Nick Cain reports
How do Eddie’s boys shape up against 2003 world-beaters?
AS thoughts turn to whether Eddie Jones can fire this England team to do a Grand Slam double in the 2017 Six Nations, it is inevitable that questions are being asked about where they rank among the greatest Red Rose teams. Should they stretch their unbeaten run past 14 to surpass New Zealand’s world record of 18 consecutive wins in the New Year, will the current 2016 crop be better than the vintage 2003 world champions, who were stuck on 14?
The comparisons are inevitable – and welcome. This is because, despite last season’s Grand Slam, as well as the triumphant summer tour of Australia, and now an unbeaten autumn series, Jones’ crew are not the finished article.
The England head coach knows his history, and where it can be used as a motivational tool. That’s why he’s probably aware that had Clive Woodward not rested almost all his first string players against France in their pre-2003 World Cup warm-up game in Marseille, instead of losing 17-16, England would have gone on to take their winning run to 23.
Having made the trip to France’s second city to cover the match I can vouch that it was as close as the scoreline indicates. It is also true that afterwards Lawrence Dallaglio, always the arch-competitor, was unable to hide his frustration. He was seething that selection calls ahead of the World Cup had sabotaged a chance to set a world record that the current All Blacks – prematurely labelled the greatest rugby team of any era – would, with the benefit of hindsight, not have got near.
The class of 2016 are also in the foothills compared to Dallaglio and company, and they have enough rough edges which require ironing out, that, in my view, no more than four make the starting 15 of a 2003/2016 composite dream team. These are Mako Vunipola, Maro Itoje, Billy Vunipola and Jonathan Joseph. Furthermore, only Jamie George, Courtney Lawes and Kyle Sinckler secure places on an eightman bench.
There has been an attempt in New Zealand, in particular, to rewrite history and misrepresent Martin Johnson’s England side as one-year wonders that simply peaked in 2003, and then disappeared. The reality is that they were the dominant force in international rugby for four years – 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 – beating New Zealand (twice), Australia (five times) and South Africa (five times), with only one Southern Hemisphere defeat, on the 2000 tour of South Africa, in which the series was drawn (1-1).
Set against that the 2016 side are in their infancy, having established themselves as the second best side in the world rankings, behind New Zealand, over the past year. They have not had a chance to beat the All Blacks and upset the pecking order. The idea that they would have been capable of doing so at Twickenham this autumn is not far-fetched, particularly given the problems that Ireland caused the world champions in Dublin, as well as when they painted Chicago green.
However, my hunch is that if England played New Zealand six times split evenly home and away, they would win one, or two at best – whereas the world champion side had a 100 precent success rate against the All Blacks, beating them home and away. The second of those victories in Wellington a few months before the World Cup was secured despite sin-binnings reducing them to 13.
In a similar position the 2016 team would be outgunned because the forward basics are not as solid as Jones wants, or requires, to unsettle New Zealand. England’s scrummaging is inconsistent, evident in the way they struggled against Argentina, and lost one against the head to Australia, which led to
the first Wallaby try last weekend.
While the line-out is fast becoming a point of strength, the driving-maul is not the indestructible tank it needs to be. It requires more armour-plating in terms of dynamic ‘snap’, and the ability to shift direction at will without losing power.
However, it is in the loose that New Zealand always steal a march, and despite the headway that England have made as a collective force they still have plenty of catching up to do before they supplant the All Blacks as masters of the breakdown. That they lack an outstanding specialist openside
will not help, and however much Jones papers it over with big blindsides it remains a crack in the building. If the Australia match was the truest test of their progress, then England clearly failed the exam in the firsthalf. The England loose trio of Tom Wood, Chris Robshaw and new starter Nathan Hughes were left in the starting blocks by the Australian back row. Michael Hooper, David Pocock and Lopeti Timani were so much sharper at getting to the breakdown and making their presence count that England spent most of the first half-hour out of the race.
A noticeable absence during that period was the destructive tackling required to turn-over possession, with most of it accurate but too passive to allow the next men into the ruck/maul to challenge strongly for the ball. It is another area where specialist No.7’s are invaluable.
The Wallabies dominated firsthalf possession and territory, and yet – just as in last summer’s Tests – they huffed and puffed but managed to finish only one of their four try chances. In the wash-up after the summer tour one of the main criticisms levelled at England was that if they gave New Zealand that sort of leeway they would rapidly reach a point of no return.
This autumn nothing has changed in respect of England either starting poorly, or failing to sustain their early intensity – as happened against South Africa, Fiji and Argentina. Let’s also record that all of those opponents were a shadow of what they were at the 2015 World Cup.
In terms of preparation, this series was almost a perfect launchpad for England’s forthcoming Six Nations title defence, not least because of the room for improvement. The report card reads: set piece, some good, some dodgy. Defence: sometimes lacks rigour. Attack and breakdown: works in progress. Confidence: growing.
After the Argentina game some of the England players annexed adaptability as another quality after playing most of the game with 14 men in the wake of Elliot Daly’s red card. At the risk of sounding curmudgeonly, all top teams train to win matches when they are oneman down, so there was nothing earth-shattering about what England did against the Pumas.
Whether that win, or recovering from a first half hour no-show against Australia, qualifies them as adaptable is questionable. A truer yardstick of adaptability is finding a way to win when you are in a knife edge contest against strong opponents who are also at the top of their game.
That was something that Johnson’s team invariably did, and it is a true hallmark of greatness.