Fight fire with...?

There are many ways to measure a player's importance to a team, but one of the best is to think of what happens if they're not there. This is what's about to happen to England with Jonathan Joseph and the more I think about it, the more I fear we're out that Joseph was just about the most important player we had. The worry about Joseph's well-being started for me when Tuilagi was suspended, increased mildly with the dropping of Daly, then spiked when Burrell followed him.

Then I forgot about it. Then Joseph got injured.

Every man and his dog in the press will tell you that Lancaster's planning a midfield of Burgess and Barritt, with Farrell in at ten. It's quite possible this will be confirmed by the time this post is up, given my writing speed. If this is correct, then England will be drastically changing styles at the last minute, just like Johnson did in 2011. That turned out to be a career defining decision for Johnson and that comparison should tell you where I'm fearing this will go but lets look at this coldly and sanely. 

We all know what Wales are bringing. It starts with Jamie Roberts running over the top of someone followed by a similar procession of very big men getting onto the ball in relentless succession until cracks appear. Then they target the crack and try to get one of their speed men through it. Knowing it's about to happen hasn't helped a lot of teams, worn out by the physical collisions and, once upon a time, a scrum led by the might of Adam Jones. The Farrell-Burgess-Barritt unit is very much a case of fight fire with fire. It is the most physical, most anti-Roberts line-up that Lancaster could call on. That's never a bad thing and as someone who has repeatedly pointed to the yards lost by Ford in the tackle, I'd be lying if I said I couldn't see some logic. That said - it's not like we haven't seen Farrell get bounced when going high on a far stronger man. It's even happened to Barritt on occasion. Roberts will not be despairing at the sight of this unit and Gatland will be looking very hard at how to get Burgess to do something stupid in defence.

The real question about the fight fire with fire strategy is what happens when England get the ball in hand and there are weaknesses to all three men selected. The biggest weakness with Farrell is that he's a disruptive selection. Ben Youngs is by now quite used to his ex-Leicester team mate; he hasn't started with Farrell for about two years. Burgess is used to Ford from Bath, but has only started once with Farrell for England. Everything will be that little bit more tentative before we even consider his less assured touch in the role. I've mellowed on Farrell, even if others have become harder on him; he has worked very hard to become an international fly-half. He's developed a running game and has a better range of short passing. He's not as good at either as Ford, but that is forgiveable. Where the difference tells, for me, is what happens when Farrell runs out of instructions. He doesn't look like a natural fly-half at such times. Execute a detailed game plan, yes; produce on the hoof, no. That is part of the reason why he's looked better with a second distributor outside him for England.

He won't have that advantage against Wales. In fact, he'll be so deprived of it, I'm half expected the UN to intervene. The Bosh Brothers (as they're now renamed) will pass, but there is no guarantee of the recipient getting any space to work with. That is a straight-up huge issue for a team whose strongest suit in recent times has been the back three. Wales tend to pick a pretty physical pair of wingers, comfortable with tight spaces, and an outside-centre with the ability to draw a man and pass; they'll be fine. Jonny May and Anthony Watson are not pretty physical. They do not welcome tight spaces. They'd be well forgiven for looking extremely nonplussed when this team is read out, if it wasn't for the fact it's been leaked so thoroughly that the news has been the source of first contact with hitherto unknown tribes in the Amazon. We don't know their language yet, but we're working on it in the presumption they're asking 'what is that bald bloke thinking?'

I had previously defended Burgess' inclusion in the squad on two grounds. The first, that he was no dodgier than any of our other twelves. The second, he probably wasn't going to play in anything important. I told myself that if used, he would at least be with familiar faces from Bath. How utterly foolish I was. Sam Burgess will undoubtedly produce something of worth in attack. No dramas. The question is what will happen when they run the other way and, well, I might be revising my belief he was no dodgier than any of our other twelves. Yes, Burrell and Twelvetrees have made mistakes in defence, but very rarely have they been lining up the wrong man completely. A missed tackle is better than a tackle never made and Nadolo's line break against England exposed that one cruelly. Burgess had no need to buy that dummy and I don't think most other English centres would have. They might have missed the tackle, but at least they'd have slowed Nadolo down. England didn't concede on that occasion. How many occasions will Wales fashion by targeting Burgess though?

It only takes a try or two from that source to undo all the good work that Brad Barritt will do in defence. At that point England need tries of their own and Barritt becomes something of a liability. He tends to prosper more with the additional space at 13, but he still has one of the worst attacking games of any centre at the World Cup. His presence will pile pressure on both Burgess and the wingers, as it will be up to them. The idea - and I'm not ruling out the possibility of it working - is that Barritt will keep his wayward colleague in line in defence, and be able to rely on him to carry the brunt in attack. If that works, England won't be too badly off although it still isn't ideal. If it goes the other way as I've suggested, then England are quite, quite screwed. Either way, we seem committed to meeting the Welsh midfield head on, which is their area of strength. They've been doing it for longer and they've been doing it better. Even if everything works the way it's meant to, they could still beat us there.

Could anything else have been done? We were still probably committed to one of those two players, but there were other options available to allow us to attack Wales in other areas.

The first and most obvious was Henry Slade, who secured his World Cup slot on the back of his performance playing 13 outside Burgess. A fly-half by youthful training, Slade would hugely increase England's ability to vary the point of attack. It seems likely that the wingers would have been far happier to see him there. He would have also offered another tactical kicking option - and it looks like there might be a lot of kicking - and could have had a go at the penalties from half-way that Farrell doesn't have a realistic hope of slotting. It wouldn't have been a solely attacking measure either. Slade's a lot tougher than his slight frame indicates and he established a mean defensive reputation when shutting down Tuilagi in the Premiership last season. Barritt-Slade would have been defensively stronger and Burgess-Slade stronger in attack for definite than the Bosh Brothers.

The other option also involves a West Country boy: Jack Nowell. He looked pretty useful togging out at 13 for the Chiefs at the end of the season and is by far the most like for like choice to replace Joseph. Fast, powerful for his size, good feet and links well. He might not have played the position enough to be a completely comfortable fit on defence, but if we're expecting Barritt to keep Burgess in line, then doing the same for Nowell would be child's play. The best thing about playing Nowell there is England's attacking patterns would have required very little adjustment. Once again, Nowell would make sense for a day with a lot of kicking - see Joe Schmidt's patented 'every back a full back' unit to see how it works.

You could have even played the two Exeter boys together, although that's a little risky for my blood, particularly with no big wingers for crash ball (my kingdom for Semesa Rokoduguni). You could have slotted Farrell into 12 for ultra-conservative defence and kicking game. There were a lot of options other than Fight Fire With Fire. We could have had an Escape. We didn't need to be Trapped Under Ice. There shouldn't be this disturbing sense of Creeping Death coming up on us; that England are about to Ride the Lightning. 

This isn't a definitively match losing selection but I'd have felt a lot more comfortable with the added dimensions and extra defensive security that I think we'd have got from a different unit to the Bosh Brothers. Burgess is going to have to go very well in attack to persuade me I was wrong after the match and I'm really not sure Wales are going to be that susceptible to his straight line running. I've gone from feeling very secure in this match-up, particularly with Wales' godawful luck with injuries, to feeling a bit 50-50. Welsh fans seem a lot more confident now.

To finish on an even grimmer note - if this goes wrong, Lancaster is going to face a lot of hostility. The cries of favouritism and u-turn have already begun, before we even know whether the result justifies the selection. They will only double if he keeps faith with an underperforming pack as well, making Ford a scapegoat. It's certainly not popular; it's dubious whether it's good rugby. Whether this selection is right or wrong, we know Lancaster has made a big mistake, and the question is whether he's fixing the mistake or making the mistake. If he is making a mistake, then England will be half-out of their group, and Lancaster may be finding out For Whom The Bell Tolls.


p.s. This author is in no way ashamed about making so many lame Metallica puns.