What irks me is that playing the kind of game we did against Italy on Saturday leads to me being labelled as a conservative or goalkicking fly half. Now I know that different No 10s manage the game in different ways, but ultimately it comes down to trying to win it.

Believe me, when I opt to kick a penalty, I am not doing it with the thought that kicking a goal gives me more pleasure than playing running rugby. It’s quite the opposite. On Friday nights before a game, I am not thinking: I hope I get a lot of kicks tomorrow. What I am thinking is: I’d love it to be an open game.

I don’t particularly enjoy playing the game tactically the way we did on Saturday. But you have to have a tough skin as a fly half. You have to help your side win the game and that involves staying ahead on the scoreboard, preferably more than one score ahead.

I am not trying to say here that we got our tactics right. Tactically, as a team, we didn’t perform well and with me directing the game, I’m naturally disappointed about that. We could have looked at things differently, branched out and created better opportunities for all the players to express themselves.

After the game, Brian Ashton [the head coach], spoke to the press and took all the blame for our tactics on his own shoulders. It is great that he is prepared to put his own head on the block and take responsibility. That is one of the reasons why players enjoy playing for him.

However, the team’s fortunes don’t begin and end with the tactical direction he gives us before the game. There are leaders on the pitch, of whom I am one, and we must have the ability to assess and reassess our approach and our tactics as the game goes on.

That is what we did not do particularly well on Saturday and, as far as accountability goes, I would put my name high up on that list, not Brian’s.

Accountability is the appropriate word here, not blame. That doesn’t come into it when it’s been a win.

So, what could we, or should we, have done differently? The issue here is reacting to what is in front of you. When you get to 17-7, you can make a couple of mistakes and suddenly find your lead is threatened.

So once you’re in the game and that threat is there, you do react in a way that errs towards defending that lead.

And you have to bear in mind how hard the Italians were making it for us. The set-piece was so different to the previous week against Scotland, the Italians were so strong and it just became a case of dealing with it.

So, in the thick of it, with us never very far away from them on the scoreboard, I don’t think I would have done much differently if we were in the same situation again.

What I would have changed, though, was the way I played right from the start.

I could have set the game going in a different way, which maybe would have opened other doors farther on.

I would have liked to have used a few more options and given the boys a bit more space. That doesn’t just mean playing it wide — that’s oversimplifying it — but I do think I got the balance slightly wrong at the start.

But this is all good material for us to learn from. I know I personally have come away from Twickenham having learnt quite a lot.

We are a very new team and we need to learn fast, and it just feels so much better when you can learn from a slightly disappointing win rather than a hugely disappointing defeat.

The bottom line, though, is that we didn’t perform well and we were playing against a team that did perform well. Yet we won.

If this team can retain the ability to edge the victories when it is not on top form, then it is not a bad team to be in.