who was once on the inside of the All Black tent.

In my time as an All Black I had two coaches - Laurie Mains, who finished at the 1995 cup, and John Hart from 1996 until the end of the 1999 tournament.

Very different men, very different approaches in how they managed the flow of news from the All Black camp to the public.

Mitchell may not have won many friends with his tightlipped policy, but you cannot fault him on the score of consistency.

That has been his way and he has not swayed from that track. You look at the results he has achieved and you cannot argue against them. He certainly puts his team first, which I applaud.

The starting point of this whole debate is that the person in charge is just that. He sets the tone, sets the parameters, and that's a good thing. He stands or falls by the way his team perform, and to a lesser extent how he handles the other, more public aspects of the job.

This can be a tricky area. You have to balance not wanting to be too open and showing too much of your hand, but also remember that the public are fans.

They are part-owners of the All Blacks, they love the game and you have to respect that. They deserve feedback - in my opinion a little more than they have been getting - but then again you can't expect Mitchell to be handing out minutes of his team meetings.

As someone who is a spectator now, I do want to know more about what is happening in the camp, so I totally understand that point of view. I would compare Mitchell with Mains. They are not too dissimilar in the way they approach things. They're both fairly tough men, pretty focused.

Actually, I think when Mitchell has spoken to the media he hasn't done a bad job. But he's chosen not to do it any more than he feels he needs to. That's his choice. I know when I was an All Black I certainly didn't fancy talking to the media every day. You do need time to yourself, time to think about the game ahead.

Hart took a different tack. He was impressive in relating to the media.

When we lost to the French in that 1999 cup semifinal I really felt for Harty. The public reaction was terrible. He couldn't do anything from the sideline that day at Twickenham. He did the best job he could of preparing us. He didn't lose the game. The players did.



As for the big game early tomorrow, I can't see England losing. They're an outstanding side, strong, skilful and experienced, and with a deep knowledge of working the game right to the margins.

They play to the absolute letter of the law, and they do it well. They've worked out what referees will allow them to do, they push those boundaries and make the most of what they're allowed to get away with.

Good luck to them. I certainly wouldn't bag them for that, but their whole game plan is based on the premise of slowing the opposition ball supply down. They want to play the game at their pace. That allows them time to get their defensive patterns in place.

They are well trained in the ways to do that, and if they are able to sustain that philosophy and are able to work the referees to their tune, playing three demanding games in successive weekends with their so-called old men on hard grounds won't be a big problem.

This is such a critical game for both teams. Lose and you face the All Blacks a couple of games earlier than you would prefer - and I reckon I know who Mitchell would rather face in the quarter-finals.

It's not wise to write off South Africa. You think of their pride, their toughness, track record and sheer passion for rugby. But given all their problems leading up to the cup and the fact they're simply not as good as they were, I wouldn't be surprised if England win fairly comfortably. It could easily be a 20-point margin.

Full World Cup coverage