In my opinion, England have had a tournament of mixed fortune, which in some games saw them majorly underperform, and in some they overperformed.
Let's consider the facts before the tournament. England would probably qualify with their team in the lowest ebb it has been for some time. They'd probably just about beat a fired up Samoa and Tonga, and they did that. They were stuffed by South Africa who didn't break sweat and they laboured to a win over the USA.
The objective was achieved, the games were far from pretty or having any real consistent intelligent rugby. Notice as soon as Wilkinson comes back they start to win again. Remember they didn't have Wilkinson in the group game with South Africa.
So, England make the quarters, and are expected to be dumped out by Australia. As it happens, a different England come out and beat Australia and continued that against France, who were also coming back into form. Glad they got France, as we seem to be their bogey team.
So here we are, in the Final with some pride restored, but kind of feeling bemused as to how this team managed to get this far.
England lose, but throw everything at the South Africans, who defended very well and won the game. England didn't offer anything other than fighting spirit and heart.
Cueto was in touch at some stage i believe. My opinion is that even with that try, it wouldn't have made much difference, as South Africa were simply having none of it and shut England out, although it wasn't because of SA stopping the most amazing attacking play they have ever seen.
South Africa in my opinion played a very good World Cup. They had an easier route to the Final not having to play any heavyweights, but none of these games are easy when you are there and having to grind out the result. South Africa played every type of Rugby you can think of and adapted to beat each team. Whether it was a physical battle, kicking game or free-flowing, they did it all.
Overall, i'd say they had the best consistent performances of the big teams. They never had a poor game, although Tonga did make them pay on occasions. That game was more down to the fact that Pretorius looked like he was having goalkicking lessons.
England played a good World Cup when it mattered. They timed their run impeccably and although the rugby was ugly, it was winning rugby. That's what you need when you have a team that isn't firing.
As one of the footie managers said once 'You know you are good team, because even when you play extremely poor, you still win'.
England deserve their 2nd place, but i personally feel.. even being English that if England had won, it would have felt like something was wrong. There are major alarm bells with Ashton, i don't know why. He never had the confidence of the media.
England need to sort out these problems they have under Ashton and since Robinson left and build for the next World Cup. That means no more token veterans like Dallaglio. Sure England got to the final with these guys, but what actual impact did they have and what did they bring to the table?
Not saying that a Cipriani or Haskell would have performed better, but i think looking at SA's squad they had the right mix of youth and experience. England needed that little spark to run the backs, rather than rely on Wilkinson's boot, which is all that really happened. SA had that all over the park. We just brought on Dad's Army.
England can take a lot of heart from this tourney, because it is heart and passion that got them there, not displaying better skills than some of the other teams IMHO.
Well done England, lets take this home as a good consolation, and build for 2011.
England don't play well like this, and need to get back to some exciting rugby. I have a feeling that after Wilko retires, we are going to be in serious trouble for a quality 10.
))
