I agree with you, in that playing rugby union by numbers is not the way to gain ascendancy in the game. Union is a game where a well organised defence against a well drilled attack will always result in a stalemate. Constant recycling of the ball, fast delivery and dynamic play will start to generate holes as backs face forwards and vice versa. Otherwise, only something unexpected will break a well-drilled defence. In some ways, in an effort to avoid losing tries, England have lost the imagination to score them.
On Black Saturday, Australia showed how fast recycling, and good ball generated by unheralded work at the breakdown, built on the platform of a solid front 5 that prevent you from spending most of the game going backwards, yields good results. So where did England fail? In my mind, in two ways:
1) Lack of plan B when we didn't push Australia backwards at the scrum, and where we lost many scrums due to being pinged for driving in at an angle.
2) In the brief purple patch when it looked like we had Australia rattled, and could bring it back, we lost our heads and ability to think clearly under pressure. We made too many simple mistakes, and ended up handing the initiative back again.
I don't think that Cipriani could have solved either problem. He has shown a lack of plan B and clear thinking in the past (even when sober), and isn't in charge of ball recycling.
However, as a "from the stands expert", I used to believe that Martin Johnson was way too much of a hot head to ever be a good captain and leader, I offer the above opinion with no suggestion of any insight into the game.
