England could be the best NH team at the 2011 RWC
By Spiro Zavos, 24 Mar 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- England rugby, International Rugby, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, RWC
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Rugby World Cup 2011 news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- England Rugby Union news
- Rugby 2011 news
You heard it here first: England could be the best northern hemisphere side in next year’s Rugby World Cup. This fearless prediction (given England’s dire performance against Scotland several weekends ago) is based on two factors.
First, England’s generally good record at the RWC tournament, and second, England’s fine play in the first 20 minutes of play at Paris against France.
England have the third best record in the RWC tournament, after South Africa (two World Cups in four tournaments) and Australia (Australia two World Cups and a final in six tournaments), with three finals and a World Cup victory in 2007.
England, in fact, have made the final in the last two RWC tournaments, a fine achievement and a sign, I think, that the typical England rumbling style, played well, is hard to counter in knock-out games where the result is everything.
The Test against France at Paris on the weekend was a sort of knock-out type of match. France had to win to give the side a Grand Slam. England had to win to give the side its best Six Nations result since 2003.
In the first 20 minutes or so, England just over-whelmed France.
It reminded me a lot of how the side opened up in the 2007 quarter-final against Australia at Marseille. The big forwards rumbled the ball over the advantage line. The short side was punctured with some tough running. And then the ball was put wide through fast hands for Ben Foden to speed away for a terrific try.
Then heavy rain started to belt down.
England’s robust ball-in-hand game was given away for more of kicking and barging game. Even then, England made more breaks through Flood and Cueto than the French could put together.
My fearless prediction is predicated, however, on a couple of caveats.
The England pack looked very strong WITHOUT Steve Borthwick. If he is selected next season, then all bets are off.
All bets are off, too, if Mike Tindall is not in the side.
Tindall gave the England backline the bulk and know-how it has been lacking for some years. It was a surprise, and a turning point in the game, when he was substituted by the fragile Matthew Tait.
This brings us to another point about the England team: Martin Johnson is clearly out of his depth as a manager of the coaches.
The scrum, which should be a strong suit of the pack, was penalised heavily in the first half. It was only the advent of the old-timer Steve Thompson in the second half that rectified matters.
But Thompson is about as useful around the field as a car without tyres these days.
And the backs, especially the number 10s (Flood and Jonny Wilkinson), have no idea about the way to align. They stand far too deep, like all the European sides, with the exception of the excellent Stephen Jones (the number 10, not the journalist) of Wales.
You can’t consistently make the gain line with the number 10 standing back like a quarter back in the pocket.
This is Scotland’s problem with Dan Parks, a great kicker, standing so deep and playing without any energy, so that the rest of a likely backline are virtual sitting ducks waiting to be knocked over.
The basic rule of winning rugby is that the side that wins the battle of the advantage line will generally win the game.
An ignorance of this rule is the main reason why the top southern hemisphere sides (which understand the potency of the advantage line) have won five of the six World Cup tournaments.
If anyone doubts the truth of this assertion, then they should ask themselves why the line is called an “advantage line.”
Because of all this ignorance about back alignments and poor selections, I’d be happier with my prediction if the RFU brought in someone like Bob Dwyer. Dwyer understands all the elements of successful back play.
There is some talent in the England backline, but it won’t be unleashed if the running alignments and angles are all wrong.
My fearless prediction about England clearly downplays the chances of the other Six Nations sides, so a brief comment on them.
Italy hasn’t got any classy backs and the new tackle ball interpretations do not help their negative, hands-in-the-ruck game.
Scotland have a good lineout, a couple of strong-running forward, some handy backs and but no real brilliance or true mongrel of the Scottish teams of old.
Wales have some brilliant backs and a lot of confidence. Lee Byre reckons that Wales will knock-off the All Blacks later this year. But like Scotland, Wales lacks the mongrel aspect to its play that truly successful sides need.
Ireland’s RWC year was 2007. They blew it then. A great team is now getting old. The fact that John Hayes, a prop who can’t scrum, has recorded 100 caps, the first Irish player to achieve this, suggests a lack of depth in the engine room players. Ireland, too, have generally performed poorly at RWC tournaments.
France? They are the Grand Slam champions and they have played some brilliant rugby this season. They have a great pack and some pace and skill on the wings. But they look weak in the halves. They froze against England and were lucky that the rain bucketed down.
There is always the temperament issue with the French. They are capable of upsets (ask Australia 1987 and New Zealand 1999 and 2007). But France generally find it difficult when they reach the RWC final. The two biggest victories in the final (1987 and 1999) have been scored against French sides.
The history of the RWC is that the favourites sometimes fall away and sides not generally rated come through strongly.
Right now, England fall into the category of a ‘not generally rated’ side and, therefore, a candidate for a fearless prediction.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
- Explore:
- England rugby, International Rugby, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, RWC


Bay35Pablo said | March 24th 2010 @ 7:37am | Report comment
So England MIGHT win it IF they sack their coach and get someone decent?
You can apply that to a few sides.
Seiran said | March 24th 2010 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Well, personally I don’t think England have a chance of winning the RWC whilst Martin Johnson and Johnny Wilkinson are both linked with the team.
Johnson, as Spiro points out, is out of his depth. He has never coached (or managed) before and is suddenly thrown in charge of Englands rugby team? Talk about grasping at straws.
Johnny Wilkinson is well past his prime and does nothing except hold back the England team. It’s not just about him standing too far back, he is rubbish at reading the opposition, can’t run well, and doesn’t pass the ball quickly enough. He is a great defender and we all know about his boot but the style England are trying to play does not suit Johnny Wilkinson’s style of play which is to solely kick the leather off the ball as soon as he gets his hands on it.
If the English management are determined to have him in the team solely for his drop kicking, penalty kicking abilities then he could potentially move to an outside centre position where he can run straighter, simpler lines and let players with more attacking skills to play fly-half and inside-centre.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 24th 2010 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Jonny Wilkinson’s passing is actually very, very good, and very quick. Ironically, his kicking, both from the tee and out of hand, has become far too erratic to sustain a starting position. If anything he should be trialled at 12 where his passing could be utilised, but I think his inherent conservatism is too deep even for that position. As soon as he came on versus France the entire England midfield dropped back. Playing him at 13 wouldn’t work. He is too slow, and will not end up playing there for Toulon, and so would most likely struggle with his defensive duties were he to wear the 13 jersey in test rugby. It is also obvious that Tindall’s combination of nous and power is a necessity. One also has to recall the key creative duties of a 13, thus is it not contradictory to suggest that England’s lesser creative player should play in such a vital position when England would prefer to play a running brand?
True Tah said | March 24th 2010 @ 8:22am | Report comment
I would certainly rate Ireland and France above England.
Basically to win the RWC in 2011, you are probably going to need to beat New Zealand in New Zealand. The French did that last year, and South Africa have beaten NZ in NZ both last year and the year before.
Ireland have never beaten NZ, but they are certainly capable of beating Australia and if they can beat the Wallabies in the pool match, then I would expect the Irish to make the semis (the first Celtic nation to do since 1991!!)
The rationale behind your choice of England seems to be based on 2007, and admittedly, England were on no ones radar during the pool matches, where they were spanked by the Boks and laboured against the USA, Tonga and Samoa. I also thought Australia were a bit overconfident going into that quarter final, I hope Robbie Deans puts paid to any notions that you need to simply turn up, put the jersey on and go through.
Looking at England’s pool matches, they are going to have Scotland, Argentina, Georgia and the repechage. Whilst the pool lacks a side the calibre of the Springboks, collectively I think it is a tougher pool overall. Whilst I would expect England to beat Georgia and the repechage (although I think Georgia will do a lot better than their last meeting in Perth 2003), they may well struggle to beat Scotland and Argentina. I wouldnt mind seeing Georgia taking out either Scotland or Argentina, and this is remotely possible, given that neither side has dynamic backs.
Viscount Crouchback said | March 24th 2010 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Engand’s pool is tough, but that’s no bad thing. The lesson of 2007 was that teams from tough pools became battle-hardened for the quarter-finals and were able to ambush seemingly stronger opponents who had enjoyed easier rides in their own pools.
Untimelyzapped said | March 24th 2010 @ 8:55am | Report comment
There’s a hot rumour that, in order to rescue Team England for the RWC, Jonno will get the bullet in favour of bringing Clive back. If that happens, does Clive start from scratch and blood all the up and comers? Could be we’ll see them in June whoever’s in charge. I’d thought that with the RWC so close England would finally be sending their strongest team, but apparently it will be a huge 44-man squad comprised of “some” Elite players and “some” Saxons. As far as I can figure out England will open their tour in Perth midweek June 8 against the Oz Barbarians, play a test against the Wallabies June 12, same venue, another game against the Baa-Baas June 15 at Gosford, then a second test at Sydney, June 19. England’s final fixture will be against NZ Maori, June 23 in Napier. We’ll also get to see some players who haven’t yet made the Saxons, so we’ll get a good look at the depth of English rugby.
But how about the width? What do they do for a 5/8 and a center now that Flood and Flutie have proved to be less than great? They’ll more than likely play Wilko in the tests as he came on against France and two minutes later banged one over for three points. Problems also in the pack. Too many plodders, and Shaw may still be too banged up to last more than 40 minutes if that.
As for my pub’s consensus on some other NH sides for the RWC, Ireland has gone from contenders to dangerous floaters. Wales and Scotland too far off the pace. France remains the great enigma as usual. They go out to NZ and win the first test and come close in the second. Then the ABs murder them in Marseille, the toughest venue in France. Then playing for the Grand Slam last Saturday they do everything that can think of to hand it to England by constantly kicking the ball to them. Para even tried a box kick 15 m out from England’s line. They scored zero points in the second half because they refused to run the ball.
Domingo, Servat, Mas, Poux, Nallet, Dusautoir, Bonnaire, Harinordoquy, Andreu, Poitrenaud – you’d think they can’t go wrong, but they do. Gotta be the flaky coach, right?
Colin N said | March 24th 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment
“What do they do for a 5/8 and a center now that Flood and Flutie have proved to be less than great?”
Flood played well against France and has impressed everytime he’s put on an England shirt. Flutey’s been poor this six nations, but was one of England’s best players last season and was very good for the Lions in the summer.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 25th 2010 @ 1:16am | Report comment
I’m surprised you didn’t comment on the Toby Flood ‘alignment’ comment, Colin. Aside from it being oddly incorrect I don’t think it’s even makes any sense in terms of semantics.
Sam said | March 24th 2010 @ 10:01am | Report comment
44 players for the June matches! Holy crap, its like the 2005 Lions all over again. Maybe they’ve bought Woodwood back already. Haha
Viscount Crouchback said | March 24th 2010 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Actually the rumour is that Sir Clive will replace Rob Andrew as Director of Rugby. It would be a terrific move if it happens.
My understanding is that England will bring all their fit elite players and then make up the numbers for the tour games with Saxons. Jonno won’t leave first choicers at home if he can help it – this is a serious trial run for 2011.
Hammer said | March 24th 2010 @ 8:56am | Report comment
He never said england would win the w/cup merely they could be the best northern hemisphere side there … there’s a massive difference …
pothale said | March 24th 2010 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Let me try that headline out on a few teams:
England could be the best NH team at the 2011 RWC – Yep
France could be the best NH team at the 2011 RWC – That’s fair
Ireland could be the best NH team at the 2011 RWC – Possibly
Wales could be the best NH team at the 2011 RWC – Also possible
New Zealand could be the best SH team at the 2011 RWC – Yep
Australia could be the best SH team at the 2011 RWC – They could
South Africa could be the best SH team at the 2011 RWC – possibly
Worlds Biggest said | March 24th 2010 @ 9:31am | Report comment
It’s hard to fathom England being the best performed NH team in 2011 RWC based on current form. However as Spiro rightly pointed out, England have an excellent World Cup record and could be referred to as a ” tournament team “. Interestingly Englands pathway to success has been at the expense of the Wallabies in 1995, 2003 and 2007 tournaments. Who will bring out the best in them next year ?. I agree Ireland ( Eddie O’Sullivan ) blew a great opportunity in 2007 and not sure if they can lift for one more effort as the ” Golden Generation era ” comes to an end. They have been perennial RWC underachievers much like Wales. The lone World Cup bright spot for Wales was beating the Wallabies in the 3rd/4th game playoff in 1987. The only other Celtic Nation to make the semi finals ( 1991 ) Scotland will be nuiscance value & ditto Italy. The enigmatic French know how to win in NZ and are always RWC contenders. However they too blew a golden opportunity in 2007 on home soil. So it’s hard to argue with England’s record and pedigree at World Cups. They have the runs on the board.
pothale said | March 24th 2010 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
“not sure if they can lift for one more effort as the ” Golden Generation era ” comes to an end….”
Not sure if the Golden Gen tag is that accurate. Or maybe to say that it already ended in 2007. The Golden Generation tag has been around for about 5 years on Ireland’s squad. Since then, a number of younger players have emerged in that time to establish a hold on a place in the team, or have become the number 1 starter.
The core of younger players at the heart of the Ireland team are emerging as the striking platform for their games – Sexton, Earls, Bowe, Kearney, Ferris, Heaslip, Healy, Fitzgerald (when fit). All are under 26, and have at least two WC tourneys left in them.
A quick glance at the Ireland team over the last 5 years, shows who’s been there, and the younger equivalent coming through.
15 Murphy/Kearney/Conway
14 Horgan/Bowe
13 O’Driscoll/Earls
12 Darcy/Wallace/McFadden
11 Trimble/Fitzgerald
10 O’Gara/Sexton
9 O’Leary/Stringer/Reddan
8 Leamy/Heaslip/Henry
7 Wallace/Jennings
6 Ferris/O’Brien
5 O’Connell/Ryan
4 O’Callaghan/Cullen
3 Hayes/Court/Buckley
2 Best/Flannery/Cronin
1 Horan/Healy
Clearly, some positions are stronger than others. O’Driscoll and O’Connell to a lesser extent, are the two totemic figures in the team who are perceived as the respective fulcra in the backs and foward line-ups – they bring leadership and authority to the team. Everyone else is replaceable.
But that’s the same for many teams who have got two or three ‘must-haves’ on any team sheet. McCaw/Carter; Elsom/Giteau; Matfield/du Preez/Smit,etc.
Who have England got? Or will have in place for the WC?
Sam said | March 24th 2010 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Looking at England’s pool its probably not as easy as it looks. The Scottish lift against England and Argentina are not easy beats.
Ora said | March 24th 2010 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
Not to mention we antipodeans like most other commonwealth countries don’t warm to much to our English friends you can guarantee whoever the pomes are playing their opposition is going to get massive support.
Colin N said | March 24th 2010 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
I would assume there will be a lot of English fans coming over, remember 2003?
Chris Beck said | March 24th 2010 @ 10:33am | Report comment
I watched the France-England match. I agree with the characterization of France looking “weak in the halves.”
As for Johnson as coach, he did do the obvious, changing two front-rowers when it was clearly warranted. But then he, less obviously, pulls Tindal, who was clearly England’s best player up till that point. The new fullback, Foden, was a bright spot.
And in terms of their chances for the RWC in 2011, I’m not real impressed with England’s talent and/or depth in positions 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Shouldn’t a world-class team have better players than England currently does in these positions? What they do seem to have doesn’t remotely hold a candle to South Africa (in particular) or New Zealand. There’s nobody to compete with the Matfields and McCaws and Elsoms of the world.
TembaVJ said | March 24th 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Well looking at the NH, being the best there is going to help absolutely nothing… They still have to play games against the South.
This time it will be NZ/SA final with Aus in 3rd place… don’t know who will win that final.