Jeff Probyn: Selection of Marler cost England the game

As the wheels fell off England‘s Chariot in Cardiff I couldn’t help thinking that it was probably for the best. The meteoric rise in the standing of Lancaster’s England had been built on foundations of sand following the beating of the All Blacks.
There is no doubt that Lancaster and his coaches have been making real progress with England’s development and have laid a great foundation for the squad, with a few changes, to ‘kick on’.
However, beating New Zealand raised expectations through the roof, even though the All Blacks had been laid low by the norovirus in the build up to the game.
At the start of the Six Nations the England team (helped by the paucity of their opponents) flattered to deceive, winning games without playing much attacking rugby, defending valiantly and power playing against weaker opposition.
Last week’s game against Wales was the first time that this young team were put on the back foot and found wanting but part of the reason for that was selection errors.
Wales had endured a run of eight defeats without Adam Jones, so it’s obvious his presence as the anchor of their scrum was fundamental to their success.
That says if you can match or beat Jones in the scrum you have a far better chance of beating Wales.
With Joe Marler and Mako Vunipola, England have strength in depth in the front row despite the injury enforced absence of first choice Alex Corbisiero but that does not mean that all are equal, each have different strengths and weaknesses.
Marler, although excellent around the pitch, does not have a very strong scrumage technique, whereas Vunipola is powerful in the scrum and round the field but has fitness issues and cannot last a whole game at international level, which leaves Lancaster with a selection dilemma.
Does he start with Vunipola and face the risk of it being a fast game that exposes the young prop’s lack of fitness, forcing an earlier substitution, or does he start with Marler, as he has for most games, hoping he survives in the scrum and then bring Vunipola on once the game has settled into a less frenetic style of play? Vunipola got his first start in the Italian game but was soon off the pace despite doing well in the scrums which explains why Marler was recalled to the side.
However, it would appear that Lancaster and his coaches did not take into consideration the full effect that Jones’ demolition of Marler from the first scrum would have on the English pack – and ultimately the game.
Many commentators have said that the entire England front row were beaten, but I think that Cole had the better of Jenkins, but as any prop will tell you, if your prop on the other side is stuffed then you are too!
Not only that but if the front row are in trouble the back row will always lose the battle in the broken field and then your backs are not running onto the ball in attack and are a second slower in defence.
In short, the selection of Marler to start was a mistake that cost England the game, particularly as his failure in the scrums cemented in referee Steve Walsh’s mind the Welsh dominance at scrum time, so even when Vunipola came on a little gamesmanship by Jones was all that was needed to gain a penalty in the next scrum.
In my opinion Walsh is no better or worse at refereeing the scrum than any of the other current top referees. All the top referees are equally bad and the stats agree, with half of all scrums they officiate ending in a penalty or free kick.
No matter how often a coach meets with a referee and tries to find a common approach to how the referee wants the scrum to engage, it will change when the game starts depending on how the props perform.
As a prop you have to win the confidence of the referee and fix in his mind that you are at least equal to, or better, than your opposition. Fail to do that and you will be penalised every time the scrum goes down.
I have no doubt that Graham Rowntree would have found a number of incidents in a frame-by-frame analysis of the game and  can point to where Walsh got it wrong. But what has to be remembered is Walsh is making his decisions at real time speeds and will go with what he feels, given what has happened previously.
On Saturday young Marler was taught a lesson by the older more experienced  Jones. Marler will be better next time they meet but you can’t blame a referee who sees the England scrum being taken apart for penalising them if things go wrong.
Other areas of concern were the balance of the three-quarters and the back row.
The balance of the backs has always been questioned. First, whether the midfield combination needed a player with a bit more flare like Billy Twelvetrees – but a few bullocking runs by Tuilagi seemed to have put that to bed.
Second, the make-up of the back three with two full-backs and only one winger (who is suffering a loss of form) and whether that impacts on England’s finishing.
Third, the balance of the back row is still in question and although the heroic efforts of Chris Robshaw cannot be underestimated, he is not a true open side flanker at international level.  The amazing recovery of Tom Croft from a career-threatening injury is an inspiration but should he have been picked to start in such a vital game after only 30 minutes of international rugby against Italy?
One loss does not make this a bad squad, of course, but that does not mean that everything is right in the camp and change does not need to happen.
It would be wrong if all the blame for the loss is laid at the players’ door because when the team were winning the management took the plaudits, so it follows that when the team fails the management has to take part of the blame and learn from their mistakes.
Lancaster is lucky because this summer the Lions will take the spotlight off England  and it will enable him to take a squad with a number of relatively new players to Argentina.
That will give him the chance to experiment and add new players come next year’s Six Nations and maybe get the Grand Slam they just missed.