Graphic: The final reckoning - where the game could be won

The eve of the eve of the World Cup final yesterday opened to a gorgeous, fresh Parisian day and a fairly astounding start to the England team's morning press conference.

Martin Corry, Jason Robinson and Mathew Tait were on the top table and the first question was from a television reporter to Corry. “Martin,

you've been involved in many losing causes with England...” he said, at which stage he broke off, his voice suddenly contending with audible astonishment mixed with embarrassed laughter. “What a lovely, positive way to start the press conference,” Corry responded, taking the hit well.

Expert View

Jonny is the man who can maximise England's opportunities

Martin Johnson

• More

• Post a comment

BACKGROUND

• It’s widely known that I’m teetotal. I broke the habit on this occasion

• England take heart from brave new pretenders

• How England rated

• Miracle men suffer dose of reality

BACKGROUND

• England's future rosy, but is Ashton included?

• Toulon wait for Springboks master

• IRB aims to secure future not just for kicks

• South Africans urged to grasp chance for change

BACKGROUND

• Springboks dominate awards

• Boks on top in brutal battle

• Springbok kickers destroy England

• Ashton merits credit for glorious run

BACKGROUND

• It's over: dream dies as Boks win Rugby World cup

• Boks kill the unlikely dream

• Brave England go down with pride

• Video ref made 'brilliant decision’

BACKGROUND

• So who ate all the croissants?

• Au revoir France

• Victory whoops of the rainbow warriors

• Mrs Mills solves all your rugby problems

BACKGROUND

• English roses fall for Saint Jonny

• Stodgy England confine Bryan Habana

• Still joking about the All Blacks and Wallabies

• Wheels come off the chariot

Multimedia

• The World Cup Podcast

• Josh Lewsey's video diary

• The Rugby World Cup blog

The question continued: “To what do you credit the turnaround? Is it all about Jonny?” Cue more astonishment and Corry manfully groping for a starting point from which to approach an answer.

The reason for recounting the above is twofold. One: four years ago, “losing causes” and England was not an obvious association. Two: England have soaked up the punches since they arrived at this tournament and a long time before, yet here they are, about to play a World Cup final, and they are still taking them.

Four years ago, such a question would probably not have been asked; it would certainly not have been so politely received. In fact, Martin Johnson, the captain at the time, would either have walked out or delivered a killer riposte. Indeed, on the eve of the final four years ago, Clive Woodward, the head coach at the time, talked not about losing causes but about 1966 and the damning evidence of history on a passionate sporting nation.

And thus we glimpse the yawning difference between this World Cup campaign and the Sweet Chariot of 2003. The tendency this week has been to compare the two: if England win, which would be the greater achievement? A further rewind to Sydney 2003 sheds light on the answer.

This time four years ago England were staying on the seafront in the Manly Pacific hotel and during the week of the final there were throngs of fans outside the hotel; by now, that number would be between 50 and 100, not to mention photographers, news cameras and satellite trucks. It was a circus. The players would eat on the first floor from where they could see the madness outside. It was, Will Greenwood, a centre in that team, wrote in his autobiography, “like The Beatles at the peak of their fame”.

Meanwhile, the Australian press railed at Woodward, printed cut-out-and-keep, make-your-own voodoo dolls of Jonny Wilkinson and urged Sydneysiders to drive past the hotel at night honking their horns to stop the team from sleeping. And to top it all, in the Telstra Stadium on the night of the final, the fans set a record for loudest crowd noise.

Here in peaceful Neuilly, where the England team are staying, the contrast could barely be greater. Yes, there are paparazzi outside the hotel; but no more than a handful. Fans? Two days before kick-off and there were two.

The scene is a reflection of the England campaign: quiet, unassuming, under the radar. No one can believe they have got here; not many know how to find them.

What this is all about is the difference between favourites and underdogs. In 2003 Woodward and his men flexed their muscles, paraded themselves on the seaside and invited the world — and the Australian media — to inspect them for holes in their armour. In 2007 we have got to the final week before any kind of inspection started.

A further comparison is: which is the better team? In answer, it would be hard to find anybody who would back this lot against that lot. Andrew Sheridan, on 2007 form, would warrant a place ahead of Trevor Woodman in the 2003 team, but otherwise the 2003 personnel are either the same (Wilkinson, Robinson, etc) or better. The holy trinity in the 2003 back row is the real light-and-shade difference, but so is the team's form and their ability to adapt their game to suit the circumstances. The class of 2007 are not a pretty lot and have never pretended to be.

But back to the original thesis. Which, if England win tomorrow, would be the greater achievement? We consulted two winners of the class of 2003 and their opinions were fascinating.

First, Paul Grayson the former fly half: “The pressure of expectation of being favourites is phenomenal. There are far more teams that revel in the tag of the underdog. When the pressure came on, we were ready to win and you can't say that about the favourites — New Zealand — this time. 2003 was a military campaign, one of the best ever.”

And Phil Larder, the coach: “Speak to Graham Henry [the New Zealand coach] and Dan Carter [their fly half] and they will tell you how hard it is to go in being No1.”

The crux of the matter, it seems, is born in a text sent by Wilkinson to Larder after the semi-final in France. In it, Wilkinson said that he had been blessed in his career to have been influenced by some brilliant coaches — and he was talking about both eras.

The point seems to be that what was achieved in 2003 has come back to the team now. As Larder said: “Everything learnt in 2003 is still in the memory bank now.”

Grayson makes a similar point. “The two campaigns couldn't be further apart, but the way the teams deal with pressure and fear is the same,” he said. “When it comes to do or die, the English players know how to come through, it is what won it in 2003 and what pulled them up by the bootstraps this time.”

Indeed, similar belligerence, similar psychology and the one begat the other, 2003 created 2007. Nevertheless, they have attempted to conquer Everest by different routes. Woodward followed the southeast ridge as any sane man would; Ashton was led to the northeast ridge reserved for climbers with a death wish, yet the summit is now in sight. The summit is the same, this would simply have been a far harder climb.