While I kinda endorse what you say about the backs (although nowhere near as strident as they were still pretty decent), i was about to say (before ragerancher responded) that semi was a near wash out. The rain was bucketing down the whole day and the field was drenched (if anything that gave the French a glimmer of hope). While the French previously detested wet weather which hampered their free open running, the gulf in quality between the two teams was so vast that the rain actually made the game closer than it would have been. The rain was a leveller. England were a different class to every other team...as for the final the Aussies did an incredible job to get as close as they did.
I disagree with all that. England were a *great* side, no doubt. But that they were a class above other teams is completely false, for me. The Boks were the worst ever in their history at the time, and then you had the Aussies and NZ'ers - the English beat those every time during that stretch but it wasn't comfortably. Again, Wilko doesn't make just *one* of those impossible kicks in NZ 2003 and England loses, England certainly weren't a class above NZ but their kicker's boot was gold; and a year before that game in Twickenham England barely edged NZ, were anything but a class above them. 3 tries to NZ's 4. And a week later another in extremis win against the Aussies at home. Although I see in 2003 they beat AUS in Melbourne 14-25, 3 tries to 1, not to mention beating the Aussies again at home for the Cup months later. Very impressive.
Remember then how they were trailing at HT against Samoa in the Pools though, only managed 1 Grand Slam during those 4 dominant years choking in the GS-decider each time.
There certainly wasn't a gulf betw France and England btw. In 2002 France beat England in Paris and won the GS, and though the score doesn't show it because as usual France let its opponent back into the game late *they* were the ones that looked a whole class above England that game. Try after try, and the ones we botched at the last second, it was a festival in the 1st half. In 2003 we get 3 tries to 1 in Twickenham and I posted that video about why we lost there. Wilko's boot vs all our missed sitters. We were out-played strategy wise in the 2003 semis and England were well better on that game because more intelligent, but we certainly didn't look a a level below on the field in terms of physicality, technically, etc...their better player was Woodward.
I think above all it's the dedication and commitment that staff instilled into the guys, and the mental toughness and pride of the English players that made them that great. You see things like England keeping the All-Blacks out when down to 13, not conceding a try for minutes. That's tenacious, tight-screw strategy realized by guys who'd put their lives on the line. "NO WAY are we conceding a try", they were like animals out there. I believe their commitment was their greatest weapon, because physically they didn't have a ton more class like the results would suggest, although had a superb pack and good backs.
And they had such confidence in them having such a strategic mind behind them, such a low risk type game that fine-tuned gradually, they really believed they couldn't lose. They must've believed that, with the concrete results giving fire to their claims.
The direction changing, not just standard passing out wide and run in the goal with the ball. Stepping, creating space, goes left, right, center, runs, ball lives, is offloaded, kicked, grabbed, thrown around...teams are hopeless at defending, they try with everything they've got, but they can't stop it, it's still coming anyways. I'm just happy it was France doing this, but I sincerely just love watching it for the aesthetics, regardless of which nation's doing it. Of course I'm biased because it's France though, no question about it. But I do love the All-Blacks of all eras for that, and have loved the Wallabies generally also. In terms of moving aesthetics and true attacking creativity, it is those three nations that have made me love the sport the way I do, loving forward play and everything else came later. The Islanders have always had tremendous athletes, but never as great attacking structure as those have had (still have, for NZ).
