Les Bleus sacrifice speed for grunt

Fair point well made about Ashton. Our mauling is terrible, isn't it. England haven't really hit their straps this 6N, and I agree with regard to Hape, we're seeing mixed signals out there, but it's still a developing line-up, and he's only in his third (?) season of union. The one positive I am taking from this 6N is that we are winning without doing anything exceptionally well. Each game England has done something well, but also some things bad, a kind of one step forward, and then one step back performance.

I'm with you on everything you say there. I read what Youngs had to say and tend to agree with him. Croft is a much better support player. He showed that quality on the Lions tour and it was Croft who picked up Cueto's offload and passed to Ashton for the first try against Australia in November. I also don't think it's fair to compare Ashton with experienced players like Williams and Robinson. However, we've seen what Ashton can do, given the right support, but opposition teams will also note what he hasn't yet mastered. To put it simply, he isn't yet good enough at creating tries for others. You want a finisher to have a selfish edge but, as he gets closed down, I'd like him to know where his support players are. He didn't see a free man against Australia in November and missed Care on Saturday. On neither occasion was he going for solo glory but his instinct seems to be to look for support on the wings when there are men inside to finish. Since he takes inside lines himself, he seems to naturally assume that support will be outside. The most important point, which you note, is how inexperienced this England side still is. I'd love England to have a complete game but they don't. Our rolling mauls are ineffective. We give away penalties. Dan Cole may be good up front but knocks on too often as a ball carrier even when he's set to receive it. Is Shontayne Hape there for his offload game or for his breaks? We are in danger of seeing neither etc etc. I'm happy that we are getting our kicks at last. Wilkinson brought kicking coach Dave Alred back into the England fold on his own, and it appears that Johnson has allowed him to play a fuller role, albeit without a formal contract. Not only are we now scoring points through Flood and Wilkinson penalties but our kicking out of hand is also far better than last year's Six Nations.

I don't think it's fair to compare Ashton with Robinson and Williams, RF, they're totally different types of athletes. I noticed with interest that Youngs bemoaned the lack of forwards running off him on Saturday. I think he has a point. Again, we come back to the lack of experience: the England side in the Autumn was a new side, and this 6N has seen what is basically a new pack. Johnson has been quite badly afflicted by injuries and I think that has hampered our poor execution. For all their good work, Deacon and Wood aren't support players or athletes in the mould of Lawes and Croft. There has been a lot of errors in the English play recently, but this is a very, very inexperienced side, and basically every Test they have played in since the summer tour has been a new obstacle in itself, and I suspect that carries a lot of pressure with it. We have a new side with a lot of expectation on it, and yet the side is, to an extent, grinding out results. I'd be happier with more pace at 13, but there are no striking candidates.

I saw England's November match against Australia with the commentary from Kearns & team. After Nick Easter knocked the ball on in the 2nd minute, Kearns said "When England run the ball a lot, they are only one step away from a dropped ball, it's not their natural game". Kafer immediately said the home team had improved in that respect with the half backs making a difference. As it turned out, that performance was as accomplished as Kafer feared but the match against France was much more in line with Kearns' assessment. I don't like the lazy way commentators talk about a team's "natural game", when rugby strategies change so much over the years, but players can be affected by such talk when thing start to misfire. Just ask Wales. Whatever the state of English rugby over the last decade, I've always felt we've had a chance of winning against the Six Nations sides and Australia. Of course, we often haven't, and I wouldn't argue that we've had the quality to beat all those teams even the majority of times, let alone consistently. Nevertheless, there's generally been a chance and the 2007 World cup was a prime example. I've always more pessimistic about our chances against New Zealand since the 2003 squad dissolved, and haven't seen anything so far to convince me we will beat them in a World Cup encounter except by catching them on an off day and being very lucky. South Africa present a different challenge but, on the strength of our recent match, the Boks ought to have the edge. I certainly don't rule out Australia's chances of teaching us a lesson. Out of all the top international teams, they seem to learn fastest how to deal with new threats from an opponent. If the Six Nations is showing teams getting wise to England, you can bet Australia will have been watching closely too. Ashton has rightly been given plaudits but I don't think he yet offers the same kind of threat as Shane Williams or Jason Robinson, the two Northern stars often brought up in comparison. Both could make a break from a standing start in a seemingly unpromising position, which isn't something Ashton has done too much to date. Australia have got several players who can do that which is why they can win games where they look outmatched elsewhere. Foden is much more likely to come up with one of those breaks but has been quiet so far, even though he got over the line on Saturday. Youngs is another possibility but he also hasn't got clear, perhaps because defences are watching him. Ashton's threat relies on good handling and good offloading, both of which were absent against France. If an opponent is keeping Foden quiet, and the halfbacks shackled, then I'm not sure our centres are doing enough to create chances when these other options aren't firing. It's not a new problem for England but if other teams are going to find ways to shut us down, we'll need to find new options. If we don't, we might find ourselves in the same position as Wales after Gatland first guided them to a Grand Slam. (N.B. Certainly not suggesting we've got a Grand Slam in the bag already).

Wilkinson's passing is very, very good, RF, and his defence is consistently impressive, but I think the shape of our attack does change when he's on. He's just not heads up enough for me. He rarely takes his time on the ball, which is what Flood is excellent at, and so often flicks out a pass or kick without weighing up the options. Flood challenges as a direct runer, whereas IMO with Wilkinson you know he will hardly ever run at you which limits England. In hindsight I definitely feel a little underwhelmed after this result. I think there's an air of predictability around England now, be it running from the kick-off or Ben Youngs probing sideways off the ruck. Also, we are still giving away too many silly penalties.

Enjoyed the match, especially since England got the win, but it was one of those games which doesn't really make for an entertaining highlights package because of the high error count. It was almost as if England set out to turn some of their previous positives into negatives as an experiment. Listening to Matt Dawson's pre match build-up on BBC Five Live, I heard Ashton praised for "never over-running his man" which is exactly what he then did in one of England's first overlap chances. The half back pairing didn't click for the reasons others have given. Ben, I wouldn't say Wilkinson was unimpressive. He put a shocking pass behind Shaw and one of his up-and-unders went too long, allowing Traille to field it unopposed, but seemed fine elsewhere. When England knocked on inside the French 22 from an attacking scrum around the 65 minute mark, he was the one who had tracked all the way back to field Jauzion's kick upfield. His subsequent pass started the counterattack which ended with Trinh Duc flyhacking into touch. Wilkinson's pass to Ashton put the winger clear for one of his best runs and might have ended in a try if the ball had gone inside to Care. It was Wilkinson again who found Tindall when the centre went scrambling over for his disallowed try. When the French broke quickly after Tindall was penalized, Wilkinson was the only home player near the kick ahead, having tracked back again over the England 10m line. That doesn't mean want I him starting over Flood but it didn't look as if either England's game plan or shape suffered from Wilkinson's presence. I still have a couple of concerns. II think England had about six or seven opportunities to score tries - not all easy - but only managed to take one of them. On another day, we might do better but I've little doubt that an Australian or New Zealand side with the same chances would almost always do better. As much as we might celebrate the new-found ambition in our game, finishing off chances doesn't come as naturally to us. That will be important if we find ourselves chasing a game a couple of scores behind with 30 minutes left on the clock, a challenge this side hasn't yet successfully overcome. The temptation to force a pass or try to bundle through to the line only increases in such circumstances. On Saturday, The French didn't score again after Wilkinson's penalty. England's could suffer a similar fate if we remain so over-eager in attack.

Sorry... yet another mini ramble: I've just read Lievremont's post-match comments. What an absolutely intolerable buffoon he is. What is it with ignorant coaches these days? Must the two go hand in hand?

Yeah, the old Youngs sideway shuffle has been worked out. Dave Ellis even commented on it during the week. His kicking game was off too.

Btw, I recall how much Bernard Laporte used to go on about fitness and size. It seems to be a bit of a French obsession over the past few seasons. Bizarre that most other sides are trying to play 'progressive' rugby and they're still stuck in what appear to be the early years of professionalism. I think it's just a mental stumbling block they have.

Just finished watching the Scotland v Ireland Test. I'm really not sure what to make of Ireland? They break the line at will sometimes, but continue to make countless unforced errors. I noticed yesterday that the England team were communicating really well at the ruck, whereas Ireland just irritate refs. They try and go for the ball in every tackle, as opposed to making the man hit the deck and then look to rip. Some refs don't like that, it comes across as a bit cynical. We definitely have the ability to beat Ireland, but I'm wary that their backline might just click. I do like Hape, but I have reservations about the lack of pace in our midfield. I also think that Foden is currently a little one-dimensional in attack. The Irish back row could exploit us there. What do you think, VC? I'm not sure how far fitness will improve the French? At the end of the day we had two 'tries' not given and won playing a pretty mediocre game. IMO it's always easier for a side with good ball skills to learn how to grind games out as opposed for teams with that hard egde (read SA and France) to learn how to suddenly play basketball style rugby. To that extent I think England have a lot of improvement in them. We've had three games and three good wins, but a lot of errors in each one. We also have players like Lawes, Croft and Moody to return. Incidentally, I was really unimpressed with Wilkinson when he came on. He reminded me of a French fly half, just more aggressive in the tackle. I fancy us to ravage Scotland. They are pants.

Not sure what to make of that. I thought the pack went well in the loose and set-piece but the backs lacked precision. Even the try came from a poor pass by Toby Flood, who had a disappointing game. Youngs was also too lateral, however, France defended well. Although you could argue that France were offside quite a lot of the time which made it difficult. Wood was once again strong in a more challenging situation than the last two matches and Haskell is continuing his recent impressive form - he's suddenly developed a rugby brain. The back-row looks nicely balanced. A lot will talk about the front-row and they did go very well but a word for Louis Deacon who I thought was immense. He's not a great carrier but he gets around the park, hits breakdowns and today counter-rucked really well. I feel England are really developing some depth, if there is a sudden back-row injury crisis, I have enough confidence that someone like Robshaw, Armitage etc can step in and do a really good job. At loose-head, you've got Corbisiero, Sheridan and then even younger than the former are the likes of Marler and Imiolek (who did a really good job on White on Friday night) who are relatively strong scrummagers already.

I agree with this, Ben. One word of caution though: the French will be massively improved physically in the RWC. Lievremont admitted that their fitness today simply wasn't up to the mark. I would be curious to see today's game replayed with both sides as fit as each other. But yes, in general, the French are just awful. Even that famous game where they bullied the Boks in Toulouse: the backplay was still pitiful. Do you think we'll beat the Irish, Ben?

I love the bemused Gallic shrug that Chabal effects when he makes a gaffe. I thought he was pretty strong defensively when he came on against Ireland, but generally speaking he is a liability at Test level. Goodness knows what is swirling around in Lievremont's noggin. During the early stages of the match against Wales I thought Wales were much more spirited than England and would go on to really bash them up, but they didn't, so with that in mind I gave England the benefit of the doubt in the 1st half hoping they'd exert a calm authority as the game wore on as happened against Wales. They did that, but I'm not sure they showed a Plan B, they just played better. All things considered this is three games toward a potential Grand Slam, but three error ridden games, so I'm not getting too ahead of myself, but IMO France never looked like winning, and at least England made mistakes trying to play positive rugby. They also fielded a hugely inexperienced pack against one of the more experienced packs in Test rugby. Should have been a good learning curve for the youngsters. I also noticed that a few of the Frenchmen appeared quite cautious of Hape. They're definitely as mentally fragile as ever IMO. I thought France upped their game: defensively they were aggressive and had done their homework (pressuring the kick return in the beginning of the 1st half), committing more men to the ruck, but offensively I thought they were limited. Rougerie is growing on me (he could be a real weapon if used properly at re-starts etc), but aside from him it was the usual broth of guff. I'm convinced that we'd rout them if they played us tomorrow on a bone dry track. I'd still only give the side a B for this performance, however (I apologise for the boring cliche).

Awful, wasn't he? But anyone in the British Isles could have predicted as much. Apparently many of his fellow pros believe he only gets picked as a marketing tool. It was an absurd decision to pitch him in ahead of Bonnaire. I was getting visions of the Bok game at half-time but, as I suspected, the French were in no physical condition to mimic the Boks approach. Scrappy game but job done. Superb.

I see the Chabal experiment was a resounding success.

The French haven't produced a good performance since they last beat South Africa at home. Their only saving grace today, as was the case last season, is the fact that it is pouring with rain in London. Over the past few seasons it has been proven emphatically that France simply cannot live with England on a dry track. Shame... I was looking forward to a good spectacle.

France comfortably .... they've played averagely in the first 2 and still won. Time for a good performance that I suspect will produce a comfortable win

I'm wrong - Medard is out, Poitrenaud's back in which increases England's chances.

The French have also brought back Clerc. And Medard takes over at 15 after Poitrenaud's awful game last time out. They got a 40 metre try out of Harinordoquy at 8 against the Scots but playing him at flanker means they've given up on a ball fetcher. France have a better front row than England - better than anybody for that matter - Nallet is still a force at age 35, in the first half anyway, and Pierre at 31 can go all the way. Dusautoir is back to his workhorse best. Guirado, Thion and Bonnaire gives them excellent forward bench strength. The French pack will rule but even with average centres England's backs will score tries. England by a try and a couple of penalties.

Chabal - odd decision IMO, VC. I thought France were quite fortuitous to beat England in Paris last season, but now we're talking about an England side much further down the track of progression, and at home too. I also quite like the common sense coming from Johnson (as usual) in contrast to the emotive guff being spouted by Lievremont. England played well two weeks ago, but have had two performances in a row which aren't up to the standards they want set. I get the impression that the England side sees this match as yet another hurdle to jump like they had to beat Wales in Cardiff and then win well against Italy, whereas the French seem (I'm inferring from the media) to be taking this game as THE hurdle to mount, rather than another step in a long ladder. I'm not sure about the French not being as strong or brutal as the Springboks. We've seen this same French pack (give or take a player) do a real number on the SA pack a few times now. I just think England will be better and, as you say, wiser this time. I also don't think the French have the mental strength to smother the English as the South Africans did, but they certainly do have the players in the tight five to cause us some problems. I also think the beaten up theory against SA is slightly exaggerated. Undoubtedly the side lost the physical battle, but I think the loss of Ashton, Flood and Croft in the 1st half had more to do with the end result. Tactically England were all over the place.