AFTER a post-match analysis that beggared belief, the question for England’s leaders is whether they have got to the stage where they are accepting mediocrity as their level. The other question is whether they will be allowed to remain in place to make this mediocrity the hallmark of their trade, though more on that later.

After England’s 28-24 defeat by Ireland, Andy Robinson, the England head coach, bemused the media pack by daring to suggest that his team were “going in the right direction”. And this was no slip of the tongue. It was his theme of the day.

Of the Ireland match in isolation, he insisted that he was “really pleased” with “the way the team played throughout”. Of the entire RBS Six Nations Championship, his summary was that: “There was only one disappointing performance for us, which was France.” And: “Apart from the results, we’ve created a lot this championship.”

It would be a waste of this space to deconstruct those opinions.

Yesterday’s newspapers will have said pretty much anything that results themselves do not quite explain. Simply watching Saturday’s game — indeed any of their past eight games, bar the win against Wales — reinforces the point that this is an enthusiastic team creating next to nothing, stockpiling disappointing performances and heading fast in the wrong direction.

Surely, surely, Robinson cannot really believe this stuff. Surely the cocoon within the England camp has not allowed him to be convinced that all is well. If it has, then England surely need a new head coach.

More likely, though, is that Robinson is being loyal to the last. This loyalty has, however, proven to be a weakness. He has given too many key figures too long to perform and this is one reason why England find themselves looking up from fourth position at one of the weakest Six Nations tables in memory.

The alternative for Robinson would have been to front up and concede that England are inept in attack, but that would be to load up the bullets for the firing squad already pointing at Joe Lydon, his assistant. In an extraordinarily uncorporate act of public blame-smearing, the RFU let it be known last week that Lydon, among others, was hanging on by a thread; it is certainly not Robinson’s style to be the one to sever it.

A word of sympathy for Lydon, though, whose shortcomings have been recognised by the players as much as the crowd. He was promoted fast through the England ranks from rugby league having never had long-term day-to-day coaching experience with a senior club side in either code.

It is, of course, easy to say so now, but in many ways he was set up to fail. It was not Robinson’s decision to promote him — it was Sir Clive Woodward’s — though Robinson did not, of course, have to keep him.

So Robinson put a gloss on England’s creativity. Likewise he would not say anything that could be perceived as criticism of the other lieutenants named in the RFU’s short-for-this-world list, Phil Larder and Dave Alred. Interestingly, when asked specifically about his cohort of assistants dangling over the precipice, he zipped up tight and refused to make a comment. He could, of course, have given them his full backing and sworn that they were the right men for the job but he preferred to say nothing.

The wind of change is blowing so heartily through this England coaching set-up that Robinson risks being blown away with them. Far more likely, though, is that the post-Six Nations review, when it is completed next month, will leave Robinson as one of the few standing.

This affords him another precious life. There are grounds aplenty for taking that away, too, though his employers will remember how close Woodward went to the edge before bringing back the goods. The comparison ends there, though: Woodward’s side never remotely resembled the shambles that we see today.

But if we presume Robinson stays, he and the RFU have one last chance to get their decisions right before the World Cup. It is now or never. There is little to suggest that there is the playing talent available to defend the trophy, although the least they can do is give what there is a chance.

Woodward’s England may have been refined and perfected over many years, but 18 months is nevertheless a long time: look how fast Scotland have become a force, look how quickly Wales have gone backwards and look, too, at the pace of change at Bath since Brian Ashton took over.

Ashton is the key here. As rugby history is revised, his role in the best days of Woodward’s England is increasingly acknowledged. And his work with Bath has, in no time, proved that rugby can be played in the Guinness Premiership, that good coaching can really have a fast impact. The England players would surely relish the chance to work with him.

The obvious problem here is that Ashton only recently signed a contract to work for Bath. Yes, that is a problem. But next to England’s others, it is but a minor one.

FOR THE RECORD

Captain, March 2005 —

Played 9, won 5, lost 4

Strengths: Leadership, workrate, consistency, honesty, unflappability.

Weaknesses: Not in the top echelon of No 8’s. Too small to be a bulldozer and a little one-paced to be a flyer. Too nice? Biggest weakness is not his fault. He has been undermined by coaches who keep taking him off in favour of Lawrence Dallaglio.

Possible replacements: From the old guard — Dallaglio, Matt Dawson, Jonny Wilkinson, Phil Vickery. From the new guard — Steve Borthwick, Pat Sanderson.