In defence of England's failed World Cup

A South African plot?? You're dreaming. Seriously, why would they bother? It's simply Northern Hemisphere shortsightness.

It's a bit of a moot point anyway given that he's still injured and would have taken no part in the tournament even if he was selectable.

Good article Rufus, and very refreshing given all the s**t being sprayed from the fan at the moment. Have to say that as an Englishman I did buy into the hype, complimenting that purchase a shirt (which will at least have an accurate sleeve for 2019). Luckily, hindsight's always 20/20 but at the time I thought that the tight-five battle would negate the Fardy Poopers and set a platform for England's expansive running game which had been on display. As was evident, this didn't eventuate and after the Fiji display concerning the scrum issues, Lancaster should've made this his top priority. Unfortunately, he seemed to embody the definition of insanity. Oh well, at least now I can watch the tournament in peace - vamos los Pumas!

@ Rufus, you say "could have beaten the Welsh and the Wallabies if a few things had been different" .... I beg to differ, there is a vast gap between England and The Wallabies at present. As for Wales, they were a weakened outfit that came back in the last 10 mins to defeat England who'd held a solid lead until then - that shows England are not up to it. Period.

With the price of tickets being what they are I doubt that England's final match will be under-attended. There'll be plenty of booing (and lots of cheering for the Uruguayans too I suspect), but I don't think many will just not show up.

I think the non-selection of Tuilagi was a huge blow to England's chances. He was a blockbuster centre who on his day is terrifying. I agree that his non-selection was the correct decision however. If Tuilagi's equivalent in NZ or Australia had done something similar would he have been dropped? Savea allegedly beat up his partner, yet he is still an All Black. The NRL let Robert Lui keep playing, despite being convicted of beating his pregnant girlfriend up. From memory, a South African prop played for Boks despite beating one of his farmworkers to death. The NFL is full of blokes who are given "second chances". Unfortunately no one will recall this decision at all.

Like Australia after our 'Golden Era', the English have not been able to adjust after being used to a certain level of success. The public and indeed the media's view become distorted because of past glory. We shouldn’t begrudge anyone the belief in ones nation and representative team, but rarely do you encounter in this day and age, an objective reporter and/or supporter who aren’t blinded by hope and previous success. This is a product of the professional era. That’s why those who yearn for the amateur days remember a time when support of a team was mixed with the realism of knowing that normal people, played a tough game, with good and bad results. Just like real life.

~ I think its important to bear in mind that the hype had died off by the start of the tournament. The press, the fans that knew anything about rugby could see in the warmups that England were rudderless. The front row were acknowledged as being rubbish - particularly Marler and Cole. Lawes and Launchbury had lost their A games, same with wood, Morgan didn't have much of a hope of reaching form.robshaw yes over rated, Yeah Farrell junior and senior? What a mess. But the coaches can't be blamed for Burrell and to a lesser extent 12treees losing form at just the wrong time. Some terrible sections and woeful collapse of what were good players just at the wrong time. Don't get me started on English arrogance but in fairness most people who knew their stuff were saying England will beat Wales and get as far as the quarters, and thats where it will end. None expected the Welsh win. To be fair at half-time I doubt the Welsh thought they would win.. The view was England won't do very well but everyone needs to get behind them and big them up come game time. Nothing wrong with that.

Well written Rufus. I was as puzzled as you by all the optimism about England before the tournament. I think it has a lot to do with England not playing SH sides often enough to know how big the gap still is. A single win over Aus in 2014 was recalled as some sort of evidence that England were a match for anyone. They seemed to overlook the results of their NZ tour in 2014. But mostly, I think the players and coaches just started to believe their own publicity.

I find it hard to believe that England thought the Wallaby scrum would be a push over. Sure, the average fan might have (rightly) had this view after last November but the English coaching staff surely would have watched them in the RC and seen the improvement. Perhaps the coaching staff and players were just too arrogant to believe it. Regardless, watching the English scrum get destroyed at its spiritual home by the Wallabies was a fantastic rugby moment.

I have lived here in the UK since 2000 and Crusty you have a point. They are always looking for a Messiah since 2003, and when they think they have one some of he fans go off the deep end. I think Burgess is a FINE, maybe a GREAT league player but at Union he is a complete newbie and there was no business him being in the team. And that was just a symptom at the heart of the problems with England. Farrell Sr was a poor Union player - what does he bring to the table that any number of great England union backs could not???

I used to support England. I lived o in Yorkshire in the 90s and loved it. My fiancé came from a rugby family, her dad had played for England and the Lions. We went to Twickenham a few times and i found the people and culture of English Rugby eccentric engaging and hospitable. We moved to France and then came back to nz.the distance was too much and my fiance went back to the uk. Fast forward 8 years and i was back in England working in the city for 2 years. I caught up with my old in laws and my ex. Still great people. Went to Twickenham. The eccentricity had morphed into cartoonish buffoonery after the 2003 rwc. Arrogant hooray henrys would go out of their way to tell you how crap the abs were and what a great team England were. Half of them didn't know or understand the game. Working in the city at least once a week I'd have similar things happen. And every 4 years since 2003 the English press will hype up the ignorant masses in to believing its 2003 again. And every time either johnny will come right and win it (2007 perpetuated the myth) , or a great new player will make all the difference (tuialagi in 2011, burgess this year) all without cottinging on to the fact that England aren't a great team any more and haven't been since 2003. The are not a winning team either, just hard to beat.

My thoughts on where it all went wrong. 1. Hubris. Just because you want it so does not mean it is so. 2. Silliness. Queue Cipriani and his stupid comment that no Wallaby would make the England team. Utter nonsense but fed off by many. 3. Illegal scrummaging. Let's give credit to the Wallaby scrum and its coach Ledesma. Its been written in a different thread but when the Wallaby eight de-pressured England by shunting sideways it depowered the white 8 and made the illegality of Marler obvious to Poite. That may have been the game right there. 4. Selections. Andy Farrell was a better player than his son yet George Ford was on the bench. Sitting next to Sam - 8 months in rugby - Burgess. Would having Tuilagi have helped? I don't know but I think his non-selection was the right call. 5. Experience? Perhaps. Japan showed what a well coached side can do to experience. Then they lost to Scotland. I don't think the injuries mattered - Lawes, Vunipola etc played Wales and they lost anyway. There are probably more. But victims? No - they brought this on themselves. No sympathy here.

Nice article Rufus. It is difficult and mostly conjecture that put teams as favourites, although not all the time. New Zealand remains favourites in my view, Australia have laid down a marker. Those at this point would be where I would put my money for a final. I think home ground carried a lot of weight in the discussions of whether England were favourites, however I distinctly remember people arguing England has a woeful record at Twickenham against SA and NZ in particular. I think the media hype and the inclusion of Burgess in place of Burrell as an example was a big mistake, I think the gameplan, scrum tactics, breakdown work all lead to the downfall of England. It seems to me at least they misinterpreted what their key performance indicators should have been and therefor picked the wrong players to do certain jobs. Maybe Clive Woodward's accusation of the Aussies not being very smart should be directed at the English?

The problem I see is they have very young people in positions that requires more age/playing time. It is not the same to have young wing than a young fly/half or full-back.