Other countries will be scared of what England can deliver - Matt Dawson

Feel free to discuss Matt's opinion here.

Well personally i think he's become a pure clown since he finished rugby...his performances at times on Question of Sport is embarrassing....

He's not really the sharpest knife in the drawer, Dawson.

Not saying that he has no intuition or insight, per se.

Just that I generally feel much more stupid after listening to him wibble on for thirty seconds.

He doesn't even give us a good scarf to look at whilst punditing. Not like Austin Healey.

gregor can you not supply us a link please?

I can tell you from personal experience that Matt Dawson is a seriously top bloke. I was walking with my daughter through the tunnel that takes you to the Victoria Albert museum and Matt Dawson was coming the other way on his phone, when I told my daughter who he was, he must have heard me as he told who ever he was talking to that something has come up and he had to go, he then immediately came over to me and introduced himself and we took pictures with him and talked about the things he was up to with tele and the South Africa Lions tour.

Biltong
Matt's comment can be seen in the 'Analysis' column in this Auntie Article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17554194

"I don't think this is a leap of faith. This is big news and the right news. It's the way forward. This sends a great message across England to aspiring coaches. The purest rugby supporters can see the passion and desire with which England play rugby. Other countries will be scared of what England can deliver."

Thanks Gregor.

I personally don't think he is wrong. They have the money and the players, they now have a new coach and he has brgought in some new faces. As long as RFU do their job it can happen.

The fact is England were top of the tree before, so it isn't a paryaer on a lightning bolt that it wouldn't happen again. I think the biggest challenge is the control the Premiership seems to have.

meh.

Cue storm in a teacup.

This is typical of journalism nowadays. Isolate a sentence and then put it in capital letters and wait for the flood of attacks to come in creating something out of nothing.

So I´m sorry but I´m not biting.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:So I´m sorry but I´m not biting.

If you change your mind, remember to put your dentures back bfore you do Kia.

Biting = citing

Minimum 12 week ban.

No mitigating circumstances

Reduced to 8 so there are some circumstances.

Goodness, Matt Dawson will soon be seen as Austin Healy mark II on here by some

Scared of what England can deliver? Meh!
Interested to see if England can deliver, and therefore a little wary? Yeah.

There is no real evidence yet. England have only shown they are hard to beat, not that they can and will beat anyone else. Does that make sense?

I've only had 2 coffee's so far today so the world is still a little foggy.

actually makes perfect sens nobbled. What Lancaster did in the 6Ns (in a remarkably short space of time it must be said) is made England a very hard team to beat (hence why only one team managed it, and that by a very narrow margin).

I think if you read the full quote made by Dawson there's not a lot wrong with it really.

It will make a nice change for other countries to be scared of what England can deliver.


I've been scared of it since just after RWC 03

Mad for Chelsea wrote:actually makes perfect sens nobbled. What Lancaster did in the 6Ns (in a remarkably short space of time it must be said) is made England a very hard team to beat (hence why only one team managed it, and that by a very narrow margin).

I think if you read the full quote made by Dawson there's not a lot wrong with it really.

Quite a narrow margin. Wales lost 3 games in the WC by a combined margin of 5 points compared with the 7 we beat your team by.

Dontheman wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:actually makes perfect sens nobbled. What Lancaster did in the 6Ns (in a remarkably short space of time it must be said) is made England a very hard team to beat (hence why only one team managed it, and that by a very narrow margin).

I think if you read the full quote made by Dawson there's not a lot wrong with it really.

Quite a narrow margin. Wales lost 3 games in the WC by a combined margin of 5 points compared with the 7 we beat your team by.

It was a real thrashing wasn't it?

Lesson learnt. Whatever you do don't let England come as high as 2nd or before you know it we'll all be informed about how scared of them we all are. Dammit Ireland why did you have to go and make them look so above average

Great scrum half, reminds me of the good ol' days for Wasps.

As a pundit not so hot on Dawson though, although I'm not a huge fan of scrum half pundits in general, too lary. Although Austin Healy can be quite funny and is okay in analysis. Him and Dawson bantering is always entertaining.

I think England just have to keep going steady, although I can't see you winning 2015 (sorry guys, final maybe but I'm fairly certain it'll go to one of the southern hemisphere sides again, I have a feeling SA will storm this next one for some reason). Still I think England will win the 6N next year, possibly with a Grandslam. I just wish I could say the same about Scotland, alas, unfortunately the SRU have become the United States of Robinson.

Other countries will be scared of what England can deliver - Matt Dawson

I think he's correct.
A strong England with everyone on form and focused would be a massive challenge for any team in the World.

When England start at square one, they are where Scotland can be at their very best, and not far behind Ireland and Wales at the same level.
England have so much depth and so many players that injuries and retirements don't hit them as hard, I think their a nation to be feared.

No side should be feared or you will have lost before a ball is kicked.
Respect your opponent but never fear them.

"No side should be feared or you will have lost before a ball is kicked."

tell that to the next team that plays the all blacks.

i do agree with your sentiments mind- however it is abit cliched!

Teams/players/coaches understand that they need to believe- however , what they feel deep down cant be brainwashed out of them

I'm not afraid unless the England team start delivering Poopie in envelopes around my neighbourhood.

Anyone ever have Poopie delivered through their letterbox?

So whats happening here is that Matt Dawson is saying that other countries will be scared of England because they can play with passion and desire.

What he doesnt seem to realise is that these "other" countries have been playing with passion and desire for over a hundred years.

England can deliver something to other nations. A win, very scary isnt it :s

We would all like to see a strong England, like they had in the 1990's and early 2000's.

They were great to watch, and wonderful to beat when we got those rare occasions.

But I disagree with Dawson because I don't believe England are doing the right things to get to where they want to be.

Lancaster looks like he chases the public opinion too much to be a good coach, and unless he gets some good rugby men like Farrell into his set up he wont do well.

Lancaster is not a proven coach, he is a strange appointment. England need very good coaches at the moment because they don't have the masses of very good players they once had.

English rugby needs a kick up the backside from the bottom up. Every year for the last decade we have watched those under 20s players so superb for England youth, devastating packs just like the old days get filtered down into the premiership system and hardly ever re-appear.

English rugby needs to start working for longterm gains not short ones.

Maest

Not sure I agree. don't forget, Lancaster has been youth coach & SaAxons so who better to know what they're capable of & bring them through.

Bear in mind, the 6N was a massive pressure situation for him given his position.

I think we'll see a lot more adventure from here on in.

guys start thinking logically .

I have personally witnessed posters on here saying they are abit scared of the england team to come. I have also witnessed posters on here saying the future is bright for england.

Matt Dawson is only mirroring those opinions..

People allways judge others that are in the spotlight more and there allways take one sentance out of context, namely because the press focus on it for exposure

wickedwasp wrote:Maest

Not sure I agree. don't forget, Lancaster has been youth coach & SaAxons so who better to know what they're capable of & bring them through.

Bear in mind, the 6N was a massive pressure situation for him given his position.

I think we'll see a lot more adventure from here on in.

Lancaster has coached youth players and A sides. Look at new Zealand's coaches, Henry multiple super twelve winner, Australia robbis deans multiple super xv winner, SA Meyer super xv winner.

Even NH coaches like ireland kidney HEC winner, Wales Gatland HEC winner.

These are proven coaches. These guys know how to coach rugby teams and win.

Lancaster does not have anywhere near that experience.

But English rugbys real problems lie in player development at club level.

Maest

Your last point may have some validity.

But, I'm not sure it's just England anymore. All the NH sides at club or provincial level are emphasising strength & bulk over basic skills, which I agree is a problem.

However, for England it's not a new problem. In honesty, we've never been the best a open, flowing rugby & never will be.

So, instead of trying to be an inferior copy of the Kiwis, I think we should focus on playing to our strengths & from what I can see, that's Lancaster's plan.

maestegmafia wrote:
English rugby needs a kick up the backside from the bottom up. Every year for the last decade we have watched those under 20s players so superb for England youth, devastating packs just like the old days get filtered down into the premiership system and hardly ever re-appear.
.

No, England have been good at age group level since 2008, and the England senior side is now reaping the benefits of this.

England can deliver:

Mail
Pizzas

maestegmafia wrote:

wickedwasp wrote:Maest

Not sure I agree. don't forget, Lancaster has been youth coach & SaAxons so who better to know what they're capable of & bring them through.

Bear in mind, the 6N was a massive pressure situation for him given his position.

I think we'll see a lot more adventure from here on in.

Lancaster has coached youth players and A sides. Look at new Zealand's coaches, Henry multiple super twelve winner, Australia robbis deans multiple super xv winner, SA Meyer super xv winner.

Even NH coaches like ireland kidney HEC winner, Wales Gatland HEC winner.

These are proven coaches. These guys know how to coach rugby teams and win.

Lancaster does not have anywhere near that experience.

But English rugbys real problems lie in player development at club level.

Would you say Kidney has been successful as Ireland coach? Would you say Deans has been successful as Australia coach? Meyer may be a Super XV winner, but that doesn't mean he'll definitely be successful at International level. Even Gatland, despite his Grand Slams, has returned 3 fourth placed finishes and only had 1 victory against Tri-Nations opposition in his 4 years in charge.

There's no way to guarantee success, Lancaster got a trial and showed up well. I don't think he'll turn us into world beaters overnight, but I think he has the raw materials and if he can progress (as we would expect young players to develop) then we'll be in a good place.

wickedwasp wrote:Maest

Your last point may have some validity.

But, I'm not sure it's just England anymore. All the NH sides at club or provincial level are emphasising strength & bulk over basic skills, which I agree is a problem.

However, for England it's not a new problem. In honesty, we've never been the best a open, flowing rugby & never will be.

So, instead of trying to be an inferior copy of the Kiwis, I think we should focus on playing to our strengths & from what I can see, that's Lancaster's plan.

My point is that most of the top ten sides have proven coaches. England don't. The last England coach who had a track record was jack Rowell. He is the man the put the foundations of the 2003 RWC win in place not SCW.

That's the kind of coach England need. Someone who knows the game.

Maaest your riddled with cliches dude!

We dont want some proven coach- we want to start from scratch in an honest way- with someone that can pick the right players who is respected by them!!

Lol honestly some people really believe you can buy success paying over the odds for the best forign coaches- its aload of rubbish is what it is!

Maest does have a point though, but that doesn't mean it works that way, if you look at Jake White, he didn't have any experience in coaching a Super Rugby team in SA yet he won a world cup.

I guess it is up to the individual.

Jake White first built a strong squad and believed in continuity of selection, so I guess that is a good place to start.

I think people put to much blame on managers when they fail and to much emphasis on them when they win.

There is a reason why the best rugby teams win the wc's. and its to do with the players

biltongbek wrote:Maest does have a point though, but that doesn't mean it works that way, if you look at Jake White, he didn't have any experience in coaching a Super Rugby team in SA yet he won a world cup.

I guess it is up to the individual.

Jake White first built a strong squad and believed in continuity of selection, so I guess that is a good place to start.

Though Jake white was working with ten players who could go on to be the best in their position in the world, you could see guys like Smit, Matfield, Botha etc were potentially brilliant from the start. Lancaster does not have that luxury, England lack too players.

Maest i think you proove the point- its more about the players.

What SL has done however is giving the england team the biggest lift by cutting out aging players and promoted youth.

Therefore he has given englands youngsters the biggest chance of gaining more experience thjan they would have under perhaps a 'star' coach name that would worry way to much abouyt short term results.

ironic in way i suppose!!

The less experienced manager- giving a future team way more experience!

the futures good in my opinion, because its the players that win things!!

maestegmafia wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Maest does have a point though, but that doesn't mean it works that way, if you look at Jake White, he didn't have any experience in coaching a Super Rugby team in SA yet he won a world cup.

I guess it is up to the individual.

Jake White first built a strong squad and believed in continuity of selection, so I guess that is a good place to start.

Though Jake white was working with ten players who could go on to be the best in their position in the world, you could see guys like Smit, Matfield, Botha etc were potentially brilliant from the start. Lancaster does not have that luxury, England lack too players.

Absolutely Maes, but give Lancaster time, he might find them.

Mystir, ultimately the playrs must perform yes. But look at how PDV selected his players.

Only when his first choice player was injured and not available would he under duress and public pressure select another player.

He ld onto players past their sell by date and didn't allow promising player a start.

His substitutions en masse cost us a number of games and would take players off the field who was performing brilliantly during a match.

He kept on with conservative seletcions and eventually in 2011 before the RWC sent a pack with 16 caps to New Zealand and Australia, of which 150 of those caps were John Smit and Danie Rossouw.

A coach can't make the play on the field, but he can certainly impede progress with poor selections and substitutions and of course how he manages his players.

biltongbek wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Maest does have a point though, but that doesn't mean it works that way, if you look at Jake White, he didn't have any experience in coaching a Super Rugby team in SA yet he won a world cup.

I guess it is up to the individual.

Jake White first built a strong squad and believed in continuity of selection, so I guess that is a good place to start.

Though Jake white was working with ten players who could go on to be the best in their position in the world, you could see guys like Smit, Matfield, Botha etc were potentially brilliant from the start. Lancaster does not have that luxury, England lack too players.

Absolutely Maes, but give Lancaster time, he might find them.

Well that's the thing...!

All those brilliant under 20s and school boy players who just disappear. Far to few actually forfill their potential.

I think people are undersestimating what SL has acheived so far.

forget the results he has acheived(which i feel are quite impressive)

Think more about how the England players have looked playing the game.

Full of passion and love for england and the game of rugby is what i have taken from the 6n's!

Its like saying that capello and sven where really successfull for england football team- when in reality they ultimately failed big time!

there win rate was impressive, however england fans were disheartened. Capello and sven and only picked safely, but when the important games came along they didnt seem to be able to raise there game with passion, the other team allways wanted it more!

Cut out the big names and you have a base to work on, full of passion and willingness rather than 'big names' only!

maestegmafia wrote:
Well that's the thing...!

All those brilliant under 20s and school boy players who just disappear. Far to few actually forfill their potential.

Still not true, since 2008 the conversion rate to AP rugby from u20s is good, the senior England side is relatively young for an international side, and there are plenty of youngsters on the verge. England couldn't have a manager with a better knowledge of the young players coming through, and this year the u20s have more stregnth in depth than they've ever had. Compared to the number and quality of young players available to the England in 2008/9, SL is in a much, much stronger position.

DaveM wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
Well that's the thing...!

All those brilliant under 20s and school boy players who just disappear. Far to few actually forfill their potential.

Still not true, since 2008 the conversion rate to AP rugby from u20s is good, the senior England side is relatively young for an international side, and there are plenty of youngsters on the verge. England couldn't have a manager with a better knowledge of the young players coming through, and this year the u20s have more stregnth in depth than they've ever had. Compared to the number and quality of young players available to the England in 2008/9, SL is in a much, much stronger position.

Don't be so obsequious, learn to be objective.

England have a smattering of youth and experience in their current side and more foreign imports than any other international team. If you have to rely on foreign born and educated players then your youth and club system are not delivering. It is simple to assume that the Premiership teams who are over run with foreign players are having a negative effect on the English game at International level.

Wales and Scotland in the late nineties is a prime example. The only way we could compete was to pick foreigners to bring up the standard. It is the same case in England and for the same reasons, because out there there are plenty of young English lads with talent not getting through the English system.

Dawson is spot on, you only have to look at the responses on here to see his right, Teams fear England as they know we don't give up and we always make a game of it.

Thank god we still have relegation in the Jeff as it makes the players tougher.

Hersh, you reached 2003 posts. Shall we do a remembrance of the 2003 RWC for you?

Spoiler:

BB - eagle eyed there!!!!

In 4 posts are you going to find a shot of Mark Cueto's left boot???