France show their class

Regarding weight of current players According to Supersports website last's night's Springboks had the following stats Forwards: Pack weight: 916kg Average height: 1.93 meters-only Gary Botha below 1.9 meters Average weight: 114.5 kg Heaviest: CJ van der Linde and Os @ 125kg each Lightest: Juan Smith @108kg Backs: Average height: 1.86-tallest is JP Petersen at 1.91,shortest Percy @ 1.83 Average weight: 92kg-heaviest J de Villiers at 100kg,lightest Percy at 83kg

I think what's interesting with France, is that while many teams have been doing a bit of set rotation over the past couple of seasons - France always seem to be throwing the all the positions up in the air and almost randomly reshuffling every second game. For eg - who is the regular French back row? I think this has made them harder to quantify and as such they get a little underrated. Also makes them harder to plan against. In any case, what they've got is a well rotated squad (in a French way) and two good teams to choose from.

Matt I agree (just realised that Matt, Matt Rowley and Matty aren't all the same person) it is difficult to gauge any teams form leading into the world cup and even during the pool stages there will be more rotation (experimenting) against the "minnow" teams. It will only be when they play their "must win" games to ensure they finish top of their pool that we will see any true indictation of their strengths as well as when they qualify for the playoffs. I've only heard speculation of new lineout tactics the All Blacks are rumoured to have developed and if what you say is correct it will either be a spectacular success or dismal failure. Comments by Laporte and Maso about their win last week gives some insight to the French mentality that makes them so different to other teams. They see their glass as being half-full because despite the lack of possession and problems at the setpieces they still won a game that statistically they had no right to. The rest of the rugby world sees their glass as being half-empty, precisely because of those problems. Their approach is very similar to Clive Woodward when England never quite reached the same heights they achieved in their leadup games when they played the 2003 world cup, but they kept on winning. It's the win that counts, how you achieve it is for the press to write about. Victories for France in their last two warmup games in Marseilles and Cardiff irrespective of how well they play will give them the momentum they need to continue winning throughout the tournament. With the growing public support they'll enjoy with each victory, it will make them very difficult opponents to beat.

It's going to be very difficult to guage Englands (or for that matter any sides) true form until the Cup starts. The constant changes and predominance of "B sides" in the warm up games makes it almost impossible to judge form going into the Cup. Of the big guns the All Blacks and Wallabies were the only ones to field full strength sides in their Tri-Nations clashes so it would be reasonable to suggest we know what they're capable of...Not so the Northern sides or the 'Boks who have given every man and his dog a run. What is evident is that England will have a very strong pack when it comes to the tight stuff...they suffer in comparison when the game opens up but they will prove a handfull at the restarts. In the backline Jonny is obviously the key. Without him it doesn't matter who England field in the centres, they will struggle. When he's not there England look lost with too much lateral movement and work done behind the gain line. A last word on the "new" All Blacks lineout. It isn't actually all that "new" or "secret" at all. The basic principle behind it is that if they don't move at all until the ball is thrown then the opposition won't know where the ball is going. It doesn't matter if they're facing in or away from the opposition, it is all about the call and the "lack' of movement before the ball is thrown. That coupled with exceptional timing between the thrower, the jumper and lifters make for a lineout that is very difficult to read and stands up well to video analysis. It's smart and it's a world away from the frenzied movement we usually see, but it's not new.

Good point on the centres....I reckon he'll opt for Farrell / Hipkiss (gasp ! a bolter in an England team !) in the RWC with Catt as backup. Sam's spot on about the Boks and White's comments are surely either an attempt at ironic humour or a perceived first shot in the mindgame war given the pool game ? As per my previous post, I'm excited that Eng and Scot appear to be a lot (and I mean lot) stronger heading into the RWC than I (and I imagine many others) thought. That has to be good for the tourno although I fear Sam's description of the Boks TriNations home style is how most of the 'big' Nations will play in the RWC (at least until they have established a healthy lead in any game). There's simply too much to lose so reduced-risk, possession-retention rugby will be the name of the game. So let's all barrack for Fiji since we and they know they can't play that way so they'll be forced to give the opposite strategy a shake !!

Sam I agree - With this team for Marseilles you can really see Ashton zeroing in on his first team, with a few tinkers here and there, apart from the centres. I think Farrell/Hipkiss will have to pull out something pretty special to get past the 'safer' pairing of Catt and Noon though. Matt

Matt I stand corrected, the weights I listed were only for the tight five although the idea of a scrum of halfbacks would be quite a sight to see. Ashton named a team with 10 changes today from the team that just lost at Twickenham and has obviously thrown down the gauntlet to certain players who are in direct competition for open spots in the starting fifteen. Primarily the midfield and loose forwards. M Cueto (Sale); J Lewsey (Wasps), D Hipkiss (Leicester), A Farrell (Saracens), J Robinson (Sale); J Wilkinson (Newcastle), S Perry (Bristol); P Freshwater (Perpignan), G Chuter (Leicester), P Vickery (Wasps, capt), S Shaw (Wasps), S Borthwick (Bath), M Corry (Leicester), T Rees (Wasps), N Easter (Harlequins). Replacements: L Mears (Bath), M Stevens (Bath), J Worsley (Wasps), L Dallaglio (Wasps), A Gomarsall (Harlequins), O Barkley (Bath), P Sackey (Wasps). Once again the forwards have a solid and powerful look to it and the backline has greater experience but the spotlight will be on the midfield combination, particularly in defence. This week Farrell and Hipkiss have another chance to stake their claims. Jonnyboy none of the comments posted here are as critical of England's performances or their chances at the world cup than those made by Jake White who travelled to London to watch last weeks game. http://www.superrugby.co.za/default.asp?id=225258&des=article&scat=superrugby/springboks There's more than a touch of irony in Jake's criticisms, because South Africa's strengths are similar to England's and they both play a very structured game. The first two Tri Nations games SA played at home were straight from the Danie Craven playbook; establish dominance up front, kick for position and pressure the opposition into mistakes with strong defence. It remains to be seen whether the leopard has truly changed its spots.

Matty, Dead right about Fr not being THAT good, & I noticed on many occasions just a few Fr hit the breakdown fast, especially in 2nd half. Maybe all sides were tiring, but Fr still looked better than Eng in that dept. Just hope the whole tourney is super-competitive, but I have this nagging thought that the way the game is played in 80% of countries, we could end up in kicking fests, especially if condition are poor. THAT would be a giant turn-off & a shame. Jools-USA

Jonnyboy, as an Aussie watching the game - spot on. Chabal was a stud as super sub and the froggies just nudged the poms in the end, but I would be well cheered as an English fan. If England had a decent 7 - a young Neil Back - they would be a irresistible. As it is, if the Saffers or Australia take them for granted they will be burned in those (potentially) key games. And with the Scots rolling the Irish (3 losses on the trot for them?) this WC is going to be super competitive.

The only reason why the French won was a moment of individual brilliance by Chabal, on top of Fabien Pelous' try out wide. On the whole, the French backs looked to put width on the ball, but were well defended on the few occasions they broke out. Pretty much like NZ vs SA games - NZ have to win it up front, they don't run buckets of tries in against a good defence. Both French tries came from forwards. I think at least 50% of the criticism of England is (a) premature and (b) not objective due to pom issues. The problem isn't the backs, it's the speed and quality of ball coming from 60-odd% possession, and the number of back rows popping up in midfield - mainly due to Brian Ashton's mantra of ball retention. We're avoiding the risks that 2/3 of possession give you the liberty to take, and then you're down to single-figure chances for the backs over 80 minutes. But at least we've got the ball and another few weeks to iron out the kinks, get the balance right. I wouldn't write England off from a spot in the semis just yet. Unless something in your psyche means that you need to.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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....

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.

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.

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.