You praised the displays of Will Genia and Quade Cooper, the Australia 21-year-olds, saying their development showed up England's failure to show more faith in youth. But is that kind of talent available to Martin Johnson?

Yes. You need only to look at the glut of exciting young scrum-halves emerging in the Guinness Premiership, in particular, Ben Youngs of Leicester, Wasps' Joe Simpson, Dave Lewis of Gloucester and Newcastle's Mickey Young.

They could be playing international rugby in 12 months' time, while Simpson is ready for a place in the squad at least. Were they Australian, they would already be in the system but England will not take that risk.

In a sense, Australia are forced to gamble because the pool of talent available to them is smaller, but they have always shown greater faith in their young players and they were rewarded for it on Saturday.

Conservatism is undermining our game and it begins in the Premiership, so that Youngs, for example, is usually on the Leicester bench behind James Grindal, a 29-year-old with a lot of experience but nothing like Youngs' talent.

You have suggested changes to the England scrum to make it more dynamic, arguing that Dylan Hartley, James Haskell and Courtney Lawes should be promoted to the starting line-up. Does the backline need altering, too?

I pretty much agreed with Martin Johnson's chosen three-quarters before the game at Twickenham so it would be unfair for me to criticise his selection with the benefit of hindsight.

Matt Banahan had a bad game on the wing but he looked crippled by nerves so should be a given another chance. Ugo Monye was similarly poor but he has looked international class previously and will surely improve.

The only selection I would suggest - and it could be a vital one - is Paul Hodgson at scrum-half in place of Danny Care, who has not shown the all-round game needed at this level.

Hodgson is a clever player, he reads the game well and, most importantly, he will provide the England line with the quick ball they so sorely lacked against Australia. By doing that, he will get Jonny Wilkinson on the front foot - which rarely happened on Saturday - and could provide the platform that England need to play the wide game to suit their talents.

Does Johnson have the experience and technical knowledge to make England more dynamic?

It has been argued that Johnson's background as a second-row forward does not qualify him to instill such an approach but I don't buy that. Johnson played a straightforward style of rugby as a young player but was later part of a hugely dynamic England team and a Leicester side that played marvellous rugby, so he should know what is required.

However, he does appear to have reverted to the conservatism we saw early in his career - I think that is his natural instinct - and, more importantly, he does not have the men around him to point out his failings.

When Johnson took charge of the England team, he kept the coaches with little track record of success and, in Brian Ashton, sacked the only one that had achieved in the game and was likely to question Johnson when he made a mistake.

Ashton may not have the qualities needed to be a team manager but the England management badly need somebody of his technical ability and experience. As it is, Johnson is surrounded by "yes" men.

Could poor performances against Argentina and New Zealand cost Johnson his job?

You could argue that it should - though, personally, I never thought he had the experience for the role anyway - but that is unlikely to happen because it would undermine several important figures within the RFU.

It would essentially admit that RFU chairman Martin Thomas and Rob Andrew, the RFU director of elite rugby who had the final say on Johnson's appointment, made a bad mistake in gambling on a coach with no experience.

That in turn would undermine Francis Baron, the RFU chief executive who appointed Andrew. So, even though England have made no progress under Johnson and the World Cup is only two years' away, I imagine he will stay in the short term at least.