Where's the upside in this?

England weren't supposed to progress beyond the quarter-final but they did. They played above themselves, and at times out of their skins and, ultimately beyond the level dictated by skill.

Like the inadequate Australian squad they should have departed as losing semi-finalists; neither squad has gone forward since the 2003 World Cup and that the finalists in that tournament should play off for third place, given that, would have been entirely fitting.

So why did England fall at the final hurdle? Well quality told in the final analysis. England looked to have been outclassed across the pitch and in every phase which is not something one might have gleaned from the hysterical 'expert' commentary of Matt Dawson.

I was tempted to kick off by declaring that the question first asked four years ago* had finally been answered with an emphatic YES, but that is only part of the story. England can't progress, though, until Jonny retires. The other fourteen men on the pitch are too conscious of his presence and I suspect they're limited by that awareness, which is of course a bitter irony since he is the consummate professional and the ultimate team man.

And yet ... who is the man among them to run in breath taking tries? Is there a man among them who would do it but for the obsession with penalties and drop goals? If he's there, among them, he was keeping himself very quiet during this tournament. England's point average through the course of the tournament was the lowest of all finalists in the history of the World cup and that's an unadjusted average taking no account of the expansion of the tournament to incorporate lesser rugby playing nations such as Namibia and Portugal.

There's something lacking at the middle of the England squad.

That's why they lost. They were inadequate.

The neutral supporter was the loser tonight. The game as a spectacle was something other than riveting. I couldn't help but think that a more fitting final would have involved the Kiwis or the French themselves, notwithstanding the extraordinary ability of the Kiwis who undoubtedly play consistently the best rugby any where, any time, except for those eight weeks every four years wherein the World Cup is staged.

On a related note my vote is for maintaining the 20 team competition rather than reverting to the 16 team format. The progress currently being made of the Argentina team in the face of inexcusable opposition by the 'big' nations of the European Six Nations and the Southern hemisphere Tri-Nations and the ineffectual blustering of the IRB hints at a glorious future for the game.

And so we have to look for the silver lining to this cloud. It isn't in the bragging rights now held by the Bok. Sadly there'll be no cheerfully squiffy toffs on 606 tonight and no Matt Dawson struggling to sound enthusiastic while in the grip of a raging hangover tomorrow morning. If I do spot that silver lining I'll let you know.

I guess it might lie in the fact that four years from now we'll all get to snigger as the Kiwis choke in front of a home crowd. I'm enjoying that thought already.

* that question was, of course, "Is that all you've got"