Three out of three for England, who are increasingly developing the aura of teams who win championships and Grand Slams.
They are not always pretty, but they know how to win, and, most importantly, know more than one way of doing it.
After the romp against Scotland and the grind in Dublin, they had to battle ferociously to beat a French team who, although they have now lost their first three matches for the first time since 1982, played vastly better than on their two previous outings.
It was, as England's coach Stuart Lancaster said, "a proper Test match". Games like this are sometimes won by pure brilliance, but it is far more likely, as on this occasion, that they will be determined by other qualities.
England needed resilience after falling behind in the later stages of the first half. They also needed the slice of luck without which few trophies are won.
When No 8 Tom Wood fly-hacked at the ball amid a mass of players deep in French territory in the 54th minute, it could have gone anywhere. What it did was rebound off the legs of replacement prop Mako Vunipola to centre Manu Tuilagi, loitering with intent on the left. Tuilagi charged through untenanted territories to the corner, and a match which had seemed in the balance tilted sharply and, as it proved, irrevocably towards England.
They also have depth. Lancaster's changes to the team who beat Ireland were not entirely successful, with Courtney Lawes looking disorientated on the flank. But the replacements he introduced in the second half, including the substitution of an apparently over-caffeinated Owen Farrell by the calmer Toby Flood for the final quarter, reinforced and stabilised England.
By contrast the changes made by Philippe Saint Andre for France shifted the line-up stage by stage back towards the team who failed so badly against Wales. Particularly puzzling was the decision to replace Morgan Parra, comfortably the best half-back on either side, with a quarter of an hour to go. And despite a promising start after coming on at outside-half for Francois Trinh-Duc, Frederic Michalak increasingly degenerated back into the bemused figure of the Welsh game.
The first quarter was incoherent, aimless and endlessly punctuated by stoppages, with Craig Joubert showing southern hemisphere referees can be every bit as fussy as Europeans. One particularly depressing passage saw five consecutive scrummages leading to free-kicks or scrums.
Farrell opened the scoring for England with a penalty after two minutes, but Parra rapidly equalised after Lawes was caught offside. England's attacking ideas at this stage seemed largely confined to the high ball, letting Yoann Huget demonstrate how a once-pedestrian winger has become a highly effective full-back, twice leaving Farrell flat-footed as he sailed past his tackles to launch counter-attacks.
Farrell kicked England back into the lead after 26 minutes, but France hit back with the best single moment of the match. Back at centre, Wesley Fofana had looked much happier than on the wing, but ironically took a classic winger's try, breaking down the left past Lawes to leave Joe Marler, Ben Youngs and Chris Ashton (twice) flapping in his wake as he charged 60 metres to the line.
Parra converted to make it 10-6 to France, but Farrell's third penalty cut the half-time deficit to a single point and the England outside-half kicked his team back into the lead seven minutes after the break.
Then came Tuilagi's score. Michalak kicked France back to within four points almost immediately, but that was as close as they got. Saint Andre's team were confined to their own territory for almost all of the final quarter.
"By the end we were the better side, but it took us 65 to 70 minutes to do it," was Lancaster's calmly realistic post-match assessment.
Michalak twice threw interceptions as France grew increasingly desperate. Penalties awarded for offences at the breakdown – a bugbear of Mr Joubert's throughout the match – allowed Flood to first extend England's lead to seven points and then, with five minutes to go, extend it beyond France's reach.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article