Pedal Down

Five changes is a large number to make between test matches.

In a few hours, we will know exactly how Gatland's choices have played out - and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people only see this after then, on account of having better things to do with their hangover. So arguably, I'm post this simply so I can pontificate on how right I was afterwards - assuming I'm right to begin with.

Of course, most of Gatland's changes weren't particularly optional. Losing Corbisiero and O'Connell will have been a massive blow, for all the quality of their replacements. Parling is a serious operator, and I'm delighted he's getting this chance as he has earned it with club and country these last couple of seasons. I would go so far as to say technically, I see little difference between their games, with Parling ahead as a carrier and O'Connell ahead at the breakdown. But in terms of big game experience and manic aggression there is no Lions forward like O'Connell and anyone would want him in their team for a day like today. As for Corbs, it's a massive shame he keeps breaking so often, because if he didn't he might be recognised as one of the pre-eminent looseheads in world rugby. Vunipola is a hugely powerful man with wonderful hands, and he has blossomed on this tour in a way everyone but Joe Marler will appreciate, but he lacks Corbisiero's experience and technical ability.

In the back division, Bowe for Cuthbert is an optional call, but I regard it as reversing a non-option call to begin with. Its clear how much the Lions coaches rate Bowe and while Cuthbert is a very talented finisher in good form, he lacks Bowe's nous, experience and all round game. Every mistake today could be fatal and even slightly rusty, most people would back Bowe to make less than Cuthbert.

Either way, these calls are unlikely, with the exception of Corbisiero's loss as a scrummager, unlikely to affect the game too much. The interesting calls, the ones that may well make or break this second test, are Dan Lydiate and Ben Youngs.

Youngs has not been in great form, and Gatland has previously stuck with Philips through thick and thin. For all that Mike Philips had a truly awful game last week, it is still a surprise to see this change made, particularly as Youngs hasn't made the strongest case for himself this tour. Lydiate of course is a Gatland favourite, so he is less of a surprise, but his inclusion ahead of Croft and O'Brien does ask some interesting questions. The lineout has been problematic all tour and while it ran smoothly in the first test, that does guarantee a repeat. The Wallabies will have done their homework and with the number of truly outstanding lineout targets cut in half, they might be fancying a cut at Tom Youngs' throwing. If you are happy with the lineout though, which Gatland is, then it might seem more obvious to replace Croft if so minded with O'Brien. Go forwards ball, really denting the golden defensive line, was something of a concern. Sean O'Brien is the single most imposing carrier in the squad. His omission, on face value, seems odd.

Having given the matter some thought, and borrowing a few ideas from elsewhere, it seems to me that Lydiate and Youngs was a call made in tandem with the idea their attributes combined would change the Lions gameplan in both attack and defence.

In attack, it looks like Gatland is hoping to solve breaking the Australian gainline by quicker ball. Croft was very industrious and put in a useful day at the breakdown, but he does not excel at rucking. Lydiate, however, does a lot of it. Remember too that O'Connell's absence must be compensated for here (while I expect Parling to carry a lot). If Lydiate can free up the ball a bit quicker, then Youngs is certainly capable - for all his stepping and meerkatting - of delivering quick ball. More than either of his fellow scrum-halfs, Youngs loves to put tempo on a game. He's less prone to running up blind allies too - just about - largely because he's more likely to get mugged. If Sexton can be provided with a greater supply of quick ball, which these selections might manage, then he can fashion line breaks. 

In defence, these selections appear to have been made with one thing in mind, and that is to stifle Will Genia as much as possible. McGeechan said he expected Lydiate's selection was with that in mind, while Ben Youngs' biggest advantage over both Murray and Philips is pace. He can keep up with Genia where they can't. Lydiate and Warburton will look to close off any hope of Genia sniping - Youngs will be lurking to catch him if they fail. For all the danger of Australia's outside backs, if Genia is shackled, there is only so much they can do. Some will continue to ask why not O'Brien, who is no stranger to the noble traditional art of bullying scrum-halves. For that, I point to his penalty count - and not just on tour, but throughout his entire career. Gatland wants reliability here and as such, Lydiate is his man.

These are not the strategies of a man expecting it to be over by half time, and neither is the bench. The Lions should expect less from their set-piece and are short of carriers in the pack to wreak great carnage. But the Lions can wear them down, particularly with a good supply of quick ball. O'Brien and Croft is a horrible thing to spring on anyone from the bench when gaps start to open up. I think Gatland reckons he has late points there.

In a few hours, we will know.

Lions thoughts

By now, most people have probably read quite a lot of Lions coverage, so I’ll keep this one fairly short.

Like many, my reaction was not entirely positive, with several selections confusing me. Some of them still do, but having thought the matter over it, I at least feel like I can take a good stab at Gatland’s logic.

The selection of Mako Vunipola over Ryan Grant is a good example of this.  Grant I thought a fairly likely inclusion before the squad was named. He marries a huge defensive work rate with some solid scrummaging. You get the impression most people he plays with look up to him. On a long Lions tour against one of the most dangerous attacks around, he seemed a good choice, and had certainly earned the chance. I’d mulled over the possibility of Vunipola going, but he seemed too raw, too much of an impact player, someone who wouldn’t challenge for the starting jersey in the same way Grant would for all Vunipola possesses some nigh-unique qualities as an attacking player

.

But Vunipola it is. It’s not hard to see why a coach might like him. Very mobile and agile for such a big man, Mako Vunipola possesses brute strength and soft hands in abundance. Already he is possibly the best ball carrying front row forward in Europe, a claim I do not make lightly. He may not be ready to start a Lions test. But he could almost certainly make a difference coming on in one.

Impact and Athleticism are what Vunipola brings. They also appear to be two of Gatland’s watch words this series. Just look at the selection of Tom Croft. Now, Croft I had expected, not least because the Independent had semi-leaked it, but also because his pace and lineout jumping were attributes that none of the competition could offer. Many would have taken Chris Robshaw or Tom Wood, or maybe Ryan Jones or Kelly Brown, but on the hard grounds of Australia, up against their speed merchants, Croft made sense. I also think this approach accounts for the omission of Rory Best, whose main brilliance is in his stamina and defensive work, and the selection of Matt Stevens over more static, internationally active props. Although more on Stevens later.

Viewing the squad for this prism helps restore my Lions excitement, because it says Gatland wants to attack, assuming he can coax it out. There’s a lot of forwards with real ability going forwards, ball in hand, and a lot of players who can come off the bench and make a big impact. Vunipola would be one, assuming he can crack the Healy/Jenkins axis. So too would the likes of Sean O’Brien, Dan Cole and Geoff Parling, to have an early stab at the contents of the Lions bench. These are high energy players, guys who are really comfortable in the loose. Gatland could not have missed the impact the English bench had on most games. It seems likely he’ll be looking to replicate this, considering he’s got the depth on hand to do so.

A lot is going to depend on how the ball carriers in the pack do after all. In terms of raw physicality, Gatland has taken about the most impressive backline anywhere, something that will be familiar to the Welsh coach and his assistant Howley. This move will be derided in some quarters – the Sydney Morning Herald has already been talking about ‘slabs of red meat’ – but given what we’ve got and what Gatland is used to working with, it makes sense. The issue is that, by and large, we do not have the backs who will produce something and magically let you escape from being on the back foot, like Australia’s can. If the forwards can start getting across the gainline and providing good ball, then the big Lions backs should be able to start making linebreaks. If they don’t, then the Australian defensive line will be up quickly and cutting off their momentum. People will waste a lot of words about the superiority or downfalls of bosh merchants, but it will really be down to the forwards and their ability to batter the gainline.

So, impact and athleticism. The third word that helps me understand Gatland’s thinking here is something I’ve already touched on – familiarity. Some will call it bias, for the good reason that it is, but when you’ve got a test team to create in six weeks it’s not productive to get caught up in that. Certainly the players won't. People will always pick what they trust; that means what they know well. Matt Stevens is the biggest beneficiary of that. With no clear third tighthead, having worked closely with Rowntree was a good clincher – and, more importantly, Andy Farrell. I’d bet Farrell’s voice, him saying that he trusts Stevens not to be exposed in the defensive line, was the single biggest factor in the Lions calling him up. Dan Lydiate had also benefitted from this – definitely a high class player, but not one who’s been in any particular form since returning to fitness . The next biggest winner after Stevens, however, was Howley. There was a lot of calls for Joe Schmidt to get the gig as Lions backs coach. He appears far more qualified for the job, but Gatland knew he could work with Howley, and that was the big call. It probably also helped Croft beat out the other English blindsides too. And so on.

So, at least it’s understandable. Is it right? That remains to be seen.

Prayer for a wing

As I watched Matthew Tait cut it up yet again for Tigers in their ultimately fruitless struggle in Toulon, I turned to my friend and remarked - tongue in cheek - "We've got yet another addition to the people to play ahead of Ashton".

Now, this article is not a call for Ashton's head, a call which would be rather ill-timed considering his useful performance against Ulster in the Heineken Cup, including a vintage Ashton try. But nor will it be a hymn in his praise, for from England's point of view he deserves no such thing. If anything, Ashton's performance heightened my frustration with England's wing play, a frustration I know I'm far from alone in. Ashton can play, but hasn't been. Brown can also play - he can play full-back. While those two have toiled on, we have watched as promising a generation of young English wingers as there's been in some time settle for terrorizing the defences of the Premiership. Of them, only Sharples has received a chance in a game against tier 1 opposition, playing the game against Australia. With the addition of one game against South Africa, where Strettle played, you have the only two games where England didn't play with two specialist full-backs. Ashton has played every single game against tier 1 opposition since Lancaster took over, with a return of two tries.

This article is aimed at being an overview of England's possible choices on the wing. While Lancaster is clearly stubborn and loyal to his man, the situation as stands feels untenable. England's wings are, at the very kindest, not the complete package. The list of pretenders seems to grow weekly. It is a very obvious place to trial a change on at least one wing, if not both.

What does Lancaster want from a winger? England hopefuls such as Christian Wade have commented on being told to work on things so they've got several skills at 7 or 8 out of 10, rather than just the one asset at 9/10. He clearly sets get store on wingers who are defensively in the right place at the right time and who can kick accurately. Add that to a demand for wingers who are secure under the high ball, and you see why he's attracted to playing two full-backs. Given England's pressure defence tactics a good kick chase is essential. Given the value England place on being difficult to score against you'd have though secure tacklers were preferred, although you have to wonder about that. And of course, there's attack. England haven't exactly created fantastic chances for their wingers, which has turned the ability to operate in traffic into a premium, while we've also seen the wingers popping up in midfield a fair bit.

The full list - as I make it - of English winger hopefuls reads like this: Ashton, Banahan, Benjamin, Biggs, Eastmond, Elliot, May, Monye, Nowell, Sharples, Simpson-Daniel, Strettle, Thompstone, Varndell, Wade, Yarde. To which, given Lancaster's predilection for playing full-backs on the wing, should be added Abendanon, Brown, Daly, Foden, Tait and Tuilagi. Yes, I know the last is not a full-back, but since Lancaster's name checked him as a potential winger, it would be remiss not include him. As I said, England are not short of options here. So, let us look at them, going in nigh-Alphabetical order - I think it only fit to put the current incumbent, the most frustrating man in English rugby, first.

Chris Ashton

Strengths: At his best, a proven test level try scorer - a rare beast. His ability to hit the right supporting lines and finish off opportunities makes him, on form, an excellent addition to an attacking team. He is also an aggressive kick chaser - cast your mind back to the Ireland game this spring, where he flattened O'Gara and basically won the penalty.

Weaknesses: Not the best tackler, nor the best disciplined player; his nine penalties conceded is a tally equalled only by Monye out of the out-and-out wingers on my list. His appetite for the high ball has been questioned. Finally, when starved of opportunities to finish off moves, he often seems a peripheral figure, lacking the footwork, power or vision to start creating opportunities of his own.

Nick Abendanon

Strengths: Genuinely comfortable at both full-back and wing, Bendy has a strong running game, provides for others, and looks defensively secure. He's beaten 35 defenders this season, fifth overall in the Premiership. A good all-round option, particularly for a man looking to play a full-back on the wing.

Weaknesses: With eleven penalties to his name, Abendanon is comfortably the worst disciplined player of the lot, which added to his 27 turnovers conceded is a lot of lost ball. Not really the ideal choice for a tight-fisted outfit in that respect.

Matt Banahan

Strengths: His strength. If England want to give teams something to think about other than Manu, the prospect of Banahan hitting a crash line should attract hearts and minds. At 6'7", he also does well under the high ball, and his offloading could fit in well with England's desire to play a quicker game when possible.

Weaknesses: Apart from being more of a centre these days - surely not a problem in Lancaster's England - Banahan has something of the air of tried and failed about him. Maybe he'd fulfill his potential under a different man, but no one is holding their breath, particularly as his physicality didn't look enough last time. His relative lack of pace and agility would be a constant worry in defence too. Still, as long as he offers something unique, people will wonder about him.

Miles Benjamin

Strengths: Powerful and quick, Benjamin is an excellent finisher. He may have missed this season through injury, but last season his seven tries for Wuss were hugely influential in their survival fight.

Weaknesses: Absence, as they say, makes the heart grow fonder. Let us see whether his physical attributes remain when he returns, and whether he thrives in the Tigers environment with the expectation of winning games.

Tom Biggs

Strengths: Fantastic hair and a nice guy, Biggs has become a real fans favourite to have a crack at one of those wing slots. He's a busy, running winger who's effective at what he does.

Weaknesses: Ok, I'll be honest, I can't see what all the hype is about. He is effective, but he's not electric. Would he be an international standard try scorer?

Mike Brown

Strengths: Internationally experienced now, Brown offers a booming left boot and plenty of security under the high ball. He also offers a serious amount of go forwards in traffic, where his strength and footwork allow him to wriggle through gaps like an enraged ferret, arguably making him England's most threatening attacker this Six Nations. Particularly true when picking and going, although that's only really been seen for Quins.

Weaknesses: A combination of a lack of speed by international wing standards and possible positional inexperience leaves him rather prone to getting done on the outside, while the same lack of speed probably helps account for why he's never really made anything of the half-chances to gas someone on the outside and be free he's been given. I suspect he has more international caps than he does senior appearances on the wing.

Elliot Daly

Strengths: Quick, elusive and a quality finisher, Daly also possesses a massive boot, which he could use for cracks at some of the kicks at the very edge and beyond of Farrell's range. Also blessed with a bit of creativity, Daly has shown just how dangerous he would be coming into the line off his wing in the outside channels when he plays at outside centre.

Weaknesses: Well I've just said it really - Daly plays a lot at outside centre and while Wasps are increasingly seeing him as a full-back, and do play him occasionally on the wing, he's really no specialist. Given it's Lancaster I'm including him, but all the positioning and high ball taking aren't really natural strengths. Daly's also slipped off a few more tackles than I'd prefer.

Kyle Eastmond

Strengths: A very gifted all round footballer, Eastmond could offer a second playmaking option coming in from his wing. He has an excellent kicking game too. And he has no slouch running with ball in hand either.

Weaknesses: It seems Bath are increasingly seeing Eastmond as a centre, so he's not picking up the positional experience he'd need. His size - 5'6", smaller than any other candidate except possibly Wade - would also be held against him, particularly if he not regularly showing he can still take the high ball.

Jamie Elliot

Strengths: A good old fashioned winger, Elliot is quick, elusive and scores tries. He is currently equal first in the much vaunted and value competition, "Highest Premiership Try scorer not playing at Wasps". Solidly built for his size, Elliot has made some vital defensive contributions for Northamption this season, most particularly in their victory against Ulster, and has shown a good measure of versatility over his career, having played a bit of centre and full-back.

Weaknesses: He gets some of the big ones, but does he get them all? Elliot's succesful tackle rate of 75pc is distinctly unimpressive. Part of that might be the time spent at full-back covering for Foden. And although he is quick and elusive, whether he'd still seem those things at the next level is something I mildly doubt. Hopefully the improvements Northampton are looking to make to their backline for next season will allow Elliot a better platform to demonstrate his talent.

Ben Foden

Strengths: Internationally experienced and proven, Foden has done a fair job to say the least at full-back for England, and didn't look too out of place on the wing either. All of the elements of kicking, the high ball and so on, would be strengths for him. Foden is quick and powerful for his size, which has not only translated into a good try scoring ratio, but also an admirable defensive record too, with only one real blotch on his record for England in that respect.

Weaknesses: Foden has been badly out of form recently. He has not been defensively solid for Northampton, and his attacking game has only really been beginning to spark again. He too will be hoping that Alex King and the new signings can provide a better platform. There is also the small matter of him mainly playing at full-back - he has the physical characteristics for it, but he's not got the specialist instincts.

Jonny May

Strengths: Very quick and very elusive, May is already established as one of the most dangerous wingers in the Premiership, having scored a number of wonder tries. His strike rate this season is 5 in 10. May's also spent a fair bit of time at full-back over the past couple of seasons and while it doesn't seem his most natural position, it is a bit of additional versatility. Also happy to leave his wing and get his hands dirty.

Weaknesses: There are probably players with better fundamentals, and his defensive record isn't excellent. Almost definitely one of the players Lancaster told to work on getting a more rounded game.

Ugo Monye

Strengths: Monye is in my opinion the best defensive winger in the Premiership - a very good tackler, excellent under the high ball and a superb natural athlete. He's a willing worker in every sense, frequently seen applying his strength in the middle of the park, and while not as dangerous as when he broke through, his 5 tries in 14 games still represents a decent return.

Weaknesses: 9 penalties and 17 turnovers conceded is not an ideal tally. I suspect part of that comes from chasing marginal balls, something the England coaches have said is not a problem, but it can't entirely be so. There is also a distinct sense of tried and failed about him too which doesn't help, although that was some time ago and in a different set-up.

Jack Nowell

Strengths: Quick, good feet and strong, Nowell has the ability to cut through defences and a bit of a predatory instinct - although he's also very happy coming off the wing for a spot of crash. Nowell is another guy with full-back experience and he has looked useful enough under the high ball and when having to clear with his boot. Nowell is also defensively strong, strong enough to come into the defensive line and cover a so-so fly-half.

Weaknesses: Nowell is by far the most inexperienced name in this list, and as such he has plenty to prove in terms of consistency. It will not be a surprise if more weaknesses emerge the more games he plays.

Charlie Sharples

Strengths: At his best, Sharples is very fast and a natural try scorer. He also seems blessed with a fine rugby brain, and looks secure in most aspects of wing play.

Weaknesses: Sharples has not been at his best in some time. He's not the strongest man either, as shown in his game against Australia, which both detracts from his finishing and helps explain a 1 in 6 missed tackle rate in the Premiership. I wouldn't rule out a return, and he's clearly been rated by England coaches for some time, but as things stand Sharples looks a long way away from being an international quality winger.

James Simpson-Daniel

Strengths: Still arguably the most naturally talented winger in English rugby, Sinbad is as much creator as scorer; only 2 tries in his eight matches, but 3 assists. He's also become a very reliable man as he has aged, missing only 1 in 14 tackles and conceding only 2 turnovers.

Weaknesses: His age must count against him by now, and his record for being injury prone is something else. I also wonder if there's something else; English coaches are happy to persist with the injury prone, but Simpson-Daniel has rarely had much of a look in. Is there doubt over his desire? Certainly Lancaster has shown little desire to even have a look at the Glaws man.

David Strettle

Strengths: Long characterised as a cut-price Simpson-Daniel - same lines popping up in the centre, same evasive qualities, just a little less quality and a lot less tries - Strettle is really flourishing at Saracens. Five tries and three assists in 14 games is a useful return and he chases well too.

Weaknesses: Just over 1 in 6 tackles missed; we can talk about Saracens' aggressive defence and abnormally high number of missed tackles as part of the reason, but the other part is that he simply isn't the best tackler. Also, like Monye, there are whiffs of tried and failed; he has rarely carried his attacking threat up the next level.

Matthew Tait

Strengths: More international experience than any other candidate, albeit in a chequered career, Tait looked a high quality player against Toulon. Secure under the high ball, a potent running threat and a reasonable boot, Tait looked like ticking most of the boxes Lancaster wants. He is also one of the most versatile players available to England.

Weaknesses: Tait is currently being used as a full-back at Leicester - ironically, probably his weakest position - and he's taken time to adapt. The last month or so has seen him sparkle, but not long ago he looked a bit of a liability. Throw in his injury record and he looks a bit of a gamble.

Adam Thompstone

Strengths: Big and quick - Thompstone has a very consistent 1 in 3 try scoring record, both with London Irish and now Leicester, and has looked solid in defence. His try saving tackle on Bastareud in particular was one for the highlights reel.

Weaknesses: I would have to question whether he'd still look as quick, as strong, and as likely to score tries at the next level up, where he'd no longer be a stand-out specimen.

Manu Tuilagi

Strengths: I don't think I need to tell anyone reading this about Tuilagi's ability as a ball carrier. In a one on one with some momentum, he's one of the hardest men to stop around. Both Lancaster and Gatland have publicly mentioned the possibility of playing him there.

Weaknesses: I don't think he's played on the wing since he was 18, and it's not like he's been picking up his back three skills at full back either. Although possessed of plenty of toe, it would be interesting and slightly worrying to see what happened the first time he had to turn and chase, and likewise if he then needed to kick in a hurry.

Tom Varndell

Strengths: The fastest man in the Premiership, perhaps in NH rugby - not many would score this try - Varndell is simply an incredibly dangerous out and out try scorer. He picks great lines, he works in support, has the power and know-how to work tight spaces when needed and the pace to ensure he doesn't need to most of the time. 72 tries in 148 premiership games is a phenomenal return; he seems a safe bet to become the first man to score 100 Premiership tries. 3 from his 4 England caps, those against serious opposition. This is not a finer finisher available to England, or arguably any Six Nations team.

Weaknesses: For much of his career, the assertion that he is simply a bit of a coward has followed Varndell. Right or wrong, I do not know, but 26 tackles made, 8 missed - roughly 1 in 4 - does nothing to dispel the image. Varndell's conceded 19 turnovers as well. Apparently Lancaster has been speaking to Varndell, but it would be interested to hear his unvarnished opinion on the winger's shortcomings.

Christian Wade

Strengths: The best sidestep in English rugby since Jason Robinson. Silly amounts of gas. The only man remotely close to Varndell's 12 tries this season; Wade has 10. And, despite being small, there's no shortage of courage either. Watching him shunt Tony Buckley into touch to save a certain try is probably my favourite memory of this season.

Weaknesses: Prone to rushing up to stop players accelerating and exposing his lack of mass, which often gets him exposed. Although he's taken some good high balls, eventually you're going to get done when you're 5'8" at best. No particular shakes with his boot either. If Wade nails these issues, you can virtually guarantee Lancaster will cap him.

Marland Yarde

Strengths: Pace, power and good footwork, the most exceptional thing about Yarde's season is the 90 tackles he's put in - incredible for a winger, albeit one covering for some of the more frail fly-halves in the sport. He's only missed 12 of them as well. Yarde is the sort of winger who's willing to muck in doing the dirty stuff, something that might endear him to Lancaster.

Weaknesses: 24 turnovers conceded won't. Also, for all his skill ball in hand, he's not dotting down too many tries. In fairness, he is playing for London Irish, where chances are difficult to come by, but it doesn't help.

And the rest...

Josh Bassett, who played for the England U20s last year, will go to Wasps next season. The move does look slightly coals to Newcastle, but given the lack of cover for Wade and Varndell, and the opportunities Wasps creates, it could make sense. Anthony Watson at London Irish was a little too callow to be included in this list, but he is an incredible talent who is likely to hit the England radar in the next couple of years, while his current team mate Jon Joseph might find himself back on the wing for Bath next season, and his rock solid defence and incisive running have already won him caps from outside centre. If Sale ever return to sanity, then Rob Miller is the sort of full-back with the genuine pace and try scoring ability of a winger, while the likes of Tom Brady and Will Addison show promise. Finally, Ross Chisholm at Quins is another very quick full-back, and its not like Tom Williams would be that difficult a man to oust from a wing spot

So who is it then?

Say what you like about Chris Ashton, he remains the closest thing England have to a top international wing. But he is not a top international wing. To be such a thing, in my eyes, a player must be either an absolute try machine, or he must rate highly in two of the following three - finishing, creating opportunities, defence. Ashton is no longer a try machine, and only his finishing rates highly on the international scene, and that when on form. However, Lancaster likes him, and seems to rate him as an all-round consistent player with the right attitude, and he is an international class finisher, so we simply have to accept that hope he starts delivering. Given what he can do, that's probably ok, as it would be premature to completely dump him. That said, in some countries, Ashton simply wouldn't get a sniff; the challenge for Lancaster should be to find four wingers who fit his desires for all round play whose attacking play can really put the pressure on Ashton to evolve or die.

In light of who's got what Lancaster wants now, and it surprises me to say this, I'd like to see Strettle being given more chances to place more pressure on his Saracens colleague. Strettle is in excellent form, just as solid as Ashton, and more likely to create something. It seems the more valuable addition to England at the moment. Simpson-Daniel, futile as it is to wish it, would also be an interesting addition in this role. If Lancaster was placing an emphasis on this solidity, and this alone, Ugo Monye would be an obvious addition. I'd go so far as to say that if he played for Saracens, he would be in. That's not an accusation of bias so much as acknowledging the similarity of defensive DNA between them and England; Saracens push the qualities Lancaster looks for more than any other club. I can't help but feel Lancaster and Farrell should trust themselves to coach the same things to other players more though. That aside, neither Monye or Strettle seem likely to be top class attacking wings anytime soon. Selecting them might help England win games, but it won't help them win World Cups. My personal bet for a player who looks like he'd fulfil the all-round criteria with only a bit of encouragement while having the attacking potential is Jack Nowell - he might only be an U20, but he has looked a revelation for Exeter and I am expecting big things.

However, if we're honest, the converted full-backs do seem a better chance of getting the all round players that Lancaster wants. To a certain extent, that's simply because many of the stand-out wingers in the Premiership are young men, but the joke that Lancaster would pick a back-line of full-backs if he could does not seem too far fetched. However, there certainly seem better suited players than Mike Brown! Ben Foden's return to form would be greatly appreciated and should ease Brown out of wing, but I'll admit to being more interested in Elliot Daly. It's possibly a season too early to start talking about him, as he's still settling into full-back, but Daly is quicker with better feet than many of the other options here and therefore seems a more natural potential winger.

What people really want to see are the attackers given full rein though and here, most people are talking about three men; Tom Varndell, Christian Wade and Jonny May. In some ways I am the most hopeful about May. Injury has prevented him from carving as magnificent a path through the season as the Wasps men, but he seems closer to Lancaster's ideal than either. He also seems a better bet to create something in the heavy traffic, which is where England are doing most of their work at the moment. However, how could I not want Wade to play for England? The kid is simply magic and his attitude looks spot on. I've got a bad feeling there could be a few iffy games, and I hope people stick with him when he is given a chance, as I think it's coming in the next year. Varndell, well, there's no doubt he'd be a useful man to have but I'll trust Lancaster on how big the negative list about him is. There's a fourth man I'd add though; should Miles Benjamin return unharmed for his season out, I would back him to start running up a large tally at Leicester.

Ashton, May, Wade and Benjamin - if that were England's 2015 wing selection, I would probably be a happy man.

Rome Rising

Speaking from the standpoint of a neutral rugby fan for a moment, a man simply wishing to see the best rugby, this Six Nations has been pretty poor. The first weekend promised a great deal, but, like a heavily padded bra, there wasn't much to see when it was gone. Instead, we got another round of the scrum debacle, poor weather, a fair few subpar sides and occasional outbreaks of rugby.

And we also got Italy, who have been the best thing about this tournament.

For a long time, I was uneasy about Italy in the Six Nations. They did not belong by tradition, they did belong by the overall standard - although all credit to Scotland's decision to become crap, thus ensuring they didn't feel too out of place. Mallet coaxed the odd big win out of them, but where was the consistency? Or the enjoyment factor in watching? Italy's admission was very justifiable in that the standard they had attained shortly before joining the tournament, and the idea that being part of the tournament would help their development to be able to sustain and then pass that level. But the argument falters if the country does not develop. Indeed, the main development that seemed to go on with Italy was other countries using the game to give fringe players a go.

I do not see too many teams doing that next year.

It is not just that they finally recorded two wins for the first time since 2007, but the manner in which they did so. Their complete control of the second half, save for the score board, at Twickenham won't go unnoticed either. The only match in which they truly let themselves down was the game against Scotland, in which a bad day for Orquera led to a disappointingly wide margin that helped contribute to the worst points against tally in the competition. However, even so, the statistics show progress. Italy conceded 111 points and 8 tries. Last year, it was 121 points and 12 tries and the year before that, 138 points and 15 tries. The switching of Andrea Masi and Orquera on defence was a simple move, but one that has paid dividends.

However, it is in attack they have really brightened things up. Under Nick Mallet, they were beginning to regress into a limited team who continually sought territory, played mostly by the pack, and hoped to edge tight games. Jacques Brunel's approach has been a breath of fresh air. Six tries may not sound too impressive, but it does not tell the whole story. Italy made more  passes, carries and offloads than any other team - testament to the way they looked to play ball in hand and keep it alive where possible. It paid off with dividends against France. Less so against Scotland, where Orquera's loose offload into the path of Stuart Hogg completely killed Italy's prospects, but it was still very entertaining. It also promises much for Italy - the move had got to that place through some excellent attacking play and had Orquera read Hogg's intentions correctly and simply gone, it was try time. Better to be approaching the fine margins between success and disaster then marooned a million miles away. And, of course, far more entertaining for the fans.

This is all for nothing if they do not continue this next year. Next year they only have two fixtures in Rome, making life more difficult. They must beat Scotland next year if progress is to be real. They must also fancy their chances of taking down England in Rome given the closeness of the last two results. Trips to Cardiff, Dublin and Paris may seem a great deal more difficult, but it is time for Italy to start overcoming such handicaps. Only England retain an unbeaten record against them, a record that looks vulnerable on recent evidence. 

It looks vulnerable looking at Italy's team sheet too. No longer do people summarise it as Parisse, Castrogiovanni & Friends - not that it ever really was, but the change in perception has followed ramped-up performances. Andrea Masi has been very good at full-back. People now suggest that the Parisse-Barbieri-Zanni back row is possibly the best in the Championship, and with good reason. Not that Favaro disgraced himself as Barbieri's stand-in against Ireland. Nor Cittadini in Castro's place. Venditti looks a talent, Luke McClean is in fine form, Garcia and Canale have been abrasive and effective in the centres. The only place where Italy arguably look a little weak is the second row, where they have nothing special, and the half-backs, where their options are mercurial to be kind. That's a critical weakness to be carrying at test level,and it might hold them back, but this begins to feel like Italy's time. The majority of Italy's players are now hitting their prime, most of them with plenty of international experience. A notional first team (possibly wrong here) contains only four players with less than twenty caps; Rizzo, the replacement for Lo Cicero, young lock Joshua Furno, scrum-half Botes, and the rampaging wing Venditti. Six of them have over fifty. Only Furno and the wingers are under 28; none of them, with Lo Cicero's impending retirement, yet 31. With the majority of the players at the top of their game, the next few years could see the birth of Italy as a genuine force in the competition.

Of course, the age profile carries a risk; in four years at most, a lot of players will need replacing and unless players develop and are given chances by Brunel, any advantages gained could be wiped out. There are talented young players in the Italy squad - Gori and Benevenuti already have 20+ international caps - but but talented prospects are not always talented players. Preparing for that transition and ensuring the youngsters make it will be one of Brunel's most important tasks. After this Six Nations, I really hope he succeeds.

If he does, Italian rugby's future will look brighter than ever.

Deja Ow

History has a habit of repeating itself. It's rare for it to do so quite this quickly however. It was only in 2011, after all, that an English Grand Slam attempt left a celtic capital feeling woe-begotten and beaten up. The defeat in Dublin marked the end of Martin Johnson's purple patch and ended up in that World Cup campaign.

The good news for Lancaster is that his squad seems unlikely to implode like that anytime soon.

Lancaster's probably been working very hard on reminding both himself and the players about the good news over the past weekend. As ways to end your Six Nations go, it doesn't get much more demoralising than that, although Ireland and France might both wish to disagree. The Bomber won't want his men to stew in negativity and let the game cast a shadow over them. And there was some good news.

What is of more interest to England fans right now however is what Lancaster does about the bad news. This is no knee-jerk reaction to a defeat and an extremely good performance from Wales. The weaknesses, as I said last week, have been there for some time and it was very obvious how things might go wrong. We'd all watched England get exposed out wide and shunted in the scrum before this Six Nations. Except, this time, it actually hurt.

I am a recent convert to being a Lancaster fan and, despite how its all turned out this year, I remain so. I can live with his decision to keep a relatively settled team throughout the tournament, even if that did mean some obvious weaknesses. However, what happens next will be a big test for him. It should now be obvious that England cannot hope to beat the top teams through good team spirit, big midfield defence and penalties alone. Those things are essential to our hopes of doing so, but more is required. And the results of this Six Nations show that Lancaster's emphasis on these things has led to too much sacrifice in our attacking capabilities.

A good example of this is Brad Barritt, a man constantly talked up for the important role he plays for England. Which is fair enough to a point. The man defends like a Trojan. Unfortunately, he attacks like a horse. As a runner, he straightens the line well and usually makes the gainline, but little more. His distribution skills aren't particularly noteworthy at international level and he's ignored a few overlaps recently. This is not to say he should definitely be dropped, players like him can be very important in doing the dirty work to allow more talented players to shine. But Barritt is typical of a great deal of the team and the team as a whole; outstanding in defence, uninspiring in attack, and seemingly lacking in perception of opportunities on the pitch. We messed up try scoring opportunities against Wales, against Italy and against France. We have not scored when it seemed easier to do so than to not.

Lancaster must fix this. We will not win the World Cup, our proclaimed goal, with such poverty in attack. We won't win the Six Nations either, and its doubtful whether we'll win as many games again next year. We will travel to an improving Italy, a potentially dangerous Scotland and also France, who surely cannot be that bad again next year. Ireland likewise have a great deal more potential than they showed. If we stand still, we will probably fall behind. However, if we are to actually progress, then attack cannot be at the total expense of what we have achieved in terms of midfield defence and mental strength. To a certain extent, Lancaster might be justified in grumbling about where he's meant to find these players. But he has already nailed his colours to the mast as a man developing a team, developing players. If he cannot find them, he must make them. Providing a player has courage and strength, he can be taught to defend. Attack is the more difficult art, the more dependent on natural talent. No amount of training will make Mike Brown as fast as Jonny May or Christian Wade. There is talk that Mike Catt's brief in the England camp is considered a long term thing - presumably bringing technical skills up to scratch and developing decision making in attack. It is an incredibly important role, but also an arduous process. Will it even make Owen Farrell as talented a passer as Freddie Burns, or give him his natural eye for the opportunity? Farrell has advanced a lot in his England career already but one has to wonder how much further he will develop.

It's been a good job until now. Jim Greenwood, one of rugby's original coaching gurus, once wrote that defence and fitness are the first concerns with a struggling team. Lancaster has done that, with the exception of that weird blind spot out wide. But Greenwood's books encourage attacking rugby to the utmost and it is now time for Lancaster to move on to this next step. Or I fear we will all be cursing more missed trophies again next year.

Same Again

I started rewatching the England-Italy game last night. I didn’t get very far, but I did remind myself that England started that game as a crisp, precise team playing a tempo that the Italians struggled to deal with. By the end they were clinging on, defending their line grimly. After the game, I spoke online with a lot of people, who weren’t just disappointed, they seemed angry. Myself, I can’t quite understand a lot of that. It’s not exactly news that teams with a big game the next week often take their eye off the ball mentally. It is human nature, and even the most experienced, streetwise athletes can suffer from it. I also feel this attitude takes Italy too lightly. Brunel has certainly raised their game at least temporarily and a lot of the Italians had very good games.

Everyone has heard the advice ‘Nothing is ever as good or as bad as it seems’. I believe it applies well enough to England’s most recent performance well enough – that was not as bad as some are making out. England maintained their discipline well and rode out a prolonged period of pressure to keep Italy’s score down and in particular, the defence was excellent on their own goal line. They also exerted significant pressure on Italy at times and while they didn’t score any tries themselves, Italy’s reaction to the pressure handed penalty after penalty to England. Discipline may not be something that gets people excited – at least not in a rugby connotation – but it is important. That England maintained theirs better is to their credit. And, since I’ve often been a harsh critic of Tom Youngs’ throwing, it should be pointed out that the lineout went very well.

But if the last game was not as bad, were the games preceding it as good? To my mind, the level of performance was not dissimilar to the games against Ireland and France. Greater levels of expectation and the erosion of patience with some of Lancaster’s choices account for at least some of the negative reaction – as too does the fact that this is the first time in a while that England have finished a match less strongly than their opponents. I would also chalk it down to some of England’s problems looking more prominent than usual. Just as Ashton’s miss on Fofana sparked a lot of criticism of his defence which would have been justified for some time, so too did parts of England’s game. And, partially with the benefit of hindsight, we are talking problems that have been trailing around for a good long time now. Maybe we should not be as happy with the Ireland and France victories as we are – or even those over Scotland and New Zealand. To me, there are three big criticisms that could be made of England’s performance that could ring true for most of that period. Those are:

A shaky set-piece

       Frail defence in the wide channels

     Profligacy with try scoring chances

It was the lineout that put Danny Care under pressure, leading to his hasty attempt at a box kick, which in turn lead to the Italian try – ironic considering that was otherwise England’s best lineout performance in some time. And the period of Italian dominance in the match was greatly assisted by them turning the screws on the English scrum, just as our half in the sun was marked by some monster shoves. It was not the first time England’s scrum creaked this Six Nations, although it was the most pronounced, and the worst since Joe Marler’s attempt to scrummage against Australia with a ligament injury. France in particular gave us a hard time, and did so in the lineout too despite the addition of Dylan Hartley, our more reliable lineout thrower. But then there has been plenty of wasted and scrappy lineout possession for England this Six Nations against everyone, as there was against South Africa and New Zealand last Autumn.

Similarly, there are more than a few instances of England’s defensive solidity suddenly crumbling out wide. New Zealand had a lot of joy there, particularly through Cory Jane. Scotland’s two tries largely came through wing play. Then there’s Fofana’s excellent run, and the Italian wings had their moments too.  I struggle to think of the last time an opposition team was able to find a hole in England’s midfield, but the list of occasions in which they found it out wide trips off the tongue easily. A bit of time considering it adds Australia to the list too.

Finally, there is the matter of scoring tries. Yes, even against New Zealand and Scotland. Using ESPN’s statistics, England made 10 line breaks in both games – a rare level of attacking performance, even for the likes of New Zealand. If you are creating that many holes in the defence, three or four tries is the least I’d expect.  Really, international sides should be looking to score more when breaking the defensive line that often. We have now only scored one try in three test matches. That said, it is difficult to think of England squandering as many gilt-edged chances against anyone else, as they did against Italy – even allowing for Waldrom dropping one over the line against Australia. It is possible I’m being harsh and we weren’t near the try line all that much against Ireland or France,  something my memory is foggy on, although we had definitely had a few chances. None were taken though. England are often smart and lively leading up into the 22. Inside the 22, things often go awry and chances go begging.

This should not be taken entirely negative. These flaws have not stopped us from winning five games on the trot. They do worry me leading up to Wales and a possible Grand Slam; I imagine they worry Lancaster too. But they do not make the task impossible. Nor does it mean there are not positives in terms of our midfield defence, the pressure we exert, our performance at the breakdown, our discipline and self-belief. There have been moments in the last three games where it seemed easier for England to lose than to win. Each time we have prevailed. Whether that will be enough to beat Wales, and whether we will let the pressure get to us, will be interesting.

In the short term, a lot of this week will be about the England coaching staff trying to put that right. With the exception of our second rows, who all seem to be doubtful, England has no new injuries and should have the team out training on both days. In terms of the set-piece, I doubt much will change unless injury forces it. The pack is in too much credit in other areas to tinker with and if we adhere to the EPS, we can’t in most areas anyway. The only likely change in the pack is Tom Croft, who would further boost the lineout. Of course, England might find they have to change a lot in the second row, but that cannot be helped. The presence of Billy Vunipola would be nice, given the lack of a big ball carrier with Morgan injured, but it seems unlikely Lancaster will parachute him in. It’s a shame, as it’s difficult to believe that Morgan’s absence and the drop in try scoring opportunities is coincidental, but so be it.

In the backline I am also resigned to little change but far less happy about it. It’s the backs mostly missing tackles out wide, and it’s the backs mostly butchering try scoring chances. They do put a lot of pressure on the opposition with a strong midfield defence and good depth positioning should the opponent choose to kick, but that alone should not be enough. If we are serious about developing towards winning a World Cup, then we need to be capable of more. I do worry that Wales will keep calm in possession and work out ways to get the ball quickly to Cuthbert and North out wide. The game is likely to be attritional. If Wales can manage the tricky balance between denying quick ball and keeping their discipline, England could struggle to score points – something the Welsh rarely struggle with themselves. But if there was to be a change – Twelvetrees into the centres, Strettle in, Foden involved – we would have surely seen it against Italy. And we 

didn’t.

So it seems that we are set to go into the final match with the same again, warts and all. Hopefully, it will be enough.