Stuart Lancaster??

Has he proved himself good enough for the full time england head coach or not?

Jeremy Guscott seems to think that the jury is still out, and that Nick Mallet is still in the running.

Surely Stuart Lancaster has proved to all beyond an imagination that he has what it takes. He has taken a rookie team with not many caps between the whole team made them into a team to challenge any one, he has won 3 games away from home, the first time any England team as done that.

Surely to bring in a different coach right now or for the summer tour will simply undermine what as been achieved so far.

Could Nick Mallet and Stuart Lancaster work together?

Does any one know when the anoucement is made about who the head coach will be?

Hes proven nothing.

If mallet is bought it it will be his call if Lancaster is involved with the senior side. I cant see any head coach taking the job on being told who his staff are.

Lancaster still has the Saxons job regardless...although I expect hed move on to a better offer if he isnt given a role.

Its pretty clear the RFUs first choice was Jake White. Hes turned it down, which makes it easier to go with Lancaster. Id still have my reservations though and want to see his team strengthened with a SH attack coach ( maybe OConnor )

That's a surpising stat that it's the first time an England side has won three away from home. But then it's only available to do every other year (because on the odd years you only have two away games anyway), so that skews the stat slightly. Given the three teams you play away on the even years, you'd expect somebody to have done it sooner though, as you have a pretty decent record against Italy (obviously), Scotland and France.

I would probably stick with Lancaster if I were you guys. Could potentially have been on for a Grand Slam decider yourselves next weekend and being the only other team in contention for the Championship is a decent effort for your developing team.

A tad over stating how good the England team are but I think he should get a chance - I like what he has done

Risca Rev wrote:That's a surpising stat that it's the first time an England side has won three away from home. But then it's only available to do every other year (because on the odd years you only have two away games anyway), so that skews the stat slightly. Given the three teams you play away on the even years, you'd expect somebody to have done it sooner though, as you have a pretty decent record against Italy (obviously), Scotland and France.

I would probably stick with Lancaster if I were you guys. Could potentially have been on for a Grand Slam decider yourselves next weekend and being the only other team in contention for the Championship is a decent effort for your developing team.

Its always Ireland that ruins it though!
lets not forget that Italy and Scotland gift wrapped the away wins for England. France had their worst game of the tournament so far. Its hardly been stunning stuff from England, but hes got the target number of wins with a game to spare.

Face it France,have`nt been very good had a poor RWC [final accepted]beat Italy ,and Scotland.But were`nt convincing,lucky to get a draw versus Ireland.
Sets up a great final denoument for the 6Ns with 3 possible tournament
winners.

3 winners?

Wales have 8, England have 6, Ireland have 5 and France have 5. Only England or Wales could win (and realistically it's just Wales).

give him the job!!

Unless the fans are willing to give a coach eight years Lancaster is not your man.

With regards to other options I think the RFU need a premiership man who has the respect of the board.

Richard Hill or Dean Richards maybe even Dean Ryan would be high on my list.

maestegmafia wrote:

Richard Hill or Dean Richards maybe even Dean Ryan would be high on my list.

and to think people call you a WUM

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Richard Hill or Dean Richards maybe even Dean Ryan would be high on my list.

and to think people call you a WUM

Well I think politically with the RFU and PRL etc the best choice would be a respected Premiership coach with a respected record. Looking at the panel interviewing, which includes Hill, there are a few top prem guys there.

An outsider will want to do to the RFU what Gatland, Henry and Hanson did, with Moffats help, to the WRU and take the organisation apart and start again with more power to the international team and less to the clubs.

Else many foreign coaches will see the English system un-workable.

I am sure all you premiership fans will disagree as you praise the PRL and hang the RFU all the time but the structure of English rugby, the hierarchy for players has to change if England want to see some sustained success at international level.

A premiership coach would be a better choice in the long run. The best guys, the most experienced are Ryan, Richards and Hill.

My surprise candidate would be Farrell.

To me what Mr Lancast has brought above anything else is a great unity into this England squad. They seem to genually enjoy eachothers company and enjoy playing together. Thats not an easy thing to achieve and you see the confidence in this English side growing with every match. I honestly feel that he is the man to take England forward.

I am tempted to give him the job - especially if as Andy Farrell will be going back to Sarries we could maybe pinch Mike Catt for backs coach.

What worries me is that despite the talk of selecting players on merit - we still have far too many out of form players in the match day 22.

3 very narrow wins (admittedly away from home) could very easily have gone the other way. Arguably Scotland/Italy "deserved" to beat us - personally I view that as hogwash we scored more points so deserved to win, Wales scored more than us and deserved to win.

Those who like throwing out stats will look at the France game and say that they outplayed us much of the time - thankfully their midfield was even less creative as a unit than ours.

From a hyper-criticical point of view the XV that started yesterday:
Props - solid but not dominating.
Hooker - out of form
2nd Rows - good premiership players, a little lightweight for international duty
Back Row - Performed well against a vaunted French team, but Croft despite a stellar performance in defence, in the lineout and at the breakdown is still lightweight; Robshaw still looks a worthy player that is 1 inch below international class and Morgan is promising but not fit enough to last the 80.

SH - neat and tidy. No major weaknesses but similarly no major strengths

10/12/13 - Can't pass/Won't Pass

Wings - Ashton so far out of form and so low on confidence he woudl struggle to make an impression in teh LV cup. Sharples jury is out.

FB - Foden still a class act, but he needs his wings to provide options for him when he runs the ball back.

Ashton is way out of form and it is frustrating him. He was very lucky not to see a yellow card yesterday in my opinion. He cannot be like that against Ireland.

I like the direction that Mr Lancaster is taking the England team. It bodes well i feel.

I still think we wait until the 6 Nations is over and then look at the body of work. Ever since the 2004 6 Nations, Ireland have been beating England pretty regularly. So, they are another massive challenge for this England squad and Lancaster. If, and this is a big if, England beat Ireland, then it is arguable England were one great play by one Welsh player from being in position to tie/win the 6 Nations. It would seem difficult not to give the full time job to Lancaster with that perspective.

doctor_grey wrote:I still think we wait until the 6 Nations is over and then look at the body of work. Ever since the 2004 6 Nations, Ireland have been beating England pretty regularly. So, they are another massive challenge for this England squad and Lancaster. If, and this is a big if, England beat Ireland, then it is arguable England were one great play by one Welsh player from being in position to tie/win the 6 Nations. It would seem difficult not to give the full time job to Lancaster with that perspective.

And two jammy tries and France selecting Trin Duch away from the wooden spoon.

Small margins.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I still think we wait until the 6 Nations is over and then look at the body of work. Ever since the 2004 6 Nations, Ireland have been beating England pretty regularly. So, they are another massive challenge for this England squad and Lancaster. If, and this is a big if, England beat Ireland, then it is arguable England were one great play by one Welsh player from being in position to tie/win the 6 Nations. It would seem difficult not to give the full time job to Lancaster with that perspective.

And two jammy tries and France selecting Trin Duch away from the wooden spoon.

Small margins.

Objectively put.

Agree. Let's see what happens: Look at the whole thing and then WE decide (can't leave that to the RFU, can we?). I think one thing we are seeing is many of these 6 Nations matches are about the small margins. I think the hard part is evaluating a newish-team with a new coach and trying to predict the next four years based upon this.

doctor_grey wrote:Agree. Let's see what happens: Look at the whole thing and then WE decide (can't leave that to the RFU, can we?). I think one thing we are seeing is many of these 6 Nations matches are about the small margins. I think the hard part is evaluating a newish-team with a new coach and trying to predict the next four years based upon this.

Dr

As I said above it will be a slow process and a lot has to change at HQ as well to make English rugby work. There is currently no strength or depth Which is ridiculous looking at the size and wealth of the game in England. Things will have to change to prevent the RFU and the English top clubs from handicapping themselves.

Peter seabiscuit wheeler why are you so anti Lancaster? Hardly expect any less from Matt O Connor's lackey though. I wonder how O Connor is enjoying the humble pie.

LondonTiger I think you are being very critical of the England side! They just beat France in France, scoring 3 tries to 1.

Just compare the experience of the two respective sides. It wasn't a poor French side. After all most of that side reached the world cup final.

Sounds like you and PSW will never be happy unless Lancaster fails.

That's a great point and, to me, right on the money. Without a doubt, the RFU has been its own worst enemy, and for a long time.

I am a big believer in strong organisations. I think the good thing is England, or the RFU rather, have a man in charge who will be the boss. That's a good thng. But it will take time for Ian Ritchie to make his imprint on things. And if he cannot overcome the entrenched interests, then England will continue to be inconsistent.

I think the success has a hell of a lot more to do with Farrell and Rowntree, both experienced former players and coaches than it does with Lancaster who is an in experienced PR man.

beshocked wrote:Peter seabiscuit wheeler why are you so anti Lancaster? Hardly expect any less from Matt O Connor's lackey though. I wonder how O Connor is enjoying the humble pie.

LondonTiger I think you are being very critical of the England side! They just beat France in France, scoring 3 tries to 1.

Just compare the experience of the two respective sides. It wasn't a poor French side. After all most of that side reached the world cup final.

Sounds like you and PSW will never be happy unless Lancaster fails.

3-1? Are you Welsh?
Look Im just asking for him to be judged by the same standards previous managers were. England won 2 out the last 3 times they went to France, and have been told they are under acheivers for finishing the championship witha 3-2 record or better every year but one since 2003.

England have a no point looked like the best siude in this competition, and lets be honest they havent been up agauinst the best any of these sides can produce ( except possibly Iatly who are pretty rank this year )
With regard to France, on paper they are the best side in the 6 nations...but have played increasingly badly as teh comeptitions gone on. The bizzare selection at half back played right into Englands hands, gave their back 3 chances to run the ball back in space by not executing their skills. They didnt even kick goals well. Yes they reached a world cup final, but they lost twice along the way and only beat Wales by the skin of their teeth due to Warburtons idiocy. Dont try and pretend that world cup side played great, ist like caliming Ashtons side was second best in the world when they got there...and they didnt lose to Tonga.

If you bothered to read the comments Ive made though BS youd see Ive been far from critical of England recently, just trying tio avoid getting swept along on some of the hypoe and maintain a level of realism. I have eaten my hat publicaly.

As for the Occonnor thing we still didnt see any real attacking intent and treat form England. Two of the tries came from mistakes by France gifiting opportunities, followed by gerat execution of individual skills...they were no well worked team tries. Only the third one was, and that the first time this teams managed it in 4 games ...but Ill stand up and say well done on that, I already have. England have proved what we knew alreadyt, if the backs and pacy forwards are given opportunities they have the invidiual abilities to score. But England are still lacking a half back pairing and tactical game that gives them those opportunities. Look at the amount of kicking done by Farrell and Dickson, and the lack of ball guys like Sharples got. Its still a problem that needs to be addressed. When they were moving the ball England still looked disorganised as well, its no good players running off on their own.
Farrell was great early on but again faded later in the game with his tactical kicking going to pot. I supported his continued selection and I continue to support him now, but dont kid yourself he was imperious and infalliable. Lets not mention the fitness of Morgan either, which is a real shame because the guy is the number 8 England desperatly wished Easter was, that offload was grand.

England have gone forward and as I have said Im gradually being won over by Lancatser and what he has acheived. If they get the win over Ireland then yep bust out the street parties and start crowing about how england have the second best team in the NH. Itll be the first time since last year ( when they had the best) we could say that.
Actually who am I trying to kid it appears that I cant help making cheap cracks about England, must be the welsh 1/8th of me


Its positive and encouraging from England, and their record over the last 18 months is now easily the match of any run theyve had since 2003 ( 16 wins from 20? I think)
Theres players with promise and teh potential to get more form the side. Id back Lancaster to keep his job, although I still want to see his coaching team strengthened with someone who can get the best from the attacking players and organise that attack. Maybe Matt O Connor?

The similarities between you and Guscott is scary at times PSW

I wonder how O Connor is enjoying the humble pie

England taking advantage of turnover ball and relying on individual skill to make the most of French defensive lapses still isn't showing much attacking cut and thrust. Off of set plays or phase ball the England attack was pretty dire and the only thing worse was Farrell's aimless kicking down field (the Wilko comparisons continue). It is unlikely Ireland will give us those glorious chances and are more likely to be fronting up in defence (and cheating at the breakdown). I thought Barritt moved the ball well when he came in at first receiver so maybe England will look to that more in an attempt to get the ball flatter and quicker to the English backs. Some actual backs moves might be an idea as well.

As for the Occonnor thing we still didnt see any real attacking intent and treat form England. Two of the tries came from mistakes by France gifiting opportunities, followed by gerat execution of individual skills...they were no well worked team tries. Only the third one was, and that the first time this teams managed it in 4 games

Hopefully slining it wide into a 2 on 3 and relying on Croft to pull something out of the bag is good team attacking play? It's a hideous pass from Farrell that Barritt does well to rescue and ship onto Croft who then spots the French defence drifting to quickly and accelerates through the gap. Had the French drifted properly it was 2 defenders on Croft and winger vs winger on the outside.

Id back Lancaster to keep his job, although I still want to see his coaching team strengthened with someone who can get the best from the attacking players and organise that attack. Maybe Matt O Connor?

Lancaster should be judged on the whole of the 6N at the end of the 6N and not before. O'Connor is really not much of an attack coach but as a Tigers fan I'd be happy to see England take him off our hands as his RL experience will probably result in similar rubbish to what Farrell Snr is peddaling at the minute anyway. Would like to see Gustard the Sarries defence coach come in and help tighten things up a bit.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

beshocked wrote:Peter seabiscuit wheeler why are you so anti Lancaster? Hardly expect any less from Matt O Connor's lackey though. I wonder how O Connor is enjoying the humble pie.

LondonTiger I think you are being very critical of the England side! They just beat France in France, scoring 3 tries to 1.

Just compare the experience of the two respective sides. It wasn't a poor French side. After all most of that side reached the world cup final.

Sounds like you and PSW will never be happy unless Lancaster fails.

3-1? Are you Welsh?
Look Im just asking for him to be judged by the same standards previous managers were. England won 2 out the last 3 times they went to France, and have been told they are under acheivers for finishing the championship witha 3-2 record or better every year but one since 2003.

England have a no point looked like the best siude in this competition, and lets be honest they havent been up agauinst the best any of these sides can produce ( except possibly Iatly who are pretty rank this year )
With regard to France, on paper they are the best side in the 6 nations...but have played increasingly badly as teh comeptitions gone on. The bizzare selection at half back played right into Englands hands, gave their back 3 chances to run the ball back in space by not executing their skills. They didnt even kick goals well. Yes they reached a world cup final, but they lost twice along the way and only beat Wales by the skin of their teeth due to Warburtons idiocy. Dont try and pretend that world cup side played great, ist like caliming Ashtons side was second best in the world when they got there...and they didnt lose to Tonga.

If you bothered to read the comments Ive made though BS youd see Ive been far from critical of England recently, just trying tio avoid getting swept along on some of the hypoe and maintain a level of realism. I have eaten my hat publicaly.

As for the Occonnor thing we still didnt see any real attacking intent and treat form England. Two of the tries came from mistakes by France gifiting opportunities, followed by gerat execution of individual skills...they were no well worked team tries. Only the third one was, and that the first time this teams managed it in 4 games ...but Ill stand up and say well done on that, I already have. England have proved what we knew alreadyt, if the backs and pacy forwards are given opportunities they have the invidiual abilities to score. But England are still lacking a half back pairing and tactical game that gives them those opportunities. Look at the amount of kicking done by Farrell and Dickson, and the lack of ball guys like Sharples got. Its still a problem that needs to be addressed. When they were moving the ball England still looked disorganised as well, its no good players running off on their own.
Farrell was great early on but again faded later in the game with his tactical kicking going to pot. I supported his continued selection and I continue to support him now, but dont kid yourself he was imperious and infalliable. Lets not mention the fitness of Morgan either, which is a real shame because the guy is the number 8 England desperatly wished Easter was, that offload was grand.

England have gone forward and as I have said Im gradually being won over by Lancatser and what he has acheived. If they get the win over Ireland then yep bust out the street parties and start crowing about how england have the second best team in the NH. Itll be the first time since last year ( when they had the best) we could say that.
Actually who am I trying to kid it appears that I cant help making cheap cracks about England, must be the welsh 1/8th of me


Its positive and encouraging from England, and their record over the last 18 months is now easily the match of any run theyve had since 2003 ( 16 wins from 20? I think)
Theres players with promise and teh potential to get more form the side. Id back Lancaster to keep his job, although I still want to see his coaching team strengthened with someone who can get the best from the attacking players and organise that attack. Maybe Matt O Connor?

No I am not Welsh but in the last week we have heard from the likes of you and others that England can't score tries. Obviously England listened to your criticism and proved you wrong.

Best sides they can produce? What does that even mean?

France gave NZ, the best team in the world a good ol' fright in their backyard in the RWC final. They are no mugs. Just look at the French side - it oozed class and experience.

Most tries if not all tries come from the opposition's errors. No of course 3 tries is not a threat! You might say oh well it was only individual brilliance. Not really -Firstly it was Ashton's big tackle which dislodged the ball, for Farrell to pick up it was Farrell's excellent offload and Dickson's sharp pass which gave Tuilagi the space to show his class for the first try. Morgan made sure his break was not in vain for the 2nd try by offloading to Foden. The man still has to be on the shoulder to exploit the break.

No I don't think Farrell is perfect. He's doing well for a youngster though.He has flaws but in time hopefully he'll work on them. Isn't it nice to have a youngster like him who can come into a pivotal position like 10 and put in a decent shift?

Morgan might run out of steam in the latter stages of a match but if he puts in a barmstorming 60 minutes that's better than an average 80.His fitness can improve.

Yes of course you want another Leicester man back in the fold. Rowntree who by the way I think has done a very good job is not enough?

Lancaster has had a lot of pressure on his shoulders -he was not given the breathing space that other English coaches have been given when appointed. He has needed to get instant results. He has taken bold decisions and been rewarded - dropping Easter completely and playing Morgan instead. Playing Farrell, especially at no 10 could have backfired too. The likes of Botha,Robshaw,Parling,Dickson and Barritt also have been given chances and they haven't really let him down.

I think Lancaster has done pretty well. It's not been perfect, but it couldn't realistically have been perfect.

The important thing is that the team has looked better and better each game. You could almost see what he was doing, starting by making sure the easiest bit to put in place (defensive system) was there, then building a platform with his forward play and now starting to get the backs playing a slightly more expansive game.

He could have tried to do it all at once but it would probably have gone wrong. I still think we need to see the Ireland game to get the full picture. If we win that game then he should keep the job in my view. If we lose by a small margin but show another step up in performance then I would probably still keep him on. If we lose and look crap then I would look consider Mallet.

Dependent on the game vs Ireland I'd be tempted to see how Lancaster did in the summer tour. Extend the trial and give him more time and allow him to alter the make up of the squad and backroom staff if he so chose. There's no need to rush the decision the summer tour is a bunch of friendlies the competition is now.

Yes of course you want another Leicester man back in the fold

I think the O'Connor thing is tongue in cheek as most Tigers fans don't like what he's doing with the back line and there are rumours Murphy has once again become heavilly involved with the tactics of the backline and the coaching as well. Certainly the changes from January up until now have clearly been a throw back to 2009 when Mauger and Murphy were given free reign with the backline's attack. Rumours came out a couple of weeks back that Mauger could be returning as the attack coach at Welford Rd.

Isn't it nice to have a youngster like him who can come into a pivotal position like 10 and put in a decent shift?

He is coming on nicely but is he doing enough to keep hold of the shirt? That is the big question.

OK I cant be bothered to go through and corerect the things you misrepresneted that I said, and p[oint out teh bits where youre simply agreeingw ith what I said BS.

But with regard to selections...he dropped Easter for Dowson. Was that correct? Again lets apply equalt standard here, Johnosn did not initialy want Easter and only went back to him when players were injured.
At leats one of Botha or Parling only got their chance becaus he ran out of other options, and Parling had been in Englands plans since the summer tour of Australia where got injured. Bothas a comeplete left field one, but fair play its panned out well enough. Good on him for that call and perhaps too the bravery to ditch Palmer. Robshaw has been solid but not spectaular, Id still question his actual Captaincy but thats another thing isnt it. His hand again got rather forced there by the injury to Wood, Rowntree had already let the cat out the bag they were going with Wood Croft.

If you couldnt see the Oconnor thing was a cheeky joke then you really do need to stop taking everythings o seriously.

I'm not inclined to read back over everything everyone has posted, but picking up on a couple of things in PSW's last post.

I do agree that in terms of selection, in certain areas Lancaster's hand has been forced by injury, however in terms of creating an environment that is condusive to getting the best out of people and moving England forward I think he has done very well.

he has put pride back in the shirt, and that can only be a good thing. I would like to see him given the job on a permanent basis, at which point I can see him also introducing a few more new faces to the squad.

Ozzy3213 wrote: in terms of creating an environment that is condusive to getting the best out of people and moving England forward I think he has done very well.

Yes hes certainly had the best out of Ashton Hartley Lawes Dowson Youngs Flood Palmer Stevens and Sharples so far hasnt he

Sorry I cant help it!

Yes hes got the best out of mediocre players like Botha, Farrell, Dickson, Strettle and Barrit

Oops!

Lancaster is great honest

Not talking about individuals PSW, am talking about the team. As a unit they are performing well.

To come out with calling some of those players mediocre shows a clear bias on your part, as it is clear that at least 2, possible 4 of them are far from mediocre.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote: in terms of creating an environment that is condusive to getting the best out of people and moving England forward I think he has done very well.

Yes hes certainly had the best out of Ashton Hartley Lawes Dowson Youngs Flood Palmer Stevens and Sharples so far hasnt he

Sorry I cant help it!

Yes hes got the best out of mediocre players like Botha, Farrell, Dickson, Strettle and Barrit

Oops!

Lancaster is great honest

Not bad for Lancaster. Without getting the best out of a fair few players, England have won 3 of 4. It shows that this England team can improve!

Imagine what England could be like with on fire wingers, hookers etc.

Mediocre players. Of course you would say that. You missed out Hodgson and Stevens.

PSW I am not going to disagree with everything you say. Just most of it.

Yep theres two ways you can spin anything.

If they can get the whole side functioning then England can be at least as good as they were 18 months ago. Its been a constant source of dissapointment that England have so often threatened to be a consistently good side but never quite made it there post 2003
Itll be a huge task for whoever takes them on tour and to the AIs to stop that cycle continuing.

Or you can not spin it at all and just state the facts.

1. England have just won 3 away games in the 6 Nations for the first time.
2. This looked unlikely after the World cup debacle.
3. Lancaster as head coach must take some credit for this.
4. There are areas for improvement which mean England can clearly progress.
5. Spirit and togetherness in the team are not amongst the areas that require improvement.

Lancaster is doing a good job.

That is not spin.

Maybe itas about time we gave credit to Martin Johnson for giving these players the time they needed in the saxons to gain experience and be prepared for the international baptism

And lets not forget Rob Andrew

I was very much in favour of Mallet for the job but the truth is that by a combination of skill, attitude and a bit of luck SL has put himself in the frame. So much so, that I would now be happy for either of them to get it.

There are going to be set backs for whoever is in charge and they will get all the stick that any coach comes in for, there are no easy rides. I totally agree about the repeated disappointments of false dawns and returns to mediocrity but for once we have a new young crop of players with potential and SL has the edge over NM in terms of knowledge about who's out there.

SL has to get another big performance out of them against Ireland, win or lose, and if he does he will have far exceeded expectations. The notion that the RFU will be making a final decision before the end of the competition is ludicrous and the way they've gone about it so far is not reassuring.

Lets wait another week and see.

beshocked wrote:LondonTiger I think you are being very critical of the England side! They just beat France in France, scoring 3 tries to 1.

Sounds like you and PSW will never be happy unless Lancaster fails.

I am very happy england won - I did not expect them to. I would rather have Lancaster get the job over Mallett and certainly do not want to see him fail.

I said that someone being hypercritical could say the things i did. Some of them are harsh but not a million miles away from the mark. France dominated possession and made more line-breaks than us. We made twice as many tackles, passed half as many times etc etc. Of course all these stats are meaningless compared to the most important - 22-24.

As Tigers players got as much criticism from me as anyone else it certainly was not club biased.

I accept we are rebuilding - and it helps that process if you are winning matches, even if it is by the finest margins. As with most teams rebuildingf we have put defence as the top priority - this means that our attacking patterns are almost non-existent.

Most of all Lancaster should expect to face the same scrutiny as his predecessors and the same expectations.

Lancaster's done well - better so far than many thought at the start. Especially with key players absent. The Ire game will be key for him as to lose twice at Twickenham won't go down well. And I like the idea of giving him a run at the summer tests.

But I'm unhappy at his reluctance to give Flood more game time, especially as Flood has shown he can get the back 3 into the game. And Farrell had a mixed game - good defense but some dodgy kicking. As well as missing a straightforward penalty kick. Faded a bit as well.

And his great 'discipline crusade' has slipped (13:12 vs Wales & 11:4 vs France).

For me his important decisions are Flood and Wood.

The RFU will go for Mallet.
But SL hasn't done himself any harm at all by taking this roll, at the beginning of the 6 nations if we had lost to Italy and Scotland he would've possible damaged his reputation as a coach, as it stands he has a real chance of getting this job and I hope he does.

He has made some big calls like dropping Flood from the team this weekend and playing several new caps, some will say we were lucky against Italy and Scotland which in truth we were but sometimes you make your own luck in sport as in life, at least England are playing as a team again.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Lancaster's done well - better so far than many thought at the start. Especially with key players absent. The Ire game will be key for him as to lose twice at Twickenham won't go down well. And I like the idea of giving him a run at the summer tests.

But I'm unhappy at his reluctance to give Flood more game time, especially as Flood has shown he can get the back 3 into the game. And Farrell had a mixed game - good defense but some dodgy kicking. As well as missing a straightforward penalty kick. Faded a bit as well.

And his great 'discipline crusade' has slipped (13:12 vs Wales & 11:4 vs France).

For me his important decisions are Flood and Wood.

Agree Barney - didn't understand the Flood decision....his first real selection slip-up as far as I'm concerned, and a slightly worrying one even if it was, I suppose, ultimitely vindicated by the win (although not by the fact that Hodgson went un-used).

I would go as far as to say Farrell had an iffy game. Some bad decision-making and kicking out of hand. He retains the starting shirt as incumbent and on the back of a strong defensive and place-kicking performance, but I think Lancaster has to look to give Flood a chance to play himself back into the driving seat, because - quite simply - he offers more.

Isn't Dowson injured? If so this surely makes Wood an easy call?

Id be surpissed if Downson makes the next game.
The only concern for bringing in Wood is knowing that Morgan wil be shot by 60 minutes is Robshaw will have to play a quarter of the game at 8. If Lancasters happy hes good enough to do that then yess Wood is an obvious choice.


The Flood decision in the end didnt make the blindest bit of difference in this game. Trouble is hes not been playing for Tigers as Cockerills decided that George Ford should be gettng the LV games, so Lancasters decision has effectively put him on holiday for two weeks.

And good for Cockers finally sticking to his guns and giving GF some much needed game time. Perhaps he can do the necessary now and push Flood out of the picture altogether?!

As far as Lancaster goes, I give him a huge amount of credit for what he's achieved. He's had a plan and stuck to it, and frankly it seems to be paying off as far as the team ethos goes.

Let's not forget though, as a Saxons coach you need to be good at precisely those things. Getting a rookie team together, few of which know each other and performing together as a team for a short championship. In many ways his previous experience put him in the driving seat for this competition.

What concerns me slightly is whether he will have the vision beyond the immediate aftermath and team building concept. Can he look at a more established team and augment the team spirit with some technical nous? Or indeed, can he look at his coaching staff, his own limitations, and bring in the required people? If he could add some experience to his staff: a defence coach and a renowned attack coach then maybe i'd give him the job.

If not i'd bring in Mallet and see what team he assembles for an incredibly tough examination in SA!

OK.

Results -wise, England have overachieved this year. Theyve won 3 away matches, (one against the RWC finalists) and lost narrowly to Wales in the last 5 minutes...

Has it been faultless? Far from it. Do other teams fear us? Absolutely not.

But what Lancaster has done is instil discipline and pride into the England setup. He's also been bold enough to select youngsters - some of which havent really worked, others have worked very well.

We arent world beaters and wont be for some time, but sticking with Lancaster sends out the right message that nothing more than 100% dedication and commitment to the cause will be tolerated. The players all seem behind him and who is to say that Mallett will fare any better? Why are the likes of Guscott and Dallaglio so obsessed with having a "big name" coach?

I say stick with Lancaster. He's earned the role.

Dont be silly chwj Floods the best all round 10 in England and still Tigers first choice, Cockerills just using the LV for whats it designed for. He told guys like Ford theyd get gametime if they operformed and he has.

I think if England want to look towards a much much brighter future they have to look at their strength and depth issues.

The front five are the worst England have had in thirty years, that is only measured by how outstandingly good they have been throughout my entire my lifetime.

The backrow are not great but they do show promise.

The halfbacks are very strong, with care to come back, Youngs to hit form, Dickson proving his worth, then Flood and Farrell with youngsters like Burns and Ford to come through soon.

Centres have a bit of promise, Barritt and Tuilagi are very good though in-experienced, there are a few lads coming through like Jonny May.

Back three have a few good players too. Sharples needs another run out, Strettle has done well, Foden is finding his feet again, Brown is classy as is Wade lets hope he recovers from injury soon.

But they need more players to support the lads mentioned above... More young players pushing to get in and less players like Ashton, Lawes, Hartley and to a degree Corbisero surviving on past promise when they are not playing well.

Coach wise, I really don't think Lancaster is due the credit he is getting. I do think Farrell and Rowntree are though. So who ever is head coach if he can hold on to those two lads in any capacity England will do well.

Initially I would have been thought the RFU would gain most by getting a big Premiership coach as the head honcho. With two good men like Farrell and Rowntree around him things might start happening quickly. Maybe Lancaster could step down to a different role and learn from a more qualified man...?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Dont be silly chwj Floods the best all round 10 in England and still Tigers first choice, Cockerills just using the LV for whats it designed for. He told guys like Ford theyd get gametime if they operformed and he has.

Indeed PSW and that's exactly what i've said. Of course GF's deification is a little premature, but he looks to have the qualities to be better than Flood. I do think Flood is a good player, he attacks the line well and his place kicking is often very good. His kicking from hand in international games can be iffy however. It's his play on the back foot and under pressure that I find poor and feel he lacks a certain composure at 10 when the pressure is on.

At present and on form he is England's best choice at 10, but he is liable to be overtaken by GF or Freddie Burns if they can deliver consistently. I don't think he's the best 10 in the AP though.

Right OK sorry I got the impression you were saying thats omeone needed to push Flood out the way ...if you mean can Ford kick on to be an even better player then fine, yes that of course would be great.

I love it when people knock England by stating that the opposition, whoever it is were very poor. Is it coincidence that according to a lot on here, all four teams England have played against have played poorly, or could it just be that England have not allowed them to play well.

Not one scrum half or fly half has had a good game against us, one had such a mare that he has decided to retire.

A lot of the problems that the opposition half backs have had has come from the pressure applied by England. Their aggressive defence has made 10s try to kick a little too quick for fear of a charge down; centres are getting man and ball, indeed anyone out in the centres (like French hookers) are getting hit hard and regularly, they are rushing and making mistakes. England are capitalising on them.

It's a big decision SL has to make next week. Wood was MotM against Scarlets, Dowson will presumably not be available and in my opinion Wood is a better 7 than Robshaw. Does he draft in wood and have no cover for Morgan when he runs out of steam or does he draft in another 8 like Easter?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I love it when people knock England by stating that the opposition, whoever it is were very poor. Is it coincidence that according to a lot on here, all four teams England have played against have played poorly, or could it just be that England have not allowed them to play well.

Not one scrum half or fly half has had a good game against us, one had such a mare that he has decided to retire.

The Italians srguably had there only good game against England. Their 10 really should retire.
Scotland and France were certainly well below what they are capable of, and Scotland really shouldve won. In all 4 games the 10's have imploded to some extent, i dont think you can really credit England with that. In two cases it was patentenly bad selection, in Preistlands that hes having a crisis of confidence coming back form inury and in Burtons case that hes just abysmal.