Aye, we do end up arguing about labels.
I think I've made this argument before but I will make it again trying to avoid the labels.
Ireland march to war clustered around O'Connell, Sexton, Best and Heaslip. Wales have Warburton, AWJ, Jenkins and Roberts in a similar role. Down south - McCaw, Read, Carter, Smith; du Preez, Burger, Vermeulen, Matfield; Moore, AAC, Pocock, Giteau.
In terms of big game experience, leadership, nous and (often) consistency, we simply don't have anyone in the same league as most of these players. They are players who can lay down a performance as a marker to the rest of their team, they are players who can calm their team mates down because the others look at them and think it will be ok. I know we've had a lot of conversations about the value of experience and leadership and not everyone agrees, but I think most will agree - it's a beautiful thing on a top performer. I also think most will agree that it's worth something - in a game of tight margins, every little something counts.
I also think most of the teams I named can point to a few players who can *consistently* do things that other can't through freakish physicality and ability - guys like Folau and Pocock, Savea and Nonu, North... Ireland have looked a bit less dangerous since losing their last in BOD and look a bit livelier for finding Henderson. I'm not saying we don't have any freaks, but I don't think any of them are consistent.
Whatever we want to call the very best players, the guys who you look at as regularly defining who wins and loses games, I think those sort of players are the two main types, and I think we're awfully short of those type of players, with the total going down to none if you look for a consistent track record.
If Eddie Butler was making that point then I agree with him and I maintain it's a pretty serious impediment. Not insurmountable but no one would pick it.
I think people are sometimes guilty of judging people by their best and saying "They can do this, they're up there" when the people up there are always doing it.
IMO, the problem is selection.
On caps: international rugby clearly hones players skills. The more rugby you play at international level, the more you challenge yourself, the quicker you will hit your potential. (It's like any pursuit; you don't get to be the best by grinding on Pidgeys.) So many of our players in our squad lacked caps. Some of this was because of the unavoidable situation that we had to invest in youth, some of this was because of the amount of waste that Lancaster had gone through, particularly in the back three and centre positions.
However, I do feel that there becomes a point where caps deliver diminishing returns. I don't think McCaw is the player he is because of the number of caps; I think that he has the number of caps
because he is the player he is. Robshaw, with the same number of caps as McCaw, would not be anywhere near McCaw in ability. Or even Warburton for that matter. (Robshaw lacks the athleticism and skills to ever be that good.) Lancaster's fatal error was to invest so much time in some players with low skill ceilings relative to the international standard. He had a choice between Robshaw and Kvesic at the time and picked the short term solution. At this point, Kvesic is better than Robshaw anyway, but had Lancaster picked Kvesic several years ago, Kvesic would have ~30 caps to his name by now and would be even further along in his progression.
The reason we can't build a squad around guys like Robshaw is that Robshaw's ability levels are somewhere average on the international scene. I think of it like this - Robshaw is generally a 6/10 player. When he plays bad, he dips to 3/10 or 4/10. McCaw is generally (currently) an 8/10 player. When he plays bad, he dips to 6/10. As a result, McCaw is dependable to build a squad around; even if his form means he isn't the best option in New Zealand, his resting ability level means that he'll never be a bad player to have. Whereas Robshaw/Wood have shown on numerous occasions, despite the fact that they are perhaps the most experienced combination in the England squad, that they can be comprehensively outclassed. On the other hand, May-Watson-Brown, a very inexperienced unit, happened to be our most impressive unit this WC.
So what England needs to do is ditch these mediocre "experienced" players and pick the athletes of the future; players who, like McCaw, are good enough that it's rare they have a bad game.
A decent "core" for the next 4 years is: George, Launchbury, Itoje, Kvesic, Vunipola (x2), Slade, Joseph, Tuilagi, Watson. All players with what appears to be high skill ceilings. There are enough future stars there that some will make it, and I'm sure the rest will at least be decent. I would also love to see Simpson tested on the international scene. Webb and Davies, for Wales, have both found tremendous success by sniping at the bases of rucks in the last year or so. Would love for Simpson to be tested too, to see if he can have the same results.
IMO there's also another facet to this. Players are partially products of their coaching environments; sometimes their poor performances are not entirely representative of their ability levels. I think the most clear case of it is Marler. Marler's reputation in the scrum has been destroyed; but it was almost certainly a coaching instruction that made him sideways scrummage. Is it fair he takes that reputation hit?
And I feel this is a more general thing. I've vented on the way England often fail to bring their wingers into the game and how this is to the detriment of May and Watson showing what they can do. Forwards taking ball statically and not going anywhere in the carry - does it make them bad carriers, or does it show them to be improperly coached? I feel that if the coaching itself is weak, you end up with latent stars. I feel that quite a number of Lancaster's players have another level to show us which they may never get the chance to do under Lancaster.
So yeah, I think we do have these players, or will have these players, but they are hidden underneath the current inadequacy of the English coaching structure.
