E-mail Article 
Print-Friendly Version 
Jonny Willkinson finishes off France
Email Stuart Barnes
From the bottom of the pit, England have clambered to within sight of the summit.
It is proving to be one of the more dramatic of all rugby expeditions. Brian Ashton has got his team thinking and they have roused themselves to a furious pitch of determined and heart-warming patriotism.
France and their conservative coach, Bernard Laporte got their desserts. Yes, they froze but with the extra talent at their disposal behind the scrum and a competitive pack, it was a poor and unambitious performance from them.
England are not pretty, that is for sure, but they are finding some momentum and self belief. They will also need to find some better finishing skills if they are to complete the job and turn around a 36-0 defeat just a month ago.
Jonny Wilkinson, with his amazing temperament, was the hero although he was poor for 70-odd minutes. He needs to have that scoreboard ticking with much more regularity than Saturday because Sunday night was a reminder of South Africa's strike power, either through their athletic pack or that man Habana.
The line-out is another mountain all of its own that England must scale if they are to clinch the big one. Logic has the Boks strong favourites to win the match but this has been a fiercely illogical tournament to date.
Smash into the half-backs and make South Africa play for 80 minutes and who knows; after the last few weeks I am not prepared to discount anything - except maybe Mark Regan outsprinting Bryan Habana to the line from 90 metres. Other than that, it remains up for grabs.
South Africa have the extra class but also the huge burden of expectation. England have already overachieved. Their fear is a healthy fear; not one that can lead to the frozen performance we saw from France.
You never know, now to this week's mail...
Stuart answers your emails
Hi Stuart, Why have the IRB not penalised John O'Neill and Jock Hobbs for bringing the game into disrepute? As to the infamous forward pass(es) in the France vs NZ game, I've watched the game a few times and it appeared that both the near-side touch judge and the ref were behind the players and so it would have been almost impossible to call a forward pass. If I'm correct, then Wayne Barnes didn't 'make a mistake' - if you can't see a forward pass, you can't call it. The other 'incident' culminating in a yellow card: I have replayed that dozens of times and McAllister eyed up the French player and continued running into his path. How he can have the cheek to claim that he didn't intentionally block the chaser beggars belief. Have I got blinkers on or am I spouting sense? Ben Bourdillon
STUART SAYS: Ben, The best reaction to the petty comments of O'Neill and Hobbs would be to ignore them both. As for Barnes, the pass was forward and he was the referee therefore he is culpable and he would want it no other way. But referees do rely on teamwork and in this instance Jonathon Kaplan did not make the call from the best position of the three, so to savage Barnes is ludicrous. He has enjoyed a fine tournament whilst Kaplan was excellent on Saturday. Did Barnes get the McAlister yellow card wrong? Well in Paris the media go about 50/50 which suggests it is a matter of taste. Wayne Barnes will not be to the taste of an unfortunately significant minority of Kiwis for a while but had they made as few mistakes as he did this tournament, they would probably still be in the tournament.
Stuart, simple question: do England change a winning team? OK, they might well have to if Josh Lewsey doesn't make it, but I am still not convinced about Mathew Tait at centre. For me, Dan Hipkiss made all the difference when he came on against France, just that extra physical strength and what seemed to me like a sharper midfield mind. It would be harsh on Tait I know, but knowing Brian Ashton as you do, would he dare change a winning line-up? Of course, that might be redundant by the time you read this, so in that case can I ask what Ashton does with his backs if - as looks likely - Lewsey doesn't make it? Niall Sutherland.
STUART SAYS: Niall, I think Ashton will keep the same team if he can because the spirit of the side has been pre-eminent in their revival and whilst Hipkiss has played a role it has not been such a substantial substitute's role as played by the likes of Chuter and Stevens. Having said that, I think his extra ability to stay on his feet gives a little extra and whilst Tait did well defensively he still lacks a certain self-belief going forward. If the rumours regarding Lewsey's hamstring are true I suspect Tait will move to the wing and you will have your wish.
Stuart, like most people I have been mightily impressed by Argentina's performances at this World Cup, especially when you consider they have no professional game, their players are forced abroad and they have no competition to play in regularly. I know in commentary you made the point that we should find a home for them, but where? Technically they
are a Southern Hemisphere team so the Tri-Nations should be the place, although with most of their players at European clubs, do you envisage 6 Nations becoming seven? Or - and this is probably pushing it - should the IRB make an annual, or bi-ennial competition for the so-called lesser nations who have, after all, made this World Cup the thrilling spectacle it has been? Surely these guys have to learn what tournament rugby is all about, or the danger is this World Cup will be a one-off, even for Argentina. Loved the commentary on Saturday night! Stephen Williamson
STUART SAYS: Stephen, I think the BBC's deal with the 6 Nations is exactly that and precludes Argentina from the tournament until the competition's TV contract runs out. The problem is that seven teams does not work in balance with the requirements (and we are not talking anything excessive here) of the clubs. I would love an end to the 6 Nations with promotion and relegation into and out of the second tier FIRA tournament but the short term loss to the established teams means the opportunity for long term gain to the sport will be lost. As for the Tri Nations, Argentina has a problem in that its best players need to play at the highest level; it is that experience which carried them so far and Argentina does not have that quality of rugby yet. Would the Tri-Nations at the end of the European season be like Sunday's semi, a step too far. Europe - right now - is the route but I hold out no great hopes that our administrators will show the guts or foresight required to benefit both Argentina and the world of rugby.
Hi Stuart, I am writing this before the South Africa-Argentina game but after the rousing England victory over France. Isn't the World Cup a marvellous event? It has produced so many exciting games and so many upsets. But then that is the nature of a knockout tournament. I just wondered Stuart what your opinion was of those journalists that seem to be able to manufacture far-reaching conclusions from one-off matches? Great that it is that England have managed two exciting victories in a row to keep us glued to our TV screens for another week; it could so easily have gone against us. Mortlock's kick could just as easily have gone over, rather than drifting by the upright, and yet from one kick many people are denigrating the Australians and applauding the English. It could so easily have been reversed. France with only 28 per cent possession somehow kept the All Blacks at bay... yet again, but for a missed conversion by McAllister and a missed forward pass that match could easily have been an All Black victory. Yes, the All Blacks did appear to lack a bit of composure at the end but many teams have lost like that before! So my question is: Why do so many people in the media attach so much importance to two results that could easily have been so different? Would we have said the same things if it had been an Australia v NZ semi-final? Very doubtful but we were only seconds from that scenario occurring. Food for thought. Nick, Leeds
STUART SAYS: Nick, I guess the fact that the favourites both lost has us journos reaching for a reason and I believe the ability to win when playing badly is something week in and out club rugby teaches a team and with the nature and tension of knockout rugby, the utopian dreams of the technically most gifted teams can dissolve into nightmares whilst the gritty realism of lesser teams can prevail. Games are won by fine margins but searching for any consistent reason for these margins, well that is the job of some of us, I guess. And a fine job it is too, the tournament has dripped with drama and reminded me that there is more to sport than skill. Heart, soul and brain have been the dominant factors to date.
Thanks again, have a fine week and enjoy Saturday night, good luck to both teams - here's to a fine ending to this irrational but wonderful overflowing Cup.
Stuart Barnes
