England,Stuart Lancaster,RWC and all that

England has more players,money,resources than any other in the world.
IF money mean`t every thing they should be IRB No.1 always.I have
followed the recent tour avidly reading every thing here,papers,planet
Rugby etc.
Been amazed by comments good,ignorant,arrogant,and plain stupid.
Stuart Lancaster as head of the England Coaching/Management/Selection
team.
Has thru his knowledge Coaching Academy,and A team management
experience built a Squad plus a Wider training Squad of depth.
He has moved away from the RWC winning formula of 10 man Rugby
to a more balanced game.
In the last 2 years forget the rubbish about points difference/try count
that has been JOINT 6Ns wiinners,beaten Aus,NZ and drawn with SA.
THAT is a very fine record and better at this stage then SCW`s.
He has ruled out players not in the Uk so he has access to them
all the time.
Like all who follow SCW`s team he is in it`s shadow BUT unlike
SCW.He hasn't[yet?] jumped ship when things go wrong leaving 10
years of losses behind.
The tour of NZ was complicated by Club commitments and injuries
Nz of course had similar problems.
The success or failure of a Touring side doesn't mean it s a bad one
or not.e.g. 1965/70 Boks and 1966/71 Lions.C.Meads rated the former
over the latter better in each case but the results reversed.
Nz at the basic level are probably the worlds best at basics pass,kick,
tackle,let the ball do the work.They play simple rugby the basics at
a pace to suit them.
England beat them on average once every 10 years it doesn't follow
that every time the will win or lose.
What is your bench mark a tournament once every 4 years or your
overall progress at Age Group,A level,7`s,Women,Club etc.?
IF you accept that NZ are THE bench mark then yes the rest are
catching up.
A few years ago NZ ruled age Group,Womens,7`s,and Mens
except at RWC.Now other teams are winning some of these
BUT it doesn't follow NZ at any level are inferior.
It is simplistic to say NZ will go into freefall as there Senior
players drop out.There will always be replacements not
instant successes but they will get there.
Nz are and always have been a team not individuals winning
or losing now doe`snt mean they will lose next time.
The result of the current series or AI`s /RC means nothing
next week,month,or next year.
Other sides count there wins v NZ,NZ count there losses and
use them as motivation for next time.
Englands aim should be not a RWC next year but gaining
and retaining excellence EVERY Game.
WHEN all the selections fall into place England will again be
as they were.Under Rowell,Cooke,and Woodward.
BUT more important when a player drops out for whatever
reason there`s a replacement.

emack2 wrote:...the RWC winning formula of 10 man Rugby...

Sorry, if you are going to accuse some of the media reports you have read of being ignorant, then you are going to have to do better than trot out that line.

There was nothing 10-man about England's rugby during a roughly four year run from 2000 to 2003.

The players and money thing is used as a stick to beat us with a lot. What's the money per head though as I think that would be a fairer assessment. And oh for ten men rugby again and being able to have the 03 backline.

Gentlemen picking out two lines at the article is fine SCW was 1997-2004 NOT just 2001-3.
Would you like to tell me that in that period in RWCs they didn't play winning[10man if required] Rugby,that JW more
times than I can count.Saved them with his Goalkicking that in the 2007 and 2011 they
played that way too.
That in one the match versus ABs ,he was the only scorer of the 2 they won,and that
the 2003 final was a feast of flowing football?A dropped Goal after 120 minutes.
That is no more convincing than 1995 of the same scenario.The article is NOT about
SCW and his GREAT side that did indeed play 10 man Rugby in some important games.
It is immaterial to this article that they could play brilliant 15 man too post 2003 for the
most part they didn't.
THIS article is hopefully a balanced article about England under Lancaster and the teams
future NOT whether they win 2015 RWC or not.

JW was the only scorer in the 2 they won?

Sorry they had a geat backline and scored loads of tries through their backs as well. Can we say that New Zealand are a ten man team as they have the leading test point scorer mainly kicking his points; no that would be absurd. Credit where it's due.

I would agree overall the only important game to win is the next one but when Lancaster took over the team was in disarray and needed an overhaul so a longer term startegy was needed initially before a gradual refresh of the team over a longer period is needed.

The result of the current series or AI`s /RC means nothing
next week,month,or next year.
Other sides count there wins v NZ,NZ count there losses and
use them as motivation for next time.
Englands aim should be not a RWC next year but gaining
and retaining excellence EVERY Game.

That is exactly it. It's a shame that with the media building up 'must win' Test Matches and the Sky hype machine these tours get blown out of proportion, it's as much a chance to tinker with the team as it is a chance to win in NZ.

I think England's future is very bright... they started without Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Lawes in the front five.... their 2nd front five pack is very very good too. They will have a world class pack to go toe to toe with anyone.

They are now developing a great squad. Eastmond proved he's no longer a luxury player and the options at centre and wing are now generous.

Personally I don't quite 100% agree with the logic here. Winning every game is important but development is hindered with that mindset.
Had England not experimented with Tuilagi at the wing now they may have tried it at a more important match. It didn't work out so they can put that one to bed. It could have worked against a lesser side but against the best it was not optimal.

In the end on a 2 match series its been very close. I don't think any side even the boks will get this close to the ABs in NZ. Had it been in England it could have easily been reverse results. With the world cup being in England I think NZ now realise they will have a big challenge to retain their title.

For me no one really cares about winning loads of matches in the long run... England in football often do very well in friendlies... for instance last year they played Brasil twice... winning one, and drawing the other. But come the clutch moments they fold.

Its about trophies, only those with the longest memories will say the hungarian team in the 50s were the most dominant of the era. Titles matter.

Thats what KO rugby provides and thats why its the benchmark to modern day greatness.

In terms of rugby purests I can see why those rather look at such things.

I assume Alan you would rather take a season where say the ABs win every test bar a world cup final for instance over one where they have a terrible season leading up to the RWC but somehow manage to win the title.
Each to their own, but for me, titles matter and I'd sacrifice everything to maximise my teams chances for that title. If it means the odd loss then so be it.

Jacques Kallis was laughed at in the beginning of his career... getting out for 10s, 20s and being seen as not ready... but SA cricket had a plan for him and wanted to work him into test cricket and probably lost matches due to his initial inclusion.... it was a well thought out investment in the end.

Any concerns from the AB fans that SA and England seem to be raising the bar a bit physically and that NZ just may be falling behind a bit?

I can't recall seeing the ABs dominated so much physically as they have in times in these tests and SA and England have looked dominant in the Junior RWC.

NZ still have higher skills levels, experience and mental strength but for how long?

english sport has moved from a "nice to take part" mentality 20+ years ago, to a "show me the silverware" mentality now. this informs allocation of lottery money for all olympic sports, SKY's decision to setup a cycling team, etc, etc.

success is very much measured in England by RWC performance in rugby. 6N less so to my mind as it's not the ultimate goal, although its still important.

NZ obviously prefer to look at unbeaten runs etc because they have a history of choking the big ones. it's okay i understand. i would probably feel the same way if i were an AB fan. Supporters tend to lean on whichever data makes their team look best to them.

emack2 wrote:Gentlemen picking out two lines at the article is fine

If I wrote about New Zealand rugby and included a brief comment about extensive poaching of islanders, I'd expect people to single that out and jump down my throat. You should too with misguided comments about 10 man rugby. That's a line put out by Australia in the Carling era, when it was actually appropriate. There's a reason the Australians still say it - they successfully put Carling's side off their game, so hope it might work again sometime.

There's no reason why a New Zealander would look to gain any edge that way. Repeating the line tells me you are just relying on media reports rather than any experience of watching that team play.

Geez...still dont get it ay quins...good luck this week.  

Rugby Fan wrote:

emack2 wrote:Gentlemen picking out two lines at the article is fine

If I wrote about New Zealand rugby and included a brief comment about extensive poaching of islanders, I'd expect people to single that out and jump down my throat. You should too with misguided comments about 10 man rugby. That's a line put out by Australia in the Carling era, when it was actually appropriate. There's a reason the Australians still say it - they successfully put Carling's side off their game, so hope it might work again sometime.

There's no reason why a New Zealander would look to gain any edge that way. Repeating the line tells me you are just relying on media reports rather than any experience of watching that team play.

I'd say the general impression NZers had of the 03 side was that it was fundamentally 10 man rugby. My fellow kiwis can correct me if I'm wrong but my reason for that was mainly down to the fact that wilko was by far ...and I mean by far...the most influential back in that side. That is never the case in 15 man rugby. And none of the outside backs will go diwn in history as one of the best in the position. Wilko and a forward or two would. You would expect at least one in that side to be world best. he other reason is that's how they ended up winning the final...no tries and a wilko dropped goal in extra time.

Against the top sides it was generally 10 man rugby. Yes they scored a truckload of tries versus other sides but mainly those they were clearly superior to anyway.

The way I determine whether a side is 10 man it not...what does it do when its up against the ropes? That side reverted to 10 man. The ABs would open up even more. So would Aus. Might not work but that is where it sees its best back to the wall option.

A great side yes...but at its heart fundamentally ten man.

i get it just fine. am constantly amazed at the misinformation that the nz media are happy to peddle and nz fans happy to gobble up. somewhat used to it in the UK with our media, but you lot take it to a whole new level.

enjoy your current period of impressive dominance, because it really really doesnt look to me like its going to extend through to the world cup with the age and injury-worries of key players in your current favoured starting xv.

carter, mccaw, read, nonu, smith, smith, etc, etc.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

emack2 wrote:Gentlemen picking out two lines at the article is fine

If I wrote about New Zealand rugby and included a brief comment about extensive poaching of islanders, I'd expect people to single that out and jump down my throat. You should too with misguided comments about 10 man rugby. That's a line put out by Australia in the Carling era, when it was actually appropriate. There's a reason the Australians still say it - they successfully put Carling's side off their game, so hope it might work again sometime.

There's no reason why a New Zealander would look to gain any edge that way. Repeating the line tells me you are just relying on media reports rather than any experience of watching that team play.

I'd say the general impression NZers had of the 03 side was that it was fundamentally 10 man rugby. My fellow kiwis can correct me if I'm wrong but my reason for that was mainly down to the fact that wilko was by far ...and I mean by far...the most influential back in that side. That is never the case in 15 man rugby. And none of the outside backs will go diwn in history as one of the best in the position. Wilko and a forward or two would. You would expect at least one in that side to be world best. he other reason is that's how they ended up winning the final...no tries and a wilko dropped goal in extra time.

Against the top sides it was generally 10 man rugby. Yes they scored a truckload of tries versus other sides but mainly those they were clearly superior to anyway.

The way I determine whether a side is 10 man it not...what does it do when its up against the ropes? That side reverted to 10 man. The ABs would open up even more. So would Aus. Might not work but that is where it sees its best back to the wall option.

A great side yes...but at its heart fundamentally ten man.

Billy whizz Robinson is an all time great. Greenwood in the centers is certainly up amongst the best England have ever produced.  Lewsey not that far away either. Even Cohen was up amongst the best in the world, if only for a very short time

I can't believe some people are still peddling that hoary '10-man rugby' line.

So we've had Wilkinson as the sole point scorer in the 2 England victories against NZ and now we won the world cup due to Wilkinson and no tries were scored.

Taylorman wrote:none of the outside backs will go diwn in history as one of the best in the position. Wilko and a forward or two would. You would expect at least one in that side to be world best. he other reason is that's how they ended up winning the final...no tries and a wilko dropped goal in extra time.

there's a load of rubbish in that paragraph. Greenwood and Robinson are always in the debate when talking about best ever centres/wings, and of course Robinson scored a try in that final (England should have had at least one more but Kay dropped it on the tryline...). Basically, wrong!

i dont think taylorman was watching rugby in the early 2000s so he's going by nz herald hearsay a decade later about when England beat NZ in Wellington with 2 players off the pitch with yellow cards. i remember the shock and denial in the NZ media at the time. was pretty funny.

here it is for you tman. englands record from 2000-2003 (immediately after RWC 1999) against SH teams only as you seem to think they are much better quality and tougher opposition at that time

vs SA:
W5-L1 (on tour in pretoria), for 172, against 75

vs AUS:
W5-L0, for 120, against 96

vs NZ:
w2-L0, for 46, against 43

avg points scored per match against SH opposition 2000-2003, 26 points per game. avg margin of victory, 9.5 points.

Hope you've got a big net T'man.

thing is, he's not doing it deliberately. might be funny if he were. as it is he is just revealing his own ignorance beyond what he hears in the media. which is kind of the point of most of the posts above.

It's because we're 'hicks', eh Quins?

Taylorman wrote:...I'd say the general impression NZers had of the 03 side was that it was fundamentally 10 man rugby.

What's that word "impression" doing there? That sounds very second-hand and hearsay. I've always thought New Zealanders were great students of the sport. How about actually watching the games and drawing conclusions?

I've said before, this great blind spot for many All Black supporters is the result of not actually playing England for three years, a period when they were at their peak. You'd hope these supporters might have caught a game or two, or even noticed that they were beating every team which beat the All Blacks over that time. They beat South Africa in South Africa in 2000 - New Zealand lost a few months later. New Zealand then travelled to France, and lost the final Test 42-33. England beat that same French side 48-19. Australia won the 2000 Tri-Nations and England beat them. Australia won the 2001 Tri -Nations and England beat them again.

England went unbeaten against southern hemisphere opposition for nearly four years, and strung together seven straight wins over the Springboks from 2000 to 2006. They set try scoring records in the Six Nations which even now, after a decade of underachievement in that competition, still puts us at the top of the points scored table for that tournament.

You can assume England did that without any world class backs but you can only really do so by not watching any of the games or looking at the evidence. The easier course of action is to ditch the 10 man rugby canard and just accept that England side was very good across the board.

Not hicks. Just remote geographically, very focused on your own team only ( like the current view that it doesn't matter who the ABs play just how they play that determines the outcome), and in the case of tman, poorly informed and overly reliant on tabloid sound bites to try to appear insightful.

Since this thread has been hijacked since by posting some clarification maybe needed.
Also since you are throwing stats around to prove a point at least have the decency
to use them all.SCW 1997-2004 England versus New Zealand the full record
Nov 1997 NZ 25 [3 t,2 cons,2pens] England 8[t,pen]
Dec1997 NZ 26[2 t,2con,4 pens] England 26[3 t,2 con.1pen]
Dec 1998 NZ 64[9t,5 cons,3 pens] England 10[ t, con,pen ]
Oct 1999 NZ 30[3t,3c,3pen, ] England 16 [t,con,3pens] JW Con.3PG`s
Nov 2002 NZ 28[4 t,4 cons ] England 31[3t.2 con,3pg,1dg]JW2 c,3pg,1 dg
June2003 NZ 13[t,c, 2pgs] England 15[4 pgs,1 dg all JW]
June 2004 NZ 36[3t,3c,5 p] England 3 [pg]
June 2004 NZ 36[5t,4c,1p] England 12 [4 pgs]
Whatever England did versus other sides in period 1997-2004 doesn't apply to
what they did versus NZ .Overall NZ has a plus 6 score,Aus a plus 1 score,SA a minus 4 score.
SA in this period were by there standards poor,NZ in 1998 is significant as it was arguably
there worst pro year every one and there dog beat them that year.
In the Wellington Test had todays Refs been there Englands Scrum tactics with 2 men
in the bin would have conceded a Penalty Try[on recent match evidence']
No one least of all me decry that England side or there players and there ability to play
any style they pleased.
As an Anglo-Scot I am as proud of that side as most here BUT now we`ve moved on.
When talking about 10 man no risk Rugby THAT was the perceived norm by most sides
in RWC`s.
To those who use the arch choker jibe for NZ ponder this they are the ONLY side to carried
on successfully after there 3 Final appearances 1987,95,2011.In 1996 they set a standard
beating the RWC holders 4-1,3 of those in SA away.
They are on matches won/lost the most successful RWC ever[SA weren't in first two so can`t
argue that.
I am not in the least interested in who wins ANY RWC it is just another Tournament purporting to be a knockout one.But because of commercial interests isn`t even that
you shouldn't know your next opponent years before the event.
There is no such thing as a friendlie Test as Eddie Butler coyly suggests as if it doesn't
matter if you win or lose.
FAO is absolutely correct I don`t care as an AB supporter if they win every match
between now and RWC then lose it.
I don`t expect ANY team to do that there is always some suprises side that causes
chaos in an RWC.Refs decisions are sure to upset someone whether he is right or not.
My ethos is simple you play your strongest available side in EVERY Test match not
shamefully hide them as has occurred in Lions Tours and 3Ns in RWC years.
I am passionately interested in the success of my native countries [except v NZ]
Scotland with minimal resources are showing improvement and England are getting
the idea fear no one.
To state that NZ won`t continue to improve as they have done in the past is
naïve at best.Just because there JWC side hasn't won the tournament recently
doesn't mean there are not fine players there in.
It may well be they have problems with replacing senior players who were rated
a t time Worlds Number 1 in there positions[McCaw,Woodcock.,Carter,C.Smith etc.]
seamlessly.BUT History shows they do it as well as most sides having replaced the
whole side post 2003,and whole squad post 2007.

who gives a f^&*(ing FO%^ if it was 10 man, 23 man, 1 man or 8 man…..bloody NZ and their, you have to play it like you stole it carp!!! Insufferable.

emack2 wrote:Since this thread has been hijacked since by posting some clarification maybe needed.
Also since you are throwing stats around to prove a point at least have the decency
to use them all.SCW 1997-2004 England versus New Zealand the full record
Nov 1997  NZ 25 [3 t,2 cons,2pens] England 8[t,pen]
Dec1997   NZ 26[2 t,2con,4 pens]    England 26[3 t,2 con.1pen]
Dec 1998  NZ 64[9t,5 cons,3 pens]   England 10[ t, con,pen ]
Oct  1999 NZ 30[3t,3c,3pen, ]          England 16 [t,con,3pens] JW Con.3PG`s
Nov 2002  NZ 28[4 t,4 cons ]            England 31[3t.2 con,3pg,1dg]JW2 c,3pg,1 dg
June2003  NZ 13[t,c, 2pgs]               England 15[4 pgs,1 dg all JW]
June 2004 NZ 36[3t,3c,5 p]              England 3  [pg]
June 2004 NZ 36[5t,4c,1p]               England 12 [4 pgs]
Whatever England did versus other sides in period 1997-2004 doesn't apply to
what they did versus NZ .Overall NZ has a plus 6 score,Aus a plus 1 score,SA a minus 4 score.
SA in this period were by there standards poor,NZ in 1998 is significant as it was arguably
there worst pro year every one and there dog beat them that year.
In the Wellington Test had todays Refs been there Englands Scrum tactics with 2 men
in the bin would have conceded a Penalty Try[on recent match evidence']
No one least of all me decry that England side or there players and there ability to play
any style they pleased.
As an Anglo-Scot I am as proud of that side as most here BUT now we`ve moved on.
When talking about 10 man no risk Rugby THAT was the perceived norm by most sides
in RWC`s.
To those who use the arch choker jibe for NZ ponder this they are the ONLY side to carried
on successfully after there 3 Final appearances 1987,95,2011.In 1996 they set a standard
beating the RWC holders 4-1,3 of those in SA away.
They are on matches won/lost the most successful RWC ever[SA weren't in first two so can`t
argue that.
I am not in the least interested in who wins ANY RWC it is just another Tournament purporting to be a knockout one.But because of commercial interests isn`t even that
you shouldn't know your next opponent years before the event.
There is no such thing as a friendlie Test as Eddie  Butler coyly suggests as if it doesn't
matter if you win or lose.
FAO is absolutely correct I don`t care as an AB supporter if they win every match
between now and RWC then lose it.
I don`t expect ANY team to do that there is always some suprises side that causes
chaos in an RWC.Refs decisions are sure to upset someone whether he is right or not.
My ethos is simple you play your strongest available side in EVERY Test match not
shamefully hide them as has occurred in Lions Tours and 3Ns in RWC years.
I am passionately interested in the success of my native countries [except v NZ]
Scotland with minimal resources are showing improvement and England are getting
the idea fear no one.
To state that NZ won`t continue to improve as they have done in the past is
naïve at best.Just because there JWC side hasn't won the tournament recently
doesn't mean there are not fine players there in.
It may well be they have problems with replacing senior players who were rated
a t time Worlds Number 1 in there positions[McCaw,Woodcock.,Carter,C.Smith etc.]
seamlessly.BUT History shows they do it as well as most sides having replaced the
whole side post 2003,and whole squad post 2007.

The most impressive thing about these stats is how much England improved between 97-00

Settle down quins...its just aview and we are all entitled to it...

Like I said it was my impression that the early 2000 England side was fundamentally based on 10 man rugby, and that impression is largely based on what I believe is my definition of 10 man rugby. And judging by the backlash it appears a 'nerve' has been touched in this area.
I mean if no.s 11 to 15 handle the ball once in a year you could argue that the side doesnt play 10 man rugby. Obviously that is one absurd extreme interpretation.
My interpretaion is (and unlike Quins who seems to have his head in the NZ tabloids, knowing this or that reporter by name, then accusing kiwis of the same, I have my own opinion) that NZ rugby has a 15 man approach to the game. There would be few, if any, sides that adhere to a 10 man approach anywhere in NZ, at any level of the game. At least I've never seen one.

Our ABs play it, and into that side are fed players from any one of 5 of the superxv teams, all of which play a 15 man approach and at the lower level our ITM and school sides all feed up into the same concept.

15 man rugby is based on a concept that all 15 players contribute to the side equally in terms of the overall gameplan, tactics, moves and combinations. It is based on the simple concept at its highest level of the forwards providing the ball, the backs scoring the tries. Obviously at the lower levels forwards score tries and backs force turnovers, theres a constanct gelling of the two.

We dont necessarily favour the forwards, or the backs, but we do favour oir strengths and at times that can be one or the other, or both.

In terms of its application how many times have you heard the comments the ABs were destroyed in the forwards, can't scrummage, are hopeless in the lineouts. Yet how many of those matches did we lose?

The main reasons for those is firstly we are mainly playing sides who's strength is generally in the forwards- the boks and the English and because our backs are doing their part in the 15 man game. They like to judge our sides on 'the pack', then wonder how those backs managed to slip through- we are often 'saved by our backs' when our view is that they are as central to the programme as our forwards.

With the England side of the early 00's my reasons for suggesting they are largely 10 man based, with an ability to play 15 man rugby is because thats where their strengths are.

When I look at that side from a NZ perspective and consider 10 or 15 man rugby I ask 3 questions:
- Is the pack one of the best in the world, or indeed, in the pro era
- Is the 10 on of the best in the world or indeed ever?
- Is the backline one of the best in the world or indeed ever.
The answer to the first two is without a thought...yes. That pack and Wilko rank among the very best of the modern era and match any of the bok, Oz or AB sides since the game went pro. Easily. Wilko is often amongst the first 2 or 3 in any all time 15, often at the very top.
When I ask the same question of the backline after 10? The answer is a resounding No. I have seen many backlines far superior to the English backlines of that era. Good players- yes. Scored many tries yes. But of the three (pack, Wilko) where do they rank in terms of the major contributing factor of that side over the very successful period- last. easily.

Then I ask how would that side have gone if any of the 3 were removed and replaced by the next best?

Remove the pack- NO chance they would have won anywhere near the matches they won, especially the world cup. Replace Wilko for the period?. Not likely but they would have still been a very strong side- possibly not world cup winners perhaps?

Replace the backs with the next best backline- I'd say they had a strong chance of replicating what they did, but without that pack, that set of backs would not have scored the tries it did or anything like it.

And when the basis of that pack left in 2004, the entire side crumbled- no support base to backfill this supposed 15 a side team, suggesting the team was on its own, a one off, and only now is BL, 10 years later, able to redress that fact.

I am coming from the view of being used to an all 15 approach back to the England game of that era. English fans are going from a largely 10 man game to the England side of that era.

So like I said, it depends on your interpretation of what the 15 and 10 man game is. We see it for something very different. It is all encompassing.

That side was the nearest thing to a 15 man game I've seen from England, but at is core, was 10 man rugby- like I said- my own view.

This is a good example of our differing view of the game.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...I'd say the general impression NZers had of the 03 side was that it was fundamentally 10 man rugby.

What's that word "impression" doing there? That sounds very second-hand and hearsay. I've always thought New Zealanders were great students of the sport. How about actually watching the games and drawing conclusions?

I've said before, this great blind spot for many All Black supporters is the result of not actually playing England for three years, a period when they were at their peak. You'd hope these supporters might have caught a game or two, or even noticed that they were beating every team which beat the All Blacks over that time. They beat South Africa in South Africa in 2000 - New Zealand lost a few months later. New Zealand then travelled to France, and lost the final Test 42-33. England beat that same French side 48-19. Australia won the 2000 Tri-Nations and England beat them. Australia won the 2001 Tri -Nations and England beat them again.

England went unbeaten against southern hemisphere opposition for nearly four years, and strung together seven straight wins over the Springboks from 2000 to 2006. They set try scoring records in the Six Nations which even now, after a decade of underachievement in that competition, still puts us at the top of the points scored table for that tournament.

You can assume England did that without any world class backs but you can only really do so by not watching any of the games or looking at the evidence. The easier course of action is to ditch the 10 man rugby canard and just accept that England side was very good across the board.

The other side of the coin here is that neither NZ or the Boks were very strong over this period. neither appeared in either the 99 or 03 finals, where Oz did both, and its not only because of England that NZ werent playing well. We were losing to Oz (5 times in fact over the period and France and Eng twice each). The boks lost 24 tests over that period- 10 to NZ so it wasnt only England doing the damage there either.

Yes it was a good side but it was also during a period where SA and NZ were at their worst in the pro era- vs ALL comers- not just England.

So you can paint as rosy as picture as you want Rugby fan but and I'm not saying it wasnt a very good side. It just wasnt the best side of the pro era and it was largely based on a very, very good pack and 10- less so the backs.

Well NZ haven't been particularly good the last couple of years, it's just that everyone else has been cr1p.

See how completely lame that logic is?

Do u appreciate the irony that for you if the ABs aren't the best then they played poorly so anyone who beats them wasn't any good compared to the ABs of today?

The worst kind of myopic objectivity. Teams can only play what's in front of them at the time. Not some fantasy xv man rugby that NZ currently play.

quinsforever wrote:Well NZ haven't been particularly good the last couple of years, it's just that everyone else has been cr1p.

See how completely lame that logic is?

Do u appreciate the irony that for you if the ABs aren't the best then they played poorly so anyone who beats them wasn't any good compared to the ABs of today?

The worst kind of myopic objectivity. Teams can only play what's in front of them at the time. Not some fantasy xv man rugby that NZ currently play.

Oh play the tape Quins. You keep spouting negative reasons for everything without any substance or actual point of view. Our rugby is based purely on our tabloids, kiwis actually know nothing about the game, we choke.

Loser. have an original thought for once.

How about you explain why NZ has a 91% record since the World cup.

Enlighten us with your thoughts Quins?

What? everyones useless?

Yeah that'd be right. The extent of your ability to think.

Go back to the tabloids.

emack2 wrote:Since this thread has been hijacked

You can't hijack a thread by addressing a specific claim made by the original poster. If a controversial statement isn't central to the point you want to establish, then why make it?

I think you've been surprised to learn what you said isn't a widely-held belief. We're surprised that people are still trotting out that line after all these years. It meaningless to say that England side was a great team and then, in the same breath, say they were limited.

Taylorman wrote:When I...consider 10 or 15 man rugby I ask 3 questions:
- Is the pack one of the best in the world, or indeed, in the pro era
- Is the 10 on of the best in the world or indeed ever?
- Is the backline one of the best in the world or indeed ever.9

Forgive me, Taylorman, but that's barking mad. Italy have Parise and Castro - are they playing two-man rugby? If an international team has no stand out performers, would you say they play no-man rugby?   

10 man rugby is about a style of play, not a Top Trumps analysis of individual strengths. You look at what they are doing on the field, you don't work backwards from an assessment of the players.

We know the style only too well in England because we saw it from after the 1990 Five Nations through to the 1991 World Cup. It's when a team looks to dominate possession and territory through set piece play and rolling mauls, using the half backs to kick for position. The back line spends most of the time defending when the opposition has possession, or else taking it up when the ball goes loose.

As it happens, Carling's team had some of the best backs England ever fielded, which rather contradicts one of your conditions. From 1988, England had stared to look like an exciting side but the 1990 Murrayfield ambush turned them into a team focused first on winning. For the next 18 months we got 10-man rugby, except of course, in the World Cup final. With that chastening loss, we went back to the 10-man formula and won another Grand Slam.

And that's pretty much the last time you saw England with a 10-man game plan.

Under Woodward, the team constantly evolved. To my mind, his England side peaked in 2001, but were still good enough to maintain standards until the World cup win.

To be honest, when I read some New Zealand media reports saying Lancaster's side "don't play the 10 man style we are used to seeing from England", I just assumed it was a wind-up. I can't tell you how disappointed I am to realize, from the comments I'm reading here, that it looks like people genuinely believe that guff.

Like I said, we have different interpretations of what 10 man is. We don't use it, but we do know when a side is not playing a full 15 man game, and the 200x English side was not what I would call 15 man rugby.

That is why you get that discrepancy. Your view of 10 and 15 man rugby is simply different to ours.

One example in a match, and South Africa do it as well, is when the backs to the wall a largely 10 man based side will try and get to the opposition half to cause either a penalty or get close enough for a dropped goal.

Our 15 man approach is we will normally back ourselves to score a try more often than not. In that approach its 100%, we go for the try and either get it or not.

For us relying on the opposition to make a mistake and a ref to call it is madness. Both England and SA will pound and pound away with the ultimate aim being to get a penalty.

The Abs will pound and pound away to get a try- Ireland last year- there was no thought of any penalty, dropped goal. nah. (bad example I've realised in that we needed a try), but there are others- would the english or for that sake SA have run the penalty that Cruden ran? Not on your life. Why- because the ultimate goal had been reached...a penalty.

Like I said we think differently. 15 man means 15 man. It means taking complete responsibility for the outcome, not handing it over to the ref. Thats just one example of the difference in thinking.

Its an attitude, a culture and the way we like to play the game. At its heart everyone wants to run with the ball, tackle, score tries, from props, locks through to the 15's. We encourage that from kids through to the AB's.

I don't think the English do that fundamentally, nor SA. Australia do. 10 man rugby is the antithesis of the approach we like to take, and from where (at least I sit) the 2003 looked more like 10 man rugby than 15 man, both in its approach, skill levels, and attitude- consolidate first, then let the backs loose if all the ends are tied up first. We're the opposite. get the tries on the board first- let the backs rip loose from the start- completely different approach to the game.

You might not understand that, but that doesnt make it wrong.

Another discussion about how great, or not SCW's England team. On one side 10 man English rugby and depleted opposition, on the other a truely great team.

From my perspective a bit of both.

Firstly. SCW had a great side. You can only play what's in front of you. The stats show that they were very successful. It's a side that scored a lot of points and had some world class players. I think credit is due them.

Secondly. It's fair to say they happened to strike a rare situation in world rugby where all three southern hemisphere sides were in crisis/rebuilding. South Africa were arguably at their lowest ebb in the modern game. NZ were rebuilding. As were the Aussies in 2002/2003 and fielded some very very weak teams (NZ 2002, Nathan Grey at 10 for Australia 2003). End of the day England won.

Thirdly. 10 man rugby. I think NZ and Australians are genuinely going to believe that. England supporters will generally argue they had a great backline. I'm of the former. I watched the games at the time and have rewatched some of them recently. I think they are in the traditional South African mold/NZ Teams of the early 80's. Crush the opposition up front, and kicking for position being the mainstay of the strategy. That's not to say they didn't run the ball. It's more the mindset of when, who and how. I guess it's probably fairer to say they didn't play total rugby, rather than 15 man rugby. For me it's quite a contrast with the current side.

I prefer Lancaster's current side. I admire his approach. I think they more complete in many ways than any previous England side I've seen. I fear what he may be able to achieve given time and resources. I wouldn't say  I ever feared SCW side.

Taylorman wrote:Like I said, we have different interpretations of what 10 man is.

I can see what you are saying. I'd only ask why, if that is the interpretation you want to use, New Zealanders seem to single out England for the ten man label rather than all the other teams who would it would seem to fit better.

As you point out, South Africa have used what you call 10 man tactics as much, if not more, than England and yet the label isn't brought out for them anything like as much. Instead, there's a much more nuanced appreciation of what they offer as a side. Want a side which aims to win set piece penalties as a central strategy? Step forward Wales. What about France when they think they have a strong pack? By your reading, they've employed 10 man tactics too over the years but I don't recall seeing any comment to that effect in the New Zealand media.

I'd say the 1997 British and Irish Lions played 10 man rugby in South Africa but Woodward's team on tour in South Africa in 2000 didn't. That same year, England famously threw away a Grand Slam by turning down a match winning penalty kick to go instead for a try. It didn't come off and Wales broke away moments later to steal the game at the death. That doesn't sound like a team playing 10 man style under your interpretation.

I actually can't think of a single England performance in 2001 which would fall under your description of 10 man rugby, not even the abject defeat to Ireland in Dublin.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Like I said, we have different interpretations of what 10 man is.

I can see what you are saying. I'd only ask why, if that is the interpretation you want to use, New Zealanders seem to single out England for the ten man label rather than all the other teams who would it would seem to fit better.

As you point out, South Africa have used what you call 10 man tactics as much, if not more, than England and yet the label isn't brought out for them anything like as much. Instead, there's a much more nuanced appreciation of what they offer as a side. Want a side which aims to win set piece penalties as a central strategy? Step forward Wales. What about France when they think they have a strong pack? By your reading, they've employed 10 man tactics too over the years but I don't recall seeing any comment to that effect in the New Zealand media.

I'd say the 1997 British and Irish Lions played 10 man rugby in South Africa but Woodward's team on tour in South Africa in 2000 didn't. That same year, England famously threw away a Grand Slam by turning down a match winning penalty kick to go instead for a try. It didn't come off and Wales broke away moments later to steal the game at the death. That doesn't sound like a team playing 10 man style under your interpretation.

I actually can't think of a single England performance in 2001 which would fall under your description of 10 man rugby, not even the abject defeat to Ireland in Dublin.

Yeah its just a generalisation and you've already provided detail that I havnt considered. As BC says we have a way of thinking down this way and I agree it is purely that, a generalisation. In the late 70's and 80's we used to predict how many of the 5 nations would be multiples of 3 and for a number of years it felt like there were a large number of games that were.

But it is a bit cheeky and we tend to poke fun at it a bit so when the 2003 team came and went (like a ship in the night) it was such an exception to the usual NH rule that naturally we still have our doubts about how representative it was of the state of English rugby. It came and went almost as though the side were aliens never to be seen again such was the immediate return to the status quo after the WC final.

Another part of it is our image of a side that sweeps before them is usually of flying wingers and fullbacks- the Lomus, Roko's, Howletts, Cullens, Daggs, Saveas all lining up to score long range tries at will. The 03 side doesnt leave immediate impressions of that against the top sides. Perhaps they did get them, its just not the lasting image.

So its a perception more than anything and one that is probably not going to shift easily. Non ones fault...just the way it is.

Surely the thing is about perception,often you listen to commentators or others comments
and think.Is that the same game I was watching?when one side is dominant in whatever
era.How good were the rest?that isn`t knocking any side a Coach picks his side to magnify
its strengths and hide it`s weaknesses.
It is more sensible to go on the field to play whats in front of you and adapt if you can.
Often it is a case of inexperience costing a vital game example a couple of years ago
England v Australia,.Approaching half time Aus. man coming to the end of a sin binning
behind on the board.Penalty a gimme right in front of the posts take the points,start
again with 15 men.
But no a young 9 does a tap and go ,ball turned over two passes Ashton goes the length of the field GAME OVER.
NZ currently play high risk Rugby the set piece is just about getting the ball back in play
and possession.
Last year NZ played some dreadful Rugby from a purists point of view made errors galore
and won 14 matches.
Why because on several occasions the other side went the same way but weren't quite
as accurate finishing.
In the modern game every man is expected League style to run.tackle,clean out breakdowns
etc.
AS to one Tournament win being more important than winning every match or as many
as you can not mattering few here take that view from what I`ve read.
Not even the person who wrote it judging from his previous post about SA Rugby under
Nick Mallett .etc[17 wins equalling NZ`s 1960`s record]

Yes but again it depends on your perception of how the game should be played. You say NZ play a 'high risk' game.

What does that mean? What is risk? We believe that moving the ball at speed is the best way to break the other side down, the best way to score tries. We see risk as 'not doing those things' How can you wear a side down or score tries by not moving the ball around?

By risk and by your Aus example you see risk as if to mean if we throw it around we could get intercepted, or turned over, or drop the ball, and get scored against at the other end.

So you equate 'risk' to an open free flowing game where mistakes can be made and punished. We see an open game as one where opportunities can be taken, gains can be made. We see risk as not doing anything with the ball, not taking the most of every opportunity. Its the very glass is half full or empty concept.

I'm not advocating recklessness here, I'm advocating attitude and a positive approach to the game. Plus its fun having a go, fun scoring tries. Most sides forget all that and instead deal with the 'seriousness of the situation' like some responsibility is to be upheld.

Most sides play a safety first, consolidate, get the blocks in, set up in the corner, blah blah, blah, while when theyre concentrating on doing all that we're using all that time to find ways of dotting down under the posts.

We feel we play the way the game should be played so I'm sorry, I don't see we play a high risk game at all, because that has negative connotations, and our game is anything but negative. 'Risk' is not doing all those things, and at the moment, I think we are communicating that concept very clearly...just not sure who's picking up on it thats all.

And its not you personally Alan that I'm referring this to, its a common misconception that sides like the AB's and their style is seen as risky.

I mean of course it is in their eyes..the very thought of flinging the ball around in the first minute of a test in your own 25 is 'simply not done' when it doesn't really matter where or when its done, as long as its done well.

I reckon some of the AB wins these days is partially down to opposite sides NOT taking their chances, not going for it. They meander their way safely through to the 60/70 minute mark and wonder where the test has gone.

Taylorman wrote:Settle down quins...its just aview and we are all entitled to it...

Like I said it was my impression that the early 2000 England side was fundamentally based on 10 man rugby, and that impression is largely based on what I believe is my definition of 10 man rugby. And judging by the backlash it appears a 'nerve' has been touched in this area.
I mean if no.s 11 to 15 handle the ball once in a year you could argue that the side doesnt play 10 man rugby. Obviously that is one absurd extreme interpretation.
My interpretaion is (and unlike Quins who seems to have his head in the NZ tabloids, knowing this or that reporter by name, then accusing kiwis of the same, I have my own opinion) that NZ rugby has a 15 man approach to the game. There would be few, if any, sides that adhere to a 10 man approach anywhere in NZ, at any level of the game. At least I've never seen one.

Our ABs play it, and into that side are fed players from any one of 5 of the superxv teams, all of which play a 15 man approach and at the lower level our ITM and school sides all feed up into the same concept.

15 man rugby is based on a concept that all 15 players contribute to the side equally in terms of the overall gameplan, tactics, moves and combinations. It is based on the simple concept at its highest level of the forwards providing the ball, the backs scoring the tries. Obviously at the lower levels forwards score tries and backs force turnovers, theres a constanct gelling of the two.

We dont necessarily favour the forwards, or the backs, but we do favour oir strengths and at times that can be one or the other, or both.

In terms of its application how many times have you heard the comments the ABs were destroyed in the forwards, can't scrummage, are hopeless in the lineouts. Yet how many of those matches did we lose?

The main reasons for those is firstly we are mainly playing sides who's strength is generally in the forwards- the boks and the English and because our backs are doing their part in the 15 man game. They like to judge our sides on 'the pack', then wonder how those backs managed to slip through- we are often 'saved by our backs' when our view is that they are as central to the programme as our forwards.

With the England side of the early 00's my reasons for suggesting they are largely 10 man based, with an ability to play 15 man rugby is because thats where their strengths are.

When I look at that side from a NZ perspective and consider 10 or 15 man rugby I ask 3 questions:
- Is the pack one of the best in the world, or indeed, in the pro era
- Is the 10 on of the best in the world or indeed ever?
- Is the backline one of the best in the world or indeed ever.
The answer to the first two is without a thought...yes. That pack and Wilko rank among the very best of the modern era and match any of the bok, Oz or AB sides since the game went pro. Easily. Wilko is often amongst the first 2 or 3 in any all time 15, often at the very top.
When I ask the same question of the backline after 10? The answer is a resounding No. I have seen many backlines far superior to the English backlines of that era. Good players- yes. Scored many tries yes. But of the three (pack, Wilko) where do they rank in terms of the major contributing factor of that side over the very successful period- last. easily.

Then I ask how would that side have gone if any of the 3 were removed and replaced by the next best?

Remove the pack- NO chance they would have won anywhere near the matches they won, especially the world cup. Replace Wilko for the period?. Not likely but they would have still been a very strong side- possibly not world cup winners perhaps?

Replace the backs with the next best backline- I'd say they had a strong chance of replicating what they did, but without that pack, that set of backs would not have scored the tries it did or anything like it.

And when the basis of that pack left in 2004, the entire side crumbled- no support base to backfill this supposed 15 a side team, suggesting the team was on its own, a one off, and only now is BL, 10 years later, able to redress that fact.

I am coming from the view of being used to an all 15 approach back to the England game of that era. English fans are going from a largely 10 man game to the England side of that era.

So like I said, it depends on your interpretation of what the 15 and 10 man game is. We see it for something very different. It is all encompassing.

That side was the nearest thing to a 15 man game I've seen from England, but at is core, was 10 man rugby- like I said- my own view.

This is a good example of our differing view of the game.

Thing is you very certainly stated that no tries were scored in the WC final so it comes across as you didn't actually see much of that team. The backline were great, you don't dominate teams like they did without the whole package.

Yeah, I was wondering how taylorman managed miss that interplay between Dallaglio, Wilkinson and Robinson resulting in a try in the final.

I guess he didn't watch it

I thought I mentioned that it was won with a drop goal so yes my mistake, and point taken. Never said the team wasnt great, it was. Its the issue of 10 vs 15 man concept that was the discussion point. And its obvious that there different and wide ranging views, depending on your starting point. And neither is necessarily right or wrong.

Cyril wrote:Yeah, I was wondering how taylorman managed miss that interplay between Dallaglio, Wilkinson and Robinson resulting in a try in the final.

I guess he didn't watch it

I did actually watch it Cyril though just the once, and unlike for others it wasn't one of those 'JFK' moments for me, so yes the memory's a little hazy.

No, I would definitely say that anyone saying the team could only play 10 men rugby is wrong.

Its interesting to see of different people view the England team of that period...personally i wouldnt call it 10 man rugby...but i guess thats just my opinion.

Taylorman wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Well NZ haven't been particularly good the last couple of years, it's just that everyone else has been cr1p.

See how completely lame that logic is?

Do u appreciate the irony that for you if the ABs aren't the best then they played poorly so anyone who beats them wasn't any good compared to the ABs of today?

The worst kind of myopic objectivity. Teams can only play what's in front of them at the time. Not some fantasy xv man rugby that NZ currently play.

Oh play the tape Quins. You keep spouting negative reasons for everything without any substance or actual point of view. Our rugby is based purely on our tabloids, kiwis actually know nothing about the game, we choke.

Loser. have an original thought for once.

How about you explain why NZ has a 91% record since the World cup.

Enlighten us with your thoughts Quins?

What? everyones useless?

Yeah that'd be right. The extent of your ability to think.

Go back to the tabloids.

you do make me laugh. you exemplify the glaring difference between quantity and quality with your posts.

you completely missed the point. i said nothing negative about the kiwis at all, all i did is swap "England" for "NZ" and showed you how utterly lame your point was. no international side comes out and say "we are rebuilding so we dont think we can win or want to win for the next few years". this is the kind of revisionist pap that fans of teams that get beaten come up with. england fans too. but particularly NZ ones, as it obviously couldnt be that England were actually head and shoulders above all other teams during that period, in most positions on the pitch and collectively, could it? no, that is just inconceivable   

you have embarrassed yourself enough with your comments about england of 2000-2003. best just leave it there, eh?

You play to your strengths. 'Total' rugby doesn't work for most teams. sadly we don't see it enough with teams like France and in the past SA who have the personnel to do it. Recently we've seen SA and England play a more dynamic approach but still trying to use their set piece assets. I've been impressed with the interplay of the English back row this series but we haven't seen the same amount of interplay with the backs except for a few flashes like Tuilagi's pass last game. That's not through endeavor but, rather, combinations and execution.

It's true NZ fans tend to adopt a high and mighty attitude to how teams score points. We boo drop goal attempts but part of that is probably exorcising RWC demons where those drop goals or lack of them cost us games like 95 or 07. If NZ had played like the last test across the pitch the roof would've come off in righteous spontaneous combustion. But the fact is this NZ side actually kicks a lot of possession away. More so than any other RC side last year but they are effective on the counteract and timing their attack so it's far from total rugby throughout the game.

There were accusations of Jakeball in Oz in reference to Warrenball. deans had the same tag as well. It's an accusation that tends to stick more if you fail to win games. You cannot dispute the England's side record back in the early part of the millennium and their winning streak justified their tactics. If NZ were losing games last year we would all be up in arms about the amount of kicking. We kept winning so you're more willing to forgive. England forged combinations and a style of play that was extremely effective against all sides. The 10 man comments are a bit like Hansen's encouragement to England this series to run the ball: don't do something that'll make life tough for us. Play the way we want to play the game. Why? because that suits us more. Our pack in the late 90s and early noughties was pretty awful. We now have a more rounded team and that was in part to England. England in turn are playing a more rounded approach and that is in part due to SA and NZ. Rugby is cyclical and there are always periods of dominance and teams figure out ways to overcome that dominance and tactics adapt to law changes. It'd make for boring viewing if we all played the same way and it'd be disingenuous to question a team's dominance because it's usually an inability to see your own weaknesses. I will point out though last year's Lions series saw many teams decry the negative tactics of Warrenball even though the series was won. Was that out of a desire to play more attractive rugby or because of the personnel who brought about that victory?

The Lions thing for me was that you should bring together a team of the best players in the British Isles and mold a style and good spirit etc. What was decided was to base it upon the Welsh gameplan which obviously meant most of the Welsh team were suited to start. So tactics were an issue but moreso from the fact they came first then the team rather than building something unique. But we won so hey ho!

When I ask the same question of the backline after 10? The answer is a resounding No.

Thats an interesting comment Taylorm.

Whilst i wouldnt class it as one of the best ever backlines it was most definately one of the best in the world at the time and through that period.

When you have a backline that contains Matt Dawson, Johnny, Will Greenwood, Jason Robinson, Josh Lewsey etc then its a pretty impressive one.

And to argue against that is a little bit one eyed i would say.

quinsforever wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Well NZ haven't been particularly good the last couple of years, it's just that everyone else has been cr1p.

See how completely lame that logic is?

Do u appreciate the irony that for you if the ABs aren't the best then they played poorly so anyone who beats them wasn't any good compared to the ABs of today?

The worst kind of myopic objectivity. Teams can only play what's in front of them at the time. Not some fantasy xv man rugby that NZ currently play.

Oh play the tape Quins. You keep spouting negative reasons for everything without any substance or actual point of view. Our rugby is based purely on our tabloids, kiwis actually know nothing about the game, we choke.

Loser. have an original thought for once.

How about you explain why NZ has a 91% record since the World cup.

Enlighten us with your thoughts Quins?

What? everyones useless?

Yeah that'd be right. The extent of your ability to think.

Go back to the tabloids.

you do make me laugh. you exemplify the glaring difference between quantity and quality with your posts.

you completely missed the point. i said nothing negative about the kiwis at all, all i did is swap "England" for "NZ" and showed you how utterly lame your point was. no international side comes out and say "we are rebuilding so we dont think we can win or want to win for the next few years". this is the kind of revisionist pap that fans of teams that get beaten come up with. england fans too. but particularly NZ ones, as it obviously couldnt be that England were actually head and shoulders above all other teams during that period, in most positions on the pitch and collectively, could it? no, that is just inconceivable   

you have embarrassed yourself enough with your comments about england of 2000-2003. best just leave it there, eh?

funny...I dont feel embarrassed, and I also don't feel any more enlightened by anything you've said. this entire tour all you've done is moan moan about kiwi fans, kiwi media comments. In fact I don't think you get the game at all. But hey...I can't help that.

I didnt say England werent dominant in that period, they were, the scores and wins say so...durrr. But so what if they were. Who cares? They aren't now are they..whats your point? Long for those days or something?

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Lions thing for me was that you should bring together a team of the best players in the British Isles and mold a style and good spirit etc. What was decided was to base it upon the Welsh gameplan which obviously meant most of the Welsh team were suited to start. So tactics were an issue but moreso from the fact they came first then the team rather than building something unique. But we won so hey ho!

Indeed, similar to 2005. The only difference being the result. But it's easier to justify an approach when you win than when you lose. Sure the Lions could've played more dynamically in the first two tests like they did in the 3rd test just as England could've played a more 'total' approach in 2003. The question is did they need to as they won?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Lions thing for me was that you should bring together a team of the best players in the British Isles and mold a style and good spirit etc. What was decided was to base it upon the Welsh gameplan which obviously meant most of the Welsh team were suited to start. So tactics were an issue but moreso from the fact they came first then the team rather than building something unique. But we won so hey ho!

Indeed, similar to 2005. The only difference being the result. But it's easier to justify an approach when you win than when you lose. Sure the Lions could've played more dynamically in the first two tests like they did in the 3rd test just as England could've played a more 'total' approach in 2003. The question is did they need to as they won?

I don't think the result matters in justification. Both sets of coaching staff did much to put off the fans and that shouldn't be what the Lions is about for me. You could say that it had something to do with the fact both head coaches were leading their respective nations at the same time and that caused issues as well and opened the idea of bias more clearly as well. The Lions team is a different beast that normal international rugby.

The England team at the turn of the century could get into an arm wrestle when they needed to win but that was far from their default setting. Put it this way I'd be delirously happy if the current team had that backline now, even discounting 9 and 10 from that we would be sitting extremely pretty at the moment. I think it's become even more popular to recite the 10 man line as a comfort to some other teams of the time.