Right. So.
I think Stuart Lancaster made some of his worst selection calls this tour and this forums verdict doesn't appear very critical of him.
Not enough has been made of Freddie Burns' selection. I will admit he played fairly well in the first test. But we've only talked about what he did do, rather than what he didn't do. It was apparent from the first moment that Danny Cipriani came on in the first test that he would do the basics as well as Freddie, and also break the line and trouble defences in a way Burns hasn't for some time.
Nothing adds up here and everything leads me to believe that Lancaster and the others only have firm belief in Farrell. If Lancaster believes in Burns as much as his first test selection implies he does, then why go to lengths to keep him off the field for the second test.
Cipriani showed enough in the Crusaders game to merit selection for the final test. He followed this up in the third test off the time bench by creating space for others. Stretching the defence and switching back inside to Tuilagi who almost burst through was an example of something no other 10 has adequately done for this.
Regarding Burns: you can't play yourself back into immediate good form by one decent game against the rusty all Black's side. In the third test he was, to my mind, poor again. He made key mistakes which killed momentum and handed field position, such as the very first kick off and some I'll judged field kicking. Add to this that he wasn't particularly creative and whilst defensively the issues were more systemic than individual, he still floundered on a fee tackles.
Part of a coaches job as selector is to judge when a player is in form and to make the most of it through selection. However, Lancaster wasted the good form of Ford, of Wade, and now of Cipriani because that was the ideal chance to see what the latter could do in current good form. A few people have said they think Cipriani may have done enough to overtake Burns. If that proves correct it will serve as another piece of evidence that Lancaster got it wrong in new Zealand.
Next: the continued selection of Ashton. The latter showed some belief and real commitment in the final test but he wasn't the right choice. Ashton has had more chances than guys like May and Sharples and done more to deserve dropping. That he made an appearance on the bench is proof of an irrational perseverance with Ashton since he's not the right kind of player for the no. 23 shirt. Ashton was put in some tough situations but he also fell off some routine tackles as usual. His selection for me Indicates a half hearted / confused approach to experimentation. Why try things like shoving tuilagi on the wing, whilst reverting to Ashton instead of rewarding the form showed by Anthony Watson?
Haskell and Eastmond: Haskell had been the form England back rower. He was part of our best effort at winning a game in the first test and made an ungodly number of tackles from memory. To my mind, Tom Wood isn't a player of the sort of calibre that he demands Instant reselection. Haskell should have played the second test. Dropping him outright was a mistake and sent the wrong message.
Same with Eastmond. Play him second test unless you believe twelvetrees is such a step up that he demands selection (he's not, and doesnt). The third test Is the time for big changes - that's when you bring back your other guys if your in the hunt for a series consolation.
Re Ben Youngs: I don't really care if he can split defences open, if he still can't sling the ball out with alacrity like Aaron Smith does then I don't want to know.
