Greenwood backs up view that England's top ranking is undeserved

For all their famous victories before Christmas, neither France nor England put up a performance indicating that either could carry off the Rugby World Cup in the autumn. Still less did England convince me that they justified the latest computer ranking to the effect that they were now the top side in the world.

How they calculate these ratings I do not know. Obviously they must involve subjective judgements which in their nature cannot be quantified. If they do not involve such judgements, they ought to – with the same inexact consequences. Man is mightier than the machine: that is what I have always maintained.

I am fortified in this view by the interview which Will Greenwood gave after the match. He said that England had played badly and had been "rubbish'' in the second half. It is among the laws of rugby that, interviewed after a match, a player is expected to be modestly depreciatory of his own efforts (in fact Greenwood had enjoyed a good game); pay tribute to the lads; praise likewise the strength of the opposition; and sign off with a "thank you very much'.'

This lad seemed to be in a thoroughly disobliging mood. When the interviewer, a blameless young woman from the BBC, went on to point out that France had out-scored England by three tries to one and that numerous kicks had been missed by them – a valid point which might have been taken to confirm Greenwood's own view – the centre replied savagely that you could perform all sorts of exercises of this nature which got you nowhere.

Yes, indeed. The late Clem Thomas used to say the same to me whenever I went in for this kind of totting-up. On Saturday France lost 10 points which normally Gerald Merceron or Damien Traille would have kicked without too much difficulty. But Clem would have expressed himself to me in gentler and more reasonable terms than Greenwood chose to employ over the airwaves. Indeed, the BBC's major domo for the afternoon seemed quite embarrassed by the whole episode, which he tried to explain away by reference to the strain of the occasion. It was more likely (I am guessing here) to have been brought about by the tragic and, as I write, unexplained death of Greenwood's Harlequin's team-mate, Nick Duncombe.

France are said to be relatively unconcerned about the Six Nations' Championship and to be concentrating on the World Cup instead. England want to win the Grand Slam because so far they have not won it under Clive Woodward's regime, having been frustrated regularly by a single defeat. But they too have their eyes on the wider competition in the autumn. It would be surprising if they did not. Saturday's match showed that it is now crucial to clarify various aspects of the laws before it is too late.

There is, to begin with, the question of what front-row forwards may and may not get up to. I am reminded of the exchange between a referee and the Irish prop Mike Fitzpatrick:

"You're boring, Fitzpatrick.''

"You're not too entertaining yourself, ref.''

If you read the laws, they are really quite strict, props must bind properly and push straight. Why the laws then allow the scrum to be wheeled, so reversing the put-in if the wheel is through 90 degrees or more, is something that eludes me. Wheeling, ostensibly legal, though it may be – France were penalised for an illegal wheel – almost always involves skulduggery of some kind.

Front-row play is a fertile field for armchair experts who have never been near a front-row in their lives. Brian Moore, who was commentating for the BBC, is not like this. He said that the penalty awarded against the France loose-head, Jean-Jacques Crenca, for pushing upwards against Julian White, should not have been given.

The French hooker Raphael Ibanez, asked the New Zealand referee, Paul Honiss: "How do we apply the pressure?'' and answer came there none.

It seems to me, however, that technically Honiss and other Antipodeans are correct. But it is a big step from here to wanting scrums to be uncontested, which many Australians and New Zealanders seem to favour. Already the scrum-half is allowed to put the ball virtually into the second row and is penalised about twice a season with an indirect free-kick. If we are not careful we shall end up like Rugby League, where the scrum-half bounces the ball off the outside leg of the loose-head prop as a means of re-starting the match.

The other matters which need clearing up concern obstruction as practised by New Zealand and playing the ball after a tackle. I hope to deal with them in a later column or columns.

For the moment, I want to note that Woodward's gamble, if such it was, of playing Charlie Hodgson in the centre paid off. The charge-down which led to Olivier Magne's try could have happened to anybody. A more serious error was his failure to pass to Greenwood when the latter had only to run over the line. But his presence neutralised Serge Betsen – as that of Mike Catt would have done likewise – and Woodward deserves credit for his foresight.