That's all fine, but my approach is to get an expert to do a specialised job...
Like playing hooker in the World Cup?
This is a very good squad, no doubt about it. I think they can win it, with a bit of luck.
On the 2 hookers issue (rehash of my front page post, but also a few genuine questions for anyone who knows):
Benefits: one extra squad member in another position (recalling that 8 of the 31 may not be used in the game day 23). Some suggest that it means the whole starting XV for England can be rested Vs Uruguay. It may be because I
am was a (not very good) forward, but two games close together for a front rower is very different from two for winger - let a couple of princesses double up.
Risks: (this is a difficult one, as I am not sure of the tournament rules in this area) - having less than the required 2 hookers for a 23 player game day squad (due to one of the hookers being injured within 48 hrs of kickoff)?
Possible consequences?
Hard to say, but it seems to me that the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
Being limited to a 22 player gameday squad?
Being forced to play a prop as a reserve hooker (with the associated lineout issues)?
Having to send one of the two best hookers (one the captain) home, even if their injury would not have kept them out beyond one match?
Having to send another player home in order to draft in a hooker (a potentially dishonourable solution to a problem)?
Forfeiting all competition points for a match in which we were not able to play a sufficient number qualified fromt rowers?
Going to uncontested scrums due to the substitute hooker being injured before the match, but listed to play anyway (again, very dishonourable, and reckless with player well being)?
The relative merits of all the other selections can be argued many ways, but they are not in the same realm as the hooking issue. Taking only 2 specialist scrum halves is a bit risky, but there is no law of the game requiring qualified scrum halves (*insert joke here*). Same story with excess wingers, or locks, or No 8s.
Can anyone see any upside to this decision, aside from drawing attention away from the, up to now, underperforming Foley and Cooper?