Why do you think Clark is a 6.5? He is an out and out 7 in his style of play, always has been. Saints used to play him at 6 and wood at 7 when in reality they were always playing the opposite role.
Whenever I've seen him he's always filled that 6.5 mould of doing everything a flanker does, a lot, but specialising in none of them. I've never seen him get over ball like McCaw. His link-play with backs isn't in the mould of a Hooper/Tipuric. He doesn't seem particularly quick. Nor is he a lineout option like Croft. He's strong in contact, but lacks the sheer size of a Ewers, Fearns, Alberts-type of blindside.
Basically, he's almost the same type of player as Wood and Robshaw. Haskell being a slightly bulkier, slower, and less fit version of those two. So Lancaster is once again picking his usual, generic flanker rather than specialist. 6'2"-6'4", 17st, and a good engine.
At the moment it's justified(ish) on form, but post World Cup I'll put money on him persisting with generic flankers and our back row's balance continuing to suffer as a result. England could pick Kvesic at 7, move Robshaw across, and between Kvesic, Robshaw, Launchbury, and Cole have an incredibly competitive team at the breakdown. They could pick Ewers at 6, taking the flak off Binny/Ben, creating indecision and providing a much-needed boost to the pack's carrying. But no, Flankers who carry a lot (for half a yard), get over the ball a lot (but win maybe two turnovers a game), and make 15-20 tackles a game (but never drive the ball-carrier back) are the order of the day (and foreseeable future).
And the lineout would have Launchbury and Lawes as primary jumpers, Robshaw and Morgan as secondary. Pick hooker who can throw and all the pieces are there.
