There’s an old adage in cricket- never pick an attack where you can change the bowlers but not the type of bowling. It’s a pretty self evident statement that in any sport variety is the key in attack.

So, you can imagine my surprise and dismay this week when England’s 30 warriors for RWC 2011 are announced, and in the back line we’ve picked 4 bludgeons and a patent lack of rapiers.

Whilst I realise Riki Flutey’s form is questionable, that James Simpson-Daniel’s defence is something less than robust, and that Charlie Sharples is as raw as the skin on his head, I find it hard to countenance that Johnson and his cohorts have selected plenty of guys that can try and go through defences, but few that have the ability to go around them, or beat men one on one.

I am not sure what the issue is- do we simply not breed players of this ilk? Or is rugby changing to remove them from the game? Certainly the best attacks have a blend of skill and bludgeon; contrasts of power and guile, just as the best bowling attacks do.

There is little point in picking average big guys just because of their gym performances. Matt Banahan has looked utterly bereft of the standard need to unlock international defences in his short sojourn into international rugby, and whilst I understand the experience and defensive skill Mike Tindall brings, I cannot for the life of me understand why route 1 Banahan could possibly be more of a threat to the All Blacks than Flutey’s skills or Sharples’ pace. In short, it’s a case of safety first, and in a squad of 30, it’s sad to see not one gamble on selection.

I am sure England will beat poor sides, and I am equally positive that they’ll do that by duffing them up. What I cannot see in the England midfield is one player capable of an outside break one on one against the best defences. And, in my opinion, you’re not going to win a world cup by brute force alone.

Speak soon
James