Why was (only) Johnny dropped?

Brian Ashton shocked the rugby watching (and playing I suspect) world by dropping Johnny Wilkinson.
Not that Johnny didn't deserve to be dropped - he's been playing poorly and don't deserve his place to be honest. It's more that this was the only change to an inept, clueless squad.

Wilkinson has to bear much of the blame for the dire performances from the England back line - that's part of his job as a Number 10 for example. But how is he personally responsible for forwards diving over the ball in rucks to give away penalties to Scotland? He didn't push them. He shouldn't really take any part in saying "Get in there lads!" (the scrum-half might take some blame, but again he probably didn't say "Cheat in front of the referee after he's warned you not to"), so why didn't the ones that played as if they were only playing with 1/3 of a brain get dropped too?

If Cipriani pulls the rabbit out of the hat (aided, perhaps, by the absence of O'Driscoll) he will be hailed as the saviour. If he fails, will he be lambasted as a failure? Possibly, the English press is that bad sometimes. He might have a shocker and deserve it of course, but lets assume he plays reasonably well with what he's given and Ireland still win. Ashton will go, surely his position will be indefensible? Jake White is about the only coach of any stature in world rugby who doesn't have an international role: I don't think the RFU will tempt Gatland away, and I don't think Shaun Edwards, for all his talents, is yet in a position to be national coach. But, you have to ask what is going on in the England set-up.

Ashton came in after the "old hands" had blown it for England and two coaches on the trot. He experimented a little, then selected a mixed bag, but mostly old hands for the RWC campaign. Those players more or less performed well. Come the Six Nations, they performed terribly. But, Ashton, as Robinson and Woodward before him, have selected the old hands who are playing poorly despite claiming they would pick on form, would bring a new broom and the like. Now, Sir Clive I wouldn't trust to tell me the time. He's worse than a politician, but, three coaches on the trot say one thing and do another. Why? Are they being allowed to do their job, or is someone telling them who they can pick?

Anyway, a little comment after insulting the English forwards for not thinking. There was a highlights clip of last weekend's Super-14s on earlier today. That Crusaders v Force game was on, and there was a fascinating shot. The ball got moved by the Force, and they scored a try. A Crusader was miles offside, but looked at the play, hung back a little so as not to interfere and so the move developed. It was a really smart bit of play by him (yellow card territory, even if not penalty try to have interfered from there), but it was also obvious that the Force players quite rightly trusted him not to get in the way, when he equally obviously could have done. The referee quite rightly saw him offside and not interfering, and didn't blow the whistle. What other sport would give you that?