England announce intent

I think you're spot on there Sam...Sounds as though Jake has taken a leaf out of Campo's book, (that's a worry) trying to shame the Poms into playing an expansive game...I think he's wasting his breath.

Have only read about Tom Rees but have never seen him play for England, I guess that in itself sums up where he rates compared to his peers. An amusing story in today's Times quoting Jake White complaining that England was boring in their huge win against Wales. http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby/article2211072.ece Ironic in that South Africa practically invented the concept of 10 man rugby and their history of success has always been based around a big, dominant forward pack and a kicking number 10. Jake isn't trying to bluff the English into moving away from their strengths and run the ball a la 1991 is he? It will not be a place for the fainthearted when probably the two biggest packs in world rugby go head to head on September 15 and then followed up by Australia v Wales in Cardiff. The next four weeks can't pass by quickly enough.

Got to agree with Peter L. there swifty...there's a quite a few I'd put in front of him. How's Richie McCaw and George Smith for a start. Rees is a good player but until he dominates the headlines (and oppositions) like McCaw does then he's got a ways to go.

Swifty - no, he's not.

tom rees is as good a fetcher as you'll find in rugby

I agree with Sam...These games are lead ups and against the side Wales fielded the best tactics were to belt them in tight. I also think the selection of Andy Farrell at #12 would have dictated that to a certain extent as well. I think England would do well not to listen to outside influences...it's gotten them in trouble before. They are at their best when they are single minded in what they are trying to achieve...winning rugby! To hell with what Barnes & Jones think...world cups aren't won by teams trying to entertain...Ask Sir Clive!

I should also mention that the Union pundits up here are completely split on whether they need a wider game plan or not. On opposing pages in the Sunday Times, Stuart Barnes (for a running game) and Stephen Jones (who needs it?) were on completely different planets. They even read the same TV feeds of Brian Ashton in two completely opposite meanings. As for the upcoming games, the French could well just not turn up next week at Twickenham, but will go balls out in Marseilles - a bastion of French rugby. That'll be the one to watch. Matt R

Farrell goes on the list of past-it leaguies who should never have been signed, along with Sailor and Rogers. His own ex-teammates from league over here were disbelieving of union trying to play him in the centres. He'd lost his real gas years ago and was playing as a loose forward in league. Obviously no leaguie can realistically do a switch to an international union back row spot (they even tried this at club level with him) - the skills and knowledge are too union specific - so really he should never have been signed. As with the wallabies and Rogers though, the England set up are compelled to try and force fit his residual talent into the team somewhere. On Saturday he looked the best he has so far, but the Welsh backs were creating holes with signs above them saying 'run through here'. There are also a lot of eyes willing him to do well. As for the poms - in short, yes they can do it with this team (as much as it galls me to admit it). The proviso is that Wilkinson stays at 10 and they get their backline defence right again. Tested only once on the weekend, it leaked a try. Their weakness is also no real fetcher at 7. In RWC'03 they had Neil Back, who even at the end of his career was still a terrier. This, along with a back-up for Wilkinson, is a crucial spot they just can't fill.

If Ashton can rid himself of that dud Farrell then the outside backs might see some good ball. Hipkiss showed some real class in the few touches he had and Strettle, Robinson got next nothing to work with. Farrell is Ashton's safety net. He is a reasonable tackler if the players are running straight at him but apart from that he is a dud.

Sam, Matt, I hope you're both right as it would make for a vastly more interesting and entertaining tournament. Bring it on!

Given Brian Ashton's reputation as a lateral thinker, the way England won the game against Wales had me thinking that perhaps they were playing deliberate tactics against opposition they knew were weaker in the forwards. These leadup games are essentially trials for the World Cup and a good opportunity to test tactics and moves in game situations. We may see England adopt a very different approach against the French and a different team selected, a horse for courses strategy. Peter is right in that teams need more than one gameplan to overcome the opposition, England may be testing theirs over these next few games.

Matt, good point and I should have had 6 teams that are credible contenders, including the Poms. But I stick by the fact that they are one dimensional and I don't believe that will suffice in this tournament this year. The fact that a couple of posts here talk about the difference between pool play and the final rounds supports the plan A and plan B approach - in fact plans A thru D are probably needed at varying times. Finals rugby (quarters, semin's and the final itself) in the RWC is and will remain a unique blend of on-field thinking, and back-to-basics winning rugby. By definintion you'll be watching two teams at or close to peak, and who have beaten the rest of the best in the world to get there. It can't ever be anything except a close and compelling contest. Close contests are seldom spectator events because they are close. But for purists and genuine fans they will be compelling viewing, full of tension and drama. I can't wait!

Jeez Peter L.... Be careful! Write the Poms off at your peril! We in the Southern Hemisphere may think we're playing the best rugby at the moment but the best rugby doesn't neccesarily win World Cups. England have a strong, experienced squad and they know what it takes to win a World Cup something very few squads can boast. Don't write the English forwards off as slow...it's not as simple as making them run around. Remember, we are talking about a country that started the revolution of multi-skilled forwards. We tend to think that because our style of rugby is more open and there are more rugby league style collisions that we are fitter, faster and tougher...That's simply not the case. England have made huge gains in conditioning in the last five or six years and they wrote the book on tough...Don't underestimate them...they can make you look silly!

Look back to 2003, the four semifinalists featured NZ and France who were playing better than their opponents and had stronger attacking games. On form the final should have featured both these teams. However England and Australia on the back of outstanding defence and the ability of their forwards to shut the game down and not give either of their dangerous opponents opportunities to attack or counterattack won the game. Once you make the semi's anything can happen. As a Kiwi I know this only too well.

The points raised are all valid however consider this. All the teams that won the World Cup final was done on the back of outstanding defence and foward power. Teams may have been expansive in the games leading up to the final, or quite the opposite in some cases but the most memorable games in the final stages have been during the semifinals and not the final eg. France v Australia 1987, Australia v NZ 1991, England v NZ 1995, France v NZ 1999 and Australia v NZ 2003. The type of rugby we want to see played and the type that is actually played to win finals are worlds apart. So while I accept that a more rounded game appeals to fans and should present a team with more attacking options against teams with a restricted gameplan, the history of the tournament proves that this doesn't guarantee a winning result. Tournament formats means that it doesn't matter how well you played in your previous game as long as you get the victory, then you're still alive for another 80 minutes of rugby and another team is going home. I wouldn't discount the chances of England at this years RWC so readily just yet.

Thanks Matt - a good synopsis. I do think England will persist with this game plan - they have had it now for some years. Trouble is, as Andrew B notes, they don't seem to have a plan B - or could it be they do, but have elected not to show it, The trouble with a plan A that relies entirely on up-front dominance is that if you are up against a team you can't dominate, your plan begins to unravel. Even teams that are close to your equal begin to pose problems, and in the RWC those teams will certainly include the ABs, Argentina and the Boks, with potential close runs from France and Ireland. Also Plan A in the English game book relies on a successful kicking game by Wilkson for providing field position, and that is a dangerous tactic against the likes of the ABs and Wallabies in particular, who will counter attack out wide, exhausting the tight 5 with running, and isolating the loose trio and outside backs. So what, then, plan B which England have never really had. They do have some classy backs, but none I would rate as great (Johnny excepted), but even if they did, their forwards are not mobile enough to provide support wide-out, having developed their player vision around the close-in 10-man game. This would be where I would suspect teams like the Wallabies, Ireland and the ABs will focus their attention - isolating players away from the forwards for easy turnover ball, then launching blistering counter attacks, again, out wide where the England forwards can't have the impact. Can this plan win the RWC in 2007 - no, it can't. The team who wins this year will be multi-dimensional not one-dimensional. They will have flair and ability in close and out wide. Teams that fit this mold these days are the ABs, the French and the Irish, each of who could carry this tournament. On the fringes are the Boks and the Wallabies, neither of whom can ever be discounted as credible contenders. The winner of this RWC will come from those 5 teams, and this year I believe the ABs will have the goods.

Despite their dominance, Brian Ashton could be giving his forwards a good serve for their performance. Once the pack realised their dominance, they completely forgot the other 6 blokes on the pitch wearing the same jersey. They got good momentum, sucked in a lot of defenders, but just kept crashing forward, completely ignoring the backs yelling for the ball because of the 3 on 1 overlap they had created. Ashton will realise they would not have done anywhere nearly as well against a slightly better opponent. A forward orientated plan "A" is fine, but they need to switch to plan "B" quickly.

Thanks Matt for your review and analysis. How did you feel Andy Farrell fared in the game? Appreciate the backs didn't see much of the ball until late in the game but he was an interesting selection. I guess Brian Ashton's intent was obvious recalling Simon Shaw, Lawrence Dallaglio and Andrew Sheridan into the squad. They add a lot of size to the forward pack as well as experience. While it is still early days I've mentioned previously that England will be a difficult team to beat on what is virtually their own backyard. They have the size and strength in the forwards to strangle the life out of a game and with Jonny Wilkinson to drive the tank around, they may not be pretty to watch but they will be highly effective. Watching the history of the rugby world cup on Fox Sports Martin Johnson made the telling observation that you don't have to play the best rugby to win the cup, you just need to win the games that count. He acknowledged that they didn't play to their best throughout the tournament but they have their name etched on the trophy. Many of my SA friends have already written off the English and any other northern teams chances but the outcome of their group match will have a significant impact on the quarterfinals and semifinals. Whoever wins pool A will be in the opposite side of the draw from expected group winners NZ and Australia. If that team is England then it could be a possible NZ v SA semifinal and not the dream final that they have been predicting. South Africa will fancy their chances after their early season wins against England and the strength of their squad, however their scrum wasn't dominant in SA and they won't have it all their own way in the lineouts against the tall English timber. If SA try to bludgeon their way to victory against England they'll be up against a bigger forward pack than themselves. This week's game against France will show how far the English have improved as well as gauge the overall strength of the French team who's forward pack isn't as strong as it has been in recent seasons. Look forward to reading your analysis of that game Matt.