This was a fascinating clash at Twickenham on Saturday, the key question being whether the English forward centered game plan would be enough to subdue class opposition. The answer, especially pleasing from an Australian viewpoint, is that tight five superiority is not enough for this English team to reign supreme.
Because this English pack is a monstrous one, weighing in at 142 stones. The French pack, no pigmies themselves, could only muster 133 stones. And in the tight it showed. The French line-out got turned over in the first half, and their scrum, never looking comfortable, got smashed even on their own ball.
But the French, at times surviving on around 35% possession, showed their class on the ball and in defence (two qualities the Wallabies also share). The class with ball in hand resulted in two tries for Les Bleus versus none for the home side.
The first, a backs oriented try that Pelous managed to get on the end of, had both fast men (Rougerie) running hard and straight through the middle, followed by slick hands putting width on the ball and the lantern jawed second rower over in the corner. The match winning try was another example of how to use space and power, with a rampaging ‘Captain Caveman’ Chabal running surprisingly silkily with the ball in two hands, and then shrugging off three tackles to drive over the line.
These demonstrations of what to do with quick the ball away from the ruck was in stark contrast to what England could muster. For the second week running they squandered scoring opportunities out wide. Their only real try scoring opportunity being snuffed out with a spine-splintering tackle from replacement hooker Szarzewski stopping the 19 stone, 6’3″ prop dead in his tracks.
The termination of this movement was the turning point of the game and displayed England’s key weakness; the inability to penetrate against a world class defence. And what a defence it was, the veteran Betsen seemingly around the ankles of every second tackle.
While this seems to leave England with a headache before Marseilles next Saturday, it should be noted that the lynch-pin in their game plan – Johny Wilkinson – was on the bench until the 78th minute. Such experience and ability to marshal England’s forward power could well have stolen this game for the home side. They should definitely not be written off just yet.
ENGLAND 15 (Penalties – Barkley (4); Field goal – Gomarsal)
FRANCE 21 (Tries – Pelous, Chabal; Penalties – Skrela (2), Elissalde; Conversion – Elissalde)
Referee: Alan Lewis (Irl)
Crowd: 63,667 at Twickenham
ENGLAND: Nick Abendanon (Bath); Paul Sackey (Wasps), Jamie Noon (Newcastle), Mike Catt (London Irish, capt), Josh Lewsey (Wasps); Olly Barkley (Bath), Shaun Perry (Bristol); Lawrence Dallaglio (Wasps), Joe Worsley (Wasps), James Haskell (Wasps); Ben Kay (Leicester), Simon Shaw (Wasps); Matt Stevens (Bath), Mark Regan (Bristol), Andrew Sheridan (Sale)
Replacements: Jonny Wilkinson (Newcastle), Andy Gommarsall (Harlequins), Martin Corry (Leicester), Lee Mears (Bath), Phil Vickery (Wasps)
FRANCE: Clement Poitrenaud (Toulouse), Vincent Clerc (Toulouse), David Marty (Perpignan), Damien Traille (Biarritz), Aurelien Rougerie (Clermont), David Skrela (Stade Francais), Pierre Mignoni (Clermont), Remy Martin (Stade Francais), Julien Bonnaire (Bourgoin/Clermont), Serge Betsen (Biarritz) Jerome Thion (Biarritz), Fabien Pelous (Toulouse), Jean-Baptiste Poux (Toulouse), Raphael Ibanez (Wasps, capt), Olivier Milloud (Bourgoin)
Replacements: Dimitri Szarzewski (Stade Francais), Nicolas Mas (Perpignan), Sebastien Chabal (Sale), Yannick Nyanga (Toulouse), Jean-Baptiste Elissalde (Toulouse), Frederic Michalak (Toulouse) Unused: Cedric Heymans (Toulouse)
By Matt Rowley
Recommend this story.
We're hiring. Find out more.
- Explore:
August 13th 2007 @ 6:15pm
Sam Taulelei said | August 13th 2007 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
Thanks Matt
Wish we could get vision of the games here in Australia on Foxtel. Your review is consistent with reports I read from all the major British papers about the English performance.
That is a huge English pack and they will pose difficulties at the setpiece for every team they play against. Brian Ashton must be cursing the lack of time he has to try and meld the forward strength together with the expansive style of game he prefers to play.
While the forward selection may be settled the same cannot be said for the backline apart from who will be playing in the no.10 jersey. Ashton still can’t settle on his best midfield combination and fullback and their lack of matchplay showed up against a more committed and organised defence than the Welsh showed a week earlier.
Very encouraging signs for the French and as you say the Wallabies, who at least know what to do with the ball they get.
August 13th 2007 @ 7:38pm
Luke said | August 13th 2007 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Without Wilko, the backline did look impotent. Barkley (Wilkinson’s likely understudy) has decent talent but cannot command his troops like a class No 10 should.
Jamie Noon at 13 looked fearsome defensively and will probably be picked on these qualities. He’ll likely have Catt inside him whose angles of running and timely passes should compliment Noon’s powerful tackles. Farrell and Hipkiss/Tait should be the second-choice centres, with Barkley also as No 10/12 cover.
The back three on saturday didn’t look too dangerous. True they didn’t get many opportunites but Lewsey still has form to rediscover, all too often he simply looked to charge his way through when a more twinkle-toed approach may have been more effective. Sackey impressed and looks like England’s form winger. My money’s on a Lewsey, Robsinson, Sackey back three. Not the most dangerous going forward but 2007′s Plan B will be 2003′s Plan A: defence, defence, defence.
All in all, the English pack looks strong enough to give anyone a tough time, it’s the backs that will let England down.
August 13th 2007 @ 8:17pm
Matt Rowley said | August 13th 2007 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
Luke,
I agree with your assessment of the backs.
I think what Saturday showed was the gaping chasm between Barkley and Wilkinson in terms of the ability to keep the juggernaut rolling forward; Stephen Jones in the times was trying to convince himself this isn’t the case but he’s definitely out on his own there.
I also agree Sackey probably makes it on form, but he has that look about him of a sprinter converted to a rugby player – he doesn’t convince that he has the full package.
As for 2003′s plan A, what’s really interesting is that the famed English defense isn’t looking nearly so strong out wide. The Welsh scored on one attempt and the French ran in two tries to nil with the minority of possession. This is a key pillar of their game and perhaps because of rotation/flux, perhaps because Larder’s gone, it doesn’t seem nearly as solid as it should be.
August 13th 2007 @ 8:37pm
Mart said | August 13th 2007 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
Matt and gents – agree with all the above but let’s remember one thing about Eng: they made 11 changes from the team that steamrollered the Welsh last week. Against a strong France side they had oodles of possession (with what could be claimed to be largely a 2nd XV ) ? Yes the backs coulnd’t penetrate but this side (or the 2 in the last 2 weeks) look better than anything we’ve seen in the post RWC 2003 malaise. I’d put this down to rested players that have had the chance to gell a bit for once (as there is no club / country tussle) rather than Ashton’s genius but the reality is that a month ago we’d have all written Eng off as any sort of nuisance, let alone contender, for the RWC. So Ashton looks at what he’s got, realises the pack is hot (or both packs) and, since he has no magic wand time left, goes with that strength as the gameplan (I’m impressed at how fit / hungry they look presumably from the RWC conditioning camps). So wouldn’t Ashton now focus on getting his best backs gelled and improved in the next 4 weeks – and if they can improve at all and the pack stay as it is they’d be a real irritant and the result would probably come down to how they and their opponents play on the day ? Just a thought…..but whatever happens I’m suprised at how Eng appear to be shaping up given what they have dished up since 2003….
August 13th 2007 @ 9:44pm
DaniE said | August 13th 2007 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
The French certainly looked more composed when it counted. It was interesting to see how directionless the English backs looked – but as Mart said, there were major changes made to the team. There really isn’t any true leadership in the English backs with Wilko on the sidelines, which is to me a little like what Gregan seems to give to the Wallabies.
Chabal was an interesting prospect when he came on – I think shorter bursts of game time are better for him. Apparently he is starting his own fashion line – can’t wait to see that!!!
August 14th 2007 @ 12:33am
jools-usa said | August 14th 2007 @ 12:33am | Report comment
Don’t agree that French defense looked that good.
Was good enough but England showed some penetration and in the loose actually passed out of the tackle a few times. There were some plusses there.
Their backs went mainly sideways thus cramping the wingers, and they are seriously short of backrow talent. There are no Smiths, MacCaws, Burgers, Collins, in their XV.
Also, the beefcake boys who thrive on rolling along after lineouts, had it easy against the French, but may not get so many chances when up against spoilers like Matfield, Jack, et al.
Jools-USAr
August 14th 2007 @ 5:36am
Barry Longsugar said | August 14th 2007 @ 5:36am | Report comment
So England have announced their squad, and there are some pretty good players there, no question. But the fact remains that England squandered their position as champs after the last RWC, and four years later, they’ve run out of time. Yes they have an excellent scrum and a good line out. But then what happens? The backs are still a So What? congregation with large doubts hovering over them. Hodgson misses out partly because of injury, partly because of Barkley’s solid kicking performance. Tindall didn’t recover in time but I don’t think this is such a big loss – he’s not my idea of a dashing international center. Andy Farrell? England’s hoping the RWC will inspire him. Maybe. Cuerto’s at fullback and has precious little experience there playing the big boys. Lewsey would still be my choice at FB, but he and Robbo are included as wingers, and I don’t see Robbo being a dazzling spellbinder against the Boks. Catt, the playmaker, still has great vision but he’s 36 years old and slight and the Boks will target him.
I think Stuart Barnes got it right when he refers to England’s bizarre fear of open spaces. This has been so for years. England dropped running rugby way before the Rob Andrew era and has found it very difficult to get back to it. Which leaves it up to the pack, in 2007, and Wilko’s drop kicks. Wilko’s still dangerous from 40 yards out, but I’m not sure the pack is going to give the French next Saturday, or the Boks September 14, a hard time in open play.
I think they’ll meet the Wallabies in the quarters. They’ll shunt the W scrum with ease but that won’t guarantee this England side a win.
August 14th 2007 @ 3:13pm
BM said | August 14th 2007 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
England have lacked a class backline ball runner since Jeremy Guscott retired many moons ago. Will Wilko’s body be able to withstand the rigours of tournament rugby? If yes, England are a real chance of a semi final appearance but without him I expect this will be beyond them.
August 14th 2007 @ 6:44pm
Sam Taulelei said | August 14th 2007 @ 6:44pm | Report comment
England just needs to get their midfield balance right with a ball runner and ball player. Previously they’ve suffered with selecting similar players as a midfield like Tindall and Noon who are very direct and physical but don’t instinctively look to create space for their outsides or the opposite like Tait and Catt.
The lack of a true openside flanker who can turnover ball, maintain continuity and link with players like Neil Back doesn’t help England’s attempts to play wide of the setpiece and maybe Tom Rees is the answer for them.
They’ve decided to go for experienced performers in their squad selection and not take a gamble with some of their exciting talent available which is understandable and in keeping with the squads from all the main contenders. Surprised they’ve persevered with Farrell and not taken another first five like Flood or Geraghty as extra cover for Wilkinson.
The English front row is impressive with whomever they trot out and I’d love to see a rematch between Hayman and Sheridan.
Matt are those pack weights accurate? 142 stone equals about 900 kgs, as a comparison in the last Bledisloe game the NZ pack weighed in at 601 kgs and the Wallabies at 657 kgs so they would be giving away 300 kilos to the Poms which is absolutely staggering if correct.
August 14th 2007 @ 11:26pm
Matt Rowley said | August 14th 2007 @ 11:26pm | Report comment
Hi Sam,
Those pack weights come from The Times on two different occasions. Also they make sense – average international forward these days hovers around 18 stone. 18 x 8 men =144.
To put that in Kilos 18 stone = 114kgs. Times that by 8 = 912kgs
If the NZ pack weighed in at 600 kgs, that would put the average man at 75kgs or under 12 stone (a scrum full of half-backs!)
Maybe the number you’ve got is for the tight 5 – that would be about right.
Matt