Only in England could a squad announcement combine the bold statement of fact that one injured prop, Phil Vickery, was to be replaced by an uncapped winger.

And the wide-eyed optimism that two more props, Andrew Sheridan and Julian White – men who've hardly played a match between them all season – were not only picked on form but were confidently expected to play key roles in the upcoming Six Nations Championship.

It all comes down to the small print. According to the agreement between the RFU and the Premier League, England manager Martin Johnson is theoretically only allowed to make five changes on form to the 32-man squad that started the season, while the rest have to be made because of injury.

So, while the "form" places had already gone – the promotion of Northampton' Ben Foden and Courtney Lawes, the return of France-based Steve Thompson and James Haskell, and the first-time inclusion of Bath centre Shontayne Hape – it needed a bit of point-stretching to get the free-scoring Northampton winger Chris Ashton on board, while there was no point in jettisoning Sheridan and White immediately.

They can still legitimately be replaced on injury grounds, and there's a very strong chance they will be.

If it seems odd that Gloucester centre Mike Tindall wasn't afforded the same consideration – his season has similarly been blighted by injury and similarly he brings vast experience to a position where England are hardly spoilt for choice – it may have been because Johnson wanted the inevitable fuss surrounding his replacement to be over well in advance of the opening match against Wales on February 6.

The decision to include Shontayne Hape in the Six Nations squad was bound to attract criticism on three fronts.

Hape is a New Zealander, a rugby league international and a relative novice at rugby union. The first is easily answered. He qualifies for England because he has resided in this country long enough to meet the qualification requirements established by the Rugby Football Union.

In that respect he's no different from Bath predecessors, Mike Catt and Matt Stevens, both born in South Africa, both eagerly embraced by the England hierarchy and fellow New Zealander Riki Flutey who trod exactly the same path a year ago – and went on to represent the British and Irish Lions.

Hape, of course, has already played for his country. If he had represented New Zealand at rugby union he would have fallen foul of an International Board Regulation designed to preserve the integrity of the international game and prevent players from hawking their talents to the highest bidder.

But because he gained international honours at rugby league, Hape falls into the same category as Henry Paul, who used to play for Gloucester, and Lesley Vainikolo, who still does.

And it is their example, rather than that of England winger Jason Robinson and New Zealand lock Brad Thorn, that most concerns the critics.

While the latter pair have more than held their own at the highest level in rugby union, Paul and Vainikolo failed to transfer their league skills on to the international stage and provided plenty of ammunition to the extraordinary few who – despite the extraordinary strides made by both sports since the great schism of 1895 – remain more concerned with promoting enmity and bitterness between the codes than respect and empathy.

Are Hape's skills transferable? Has he got enough of a grounding at rugby union to do the right thing instinctively in the highly-pressured environment of an international match? Will he be able to make the step up from club rugby to hold his own at the highest level?

England are confident that the answer to all three of those questions is yes, but they should perhaps be asking themselves a few more searching questions about a subject much closer to home.

It is quite conceivable that the England back five will read Armitage, Cueto, Hape, Flutey and Banahan. Armitage was raised in France, Hape and Flutey in New Zealand, while Cueto played football till his late teens and Banahan was a lock forward in Jersey.

Not one of these players could legitimately be labelled as a product of the 'system' that is supposed to provide a seamless transition from mini rugby, through schools and age-group rugby and on into the club and England academies.

Millions of pounds are spent on a structure that, on this evidence, doesn't seem to be doing its job. Why not?