THERE is a line of thinking around English rugby that suggests the national team is always at its best when it is keeping things simple, relying on power rather than finesse in all areas of the field and attempting to bludgeon its way through the opposition rather than relying on anything more instinctive or off-the-cuff.

There are plenty of observers who will argue that is exactly how England lifted the World Cup trophy in 2003. Back to basics, with the English bulldozer trampling over the more artistic approaches posited against it, and Jonny Wilkinson slotting over a few kicks to settle things on the scoreboard.

Stuart Lancaster might claim otherwise, but he surely had such a tactical outlook in mind when he selected his side to face Wales last weekend. Match power with power, prevent Wales’ flair players from playing, and gradually squeeze the life out of the game enabling Owen Farrell to land the telling scores.

Fine in theory; wretched in practice. The fact is that if you’re going to adopt a back to basics approach, you’d better get the basics spot on. That was where the 2003 side excelled, along with some of the previous great English teams before it. The players knew how to mask their limitations and play to their strengths, and crucially, were talented and disciplined enough to carry out the plan to the letter.

When they had to attack, they were clinical. When they had to defend, they were precise, well-structured and didn’t give away penalties. The current crop conceded 12 penalties against Wales, which equated to 21 points from Dan Biggar’s boot. For all the talk of botched last-minute tactics, that was the difference because while they dominated possession, England’s players rarely looked like converting their superiority into the two or three tries that would have put them out of sight.

If you’re going to become involved in a close-scoring game – which the majority of the 2003 team’s major matches were – you have to execute the simple things brilliantly. This England team has showed over a number of years that they are incapable of doing that, so the only way they are going to triumph is by accepting they will ship points, but focusing their game plan on ensuring they still score more than their opponents.

Let’s assume – and on last weekend’s evidence it’s a pretty safe assumption – England concede five or six penalties in their own half in tomorrow’s must-win game against Australia. If Australia kick five of them, that’s 15 points. Throw in a try – and it’s hard to imagine the Wallabies not crossing the whitewash at least once – and you’re up to 20 or 22 points at a fairly conservative estimate. So England are going to need at least that total in order to emerge victorious.

How will they do that? By scoring tries. Even if England can assert some dominance at both the scrum and line-out – something that is far from guaranteed given Australia’s improvement on both scores in the last 12 months – they are unlikely to be able to rely on Farrell kicking seven or eight penalties in the game.

They’re almost certainly going to need at least two tries to win tomorrow, and that means committing more players to the breakdown, being much more creative in midfield, and spreading the play at every opportunity in an attempt to bring Johnny May and Anthony Watson into the equation.

A close quarters arm wrestle won’t work, because Australia will still find a way of bringing their own backs into the game and England’s attacking will be far too easy to negate if they repeat the kind of pre-ordained, predictable running lines they came up with last weekend.

It is time to fight fire with fire. That doesn’t mean being reckless in terms of decision making, and it requires a cool-headed composure when ripping into the breakdown rather than a gung-ho approach in which all pretence of game management goes out of the window. All too often last weekend, England’s players conceded penalties when competing for ball they were never going to win.

But it does mean those same players backing themselves to win rather than being afraid to lose. In the crucial third quarter of last weekend’s game, England’s players relaxed, both mentally and physically, when an increase in the tempo would have allowed them to kill off Wales. With the false security of a ten-point advantage, they went into containment mode. Ultimately, the policy proved fatal.

Wales found a way back into the game, and even when England’s players made a crucial late call that, on the face of it, appeared to reek of positivity, they still did not have enough faith in their attacking talents to throw to the back of the ill-fated line-out rather than opt for the supposed security of the catcher at the front, who was always going to be much easier to bundle into touch.

Lancaster’s starting selection was surely a factor in creating that defensive mindset, and with that in mind, yesterday’s announcement of the team that will start against Australia set a much more positive tone.

The availability of the fit-again Jonathan Joseph has enabled Lancaster to abandon the disastrous experiment with Sam Burgess at centre, and a midfield pairing of Joseph and Brad Barritt offers much more scope for adventurous rugby.

George Ford’s return at fly-half would have been an even bolder call, but Farrell was arguably England’s best player last weekend and as he has proved repeatedly with Saracens, he is far more than the one-dimensional kicker some attempt to pigeon-hole him as.

With Ben Morgan and Joe Launchbury coming back into the side, England’s selection is sound. It will count for little, though, if the prevailing mindset is not sufficiently positive.

After almost four years of preparation, tomorrow is the day when England’s World Cup prospects are laid on the line. They have beaten Australia in four of the countries’ last five meetings, and are more than capable of doing so again. They just have to believe that, and play accordingly.