Under fire? Revert to boring type

With the exception of anonymous Deacon for hard-bitten Shaw, a step that would seem to make sense in the short term whilst making no sense in terms of building for the next world cup - less than 2 years away now but would you except a 38 year old lock to be playing at that level? - Johnson's choices make a coherent if dull sense.

Geraghty, the only back that even tried to be creative, gets chopped for the much bigger and more stolid Erinle. Geraghty was pretty anonymous because he hardly got the ball, ever. On one of the few occasions he did he created the try that was the difference between Argentina and England last week. Erinle is there to try and stuff up the mid-field against Nonu.

Croft, a good lineout jumper but otherwise fairly quiet has been replaced by Worsley. Worsley is another player like Shaw who probably won't be going to the next world cup but is a quality player, no doubt there. How will Moody, Worsley and Haskell stack up against McCaw, Thompson and Read? Probably, in fairness, better than Moody, Croft and Haskell at the breakdown but certainly worse around the park.

And where is the consistency of selection pressure? Banahan has singularly failed to impress. He scored a try, yes. He scored a try that was made thanks to a string of good offloads from forwards moving dynamically inside for the first time in the match, then Geraghty sucking in the defender in the 12 channel and passing to Moody in the space between 13 and 14 rather than the line of 13, so the winger had to make a choice about who to take... Moody or Banahan and he took the choice of the immediate threat - Moody, making space for a try that any competent winger, even lower than Premiership level, should have been there to take.

Johnson has chosen to pick a side full of big lumps and old dogs. Big, defensive old dogs. He's accepted, although he won't ever admit it, that he can't win this match. He's chosen a side that is there to try and limit the damage. And if the All Blacks side clicks as history has shown just all of it can and will on the big occasions it won't be enough. Australia, a side that struggled this June/July/August ripped England apart almost at will. New Zealand, a side that beat them FOUR times this year won't have to think about defending against this stolid, unimaginative, defensive side, and whilst it might take a little while to break the patterns, they will break the patterns and run riot.

Expect egg all over papier-maché Twickers.

In the mean time... Discussing the other sides seems fairly pointless. Wales - Wales know what they have to do. They have to run better supporting lines on attack and finish off the chances they make. They might struggle against Argentina this weekend because they're down a world-class prop on one side with Adam Jones out of it and Argentina have a monster pack. If they can get enough ball their backs should hack through Argentina's and should have the time to run the support lines and finish the opportunities.

Ireland are looking both good and stable. I think they might struggle with the age of their players for the next world cup. BOD, ROG, POC, etc. in fact the whole "O" generation are getting old. They may or may not make it all the way. (My money is on BOD making it, the other two not.) This year, though, the money is on Ireland staying good this year. Scotland well... who knows. They still look limited to me. France... who knows. Who ever knows? If they play like they were reported to have played last week, Six Nations championship is theirs. But who ever can tell from week to week with Les Bleus?

This weekend:

England to get hammered. New Zealand to click. 50+ points. At least one coach to get fired. Wishful thinking? Maybe.
Wales to beat Argentina fairly comfortably. 15 points or so.
Australia to rip Scotland apart.
South Africa to FINALLY click on tour and stuff the Azuri.