Strange to feel that maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel having just lost to the French. Is that how far we have sunk part of me thinks, or have the French improved that much compared to England?

Whichever reason, for the first time in many games, far too many for my liking, England had an intent about them, they moved at speed, the hit rucks and mauls, they moved with a purpose and belief in where they were going. The French even looked stunned after fifteen minutes, and I know I was - but pleasantly so!! There was an edge to the guys wearing the red rose, they looked angry, pissed off and I for one love to see that. It is the way it should be, it is the way it should always be when you are lucky enough to wear that shirt. The team that is in your way, stopping you or trying to from winning the game, should be getting hurt physically and mentally. Every minute of the full eighty minutes and even during the evening of you want to!!

So why the difference? Was it all down to the fact that it was the last game, last chance saloon? Why suddenly counter - attack, why suddenly show a sharpness and sense of purpose that had been so frustratingly lacking? Foden was a revelation, no doubt, he has pace, confidence and is willing to take players on. It was good to see and alongside him Cueto too showed the desire to run and the ability too. So was Foden the catalyst? Surely that is too simplistic a reason? One guy starts to have a go so we all follow??

Did anyone miss Martin Johnson's reaction when Jonny Wilkinson succeeded with that last penalty? Wound up or what? Pissed off or what? A volcano on the edge of an explosion or what? Good to see. And his team for once had played in a similar vein.

How ironic that it was the English who were disappointed to see rain in Paris, they had looked sharp and incisive and then the rain took away that ability to run at the French. Ashton looked promising, and his blatant rush of adrenaline that made him kick away a golden scoring opportunity aside, he looks to have potential for the test stage - his linking and rapport with Foden could be crucial.

So yes it was a far better performance, but a loss all the same. So what does it mean? Is Moody destined to carry on the captaincy? At least he led by example, at least he embodies passion in a white shirt and let's be brutally frank, Borthwick was not missed. With Lawes in the engine room alongside a Palmer or Kennedy, we would have a very potent line out.

Much as it lifted the predicted gloom, it will mean nothing unless the players and coaches agree it is the way for England to move forward from now on. If we go back to the pedantic, one paced fare that has been served up so far, then this game will merely be a memory of what might have been. (talking of pedantic, had that referee been popping pedantic pills all week because I have to say I have not seen or heard such an annoying 'jobs worth' since I was told off for eating an ice cream in my car by a policeman who told me I needed both hands on the steering wheel !! I wasn't actually moving!!!)

Cole and Wilson are great prospects for the future, and the back row had far more balance, Easter making an impact on the game for the first time for a while, and we still have Croft to return. Care too looked sharp, he threatens, he thinks and his game is improving nicely.

But as I have said, this is either a defining moment for messers Johnson, Wells and Smith, and they agree to move forward in this vein of playing, or we slump back to the entirely predictable plodding of the previous games? We will wait and see with fingers crossed. But I look forward to hearing why and how the change occurred, who instigated it, who master minded it, and how likely is it to continue. And when I do, I will let you all know.......

OK, loads of people have asked why I did not go ahead and manage Danny Cipriani, so here is my explanation.

I first really spent time with Danny when he was in 'hosting' our facility at Twickenham for the Autumn Tests, along with many other players and ex-players. During the matches, we all sit around a few tables with some good wine and beer and watch the games. Zinny and I spent quite a bit of time chatting to him and getting a picture of where he was and what he wanted.

To be fair to him he is very different from the person depicted by the media, no surprise there then, and struck both Zinny and I as a young guy who was lost and lacked any guidance. Many of the 'older guys' in the facility said that I should 'manage' him - and I am being honest here when I say it is something that has never appealed to me at all before this time.

So I started doing some research, and called the likes of Sean Edwards, Josh Lewsey, Matt Dawson to get some background on the guy, and everyone admitted that the guy has a great talent. There were also plenty of references to his attitude, and to his ability to alienate team mates, which I took on board.

I went and had a long lunch with him and the reason that the whole concept appealed to me was that I believed here was a guy with a special talent, who desperately wanted to play for England, and maybe I could help him work things through with Wasps and England, as I know the key personal in both camps.

I have had a couple of very positive chats with Martin Johnson and at no time has he 'warned' me off, or told me that Danny was a 'lost' cause as speculation has concluded.

I have spent the last six weeks trying to focus Danny and without laying the blame at anyone's door, the main reason that I have decided not to go ahead is that I do not believe that Danny's focus is on playing for England. That and that alone was my main motivation for getting involved with him, it is not about money and certainly not about profile, it was about helping him earn the England number ten shirt. And rightly or wrongly I have concluded that his desire to 'earn' that shirt is not as strong as I want it to be and as strong as it needs to be.

So my decision is easy really. I think he is a good guy under all the media garbage, and he has a special talent. I sincerely hope that it is not a talent that is never fulfilled in an England shirt, but I worry that might be the case, and I just hope that sometime soon Danny focuses on England and the hard work that will be necessary to earn his place in the team

THis quote alone sums up Martin Johnson's approach to England selection as should be read and re-read by any England player hoping for a long career under his Management;

"It's about what you do when you're in there, it's about what you show to the group, how you handle yourself, how you train and the commitment you show," said Johnson"

So much of Johnson's approach is based on how the player behaves, his attitude, his commitment and that counts for a huge amount in his eyes. It has many pluses and is admirable in it's simplicity as a template on which to base a team, but there does need to be flexibility. If we operated this dictum in my day, a certain Jerry Guscott would not have passed the test and England would have missed out on one of it's great players. What did Jerry 'show' the group - lots of attitude, petulance at times and irritability! How did he handle himself, at times very badly indeed and his commitment at times on the training filed was nothing short of a joke! And yet he was  special, and due to that he had to be 'managed' in a different way.

This is my major concern with the Johnson management, the flexibility, or lack of it, in management style. Because Martin was a tough, committed player of awesome ability, he was very easy to manage and he had an intensity of focus on playing and training that could be unerving. However there are players who can produce superb performances, but do not handle themselves in line with Johnson's blueprint (Guscott being one!) Does that mean that they will never get picked, that the management approach is so fixed and unbending that plenty of talent will miss out??

Even in Johnson's World Cup winning team, the likes of Dallaglio and Dawson were characters who liked a laugh, liked a beer - bloody hell Leonard was the king of that - and yet produced sublime performances in the England shirt. They were characters, they had opinions and voiced them and they did not toe the party line - and neither did Johnson himself!

So when I look at the squad, I am happy to see Foden and Tait, relieved to see Lawes still there, but confused to see Ellis? Stunned to still see Banahan, Deacon, Crane, Payne and White still there too?? Is it because they are good squad guys, train hard and show total commitment to the cause? Much as I admire that and agree that it is one of the crucial pillars to squad success, surely the ability to play and make an impact at Test level is also crucial?

And how much to read into the Captaincy vacancy?? I think very little, as I am convinced that Johnson will make Borthwick captain again - he is not a man who likes to admit to mistakes and he is stubborn in the extreme! A little PR exercise to make the media believe he is really looking at the position me thinks.....

So in summary, pleased to see some young faces, exciting talent, in the squad, my hope is that the management create an exciting/ challenging environment that allows them to fulfill and express that talent. Selecting them is just the first step, enabling them to fulfill their potential on the field is the key stage that this coaching team need to crack now...

I know many of you will immediately think there is no way that Cipriani should be anywhere near the England team yet, that he has played only three games, not even full games and one of those started at full back. You may have a point, but just have a little read and see what you think.....

Martin Johnson has had more criticism in the last few months than he had in his whole playing career, and how ever tough you are, and Johno is quite tough to be fair, no one enjoys it or is immune to it. You can not ignore it, however hard you try, because people always mention it to you even when you do not read it yourself. And Johno has to face the media on a regular basis, and they do tend to let you know what they are thinking.... the criticism has been centered around England's poor attack - to be polite - to the ultra conservative rugby they played in November and to the frightening lack of creativity. Jonny Wilkinson played so deep it was almost impossible to attack off his shoulder, and yet he tells us that was the game plan....!!!!!!!!! It has left many, myself included, unable to understand the thinking.

So Johnson needs England to hit the Six Nations with some edge, real bite and intensity and his selection at number 10 will say everything about the thinking, the mindset of the coaches and I believe will give the clearest hint as to what we can expect from England during the campaign.

The candidates are;

Jonny Wilkinson

Toby Flood

Shane Geraghty

Andy Goode

Danny Cipriani

Wilkinson is the incumbent and the points machine that Johnson relied on so successfully as Captain. His defence is still as brave, his passing as crisp, his goal kicking almost as reliable as ever - but there are flaws. His kicking out of hand is way off radar, his reading of a game is strangely naive and as I have said already he played far far too deep, hence England's attack was easily dealt with by the opposition defence. Geraghty would seem to be the answer to England's attacking line up - he plays flatter and is far more instinctive, and yet he stills seems unsure at Test level and as yet is unable to translate club form to the test arena. There are valid questions too regarding his game management as well as the obvious concerns about his defence. Surely Andy Goode, character that he is, has now been put out to stud (some thought!!)

Toby Flood and Danny Cipriani are the two young guns that sum up England's current dilemma and highlight the most important question about this current England management. Toby Flood is the quiet, diligent player, he trains hard, he is popular with his team mates and coaches, he is reliable, he is a good kicker, his reading of a game is good and his defence is good. Toby Flood is good and he plays for Leicester. I do not mean that as a snide comment, it is a fact and it is also a fact that Martin Johnson is being accused of being too Leicester-centric by many rugby brains. So like it or not, it is a factor.

Cipriani is a very different animal. he has attitude - good and bad. He has a high profile girlfriend, he is distant from many team mates, untrusting of many, he voices opinions to coaches and to team mates. And yet he can be brilliant. He is the most potent attacking option England have at 10, he reads a game instinctively and plays the same way so is far far harder to defend against. His kicking is good and his defence is improving. he plays for Wasps, is unpredictable but is the one player who could be special.

What does Johnson do? Does he start with Wilkinson with the trusty understudy Flood on the bench who is in the same mould, but not quite as good as his mentor? That would be conservative, that would conform to the drive to reward players with the right work ethic, players who conform and do the 'right' thing. That would conform to the current environment and to the coaches mind set, and let's be honest it would make man management much, much easier...... BUT, is it the best option?

I watched the Leicester V Wasps game yesterday, and there for all of us to see was the England dilemma. Flood was good behind as dominant pack as you could hope to see. Cipriani was at times brilliant, creating one try and creating what should have been another in the second half. He has real pace, anticipation and is dangerous. he was exciting to watch, even though he had very very little ball, whereas Flood was good. Flood plays to the Leicester game plan, and does it very well.

Leicester does have a huge bearing on England at the moment, through ex coaches, ex and current players and through a similar work ethic. The glaring flaw is that England do not have a dominant pack of forwards, and Leicester rely very very heavily on that advantage. Without it, their game plan can be exposed and that is when you need something extra to break down Test defences. Is Flood that man?

Yes Cipriani is a risk, yes he would require far more 'management' and yet the returns would be far far greater. Whether people like to admit it or not, he has a special talent, and at the moment England do not have too many players like that. The coaching team need to understand that a squad needs a blend of characters/ players, and that winners are difficult to deal with, but when you do the results are so much more rewarding.

it is time for England to throw off the 'cautious' cloak and to start to play, to enjoy their rugby, to fulfill their talent and to start winning. The number 10 selection will tell us a huge amount about the coaches intent....

So the dust has settled on the November Internationals, and we have all had time to have a little think and a deep breath - or two!
So where are England, and realistically where can they expect to end up in the Six Nations?
England are not as far down the progress path as many would like, but then again maybe some of those expectations are just unrealistic. England can not fall back on a dominant pack of forwards as they have been able to for the last twenty years, a pack that was capable of sucking the life out of the opposition pack and grinding them into the dirt. Egged on in the past by two effeminate centres! So without that safety net, England have needed to develop a more fluid, expansive game, and this has been the major area of concern for me.
The England attack has been far too predictable, far too easily contained and after three games it is hard to see where progress has been made. The limit seems to be 'one out' rugby, but 'one out' rugby without even introducing any decoy runners or varying running lines - how easy to England want to make it for the opposing defence?? Many critics, myself included, have pointed out that Jonny Wilkinson has been playing far too deep and made it almost impossible to attack off. We then hear from Jonny himself that he is just obeying orders and sticking to the agreed game plan..................???? Name me another backline that attempts to attack from a 10 that stands that deep? Watching the likes of Giteau and Carter, it is immediately obvious that when they hit the ball flat and at pace, options open up for their centres and outside backs. It is basic common sense. So how frightening is it that England's attack is planned around a number ten that sits 10 metres behind the game plan? Martin Johnson has failed to explain it, Brian Smith does not appear in print to explain and it does leave you with huge doubts about the thinking within the England camp.
Having watched the performances, we were then treated to a 'political' press conference by Rob Andrew, which left me seething. I remember Clive Woodward installing that Labour spin King Alastair Campbell on the British and Irish Lions tour in 2005 and thinking that rugby had lost track of what it was and what it was trying to be. The only up side to Campbell's presence on that tour was to provide the players with light relief when they pinched his Blackberry and read the emails still coming in from Tony Blair!! Oh to have had the chance to write some choice replies!!!
Rob Andrew tried to convince us through statistics and spin that our eyes had deceived us and that contrary to common belief England had made progress in the Autumn Test series and closed the gap on the Southern Hemisphere. I am not a fan of politicians, and it was one of the saddest days when the men in charge of the England team turned a review of England rugby matches into what was akin to politician’s bullshitting about the Iraq war or the success they had made of the NHS. Rugby in my sad old mind was played by a certain type of guy, pretty trustworthy, hard, and direct and not one that is into bullshit! I played alongside Rob goodness knows how many times for England and grew to trust him implicitly and we became great mates. I would like to think we are still mates, but at some point when I next see him I will have to let him know that press conference was one of the low points of my time as an England rugby fan.
But strangely all is not doom and gloom in my view, and I do think England could be a dramatically different prospect in the Six Nations with only minor changes. Those changes would have to include the return of Sheridan, if he is in a nasty and uncompromising mood, the inclusion of Shaw and Lawes in the second row, Easter to return at number 8 with his club scrum half running the show behind him. Flutey to add experience and creativity at twelve with either Geraghty or Cipriani at 10, whoever is showing the best form in late January. The over-riding premise would be that the England coaches start to look at how to attack, and not defend with the ball in hand, and that players need to be allowed to express themselves and their talent as they do at club level - Care, Geraghty, Cipriani etc etc. If that mind set can be changed within the coaching set up, and if the players can take on that responsibility, then England will be a very different, far more potent animal in the Six Nations, not the stuttering and blind hippopotamus that we saw in the Autumn.

Positives first; 

Moody is playing better than I have ever seen him do so, and with his added experience he is not giving away the crazy penalties that he used to. Shaw made a huge difference and Hartley is finding his feet at test level. There were sparks again from Croft that were good to see.

The England defence was far better, it hit up at pace and the hits had far more impact than in the first few games. It was obvious to see that there was passion and commitment there and that was what I wanted to see more than anything. So fair play to the guys there and they managed to maintain that intensity for the 80 minutes.

sadly the attack is just not in the same league and at no point did I feel the All Blacks were under pressure. the same can be said of the Australian game, and that is just not good enough. Wilkinson for all his bravery and commitment in defence is playing far too deep and no one can attack from that far back. Added to that we do not use any decoy runners, there is no injection of pace and no variety. The selectors dropped Geraghty for Erinle - can anyone tell me what the thinking was or what the master plan was there as i could not see any? What impact did he have, what new moves were based around him? what new options did he give England??

Cueto was far more accomplished at 15 and took some great high kicks, and Monye looked far more comfortable back on the wing - makes you wonder why they did not start the Autumn series like that? But after the 3 games, surely both will go back to the wing, as Banahan is just not a Test level wing. 

I would love to hear the backs coach Smith outline is attacking plan, because I just can not work it out. And having talked to quite a few of the current players, neither can they - how frightening is that.......

Surely it is time for Martin Johnson to thank Borthwick for his efforts and now put him out to stud..!! There is no doubt he is a good guy, loyal and hard working, but at this level he just does not have the presence to lead England. The one thing a captain needs to have credibility is the fact that his form commands a place in the team. If that is not that case, everything else falls apart. In Shaw they have the experienced workhorse, bulk and edge, and in Kennedy they have a line out technician, and in Lawes they have the future. Sorted.

let's be honest here, New Zealand did not get out of second gear yesterday, and they did not have to. Those are the hard facts. 

England need to explode into the Six Nations with a number 10 who plays flat, with Flutey and Tait in the midfield, with a new captain in the backrow of Croft, Easter and Moody (Haskell on the bench as a great impact player). if we can do that and add a genuine attacking game to the defence we saw yesterday, then progress will be good.

I think it is very easy to get hysterical and believe that the sky is falling in on the world after watching England struggle to beat Argentina - if you are an English rugby fan. BUT I think it is important to remember a few key points;

England's injury list is extensive, and the likes of Vickery, Easter, Shaw, Flutey, and Armitage would have been bloody useful for these games. Let's be honest if you took 3-4 key guys out of the Bok side, or All Blacks side they would be a very different proposition.
Also the Argies are now a bloody hard side to beat, their pack is massively powerful and technically probably the best in the world (although I have no bloody idea it is just what I have been told by those who know!!) They have the experience and ability to slow a game down to their pace, having played in a few bloody frustrating games against them myself, and so the prospect of England coming out and playing fast, fluid and effective rugby was asking a hell of a lot.
No I am not being soft on England here; I just think it is important to get it all in perspective.
That having been said I do have serious concerns about how England played, and how they have played too often now.
England were overly conservative in the first half and persisted with a kicking strategy that had obviously been mapped out in the week, but did not take into account that both principle kickers were badly off form. Plan B.....? The chasing of the kicks was also nearly as poor as the kicks themselves.
Why do England persist with not using decoy runners, change of angle, pace and attack when they are trying to break a defence down? Passing to one guy and asking him to 'run hard' is not going to succeed at Test level and does not really fill me with a warm feeling that we are using our talent to the full. I have yet to witness, in two games, an attack by England that involved subtlety, options and pace. Sadly there is no excuse for that.
My concern is also around the strategy England are creating, or not, as it seems to be far too predictable as well as stopping too many players from producing their natural game. The two opposition captain's have both commented on how predictable England were and how they produced no surprises. How sad is that.
On that point, we pick Hodgson - a live wire - he likes to play at pace. And what happens.... he is told to play a box kicking game..........WHY ??!!!
What the hell have we done to one of the Lions star's in Croft??? He was awesome in SA, using his pace, athleticism etc to huge effect, and in two games with England................. Exactly.
Rob Andrew must be looking long and very hard at the coaching team. John Wells has been around for three years now and in my view should be delivering a better pack of England forwards.
Martin Johnson needs some wise and experienced heads around him on his coaching team, not friends or ex-team mates. Someone needs to tell him.......

First up, congratulations to Aussie and their new captain Rocky Elsom - great guy and one hell of a player. They deserved the win, no doubt and they have been under some severe pressure lately, so a great effort by them.

As for England, I thought Jonny Wilkinson and Lewis Moody were outstanding, both were immense in defense and their combined work rates should have allowed England to win the game - if they had any team mates who had been delivering too !

The England pack are a major concern. Set piece was OK, but that sadly is a far as it went. Around the field the forwards were one paced, they only recycled painfully slow ball and there was no where near enough bite and edge to their defense around the fringes - Moody excepted. It begs the question is John Wells up to it? he picked a heavily Leicester focused pack, and yet again it did not deliver. He has been England forward coach for 3 years now and I am yet to remember a commanding performance from the pack.

Yes the Aussies have just played 7 Tests and hence have a hard edge and an understanding, and yes we have a long list of injuries, BUT i still expect the coaches to be able to deliver a more coherent team. 

The backs look way too predictable, there is precious little variety, in running lines, in pace, no decoy runners or subtlety in set plays, hence the Aussies were never stretched in defence, as their captain stated in his press conference. With all the possession that the forwards did win - set piece granted - surely the coaches and players are capable of delivering more threat around the pitch?

We had enough pace in the backline, enough talent, but it seems very little idea and ability to breakdown a defence.

Maybe it is time for Martin Johnson to move away from good club players - Deacon, Borthwick, Crane, Banahan and go for younger players who have real talent - Lawes, Foden, Cipriani, Kennedy, Haskell, Hartley. 

I have always held the belief that a player either has the ability to deliver at Test level or he doesn't. (rocket science there!!) A player either has the ability to react at that speed, to move at that speed, to deal with the intensity of the game and the build up, or he does not. And 100 club games is not going to change that. If the man has the ability 100 games at club level will not sharpen that edge and if he does not have that ability one hundred club games is not going to give him that edge. In Giteau and Genia Australia show us two classic examples of guys who have the talent, but just a little time on the Test pitch in order to deliver - and deliver they do.

Too many of our players are good honest club players, who work bloody hard, try as much as they can, but just do not have that edge / ability to make an impact at Test level. maybe we have now got to the stage where even the conservative Wells / Johnson and Smith need to look to some of the youngsters.

One classic example. Whether you like him or not - Cipriani. I know he is injured, but even if he was not Goode would still be on the bench. Please explain?? It is not as though we have an abundance of talent, as yesterday showed, and yet there is one young player who has it. What do we do, we boot him out of the squad ! Now I am sure he needs his arse kicking every now and then, and more than most, but he is young, he is strong willed - surprisingly!! But Wasps make it work, so why can't England?? We need to look after all the talent we have, not kick it out, and we need to be mature enough as a management tea, to deal with difficult characters. Sadly and much as I hate to say it, i do not see the Aussies making the same mistake.......enough said...

Hats off to Martin Johnson, at least he has found enough fit players to piece together a powerful squad. There will always be debate about England selection, thank goodness, especially in the early stages of a team’s development, as players have yet to cement places and supporters have yet to trust them. Not since 2003 have England had a squad / team that evoked little debate due to it’s success and consistency.

So it is against this background that Johnson has to pick and against this background that there is therefore bound to be strong debate. There are only a few player selections that I would raise an eye brow over, my main concern is more along the lines of squad environment and squad chemistry, but more of that in a minute.

The glaring omission for me has to be Kennedy, especially due to his current supreme line out form. What can Johnson, or his forward’s coach Jon Wells have against the man, because form and ability can not be the issue. So is he thought of as soft? England need some steel, some edge and ruthlessness in the 2^nd row, but his replacements  Kay and Deacon hardly scare you into soiling your pants do they….

It certainly has me at a loss and as a result will continue to lay Johnson open to Leicester bias.

Simpson-Daniel is one of the most gifted players that I know, and he must wonder what he has to do to force his way into the squad, although maybe Johnson feels his form is not the best at the moment?? Mind you, that could be applied to Goode as one of a few…..

So by and large, the squad looks as strong as the injury list allows and in my view is a fair reflection of talent at the moment, with just a hint of Leicester bias hanging in the air! The area of concern for me is the frame of mind, the attitude, the environment that is being created in and around the England squad. Is it just a little too Johnson??

Let me explain; The reason Martin Johnson was so successful was his single minded approach to rugby, not only physically but also mentally. He was a great student of the game, he watched, studied players, both past and present to squeeze out any useful information. He set the example at every training session, during every game and his example was exemplary. He was one seriously focused player and one intensely serious player, and that worked for Martin Johnson, and how.

BUT, is it the best policy to create this current England team in the image of their manager? Johnson was ultimately successful down to his approach, and the approach of those very talented players in his team, some of whom were more light hearted, more interested in life away from rugby, the likes of Dawson and Dallaglio spring to mind. And a squad, a team needs a blend of characters surely, it is what creates the chemistry, the tension that drives a team to success. In the hours of training and the hours of tension, humour and banter are crucial to the sanity of those players.

My concern is that the current England set up is a little dour, a little too serious without the hint of some humour, some light relief. Characters are not encouraged, players with an opinion, a view are frowned upon, all in the name of ‘work ethic’. Now I am a huge believer in work ethic, but I am also a believer in the need for variety in a squad, and a maturity that allows for players who are not clones of their manager. If a player delivers, that is the key goal, and if in his life he likes the odd party, the odd drink, then so be it, he delivers when it is needed and hence should be allowed to live his life as he wishes away from the pitch. The management might just need to take a deep breath and realize that in their highly admirable drive to deliver a successful England rugby squad, there can still be a place for laughter, for fun, and for characters. A furrowed brow is perfect for work times, but surely it should not be compulsory 24 hours a day……

As the All Blacks prepare to tour again, the inevitable question comes around as to how they will do, how good or bad are they and will they win the next World Cup?

 I don't bloody know!!!

But, I do have strong views on the All Blacks, probably more so than any other team apart from England of course! Why? For many reasons actually, and I shall try to explain;

When I was much younger the rugby book that made the most impact on me was Graham Mourie's book, firstly because in those days there was a mystique and aura that surrounded the All Black's, more than any other side and secondly I was fascinated at some of his comments on captaincy and his fights with those in charge (I was only a school captain at the time but was desperately trying to get better!!) The aura etc was due to the infrequency that we ever saw the All Blacks and down to the basic colour of the playing kit - it all induced that reputation of tough, uncompromising warriors.

I remember watching the likes of Shelford, Jones, Kirwan and Stanley and being very in awe as well as bloody terrified!

My own career stumbled along and somehow I managed to get picked for England - desperation makes selectors do very strange things! And during my early years I was actually fit enough for the Barbarians to pick me to play in the Hong Kong 7's. Here I met my first All Blacks, and what a contrast they were. Eric Rush and Zinzan Brooke! Eric constantly played a crazy game, based on making stupid noises and raising eye brows - he was world class at it, but over three days bloody drove me crazy! Zinny was just this class act on the pitch, we lost to them in the semi-final, and some  demi-god off it! We happened to bump into the All Black's on the Sunday lunch time,  a few hours before flying home that night, as we were all drinking in the same bar. Towards the end of the session, I was standing at the bar, avoiding buying my round no doubt, when Zinny stood next to me and grabbed my shirt! Quite forward in my book, especially when he is just not my type (he has black hair for starters!!) Anyway I put up with his grip for a few minutes, because he is quite a big guy and then slowly prised his fingers off me, at which point he just collapsed! He has since claimed that his drinks were spiked, but having been drinking with him far too many times I now know that he is just a light weight!!

It made quite an impression on me, watching the All Blacks, sensing their pride in the shirt, watching a Haka, and witnessing their skill level etc. The next time I encountered them, they beat us in the opening game of the 1991 World Cup. Craig Innes and Schuster in the middle. I toured New Zealand only once, with the British and Irish Lions, and I say 'toured' in the loosest possible sense of the word, as I was so bloody useless that I spent most of the tour on holiday with the dirt trackers- quite rightly. Although in true English style, it really got to me and when the All Blacks toured the UK in 1993, we were wound up enough to beat them.

But enough of my boring playing career against them.

 They remain the best brand in World rugby, they have marketed the shirt brilliantly, it is still clean, and the aura is still almost as strong. The tag of World Cup chokers is amusing for en Englishman ( with the rain and the clouds we have to find our amusement in small ways, and trust me I find my amusement in some very small things...) but it is also not accurate in my view. In 1991 the Aussies were the best side in the World, In 1995 the All Blacks were and the defeat in SA was a shock, in 1999 it was the Aussies again and in 2003 it was England, so no issue with those results. The 2007 defeat was quite easily the most shocking, and the mistakes made just far too blatant and avoidable. Rotation does not work, you have to have a settled side, look at all the winners and see the consistency of selection. It is romantic to think that you win rugby matches by scoring tries, but reality means that in knock out games, you just have to bloody win and you must win! All the hot air about the referee in the Quarter Final is all well and good, but the game was still there to be won, and should still have been one despite the ref's decisions with the territory and possession that the All Blacks had - no excuses. If we are going to talk about interesting referees, I still think Andre Watson’s interpretation of scrummaging in the 2003 final was horrific and yet Johnson’s men managed to still find a way to win. A lesson that I think the All Blacks have now absorbed.

I am biased as I am an All Black fan bizarrely, but then I have been privileged to have got to know a few of the current players. A couple of years ago my company organised some corporate work for Tana, Richie and Jerry and I spent a week with these guys and was hugely impressed with how they conducted themselves, with their very down to earth approach, their humility and the impact that they had on clients. They were a class act on and off the pitch and I have got to know Dan in a similar way. So yes, I am biased, but at the same time intrigued to watch the unfolding build up to the next World Cup from a dispassionate view point.

The Boks dominated the Tri-Nations, it was comfortable for them, and for once the All Blacks looked disjointed, vulnerable and at times confused. The return of Carter made a difference, but the Boks are still without doubt the dominant force.

Despite all the PR and wailing by some former All Blacks about having to win every game and the results are just not good enough, I for one think that the last six months might just be the making of New Zealand’s attack for the 2011 World Cup. The defeats will hurt, big time, the criticism burns inside, I know, and it will forge a resolve possibly missing in 2007. It will make coaches and players ask questions that might have been left un-asked on the back of victory, and in the frustration of defeat a team will learn more about the individuals and the team than in the glory of victory, I am not advocating it by the way, far from it, and I am not doing the usual English stiff upper lip approach to losing, I hate that view, but I also do not agree with the view that the All Blacks can dominate World rugby without ever being challenged successfully by other teams. At the moment the South Africans have the upper hand, but the players that give them that edge might well have lost theirs in two years time….

So time for realism and maturity from All Black supporters, and time to ditch the macho view that the All Blacks are and always will be the best side in the world. For the majority of rugby’s history that is undoubtedly true, but in the professional era, the playing field is shifting and it will be harder and harder for New Zealand to dominate to such an extent. Sport is cyclical, and the test for the current squad is how they go about regaining the top spot, in time for the 2011 World Cup!

So who will stand up to command the midfield alongside Carter, who will stand up to dominate the line out and who will cement the back row slots alongside McCaw? Will Henry be able to inject enough enthusiasm and difference to safe guard his next few years, or will this tour highlight cracks in the coaching team that can not be ignored? It is the toughest tour that the All Blacks have looked at for a while, due to form and confidence and suddenly even doubt in the coaching set up. So many questions for such a short tour, but I for one believe by the end of this tour we will see whether the All Blacks have the playing quality, leadership on and off the pitch and steel needed to win the World Cup