England, ha, ha, ha

Well I've just wasted 80 minutes of my life watching a really dismal England performance. I also watched an error-prone Wales performance on Friday. Here's hoping Ireland v Australia is a bit better.

But let's think about it a bit more deeply. Wales changed 5, and ran out a new number 10. It showed at moments, but you have to try these players some time. Welsh errors apart from that were players knocking on, not passing properly etc. in strong attacking positions - the errors were basically all errors of finishing, taking your chances. If Wales can fix that, they will rival everyone.

England went out with a relatively novice pack against Argentina and the scrum and lineout was dominated through the game by Argentina. The breakdown was a bit more even, but shaded by Argentina. I'm sure if I was Martin Johnson or the England forward's coach I'd be disappointed and make them work harder because there was stuff to work on, but I wouldn't be that disappointed because the Argentinian pack was tough.

Argentina's backs, on the other hand, contained 4 amateur players making their international debuts. England, at least out to 14, probably had their first choice backs out there. There are a few people around that could challenge for inclusion if healthy but there's not clear alternatives except Armitage at 15.

So why, pray, did the Argentinian back line make all but 2 of the fluid attacking moves? Why, when England attacked, could even I look at the lineup and say "Ah, he's going to run the ball that way" and, EVERY time be correct - the amateurs from Argentina did the same and scythed the ball carrier down with aplomb.

And the blame has to go upstairs. There was, clearly, a rigidly imposed structure. It said "You must kick for position and then kick for points." In fairness this worked for South Africa in the Tri-Nations. But Steyn kicks from hand better than Wilkinson, and kicks from the tee further than Wilkinson too. SA could, and did, punish any mistake from anywhere in your half, and from about the 10m line in their own too. Wilkinson was missing from the 10m line in Argentina's half; that's a significant extra chunk of territory in which mistakes get punished by points. Is this, therefore, a good strategy for England? Not sure, but looking at Rob Andrew, chief architect of 10-man England in early professional era, and Johnno, who was always quite happy playing in a 10-man structure for England and Leicester through his career are you really surprised that they play this way?

If you're going to do that, why do you pick a 6 who is more of a dynamic, attacking player than a 6 who is grinding, defensive brute (who you had on the bench)? Why do you pick not 1 but 2 scrum halves who are renowned for good delivery to 10, but more than anything for picking their moments and running through the spaces. Why do you pick a 12 who is a play maker to have something like that Kiwi first and second five-eighths if you are hardly ever going to let him touch the ball?

New Zealand must be licking their lips for next week's match. Gatland talked about New Zealand losing that aura of invincibility before last week's match. Fortress Twickenham? More like the Twickenham Alamo!