The New Zealand rout aside, England were worryingly ordinary during the 2012 November internationals.

It was a very young and inexperienced side, and the victories of Australia and South Africa were aided by moments of fortune, but all were games that an England side with serious ambitions should have won.

Adding to the rueful feeling is the fact that the captaincy debate was not resolved (expedited by some poor decisions from Chris Robshaw) and a subsequent 2013 Six Nations tournament that was equally ordinary.

England won four consecutive matches but were demolished by a Wales side that had been, to that point, equally if not more underwhelming.

One could point out that these sorts of results always occur in the Six Nations, which is what makes it such a romantic and engaging tournament. But that’s a view that holds no water when you’re on the end of a 30-3 scoreline.

The summer tour to Argentina revealed a far more attacking approach (much as the Fiji game had in 2012 and the Scotland game had in 2013).

This must be tempered by the quality of the opposition – they were facing an Argentine team shorn of the majority of its stars (although it did contain Contepomi, Landajo, Cabello, Galarza, Leonardi).

Consequently a side freed from the constraints of overtly tough opposition, senior players dominating the jersey and a fair amount of time in camp allowed for some very good rugby. They showed a great set-piece, got quick ball and were able to be adventurous in attack.

In an ideal world this would be paired with the conservative rugby that Lancaster had previously overseen, because Test rugby is generally an inch-by-inch grind and you need a varied game plan.

Prior to Argentina Lancaster had persisted with a fullback on the wing, a man lauded for his defensive ability (and little else) in the 12 jersey and a predominantly kicking fly-half.

This was a backline selected to play territorial rugby.

He then picked a comparatively lightweight pack. The two simply didn’t gel and thus the composition of the tight five becomes a seriously pressing issue. If the pack isn’t balanced it doesn’t matter who plays 10 or 12.

At loosehead Alex Corbisiero selects himself. He’s arguably the best loosehead scrummaging prop in Test rugby and his work in the loose has improved immeasurably since his debut season where he found himself overwhelmed by lightweights like Al Kellock.

If his recurring knee injuries can be managed then England automatically start the game with the knowledge that scrum penalties will come. If Corbisiero isn’t fit then the scrum becomes a lottery.

Mako Vunipola is one of the best ball carrying props in the world and he has a tremendous defensive work rate, but it’s fair to say that his scrummaging is inconsistent.

It certainly isn’t as bad as various pundits suggest it is (remember how poor Cian Healy used to be in comparison), but it isn’t what defines his game.

For some props scrummaging is their raison d’etre, but Vunipola is more of a footballer. He wants the ball in his hands, not a five metre scrum on his own try line.

I don’t think this would be much of an issue were he selected alongside a scrummaging hooker and tighthead and a bonafide tighthead lock, but Lancaster and the Lions didn’t do that.

Set-piece criticisms aside he is a very, very good player and only 22 years old. The pack could potentially be built around him.

I would like to see him used as an impact substitute, but the only way his progress could be accelerated is by starting games, which might come to fruition in the absence of Corbisiero.

Another point worth considering is that the new scrummaging laws favour looseheads and stop the tighthead from immediately pushing the looshead down.

Joe Marler is the final option at loosehead, and if Corbisiero misses the November matches he may leapfrog Vunipola to start.

Marler is a dominant player at club level (and only 23), but he has struggled with the leap to Test football. His scrummaging is also erratic, like Vunipola, and he suffered a painful lesson against Adam Jones in March.

It’s clear that he still has scrummaging problems (exacerbated by the loss of giant lock Ollie Kohn) and problems controlling his temperament.

His behaviour against Northampton Saints in September was typically wearisome.

With this in mind and given that Marler has also failed to impose his ball carrying game for England I can’t see why he keeps getting selected beyond reasons of continuity. As things stand he is a worse option than the other looseheads out there.

The hooker position is possibly the tightest selection in the entire squad. Tom Youngs proved himself on the Lions tour, but Dylan Hartley is the bigger man, a better scrummager and a better lineout technician. Both players are strong in the loose, but selection boils down to what style of play Lancaster seeks.

Youngs carries low, and because he is a smaller man his leg drive tends to take him through tackles and straight down, which means he rarely turns the ball over and there is a quick recycle – which is ideal playing down the middle of the field.

However, for a former centre Youngs doesn’t tend to look for an offload or a pass before a tackle; he seeks contact.

Conversely, Hartley has a very good offloading game. He carries upright, uses a forearm fend and backs into a defender to look for the pass or begin a maul.

For a former prop he is very comfortable with the ball in hand, and over the past two seasons has displayed a real appetite to impose himself in the loose. He’s a good tight forward, but he’s also more comfortable out wide than Youngs is.

Both players are good defenders, with Youngs being more dominant. Some of his tackles during the Lions tour were immense.

Hartley is quite a cynical player, and reminds me of Lawrence Dallaglio in the way he takes that extra second to roll away from a tackle.

He also reminds me of Dallaglio in the way he constantly barracks the referee. He is a leader and very vocal, whereas Youngs is the archetypal silent English yeoman.

Dan Cole has been the incumbent tighthead since 2009/10. He’s a renowned scrummager, has improved his ball carrying and is superb over the ball for a prop, but over the past two seasons he hasn’t quite been at his best.

It has been suggested he struggles to scrummage with the much shorter Tom Youngs, and in a lot of games it was noticeable that he was packing too high.

One interesting observation from the Wales debacle, however, came from Jeff Probyn, who suggested that Cole had Gethin Jenkins under control and that it was simply a case of Adam Jones monstering Joe Marler.

What has also been an issue is Lancaster’s insistence on picking a physically callow locking partnership. Joe Launchbury and Courtney Lawes are very good players, but scrummaging locks they are not.

They also don’t hit a huge amounts of rucks between them, so the front row have had an increased workload. Tom Woods and Chris Robshaw are very good in this respect but it’s not the same as having a 19 stone lock hitting ruck after ruck.

Martin Johnson noticed this after the South Africa Test in 2010 and thereafter selected Louis Deacon in the four jersey.

Also, the new scrum laws mean that scrums are taking longer which means a locking pair carrying more weight is beneficial for the props.

Dan Cole has been dominant for Leicester this season – easily dispatching Tom Court in the Ulster match, but I’d prefer to see David Wilson start this Spring.

Having long been labelled the next big thing, his career stuttered as Cole overtook him. Wilson is a strong scrummager, and a good ball carrier, but he had a bad habit of thinking he could barge through the defence on his own.

As a consequence he tended to turn over ball.

He’s also very aggressive and sometimes lets his temper boil over, but not to the extent that Marler does.

Bath currently have a very good scrum and an excellent mauling game – something England have struggled with for years now, and I think he could replicate his club partnership with Dave Attwood at international level.

Lancaster has preferred looser and lighter locks in the number four jersey like Mouritz Botha, Courtney Lawes and Joe Launchbury.

They’ve been paired with equally slimline five locks like Tom Palmer and Geoff Parling. This has affected the balance of the scrum and also the potency of the side at the breakdown.

It’s impressive seeing Joe Launchbury in full flight, but he is not, and neither is Courtney Lawes, going to hit 40 rucks a game.

When you combine that with a 12 in Barritt that struggles to get over the gainline and has absolutely no width of passing the back row and halves are already playing catchup.

Dave Attwood has the potential to be the enforcer that England have lacked. He’s big, aggressive and hits rucks.

It sounds simple, but at the highest end of the sport the side who do the simplest things accurately tend to win. Attwood is a competent lineout operator (much improved) and is bulkier than Launchbury – it doesn’t matter how many rucks you hit if you don’t have the size and power to actually make any impression.

His carrying game doesn’t compare to Launchbury, and he doesn’t have the most spectacular hands, but I genuinely think Attwood is a necessity, and the player that the pack has been missing since Simon Shaw started to drop off the pace. He should add to the scrum too.

Launchbury had a stunning series last November, but struggled as his first Test season wore on.

He found some form on the Argentina tour when paired with Attwood, although it could be argued that he would have benefited from a proper break in the off-season.

Launchbury plays at four but he’s more of a four/five hybrid. He probably isn’t physical enough at this stage of his career to play four in the traditional manner, and isn’t a good enough lineout operator to shift to five.

Were Tom Croft fit he could play five like he did in Argentina (against a very weak Argentine lineout), but with Croft injured and Parling having played so well on the Lions tour it leaves Lancaster with a big dilemma.

If Corbisiero is fit then England could get away with playing a lighter lock pairing, but if he’s not then England will struggle in the scrum, as they did against a mediocre Australian pack last season.

The problem is that Launchbury is a fantastic footballer, so can Lancaster really afford to leave him out?

Like Dean Richards before him he is generally in the right place at the right time, and I can only recall him making two handling errors in all the games I’ve seen him play.

Unlike Richards he is a great athlete and has excellent hands. His running lines are clever, he is an outstanding support player, and is very dangerous when competing for restarts.

In that sense there’s also an element of the blindside flanker about him. At his best I think the only other lock in world rugby who can offer such an all-round game is Sam Whitelock, so England really should find a place for him.

It’s more a question of where.

We’ve seen with Courtney Lawes that being an athletic lock doesn’t automatically translate to being a competent tight flanker, which is presumably why Wasps have persevered with him playing four

The debate of Attwood v Launchbury suggests that the four jersey is a two horse race – it isn’t. Courtney Lawes has had a blistering start to the season.

His work in the air has improved and his defence is still bone-jarring.

His carrying game is hit and miss, but he has good hands and an eye to keeping the ball alive.

In the negative column he is yet another four/five lock, with the underrated Christian Day at Northampton Saints doing a lot of the water carrying on his behalf. I’d also suggest that Lawes’ lack of bulk affects his scrummaging.

It being a squad game Lawes and Launchbury would offer far more impact off the bench than Attwood would, but selection might also come down to a horses for courses approach and the style of the opposition.

At five Geoff Parling is the automatic selection. He runs the lineout, has an excellent work rate, and is increasingly being spoken of as captaincy material.

He also has a surprisingly good carrying game for such an unimpressive physical specimen; he runs good angles from deep and pumps his limbs high, nearly always getting over the gainline.

It’s indicative of his standing in the England squad that Lancaster hasn’t named a competing five lock to challenge him.

For the Australia game I’d start Corbisiero (otherwise Vunipola), Hartley, Wilson, Attwood and Parling, with Vunipola (or Marler), Tom Youngs, Cole and Launchbury playing off the bench.

I do think Lawes is a fine player, but he’s more of a defensive option, looking for that big Mickey Skinneresque hit, whereas Launchbury is more of an attacking player who keeps up the tempo.

I think the hooking position could go either way, but Northampton Saints have started the season very well, and Hartley has been at the forefront of that.

Alongside Wilson and potentially Vunipola that’s a front row with strong ball carrying ability and a high defensive work rate. Their impact around the pitch would, in my opinion, be unmatched by most other Test sides. I also think Hartley could help guide the young Vunipola.

It’s been suggested that Tom Youngs is a naive scrummager and in tandem with Vunipola and a light pair of locks the Lions failed to assert their scrum in the second Lions Test. I worry that Lancaster will continue to make that same mistake.

Attwood is a necessity. He does his core duties very well and could allow Parling and Launchbury to play a looser role. He doesn’t clog up the middle of the pitch like some fours have a habit of doing.

The last thing an England fan wants to see is a lock standing between the midfielders and getting turned over on the wing.

He provides balance to a pack that has, despite what the Southern Hemisphere media says, been comparatively light for a good few seasons now.

I’m open to the idea of Launchbury starting at five with Attwood’s aerial work having improved in recent seasons, but with Parling having had such a strong Lions tour and his experience and leadership value I think he deserves to start.