Clive Woodward thunders into Eddie Jones debate ignited by Danny Care

The reality is that Ireland are a settled team with tons of continuity, an established style, and a good depth chart, whereas NZ are fundamentally rebuilding. The questions are all about what Razor is doing and how far along he is in that program.

NZ are very close to really clicking. Against England all of the chatter is about how England could have closed out a win, but failed to do so. This has obscured the observation that NZ were by far the more creative and effective in attack, beyond the 3-1 try differential and disallowed tries. They gave away a lot of unnecessary penalties, and made many simple errors (including knock-ons and loose kicks). Those things are very fixable, and when they do so we are once again going to be staring at a formidable NZ team.

Last week we heard the England fans talking confidently about their chances against NZ, but England did not end up looking like the better team on the field or the scoreboard. The England defense was impressive enough, but still could not stop the tries.

Ireland certainly has a better chance, of course, but NZ is improving fast, and I would not be surprised at a convincing All Black win this week. It may turn on whether NZ can cut out the simple mistakes.

SA has beaten NZ four times in a row, including in the RWC final.

I don't think the addition of Spencer for Mitchell helped from that POV but one player should not make such a big diff!

Interesting question about Skelton's role next weekend Miz. From what I hear he may start from the bench, which would be a bit of a waste.

Haivng said that I feel you are heaping rather too many ashes on your own head as an Aussie in that last couple of paras!😅

But this is why the performance against NZ is hard to defend. You can forgive a conservative, back-to-basics team for failing to score tons of tries, because teams like that make up for it with reliability in the simple things. They can defend well, apply territorial pressure, win the set piece battles, and take their scoring chances with metronomic goal kicking, maul tries and pick-and-go goal line attacks.

The reason why the English rugby administrators should be on high alert is not that the English team looked unable to score tries, but that they were repeatedly unable to close out a game by executing basic, coachable skills. Regardless of how they got to the point of being in control of their destiny, they did get to that point. All that was needed was to be world class at things that require more training than talent. But that training was apparently missing, and the finger has to point at the coach.

Borthwick has been in the job for nearly two years, a period that includes two 6N programs and an RWC campaign. So where are the solid foundations that he has been building?

If the chase is perfect and the defence is numbered up then it needs to get sent back. From memory they have not really developed a plan for what to do if they take the ball on/in the 22 with a good chase and no counter attacking opportunity.

Every time we play a lot of rugby behind the gain line (for clarity, meaning trying to build an attack and use width without front foot ball 5m+ behind the most recent breakdown) we go backwards and turn the ball over in some way. Every time a player is tackled behind the most recent breakdown you need more and more people to clear out because your forwards have to go back around the corner, whereas opposition players can keep moving forward. Eventually you run out of either players to clear out or players to pass to and the result in a big net loss of territory and often a turnover. You may have witnessed that 20+ times in the game against England. This is a particularly dumb idea inside your own 40m which is where, for some reason, we are most likely to employ it.

The very best ABs teams never built an identity around attacking from poor positions. The DC era team was known for being the team that kicked the most. To engineer field position and apply pressure, and create broken play to counter attack. This current team is not differentiating between when a defence has lost it's structure and there are opportunities, and when they are completely set and there is nothing on. The reason they are going for 30 minute + periods in every game without scoring a single point, even against Japan and a poor Australian team, is because they are playing most of their rugby on the back foot in the wrong half.

NZ tried to resist making replacements in the second test against the Boks this year, and fatigued players just ended up making uncharacteristic errors at the end of the match.

JB brought that dimension when he first moved into 12 a couple of years ago but he's definitely not been at his best this year. I don't know if it is because he is being asked to play a narrow role, or carrying a niggle or two, but he does not look confident to me. He had that clean break on the weekend and stood there like he was a prop who found himself in open space and didn't know what to do with the ball. He is still a good first phase ball carrier though, they use him a lot off the line out to set up fast clean ball, but I don't think anyone is particularly clear on what they are supposed to do at that point. He was used really successfully as a second playmaker last year but I don't think he's been at that role once this year. He is a triple threat player but playing a very 1 dimensional role at the moment. He and Reiko have been absolutely rock solid on defence which is why I don't think there will be too much experimentation or changes there.