|
 |
 |
|
You are in: You are in: Sports Talk |
 |
|
Sunday, 25 November, 2001, 00:05 GMT
How good are England?
England can boast a clean sweep in their November Tests after wins over Australia, Romania and South Africa.
Just how good do you think they are? Send us your views.
Three games and three wins is England's record in the November Tests. Saturday's 29-9 victory over South Africa capped a fine month for Clive Woodward's men and their Rugby has won praise from many quarters. However, before the start of these matches, Woodward's team suffered a shock defeat in the Six Nations against Ireland which scuppered hopes of a Grand Slam for the third year in a row. England may be pleased with victories over Australia and South Africa but they are not due to play New Zealand, who have been in impressive form against Home Nations teams.
So how good are England? Could they beat New Zealand? Can they conquer the world in 2003?
Can anyone in this forum honestly say that they have enjoyed the rugby fare that has been served up by any team this year? The Wallabies are back to the bad old "woeful Wallabies" days. South Africa have lost their way and England are frightened that the white dust of the goal line is an anthrax scare!
It is probably not the players fault - they are playing to the rules. The game has changed for the worse. Even David Campese (a renowned rugby league critic) said that he preferred the rugby league Tests to that awful game at Millenium Stadium on the weekend. Sorry folks, but the rugby has been just plain awful!
England are a good side, enjoying a good run of results (barring the Ireland game of course). At the end of the day, it's about winning the World Cup - if they can do that then they can consider themselves number one.
All the people putting the England side down for winning without scoring tries are talking rubbish. Scoring penalties and drop goals win the game just as much as tries do. England are showing their talent now and winning really important games. It's looking pretty good for the future!
It is very difficult to say which team is currently number one, although a number of teams, most notably South Africa can be discounted. Only four teams (England, NZ, Australia and France) are worthy candidates.
Surely the world's best team would consistently win at home and away and that is the problem in claiming England to be number one; when did they last beat a top side away from Twickenham?
Considering the disjointed structure of international fixtures, it appears as if the only true gauge of a team's ability and world standing is the World Cup.
I personally think that England are more than a match for any other team in the world at the moment. Comments referring to the transitional state of the big three should be ignored as England are also looking to improve before RWC2003. Johnny Wilkinson could only talk about missed kicks and poor finishing after the SA game.
It's only the fans of various nations that are debating who is number one, not the players/coaches themselves. All they can do is beat the teams that the organisers put in front of them and prepare for the RWC, something England have done convincingly this November.
I appreciate that I am a mere myopic Englishman, but am I the only one who can see that England are a quality side? Not the best in the world (WRC decides that!), but good enough to challenge the SH sides consistently. The tries will come, with a bit of work from the centres on putting the runners through gaps, but against Australia and SA, you have to take the points handed to you!
And as for the loss to the Irish, fair play to them, but I have one question - what happened in your first game of the season lads? England were not arrogant, they were tense and under-prepared. Just as Ireland were against Scotland if I remember...
Australia are quite happy to kick their way to victory and so are South Africa. England are constantly criticised for playing boring rugby by the southern hemisphere nations, do we really care whilst we're beating them? It's about winning and playing good rugby, tries are a bonus when you have two quality sides with tight defences playing.
England need to up their game as it seems only the Irish and French will provide any opposition next year and if they want to beat Aus, SA & NZ next November they will need as much practice as possible. A quick word to our Irish friends, be prepared for a tough encounter at Twickenham next February, there will be no repeat performance of October this year.
Who cares who number one is right this minute? England first need to get a couple of Grand Slams and then finally a World Cup under their belts. The question will be settled on the pitch - which is lucky for the English, because the hot-air war is won hands-down by the Aussies and the Welsh!
Northern vs Southern Hemisphere... yawn... change the record! Clearly England and France can beat any side on their day... and it is quite possible for them to end up in the 2003 World Cup final together. That really would be a historical battle!
A lot of people who say that England are boring because they kick penalties seem to forget why penalties are given. They are awarded because the opposition are trying to cheat by slowing up play, handling the ball when they shouldn't, or (the New Zealanders favourite) walking back on-side so slowly that they deliberately get in the way of the ball and prevent try-scoring opportunities. If these sides think they can do that and not be punished, then England will win by kicking penalties. I can't wait for the 2003 World Cup - tries or no tries, England will demonstrate their superiority.
England are still behind the big Southern Hemisphere teams. We still find tries difficult to score against these sides and this has cost us in previous World Cups and will do so again.
To Andrew Healy: England have won almost every game that they have played over the last two years - including two wins over Australia and three wins over SA. How much consistency do you want?
Speaking as an Anglo-based Celt, I wish Wales were 'struggling' like England at the moment! By the way Greg (Australia), what is so unhealthy about wanting to be number one? I don't see any Wallabies who are overjoyed at the prospect of losing that position (and I didn't notice them disdaining penalty kicks at goal against Wales on Sunday either).
No. The Southern hemisphere teams plan towards the World Cup. By the time it comes along Australia will be even stronger and New Zealand will be back to their inimitable best.
England, in common with all northern hemisphere teams, do not have the absolute belief and dedication needed.
There is the small matter of a very decisive defeat in Dublin, or would Woodward rather forget that?
What a load of rubbish from Greg (Australia). I seem to remember England keeping Australia tryless a couple of games ago (and losing by one point). I also seem to remember the Super 12 a couple of years ago averaging something like 1.5 tries per game for the first 8-9 weeks.
Where do you get this myth about SH teams playing wonderfully entertaining, free-flowing rugby? The Lions were far more entertaining than any SH side has ever been. I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to Nigel Starmer-Smith's column on this site.
The English team should be judged on current form, not (Gavin,UK) on form they showed two years ago. The criticism about them not scoring tries and kicking points is ridiculous. If a quality side gifts you points by committing a foul within kicking range then punish them for it.
England have never been, and never will be, a patch on New Zealand in terms of creativity, flair, and general try scoring ability. They are, however, a very good side and boast arguably the best pack in world rugby. Question - why do England never come down under? It is frustrating as a rugby fan to constantly hear England being lauded as one of the best teams in the world, yet for whatever reason, they hardly dare stray from their Twicker's Fortress.
Last time an English team came down under it was laughable. The only way this can be resolved is for the old farts to schedule a full tour of New Zealand, including midweek games against tough provincial sides. Then we'll see how good England really is.
It's all starting to sound familiar: "Who's better? England or New Zealand?" I was in England during the last World Cup and the local press asked the same question. Neither team made the final! Australia hold the World Cup, beat the Lions and won the Tri-Nations. Yet they are judged on their performance in one off Tests on a European tour?
England have never won a rugby Test in Australia, so if they think they're just going to walk over Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they're kidding themselves. Enjoy your moment in the sun boys, the south will be ready for you when you decide to leave RFU headquarters and when it counts.
I'd hardly call a win against that great rugby nation Romania something to crow about! One win against Australia and one against South Africa does not make you the best in the world. Let's see some continuous form before we start calling ourselves number 1.
England have played two good matches (won on penalties - yawn) but we still have a long way to go. We need to learn how to get the ball over the try line and try to win that way.
Good point from Dave Rossell. Is this page just designed for our Celtic friends to criticise the success of the England team? It's true that England have struggled to score tries against the best sides in the world recently but that is due to the fact that they are the best sides in the world, and therefore have the best defences.
Still, though, England beat them. Against the Six Nations teams England have scored tries at will over the last few years. Reading some of the comments from Celtic supporters is becoming slightly boring - like listening to a broken record.
Why does England have an unhealthy fixation about being number one? Surely the first aim must be to play good rugby - then being number one will follow. Therein lies the difference between England and, say, the Wallabies. The Wallabies can win and still be disappointed with their performance. It is the quality of the rugby that counts - not the winning.
I for one just can't get excited about an England team that has no plan other than to keep within range and play for a penalty from the boot of Johnny Wilkinson. The rugby is dull and frustrating and I won't be wasting any more time watching any of it until the whistle blowers get it right and running rugby returns.
Even as a proud Welshman I have to agree with Dave Rossell, England.
All the Celtic nations should be taking heart from the fact that a fellow Six Nations team has shown that with the right set-up and strategy it is possible to compete with the southern hemisphere countries.
We in Wales in particular need to get away from the idea that being gallant losers whilst attempting(but often failing) to play attractive rugby is somehow more important than winning.
England are currently playing the best rugby in the world on a consistent basis and are great to watch. There cannot be too many arguments about them being number one - the only one that has any basis is that they do not tour Australia and New Zealand enough. They are without doubt better than South Africa home and away, but the only way of confirming their number one status would be to go to Australia and New Zealand and win or run them close. The test of a truly great team is still to beat New Zealand, home or away.
I'm as patriotic an Englishman as they come, and living in Scotland I have to put up with sad nonsense that gets flung England's way by the Celts. However, what is true is that you can't say England are the best until they've won the World Cup.
They're obviously still not the finished article; they need a Centre partnership that not only makes a play, but also has a devastating finisher to take advantage of that play. What's needed is a centre that can do what Jason Robinson does at full back. Could that be Henry Paul?
England are playing well and are no doubt a good side. Unfortunately for England they don't have the ability to score tries against top teams, and this will eventually be their undoing.
I have been watching England play for years and this is the most exciting side I believe we have ever had.
There are still a few problems with the decision making of the backs, which need to be ironed out. Several times overlaps have not been spotted and real scoring chances have been missed. I am sure this will be overcome and tries will be scored.
The future for England looks bright to me!
It is a sad fact that many Celtic and southern hemisphere readers have deep rooted anti-English prejudices. This undoubtedly makes it difficult for them to say anything positive about the England rugby team. In fact, the better and more successful England are, the fiercer the criticism seems to become.
This criticism is, however, really a complement at how successful England have become, and the jealousy shown by these people makes the dominance of the England team all the more satisfying!
What is this about England always choking away from home? Am I the only one who can remember us beating the Springboks in Bloemfontain?On current form the World Cup is between England and the All Blacks. If the All Blacks came to Twickenham at the moment then they would go the same way as Australia and the Springboks!
England are the best team in the world because they have the best goal kicker in the world. This is also the reason why there is no urgency to score tries. If the opposition are to constantly giving England penalties within range, then it is a forgone conclusion that they will lose the game.
Did anybody else notice that France also beat both South Africa and Australia? They also have a better record against the All Blacks than England. Does that make them number one? Of course not, and the same applies to England. You've got to be able to produce the results when it counts, and away from the comforts of home before you have any legitimate claim.
Australia have had a poor tour by their standards, but they're still number one, and they'll be back by the time the world cup comes round. But the best northern hemisphere side for performances in the world cup and in the south is still France.
I was disappointed with the South African performance. Okay, they defended well but looked slow and pedestrian out wide. As far as I can see there are only two teams in the northern hemisphere that are capable of taking on SA, NZ and Australia - England and France. On balance England are probably slightly better than France and deserve to be in the top three world rugby nations. I can't understand the criticism from other home nations supporters about England's performance. If Ireland, Wales or Scotland had beaten two of the southern hemisphere teams as England have done this Autumn I am sure that their supporters would believe their team was one of the world's best. Paul, England England choke in such dismal fashion in grand slam deciders. They panic and fidget about when they have to try and impose themselves on the opposition when they are behind under extreme pressure in a crunch game. Or perhaps it's just arrogance that they thought that Ireland at Lansdowne Road were just going to be such easy meat for them that they couldn't pull themselves together when they were behind, as they thought that the grand slam was already in the bag.
And England deserve all the criticism they get if they win playing a forward based mauling/kicking game, because for a supposed major force in world rugby they are the biggest joke around. World cups are not won playing in that fashion. It means that any talk of an over-hyped, underachieving England being a great force is hot air. Back to the dark old days of England under Will Carling I'm afraid.
I think that England are definitely one of the top two teams in the world. However, they will not be able to call themselves number one until they win on tour. But let's not forget that it seems that Australia and South Africa are also struggling with away form. As for the other Northern sides, with the exception of a French side playing well, they have a long way to go.
England are playing well and can take on any side in the world.
England are a top three team and its good to see them strong, but England should not be considered number one until they win consistently down under (and in SA). Sending their best team would be a good start, unlike their farcical tour of 1998. I am enjoying international rugby a lot more now that the games are more even. The next step is for the home nations to bring this form on tours.
I can't understand the hype about England as a real world power! What happens when they play away from Twickenham? They choke. They are the best team in the Northern hemisphere, but the world!! Let's have a reality check. Hopefully I can be proven wrong in the next RWC and all the home nations will put on a good show.
All the criticism aimed at England (e.g. choking in high-pressure matches) could also be applied to the All Blacks - who haven't won anything in ages after choking in the world-cup semi-final and the recent Tri Nations decider.
Furthermore - Gavin - New Zealand did NOT beat England "convincingly" (it took two late tries after the scores were tied shortly after half-time), nor did they knock England out of the world cup. South Africa did that in the quarter-finals. Given that England have now beaten the Springboks three times in a row, and Australia twice, and also given that a largely inexperienced NZ side with a new coach haven't won anything in years, of course England could beat the All Blacks. New Zealand's wins over Ireland and Scotland were hardly convincing for the first 60 minutes.
The jealousy and bitterness from the home nations on this page is outstanding!! Agreed, England need to tour with a full strength side before they can hold their hand up and claim to be number one, WRC should hopefully see to that, but no one can take their wins away from them... Ireland was a blip, they were rusty, just as Ireland was against Scotland... Maybe it is too much to ask, but it would be nice to see people supporting BRITISH teams as well as their own celtic ones!!!
England have the best pack in the world, a more than adequate goal-kicker and some very talented runners. If they could sort out their decision making and improve their finishing they'd be streets ahead of any other nation. But then being streets ahead when the RWC is 2 years away is a dubious honour - and I suppose that is when we'll find out if all the hype is justified and England have fully reaped the benefit of the game turning professional.
England do not seem to be able to score tries.Against Australia and South Africa they only managed one try and an interception at that.It makes for dull rugby.
Compare this to the All Blacks who have now scored 9 tries in two matches.for rugby to appeal to the fans tries must be scored.Until England can succeed in this aspect they cannot claim to be the best.
What happened last time England played NZ at Twickenham? England were knocked, convincingly, out of the 1999 World Cup. England don't tour the SH anymore so how can anyone think they're number 1?
|
|
Other top Sports Talk stories:
Links to more Sports Talk stories are at the foot of the page.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Links to more Sports Talk stories
|
|
||
 |
^^ Back to top | |
| Front Page | Football | Cricket | Rugby Union | Rugby League | Tennis | Golf | Motorsport | Boxing | Athletics | Other Sports | Sports Talk | In Depth | Photo Galleries | Audio/Video | TV & Radio | BBC Pundits | Question of Sport | Funny Old Game ------------------------------------------------------------ BBC News >> | BBC Weather >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMII | News Sources | Privacy |
||
E-mail this story to a friend