Lancaster for the post?

I'm not English but this thing with who should or shouldn't be England's new coach is bugging me.
There is a chap in place, albeit as a temporary stand in, who has done a good job, but is that seen by those making the final decision?
To reuse a line from an email I sent to an English rugby fan earlier -
What the England fans know to be a breath of fresh air blowing through the RFU, to the stuffy old farts at Twickenham it is a draft where the back door wasn't shut properly by Martin Johnson!

oxtaff wrote:I'm not English but this thing with who should or shouldn't be England's new coach is bugging me.
There is a chap in place, albeit as a temporary stand in, who has done a good job, but is that seen by those making the final decision?
To reuse a line from an email I sent to an English rugby fan earlier -
What the England fans know to be a breath of fresh air blowing through the RFU, to the stuffy old farts at Twickenham it is a draft where the back door wasn't shut properly by Martin Johnson!

Stuart Lancaster is a Jonno fart?

Stuart Lancaster should be given the chance.

If he'd guided England to a world cup final then beating Ireland heavily wouldve been the final nail in his coffin.

As his success has been limited so far I fully expect the RFU to endorse him

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If he'd guided England to a world cup final then beating Ireland heavily wouldve been the final nail in his coffin.

As his success has been limited so far I fully expect the RFU to endorse him

Peter you are coming across as soooooo bitter mate. All you do is moan about Martin Johnson getting the sack and you bash the current regime with that. Look - I had some sympathy for Johnno but let it go for your own sake.

Nick Mallett is a wily operator…

He has been around the block many times in rugby politics.

In saying the the RFU would be very brave to appoint anyone other than Lancaster as head coach, without withdrawing his application he is in my opinion doing a number of things.

1. He is applying some reverse psychology - he's also saying that if he is given the job then the RFU will have been brave. He is saying that hard decisions sometimes have to be taken by real leaders.

2. He is implicitly co-opting all the good things about Lancaster's regime and the "happy squad". The subtext is - "don't worry I won't try to fix what is clearly not broken".

3. He is possibly steeling himself against possible disappointment.

Clever man. Maybe he should get the job after all!

Triangulation wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If he'd guided England to a world cup final then beating Ireland heavily wouldve been the final nail in his coffin.

As his success has been limited so far I fully expect the RFU to endorse him

Peter you are coming across as soooooo bitter mate. All you do is moan about Martin Johnson getting the sack and you bash the current regime with that. Look - I had some sympathy for Johnno but let it go for your own sake.

Nah, he is moaning about Brian Ashton getting the sack (2007 WC final, 2008 big win v Ireland - you know the "cipriani" game)

I'd give Lancaster the position but insist he picks a different backs coach. Sarries are ready to demand big money for Farrell Snr and frankly the attacking play has been poor (especially the lack of backs moves off of set plays). Rowntree is clearly doing a good job with the front row and Lancaster is a forwards man, a SH backs coach (to offer something different) and a defence coach (Gustard if he's not to pricey, Ellis if he is) and England are well sorted.

PWS does make a good point about the RFU being fickle though.

LondonTiger wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If he'd guided England to a world cup final then beating Ireland heavily wouldve been the final nail in his coffin.

As his success has been limited so far I fully expect the RFU to endorse him

Peter you are coming across as soooooo bitter mate. All you do is moan about Martin Johnson getting the sack and you bash the current regime with that. Look - I had some sympathy for Johnno but let it go for your own sake.

Nah, he is moaning about Brian Ashton getting the sack (2007 WC final, 2008 big win v Ireland - you know the "cipriani" game)

I know on this occassion that is what he is doing. I didnt make myself clear enough perhaps. He has massive form though for what i say. It is all negative though. We have to hope for better. Come on England!

Wayne Smith for backs coach?

Triangulation wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If he'd guided England to a world cup final then beating Ireland heavily wouldve been the final nail in his coffin.

As his success has been limited so far I fully expect the RFU to endorse him

Peter you are coming across as soooooo bitter mate. All you do is moan about Martin Johnson getting the sack and you bash the current regime with that. Look - I had some sympathy for Johnno but let it go for your own sake.

Nah, he is moaning about Brian Ashton getting the sack (2007 WC final, 2008 big win v Ireland - you know the "cipriani" game)

I know on this occassion that is what he is doing. I didnt make myself clear enough perhaps. He has massive form though for what i say. It is all negative though. We have to hope for better. Come on England!

Right you just just chose to have a go at me in a thread compeltley unrealted to that debate?

And ignore the positive comments Ive made about Lancaster just to prove your own point and tired agenda.

Apparently its a crime to disagree with the Lancaster bandwagoneers, even when you arent disagreeing with them. Ive got a couple of spare bits of wood if you want to crucify me later.

Wayne Smith would be a great choice.

Maybe they should wait until the SA tour is over

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If he'd guided England to a world cup final then beating Ireland heavily wouldve been the final nail in his coffin.

As his success has been limited so far I fully expect the RFU to endorse him

Peter you are coming across as soooooo bitter mate. All you do is moan about Martin Johnson getting the sack and you bash the current regime with that. Look - I had some sympathy for Johnno but let it go for your own sake.

Nah, he is moaning about Brian Ashton getting the sack (2007 WC final, 2008 big win v Ireland - you know the "cipriani" game)

I know on this occassion that is what he is doing. I didnt make myself clear enough perhaps. He has massive form though for what i say. It is all negative though. We have to hope for better. Come on England!

Right you just just chose to have a go at me in a thread compeltley unrealted to that debate?

And ignore the positive comments Ive made about Lancaster just to prove your own point and tired agenda.

Apparently its a crime to disagree with the Lancaster bandwagoneers, even when you arent disagreeing with them. Ive got a couple of spare bits of wood if you want to crucify me later.

Ok you HAVE moved on. Great. I'm sorry if i missed that. I think that your point in general has been Lancaster gets praise for doing things MJ was crticised for doing. I dont want to persecute you. That is all.

One of the commentators said during the match that this England performance should be judged in comparison to where they were last year. England won the championship last year!

Lancaster undoubtedly has the team playing with pride and passion, but that was never really the problem for me. The real issue for England, since 2003, has been a lack of intelligence (on and off the field), rather than a lack of pride. The man to take England forward needs to be the man who can get the tactics and selection right, rather than just relying on Pride, a solid defence and the assumption that we can destroy any scrummage we come across. This is a sport which punishes teams who don't play intelligent rugby, and I can't see Lancaster as the best possible man to bring it to Twickenham.

the RFU should take Vince Lombardi's advice to heart: "Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."

mawhis wrote:One of the commentators said during the match that this England performance should be judged in comparison to where they were last year. England won the championship last year!

It should be judged on where they were in the Scotland game, flipping awful.

The improvement is huge. I still dont think this side is as good as the one that beat the aussies twice on the trott, but its moving in the right direction and has the potential to improve.

Seeing Youngs score that try and the look on his face summed up the feeling of the players about where theyve gone mentally, and thats just as important as actual perfomances and scorelines at this point.
Hes got most of the team looking like they want to be on the pitch, from halfway through the Irleand game last year it was pretty much only Tuilagi who looked like that.

I dont think its unfair to stiull have reservations about England. Weve had enough false dawns before and the leimiations of the side are still apaprent. But Farrell has doen his job better than anyone could realisticaly have expected him to, and Dan Cole has established himself as a genuinley top class performer with the fitness to back it up.

This time last year England had their heads down and were sent back to plan B despite some goon results in the previous 9 months. At the start of the 6 nations the side was a mess and had the potentail for some serious division. They now have a largely set first 15, and a style of play that is effective for them so far. They have results, and they have morale. Thats a great base.

I think PSW is correct.
Progress has been made this tournament, when you consider how the team performed against Scotland at first, compared to the performance against France / Ireland at the end.

It's far from perfect, and a lot of progress is still required, but it is undoubtedly progress.... and it's been fast progress at that.
Progress that quick will usually mean that there will be some setbacks along the way, but I can accept that.

If we start again with a completely new coaching setup, we will essentially lose what we have gained in this tournament.
The Summer tour will then be phase1 of building again, against tougher competition.... which isn't necessarily the best way to start developing a team / squad.


Giving Lancaster the job permanently, will give us the opportunity to build on what we have started.

I really do feel that attacking ability can be added to a team once the core foundations are in place.
At the moment, those foundations are in place, but may not be fully set just yet.
Further attacking ability and set moves can be incorporated into the squad over time, especially when the players are more used to each other. (Remember, at the start of the 6Nations, Farrell wasn't playing 10, so that has been a change to the setup during the tournament)


I'd give Lancaster the job, but review the entire setup after the Summer tour, and Autumn Internationals.
This isn't just for Lancaster... I'd recommend the same kind of reviews regardless of who is in charge.

(It is important to review the coaches, but not undermine them, or make them feel that their jobs are always on the line)

To be honest, one of the main problems, for me, is that the notion of appointing Lancaster reminds me too much of the mistakes the RFU has made before. The last time the RFU had to choose between an inexperienced Englishman who could motivate the players and a South African with shed-loads of experience it was Johnson vs White and they made a mistake. I recognise that Lancaster has much more experience and qualifications than Johnson had, but its still an interesting comparison.

England under Lancaster are a good side, but part of England's problem historically is that they have been satisfied with only being good, and not pushed on the extra mile to become excellent. The only time that happened was under Woodward.

With only two contenders in the running, I'll ask the question from a different angle.

SL is not experienced at this level, NM is with SA and Italy. But what has NM ever won for people to say he is a great coach? One 3N from memory even PDV has done that.

What will he bring that SL does not have, other than the experience of managing an international side with limited success.

I think if they had had the straight choice without the 6 nations having been played yet then people wouldve thought the RFU mental for picking Lancaster over someone like Mallet. However given where he has bough this teams morale in this period ( and that as much as anything is what theyve lacked ofr much of the last decade) the choice is less clear.
It would be hard on a new coach coming in to get a fair ride form the media and internet as much as anything if Lancaster were cast aside, especially if he uses that as a springboard to the scotland or Irleand job.

mawhis wrote:To be honest, one of the main problems, for me, is that the notion of appointing Lancaster reminds me too much of the mistakes the RFU has made before. The last time the RFU had to choose between an inexperienced Englishman who could motivate the players and a South African with shed-loads of experience it was Johnson vs White and they made a mistake. I recognise that Lancaster has much more experience and qualifications than Johnson had, but its still an interesting comparison.

England under Lancaster are a good side, but part of England's problem historically is that they have been satisfied with only being good, and not pushed on the extra mile to become excellent. The only time that happened was under Woodward.

Whilst I understand what you are saying, let's remember that it's not strictly possible to say that appointing Johnson over White was a mistake.
Obviously, England performed poorly at the World Cup, and there were incidents both on and off the field that weren't managed properly.

However, there is no guarantee at all that Jake White would have performed any better.


While the performances were poor, let's remember that Johnson brought the following players into the squad:
Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Lawes, (Was Croft already in the squad before MJ?), Youngs, Care, Ashton, Foden.... and many many more

All the players named above are still first choice (or thereabouts) in the England squad, and are likely to be that under any new management.


At the end of the day, it's about winning, and winning at the World Cup.
In that respect it is obvious that MJ's team didn't perform as well as it could.

However, MJ laid some very good foundations for this England squad...
It's quite possible that Jake White may not have blooded all of these players, which may or may not have allowed us to perform better at the RWC.
But would have potentially left us in a worse position going forward than we currently are.



I have no problems saying that we performed poorly under MJ..... But let's not say anyone else would have been any better at that time as it is impossible to prove.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I think if they had had the straight choice without the 6 nations having been played yet then people wouldve thought the RFU mental for picking Lancaster over someone like Mallet. However given where he has bough this teams morale in this period ( and that as much as anything is what theyve lacked ofr much of the last decade) the choice is less clear.
It would be hard on a new coach coming in to get a fair ride form the media and internet as much as anything if Lancaster were cast aside, especially if he uses that as a springboard to the scotland or Irleand job.

The other thing is that Lancaster knows these players and their abilities a lot better than most other people.
I admit that NM will have done research on these players, however Lancaster has worked with most of them in the Saxons, and now during the 6N's.
On top of that, he will have been doing considerable research for years on those players on the fringes of the Saxons.

While NM may have more experience in terms of running a national team, SL has more experience managing this group of players, and the ones next in line to the England squad.
I'm not sure how much the experience of coaching Italy (essentially a 2nd tier nation) will compare to coaching England, or how much it will prepare him for the job.

On top of that, he last coached South Africa in 2000, after being promoted from Assistant Coach a few years before.
The game has moved on a lot in the last 12 years, and that experience while invaluable may not necessarily translate as well as people are expecting
(Afterall, we keep saying that SCW would have to update his ideas a bit as his experience is outdated)

"Nick Mallett, one of the main contenders to be the next England head coach, believes interim boss Stuart Lancaster will be given the job permanently" BBC

So Mallett has voted himself out, and Lancaster in.

As per this article in the telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9151911/Nick-Mallett-remains-in-race-for-England-coaching-job-but-tips-Rugby-Football-Union-to-appoint-Stuart-Lancaster.html

It is understood that Mallett, the former South Africa and Italy coach, has no intention of withdrawing his application to become the permanent successor to Martin Johnson. The 55 year-old will be interviewed along with Lancaster on Thursday and Friday at an undisclosed location away from Twickenham.
Significantly, the Rugby Football Union is also understood to remain determined that the recruitment process will not be unduly influenced by the outpouring of support for Lancaster following England’s 30-9 victory over Ireland at Twickenham on Saturday, to finish second in the Six Nations Championship.

Well if thats the level of self belief and confidence he itneds to bring with him to the job .....

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

mawhis wrote:One of the commentators said during the match that this England performance should be judged in comparison to where they were last year. England won the championship last year!

It should be judged on where they were in the Scotland game, flipping awful.

The improvement is huge. I still dont think this side is as good as the one that beat the aussies twice on the trott, but its moving in the right direction and has the potential to improve.

Seeing Youngs score that try and the look on his face summed up the feeling of the players about where theyve gone mentally, and thats just as important as actual perfomances and scorelines at this point.
Hes got most of the team looking like they want to be on the pitch, from halfway through the Irleand game last year it was pretty much only Tuilagi who looked like that.

I dont think its unfair to stiull have reservations about England. Weve had enough false dawns before and the leimiations of the side are still apaprent. But Farrell has doen his job better than anyone could realisticaly have expected him to, and Dan Cole has established himself as a genuinley top class performer with the fitness to back it up.

This time last year England had their heads down and were sent back to plan B despite some goon results in the previous 9 months. At the start of the 6 nations the side was a mess and had the potentail for some serious division. They now have a largely set first 15, and a style of play that is effective for them so far. They have results, and they have morale. Thats a great base.

You are right Peter...but i think the difference is that whilst that team could be very good on their day...it was hugely inconsistent and had a big problem with the breakdown and penalties. This new lineup on the other hand have not set the world alight...but have been consistent in their game plan and improved game on game.

Stripping it down and getting the basics right shall we say.

The thing is, a coach needs some sort of time and backing. SL has done a great job as 'stand in' without really having the full backing of the RFU (correct me if i am wrong).

I would like to think that he has done a very good job, the players really look as if they want to play for him and the spirit in the camp has been very good. What people also may not see is that he kept the media well and truely at bay during this 6N and i feel that is a great sign as the English media will slaughter their team more than any other nation.

I think that he should be given the summer tour and see how he goes there before making a final decision. From an Irish perspective, he does look like a man who could do the job well.

Billy,

Well the RFU barely existed when he was appointed but its not unfair to say they didnt envisage his as the long term option when he was appointed.
Their first choice has turned the offer down, so that makes it a lot easier for them to change tack and go with Lancaster. Mallet would only have been their second choice anyway

Fair enough PSW.

I would give him a bit of a run myself due to the fact that England were looking stronger and stronger throughout the tournement and even started to play some very adventurous rugby. Thats a sign that they were getting confidence under SL. He got his tactics spot on against Ireland and i dont believe it was Ireland playing badly but England forcing them to play badly.

Give Lancaster a crack. People forget that Jake White's success was built on a similar avenue, i.e. being involved with youngsters in age-grade rugby before breaking into the senior side. Great understanding of this batch of youngsters.