New Zealand, on the other hand, would not only have been expecting to win, but would have been hoping to get back to the sort of slick performance that has eluded them this year.

In terms of real world expectations, then, one could argue that it was a narrow victory for the men in white.

The Kiwis were frequently knocked back, Carter had a poor day by his standards and the win, while comfortable, was far from a try-fest.

England were way better than in their previous two games. Part of this was due to better selection – especially Cueto at fullback -  but there also seemed to be more energy and desire in the performance. Certainly, England were a lot sharper than they have been recently.

Unfortunately, this is as positive a spin as any England PR could put on events. An holistic analysis clearly shows that there was only ever going to be one winner.

Only one team looked capable of crossing the try line. Only one defence was constantly being tested. The stats said it all: England had to make nearly twice as many tackles as the All Blacks.

Despite the massive improvements in just about every part of their game, England still lack a cutting edge in the backs. There were some positive signs: running the ball from their own territory; the odd switch move; faster delivery from rucks and mauls. A breakthrough never looked likely but I guess credit should be given for some kind of positive intent.

Facing the New Zealand backline – who themselves are nowhere near their best form – highlighted the plodding naivety of the English attack. Where the Kiwis were flat, quick to form up and adept at switching plays to outflank the opposition, England were deep and predictable.

I’d be happy to put the English pack up against any other in the world – they’re not the best, but they are pretty good and provide a platform from which England should be able to win games. The backs, however, are just not up to scratch, ranking well below the Tri Nations, France, Ireland and Wales.

South African referee Jonathan Kaplan had a good game. I particularly appreciated the way he pounced at the first signs of nastiness, nipping it in the bud. I do think that Tim Payne, the English prop, deserved a yellow card for his punches, but that aside Kaplan is to be congratulated.

England squeeked home against Argentina yesterday for their first win of the season but there was little for them to be proud of.

Argentina are a force to be reckoned with these days. Their recent record against England is very good but away from home and with a number of first choice players injured it was reasonable to expect an England win.

On the day the teams were very evenly matched and were only separated on the scoreboard by one event – England’s first try of the season. It was a game dominated by the forwards, as one would expect from these two nations, neither having much proficiency in the backlines. Of the two, it was Argentina who looked as though they could provide excitement behind the pack; their efforts were a little naive, but at least they tried.

In comparison to last week England, however, have taken a big step backwards. Discipline was shocking in the first half and basic errors were legion. The gameplan, such as it was, appeared to be a cross between 10-man rugby and tennis. Of strategic back play there was, once again, no sign.

Fans should be concerned that England may be operating in a reality distortion field. After the game Matt Banahan, England’s try scorer, appeared to be pleased with his team’s performance and felt that they were getting better with each game. Steve Borthwick, the captain, seemed equally upbeat. This is deeply troubling; England are deluding themselves. Thankfully, England manager Martin Johnson admitted afterwards that the performance was unacceptable so at least someone was watching the what was happening on the pitch.

England were severely depleted due to injury, even more so than last week, so miracles were not expected. What we hoped to see, but did not, was any attempt to play fast, adventurous, attacking rugby. Johnson’s unwillingness to keep the ball in hand in England’s half of the pitch is clear, and a mistake. It made the backs look stupid and, as a result of the ensuing aerial ping-pong, exposed a major weakness at fullback.

This strategy was further exposed by Wilkinson’s lack of form when kicking from hand – Argentina comfortably ‘won’ the punting battle – though, as last week, Jonny had a good game overall.

I’d love to know what kind of plan Johnson has asked Brian Smith, the backs coach, to implement. We’ve seen the kicking and we’ve seen plenty of miss passes, but where are the effective dummy runners? Wings coming in from the blind side? Fullback crash balls? Switches? Passes out of the tackle to a runner on the shoulder? Again, as last week, we just had backs crashing into their opposite numbers with little support. No creativity, no imagination.

Actually, we did see some attempts at creativity in open play. Aside from individual runs from Cueto, Monye and Wilkinson, it was England’s forwards who showed glimmers of imaginative passing. Indeed, it was flanker Lewis Moody who created the space for Banahan to score his try, after some great work from No. 8 Haskell.

Reading between the lines, it seems that Johnson is upset and frustrated with the lack of progress. So he should be. But let’s not forget that the buck now stops with him. He proved that, on the pitch, he can lift a team and lead them to greatness, but does he have the ability to do it from the sidelines? English rugby needs a period of managerial stability so there is no question that Johnson must continue for at least the next few years, but I’d like to think that some of the older and more experienced heads in the RFU will be offering guidance and support – privately, not through the media – to help him become a great manager. Otherwise we may be doomed to a long period of mediocrity.

Australia had a poor Tri-Nations series this year, losing five out of six games, leading many to speculate that the game was England’s before it even started. The mistake here is a failure to factor in the abilities of the English side.

The team in gold today may have been a shadow of the Australian teams of previous years but, even with a lot of new faces, they were still far more proficient than the men in white.

As an England supporter I have suffered through six years, since the 2003 World Cup, of largely aimless performances. All sides suffer their poor periods so losses can be forgiven but it is necessary to see a trend of improvements in performance, technique, tactics and philosophy. England have failed, repeatedly, to achieve any of this.

After the game, co-commentator Stuart Barnes immediately started talking about the changes he would make in the pack. Obviously, Stuart was a back. England’s forwards won plenty of good possession, particularly in the first half, but the team could manage only nine points, from a dropped goal and two penalty goals. No, the problem was not in the forwards, Stuart, it was the backs who failed.

The English have never been known for exciting, incisive back play. That’s what the Welsh, French, Southern Hemisphere and, latterly, the Irish teams are good at. England do big, strong, fearsome forwards. There is plenty of desire – evidenced by the unexpected run in the 2007 World Cup – but that’s not enough any more. Long gone are the days when passionate 10-man rugby could dominate.

England can play a good 15-man game. Sir Clive Woodward struggled for years to change the culture of forward dominated thinking, eventually succeeding (to some extent at least) and winning the World Cup. He and his team were far from perfect but were light years ahead of what we’ve seen since.

Today echoed so many England performances of recent years. Possession was slow and the backs were able to do little more than charge at their opposite numbers. Mental agility was completely lacking, a try never seemed likely and a slightly sharper Australian team would have easily run in two or three more tries.

It wasn’t all bad. Wilkinson played well on his return to the fold – it’s ironic that he was fit when so many in the squad were not – and Moody stood out. Discipline was excellent, and for a short spell in the second half England managed to pick up the pace to an acceptable level for test rugby.

I have to wonder, however, if there is something wrong with the DNA of English rugby? Why is it so resistant to clever, creative back play? I don’t know the answer, and on the evidence of today (and the last year), neither does Martin Johnson.

Briefly, during a very important game last season, there was a deliberate, illegal substitution following use of a blood capsule and a scalpel. Cheating, plain and simple, and premeditated at that.

Investigations have been conducted, reports written and punishments handed down. Harsh punishments, some say draconian. 4 months ban for Williams, 3 years for Richards, and £250k fine for the club.

Much has been written about this, rational and otherwise. Will Carling, a Quins man to the core, has been paticularly vocal in his criticism of the punishments and of all the fuss. Carling, a former England Captain, appears to be arguing that cheating has always happened and will always happen, so we shouldn’t make such a fuss.

Sorry Will, but you couldn’t be more wrong. If cheating has always been part of the game (I’m not disputing this) but has been ignored, where has this led? Clearly, the cheating has got worse, has escalated, become increasingly premeditated and employs highly sophisticated techniques. That’s what happens when rule-breaking is ignored: we got away with this last time, so let’s go a bit further, push a bit harder. The logical conclusion: just forget the rules and have a free-for-all. Great idea.

I’m glad to see that rugby’s authorities claim to have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy where cheating is concerned, and these punishments tend to support that claim. The penalties are harsh, certainly, but I’m happy about that. A message is being sent, one of deterrence. It’s natural to want to win, but those who are prepared to cheat must realise the risk they are taking – in this case it’s career-threatening. What other sanction will make them think twice?

We have seen a number of punishments handed out to rugby players in recent months, many associated with the use of ‘recreational’ drugs or failure to comply with drug-testing regimes. Maybe this (along with cheating generally) is not a new phenomena, maybe it’s just that testing is more rigorous and reporting more comprehensive. Rugby is certainly a higher profile sport than 20 years ago. None of this is relevant. As a purist, I say that rugby must strive, at all times and with all possible resources, to be ‘clean’. Teach youngsters to play hard but fair; don’t teach them how to cheat. Insist that senior players set an example, and severely punish those who do not.

Will Carling says he would prefer to “play alongside guys that were willing to cross that line, who had the balls and the backbone to cross that line in the pursuit of success,” in short, people who are prepared to cheat to win. I say that it’s not war (Carling is a former serviceman), it’s sport. His attitude is immoral and represents all that is wrong in sport. He talks about “men who happen to fail every now and then, who happen to make mistakes,” and says that Richards “made a bad call” in this instance. It wasn’t a mistake or a bad call, it was deliberate, calculated cheating in the pursuit of victory. He knew it was wrong but he took the chance it would not be discovered.

It’s this attitude that made me stop playing – I loved the sport but hated the cheating and would have no part of it. I’m a Quins supporter and sad that they didn’t beat Leinster to reach the European Cup Final, but I’m more sad, much more, that they tried to win this way.

It transpires that the Rugby Football Union are investigating four other similar incidents in which Richards & Harlequins are implicated. If true, it makes the punishment seem very appropriate, perhaps even lenient. This kind of behaviour must be stamped out.

Perhaps the International Rugby Board should try to turn the poacher into a gamekeeper. Dean Richards was a great and successful player, shows similar abilities as a coach and commands great respect in the rugby community. He clearly knows the sort of tricks that are likely to be employed on the dark side. He’s unemployed. Why not put him in charge of a ‘clean-up’ squad whose aim would be to root out and punish all types of illegal behaviour and, at the same time, persuade clubs to stop teaching the dark arts.

But thenagain, perhaps he agrees with Carling and wouldn’t be interested.

Sadly the pressure on both teams – and especially the coaching staff – not to lose was horribly apparent, and led to a match where neither side were willing to take any risks; most of the game was just plain dull. Italian No.8 Sergio Parisse again showed his class, while for Scotland the Evans brothers hinted at the excitement they can bring to a game.

The scoreline at the end flattered Scotland in that they simply didn’t deserve that many points, despite being by far the better side over 80 minutes. Judged on this performance, both teams have a long way to go to catch up with the rest of the 6 nations, although we know that Scotland are capable of pulling rabbits out of hats on occasion – the same cannot yet be said of Italy.

Billed as the main event of the day, the Ireland v England match was also afflicted with the desire not to lose, again stifling much of the play. Ireland went into the game as strong favourites, on paper as well as form. England, by contrast, were under huge pressure to show that they were at least starting to recover the sort of form that they should be showing, given the size of their player pool.

Ireland failed to live up to their top billing, appearing to be hesitant and lacking in ideas of how to break down England’s defence. Ronan O’Gara, Ireland’s No.10, had a bad day at the office and this undoubtedly played a big part in shaping the team’s performance, although it would be unfair to lay all the blame at his door. Ireland currently have a number of players in the very top rank and they must all share the responsibility. Only the ever-reliable Brian O’Driscoll really stood out and it was he who held things together for the Irish.

England, on the other hand, demonstrated once again that they have a phenomenal defence but little to offer anywhere else. There were hints of an attacking strategy beginning to germinate but basic errors, a complete lack of vision and some catastrophically brainless moments undid any good work. Indeed, the best move of the match was a break by Tait from first phase possession that should have resulted in an easy run-in for Flutey, but Tait appeared to forget to make the scoring pass.

Two more yellow cards and several marginal late/illegal tackles did nothing to dispel England’s growing reputation for ‘dirty’ play, and of course meant that they (again) played 25% of the match with a man down. 10 yellows in their last four games says it all.

A fair result, then, which leaves Ireland on course for a Grand Slam, but they will have to do much better to overcome Wales in their final match.

Although Wales have yet to reach the heights of last year’s performances, their matches this year have demonstrated both a good deal of control in the forwards and a rapier-like cutting edge in the backs. Any team coming up against them would have good reason to be nervous.

From the start it was obvious that France were focussed and would not roll over easily. Early tit-for-tat exchanges favoured the Welsh but only by a whisker. A (rightly) disallowed try prevented the French going ahead but the pace and power of their forwards and backs was clearly in evidence and it became apparent that their ‘new strategy’ owes a lot to England circa 2003. Big, strong forwards with surprising speed hammered at the Welsh defences, while the backline employed a powerful and aggressive defence, largely snuffing out the threat of the Welsh centres.

Wales went 13-3 up after a sublimely simple attack which sliced open their opponent’s defence, and it was at this point that one imagined French heads would drop, discipline would desert them and Wales would be free to work their magic. Not so. France came back with more power and by half time the score was level.

The third quarter was the most impressive, at least from a neutral standpoint. Wales did little wrong – a few mistakes here and there, but the best team in the world will not be 100% accurate. No, the shock was the way the French dominated the ball through their ferocious forwards. They should have been getting tired, weakening a bit, but it looked more like someone had lit the blue touch paper. The hits were hard – from both sides – and bodies seemed to be strewn all over the pitch.

By the time the fury had begun to abate we were deep into the final quarter and the Welsh were 8 points down. A final push from the men in red saw them camped in the French 22 for the last 10 minutes, but ‘les bleues’ held firm for a well-deserved victory.

A great match, some wonderful rugby with fire, passion, aggression and skill, and good discipline from both sides – although Tom Shanklin was lucky not receive a yellow card for a dangerous tackle. It is rare for me to feel my heart pounding towards the end of a game, unless England are playing in a close contest, but I was genuinely excited by this match.

The weekend started in Paris, where France entertained Scotland. I expected the French to win comfortably and I hoped that they might even show us that French coach Marc Lievremont’s strategy was starting to make some sense. The surprise was that, from the outset, it was Scotland who seemed to be attempting to run the ball wide, re-invigorated as they were by the inclusion in the starting line-up of the Evans brothers. Nevertheless, there was the nagging feeling that, for all their ambition – and indeed first-half superiority in all areas bar the scrum – Scotland would not win.

The Scots failed to capitalise on their territory and possession, going into half time trailing by two penalties to one. The second half saw the French exercise a little more control, but they still failed to impress. Although the Scots never looked like winning, they refused to lie down and certainly can be proud to have come quite close to an upset. A little more discipline and perhaps a couple of genuine locks – the experiment of playing with backrow forwards in the second row failed to provide the expected mobility and let them down in the tight situations – and the result could have been different.

Wales took on England at the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff, with only one result anticipated. The only question was how large the winning margin would be. The bookmakers were not disappointed although they may have been a little nervous at times.

Before the match, much had been made of the loss of Shane Williams to an injury but such is the strength in depth of the current Welsh back division that if it was a problem it was all psychological. In the event Wales looked controlled and always threatening, if ultimately a little disappointing.

That disappointment is probably a credit to England’s defence, particularly man-of-the-match Joe Worsley. The men in white managed to bottle up the Welsh quite effectively, primarily by shutting down the threat of Jamie Roberts in the Centre. (The Welsh management must focus on a ‘plan-b’ for when this happens again, as it surely will now that England have shown the effectiveness of the tactic.)

It would have been interesting to see how Wales would respond to real pressure, a genuine threat to their Grand Slam ambitions, but England were so ill-disciplined at times that the contest was never in doubt. Indeed, England displayed flashes of clever back play and scored two tries to Wales’ one (who’d have thought it?), but the six penalties given away in kickable positions – and another two yellow cards – left Wales in a comfortable position. If England had brought a bit more gumption onto the pitch it could have been a quite different game, but then gumption is something that England don’t seem to have had much of since 2003.

The final game of the weekend saw Ireland travel to Rome. Again, the form book was quite clear and, although the Italians have made huge strides over the last ten years, few people seriously imagined an upset. At least this week Italy decided to include a scrum-half.

The first half was a fascinating contest, with Italy’s aggressive defence putting Ireland under a lot of pressure, leading to the 3 penalties that were to be Italy’s contribution to the scoreline. In between them Ireland benefitted from an interception/breakaway try, but the first quarter really belonged to Italy. From then on Ireland were in control, dominating possession and territory for the rest of the half and eventually carving Italy open.

The second half was a complete mess. Stop-start, injury strewn and just flat; very forgettable. Ireland’s dominance increased and Italy tired, but the scoreline at the end was rather inflated, though perhaps reflecting Ireland’s overall superiority. Most memorable for the bad tackles – including the Italian fullback’s clothes-line job on his opposite number at the very start – and the referee’s inability to get control of the scrums, few will want to buy the DVD of this game.

Italy will take some positives from the first quarter and if they can develop an effective attacking backline could become serious contenders. Ireland will be pleased to have won but will know they have much to work on if they are to challenge Wales, who remain clear favourites for the Championship. The next matches are in two weeks time, when Wales travel to Paris, Ireland entertain England and the Scots will hope that home advantage gives them the edge over Italy.

Today was the second round of matches in the 2009 Six Nations Championship and the second chance for Martin Johnson to show us that he can turn around England’s fortunes after 5 miserable years. ‘England expects…’ they say, but I’m just wondering, do we expect too much?

Looking back over the last thirty-something years – as far back as my memory stretches – I have to admit that England have never been an ‘exciting’ team in the way that the French always used to be, or the Welsh are at the moment, or the southern hemisphere teams always seem to be.

No, England’s style has always been that of the sledgehammer rather than the scalpel. I don’t understand why. Culturally, ethnically, genetically even, England is about as mixed up as you can get, so it can’t be a problem that we’re born with, it has to be a ‘learned’ behaviour. In which case, can’t we just unlearn it?

Under Clive Woodward England became the ultimate professional unit and went on to win the world cup in 2003. It wasn’t through flair or creativity; rather it was through fitness, strength, planning and attention to detail ( and some very fine players). But almost as soon as that world cup tournament ended, so did England’s greatness (if you think ‘greatness’ is too strong, I suggest you revisit the records for 2003). Bizarrely, England went from dominant world power to 2nd division in the blink of an eye.

All sorts of reasons have been put forward by commentators; the age of the squad, retirements of key players, burn-out due to the pressure of playing so many games, all sorts of excuses. I have no suggestions myself, but after the achievements of that period I was happy to live on my memories for a while, until everyone was rested and ready to have another crack at it. 5 years though? Excepting the 2007 world cup tournament, which was remarkable for the fact that England did so well, totally against the run of form, England have not played like a world class team in all that time.

And so it continues. Martin Johnson, world cup winning captain, was hailed as the man who would change things. Little sign of it so far. Some fresh selections and the odd hint of real ambition, though not enough to call ‘green shoots of recovery’ yet. But then, can one man make all the difference? OK, maybe Woodward was one such but it took him several years. How can anyone expect Johnson to click his fingers and fix everything?

The problems in the England rugby setup run quite deep. I don’t believe it has anything to do with the physical side of the game. It’s all in the mind. Not just confidence and belief, passion or whatever. Intelligence on the field is what is most notable by its absence. Two games down in the 2009 campaign, 2 yellow cards per game. 25% of each match played with a man short. I’ll bet that on the training pitch the players perform perfectly. But when it really matters they are like rabbits caught in the headlights, even the oldest, wisest heads.

I believe that we have the talent, the commitment, the passion and even the flair. But something is going badly wrong in the coaching and preparation for the big occasions. I wonder if the entire England Rugby organisation needs to be rebuilt, with all selections – staff as well as players – based on demonstrable, recent form. It can be fixed, but from where we are now it might take years, even if Johnson is the right man. Roll on RWC2015.

Over in England, meanwhile, rumours abound. Will Martin Johnson be brought in to the setup as Team Manager? The BBC seem convinced he will. But is this enough? I have great respect for Brian Ashton but I wonder if he is the right man to be leading the coaching team. When one considers what Sir Clive Woodward achieved, or rather how he achieved it, I wonder if a more significant shake-up and approach might be more productive. After all, with the pool of players in England far exceeding that of any other rugby nation, it should be reasonable to expect a lot more in terms of results.

Before the it began, the pundits were predicting the most open tournament for many years, and they were right. All the teams were much closer in the standard of rugby they played than for a long time, but Wales were certainly the best team and deserved their win.

You could argue that this “closeness” made the competition very exciting and, in terms of the results and winning margins, perhaps it was. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves though. The quality of rugby was far, far from a high standard. Why was it close? In simple terms it was because most teams (Italy excepted) have gone backwards, which made most of the games dull and tedious.

The French were the most disappointing. They used so many players over the five games, a large number of whom were debutants, that they couldn’t possibly play as a team. New coach Mark Lievremont seemed to have banned kicking, insisting that his side try to run the ball from everywhere. Historically the French have been very good at this, but in the past they did it with skill, flair and unpredictability. This year they seemed to do it with their legs tied together.

England continued their rollercoaster performance – they’ve been like this since they won RWC2003 – but, while the lows were very low, the highs barely made it above ground level. A cross between donkeys and headless chickens would be the best way to describe them for most of the time. I don’t blame Ashton, I think the players must bear the responsibility and I’d like to see a few heads roll.

Ireland are going backwards with each game. I’ll admit that I don’t like Eddie O’Sullivan at all, as a coach or as a person, and I believe that his early ’success’ was entirely due to the foundation that Warren Gatland (the man he stabbed in the back) created. O’Sullivan has failed to build on that foundation and has squandered a fabulous back line. He should go.

What can I say about Scotland? Just poor, except (as ever) when slugging it out in the worst of weather.

But Italy…they get better every year. The Masi experiment at fly-half has not worked, but their backs are starting to show glimpses of real talent to complement a great set of forwards. Three or four more years and they could be genuine contenders.

So finally Wales. The best of the six, clearly, but that’s not really saying much. Occasional flashes of brilliance from the backs, though not nearly as good as they were in 2005, and a couple of great back row forwards. But the front five are just not up to international standard, and haven’t been for a very long time. Well done Gatland and Edwards for turning things around in a matter of weeks, but there is a very long way to go.

Honestly, I think any one of the tri-nations or Argentina would have comfortably won the competition this year.