World Cup-winner Tindall does the Wallabies a favour

I don't think anyone is claiming he is Marto - that I've seen ? He has had some good form in Europe though.....

Even as an English fan, I didn't think we had momentum at the 1991 World Cup. We'd already blown our lines against New Zealand in the opening match, and nearly did so again against Scotland. The French match was a punch-up, much like any France-England game in that era. England were getting through the rounds, but the gameplan didn't look particularly resilient. It had failed against NZ and likely would have failed again against Scotland if Gavin Hastings hadn't missed a sitter from in front of the posts. Does that mean England were psychologically fragile, and didn't have the discipline a more conservative game plan demanded? Very possibly. I don't take personal offence at such a suggestion because good teams often fail to handle pressure. NZ supporters have seen that happen to their own team at the World Cup. However, England had beaten Australia in 1988 with a fresher style, and it was when McGeechan selected more English players, that the Lions turned the 1989 series around to beat the Wallabies again. It doesn't make sense to call it panicking when none of the players at the time saw it that way. Given the variety of play the team had shown, as they came together over the previous two seasons, it seemed to be a pragmatic response to the Wallaby challenge. Some of those players had beaten Australia three times against one loss over three years, so it's not that surprising they wanted to draw more inspiration from the winning strategy than the losing one. Personally, I don't think the error in the final was to start with the intention of trying to attack. I think England failed to think on their feet, and realize they had more forward domination than they expected, so could afford to apply more pressure. I would imagine every England player would love to have that final again but I'm pretty sure every team to lose such an important game would want the same.

Gitaeu worlds best hahahahahahahahahahahaha and im an aussie..May and Joseph??? HAHAHAHAHA

The other thing is as a comparison England werent pointing anywhere near as high as the wallabies in 1991. Forget 1988 as a precursor to the 91 tournament. Prior to the tournament Oz were beating NZ and whopping most of the NH sides where England were average, regardless of their playing style. To think they can come out and beat Oz at their own game because they had got thrashed using their own style months earlier? I mean what sort of thinking is that? By doing that they failed to use the momentum of what got them to the final. For me that is the very description of a side that has choked. One that isn't confident in its own existing gameplan.

Didn't say they tried something brand new, I'm saying they abandoned their World cup style of play that had got them to the final in the first place. Finals are not the place to change the game plan, but what you are saying is they chose to forsake something that had so far worked in the tournament to something completely different, against the best side in the tournament. I still call it dumb, and so it was. The reasons you give show a lack of confidence in themselves to continue to build on what got them there in the first place. Regardless of why it was called, it was the wrong call. Because they lost. and that call must take the primary blame for the loss. We will never know if they'd won otherwise, but that's not the point. They took a gamble, and lost.

TM, There's no doubt that England try to be more expansive in the final and suffered for it. However, it wasn't an alien game plan - it was the style Carling's England had set out playing in 1988. Australians should know this, because they saw it first hand when losing 28-19 to England at Twickenham. We didn't play NZ much at that time, so I'm not surprised you didn't see it. The peak of that style came in the 1990 Five Nations, where England played three expansive matches, handsomely beating Ireland, France and Wales, and running in 11 tries. And then, of course, disaster at Murrayfield in the Grand Slam decider. That loss left deep wounds. England still hadn't won anything, despite wowing fans, so they became more pragmatic the following season. With the sole aim of winning the 6N, which we did. As others have said, the decision to go back to a more expansive style was based on the hammering England had taken in Australia, along with the earlier loss to NZ, and tight match against Scotland. The idea that England tried something brand new doesn't wash. It was a style they hadn't run through for over a year, though. That's where Rob Andrew and Will Carling differ over their recollection of the final. Andrew is clear that the plan was explicitly changed back - as playmaker he would know - while Carling always saw the attacking game as part of England's existing armoury so resists the idea of having flicked a switch. As it turned out, England's pack matched the Wallabies on the day, and might even have edged them, so a more conservative game plan could have worked. Players like Ackford and Moore certainly think so today. Then again, there were a lot of strong characters in that England pack, and none objected to the captain's plan at the time.

Hi Jake, good to hear from you again. I didn't know you knew nothing about rugby as well as cricket. You're quite the all rounder.

Thanks, RT. Regarding the RWC, I've long been of the view that, for England, there are two most likely outcomes. First, they feel the pressure and don't make it out of the pool. Two they get inspired and win the pool. I believe that if they win the pool they'll get to the final. I just think they're too young and inexperienced to beat either NZ or the Boks there. The RWC is probably a year too soon for them. Some of the blame for that can be laid at Lancaster's door, but the fact that many of their really exciting players are only in their early twenties means he can't be blamed for all of that, and also that they'll be a formidable side in a year or two. If they do become as good as I think they will in 2017, think of the fun Kiwis could have about England 'peaking between world cups'. In terms of whether NZ 'choked' in 2011, that word has so much baggage attached to it it's always going to be seen by Kiwis as a massive insult. By choked I simply mean didn't play as well as they could because of the pressure. I still believe that applies to the ABs in that final, but they came through it, which is all that matters. Anyway, on a positive note, I think this is going to be one of the best RWCs ever. Can't wait.

'Changing your...mind' wouldn't let me edit... :-(

Well you're the one that keeps changing your mouth be as to why we shouldn't have won, 'mental toughness' a new one for me. If anything that was the epitome if it.

Yes exactly rugby, they were under pressure when the played Oz and SA in finals and couldn't do it then, imagine the pressure if they meet the ABs? I suppose Tindall didn't think of those sorts of things either.

That should of course be if they DON'T get to the final.

:)

It's funny isn't it Jake that you're nowhere to be seen on the cricket forum over the last few days. Instead you're gobbing off over here instead. I sincerely believe that you're either a really bad luck charm for Australian sporting teams or a really good one for England, because every time you give us one of your witticisms, England go and beat Australia. Sorry Wallabies but best blame Jake, not the ref, if you lose to England at the RWC.

Jake, I've missed your wit and wisdom, not to mention your outstanding clairvoyance over on the cricket forum and here you are over on the rugby site, showing that there really is no beginning to your knowledge. Enjoy the rest of the school holidays though.

If you are going to put every article that suggests the Wallabies won't make it on the wall, you will pretty soon run out of wall.

Cheika stick this article in the team's rwc changing room.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/01/12/the-truth-about-the-1991-rwc-final/

Birdy, to be honest, I enjoy many of your posts as they are balanced with a bit of humour, a degree of harmless crypticism and and unashamed leaning towards if not promoting English rugby then at least defending them. One should not expect any more or less from their support base. Unlike a lot of Kiwis, I actually rate England and their chances in this year's RWC, if they can absorb unscathed the expectation of their fans and media, that is the pressure of performing to the 'requirements' of playing at home. That's not to say that I believe they will win the tournament but I would be sure that they will be very competitive and if they get to the final ... well anything can happen in a "one off"... In an earlier post you suggested or inferred the AB's choked (or almost did) against France in 2011. Birdy, the tension in that final was immense, I think it certainly affected some but galvanised others. Weepu's (although I now understand he took the field with an injury) attempted fly kick which went straight to the opposition gave the French position and subsequently a try a couple of movements later was a huge error in judgement when he should have dived on the ball to kill the movement of the loose ball must haunt him big time. But I don't know if choke is the right terminology, everyone expected the AB's to win and probably win reasonable comfortably but once Carter was pitched out of team from injury and the next two flyhalves were also forced out (at various stages) of the decider, then with the McCaw running around with a broken bone in his foot, the playing field was leveled somewhat. Sure I too am bias but in light of those impairments I thought the composure by the AB's to repel the French Challenge showed a lot of composure not 'choke like symptoms'. Richard Kahui and Cory Jane on the flanks in the back three were immense, particularly in defence. Thorn did not choke, thats for sure and neither did Kaino. I do not believe that France outplayed the AB's in that match, as in reality they would have out of sight if Weepu kicked his goals by half time.

I'm sure that he'd be thoroughly 'haunted' if England get to the final. I feel like I've been taking crazy pills reading some of the comments on this thread. Clearly there needs to be some rugby played very soon.