The point I am making is not so much about style, it is about a general approach to the sport. It really does seem from where I am sitting that England and Scotland in particular just gave up on attacking back play some time ago. They pick backs to tackle and to get over the advantage line - and that's about it. New Zealand and Australia in particular have a 100% commitment to using attacking back play as a means of breaking down defences and scoring points. And as a result their back play is light years ahead. There is no comparison.This arguement always gives me a chuckle.
Please note that this arguement is all based on stereotypes of how each country plays as that's the only way in which this is ever argued.
Wales and France have always played a dynamic expansive sort of game. Scotland have almost always played a dull and boring one. England played a forward dominated game for about 5 years between 2003 and 2008....besides that they usually play a very balanced game. Ireland don't know what they're doing. So lets say 2 of 5 play the stereotypical borin rugby.
In the SH, one third of the teams is renowned for playing a forwards orientated game. So it's pretty much a third in either hemisphere (of the major teams). Add in Argentina and Italian stereotypes and you get exactly half in each hemisphere.
The fact that a team like England can still compete (against Australia at least) doesn't negate my point.
It would be very interesting to see what someone like Wayne Smith could do with an England backline. I am sure he could turn it into a real weapon even against quality defences. But that is just anathema to English sensibilities for some reason. To me it is comparable to a cricket batsman deciding that he is not going to play any attacking shots on the leg side. Now such a batsman may be able to construct a complete game around that and be competitive. But he is never going to be the best in the world. Or even close.