chickenfeet

I really would not have wanted to be Stuart Lancaster leading up to this one. I think he and his team didn't realise what they had and didn't have until it was too late and it's entirely understandable as the most likely winning approach would have been, indeed is, utterly un-English. English teams are built on brutal scrummaging, powerful, if unsubtle, midfields and good finishers out wide. What they have, and could have, had they but realised it 18-24 months ago, is one of the most creative and potent back lines in world rugby and a pack to feed it.

Ford, Barritt, Joseph, May, Brown, Watson is a hell of a unit. But Lancaster (or was it Andy Farrell?) refused to believe in it. If they had, Cipriani would have been the back up 10 and maybe they would have seen Farrell as a 12 rather than a 10. Intriguing prospect; play a first 5/8, second 5/8 game? For sure there would have been no place for Burgess.

If one buys this then the need for a genuine openside up front screams at you. And you don't need a brute force ball carrier at 8. What if they had picked Armstrong at 7 and, here's a thought, Robshaw at 8? They have good mobile players to fill the 4,5,6 slots. Then it's just a case of picking the most solid front row.

9 becomes interesting. Nothing wrong with Youngs or Wigglesworth but if one is thinking "flair" rather than solidity, then Care comes into equation.

I'm not saying I would have realised this if I had been in Lancaster's place and I'm sure it would have been hard to sell to the likes of Andy Farrell and Rowntree but sometimes you just have to "think different".