Do you agree?

Brooke, who won 58 caps for New Zealand, said Clive Woodward's team surpasses the triple Grand Slam winning side captained by Will Carling in the early 1990's.

England have notched up 18 consecutive victories at Twickenham and jumped to number one in the world rankings after victories over New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.

But do Wilkinson, Johnson et al eclipse Carling's 1990s vintage?

This debate is now closed. See below for a selection of your emails.

World rankings suggest that the current English side is the best we've had in recent history. That aside, this is the only English side that is truly able to compete on a par with the southern hemisphere.

Yes, they haven't won anything, and probably won't win the World Cup, but they should be close to emulating the World Cup achievements of the Carling side - and in Australia, not at Twickers.

The only current weaknesses are inside centre, scrum-half and one wing (arguably), where we have good, but not world-class players. Beyond that, the bench has top class cover for most positions other than these three. The Carling team was always carrying a few average players, and other than forwards, the bench was pretty bare.
Jay C, UK

Effective comparison is difficult, as the game has changed to a marked degree over the last decade. I think the major strength of the England team at present is two-fold - tactical organisation allied to depth within the squad.

A good example of both qualities coming together is with Phil Christophers coming in for James S-D in the last November game and picking up where S-D left off, as a team member and an individual.

Pound for pound, I would prefer most of the regular 2002 starters in their positions, with maybe Rory Underwood and Jeremy Guscott coming into the 11 and 13 shirts, and Teague and Winterbottom pushing hard for back row positions.

That's it, though - this current lot are amazingly talented and powerful athletes who have the physical and tactical nous to win the RWC next year - mental strength permitting...
Jonathan Jones, England

This England team has the potential to be the best ever. But again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Bring home a Grand Slam or two, topped with a World Cup, then yes, this England would be the best ever.
David Brown, England

Who cares? Just keep on winning boys. As an Englishman living in New Zealand, I'm having the time of my life.
Sugs, New Zealand

Even though they have beaten the big three, nobody can change the fact that when it comes to crunch time England time and time again lose focus.

Maybe we should wait, do not under estimate the trip-ups that can happen during the Six Nations 2003. I am not convinced about this side!
Jone Yabaki, Fiji

Pound for pound, stride for stride, the current England team just edge out the Carling team. Clearly the change in rules, professional status, the full time commitment and coaching has favoured the current side.

We need one or two more individuals that can "turn it on" as Wilkinson can - then we will be sure that England have the very best chance of bringing home the world cup.
Mark Snelson, Brit in USA

To make a point to one of the remarks made by Ben (below). How can you say England's only weak position is fly-half.

We have the finest fly-half in the world in Johnny Wilkinson, have the top points scorer in the Premiership in Tim Stimpson, and one of the most promising young fly-halfs around in Charlie Hodgson, who also has the world record for the most amount of points scored by an individual in an international match.
Kenny, England

Let's ask ourselves two questions: How many of the current side would have played in the '91 side? And What have the current side won? The answer to the second question is nothing.

And in answer to the first question, only Vickery and Wilkinson would merit a starting shirt. The other 13 might push the side of '91 but they aren't that good as individuals, hence their inability to win anything other than one-off games.
Al Heath, UK

No, I don't agree that this is the best English side ever! We have not seen this team play on tour in the southern hemisphere yet! England look good at home, but the big test is to head down under and beat NZ and Australia at home!

Let me tell you, it won't be a totally different story to what we have seen in the autumn series. NZ are getting stronger and stronger all the time, and I'm sure they will see the match on 9 November as a victory for them.

Australia are a team you can never right off, especially at home! Be warned England, don't get too big headed!
Isaac Southwell, England

For once we seem to have alternatives to previously untouchable players. Makes everyone work a bit harder.
Simon Dickson, USA

We haven't won anything yet - but we will!
Simon, England It is like comparing apples and oranges. The current team are professional athletes and you can see that in their fitness and physical conditioning. The Carling team were outstanding amateurs.

In terms of winning games and championships that matter it is obvious the Carling team is better with three Grand Slams and a World Cup final. They were the outstanding team in the northern hemisphere and a top world side when the big three in the southern hemisphere had players who were more professional than amateur at that stage.

Only a win in the World Cup next year would put the current team on a par with the Carling team and that is unlikely in my opinion. It is obvious that the current team would beat the Carling team but that is like saying Maurice Greene would beat Jessie Owens over 100 metres.
Eoin, Ireland

The fact that rugby union is now a professional game makes it very difficult to compare the two teams. England do seem to have a bit more consistency against the southern hemisphere 'big three' these days, but the record of Carling's team in this respect is nowhere near as bad as is often suggested.

England seemed to win the decisive Five-Nations games post 1990 and the current side have lost the opportunity to win the 'Grand Slam' on numerous occasions. However, let's not forget that Carling's side reached a World Cup final (albeit at Twickenham) and really should have won the match, whereas the current side have yet to prove themselves in this respect.

On the whole, I would have to go for the current side due to their increased attacking dimension, but Carling's side grew from a poorer base and helped lay the foundations for the success of the present side. Both sides are great but were playing in different times and in a vastly different game.
Gavin Upex, England

This team certainly could be the best ever for England. If they win some Grand Slams and, dare I say it, the World Cup, they will confirm it. As Zinzan rightly points out, one of the great things about the squad today is strength in depth.

Think about some key positions for example: scrum half: Dawson, Gommarsall, Bracken are all world class. Think about the incredible strength at wing. The only chink in the armour is fly-half. But that's the only chink there is!
Ben, England

England are currently a lot better in all departments than Carling's bunch. They may not have the silverware, but they are the strongest they have ever been with regards to strength in depth and mental focus for winning the World Cup. Anyone who says otherwise is either not English and jealous or has no real understanding of the beautiful game of rugby!
Ricky Wilkes, England

It's not really possible to make an effective comparison between the sides of the Carling era and the current Woodward/Johnson one. Why? The Carling era covered the end of the amateur game, the players held down day jobs and had to fit their training & match preparation around them.

The current team are a product of the new professional era and have reaped the benefits of advances in sports science and - more tellingly - preparation time. That said, I believe the success of the Carling/Geoff Cook sides gave Clive Woodward the platform on which to build his current side. Zinzan Brooke is right: it's good to be an England fan now!
Richard, England

The English team now surpasses the Carling era. Not achieving a Grand Slam for a while, is not a fault in the team itself but a testament to the ever increasing competitiveness of the rest of the home nations as the years go by. England are still the team to beat, and I look forward to an interesting Six Nations.
Michael Keenan, Ireland

There is one solid reason why this current England side ISN'T the greatest ever: they have no idea when to cut loose in the backs and place too much emphasis on ball retention at the wrong times.

If the All Blacks game had gone on for two more minutes, we would have lost. Why? Because at the end of the day, they had the ability in the backs to score tries when it matters. Carling's side had weaker forwards - but that can be put down to how the game has changed in the last 10 years. Carling and Guscott however, knew how to score tries without having to rely on power alone.
Ben, England

England have to win a Grand Slam, at the very least, and preferably the World Cup, to be seen as a truly epochal side.
Martin, South Korea

Are they actually that different? Both possess arguably the best pack in the world at the time. The biggest difference is how the backs are or were incorporated. I'm sure that if Cooke and Co had followed the same approach as Woodward's staff, the likes of Guscott, Underwood and Carling could have produced similar results.
Simon, UK

Difficult to compare as the game is so different now as it was then. Carling's era had easier Five-Nation opponents, and that was where their focus lay. The Johnson team has far greater ambition and that shines through.

However, the teams are very similar, with one exception. England had always had one of the best packs in the world. Underwood and Cohen are and were world class. Kicks at goal from Andrew and Wilkinson never go amiss. The main difference - Guscott. England lack a world class centre.
Hamish, UK

The current England side are far better than any of the previous England sides and will probably win the World Cup in 2003. They are not as good as the vintage Welsh sides of the 70`s and 80`s when men were men, etc, etc, etc.
Peter Brooks, Welshman in England

We must put this into perspective. We beat an ordinary Springbok side, a disorganised Aussie side by one point when they should have won the game from a penalty kick, and should have lost to a developmental All Black squad with their second half domination.
Grant, UK

I think the early 90s Grand Slam side was better, the major reason being better penetration in the centres. Otherwise they are pretty much on a par. I went through an exercise with some friends and came up with an England side selected from players we had seen play rugby union live. It looked pretty much as follows:

Webb, Luger, Guscott, Carling, Offiah, Wilkinson, Melville, Cotton, Pullen, Vickery, Dooley, Beaumont, Hill, Neary, Richards.

For me the '91 side played better rugby, and I expected them to win more than I expect the current side to win. We had no doubts over the WC quarter and semi-final in '91. I had real doubts about this autumn's games.

The '91 side would not have allowed NZ or Australia back into the game. We saw Offiah in his last season in union play in a divisional game, he was the pick of the wingers on the park and the only one who never got a cap that season.
Chris, England

This England team is by far the best all-round England team ever assembled. Of that there is little doubt. This team is no longer predominantly a forward-led unit but one which can adapt to any type of game as shown in the recent victories.

Carling's team was great, but one-track minded in that it could dictate the way the game was to be played but were found wanting on the occasions they met sides who showed variety in their game plan.
Dave Pollitt, England

Without doubt the strongest, fittest, most exciting team to grace a rugby field - better than Wales in the Seventies!
Kevin Bills, England

By far I think. That's not to decry the Grand Slam team of '80, nor a succession of useful sides including those under the leadership of Carling since, in my opinion, the late 1980s.

However, there is a strength in depth, a level of fitness, and a discipline that appears rock solid. What's more, I don't think we've seen the best of them yet either. The recent results have been excellent and a warning that 2003 could be their year down under.
Martin Woollatt, England

Without a shadow of a doubt, this is the best ever England side. They have eveything: flair, passion, pace, stamina and most importantly depth. We are going to finally win something!
Dan, UK

What you are all forgetting is that previous England sides might well have choked at home. Not recently. Australia show no promise at all, New Zealand have to put half the male population into its squad, and South Africa are both laughable and contemptible. Go the England boys next year!
John, UK

The current side is definitely the most complete English side I have ever seen with strength and depth in virtually every position. Certainly they are a stronger sides than Carling's.

The only criticism would be that they sometimes lose that full-on 100% concentration which against both Australia and NZ almost cost them dearly. That said, they are great to watch and I am a very happy England fan at the moment. Let's see if I still am after the World Cup!
Roger Anderson, UK

There is no doubt that the Carling era was a fine one for English rugby, but you have to look closely at the level of opposition at the time too. Add to that the fact that the English game plan was none too expansive at this time either.

It is a much closer call these days. England have far greater strength in depth currently, play a much broader game and whilst they have just taken three very nice scalps, there is room for improvement in key areas yet.

The back line is not fully flowing yet, but it will, and when it does it will take some mighty fine defending to cope with it - legal defending would be nice!
Phil Beale, England

Possibly this current England team is the greatest ever and results may be starting to show that. However, until they get to a World Cup final and win three Grand Slams they will not have proven this claim.
Matt Buxton, England

I think it's fair to say that this team can mix it with anyone, while even Carling's team never really expected to beat southern hemisphere opposition consistently. If we can find some centres to provide cover for Greenwood and Tindall, the World Cup is a definite prospect. Then the "greatest team" tag would be theirs for sure.
Dan, UK

I think that the question ''worst Australian, South African and New Zealand team ever?'' is as important in this equation.
Paul, UK

I think the current England team is far superior to that of the Carling era. Can you imagine Jonathan Webb attempting to stop Ben Cohen at full tilt?
Simon Worthington, UK

This is the best England side ever because of the professional era. Players are bigger, stronger, fitter and more psychologically focused than before. After five years or so of professional rugby, it is paying off. However, they won't be good enough in Australia for the World Cup.
John Dilks, England

The current England side has to be the greatest side England has ever had. Why? The ability to work as one unit, passion and endurance are the reasons why this team edges past Carling's 1990 vintage team.
James Stafford Allen, Norwich

The current side has more range. The rule changes have made this necessary as well as more attractive. Rory Underwood, Carling, Guscott, Moore, Winterbottom would all be pushing hard for a place in the current team even allowing for the greater fitness levels in the professional era.
Mike Cullen, England