You mean the England national rugby Union that beat the Wallabies on Saturday? Whose fans do you think were happier after the match?
TL;DR for MrTabua: Some Australian fans just want to see running rugby win or lose; Forward play is a lot more appreciated in the northern hemisphere; Top NRL teams are following an England-like rugby union game plan because it's effective under the current laws; Not every other NH country is a fan of England's style when the backs don't have much to do. Sorry man, this one was multiple paragraphs. Hope the abstract helps.
Depends on where you're watching from, I guess. There have been plenty of people on these boards who've said they're happy to see the Wallabies lose heroically, as long as they play ball-in-hand and "have a go." At the same time, there are plenty of people in England who are more than happy to watch 10-man rugby where the forwards just punch and bash it up the middle channels and the set piece sets the platform. Lately England only really brings in the backs (aside from a kicking fullback) when they're playing teams ranked 5th or below, teams they think they can take a risk against and if anything goes wrong, their forwards can win it back.
Plus the northern hemisphere just cares more about forward play and the set piece than Australia does. Some of the highest-paid players in the NH are tighthead props. Conversely, in the thread on what Australia can do about their scrum, there's been talk about Australian stigmas against being seen as fat, and how everyone wants to be a flash back growing up, not a thudding forward. Not that being a forward or a prop necessarily equals being fat, but that seems to be the impression.
Here's the ironic thing: Australian rugby and rugby league are renowned for ball-in-hand running rugby. League markets itself based on that premise, and that impression partly drives other Australian union teams to focus on a running rugby game -- gotta maintain that fan attention (which wouldn't be as much of a problem elsewhere). Yet the driver of that bus, the NRL, is the organization with more teams playing in the mode of the Old Enemy's rival code, driving the ball up with the forwards and keeping the offloads to a minimum. Why? Presumably because it works, but that's also partly because the rules allow for that kind of strategy. Apparently nothing is going to change, based on the annual meeting. When rugby saw a similar problem with slow rucks, they introduced the 5-second "use it" law, and that's pretty much taken care of that problem. (But at least there's still a contest for the ball at the rugby ruck, so even if it's not fired out in 1.5 seconds, it's usually because they're dealing with flankers and counter-rucking; they're not waiting for everyone to back off and reset themselves.)
For what it's worth, Australia isn't alone in questioning England's girth and heft-based gameplan. Some Irish commentators have noted just how big many of the England forwards are and how little the backs have to do except have foppish hair and stay clean. That'd never fly on a Joe Schmidt Ireland team; if a back isn't running lines, he'd better be hitting rucks, or he won't be on the field long. Just recently Matt Dawson was on the BBC talking about what the England locker room was like when he played for the national team. While the forwards were head-butting each other, he was making sure his hair was right, his shorts fit tight, and he put vaseline under his cheekbones so they'd "glisten" and he'd look good. Being concerned about whether you "glisten" or not just seems... wrong, like the backs have enough leisure and lack of pressure to concern themselves with such things. (But really -- glisten? FFS.)
So, different approaches, I guess. I know which I'd rather see, but if you don't have forwards that can at least neutralize an England or South African or French pack, all the scything backs in the world won't be able to cut through that wall.
