Hmmm.. didn't an Aussie newspaper put Wilkinson's boot on the front page with the headline "is that all you've got"? Not true, of course, as you also needed thugs up front who were canny enough to induce penalties.. but if your kicker can clock up 3 points almost every time from anywhere in the opposition half and even from his own half (and welly it miles upfield whenever the play threatens to be outside kicking range) it's pretty hard to screw up.

I'd agree that England were just as deserving of the title as the Aussies would have been... but let's not forget that neither would have been in the dream final: the French were by some margin the best team of the tournament and the other guys to watch were the all-blacks.

Did you watch that semi final? That wasn't a rugby field it was a mud bath. Conditions were so evil that it's surprising anyone actually completeed a single pass. Every phase of play became a lottery. The French, to their credit, came out and attempted to play rugby: they made handling errors in conditions that were impossible but they tried. What did the English do? Ruck, Maul and hoof. Yuck.

I'm prepared to acknowledge that the English side were decent at what they did: Hill was, by all accounts, magnificent.. and the big guys were brutal up front... but was it rugby? Not in my book. I've never resented a "home" victory so much as I did that one: it was a sad, sad day for the sport. The only English bright spot in the tournament for me was Catt.. a guy ostracised as outdated by the management but gloriously different when released :-)

On a brighter note.. did you see the Welsh play France yesterday: it was sensational :-)