I... ummm... ahhh... actually admire the English

While I agree that there are benefits in the experience of playing in a promotion relegation competition I am of the opinion that this England side has succeeded despite their lack of preparation and the advantages/disadvantages of their domestic competition. Tracking the trajectory of this England side to the side that won in 2003 offers completely contrasting paths. England 2003 were the best prepared side leading into the world cup, they had the highest winning percentage of any other international side, were littered with world class players and possessed a lot of test match experience. England 2007 are the complete opposite in every way apart from test match experience and yet they too have a chance to win a world cup. England 2007 are in many ways similar to South Africa 1995. Neither side had a concerted or successful build-up leading into the tournament. They were less than convincing in their pool matches and won closely fought matches against France in the semi-finals. Neither side were blessed with a high number of world class players however the players had that intangible X factor. A mental resilience, composure under pressure, and an incredibly strong sense of self belief that enabled them to beat other teams who were more talented and more favoured than they were. Aston has commented that he's as surprised as everyone with how far they have progressed and he's put it all down to the players. Earlier many reporters and fans criticised Ashton's selection, favouring experience over youth and after the loss to SA the vultures were circling. Yet it is those experienced heads that are carrying and leading this team by example and deed. That is something that cannot be coached or manufactured and is intrinsic to this particular group of players. You would only need to remove a couple of them and it will collapse like a house of cards. The most obvious example and key to England's chances is Jonny Wilkinson. His personal journey over adversity is closely mirrored by this English side and they cannot succeed without him showing the way. That is not to diminish this England side's ability or to exaggerate Wilkinson's importance but it is no coincidence that their steady improvement began with his return to the side. This is a special group of players that through fate, circumstance and determination stands them upon the precipice of greatness. However in all the analysis that has preceded the final, I don't believe that their success is an advertisement of all that is good about British rugby nor an indictment or criticism of rugby played elsewhere. It's just about these players.

The relegation point is fantastic and something I have thought about in the past. Australian sport leagues don't punish failure like in Europe. You are right, we play scared and scrap like wild dogs. Losing can quite literally kill a club off in Europe. Again, great point, well made.

I was a bit cutting against sothern hemisphere rugby in Mr Zavos' "opposite post", so I will try to be more constructive in this one. Hopefully it may give some insight into the English rugby "mind-set". The English (and French for that matter) game has one thing that you guys don't. Before you get fired up at yet another post having a go at the southern hemisphere game.......relax. The one thing we've got that you haven't is that much feared word up here. RELEGATION (that word deserves its' own line, probably its' own paragraph) Each game in the English Premiership, especially before league standings become clearer, is played as if life itself depended on it. The mentality is "win at all costs" however grim. Clubs in or near near "The Drop Zone" are the most feared in the Premiership. They are dangerous animals. These Clubs are fighting for financial survival and their players for career survival. They can scupper the play-off hopes of higher teams and ruin their financial stability, especially when you take into account that only the heirachy of the Premiership can gain qualification for the main European "Pot Of Gold" competition. In my simple mind it's pretty clear that after the South African defeat the English team adopted the "mind-set" of a Guiness Premieship team on the verge of relegation. I see it week in week out up here. Play each game as if it were your last. Because if we lose, we're gone. That "mind-set" was pretty easy to get into as most of the English players (once removed from the comfort of the England squad) have this fear constantly in the back of their minds every weekend. We play scared up here. Probably that is why our game is so attritional. Clubs and coaches are petrified of playing "Total Rugby" because however entertaining it looks, it leads to errors, and errors can not just lose a game but can finish a club off. In Super 14 this doesn't happen. Finishing last in the standings doesn't mean careering into the oblivion of 2nd division (grade) rugby, losing all your players and all the premiership / european cash and having to start squad building again etc. etc. The last team in Super 14 still comes back next year and tries to improve its' standing. Is that a good thing ? I am left wondering if this system is not only responsible for the attractive openess of southern hemisphere rugby (because teams don't play scared) but also for the different mind-set of the players. Not being totally familiar with the contract system for players in the Super 14. What does failure bring them ? From where I'm sat, it doesn't seem to change anything much in their lives for the worse. Any thoughts ?

Ben - I think you hit the nail on the head there mate. In the QF the Aussies didn't respect the Poms (see the press-quotes before the game from the ARU CEO and notable Aussie players) and not in a million years expected them to play with the hunger / passion they did (mind you, nor did anyone else !). Simple case of the maxim that a champion team will always beat a team of champions (which is what Aus looked like on the night). This, for me, is the interesting thing about the Final - the Poms have got there by deciding to be a bloody-minded team and play hard for ach other to "not die wondering' and prove the media wrong. The Boks for me have some great players (the wings to name but 2) but importantly I also think they have that 'playing for each other' ethic too. Don't ask me to predict though - I've already lost the family forture 4 times in the last 2 weeks ! By the way - did anyone see that one of the press-quote Aussies has been up to his old tricks again during the RWC ? Wonder how many "strikes" he needs to finally 'get it' ? "O'Neill also has confirmed wingers Lote Tuqiri and Drew Mitchell were given a dressing-down by team manager Phil Thomson over a separate incident in Bordeaux the previous week after being seen to drink excessively at a bar after the final pool-round match against Canada. Because Tuqiri did not breach his curfew or misbehave in any way other than having too much to drink, the incident will not count as the threatened "third strike" against him. Tuqiri has another dual international, Michael O'Connor, to thank for saving his career. Tuqiri was on the verge of going off for more drinks and breaking his curfew when O'Connor, one of the three selectors, hooked him back into line and saw him safely home."

Australians are hugely admired around the world for the investment they put into sport and the general attitude to the outdoors. HOWEVER, I am hugely dissappointed for them to have lost to a side that they actually relished playing against.This indicated they did no homework and their natural talent was of no use.

Hear hear Harry.

Marty I am truly neutral for the weekend. I only hope 1) for a good exciting game, with some tries or at least running rugby 2) the best team wins and 3) there's no critical injuries (eg Jonny or Matfield) and most importantly, there's no controversy about ref's decisions or the game isn't decided by a refereeing decision. I would have prefrred France to win this time after Aus eliminated, as they have bought a lot to rugby over the years. But they had their chance and blew it big time. Good luck to both SA and England, one of them will join Aus as a two time Rugby World Champion.

Jesus Logan, what a panty load. Per head of population we’re one of the most successful sporting nations in the world, and we have had world champions at rugby, rugby league, swimming, athletics, surfing, diving, archery, clay pigeon shooting, boxing, weightlifting, speed skating blah blah blah, and then you forget Aussie Rules. We're world champions at that too. In fact we're unbeaten. Nobody has even come close.

Sheek The Wallabies team in 1999 played a structured game, where phase play and recycling the ball was paramount. Very different however to England 2007. Yep the semi final against SA was tryless however I remember on a few occasions when Aus made line breaks, SA committed professional fouls to kill the ball and stop tries being scored.

Marty, Yep, I think most Aussies will be supporting SA. Here is why. We SH sanzar countries are like 3 siblings. Australia = We are the eldest son NZ = A younger, better looking son and superior in a number of ways, but we can still laud over them, and they secretly want to be more like us RSA = Middle child, broke our toys and stole all the good crayons. Although RSA might piss us off from time to time, we still will stand by them if the parents (ie. Home Nations) ask them what they were doing with the cookie jar. ... this may just be my own twisted opinion though.... :)

Well said everyone, as an Englishman living in in Oz I was saddened by the Australian press reaction towards England before and after the game 2 weekends ago.... But also as an Englishman I realise complaining about harsh words of the press in another country is a lot like a German complaining that the police are a too strict abroad or a Belgian complaining about another coutry being a bit dull! In ther words a long hard look at home is required before passing judgement. As has quite rightly be pointed out the harsh words of a press trying to sell papers or the drunken words of a minority of supporters do not represent all that much at all really, and as Harry has superbly pointed out the Aussie press should just leave it to the British press to rubbish our teams, they do it far far better. I do however have one grievance........ will the average Aussie really be supporting the Saffers over England? For the record I am proud to say that if the final were Australia v South Africa I would struggle to pick sides at all!!!

Andrew is right there is a lot to admire about the Englaish players and English rugby, however unattractive their style of rugby at this world cup maybe. I thought they would run out of steam in the semi having acheived respectability by beating Aus but they keep right on rolling forward. So I hope for a good final and may the best team win. Re Journalists and media between the UK and antipodes, well in Australia its been pretty unpleasant copping it from the Poms and their bandwagon hoppers in the last few weeks. And I have been astonished at the vitriol directed at NZ from the UK, much of it pretty nasty. BUT, we in Australia can't complain - go back and look at the condescending and puerile articles insulting the Englishwritten BEFORE the QF written by Peter Fitzsimmons, Greg Growden and, very disappointingly, Wayne Smith who I did respect as being above this sort of stuff. They made us all look fools and gave the Poms plenty of ammunition to fire back at us. I really hope these guys and their editors or whoever pencouraged them to write this have learnt a lesson from this as they made utter dickheads out of themselves. Other Australian sports journalists would also do well to note that this habit of writing cocky, disparaging articles about how we are better/superior than the oppo BEFORE the game stops. I first noticed this practice in the 20/03 Ashes tour. The cricket writers in particular need to learn this, its just so unnecessary, we win and its makes us look arrogant, lose and, well, we've all seen how it makes us look in the last two weeks. Utter drongoes. Leave that sort of obnoxiousness to the Stephen Jones and Alistair Campbell's of this world. And a final point from one who lived in Engalnd for a decade - you never have to worry about sinking the boot into a losing pommy team, their own press and "supporters" do it far better and more satisfyingly than any foreign journalist.

C'mon gents - let's stop the slagfest and leave that to journos like Jones / Zavos that need to be a tad controversial to sell their copy / articles ! Andrew's right - think back to the 2003 RWC where the Wallabies were playing dreadfully but somehow kept eeking out wins when it mattered and then suprised all by seriously raising their game for the semis and final against everyone's expectations. As Gregan said to Marshall after the semi "I have no idea where that performance came from". Swap the guernsey colour and you could say exactly the same for the Poms this RWC. From looking like they wouldn't even get through the pool, good old fashioned ticker and guts have basically got them through the QF and SF. Fair dos to them.

I know what you mean DF6 with regards to Stephen Jones and his cohorts who take great delight in pontificating about the glory of the British game whenever they get one up on those upstart colonials from the south. However I've grown immune to their columns and opinions as they tend to be fair weather reporters regarding the ability of their own teams, laud them to the skies when they win and consign them to Dantes inferno when they don't. It was only two weeks ago when Jones wrote in his column why England can't beat Australia and generally bemoaned the state of English rugby. How quickly the worm has turned. However if England were to win the world cup I believe they would be champions worthy of the title despite what many think and it's very melodramatic to believe that an English win would be the death knell for rugby. I've changed my mind from watching England play because while rugby is a physical contact sport, it is also a cerebral sport and in another post I drew upon the analogy of the game of chess being very similar to rugby. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and while we place greater value on teams like France, Australia, NZ and SA for their ability to score tries it shouldn't detract from England's ability to prevent those teams from scoring tries by sheer bloody mindedness in defence and clever strategies that force their opponents to panic and change their tactics in response. I love that aspect of the game but I do understand why many find no pleasure and joy in watching England win playing this way. Every coach (apart from Graham Henry) at one time or another has stated that defence will win the world cup. Kudos to England for finding a way to stay alive in this tournament for the past four weeks, remembering that every game for them after the loss to SA has been sudden death. If they beat SA in the final, free from any controversial refereeing decisions then they will be every bit as worthy as any three of the other five powerhouses in the game they beat to do it - Australia, France and South Africa. PS - Nigel you have exhibited a lot of class and grace with your responses to some wild and empassioned comments. Seems you are taking a few lessons yourself from your countrymen in performing coolly under pressure.

Nice comments Nigel But where is your support when the english media bag the Aussies and Kiwis? where are your comments to support the "snide" remarks made at us? Fairs fair aye, what the australian media isnt allowed to write bad things about the english? please us kiwis have put up with stephen jones and jonathan davies for years

Swifty. I think you are being a little harsh towards Nigel, he only stated what happened. In the lead up to he game, the articles written based on Lote and Co and john O'neill were very arrogant.....reading them you thought all that Australia needed to do was turn up......and whose fault was that? Was it not the Australian media that was fueling this?? I was in the UK, reading articles mainly by the BBC, and the english players were very humble in thier approach to the game, while the Australians were arrogant as....based on Media articles. What happend after? Well...we coped it and some.....but hey, we were the ones baiting the english all the way to the lead up to the game! Living over here...I have also coped it big time, but hey...that is all part of the Aus/Eng rivalry. I think it is time so of us Australians shown some good sportmanship and acknowledge a team that has thought very hard to get to the final. A team writtten off by their own public and media, who believed in themselves...Well done!

Snide? really...read what the Australian papers say about England. Read the bitter, sniping, angry, demeaning copy they write about England. Read what the Australian players said about England. Then you will understand the meaning of the word 'snide'

We Aussies quickly forget. The 1999 RWC winning Wallabies played a deliberately conservative style to win. The epic semi-final win over the Boks was tryless. In the final, our two tries came late in the 2nd half, the 2nd near fulltime. Yet we comfort ourselves with the knowledge we had a backline to cut opposition sides to shreads, had we cared to that backline. But we didn't.

Peruse the old postings ,before the RWC sqad was selected Few people gave Australia a chance.Tthe mood was bleak But the assessment proved accurate.Remember,the big hurldle that ight stop us reaching the quarters was Wales.OK we beat Wales Fiji 2nd's and Japan,and suddenly its blue sky,the Wallabies are back in the game.Outside of wishful thinking, what has improved in our national team in the past three years. Sure, we got home against a very tired All Blacks ,back from SA,and one man down. But really, who have we accounted for in the past few years. Back to England..Everybody knew how England were going to play the game. There were no secrets,and no surprises.They have but one game plan. The Wallabies knew it backwards. There was no mystery about the English scrum.None.Beaten 30 nil againdst SA,the only part of the game that held its own and actually won some contests was the scrum.A 30 nil spanking but the English scrum is like the Rock of Gibralter.And my point is? what did the Wallaby brains trust do with all this knowledge. Nothing. .England deserved their win.Even now many sports journalists are still pushing the line that The Wallabies were the better team and the English win was incongrous.Guess what. not only were Australia inferior, it has not played a consistent high standard of rugby against seasoned opposition for a few years. I dont hold with those that ,al be it with difficulty, support SA because they prefer an open attacking game plan.For goodness sake ,if England had the players ,they would also play a more attacking game.But they dont.So England is forced to use what its got. It seems to be working Number one rule, head down,arse up and dont loose.Granted this may not be enough to win the RWC, but it aint over 'till the fat front rower sings

Nigel, Get off your high horse son. If you don't have the grace to accept praise for your countrymen's efforts without turning it around into a snipe at sections of the Australian media/public (who are no worse lets be very clear in their one-eyed sentiments then their English counterparts) then you are doing your country no service. There is nothing in your snide attitude that relates to the humble demeanour with which your rugby team took a good hard look at themselves and decided they needed to be better than they were.