Farrell snr formally joins the coaching staff

Let's hope his role is strictly ring-fenced to defensive duties.

http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/166289.html

Well is end of the story for Flood now!

Bit unclear if he's replaced Catt or if he is working along side Catty.

I wouldn't be adverse to a 4 man coaching team personally with Catt as back row attack and Farrell as defense. In fact, that would work rather well.

Wow, in a few months we've gone from a potential top pro coaching team of Mallet and Smith, to a boy scout's approach of SL, Catt and Farrell.

Bang goes 4th place!

no news on the role he will be taking.

lets hope it is just defence

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Wow, in a few months we've gone from a potential top pro coaching team of Mallet and Smith, to a boy scout's approach of SL, Catt and Farrell.

Wayne Smith Iwould have been glad to see join the setup. Nick mallet however i am glad we did not hire as I feel he is a throwback to a different era who has achieved little as a coach in recent times. For the same reasons I would not want SCW either.

Reading the article it appears that Catt is not currently part of the set up but merely an option to bring in. How do people feel about that? Do you think he did enough in SA to prove his attacking credentials?

More info from Auntie

"Farrell's contract will see him take charge of England's backs and defence through to January 2016, taking in the World Cup on home soil in three years' time."

Well there goes our chances

killer938 wrote:"Farrell's contract will see him take charge of England's backs and defence through to January 2016, taking in the World Cup on home soil in three years' time."

Well there goes our chances

What is everyone blaming Farrell for something that has not happened yet??? It's his job to coach the backs to the head coaches plan, so if SL wants us to carry on as we are will he get the blame? Of is it more likely Farrell will get it.

Can't remember rowntree getting slated by fans for the poor performance of our forwards?

I will be very happy to be proved wrong about Farrell, I honestly will, but if everyone is fit for the next international and I see Owen starting at 10 then its back to the drawing board as far as I am concerned.

killer938 wrote:I will be very happy to be proved wrong about Farrell, I honestly will, but if everyone is fit for the next international and I see Owen starting at 10 then its back to the drawing board as far as I am concerned.

Again won't this be the HEAD COACH who picks the side and decides the tactics?

Or is it easier to just blame the sarries man

killer938 wrote:I will be very happy to be proved wrong about Farrell, I honestly will, but if everyone is fit for the next international and I see Owen starting at 10 then its back to the drawing board as far as I am concerned.

Agreed. I'll also add that at this point I really don't see how this is appointment is going to help us. It's a massive gamble at the very least, and I'm not sure a particularly well thought out one. I know Wayne Smith was approached and turned us down, but is there no-one else with better creds out there?

Knackeredknees wrote:

killer938 wrote:I will be very happy to be proved wrong about Farrell, I honestly will, but if everyone is fit for the next international and I see Owen starting at 10 then its back to the drawing board as far as I am concerned.

Again won't this be the HEAD COACH who picks the side and decides the tactics?

Or is it easier to just blame the sarries man

Given Lancaster started Flood after dropping Farrell, surely it would be a reasonable assumption that if he's reinstated it's because the new backs coach has suggested it.

I'm not sure he'd dare to be honest.

Zander wrote:

killer938 wrote:"Farrell's contract will see him take charge of England's backs and defence through to January 2016, taking in the World Cup on home soil in three years' time."

Well there goes our chances

+1

Hood83 wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

killer938 wrote:I will be very happy to be proved wrong about Farrell, I honestly will, but if everyone is fit for the next international and I see Owen starting at 10 then its back to the drawing board as far as I am concerned.

Again won't this be the HEAD COACH who picks the side and decides the tactics?

Or is it easier to just blame the sarries man

Given Lancaster started Flood after dropping Farrell, surely it would be a reasonable assumption that if he's reinstated it's because the new backs coach has suggested it.

I'm not sure he'd dare to be honest.

Or his game plan suits Farrell over Flood?

Although having a game plan may help.

Knackered, I think you're looking for opportunities to defend Sarries here. That is not what's being insinuated. As Bomber has already stated it's a case of mutual input, and I do feel that Faz Snr will and has, had a lot of influence on the shape of the team playmaking-wise.

Let's hope that he develops some good plans for the AI's; but I don't think it would be far fetched for most people to raise some serious questions about England's direction, if Farrell Jnr is starting at 10 in the Autumn.

Hood83 wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

killer938 wrote:I will be very happy to be proved wrong about Farrell, I honestly will, but if everyone is fit for the next international and I see Owen starting at 10 then its back to the drawing board as far as I am concerned.

Again won't this be the HEAD COACH who picks the side and decides the tactics?

Or is it easier to just blame the sarries man

Given Lancaster started Flood after dropping Farrell, surely it would be a reasonable assumption that if he's reinstated it's because the new backs coach has suggested it.

I'm not sure he'd dare to be honest.

This is what I meant, Lancaster has shown that now Flood is his first choice. I am not out to get Sarries people at all, I advocated the call up of Barritt, but Flood is so clearly ahead of Farrell at the moment at 10 that if Andy influences the choice of him to start ahead of Flood then I will express my opinion. Any game plan that has Farrell Jnr ahead of Flood isn't a game plan that is going to get us anywhere going forward (IMO) Anyway, it hasn't even happened yet so lets not argue about it now.............we can just wait until it does

killer938 wrote:"Farrell's contract will see him take charge of England's backs and defence through to January 2016, taking in the World Cup on home soil in three years' time."

Well there goes our chances

easy on the doom mongering Killer

Auntie Beeb wrote: ' .....Mike Catt, who is still being considered for a role in an expanded four-man senior coaching team.'

AlastairW wrote:

killer938 wrote:"Farrell's contract will see him take charge of England's backs and defence through to January 2016, taking in the World Cup on home soil in three years' time."

Well there goes our chances

easy on the doom mongering Killer

Auntie Beeb wrote: ' .....Mike Catt, who is still being considered for a role in an expanded four-man senior coaching team.'

Yeh, one day I will learn to read the entire article before posting, haha

I would have liked someone with a touch more experience than Farrell to complement what is already an inexperienced team.

But we have what we have, and heck at least it isn't Robinson or Kidney

I’m happy to blame Stuart “The Keen Amateur” Lancaster. Given his lack of test experience he really had to surround himself with top proven coaches. When the England position was being considered, how many would have gone for a SL, Farrell, Catt coaching team? I can sense a collective smirk from the rest of the rugby world (or is that a sigh of relief?).

is it set that he's Backs coach..?

ESPN are saying it 'is thought that'

also SL is stated that he is looking at the coaching setup in the next two to three weeks possibly having four.

damage_13 wrote:is it set that he's Backs coach..?

ESPN are saying it 'is thought that'

also SL is stated that he is looking at the coaching setup in the next two to three weeks possibly having four.

I really don't mind if he's defence coach, in fact it would be quite good. However I DO NOT want him in charge of our attacking. I feel England would be taking a backward step if he was in charge of attack aswell. We can hope he isn't attack coach aswell!

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I’m happy to blame Stuart “The Keen Amateur” Lancaster. Given his lack of test experience he really had to surround himself with top proven coaches. When the England position was being considered, how many would have gone for a SL, Farrell, Catt coaching team? I can sense a collective smirk from the rest of the rugby world (or is that a sigh of relief?).

Agreed. Looks like another bodge up to me. But plenty of people clamoured for SL's no-nonsesne puritanical approach to rugby. Given I didn't, i may start to afford myself a similar smug smirk. Except I'm seriously worried about what this means for our national team.

I'm going to sound naive here and it really is a genuine question. How important actually is the national coaching team when the majority of a players time is spent with their clubs? Is it more important to have a very experienced coach at national level because of the short amount of time to prepare or can you get away with 'lesser' coaches because the majority of the work is carried out at club level? It's something i've been asking myself more frequently recently.

Well lets give them the benefit. They all know their stuff from playing....lets see how.it translates to coaching.

Plan one was.to get back to basics in the 6n.The tour has shown.some improvement but.not loads..

Lets see how the four man team can push on the plan...and introduce more quality players....

I for one dont believe they want to play a stagnant defence game.

Hood83 wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I’m happy to blame Stuart “The Keen Amateur” Lancaster. Given his lack of test experience he really had to surround himself with top proven coaches. When the England position was being considered, how many would have gone for a SL, Farrell, Catt coaching team? I can sense a collective smirk from the rest of the rugby world (or is that a sigh of relief?).

Agreed. Looks like another bodge up to me. But plenty of people clamoured for SL's no-nonsesne puritanical approach to rugby. Given I didn't, i may start to afford myself a similar smug smirk. Except I'm seriously worried about what this means for our national team.

I would like to see a proven internation level coach come in to run the attack but who would do that? There really isn't much choice out there especially with Smith pulling out.

Sadly it looks like we'll be doing it for ourselves for the moment but maybe in a season or two we could poach someone, after all no one says we have to honour these contracts. This is a pro game after all.

Knackeredknees wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

killer938 wrote:I will be very happy to be proved wrong about Farrell, I honestly will, but if everyone is fit for the next international and I see Owen starting at 10 then its back to the drawing board as far as I am concerned.

Again won't this be the HEAD COACH who picks the side and decides the tactics?

Or is it easier to just blame the sarries man

Given Lancaster started Flood after dropping Farrell, surely it would be a reasonable assumption that if he's reinstated it's because the new backs coach has suggested it.

I'm not sure he'd dare to be honest.

Or his game plan suits Farrell over Flood?

Although having a game plan may help.

Well if the game plan is not winning thats quite sound. Jopking aside its the fact his gameplan will suit Farrell jnr thats worrying people, whatever you do dont run forward with the ball.

Carpe Diem wrote:I'm going to sound naive here and it really is a genuine question. How important actually is the national coaching team when the majority of a players time is spent with their clubs? Is it more important to have a very experienced coach at national level because of the short amount of time to prepare or can you get away with 'lesser' coaches because the majority of the work is carried out at club level? It's something i've been asking myself more frequently recently.

In terms of developing skills not so much. In terms of having a cohesive organised structure to their play, supporting one another, and making decissions to plan ...very. Not to mention selections.
Of course the best thing Brian Smith ever did was tell them play with their heads up and trust their instincts. *shrug*

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I’m happy to blame Stuart “The Keen Amateur” Lancaster. Given his lack of test experience he really had to surround himself with top proven coaches. When the England position was being considered, how many would have gone for a SL, Farrell, Catt coaching team? I can sense a collective smirk from the rest of the rugby world (or is that a sigh of relief?).

The irony being that Lancaster is a longstanding professional coach and the highest-qualified coach that England have yet appointed. Certainly more qualified that Johnson, but also more so than Woodward and Robinson. There's also a question of experience, of course, but it depends on what experience you want. Lancaster hasn't had much previous experience of coaching a national team, but he has more experience with the individual players at Saxons and academy level than anyone.

I don't understand the calls for big names. England's success in appointing coaches in the professional era has been, roughly speaking, inversely proportional to how famous they were before they were appointed.

Lancaster may not be the right answer, but from what I can see he is going about things the right way and is making progress. His teams have shown commitment, organisation and discipline, and also an ability to learn quickly. They have selection problems and an unsettled backline, but would any other coach really be able to magic a fully-formed centre pairing from the raw material we have in 8 games? Get real.

The World Cup cycle is 4 years long. Instant results is not what this is about.

Poorfour wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I’m happy to blame Stuart “The Keen Amateur” Lancaster. Given his lack of test experience he really had to surround himself with top proven coaches. When the England position was being considered, how many would have gone for a SL, Farrell, Catt coaching team? I can sense a collective smirk from the rest of the rugby world (or is that a sigh of relief?).

The irony being that Lancaster is a longstanding professional coach and the highest-qualified coach that England have yet appointed. Certainly more qualified that Johnson, but also more so than Woodward and Robinson. There's also a question of experience, of course, but it depends on what experience you want. Lancaster hasn't had much previous experience of coaching a national team, but he has more experience with the individual players at Saxons and academy level than anyone.

I don't understand the calls for big names. England's success in appointing coaches in the professional era has been, roughly speaking, inversely proportional to how famous they were before they were appointed.

Lancaster may not be the right answer, but from what I can see he is going about things the right way and is making progress. His teams have shown commitment, organisation and discipline, and also an ability to learn quickly. They have selection problems and an unsettled backline, but would any other coach really be able to magic a fully-formed centre pairing from the raw material we have in 8 games? Get real.

The World Cup cycle is 4 years long. Instant results is not what this is about.

I think the point is less on Lancaster's own credentials but those of his staff.

Johnson we know about, he had none. The coaching team he had was experienced and outside of the international arena had pretty decent track records. Woodward was pretty limited but he'd coached at LI and Bath, and he had Robinson who'd had three years at Bath, Andy Robinson had Ashton who'd been everywhere, and Ashton had Wells and Ford who coached at top teams.

Now we have Farrell - About a year and half with Sarries, some of that time as a skills coach. Rowntree has decent experience, but only a year with Leicester prior to England. I think most people are happy with him. Catt - I'm not sure he's shown a great deal in his short time at LI. I suppose it's about pedigree, and on that i think Lancaster's guy's seem pretty average.

What would be interesting to see though is which other countries have enjoyed success with inexperienced coaches. It strikes me that most others require some level of coaching at the top national level. Happy to be proven wrong on this, but it seems a good place to start.

I thought that when FAZ left the England set up just after the 6ns, he made the wrong decision. England did better in the 6ns than any one even imagined we would.

I realy dont that he ( FAZ ) will pick Owen over Flood if Flood is on better form that what owen is.

Lets wait and see what will happens in the Ais. If England play better than they did on the summer tour? And manage to get a win and no DRAW. well the Faz deal may well be working.

Lets give Faz a chance, atleast till 2015 rugby world cup.and see hiow England, performance has been since his signing.

Poorfour wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I’m happy to blame Stuart “The Keen Amateur” Lancaster. Given his lack of test experience he really had to surround himself with top proven coaches. When the England position was being considered, how many would have gone for a SL, Farrell, Catt coaching team? I can sense a collective smirk from the rest of the rugby world (or is that a sigh of relief?).

The irony being that Lancaster is a longstanding professional coach and the highest-qualified coach that England have yet appointed. Certainly more qualified that Johnson, but also more so than Woodward and Robinson. There's also a question of experience, of course, but it depends on what experience you want. Lancaster hasn't had much previous experience of coaching a national team, but he has more experience with the individual players at Saxons and academy level than anyone.

I don't understand the calls for big names. England's success in appointing coaches in the professional era has been, roughly speaking, inversely proportional to how famous they were before they were appointed.

Lancaster may not be the right answer, but from what I can see he is going about things the right way and is making progress. His teams have shown commitment, organisation and discipline, and also an ability to learn quickly. They have selection problems and an unsettled backline, but would any other coach really be able to magic a fully-formed centre pairing from the raw material we have in 8 games? Get real.

The World Cup cycle is 4 years long. Instant results is not what this is about.

Good comment. I think that Unions almost see the rep of the coach as buying them more credibility and from a marketing sense the White's and Smith's bring more kudos than a Lancaster so not only is it a ballsy decision to appoint him but it is also very forward thinking.