ONCE MORE unto the breach, dear friends, once more; it is France away, against the odds and time for Englishmen to get all misty-eyed about Agincourt. The urge to turn Paris into an arm wrestle and attempt to leave with a muscular win is an irresistible temptation for rugby patriots.

A temptation, yes, but one that should be resisted if England are to pull clear from a World Cup campaign whose very virtues are sucking them away from the bright and balanced future of which Brian Ashton dreams. France appear vulnerable at the scrum but if England settle for limiting their game to scrum, kick and chase it will hamper immediate prospects of any development.

“Development” is akin to a dirty word, but this tournament is about winning and developing. England must have the courage to pursue both. The straitjacketed imposition of the gameplan that eliminated France from the World Cup was a dandy one-off, but England have to ensure that come 2011 they are not forced into the inflexible strategy of 2007. That is why every gameplan between one World Cup and the next targets victory and development. Every match matters, but World Cup matches matter most. Like it or not, each game has a degree of experiment, or at least for France and Wales it does.

France are mixing and matching with abandon and the switching of personnel, in a bid to find the nearest possible blend to perfection, might cost them this year’s title or a Grand Slam; but it might win them a World Cup in New Zealand with the precocious Francois Trinh-Duc displaying all his experience to drop a winning goal against a Welsh team taken to the brink by the once callow Ryan Jones.

Sport may not have the shooting, but it is still a metaphorical mix of battles and wars and next Saturday night is a battle, not a war. Until Clive Woodward arrived on the scene, England were good at Pyrrhic victories. He developed the knack of losing the odd Grand Slam but winning the World Cup. That generation of players now express frustration at losing those games but, being the soldiers on the ground, sometimes it is only the general (or the good one) who sees the whole picture.

The picture, as England head to Paris, is not pretty. It is a team with problems adjusting to anything but a limited structure and players with question marks over their ability to think their way out of the problems inherent in international rugby; somehow, on Ashton's watch, England have reverted to their old, unthinking ways. When a pack dominates, the rugby intellect is less important. The monopoly of possession means the win tends to come – it is usually just by how many. That was how it looked against Wales for much of the match and how it seemed to be heading in Rome. When the opposition packs fought back, England were left looking open-jawed in their gormlessness.

While France have worked out that the use of turnover ball can combat some of the problems on which they are currently working, England booted away their stream of turnover ball in Rome for mindless territorial objectives. Decision-making is largely nonexistent and narrowing the focus to 10-man rugby will only heighten the long-term problem.

Which brings us to Jonny Wilkinson; his passing skills made one try and the quality of his goalkicking proved important. But one reason why his kicking was again vital was because in the second half, when England’s domination was interrupted, his influence waned. The Wilkinson debate has to be framed around the ability to read the game. England’s tactics were originally based around territorial superiority but when possession dried up and a spark was needed, he followed the script and sank into the morass with everyone else. Ashton is still asking questions of his fly-half.

An English victory based around nothing but set-piece power would prove but a momentary stay against the prevailing confusion. Better for England to run a few risks, maybe even take a hammering, than lose in heroic fashion.

Ah, but what if lightning strikes twice and England bully their way to an improbable, although far from impossible, victory? That is what the management must ponder as they prepare for Paris. Feel the temptation to keep it tight? It makes teasing, short-term sense. And there you are – bingo. That’s how easy it is to remain trapped in the immediate past.

No doubt under duress from the practical pairing of John Wells and Graham Rowntree, Ashton has failed thus far to escape the net cast by the achievements in reaching the World Cup final. But he was chosen for his ability to add vision and has yet to address this worrying case of myopia. Wales and Italy were both games the World Cup runners-up were expected to win; disappointingly, the fear of losing outweighed the balance of selection and tactics, and the old way remained largely in place as the rest of the world moved forwards.

Having blown their first two performances, France represent both a threat and an opportunity for Ashton. England are underdogs for the first time and defeat predicted. Why not then send out a team as Ashton did to stun France at Twickenham last season, when the free spirits of players like Toby Flood and Shane Geraghty left France grasping at thin air?

On that day a few players who understood Ashton’s liberal approach to decision-making were given their heads and England flowed in a manner not quite as fluid, but not dissimilar, to the France of this campaign. Run turnover ball back rather than play unthinking territorial rugby. Be Ashton’s England, which hasn’t happened since that win because the fluid thinker has wrapped himself in a cloak of conservatism. More than a gutsy effort, England need a developing game. England can afford to lose in Paris, but stagnation is not an option.