There is little doubt in my mind though that England won the world cup off the back of the summer tour in 2003... that was a monumental tour beating the All Blacks and the Aussies in one tour, it set the precedent for the rest of the year.

That said we still have the ridiculous England, Wales, Australia group in the next world cup which seems bonkers.

That's all well and good but 2007 was a freakish tournament and the 2003 All Blacks were probably not one of the greatest All Blacks teams even though they were still better than most.

I guess if I was a Welsh fan I would cling onto the theory they are glorified friendlies........because the results Wales have in them would give me nightmares if I thought they had meaning..............joking aside as Kierenj said England 2003 victory in the world cup came about due to the games we played in the Autumn of 2002 and the summer of 2003. We beat New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia in the Autumn and then went down under to beat the Aussies in a really good game with a great try through about 8 pairs of hands then went and ground out a belter of a win with a 6 man scrum against New Zealand. We knew we could beat the best in the world consistently and in many different ways.

I think that England WC winning side were just past their very peak at the '03 tournament. It's just they were so good that past their peak was still too much for other sides.The very best they played was a Grandslam then beating Oz and NZ overseas prior to the World Cup.
Other winning sides like Aus in 1999 and SA in 2007 showed that you don't have to be the best in the lead up to the tournament to win it. NZ were leading the way in the build up to those World Cups but ultimately slipped up against the French.in both.

I'd agree with all of this, the only problem comes of course is that if Wales don't beat any of the SH teams soon there will begin a mental build up of some kind leading to the world cup... but then again, playing New Zealand without anything other than full strength and you'll be in bother.

Wales have a great chance at the end of this month to get that win though. With Australia having a few issues again (although this time they seem to be nipping it in the bud), you just need North to get firing again and you could win, and doing so without Roberts of Foxy would be a superb omen for the world cup.

The England management will never go beyond "Safety first", that is why watching them is so tedious.

I have no problem with 1 - 9 but I am sorry, Owen Farrell is not, and never will be, a fly-half. He isn't even first choice in that position at Saracens, so how can he be considered the best player in England in that position?

Joel Tomkins is great in defence but offers no attacking threat at all and Manu Tuilagi offers the crash ball but nothing else, he certainly never passes!

As for Chis Ashton, what does he have to do to get dropped? He's offered virtually nothing for the last five years and yet he appears to be teflon coated.

Ashton has been bad for five year, though he isn't worth starting ahead of Wade or Yarde on current form

Manu's passing may be awful to non existent, but does pose a threat to opposition. Hopefully combined with a more creative partner he'll improve his all round game.

Farrell is worth having in the teams/squad for his kicking. If it means moving him away from 10, then can't be a bad thing

I think you could pick any one of Yarde, Wade, Sharples, or May, ahead of Ashton and achieve far more, but not with Tuilagi at 13. To consistently beat the likes of NZ and SA you need to offer more than the ever-so-predictable crash ball.

I'm not saying Farrell should be dropped but he is an out-and-out centre, not a 10. Someone like Freddie Burns or George Ford, who are both 10s, will always offer more options than Farrell at 10, but they won't stick to the coach's script, which has been a pre-requisit for an England 10 for more years than I care to remember, and are prepared to take a risk. That is why Rob Andrew won so many more caps than Stuart Barnes and is the reason they are so mind-numbingly boring to watch,

it is far too often rugby-by-numbers with all attacking flair nullified by the game-plan and the understanding that if you don't follow the game plan then expect to be dropped..

I'd rather be dull and win than all flair and lose... and let's be honest against the All Blacks last year we were awesome.

I can see from your name you watch a lot of Gloucester but I'd encourage you to watch Leicester when Manu is fit, you'll see he off-loads a lot playing for them (didn't he also set up Barrit's try last year), so he's more than capable.

Ashton is on fire in the Premiership at the minute and I've no problem with him being picked this past autumn, if he drops back to how he was last year then I'd expect someone else to come in... but going through your list, Yarde show great promise and at least will try stuff with ball in hand and run good lines.

Wade - the next Marcell Garvey/Varndell... won't make it at International level for me.

Sharples - perennial club player, no where near good enough for England in my opinion, I'd rather stick with Foden.

May - He's very similar to Ashton, no real acceleration but plenty of speed and power, I could maybe see him in for Ashton if Ashton doesn't remain on fire for Saracens.

Ford is the future of England's 10 position for sure. He'll develop a lot quicker now and I can see him coming in for Burns or Flood for the 6N. He'll more than happily follow a script so I think it's just a matter of time. In regards Farrell, say what you like but the lad is a born winner and just knows how to get it done.

The old saying goes one swallow doesn't make a summer. England played very well in one game against a squad that had suffered illness in the build-up and clearly wanted to go home.

Lots have been made about "progress being made" last week but the reality is England lost by three tries to one and the one try England did score was far more down to luck than judgement.


I've been a Gloucester season ticket holder for over 25 years and i've missed less than a dozen home games in all that time, I watch Leicester once a season, as I will this year.

Tuilagi may off load a lot for Leicester, but there is an ever growing list of butchered tries for England where he has gone looking for contact with a wing outside him with the try line beckoning.


If Jonny May has "no real acceleration" it is a remarkable achievement to be able to do 100 metres @ 10.71 seconds, especially as the Gloucester backs have been working with Marlon Devonish as their sprint coach since the summer.


Olympic gold medallist Devonish helping Gloucester Rugby stars

You obviously know something I don't.


Farrell is a born kicker but to score tries against the best teams you need more than that. Saracens usually have either Charlie Hogdson or Marcelo Bosch as their starting 10 for exactly that reason, unless England request otherwise of course.

Let's hope Farrell and Flood don't get injured as neither burns or Ford will get a look in before the RWC. Rotation isn't a word Lancaster seems familiar with.

Sticking to the script is fine when it works, the trouble is there is obviously no Plan B and you need a 10 that will make things happen is those circumstances, Farrell isn't the player to do that. He is purely a fly-half-by-numbers.

You might enjoy England's style of play, but I wouldn't waste my money going to watch them.

Wade has played one international match for England and one match for a scratch Lions side. Far too early to write him off, especially as he's doing at least as well as Ashton on club level.

If it's possible for someone as small as Shane Williams to have a successful international career, it's certainly possible for Wade (especially with the right training).

Also Varndell was on the verge of being reintroduced back into the England squad this season, judging by his inclusion in the August training camp. Unfortunately he's currently recovering from a ruptured bicep, so that didn't proceed beyond that initial camp link up.

There's nothing to suggest Lancaster won't look again at him, as he said that Tom was on his radar.

ah the old "All Blacks were ill, didn't want to be there" chestnut no all blacks team has ever not wanted to beat England like the most of the rest of the World.

England's performance last year was superb and much as people don't like to admit it they outplayed an All Blacks team.

The key problem England have I consistency and that was shown in the 80 min they played against new Zealand this year. I thought they dominated the breakdown for 80 min and they controlled the set piece as well. Its in the wider channels they have problems.

England are a team I believe that can beat anyone in the world and beat them well.

They are also a team capable of losing to anyone as well when they get it wrong and as I said I believe they are an error away from producing a massive cock up.

Why? Because they still haven't found the right players in a few positions yet. Until they can find a wide threat capable of defence and a midfield with a varitaty of style they will struggle.

England is filled with bludgeons but it needs to find its rapier. The most missed position in England is a 13.

The "old chestnut" is the delusion a large number of England fans have about how good the team is.

Yes, they played very well, but in one game!!!

Since 2003 England have managed one 6 Nations Championship, no Grand Slams, no Triple Crowns, and their performance at the last RWC was frankly embarrassing.

Even in this year's Autumn Internationals England were insipid for the most part. They might have controlled the breakdown and set piece against the ABs for 80 minutes but how many clear-cut try scoring opportunities did they create? None, zilch, zero. The one try they did score was from a ball ricocheting around out of a scrum. The ABs created three chances and scored three tries, that is the difference at International level.

England haven't even remained static since winning the world Cup in 2003, they have gone backwards. I certainly wouldn't put any money on winning it in two years time. Semi-final at best judging on recent performances.

We will see I suppose. I think what people forget about the 2003 world cup team is that probably to a man they were the best players in the world in their positions at the time.

Martin Johnson was not only the best captain he was the best lock in the world and probably in the tournament the best player.

The back row were the best backrow in the world. In Greenwood and Tindall they had the best centre partnership. Then you add Cohen, Robinson and Lewsey. A front row better than any in the world.

New Zealand have a conveyer belt of talent because rugby is the national psyche but the 2003 team were a once in a lifetime team for England. We were the best team in the world and probably in 12 of the 15 positions had the best players in the world.

I don't know if we will ever match it but we have some players now certainly in the forwards who have the ability to be as good.

Even as we are I can gurentee one thing there are not many teams that will want to meet England in the World Cup.

7 world cups played and England have been in the final of 3 of them and won 1. That's pretty good for a country everyone slags off so much.

Also New Zealand are notoriously flaky, they've only won the World Cup when it's been held in their own country and they beat France in both of those occasions. Even the second win was in doubt, with the way the French were pressing towards then (how on earth did they not get any penalties).

As rubbish as England may have been for parts of Saturday's match, they threw (literally) the match away due poor play in the last 20 minutes (T Youngs didn't have the best of times).

I think the fact Lancaster has been looking at Yarde, Wade et al shows he does have a willingness to evolve his team. At present we have a very good front 8, but need to work on our backs (as has been pointed out above).

I'm gonna stick with the glass half full sentiment for now

England should have won at least one more, in 1999, and arguably should have won in 2007 as well.

I'm not willing to see England fail at all, however I am continually frustrated at the England "system" that limits players I see play so freely for their clubs.

As one former Gloucester coach said to me a few years ago, the most frustrating thing about having players go to England training camps is that it takes three days for us to clear out all of the rubbish they have had drilled in to their heads whilst they are there. Says it all really.

2007? You have got to be joking - even some of the players were amazed that got to the final!!

Not an expert but I do remember it was quite a surprise we got to the final in 2007 (maybe because we had been hammered by South Africa in the group?)

Just been listening to a 5live programme with Clive Woodward re-living the famous night in Sydney 10 years ago.

Some domestic news..

U-turn from some countries (expect England)

There will be a Heineken Cup.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25045015

It's November 22nd

This happened 10 years ago today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-OhYAtK6to

Never seen that before in my life They very nearly unexpectedly retained it 4 years later too

The Gloucester coach says the England coaches are drilling stupid things into their heads

Your comment earlier about how we've gone backwards since 2003... no shit. That team were dominant, arguably more so than the New Zealand side who won it on their own turf (although they were robbed of Carter which was a massive loss).

I'm sure May runs a great 100m but sadly that's not what he needs to do on a rugby pitch, some of the best wingers aren't the fastest, they have ability to change pace, come of their wing and most importantly have a smart brain to know when to make the right decision.

I still can't see how it's all doom and gloom, we lost one game in the 6N, we lost to the best side in the world who no other team has beaten. We've now got strength in depth throughout the pack, Mike Brown continues to just get better and better, and Tuilagi puts fear into any team he plays against, and I don't remember there being a growing list of butchered tries for England he's responsible for.

I do agree that our backs are our weakest point but I just don't think the talent is out there right now, Lancaster can only work with the tools he has got and right now the best way to win is rugby by numbers.

Whether they deserved to win it is irrelevant, my point was that they had the chances to win it.


Why the sarcasm? Next you'll be telling me that the England coach is always the best, most experienced, coach in the country....


My reply was to your view that May has "no real acceleration". You can't run 100 m in 10.71 seconds without being able to accelerate.

Two try's for Wales. Ref not bothering with forward pass law today.

That is how the draw went.
Why is it bonkers?
England were second draw. Wales third.

Maybe Wales should have gone in with Ireland and France.
Or England should swap with Ireland.

Of course if the 2023 RWC is a 24 team event. with six groups of four it takes out the Group of Death situation.

Think 2007 was close to one with Argentina, France and Ireland.

So long as the ball is passed back, it doesn't matter if the momentum carries the ball forward, it is not deemed a forward pass.

I just think it's a bit odd that they make the draw so far in advance and use those seedings. There are 4 groups, so you'd think you would have any 2 of the top 8 teams in one group... not 3 of the top 6 in a single group.

New Zealand's group and South Africa's group are the opposite. That said from a neutral perspective it increases the chances of a smaller nation (from a rugby perspective) getting into the Knockout stage.