If England supporters found it difficult to stomach the pile of World Cup horror stories on their breakfast tables, imagine how certain players and coaches felt. One or two chose to avoid the newsagents, having already heard enough via radio and social media outlets to suspect it might not be a wise move. From Lewis Moody downwards, however, there was a collective sense of hurt and anger. This was not what the squad bargained for when they agreed to supply confidential details of exactly what happened in New Zealand.

It has left a bitter taste which will linger for some time. As one member of the management put it to me bluntly: "The big question is: 'Why was it leaked now?'" The same allegation constantly resurfaced among other individuals canvassed: they all viewed the leak as a calculated attempt to discredit as many people as possible at Twickenham, thus paving the way for a white knight – or, to give him his full name, Sir Clive Woodward – to return at the expense of Rob Andrew. The damage to the public image of a few stray pawns was clearly not seen as a priority.

As captain, Moody copped more flak than most. Losing rugby matches is one thing, having your professional reputation trashed behind your back is quite another. No wonder Moody sounded so wounded by claims he was not much use as a captain and had been more interested in maximising commercial opportunities. "There was too much contact with agents who could be distracting," one player wrote. "Moodos was the worst. Players should have waited until after the games/tournament, not be discussing deals a day or two before a match. Moodos might be able to separate commercial stuff and playing but it distracts other players and isn't the right example to set."

Moody did have an autobiography to promote and, in terms of blood, sweat and tears, few have given more to the England cause over the past decade. If Moody ever catches up with the team-mate who cast him as a shallow money-grabber, it could get very messy.

"I put my body on the line for the lads, the team and England every time I played and anyone who has watched me play knows that I give everything on the field and have always prioritised rugby ahead of everything else, including financial reward," the 33-year-old replied.

"I have only ever undertaken personal commercial activities in my own time and I'm comfortable I got that balance right at all times. Where I had to be involved in commercial conversations with the RFU it was as captain, working with the RPA [Rugby Players' Association], representing the best interests of the players, not for any personal gain. I do not think anyone who knows me would think differently. Captaining England was, and remains, the ultimate honour for me and I accepted that honour knowing all the scrutiny that came with it. I am confident I did the job to the absolute best of my ability but if some of the players thought that was not enough I will have to learn to live with that.

"It is deeply disappointing to see players' feedback aimed at improving England rugby, and which we were promised would remain confidential and anonymous, being put in the public domain for political purposes."

At least one member of England's coaching team endorses Moody's belief that some individuals have been stitched up. He cannot be named because all the back-up staff remain under contract to the RFU but he is adamant the leak is part of a wider narrative. "There's a massive political battle going on at Twickenham. It's become very personal and it's a great shame. It's just a complete political shit-fight. For people to try and paint a picture that we are unprofessional, disorganised or incompetent is grossly unfair. To cobble together a few players' comments to give that impression … I don't think that is right."

The whole management team, according to the same individual, knew they would almost certainly have to quit if they did not reach the semi-finals.

"As coaches we knew before we went that crashing out in the quarter-finals would not be acceptable. Any team with the ambition England have got cannot afford to bomb out in the quarter-final of a World Cup. Full stop. Should the coaches be kept on at this point? Probably not because we've gone down. Some organisations like to put a broom through and that's obviously what's going to happen with England. If I was a new coach coming in I'd want a clean slate. The mood is for change. I accept that."

The outgoing coaches, though, say they do not recognise the grim picture painted by some of their players. "The perception is that England is a shambles. Well, not really. We had a poor World Cup but the 2011 season was moderately successful. We won 10 out of 13 internationals. Only New Zealand won more games in that period than we did. Was that good enough? No. But in that 12-month period we scored 37 tries and conceded 12. That's nearly three tries per Test and we only played a couple of minnows. That would suggest from a rugby point of view that consistency is a problem but things aren't as bad as they're being painted. It's not as if the person who comes in next is going to have to rebuild this team. There's been some good groundwork laid."

The management particularly reject suggestions the players had no way to voice grievances before or during the tournament. "If a player didn't come directly to a coach there were small group meetings for the senior, middle and younger players to voice concerns in. They were happening weekly and the coaches were getting feedback on those all the time. Sometimes we would make adjustments to our training sessions based on that. In some cases we would say: 'We hear what you're saying but we disagree.' If you ask 30 different players for their opinion you'll get 30 different answers." True enough, but the sheer weight of criticism is hard to deflect.