What do you expect to learn from him playing the likes of Canada, that you didn't when he played against the likes of the Tigers?
Mainly that the international coaches get a much better look at the players. Watching them from the sidelines won't be the same as watching them in a training camp for two, three weeks. Also, for players at clubs like Wasps, it'll give them access to better S&C teams and facilities; hopefully levelling the field with players at bigger clubs like Saracens (Billy Vunipola springs to mind) for the eyes of selectors. They'll play with more talented players as well.
I think we should do away with the Saxons. It's a silly initiation - players should be picked for their club forms.
It's a useful pool for depth that gives clubs notice of players' liability to be called up. As it stands it's not doing much else, but if the Saxons had more games and time together it'd be far more useful for both players and coaches. As England (hopefully) continue to improve and develop depth, they'll need the Saxons to manage that increased player base.
Not only that, it could be used as a sort of holding cell for u20s players who are almost there, like Nowell and Ford, keeping them in the international establishment and providing continuity from age-grade so they can be blooded earlier.
All of this helps remove the doubt over players like Fraser and May and gives them more and better chances to impress; like Tom Youngs and Yarde did last and this summer. Getting rid of the Saxons would just increase the doubt and force 40+ touring squads to investigate the same number of players.
EDIT: It's been mentioned a few times how Lancaster told certain players, May included, that they had specifics he wanted them to improve. If they had, say, six games and eight weeks a year in a Saxons set-up they could really focus their efforts on those short-comings, with direct influence and contribution from the coaches. Further reducing the doubt in Lancaster's eyes.
