When the World Cup kicks off in a little under a year’s time, England will have played all but one of the other nine sides in the top ten of the current IRB World Rankings. Psychologically, it is a huge 12 months for next year’s hosts.
In the past few seasons, they have made huge strides in the right direction – but they are not the finished product yet. With the world’s top three sides arriving at Twickenham this autumn, and a Six Nations tournament against the best of the rest early next year, the players know they have to start consistently winning the biggest games.
“The biggest thing is learning our lessons,” says hooker Dylan Hartley. “France away last year – losing in the last two minutes – the All Blacks games, coming within a score in the last few minutes of the game, but then not winning these big games, that’s what we need to eradicate.
“We need to be the ones on the right side of those results. We get to do that this November, and it’s going to be a no excuse environment. We’re not just gelling together anymore, we’re a performing team and we need to close out those big games.”
Two fixtures in the next year stand out in particular: Australia at Twickenham in November and Wales at the Millenium Stadium on the opening weekend of the Six Nations. Both are great rivals anyway, but with the three sides all wedged into one World Cup pool, from which only two can qualify, these games take on even greater significance.
Everyone is painfully aware of the fact that one of the genuine contenders to lift the Webb Ellis Trophy will be going home early.
“We just need to make sure it’s not us,” Hartley says bullishly. “We’ll just worry about ourselves. It’s a long way off – we get to play Australia and we get to play Wales before that World Cup, so we’ll know each other well enough by then.
“It’s not going to define our World Cup, whether we win or lose these big games, but it would be nice having that in the bag.”
Hosting a World Cup can obviously be a huge boost to a team, but it also creates an immense amount of pressure to perform. With such a tough pool, England’s task is an unenviable one and an early exit would be a catastrophe. It’s a situation the players will never find themselves in again.
“It’s a World Cup – it’s not going to come round often and on home soil, it’s not going to come around again in my lifetime. It’s a tough pool but then everyone will say they’ve got a tough pool.”
The ghosts of 2011 still linger. England’s ill-fated campaign was overwhelmingly negative, the team’s colourful off-field antics in stark contrast to the dull rugby they produced on the pitch. As one of a handful of survivors from that tournament, Hartley swots away suggestions that they have a point to prove because of it.
“I don’t think we can even bother looking back to that,” he insists. “The steps we’re taking as a team now have been huge, and it’s all forward thinking and it’s almost coming down to crunch time.
“This autumn and the Six Nations, it’s crunch time – performing, and winning, big games and then taking that into a World Cup.”
Winning the big games is a recurring theme, and for good reason – it’s something England have failed to do. The pace-setters in this regard, of course, are New Zealand, and so it’s no surprise that Hartley cites the country of his birth as an example of where England want to be.
“They’re World No.1 – they win games like that. You think about that game they had over in Dublin, when Ireland came so close. But that’s what they do, they win games in the last play of the game. And rightly so, that’s why they are where they are. The next step forward for this England team is to win those games, get on the right side of those results and not be left wondering.”
Left wondering is exactly what England will be if they don’t perform in a year’s time. Never mind the home soil part, the World Cup comes around so infrequently that for many of these players it will be their only shot at rugby’s ultimate prize.
Hartley sums it up best: “It’s not a case of ‘we’ll get them when they come tour here in six months’ time’ – it’s all or nothing.”
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Dylan Hartley was at Twickenham to mark Rugby World Cup 2015 tickets going on sale. Apply for tickets at tickets.rugbyworldcup.com between 12-29 September.
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
As you know by now, we are hilarious, and you should be following us on Facebook and Twitter. 
‘In the past few seasons, they (England) have made huge strides in the right direction’. How do you qualify this claim Jamie? Esp when SCW himself stated that England are IRB (WR) ranked 4th in the world – still. if they’d consistantly beaten the SH over the past 2 yrs, this would not be the case. Certainly therefore, ‘they are not the finished product yet’. Precicesly what are these ‘huge strides’?
Also, I often wonder what guys like Hartley actually mean when they make statements like; ‘The biggest thing is learning our lessons’. I mean, surely, it would be more meaningful to articulate exactley what these lessons are & how he/they mean to apply them (Bluddy NZer)!
I’m actually interested to know, but these aforementioned contentions are just too general & therefore lack any real conviction for me.
I think it is quite clear. Learning from you losses in sport is something that is important. He references NZ, and how they seem to close out those matches that are tight, and when they are not playing at their best. He even gives an example of the Ireland game. Not really sure how much clearer he can be.
On progress, it is pretty clear, and if you can not see it, then I can only assume that you were not following England between ’04 and ’11. Your reference of SCW is laughable. Yes he does state that England are IRB ranked 4th. Why does he need to state that? It’s a ranking not an opinion.
The rankings, as I’ve stated before, are heavily misleading. SH sides play eachother, gaining more ranking points as they play more often against higher ranked sides. They also play an extra couple of tests. They are facts. For that reason, IRB rankings should be taken with a pinch of salt. I’m not saying they are nonsense, far from it. In general, the rankings represent that truth. But, over the past 12 months, England have lost only to NZ, and away in France, beating Australia in that time too. If you look back to around ’08, England were losing Autumn tests by 30-40 points. That doesn’t happen anymore.
Really not sure why I’m feeling the need to justify Englands progress to you again, but here we are.
Well said Jacob
Couldn’t have put it better myself, Jacob – but in YouTube parlance, “don’t feed the troll”.
Jacob
I was reffing Jamie. You seem pretty ‘D’ & sarcastic, but miss the pt. You mention Hartley’s comment on ‘how they (NZ) seem to close out those matches’. That’s the point & ? HOW ‘do they close out those matches’? If he (& you?) had specifically addressed the issue on ‘how’, it would indeed have been clearer as to what he & or England have learned. As for SCW’s ref being larfable, well he did win a WC. And his pt is that as England haven’t moved up in the rankings, how much have they actually improved? If you find that larfable, then gd on you. Going over same ol’, but it’d interesting to know whether you be so dismissive of rankings if England were No.1? ‘heavily misleading’. Balony. I stand by my comments, i.e., ‘if England had consistantly beaten the SH’, they’d raelly have ‘progressed’. As SWC said, ‘It’s all abt winning’. And closing the scoreboard didn’t do Oz much gd 2nd time up did it? Some straw clutching here perchance? I venture that you justify England’s ‘progress’ because you fear an element of truth in what I say.
Is that actually a parlance? I always thought a parlance is like an innuendo.
Oh yeah, and Don P is a tool. No real point in talking to him.
“Parlance” is just a way of speaking, comes from the French “parler” (to speak).
Back on topic, yes – yes he is.
Every time I come on here I tell myself not to reply to Don P, but sometimes I just can not stop myself!
He’s a tool who gets a debate going
….. And should also check his facts
If you look at the ranking points England are 2.59 points higher than they were 2 years ago, when they were only just in 4th.
So even if you use the IRB rankings as the only indication of progress there is still progress to see!
Alan Yr ‘tool’ comment is, like Hartley’s, too general & therefore without foudation. Besides I blog v highly of you.
Geat Ditto
Jacob Perhaps there’s some truth in what I blog?
Matt Ah, facts & damn lies eh? Am I incorrect in stating that England have been 4th for, … oh yonks, then?
Alan, Geat, Jacob?, Banastre (correct abt the debate part btw; Jaimie larfing in the aisles?), Matt.
Besides you all miss the pt. You all think I’m only having a pop @ yr beloved England don’t you? I’ve stated before that I hear so much unsubed opinion over here (& that’s the pt) i.e. from here, TV, newspapers. Look at it from a diff (dare I state more realistic?) pt of view. Bottom line is that Lancs record is; played 30, won 11, lost 18 drawn 1 (I think) = 4th (imagine Hansen getting offered 6 yrs for same?). Yet you seem to dismiss this reality, along with e.g. a last up 4 zip loss record to NZ. England have tangibly stayed 4th for 10 yrs. They need to get better in the way they play to get better results. You all seem to settle for being 2nd tier & all you can come up with is name calling when this is in effect pted out. Yr mind sets are arse about face (as is SL’s) in the bigger scheme of things. Bit sad if that’s all you have, but keep up the gd work chaps, it’s no skin off my hooter.
Won 18, not lost. That would be a pretty rubbish record, I agree. We were also ranked 3rd for a few spells over the last 10 years. But don’t let facts get in the way.
We’ve improved in terms of style of play, team culture and attitude, discipline and strength in depth. All of these aspects are in a much healthier position than during Johnson’s tenure.
Style of play …. we’ve scored a lot more tries in the backs this year
Argentina overturning Aus will probably be enough to move us up to 3rd as well.
So from whichever angle you view it from there is progress some progress to see!
Don P
See Geats comment re the win loss record under Lancaster.
First things first. I would be amazed if there was any debate on any rugby site (let alone this one) over the statement that the All Blacks are the best team in the world at the moment. What there may be a debate about is whether they are the best team ever. I think I am correct in saying (please correct me if I am wrong) that the last time the All Blacks lost at home was back in September 2009. This gives us some context (which we are all aware of) in which to discuss the England tour of New Zealand.
Second: We know England are currently fourth in the rankings. We want to be, and think we should be, higher. But we do not expect ot turn into the number one team in the worl overnight. So, the fact that we were competitive in New Zealand is a good sign, given that the only other team to look competitive in your back yard is SA, ranked 2 in the world. Given where we were in 2012 (see autumn losses to both SA and Aus) this seems a step in the right direction. No one is saying we are done, or even that we are better than SA, let alone NZ, but we think we are improving.
As you say – “They need to get better in the way they play to get better results”. In 2012 one game apart, we did not regularly threaten try lines, but this has changed, even in NZ we scored 4 tries in the three tests (yes the ABs scored 9, and yes we still need to improve, particularly our defence). 3 years ago we would have been hapy with two tries in three test in NZ. This time we are concerned that we failed to finish a few opportunities. But we are creating the opportunities. This is improvement.
I hope this shows that we are not dismissing the losses to NZ, but trying to look at them in current perspective.
Regarding Lancaster: I don’t agree with every decision he makes. Sometimes I think he can be overly cautious, but in general I think he is taking us in the right direction.
“imagine Hansen getting offered 6 yrs for same?” that would be a massive decline in form for the ABs who have been running at over 90% win ratio per year. But you have to consider where England were before Lancaster. Lancaster has improved our win percentage, improved the culture, and set in place a structure that looks like it will in addition provide a better development of players through into our starting XV.
I think (and many on this site agree) that the IRB rankings do not reflect the improvements England have made. Also, currently due to the top 3 sides being SH and the fixture lists being largely SH/NH divided, that Australia have a slight advantage (in regularly playing the teams above them instead of the teams below them) that has allowed them to stay at 3rd. I do not think England are better that SA yet. However, if you want to be the best then you have to beat the best. And one of the best ways to learn to do that is by playing them regularly. If you want to debate this then I am all ears…
Sorry to contradict your comprehensive post, but England are currently ranked third in the world. ;-)
http://www.irb.com/rankings/sportid=1/ranking/index.html
yeah, just saw that after I posted. and thank you for the very polite “comprehensive”. Think I got a bit carried away there. One might even say self indulgent ;-)
While it is great to see, it does not actually change how good we are. Also, would contradict my arguement to put too much store by that.
We will have to await the AIs for a significant statement of where we stand. Especially as with the RWC in England the question is how good are we at Twickenham.
The rankings move quite nicely reaffirms my point – they need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Have England got better since this time last week? No. Are we higher in the rankings? Yes. It’s quite simple – the rankings only give rough guidelines as to who the best sides are, with the ranking points system favouring the SH sides. That does not mean that NZ and SA are not the best two sides in the world currently, it simply means that you can not address them and take them as gospel.
No, England haven’t got better. But for Australia to be 10 minutes away from an away win in South Africa one week, to losing to Argentina the next, you could argue they have got worse – it works both ways.
Completely agree. My earlier point was simply that just because England were 4th in 2011 and 4th now, it does not mean that they are not better. By moving rankings this week without improvement suggests I am right, and heaven forbid, Don P was not.
I saw that just affter my post. on the other hand it does not actualy change how good we are. And to acknowledge it would contradict my point ;-)
Thanks for the “comprehensive”. Was worried I had gone beyond “carried away” well into the territory of “self indulgent”.
Geat
Ok, doing it from mem; I did state this, but SL’s record still ain’t all that is it? That’s the pt. And a 6 yr extn? 1 of yr own, Stuart Barnes, too queried that. Regds ‘We were also ranked 3rd for a few spells over the last 10 years’, not for long. Hardly worth a mention as they can’t sustain.That’s yr/England’s real prob. They need to turn this around… or do you disagree with this also?
If you’re asking if I’d like England to be the best team in the world, then of course I would. But it’s quite difficult when New Zealand and South Africa stand in our way.
Mike
Many (English I assume) agree with you. I’m coming from a posi (as prev stated elsewhere & long ago) of having little respect for commentators like Greenwood (best centre England have had since John Spencer for me) espousing stuff like England having the best coaching set up in the world (when he should know better, working for Murdoch or not!). This BS doesn’t serve him/England/you & Uncle Tom Cobley & all for all I know. I say this by e.g., taking into a/c lancaster’s record (upon which I’ve been corrected by, funnily enuff, Geat was it perchance, my beast mate?). Presonally, as I can’t speak for other SH rugger viewers, but I venture you may find similar sentiments expressed, I lose respect for yr contry.. tbc. Run out of time
There’s a couple of Kiwis in the rugby Facebook group I run and they think Lancaster has done a good job, and brought respectability back to England. I think we may just survive your disapproval.
Don P
I eagerly await the continuation. Please be specific about which BS you refer to. Mine or Greenwoods.
Not sure where Greenwood comes into this. I don’t listen to his “commentary” unless it is specifically referenced on this site and I need to understand the context of the discussion.
I certainly do not think that England have the best coaching set up in the world. The All Blacks having the been (pretty undisputed) number one in the world for more time in the last decade than all other teams combined. The ABs coaching set up is based around central contracting of players, so the ABs coaches can be attributed to some degree with the players brought through into the Test XV. It is tough based on that to argue that any but the ABs have the best coaching set up in the world.
I do not know if central contracting will work in England as we have a completely different structure to our top competitions (Premiership and HC/RCC vs counties and SuperRugby franchises). Assuming we do not have central contracts I think Lancaste has taken much from the NZ set up in developing the current Engalnd set up. Certainly since Clive Woodward there has been limited !evidence! of developing young players in the England set up for some time before they are put in the Test team. As a fan I have also struggled to identify a “style” of rugby that the coaches wished us to play. (With review this may be Harsh on Robinson and Ashton, but they were also less successful than Lancaster has been). See Robinsons tenure for the evidence of CW developing young players.
I see these things with Lancaster. BUT – I am an England fan, so maybe I am deluding myself. So far you have yet to present an arguement that convinces me otherwise.
Re Lancasters win percentage. Not sure why this facinates you so, from 2003 to present coaches and win percentages are (from Wikipedia)
Woodward – 71%
Robinson – 41%
Ashton – 55%
Johnson – 55%
Lancaster – 60%
I have ignored Rob Andrew.
If you take out the last tour of NZ ( I know this is artificial, but see above post for the admittedly limited justification) Lancasters win percentage is 66%. Not up to NZ standards, and not where I want it, but an improvement none the less. Long may it continue to improve.
Don P, I meant wanker not tool. Hope that’s a bit clearer for you.
P.S. If we win the World Cup…
Taking a shambles and turnign it into WC winners might qualify him as the best coach in the world, but we can discuss that in October next year.
Geat
You still seek approval then? If you think SL’s done a gd job, then no need to justify, is there? Altho SCW doesn’t entirely agree with you.. or yr ‘Kiwis’.
IMO SL’s done an ok job, but his aforementioned record is no more than that. And he ain’t won nuthin’ yet.
Basically this stuff could go on 4ever. You & I see this sit from diff ends of the telescope. Improving ‘stats/record’ seem to be enuff for you. I see the end result i.e. England still being e.g. 4th (ok 3rd, but only because Oz lost, not because of anything England have done; like last yr) & losing 4 on the bounce to NZ as the bottom line. That’s all.
It’s isn’t “not because anything England have done”. The fact we beat Australia last autumn, only lost narrowly to France, and NZ who have more ranking points than us, and won all the others meant we had enough ranking points to float above them.
If managers were sacked every time they lost a tour to NZ, not many would stay in the job for very long.
Finally, salt doesn’t cause cholesterol.
Don, England have improved since Lancaster took over. Just admit it, you know it’s true. You can’t find any evidence that we haven’t.
We aren’t up with the top 2 in the world yet, but you can’t got from fifth to first without being fourth and third etc.
After banging on about rankings (where we’ve gained points over the last couple of years, enough to now move to 3rd) you now seem to think they don’t count because they don’t support your point of view …….. who in your view is the 3rd best side?
I find it amusing that pundits talk bollocks if he doesn’t agree with them (Greenwood, Dallaglio), but should be listened to if he does (SCW, Barnes). Convenient.
Jacob
If you take just 1 more pinch of salt your cholesterol will be thru the roof… & see my last comment to Geat.
Alan
Woucher! Bitchy or what? Your ‘comment’ shows a lack of expression & is too general, subjective, catty & personal for further comment… apart from…
I’ve no doubt that you’re a diamond geezer at heart, so do tuck in & enjoy the show cobber.
Mike
Ctd… I was reffing to Gr’wood of course. He was on TV a couple of days back talking up the E coaching team when their record under SL is anything but the ‘best in the world’. That’s how he comes into it… for me. It’s this, IMO, bs,smug attitude that turns me off E. Likewise Dallaglio’s comment about England’s win v NZ as being pivotal at the time, when it was, as I think you’ll agree, anything but afterwards. I don’t know when NZ last lost @ home without looking it up, but I know it was a while & I’ll take yr word in was in 09 (to SA I think).
Mike Ctd 11… blog in library, so get cut off due ltd time.
Don’t think England can go to central contracts now? Maybe, but too many bodies with conflicts of interest; e.g. not in clubs (whom seem to have ‘sidelined’ the RFU & they really ‘run’ the game or have the power here? Like the FA in f’ball?) interest to have ‘employees’ crocked when playing for E. Diff in SH of course. Also E must play the SH away on reg basis to improve IMO. Need to find a way. The ‘style’ you mention is diff, esp when I doubt if anyone here even knows E’s best midfield combo yet? I guess people here think I’m banging the SH/NZ drum, but E’s wingers were forced in field only last yr (at home partic) as their m’field couldn’t straighten thier running lines. If SL just looked @ the ITM (I mention this as I naturally view it @ times) he’d see that even the tight fwds run & pass like backs these days.
Mike – Ctd last
Actually unsure in retro whose ‘style’ you ref to. SL’s or likely those prior to his tenure? Either way, E need to id their midfield & up their skills pronto & ult ‘dummy’ runners (as per Gr’wood’s analysis as aforementioned & which, on this issue, he did make sense to me). With guys like Wade likely to start in Nov(?), they’ll need more room to move. Lancs, surely has to aspire to getting his wing men to score a try a game!? Anyway, I’ve said all this before, so nothing new. As for SL’s record, it’s 5% better (accoridng to yr stats), so far than say the much maligned or scapegoated MJ’s. Also he’s been there for a lesser time than his predecessors you mention(?), so rel early days yet. I’m not here to convince you (or anyone) of anything. You seem to see SL’s record as substantial & yet he’s won nothing. I see it diff – until he starts beating the SH on a reg basis. But the E have always had a diff mind set in rugger for me.
Matt
‘you now seem to think they don’t count because they don’t support your point of view …….. who in your view is the 3rd best side’? It’s marginal & recent, but If you’re happy with that, then gd on you. E’re c1/2 a pt above Oz. I presume their posi of 3rd is since the last game of the RC? Unless I’m mistaken (the IRB site doesn’t elab & I haven’t the time to trace further now), this change only occured because Oz lost to Arg? And the narrow losses you mention are… er, losses & so irrelevent (unless teams get pts for losing?)? That, for me, is the acid test, but not for you.. & that’s it. Let’s see how things stand after Nov.
Geat
Thnks for the tip on chloesterol.. try blood pressure then. And re-read my comments to Matt/Mike regds E’s posi. I have opinions (like you), but I draw diff conclusions & at least I attempt to make mine predicated by reffing sources other than my just my own views.
Don P
I think we will have to disagree on this one. Either you are not understanding my point, or you disagree with it.
I agree that ultimately, and hopefully by the WC, the aim is for England to be beating the top teams (i.e. NZ and RSA). I accept that when you start from a low position you have to make improvements before you can beat the best teams. You cannot within a year turn a team heading for 5th into a top 2 in the world team. We are getting closer to RSA and NZ, but have not YET reached their level. As we are improving I am happy with th ejob Lancaster is doing. If we were in 3rd and not improving then I would want England to look for a new coach.
From your comments on England and Lancaster it sounds like you think England have made no improvement in the last 2 years… Do you think England have made any improvement?
Mike
Last 2 standing. Most here disagree with me. They/you see this improvement issue as more significant for England than me. I look @ Lanc’s record & e.g. last 4 results v NZ as more the bottom line. It’s degrees I expect, albeit by some.Getting ‘closer to’, say NZ, or ‘scoring more tries’ is of less real signicance to me. In the end it’s abt winning enough games. This ‘pinch of salt’ stuff regds IRB (WR) rankings or not playing the SH enough is really excuse making (which we all can/do), but for England to make a real impact they must beat the SH reg & away from home. Needs rad o/haul in thinking. Another pt; England’s wingers don’t score (many) tries. Savea has 27 in 27. Surely England must signif address this issue by sorting their midfield’s (who are they?) skills & running lines… for the wings. I clearly come across as anti English, but I see it as pro truth. England have improved a bit (according to above stats by 5% on SL’s predecessors). Will this win a WC tho, which has to be the objective. Know more Nov’s end I guess. Regds for perseverance.
England 2000-2003 was the only NH side in over a century of test rugby to put together a consistent run of wins against the big 3. Surely it would be arrogant, or deluded, so expect this side that’s 3 years out of the doldrums to manage a comparable feat?
Regarding the world cup, look at the omnishshambles of an England side that reached the final in 07. And France managed it in 2011 despite losing to Tonga! You don’t necessarily have to be the best side in the world to win the trophy.
Mike
As an afterthought & regds Jamie’s original contention; ‘In the past few seasons, they (England) have made HUGE strides in the right direction – but they are not the finished product yet’, I take task with the 1st part of his statement, as it is largely unsubstantiated, too wooly, a claim, but do agree with the 2nd part. SL’s record attests to the latter. However, his job is to sell his headlines, which, judging by this debate still lingering on & on, he has suceeded in, but following a 4 zip loss record to NZ, the the ‘HUGH’ word is surely somewhat subjective & therefore inapprop. That’s the sort of stuff that gives tends to Hos(i)e me off. Oops. Given the game away now. Expect more of the same? Oh, no.
Geat
True.