England's Grand Slam phobia

After that low point in all our rugby careers, the England squad vowed to never suffer that kind of humiliation again.

We responded by learning from our mistakes and won the Slam in the next two seasons and again in 1995. It was fear that drove us on.

Having endured such highs and lows, I cannot comprehend the state of mind of the present England squad who have now failed three times in succession to win the Slam.

Criticism rained down on us after Murrayfield in 1990 and I will never forget the widespread attack on both my captaincy and the team's performance after the failure to take the Slam. You never forget that kind of flak and I sat down with Dean Richards, Rob Andrew, Brian Moore and Mike Teague, among others, and worked out how we would play the following season.

It was obvious to all of us that every other team in the championship had analysed England and worked out just how to stop us playing. The mistake we made in Scotland was to believe we could turn up, as we had done three times already, score 30-odd points and walk away with the Slam. We didn't.

The Scots had done their homework and we didn't have a Plan B and that seems to be the failing with the present squad.

The current players are, without doubt, the best team in Europe and have been for three seasons, but there is something fundamental missing to leave a fantastic player such as Neil Back sitting in a losers' dressing room at Wembley in 1999, Murrayfield in 2000 and last Saturday in Dublin.

This England team is more talented than the ones I captained to Slam successes because they are stronger and physically better prepared. But that leaves me with this question: Does this England squad really have the players with the steel and ruthless edge to win a Grand Slam?

Head coach Clive Woodward may need to bring someone in to get that mental edge and you would also have to question whether the players know how much it means to the opposition to beat them.

I am not sticking the knife into players who already feel bloody awful, because my stomach was in knots watching the game and I want England to beat everyone.

Keith Wood's comment after the match, when he was asked if beating England to deny them the Slam was better than a Lions Test series success, he said "Yes, without doubt."

If that doesn't tell the England players what it means then nothing will. I was amazed to read a quote from an experienced England guy saying the Irish "wanted it more than us".

You have to ask: Why did they want it more and why were they hungrier? Having been so badly hurt in 1990 my reaction was "never again" and that is what I expected from today's England players.

The team that ran out at Lansdowne Road believed they only had to play their usual game to achieve a glorious result. Ireland had spent all their time planning to stop that style of rugby and when they did, England did not respond.

Yes, it is easy to criticise selection after the event, but Will Greenwood and Mike Catt had fitness doubts, Phil Greening was not in great form at hooker while Iain Balshaw patently lacked confidence at full-back.

Going into the Australia match at Twickenham on 10 November, those players will once again be under the spotlight with injury ensuring that Austin Healey will start at scrum-half and Woodward will give Balshaw another run while Newcastle's Jamie Noon may have to wait for his turn to replace Catt or Greenwood.

I would stick with Jason Leonard because of his experience at this critical time and recall Dorian West and Phil Vickery to the front row.

The back row is a real problem because I believe Richard Hill is our best open-side flanker and would put him at No7 for the World Cup in 2003.

The World Cup is just 18 months away and Woodward needs to get his team ready now because one-off victories don't give you the opportunity to lift the Webb Ellis Trophy - you do that with consistency and by winning Grand Slams.