Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Come on England... | |
Posted by: | Richard Greenhough | |
Date/Time: | 05/10/15 11:09:00 |
"The non-selection of Armitage was not Lancaster's decision." It could have been - Lancaster could have cited exceptional circumstances, such as "we're in the group of death and we need every chance to get out of it". It would be difficult to imagine Clive Woodward accepting a weakened squad because of that rule. However, I did not blame Lancaster for his omission - the problem there lies with the powers-that-be at Twickenham. Wales and Australia had no problem selecting players who were playing overseas. If he wasn't going to select Cipriani, then why was he given playing time in the warm-up games, when he did well coming off the bench ? Burgess simply hadn't completed adapting to the union code, nor had the chance to become an integral part of the team. Switching between Ford and Farrell showed a dreadful lack of clear decision-making - compounded by twice sending on Ford from the bench to play out of position. I also got the impression that England failed to get picked up after losing to Wales - the mood coming out of the camp leading to the Australia game seemed defeatist. That is the responsibility of Lancaster. |