2019 England = 2003 England

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

2003
Beats Ireland at Dublin
Beats France at Twickenham

2019
Beats Ireland at Dublin
Beats France at Twickenham

Says it all.

 

[TommiG88]

Wilkinson on drugs = 2003

Farrell on drugs = 2019

I can already see the trophy being held aloft.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Have you seen the last two England performances? Don't undersell this team lad.

 

[Reiser99]

Have you seen the last two England performances? Don't undersell this team lad.

Honestly, this team is polar opposite to last year. Dunno what EJ has done, but it's working.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

EJ when everyone started writing England off last year



He was just lulling everyone into a false sense of security

 

[McTallshort]

Yeah but in 2003 we also hadn't lost to a southern hemisphere in over 2 years and were ranked number 1 in the world... Oh and we had a better team

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

2019 = exhilarating performances
2003 = 10 man rugby made Schmidt and Gatlandball look like high octane drama in comparison

I'll be far more tolerant of an England win if they keep playing like this.

 

[ncurd]

'10 man rugby' - had Jason Robinson in the side....

 

[ncurd]

To clarify further the 2003 team always get labeled as 'boring' when the reality was teams were still not used to being walloped by expert penalty kicking. So when under pressure in defence teams would infringe and then England said '3 points thank you very much' now teams defenses (except England cause heaven forbid we learn from ourselves) are way more geared to not infringing thus not getting destroyed by metronomic penalty kickers. Its why all teams rely on a specialist now to take advantage.

Never forget though England back then were extremely strong in attack teams just committed penalties in the hope to quell them.

As well as Robinson, Dallagio and Back were excellent ball carriers. As were Lewsey and Cohen. Greewood was no slouch and Catt regularly got bought in as an extra playmaker. Dawson was a brilliant sniping Scrum-Half always looking for a quick tap or gap in the fringes.

It was 'boring' because the opposition didn't want us to play and they still couldn't beat us.

 

[McTallshort]

2019 = exhilarating performances
2003 = 10 man rugby made Schmidt and Gatlandball look like high octane drama in comparison

I'll be far more tolerant of an England win if they keep playing like this.

Very lazy stereotype for 2003. Surprised at you.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

People who trash the 2003 side probably didn't watch the 2003 side

 

[McTallshort]

Just to refresh some memories

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

People who trash the 2003 side probably didn't watch the 2003 side

Guaranteed. There is almost no difference in scoring stats between the 2003 England side and the 2015 All Blacks:

AB's scored an average of 36.75 pts/game in 2015 and scored 39 tries at the world cup.
England scored an average of 37.88 pts/game in 2003 and scored 36 tries at the world cup.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I'll check out that video and refresh my memory, I just recall victories being based on overwhelming forward dominance and a great boot. If I'm muddled in my recollection then I'm sorry, I'm not looking to undermine an achievement. I just found the Wilkinson era pretty tedious.

 

[Which Tyler]

Honestly, this team is polar opposite to last year. Dunno what EJ has done, but it's working.

He's prepping them for matches in this and the next international window, rather than matches 18 months away.

AKA, he's stopped beasting them, and is looking to get the best out of them more-or-less now, rather than sacrificing the now in favour of the future.

Either way.
2003 = great players, past their prime as a team, but clinging on by sheer force of will and tape.
2019 = some potentially great players, but few who are there quite yet, still a year or three shy of their prime as a team.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

To clarify further the 2003 team always get labeled as 'boring' when the reality was teams were still not used to being walloped by expert penalty kicking. So when under pressure in defence teams would infringe and then England said '3 points thank you very much' now teams defenses (except England cause heaven forbid we learn from ourselves) are way more geared to not infringing thus not getting destroyed by metronomic penalty kickers. Its why all teams rely on a specialist now to take advantage.

Never forget though England back then were extremely strong in attack teams just committed penalties in the hope to quell them.

As well as Robinson, Dallagio and Back were excellent ball carriers. As were Lewsey and Cohen. Greewood was no slouch and Catt regularly got bought in as an extra playmaker. Dawson was a brilliant sniping Scrum-Half always looking for a quick tap or gap in the fringes.

It was 'boring' because the opposition didn't want us to play and they still couldn't beat us.

I'd agree with most of that, and the highlights video did show some more flowing passing movements than I was expecting. I just had the Woodward era marked down as a bit turgid (bludgeon the opposition into submission, kicks penalties before maybe opening up play for the backs rather than backs having to craft their own openings). But maybe that wasn't the case at the RWC and maybe it isn't quite down there with Dan Parks era Scotland or Dominguez era Italy.

For those who think I'm talking rubbish, you can at least know I've just sat and watched 6 minutes of English celebrations. As a Scotman I hope that counts as suitable penance for my opinion!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'd agree with most of that, and the highlights video did show some more flowing passing movements than I was expecting. I just had the Woodward era marked down as a bit turgid (bludgeon the opposition into submission, kicks penalties before maybe opening up play for the backs rather than backs having to craft their own openings). But maybe that wasn't the case at the RWC and maybe it isn't quite down there with Dan Parks era Scotland or Dominguez era Italy.

For those who think I'm talking rubbish, you can at least know I've just sat and watched 6 minutes of English celebrations. As a Scotman I hope that counts as suitable penance for my opinion!

TBH I think it is called boring largely because it is the last criticism that can be thrown at a team when all others are used. England now are doing the same as England then, strangling the life out of other teams. As a spectator of another team it would seem boring because your team don't get to play. That doesn't meant what England do is actually boring. Sometimes you get a team that love to retain possession meeting a team that are good in defence and will take the points. End result? Probably a multiple of 3 and a dull game but that is hardly the fault of the defending team.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, you're misremembering. We tightened up significantly for the RWC co pared to the previous 2-3 years, and still didn't meet the representation of being a scrum and a boot.

 

[higgik]

He's prepping them for matches in this and the next international window, rather than matches 18 months away.

AKA, he's stopped beasting them, and is looking to get the best out of them more-or-less now, rather than sacrificing the now in favour of the future.

Either way.
2003 = great players, past their prime as a team, but clinging on by sheer force of will and tape.
2019 = some potentially great players, but few who are there quite yet, still a year or three shy of their prime as a team.

Couldn't have put it better. Perfect.
2003 had their best times in 2001-2002, beating everyone out of sight.

 

[Every Time Ref]

More to the point, why give a **** if it's "boring". It's not a rock concert, it's sport, the teams' job is to win.

Especially on here, we're (mostly) way above average in terms of deeper understanding of and appreciation for the game, we should be able to enjoy an effective strategy which doesn't involve playing like the Harlem Globetrotters, even if your own team is on the wrong end