Is the case for Stuart Lancaster unanswerable?

i.e. has he yet done enough to be handed the Head coach job?

Seemingly (so far) in a complete reversal of last year's 6Ns display of form and style, England have been incrementally getting better.

At what point will/should he be appointed permanently?

Personally i think that he has shown enough already.

England have improved under him through the tournement, he has brought a unity to the team and the players appear to want to play for him. Give him the job i say.

wait for the ireland game- if we win he has done enough, if we lose by the skin of our teeth then id still be happy for him to stay- if we get battered then not sure.

I think he is doing a good job mind and i cant see us getting battered

I think he's done enough already. He's got the attitude right and he's achieved some important results already. You can see things are starting to come together.

However, I'm concerned the RFU will be looking to show that they can bring in a 'marquee signing' as a way of proving that the headhunters and all the background reshuffling is doing something. I worry that they also want to prove to themselves and the world that England is the 'top job in world rugby' and needs a big name. As it is I think they've stumbled upon the right man in Lancaster and should leave him to get on with it. I think it's also important to keep Rowntree and Farrell in place. I like the look of those three guys in tandem.

It is hard to tell, because you have an unsettled English squad in some places, they struggled to play as a collective unit, yet did well.

You also don't know the most imprtant stuff, how is he getting along with the players, what was his goals when he took over, look for new talent or win at all cost.

Beat Ireland then he's done enough in my eyes. Irrespective of how. We have struggled so badly against Ireland. I think it's 1 win in 7. A win would seal Lancaster's appointment in my opinion.

If not then it depends on other factors. E.g. how the game panned out.

Still so far I think Lancaster has made a decent case.

Personally, I think that there should be no rush. If we wait until after the SIs it would give time:

a. For England tested against the SH - and for the Lancaster strategy to be unpicked (or not) by other coaches.

b. The RFU board issue should be resolved by then and any management team can be appointed with confidence going forward.

I'm all for consistency.
If we change Coaches now, then we're probably back to square 1 again.

A new head coach will probably want to change the 2nd row and back row.
There's a good chance that the half back positions will change too, as well as the centres.

I know these positions aren't exactly nailed on at the moment.
however, by keeping some consistency at the top, I feel that we can build on what we have.
If we change the head coach, we're back to where we were after the RWC..... which is essentially exactly where we were before MJ was appointed.


Why not try to build on what we've already achieved?
Let's see if he has it in him to push this squad further. When it looks like he has nothing more to offer, that's the time to get rid of him.

He's done well so far but we need a home win - that might seal the deal. Like the idea of extending his role into the summer games.

Personally I'm still a bit concerned about his attack credentials. This problem he has with our most attacking FH Flood is a worry. Also altho' he has (rightly) set so much store with discipline (something that helped us win our 1st game) this has slipped alarmingly in the last couple of games.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Also altho' he has (rightly) set so much store with discipline (something that helped us win our 1st game) this has slipped alarmingly in the last couple of games.

True, it is a bit worrying how the penalty count crept up. However, we were playing against two much better sides than previously (no offence to Scotland and Italy). It does need to be better against Ireland though.

interview the players and support staff after the 6n.

discipline has slipped a little on pitch and we have yet to get the attack looking comfortable and running phases in the games we've played.

Counter attack, line-out, and scrum seems fine.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:This problem he has with our most attacking FH Flood is a worry.

What makes you think he has a problem with him?

On a personal level, I love what Lancaster has done. He's instilled a level of pride back within the jersey, and it's actually a pleasure to watch the team play at the moment. Without sounding sappy, I thought the banter between the pundits on Sunday was great, and it was refreshing to see that sort of atmosphere around an England game again.

Aside from what he's done on a national-pride scale, I think Lancaster's achieved a heck of a lot, and should be given a shot at the role. Winning the 3 away games speaks for itself, and proves the team has a lot of grit and determination. Their dogged and occasionally desperate style of play reflects their new found team mentality, and it's great. Every game has shown improvements within different areas, and I believe Lancaster can achieve a lot if given the chance. The set piece is very good (a few shakey lineouts aside), and the scrums are looking very strong. Croft's game is becoming more rounded and his work on the floor against France really impressed me. Lancaster's shown he can get the best out of his players, but we just need a bit more wide ball to get the best out of our wingers!

That England team look like Saracens, therefor I think Andy Farrell has had a lot more to do with it than Lancaster.

Lancaster has two very good coaches alongside him they are doing the work.

maestegmafia wrote:That England team look like Saracens

Good signs for Sarries scoring a few nice tries against Clermont in the Heineken quarter-final then

It certainly feels as though the case is becoming unanswerable. But it isn't wasted money continuing the already mostly completed selection procedure. Firstly because when the process started no-one had a clue if he'd be any good, secondly because it gives the RFU a chance to look at their selection methods (or the lack of them) and thirdly Lancaster gains a bit by being appointed through the full process of comparison with other very good applicants.

I do hope they appoint him. I have a lot of respect for Mallett but I think Lancaster has done a very fine job and I can't resist the romance of the situation.

Interesting that nobody has yet voted for an option of style over substance against Ireland.

When is the announcement? It was meant to be this week.

Cowshot wrote:It certainly feels as though the case is becoming unanswerable. But it isn't wasted money continuing the already mostly completed selection procedure. Firstly because when the process started no-one had a clue if he'd be any good, secondly because it gives the RFU a chance to look at their selection methods (or the lack of them) and thirdly Lancaster gains a bit by being appointed through the full process of comparison with other very good applicants.

I do hope they appoint him. I have a lot of respect for Mallett but I think Lancaster has done a very fine job and I can't resist the romance of the situation.

I still think that the whole process is arse about face.

Get the board sorted first and let them anoint the new management/coaching team.

I'm sure I heard yesterday that they are delaying the announcement for a couple of weeks maesteg.

Could be one of two reasons for that. Either they are giving it Mallet and don't want to upset preparations for the Ireland game, or Lancaster is in with a shout still and they want to see how we go against Ireland before making a final decision.

Portnoy wrote:
Get the board sorted first and let them anoint the new management/coaching team.

That might have been the right way of going about it, but I hope Lancaster doesn't suffer from being the right man at the wrong time.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'm sure I heard yesterday that they are delaying the announcement for a couple of weeks maesteg.

Could be one of two reasons for that. Either they are giving it Mallet and don't want to upset preparations for the Ireland game, or Lancaster is in with a shout still and they want to see how we go against Ireland before making a final decision.

Sounds like a sensible decision. I guess it is just Mallet, Lancaster and Malinder in the running? No further surprise candidates about to be whisked in for a crack at it?

I wonder if they have asked Mallet -

'Could you work with this guy/coaching team?'

It could be a reason for a delayed announcement.

It could be a dangerous decision if the RFU choose Mallet with a lot of players coming out already supporting SL and I guess the majority of English Rugby folk to.

There is without doubt a feel good factor because there has been improvement game on game in such a short space of time and the coaches have had such little time to work on this new set of players.
Add into that the pressure of the selection process taking place during the 6Ns!

The RFU have to continue the process without doubt & I hope SL gets the nod.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I'm sure I heard yesterday that they are delaying the announcement for a couple of weeks maesteg.

Could be one of two reasons for that. Either they are giving it Mallet and don't want to upset preparations for the Ireland game, or Lancaster is in with a shout still and they want to see how we go against Ireland before making a final decision.

Isn't Mallet tied up 'til August anyway?

Plus - has a rationale ever been officially put why the RFU ever felt the need to blow a king's ransom on a head-hunting company?

I saw an interesting comparison in yesterdays press.

The job that Lancaster has been doing was compared to a football manager who gets their team promoted from the championship to the Premiership. They have done a very good job but have perhaps taken the team as far as they can, and their reward for promotion should be to lose their job.


The biggest plus point for Lancaster is he seems to have introduced a team ethos. This can be seen on teh pitch with the defence. That has been winning us games. It must be remembered however that many of th eplayers lauding Lancaster (Croft, Foden, Youngs, Cole) were equally glowing in the press about Johnson.

Next plus point is we have won 3 matches away from home for the first time ever. That is massive. The win-loss ratio in 2011 was pretty good as well though.



The biggest minus is that England have not created a great deal in the tournament so far. 2 trys from chargedowns then 3 against France effectively from individual excellence rather than team attacks. At least teh players are thinking on their feet another positive.


In the end England were not as good in 2011 as the press suggested pre Ireland game (as Ireland proved). However nor were they as bad as people would like us to believe post WC.

As a final summary, Lancaster does not fill me with optimism as coach - good solid but how far he can drive the team forward is limited - but tbh I feel he is the best option available, especially considering my favourite connor O'Shea is on teh selection panel and unavailable.

Portnoy wrote:
Plus - has a rationale ever been officially put why the RFU ever felt the need to blow a king's ransom on a head-hunting company?

To tell Kirwan he wasn't experienced enough

Portnoy wrote:

Cowshot wrote:It certainly feels as though the case is becoming unanswerable. But it isn't wasted money continuing the already mostly completed selection procedure. Firstly because when the process started no-one had a clue if he'd be any good, secondly because it gives the RFU a chance to look at their selection methods (or the lack of them) and thirdly Lancaster gains a bit by being appointed through the full process of comparison with other very good applicants.

I do hope they appoint him. I have a lot of respect for Mallett but I think Lancaster has done a very fine job and I can't resist the romance of the situation.

I still think that the whole process is arse about face.

Get the board sorted first and let them anoint the new management/coaching team.

Well, it IS a bit back to front. That's a consequence of the Blackett Report and Johnson resigning at about the same time.

I know almost nothing about this Ritchie bloke, but he seems highly regarded and if he's taking stock of the organisation he's in charge of (which I'd expect at this point) then having a chance to look at RFU admin as demonstrated by the selection procedure is a good thing, imo.

And more by luck than judgement, it does seem to me that we have found the right man for the job...

niwatts wrote:

Portnoy wrote:
Plus - has a rationale ever been officially put why the RFU ever felt the need to blow a king's ransom on a head-hunting company?

To tell Kirwan he wasn't experienced enough

There's something to be said for having enough money to pay someone to be your 'prank monkey'.

I think the other answer is 'because they could'. There's a certain line of thinking that if you throw money at something it makes it look more desirable.

LondonTiger wrote:
As a final summary, Lancaster does not fill me with optimism as coach - good solid but how far he can drive the team forward is limited - but tbh I feel he is the best option available, especially considering my favourite connor O'Shea is on teh selection panel and unavailable.

What are you basing the assessment that how far he can drive the team forward is limited on?

My own view is that those who were expecting champagne rugby and tries a plenty were deluded from the start. There were always going to be new faces in the squad meaning a rebuilding job. You don't build a new house by putting in the flashy lighting systems and voice operated gadgets first, you get the foundations in and once they are set and solid you add the gloss.

A rugby team is no different. Set piece and solid defence are the foundations. That has clearly been worked on and improved, along with spirit, desire and pride in the shirt. Whatever it is that Lancaster is saying to the players, they are buying into it and it shows on the field. If he gets the job full time he will continue to cement the foundations before applying the gloss of attacking flair, and in all honesty that is entirely the right way to build this side.

The firm does apparently work quite a bit in the sports world

http://www.odgersberndtson.co.uk/fileadmin/uploads/united-kingdom/Documents/International_Sports_all_pages_updated_Nov_2011.pdf

Gut feel Pete, based on his past experience. Of course in the end having good players available makes all the difference. a group of World Class players made SCW look a much better coach than he perhaps was.

There is much I like about what Lanacaster has done. I am very much a rugby roundhead rather than a cavalier - so frankly what he has done is close to my ethos.

I just feel things were not as broken as everyone makes out, and some things (penalty count) have not improved as much as people want to think.

I agree with you that a poor World Cup campaign painted a distorted picture of where the team actually was at, so he isn't actually having to fix something that was as badly broken as people might want to believe.

I am a firm believer in my own gut instinct, perhaps due to my job, so won't knock you for going with your gut feel mate, I just think he is going about things the right way so am happy to give him the benefit of any doubt and see what he can do.

Interesting times ahead for us England fans I suspect in any case, whoever gets appointed.

The difference between MJ and Lancaster is that with Lancaster's England it looks like there is progress.

In 2011 with England I think MJ's side put in only two good performances - the first 2 6 nations matches. Since then MJ's England seemed to limp along.

MJ had a golden opportunity to reach a RWC final but he blew it.

Already Lancaster's side has put in two good performances albeit one in a losing game.

niwatts wrote:The firm does apparently work quite a bit in the sports world

http://www.odgersberndtson.co.uk/fileadmin/uploads/united-kingdom/Documents/International_Sports_all_pages_updated_Nov_2011.pdf

Thanks for that niwatts,

I just ran my eye down the list of their CV achievements. And most of them are Love sacks admin jobs.

Are you telling me that the RFU are as crap as the Tigers board who scanned the Earth and Inner Solar System Planets for a half-decent coach only to trip over the prostrate body of Richard Cockerill on their own doorstep?

I’m still unsure.

Lancaster has won more than half the battle in consistently getting the team playing with pride, passion and urgency. This is linked to his selection of young, hungry players which, again, has been spot on.

...the missing (or unproven) link for me is the cutting edge tactical nous. We know he is innovative in his methods when it comes to the backroom stuff, but is he an innovator on the pitch? England – for the first time in many years – are blessed with more talent behind the scrum than in it, and for us to become a force in World rugby we will have to play to these strengths: something that will require a subtlety and complexity that I am yet to see from Lancaster. Wayne Smith must be a hugely appealing prospect in this respect. I wonder if there is any possibility of Smith coming into a Lancaster regime as attack coach? Although this would seem odd givin the relative experience of the two...

As I say, I’m not sure. Lancaster ticks a lot of boxes for me, but I’m not sure he can mastermind an attack that will breakdown the world’s best defences. Wayne Smith, on the other hand....

Ozzy3213 wrote:

My own view is that those who were expecting champagne rugby and tries a plenty were deluded from the start. There were always going to be new faces in the squad meaning a rebuilding job. You don't build a new house by putting in the flashy lighting systems and voice operated gadgets first, you get the foundations in and once they are set and solid you add the gloss.

A rugby team is no different. Set piece and solid defence are the foundations. That has clearly been worked on and improved, along with spirit, desire and pride in the shirt. Whatever it is that Lancaster is saying to the players, they are buying into it and it shows on the field. If he gets the job full time he will continue to cement the foundations before applying the gloss of attacking flair, and in all honesty that is entirely the right way to build this side.

To a degree you are right but Lancaster is not building foundations, he is trying to win at all costs same as Johnson, Robinson etc.

He is not in this role to find a new style or do anything to improve English rugby, he just doesn't want to lose. Hense the defensive style and only scoring tries through missed tackles rather than working an opposition through phases.

You can't pick your head coach/manager on the performances of a caretaker run of games as it is a mere stop gap measure. When the RFU panel were interviewing Lancaster they would be enquiring on his vision for the future, judging his ability to be able to do that.

Both styles work and you take your points however you can get them, on a plate or through persistent pressure, but when you face a good team who don't make as many mistakes you lose.

England need a coaching team that will instill what Geoff Cooke and Jack Rowells regimes did so well, what Clive Woodwood capitalised on.

maestegmafia wrote:He is not in this role to find a new style or do anything to improve English rugby, he just doesn't want to lose. Hense the defensive style and only scoring tries through missed tackles rather than working an opposition through phases.

Christ, first it was charge-downs don't count and now tries scored in Paris in open play aren't good enough. If England score a Gareth Edwards Baa Baa's type try against Ireland it won't be good enough (well, I personally would agree as that try was all down to rubbish tackling

To a degree you are right but Lancaster is not building foundations, he is trying to win at all costs same as Johnson, Robinson etc.

Well, to a degree you are right. Lancaster has been trying to win the games. But there are a number of comments he made which show he DID make a number of long term decisions in the inerest of English Rugby. First and foremost he made a decision to go with youth, which is why players like Easter have not got a look in (despite being in great form for Quins). That is definitely foundation building. Once the decision to go with youth has been made then there are consequences arising from that which need to be addressed - as of course you know!

I think Lancaster has earnt himself an extended trial so he deserves a shot at the summer tour.

My concerns around the kicking strategy (the aimless style that was lamblasted under previous regimes is still used despite Sarries normally operating a better system) and the attack still lacks an real penetration when there isn't broken play (not sure if this is coaching or the selected playmakers).

Cowshot wrote:

To a degree you are right but Lancaster is not building foundations, he is trying to win at all costs same as Johnson, Robinson etc.

Well, to a degree you are right. Lancaster has been trying to win the games. But there are a number of comments he made which show he DID make a number of long term decisions in the inerest of English Rugby. First and foremost he made a decision to go with youth, which is why players like Easter have not got a look in (despite being in great form for Quins). That is definitely foundation building. Once the decision to go with youth has been made then there are consequences arising from that which need to be addressed - as of course you know!

Yes but there is a big difference between what a coach with a four year contract does with youth and one who has five games.

Youth selection does not mean that you have to be conservative. Wales, New Zealand and Australia have all integrated a large intake of young players into their squads at different times over the last few years and have tried to introduce those players into the way the coach visualise the team playing.

Lancaster has almost done the opposite and said look we have a bunch of kids the opposition are all better than us so lets focus on defence and hope the opposition make mistakes.

You can't win the RWC in four years time like that. England didn't have their glory years from playing like that. They had a well rounded and adaptable team.

maestegmafia, I can't see what point you're trying to make. What choice did Lancaster have? What would you - or indeed the best coach in the world - have done in the same situation?!

He has obviously been 'trying to win', but in the context of the rearguard action he has been fighting I think he has been as progressive as he possibly could be: new caps all over the place, plenty of youth and signs, as each game has gone by, of trying to play some rugby.

...what would you have had the guy do? And to say that he has 'focussed on defence' just because his side have been on the wrong end of possession stats and subsequently had to work their rrses off without the ball all seems a bit bizarre to me.

I'm not convinced he has everything it takes to take the side forward successfully, but in the context of the situation I don't think the best coach in the world would have done much differently, or have done any better

wasps wrote:I'm all for consistency.
If we change Coaches now, then we're probably back to square 1 again.

A new head coach will probably want to change the 2nd row and back row.
There's a good chance that the half back positions will change too, as well as the centres.

I know these positions aren't exactly nailed on at the moment.
however, by keeping some consistency at the top, I feel that we can build on what we have.
If we change the head coach, we're back to where we were after the RWC..... which is essentially exactly where we were before MJ was appointed.


Why not try to build on what we've already achieved?
Let's see if he has it in him to push this squad further. When it looks like he has nothing more to offer, that's the time to get rid of him.

Wasp,

Whilst i agree there might be changes to the team..why would a coach change the centres...they've been key members of the team...

Re Lancaster:

I think he has done quite well...he (or certainly his coaching team) seems to be getting the best out of certain players..Cole's playing far better in the loose...croft looking the player i didnt think he was even the likes of Bothas workrate etc has pleased me. However there are also negatives. Ashtons form has been poor...and his reaction to the high take was childish. We have been solid in defence...but not a brick wall, and our offence has been minimal.

Now these are things you would hope improves with familiarity in the team...and isnt going to happen overnight with a very new team.

Still 3 away wins....

I'd give him the job.

I also think id make it even more Sarries like...bring Gustard in to make the defence a brick wall...

I wouldnt say what he has done has been overly negative but it is not laying foundations for the future.

England need a game plan beyond what they have demonstrated, there were also many good aspects of the play with many of these England players to take from the last Six Nations. Against Wales and Italy last year England were superb, against France and Scotland they were very good too though to a lesser extent as they were finding it hard to deal with the questions the opposition were asking once a counter to England's style had been developed.

England have a decent defence, not the best in the NH but its up there, england have some very fast and powerful runners in their outside backs, they have some good half backs too.

But Lancaster's tenure has not added anything to that. Therefor I do not see his imprint on the Six Nations 2012 being a valid reason to make him an un-answerable selection as England coach.

The Telegraph has their say...!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9137429/Six-Nations-2012-England-is-now-a-rugby-team-united-behind-its-coach.html

Whilst I think he is the best man for the job, England are going to go to Mallett.

TycroesOsprey wrote:Whilst I think he is the best man for the job, England are going to go to Mallett.

I have that feeling aswell...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:Whilst I think he is the best man for the job, England are going to go to Mallett.

I have that feeling aswell...

Mallett does have masses of experience over Lancaster, of the three coaches known to be in the running Lancaster is the least qualified by some distance.

He's won more six nations games than Mallet...

Given the task of SL and the coaching team 3 wins so far is well above par and the team has improved game on game.

Looking back Italy and Scotland should have beaten us and we should have beaten Wales, however, as Moody stated beforehand 3 wins should be the target and we have done that with a game to go.

Looking forward to Saturday and continued progression!

Just a though on Mallett -

Do you think he would ever consider playing Croft at SH (a la Bergo )

GeordieFalcon wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:Whilst I think he is the best man for the job, England are going to go to Mallett.

I have that feeling aswell...

So do I. And I really think that it doesn't have to be an Englishman to be an English manager. Just like in football, it would have to be a man who raised on an understanding of the English game - like Martin O'Neill in footy.

Unfortunately Mallet doesn't fit the bill.