As I said - there's been some good reasons. But if you're saying he had no choice, I'm going to disagree vehemently. He had experienced players and chose not to use them. Take Haskell. You say he didn't really kick off. I say he put in a big performance that was instrumental in us getting a draw out of that third test in South Africa but never really received many starts as a result. Bluntly, I'd say he still hasn't kicked off for Lancaster. He's put in some very good games against top opposition, and his club form's been impeccable, he has a lot of international attributes and is our most experienced forward. But he hasn't kicked off and has never started two games in a row for Lancaster. Whose fault is that? Haskell's or Lancaster?
Haskell's the guy that people used to debate back on the 606 board on BBC whether he had any rugby intelligence to go with his brawn. That is, it's easy to point to Haskell as a player that Lancaster should have picked now that Haskell's doing well, but at the time I thought it was fairly unanimous that he wasn't worth all the caps he received under MJ and wasn't worthy of a starting spot going forward. He had the experience, but not the skill, and deserved to be overlooked. Different argument now maybe, or maybe not, because he has had pockets of form for his club sides in the past, and not once have I been overly impressed with him for England.
On the other hand, Robshaw had all the skill and none of the experience. You can find people calling for Robshaw to start for England all the way back to the middle of Johnson's reign. This is what I mean by MJ's failings - why did Haskell have all the caps he had, and Robshaw, easily the best flanker available at the time, had none?
Is it Foden's fault that after a solid Six Nations in 2012, Lancaster moved him to the wing and then only gave him one further start at full back? Did Lancaster do enough to play to Flood and Ashton's strengths? How comes Wilson only played 281 minutes between the end of World Cup and the 2014 Six Nations?
Foden: Foden on the wing was ridiculous, but I'm not sure what you would suggest he should have done with Foden otherwise? Foden dipped massively after 2010 and Brown not only earned his place, but has been one of England's star players over the Lancaster era.
Ashton: Another player that tanked after 2010 and hasn't looked the same since. This isn't him looking bad for just England; he hasn't looked international-level for Saints in the year before his move to Sarries, Sarries and England under two different coaches. Maybe Lancaster doesn't play to his strengths, but you don't restructure your game plan around an average player.
Flood: Fair enough, one player that was hard done by.
Talking about players being too old is bullcrap as well. The comparison between him and Schmidt came up; well, last year, Schmidt won a 6N with no small number of geriatrics, one of whom definitely won't make the World Cup and another couple who might not. But he's got a trophy and a confident squad to drop players into. We've got no trophies and a squad that's coming under pressure. Playing some older guys to help settle the transition and maybe win something - nothing wrong with that. I accept Nick Easter is not BOD, but the principle remains sound (and was used with Botha and Dowson, save they didn't actually have experience). Not to mention the fact that Nick Easter's back in the squad age 300, while Charlie Hodgson would probably be in the squad if he hadn't retired because some *** told him he wasn't needed long term. A prime example of valuing experience.
Easter was
terrible in 2011. Honestly one of the worst starting players under MJ.
There was also the controversy over his remarks made after going out to France in the WC. His renaissance in form 2012 onwards is good for him (in fact, didn't O'Shea say that it's the best he has ever been?) but if you go back to when Lancaster took over, I can't see a case for Easter at all, especially when Morgan was emerging as a fantastic player (and should have started the first 2012 Six Nations match). In fact, I'm still not sure whether he'll step up to international level. He never did before. It's worth a shot for his form I guess.
Not to mention the other experienced guys outside of the squad. Tait's the most versatile and experienced outside back in the country, and was playing some lovely stuff, but he's away. Monye's the best defensive wing available and a Lions tourist, but ignored. Would have been a far better fit than Strettle. Christ, Cueto would have been a better fit than him.
Cueto is not fast enough for international wing play, Tait is not dependable to keep injury-free and not good enough to be worth the risk. Monye? Meh...
Lancaster made some mistakes on wingers, but it's not because of experience. It's that he waits so long to change strategies that don't work. Has anyone been impressed with Goode in all the time he's been with Lancaster? Why did it take Lancaster so long to realise that fullback-on-the-wing never worked and that Ashton was terrible? Why bring in May so late, when his ability has been so blatant for so long?
Not saying every decision has been wrong. But there's been a good pool of guys with experience available and he's basically ignored it as much as possible. If experience has been a key issue, Lancaster's made some big mistakes.[/QUOTE]
