Lessons learned for Jonny

Jonny Wilkinson was a fall guy for England’s limp efforts in the Six Nations, being dropped for the final game with France, and he has admitted that he would have done a few things differently. Writing in his column in the Times, the fly-half says his goals are to take the knocks and improve.

At the end of another Six Nations, I should start by saying that there is nothing that makes me prouder than playing for my country and every time I do so, I go out there to be the best I can for my team and my nation.

The Six Nations did not go as well as hoped for the team or for me personally, but what is most important to me is that I have stood by my values. I could not have worked harder, thought more or talked more or listened more. I didn’t have a spare bit of energy that was not channelled into preparing for and playing in those games. What happened on the pitch — the product of all that work — is, by definition, where I am and I accept that.

If we started the Six Nations again, I’d be the same: same workrate, same desire, same player. Of course, with hindsight, there are certain decisions on the pitch that I might have changed and certain events I wish had turned out differently, but, on the whole, what you’d get from me would not change.

But the weekly media day, with England, can be hard. You spend up to an hour answering questions that, in the past two months, have been heavy with speculation about the way you are playing and that refer to the negative reports of your performance.

I see it as a challenge to stay true to myself. It is easy to see these questions as an attack on your identity and who you are. It can also feel as if they are taking away what you have worked and striven hard for. And then, when the hour is done, you are expected to turn round, flip straight back into England mode and rugby life.

I can’t deny that I would rather people wrote nothing. Or nicer things. But that’s not why I am in it. If people — not just the media — want to talk about how I am playing, so be it, but I am not in the business of trying to impress people. That is not why I started playing rugby; I was never after rave reviews. I just play the game to enjoy it, to try to help my team to win and to improve as a player and a person.

Arise Sir Clive

Speculation suggests Rob Andrew could pay a price for England’s disappointing Six Nations campaign and Mark Souster in the Times suggests the top brass could turn to the mastermind of World Cup glory – Sir Clive Woodward.

Speculation is mounting that Rob Andrew’s future as the Rugby Football Union’s director of elite rugby is on the line - and that Sir Clive Woodward could be sounded out as a possible replacement.

After another disappointing RBS Six Nations Championship campaign, Andrew’s position is under intense scrutiny. Andrew, who is on an annual salary of more than £400,000 and is understood to be on a 12-month rolling contract, has been in his role since September 2006.

If he were to depart, the name being mentioned as a likely successor is that of Woodward, who could resume the partnership with Martin Johnson that proved so successful up to England’s World Cup triumph in 2003.

Woodward is the British Olympic Association director of elite performance, in theory until after the 2012 London Games. But the former England head coach has made no secret of his desire to return to rugby union.

There is a belief that after Baron’s departure, England and the RFU need to move in a different direction and that a definitive vision for the game must override commercial considerations.

A review of the national team set-up is due to be held in July after England’s summer tour to Australia and New Zealand, and after Baron leaves. Andrew, 47, and Johnson, the team manager, will give their verdict on the international season today at Twickenham.

Richards in the firing line

The FA has decided to take its time before appointing a successor to the departed Ian Watmore. The chief executive’s departure is still a subject of widespread speculation, with suggestions it was to do with a clash of personalities with members of the FA board. Sir Dave Richards has denied having had a personality clash with Watmore, but Daily Mirror scribe Oliver Holt believes Richards needs to be removed from office.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that India’s military is going to use the world’s hottest chilli as a weapon against terrorists.

They’re going to put it in hand grenades to immobilise suspects, but I’ve another idea for it – use it on Sir Dave Richards.

Sprinkle a bit in the Premier League chairman’s milky tea while he’s lacquering another layer of pomade on his hair.

Lace his Yorkshire pudding when he’s nipped away from the table for a minute to brief against someone.

Stick a slice of it in his beef rendang while he’s filling his face on one of those Premier League glad-handing missions to the Far East.

Wouldn’t it be beautiful to immobilise Sir Dave. Just for an hour or two. Call another emergency meeting of the FA board and vote him off.

Richards insisted yesterday that claims he was to blame for the sudden resignation of progressive FA chief executive Ian Watmore on Monday were “utter rubbish”.

It was also clear that those close to Watmore are convinced the objections of Richards and others to Watmore’s modernising plans were the main reason for his exit.

The Watmore-Richards schism goes to the heart of the problems bringing the English game, with its vast debt burden, into disrepute.

FA insiders say Watmore had recently proposed the FA become more actively involved in the financial regulation of the leading clubs – something the game is crying out for – but that the move was blocked by men like Richards, who sits on the FA board as well as being Premier League chairman. While Richards retains a position of influence at the FA, he remains a symbol of the absurd conflicts of interest that paralyse decision-making in English football.

The English public is sick of the excesses of the Premier League, which is why the game needs people like Watmore and does not need people like Richards.

That Richards and other Premier League figures like Manchester United chief executive David Gill and the preposterous Bolton chairman Phil Gartside should have important roles within the FA beggars belief.