Simpson has searing pace that the others don’t have. He runs kicks & passes… & is more unpredictable.

Youngs, e.g., makes some breaks & kicks, but his passing can be sus. Care is the opposite, i.e., although he too can make breaks, his kicking is more erratic, but his passing is better (than that of Youngs). If either were that superior, then why the chopping & changing with them?

However, it’s also about the best team executing game plans under pressure & not just the shuffling players for so called ‘impact’, or ‘fresh legs’ effect. Subs should bring something different from those being replaced IMO.

Barrett runs @ defences & is less orthodox than Carter. He’s also as quick as some wingers, but his goal kicking didn’t help the Canes in the S15 final.

Cane is, I think, taller, heavier? & more rangy than McCaw. Harder to stop near the try line, but also less exp, less wily.

In respect of Simpson, he’s offers more variety, has more bow strings than the other England 1/2s. He is also less predictable & less known to opposition. Therefore he more of a threat.

Takes a different mindset to choose him though… bit like that of the England cricket team’s?

I’m struggling to see outside of Youngs, Care and Wrigglesworth. As much as I like Simpson, I’m not sure I’d take him either. Youngs goes as first choice, Wrigglesworth offers something different so he goes. Then it’s a shoot out between Care and Simpson; personally I do think Simpson is the better player right now, but Care’s experience gets him ahead.

Last year Care ruled the roost and this year Youngs is reminding his form which made him as good as he was 2 years ago. Dickson isn’t exactly a bad shout either but Lancaster will only take two 9’s.

To flip the situation back to you, do you advocate starting Cane/Barrett over McCaw/Carter for NZ (amongst other examples)? The former are just 2 examples of players in form that are likely to miss out to players in worse domestic form, but higher in the international ‘pecking order’. For a WC, experience counts for a lot.

And as England have already ‘lost’ a 1/3rd of a team, can they afford to squander a 1/2back who is more likely to frighten the oppo with his unpredictable variety in attack? Again, I don’t think so… but then S. Lancaster I ain’t.

Ah well, no skin off I suppose, but as a rugby purist, it frustrates me to see SKILLED players wasted by being stuck in some nebulous pecking order. They’re either good enough or they’re not. For me, Joe Simpson is the former.

That passage was written purely with the injury in mind.

For me he ought to start for England. He has searing pace as well as a sharp, all round game whereby he can pass, run & kick. He also seems to play without fear & brims with confidence much like Mike Brown did a year or so back. His speed in decision making & variety of play options therefore offer more of a threat than his England contemporaries.

Do any of his rivals possess all of these attributes? If he really is only 5th choice, then maybe Stuart Lancaster thinks so.