That was also Lancasters plan and look how it turned out... That plan involves getting good players in to begin with. Sure stick with them if things go wrong a bit but if they are repeatedly showing the same problem every single game, how need to drop them. Lancaster stuck with the wrong players for too long to begin with then our last 2 years had a fair bit of changing about and then absolutely everything went out the window for the world cup.
Using Wales as an example. Gatland picks a 23 which he tries to keep intact. When players lose form, they are given the chance to keep their place, but gradually they are replaced. In any given window, a couple of players might lose their place for non-injury reasons, but generally the squad is kept in place.
England's problem is that they have tried, and failed, to make this system work with players that will never have the quality to tie down a first choice spot. It's easy to keep a spine intact if the spine picks itself. You look at players like Alun Wyn, Faletau, North, Jenkins, Lee, Halfpenny, and how often are they not the form pick?
And so I expect "revolution then consistency". Overthrow swathes of the squad that aren't deemed to be up to it long-term and replace them with players with the ability to tie down their position. The aim should be to have a squad that picks itself. Then in any given window, you'll be able to make a small number of replacements without worrying about destroying the synergy of the team.
He has 2 caps both in Argentina on the 2013 tour and the only MOM he has been awarded was from Lancaster after he played in a non-cap midweek game against the Crusaders in the summer 2014 tour to NZ.
I'm not saying he's not a good player, just that I don't understand why people on here keep going on about him as if he's the answer to all our problems.
Anyway come the summer the talk will be about Sam Underhill at openside flanker.
He's clearly not the answer to all our problems.
But selections at openside flanker have been contentious in England for years. They were under Ashton. They were under Johnson. They were under Lancaster. And now they are under Jones. How far back do we have to go before the first-choice openside was a specialist? Before Lewis Moody at the very least. (Lewis Moody's own words:
England, historically over the years, have never had an out-and-out seven barring Neil Back, really he was the only one.)
People care because it's symptomatic of the kind of problems England historically face. Every new coach comes in, there's a swelling of excitement, and then they make the same mistakes as previous coaches. And England's failure to be anywhere near up to the task in the breakdown comes up time-and-time again. It's worrying because if coaches are unwilling to solve the more obvious problems that your standard supporter notices, what hope do they have of solving the more subtle issues?
