Assessing Stuart Lancaster's performance so far

With some fanfare about a year ago SL was appointed Archbishop of Twickenham (elect). And formally anointed last March.

How do you feel he's faring?

Given that it was a foregone conclusion that the England squad was going to be dismantled (especially after the shenanigans of senior players in the RWC), young blood was inevitable whoever was in charge.

But performances thus far are not exactly inspiring are they?

England stuttered their way on the back of two entertaining games in a very mediocre 6Ns last year to second spot, endured a very disappointing summer and have one realistic chance (however slim) of salvaging any semblance of respectability out of the autumn.

OK. the players are new and inexperienced. But are they being managed properly. Are SL's new lieutenants up to the job?

I want to see progress but what I sense is flat-lining.
SL appears to be fortunate with flush of talent from the academies providing some semblance of depth but can he bring that talent to the fore?

Or should MJ not have bowed to the media pressure to resign for the culpability of senior, trusted players (Jonny apart) going AWOL?
We'll never know.

When Lancaster came in I felt that he was making the right noises, and I think it is fair to say that he did a good job of restoring some pride to the shirt, which was a must given the debacle of the World Cup.

My view almost a year on is that I haven't seen from him yet, that he has the tactical nous to succeed at international level, and I also have a question mark over some of his selection decisions.

It is clear from watching the opening quarter of the Fiji game, and the entire Australia match, that we have some issues at the breakdown. Now I do not buy into the notion that just picking a specialist 7 will solve all of our ails in that area, but it would go a little way to addressing it. What we need to see is that Lancaster recognises that we are not performing in that area, and come up with a solution to the problem, as until we are competitive their and can regularly secure good, quick ball, we will not trouble the best defences in international rugby.

I have my own views on what our problems there are and how they can be addressed but that is perhaps for another thread as the point of this one is an assessment of Lancaster. What I would say though, is that if I can see the problem and a solution, I would be incredibly disapointed to find that the highly paid head coach of the national team cannot.

I think he has done well in sorting out the ethos and making sure the coach is in charge not a cabal of senior players. He has instilled some discipline.

I very much doubt any other coach would have significantly better results. The players simply are not there. How many world class players in the England camp?

He needs some results - or at the very least performances - otherwise the second-guessing by supporters and media will prove overwhelming. After all, the RFU was prepared to ditch Robinson on the eve of a World Cup.

At most, Lancaster gets two more Six Nations and another set of Autumn Internationals to show he can field a team which can challenge for the World Cup on home soil. If he is up to the job, that should easily be long enough.

I think he has a chance to do it, but he may need to be a more cold-blooded selector. Someone might be a great team squad member, with exemplary attitude, but if he isn't international class, then he shouldn't be in the EPS.

I really have no idea who currently fits that description. Dowson was the man most people identified before this test series began but there will surely be more if the run of losses continues. It's only taken a couple of games for questions to start being asked about Johnson, Sharples, T. Youngs, Barritt etc. Even Robshaw has his doubters now.

The harder selection challenge will be if it looks like someone excluded from the squad could be the right piece of the puzzle. Lancaster has a nice story to tell about how the team has come together. It is one of the reasons he was confirmed in his post after the Six Nations. However, he can't afford to be seduced by his own sales pitch. If he needs to backtrack, I hope he has the courage to do so.

Naive and inepxerienced (if you as SCW), but still gets a free pass on the "building for the future" card.

When it comes down to it his results are bettethan those Johnno got with the squad he inhereted. Whether that means Johhno did a better job than Ashton/Andrew or Lancatser is doing a better job than Johnno did remains to be seen.

Ill fully admit to be Lancaster sceptic when he first started, largely because he was "making the right noises" , that is echoing the rabid sections of the press and pandering to the skysports phone in crowd.
The reuslts in the 6 nations, despite massive defencies in some aspects of play, were certainly enough to get him some deserved credit ( although how much of that was edwards?)

Now they have to push on from that,. there is some encouragings igns that hes recognised the need to be able to use the ball in attack. Flood finding fitness and form and having Care and Youngs available gives him no excuse but to play an attacking half back pair. The Farrel experiemnt "did a job" whne it was needed, but Im glad hes looking byond that now.

Like others I do worry about the capatincy and if Robshaw is really up to it. Lancaster like most coaches seems to have devleoped a stubbon streak here ( despite constantly claiming its open) and defends his man and his boys to the hilt ( they made the right decisions...etc). Same goes for the continued overlooking of Easter, he made his mind up he has a plan...maybe its a strength but its the kind of thing weve seen from previous coaches and been screaming FFS JUST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.
Breakdown continues to be a problem, but that goes way back beyond him.


the main issue though still remains the lack of a real experienced big hitter in the coaching staff. Now I know the School master has more years coaching experience than National Express but never at the highest levels, and his team is pretty raw too. Certainly they dont carry the " I won 20 world cups" kudos. Or the years of experience in the SH. Its worth noting that several big name coaches they did try to woo have shyed away from working under him. That is a problem for England. Its one thing to have your team learning on the job but your coaching staff too?

I do think expectations are somewhat lower from England fans than they have been for the last decade plus (after nearly 10 years of mostly bad results), and taking 4 wins from a 6 nations, a draw on a sanzar tour, and only narrowly losing to Aus is a big improvement on the majority of previous seasons.

C+ from me. Overall a pass and capable of more. May require additional support to acheive class honours.

Articles like this do little to allay my fears about Lancaster...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9689056/England-v-South-Africa-Stuart-Lancaster-to-freshen-up-after-Australia-loss-but-Chris-Robshaw-holds-captaincy.html

For the record I back his point on Steffon, if hes not available for the New Zealand game and hsi availability during the 6 nations is not fully garunteed and he isnt willing to 100% commit to England, is there much point in picking him just to (maybe) get a win over SA?
Theres no right answer, best case is his continued exclussion make him decide to come back to England. Wont happen of course.

Lancaster is doing fine. Came second in the Six Nations with a young team, beating France in Paris along the way - many pundits thought England would be coming 4th or 5th. The South Africa tour was a great learning curve, but it was a bit disappointing that the only thing England got was a draw and two losses. In the current AIs, England have hammered Fiji which was a good result but lost to the Aussies in a game where we should have at least gotten a draw. If we manage to beat South Africa on Saturday, then we can class the 2012 AIs this year as 'satisfactory', providing we turn in a good display against New Zealand.

Judging by current form, France are going to be England's biggest challengers to the Six Nations.

PSW, I agree there is no point selecting him for a one off game, my issue is with nonsense comments like 'he plays behind a dominant pack at Toulon' as a reason for not selecting him. He also questions his fitness, which I am not sure how he would know what Steffon's fitness is like as he's not been part of any England camps.

Knocking a player who potentially could make the team if he returned to England to play is hardly a good move is it?

Putting aside the 'not selecting him for one game' issue, I don't agree with his stance on not picking players who are playing in France. His job is to put the best England side possible on the field, and if the best players are playing in France (I am not saying that they are), then what he should be doing is everything in his power to broker some form of agreement with their clubs whereby they can be released for training camps.

I'm wondering how similar Lancaster's credentials are Declan Kidney's (apart from inheriting a core of key players close to their prime). Both were well acquainted with players as they were emergent talents. Will Stuart stick with his protegees?

Is the Farrell factor potentially damaging? Chris Ashton, England's strike attacker looks blunted.

And young Owen sits so deep in the pocket, when the ball is in out the backs are almost bound to stutter.

And TJ,

I think he has done well in sorting out the ethos and making sure the coach is in charge not a cabal of senior players. He has instilled some discipline.

What should MJ and his senior coaches have done? Get dressed in gowns and mortar boards and stalked the dorm corridors cane in hand?

Although on reflection, HRH Prince Michael of Gloucester should have been summarily expelled at least as a sharp reminder to the duties, behaviours and responsibilities expected from the prefects' common room.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: ... taking 4 wins from a 6 nations, a draw on a sanzar tour, and only narrowly losing to Aus is a big improvement on the majority of previous seasons.

This. It's too early to start sending out invites to the lynch mob. It's that attitude that has hamstrung us before; shortermism in all it's glory. In less than a year we performed as you mentioned, the next hurdles come over the next few weeks and then into the 2013 6N. People really should wait until then to even start forming an assessment, it's not like he's the DoR of a week-in-week-out club.

Always a shame to see your side lose, but progress has certainly been made from the Calcutta charge down game up at Murrayfield a year ago, that's as plain as day. We've gone from that to pushing the world no.2 team in less than a year, that's medium term look i have; he's doing alright. That attitude won't last forever though, but it's still to early to pass judgement on a finished article, when it isn't 'finished'.

I agree Alastair. I do want to see signs though that he is seeing some of the issues in terms of performance, that appear plain as day to all of us, and having seen them, that he is taking steps to address them.

Ozzy3213 wrote:PSW, I agree there is no point selecting him for a one off game, my issue is with nonsense comments like 'he plays behind a dominant pack at Toulon' as a reason for not selecting him. He also questions his fitness, which I am not sure how he would know what Steffon's fitness is like as he's not been part of any England camps.

Knocking a player who potentially could make the team if he returned to England to play is hardly a good move is it?

Putting aside the 'not selecting him for one game' issue, I don't agree with his stance on not picking players who are playing in France. His job is to put the best England side possible on the field, and if the best players are playing in France (I am not saying that they are), then what he should be doing is everything in his power to broker some form of agreement with their clubs whereby they can be released for training camps.

The argument would be how can you put the best side available out iof they dont get the chance to train together regualry? The whole ethos behuind the EPS system was that England were suffering by not getting their players together as a full sqaud often enough and effectively putting out scratch sides against well drilled sides.
Players based in Farnce who are not available for the full summer tour, not availabel fro pre AI training, not available for the 4th AI and may have to play during rest weekneds in the 6 nations ar ehugley problematic .... the lack of control over their fitness ( and when they peak) , workload, rest and what GCSEs they get entered for add to that.
England have sufficent player base to not be forced into picking foriegn based players. Wales dont want to but have more meagre resources. Its not like Steffon is super human.
I agree Lancasters commenst sound a bit unprofessional but I thinks hes trying to amke the point that Steffons being held up as some super human chuck norris universal soldier when in reality we all know as soon as hes picked everyone will hate him.


As for brockering the deal ...isnt that what theyve being paying rob andrew for?

I think in general he has done fairly well...but its not perfect by any means.

The EPS has highlighted hugely this AI that they must get the next one absolutely right...as form players like Burns, Twelvetrees and Launchbury werent even in this one...and can only make the "window" times...
But to his credit his still given Launchbury his chance...

BUt in general aside from a few debatables...most fans would agree he has got the selections near enough...

Areas like the breakdown - which i actually think we are improving alot at, is still a work in progress...as is attack...
But regardless of how much coaching..... isnt it rugby basics that your captain, your 8, your full team in fact should know to take the ball at pace...

I guess its a wait and see...who he brings into the EPS in January...as i dont see a victory from the next two games...

I think Lancaster has done a solid job.

From a selection side, the only criticism I had of him was the selection of Botha, I jst don't see him as good enough and couldn't believe he was the best available in england.

From a game plan point of view, I can criticise the appraoch england took by going too wide too soon. But you can't criticise Lancaster for england not taking shots at goal.

PSW, absolutely Andrew should be the man brokering any deal, but at Lancaster's behest, should he decide that the best option for England in any given position is currently playing in France.

Whilst the ideal would clearly be that Lancaster has all of his squad available for all training camps etc, we do not live in an ideal world. Whether he is right or wrong in shunning players in France is entirely a matter of opinion of course, my real point is that I hope he does not prove to be too stubborn, and if the situation arises whereby the need is there, he is prepared to review his decision on selection policy and perhaps make a new decision in the best interests of the national side.

Loyalty and stubborness are traits that can be either great or very damaging for a national coach, and it is a fine line between the two. I just hope that Lancaster treads that line very carefully, as if he falls off it onto the wrong side (whichever that may be), you can be sure that the sharks will be circling and sniffing blood in the water.

Fair enough Ozzy, I think we are all in agreement there. Its jsut a shade of grey as to where the line is.

Biltong...wiith Botha is was mostly a case of " who the heck is available", I cant really think of anyone that was left out for him. He did a pretty good job in his early games, but hes a fringe figure now.
Hard to really critisize SL there. Heck its hardly as if the current second rows are really up to it.

Looking in - he's made a big difference in terms of dicipline and culture. I don't think England are far from a decent team, but there won't be a step up until he sorts out the second row, back row and centres.

I think he is doing well. The SA game and the NZ game are very important however. First thing he did was sort discipline and defence. He did this well and we finished a surprising (at the time) 2nd in the 6 nations.

It was clear against Australia (who are a very good side!) that he (and Catt) seem to be instilling some attacking nous and some belief in the team. The next step is tactical nous and being clinical.

It's all steps in the right direction - I don't think there have been any real backward steps either. It was never going to change over night! Please remember how awful the world cup games were to watch - especially the Scotland game!

Biltong wrote:I think Lancaster has done a solid job.

From a selection side, the only criticism I had of him was the selection of Botha, I jst don't see him as good enough and couldn't believe he was the best available in england.

From a game plan point of view, I can criticise the appraoch england took by going too wide too soon. But you can't criticise Lancaster for england not taking shots at goal.

I didn't realise Botha was in the 23 vs Fiji and Australia.

Lancaster gets a lot of unfair stick, particularly from Portnoy. Would probably rather see his Leicester buddy back in charge bizarrely enough.

Remember this is an inexperienced England side with many new players. This inexperience was quite clear in the frontrow battle.

Sharples' inexperience was also exposed with the Australians having a field day down his wing.

Is this completely down to Lancaster? People wanted these players in.

The backrow is a difficult conundrum. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but we don't know how Morgan and Wood would have done if starting. The backrow is an area I have never felt England have been particularly strong in since the holy trinity of Hill,Back,Dallaglio. Our players are hyped up as being great but are frequently beaten at the breakdown.

Would you really say the English backrow is better than that of France,Scotland,Wales,Ireland,Argentina and even Italy let alone the tri nations?

England never seem to be able to generate good ball. It's always stodgy. Makes our scrum halves and backs look pedestrian in my opinion.

I think England lost to Australia because they didn't build momentum. This in my opinion was ultimately down to the forwards who didn't ever get control at the breakdown. They would either concede penalties in good positions or cough up turnovers.

I think his doing a good job, ok we lost to a depleted Aus team but were that down to SL or poor decision making by the players and Captain?

So for now I'll hold off judging him until the end of next years 6 nations.

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think Lancaster has done a solid job.

From a selection side, the only criticism I had of him was the selection of Botha, I jst don't see him as good enough and couldn't believe he was the best available in england.

From a game plan point of view, I can criticise the appraoch england took by going too wide too soon. But you can't criticise Lancaster for england not taking shots at goal.

I didn't realise Botha was in the 23 vs Fiji and Australia.

beshocked, when botha was selected, not now. Geez think man.

HERSH wrote:I think his doing a good job, ok we lost to a depleted Aus team but were that down to SL or poor decision making by the players and Captain?

So for now I'll hold off judging him until the end of next years 6 nations.

SCW has been quite vocal to suggest its Lancasters job to make sure the players know what decisions to make. Lancaster refused to blame the players for those decisions ( indeed said he thought they were the right ones). Which suggests hes the one responsible for that guidance.

To be fair he’s only been in the job for about a year, and given the player turnover after Jonno, that’s not enough time to give a meaningful verdict – particularly as we’re only halfway through the current series. If England beat SA, opinions will change. If we also beat NZ, SL will be the new messiah. However, if results go according to form, the series will be a failure.

So of the 3 series SL has had, IMO, he’s exceeded expectations with a creditable 2nd in the 6N 2011, ditto in SA (I expected a 3-0 whitewash), but badly failed in the current AI (a win vs Aus was the minimum required – I genuinely believed this Aus would lose all 3 of their games). Anything less that a 1st or 2nd in the 6N 2013 would be pretty damning for SL, given that England should be looking to win the next RWC.

Personally I don’t really buy into the opinion that SL righted an attitude malaise in the Jonno side. Jonno lost his nerve in the RWC, and his team wasn’t expected to win the thing anyway. And Jonno’s best sides (and including his last one) would still spank the current side.

Currently England have problems at SR, BR and centre – of these only BR is largely of SL’s making IMO (we have a number of real quality players here and yet this current selection is average). He also has the problem that currently we have a lot of player depth but not strength in depth (eg. our 1st choice FR is very strong, our 2nd choice is fairly average). We do have numerous young players who may make the grade though.

For SL - the jury’s still out, but the clock is ticking.

I'm still in quandary of how to explain how Ashton can strike whenever Farrell is absent.

Even Andy's RL defence lines are being breached by a hapless, beleaguered, Galipoltised Deans-led sham of an Australian side.

Now and again if you have a tactical weapon on the battlefield it might be advisable to unleash it.

SCW would say that, but IMO the modern rugby player of today is a different animal compared to when SCW was in charge, these guys don't take direction too well.

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think Lancaster has done a solid job.

From a selection side, the only criticism I had of him was the selection of Botha, I jst don't see him as good enough and couldn't believe he was the best available in england.

From a game plan point of view, I can criticise the appraoch england took by going too wide too soon. But you can't criticise Lancaster for england not taking shots at goal.

I didn't realise Botha was in the 23 vs Fiji and Australia.

beshocked, when botha was selected, not now. Geez think man.

Who should Lancaster have picked? It's hardly as if there are lots of really good English 2nd rowers being neglected.

2nd row is a weakness for England. You might say Botha is a South African journeyman but he plays for one of the top clubs in the country currently. He's formed a formidable 2nd row partnership with Borthwick - arguably one of the best club 2nd row combos in the country.

You might not rate the guy but there are reasons why Lancaster picked him.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Oh well it didn't work out.

Bring back Borthwick

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think Lancaster has done a solid job.

From a selection side, the only criticism I had of him was the selection of Botha, I jst don't see him as good enough and couldn't believe he was the best available in england.
From a game plan point of view, I can criticise the appraoch england took by going too wide too soon. But you can't criticise Lancaster for england not taking shots at goal.

I didn't realise Botha was in the 23 vs Fiji and Australia.

beshocked, when botha was selected, not now. Geez think man.

Who should Lancaster have picked? It's hardly as if there are lots of really good English 2nd rowers being neglected.

2nd row is a weakness for England. You might say Botha is a South African journeyman but he plays for one of the top clubs in the country currently. He's formed a formidable 2nd row partnership with Borthwick - arguably one of the best club 2nd row combos in the country.

You might not rate the guy but there are reasons why Lancaster picked him.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Oh well it didn't work out.

read my post beshocked. I highlighted in bold for you the rest of my thought.

Would Mallet have done better?

The thing with Lancaster is he looks a little out of his depth when facing top class opposition, he lacks ideas on how to read teams and break them down.

Woodward was inexperienced in 97... but they players with great freshness and it showed in their 26-26 match with the ABs. They had no fear, tried things out, most of which failed but a few worked and he based all his success around them.

Lancasters team have got the win in FRA and a draw vs SA on the back of damage limitation rugby, big in defence and hope in attack only.

Thats not going to win games vs. the big boys and I think this is where Lancaster may come unstuck. This is someting you can't learn.

Mallett would have had these guys well drilled and energised. He's not a mate of the players but he's a proven winner and has indepth knowledge of all the teams in world rugby... he managed to beat FRA with ITA... I don't think GH would ever have done that with the same squad of players.

If he can get those ITA players to beat FRA... what do you think he could do with ENG? His tenure with the boks put them on a 17 test match victory run and once he left they went on to become the worst bok side in history.

Youngs at hooker just doesn't get it to me... people have thrown him in saying that he's a project player etc.... i.e. he's inexperienced but he will be stand out world class soon enough!

I can't see anything which shows he will be world class. He's Lee Mears re-packaged... too small, too weak, gets turned over, gives away silly penalties. None of these things can be rectified over time.... he ain't going to become a Steve Thompson/Bismarck over time.

Time for some reality here firstly Lancaster was appointed as a" Caretaker Coach"and he achieved 4 wins in the 6Ns.Martin Johnson was appointed by media pressure ,he had NO coaching experience at any level.
Both Johnson and Lancaster were trying with some success to move away from the forward dominated/kick rush game.
Johnson the RWC came to early,and he fell back on established RWC formula and recalled JW.
It is also pertinent to point out Both Robinson and Ashton had better records than SCW over there first 15 games and were sacked.
What is at the moment a problem is players for either injury,player release or other reasons arn`t available.
England had a reasonable tour of South Africa,a good if error strewn win versus
Fiji.Could also with better decision making beaten Australia must agree with SCW.
That you plan for EVERY contingency in the days before the match especially penalties.IF in doubt attempt the points on offer and build from there.
Finally the AI`sProgram would have even given SCW food for thought THE Best 3 sides in the World on successive weeks.
The next two weeks will show where we are perhaps,I would be surprised if we win either of the last two games.
But hoping they arn`t humiliating blow outs,6Ns .France seemto be firing and would be surprised if the rest arn`t at least competetive.
Second or third would be a resonable result in the conditions.

He's done ok tbf. I like the way he's gone about changing the ethos and management of the squad. I don't think we'll wn the next two games and if we have a poor 6N I'll be a bit concerned. I just hope he has the guts to play Burns, wade, Launchbury more often in the near future...

fa0019 wrote:Would Mallet have done better?

The thing with Lancaster is he looks a little out of his depth when facing top class opposition, he lacks ideas on how to read teams and break them down.

Woodward was inexperienced in 97... but they players with great freshness and it showed in their 26-26 match with the ABs. They had no fear, tried things out, most of which failed but a few worked and he based all his success around them.

Lancasters team have got the win in FRA and a draw vs SA on the back of damage limitation rugby, big in defence and hope in attack only.

Thats not going to win games vs. the big boys and I think this is where Lancaster may come unstuck. This is someting you can't learn.

Mallett would have had these guys well drilled and energised. He's not a mate of the players but he's a proven winner and has indepth knowledge of all the teams in world rugby... he managed to beat FRA with ITA... I don't think GH would ever have done that with the same squad of players.

If he can get those ITA players to beat FRA... what do you think he could do with ENG? His tenure with the boks put them on a 17 test match victory run and once he left they went on to become the worst bok side in history.

Youngs at hooker just doesn't get it to me... people have thrown him in saying that he's a project player etc.... i.e. he's inexperienced but he will be stand out world class soon enough!

I can't see anything which shows he will be world class. He's Lee Mears re-packaged... too small, too weak, gets turned over, gives away silly penalties. None of these things can be rectified over time.... he ain't going to become a Steve Thompson/Bismarck over time.

Wow Mallett managed a win over France with Italy. Other than that his tenure with Italy was largely forgettable.

Who would you have picked at hooker instead of the injured Hartley?

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think Lancaster has done a solid job.

From a selection side, the only criticism I had of him was the selection of Botha, I jst don't see him as good enough and couldn't believe he was the best available in england.
From a game plan point of view, I can criticise the appraoch england took by going too wide too soon. But you can't criticise Lancaster for england not taking shots at goal.

I didn't realise Botha was in the 23 vs Fiji and Australia.

beshocked, when botha was selected, not now. Geez think man.

Who should Lancaster have picked? It's hardly as if there are lots of really good English 2nd rowers being neglected.

2nd row is a weakness for England. You might say Botha is a South African journeyman but he plays for one of the top clubs in the country currently. He's formed a formidable 2nd row partnership with Borthwick - arguably one of the best club 2nd row combos in the country.

You might not rate the guy but there are reasons why Lancaster picked him.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Oh well it didn't work out.

read my post beshocked. I highlighted in bold for you the rest of my thought.

Easy to say that with hindsight. Who was the best available in England then?

I don't know beshocked, I don't see much of English domestic rugby to know your players.

At the time I questioned his selections, asked then whether he was the best, from memory my words were. "Surely Botha isn't the best available in england?"

That was during the six Nations.

beshocked

Malletts career isn't just one win over FRA. His tenure with the boks was near outstanding and when he left they imploded to become the worst bok side in history... the same players.

To suggest he was either lucky or not a good coach is a little naive.

fa0019 wrote:beshocked

Malletts career isn't just one win over FRA. His tenure with the boks was near outstanding and when he left they imploded to become the worst bok side in history... the same players.

To suggest he was either lucky or not a good coach is a little naive.

Where have I said Mallett is a poor coach? Just said his tenure with Italy was largely forgettable which it was.

Why are we judging Mallet on his time with Italy? Its like judging Lancaster on his time with the Saxons.
The difference is Mallet ran a top side well.
Lancatser has yet to do that.
Given a choice last January I know which one I wouldve rather had, and at this point we are still seeing the problems with having a low profile Head Coach, most notably that he cant(wont?) get any of the top world coaches to work alongside him.

Actually PSW I think Sir Clive is a more accurate comparison.

So basically you are judging Mallet on his achievements for SA over 10 years ago?

Sir Clive had his success with England but the 2005 lions tour was a shambles.

There is no guarantee Mallett would work.

In terms of hooker.... I don't know the ENG game enough to say... but is a guy with 10 games at hooker and is adequate at best, the best ENG have available???

That would say an awful lot about ENG rugby if it did.

fa0019 wrote:In terms of hooker.... I don't know the ENG game enough to say... but is a guy with 10 games at hooker and is adequate at best, the best ENG have available???

That would say an awful lot about ENG rugby if it did.

Yeah it says theyve had a Lions hookers retire recently, two others put out to pasture and three capped hookers injured.

How many senior starts did Manu Tuilagi have in any position before he got his first cap? Barely more, and he is far younger than err Youngs (actually how many starts had his brother had before his first cap?)

Look its not ideal and I was in the eyebrow raise group when he was selected but this is Lancaster (and to some extent Rowntree). If he looks at the Premiership journeymen and theres no one singing he'll look to the youngsters. Exactly the opposite of what Johnson got slated for (aside from when he was picking young players in which case he got slated for being alive)

If you look at Wales they have put severalplayers over the last few years in their first proper season of pro rugby, some of whome worked out.

Got to say, I think Youngs has done just fine his first two England starts. He's hit all his lineouts, hit the most rucks on Saturday, and put some bullish runs in against Fiji. He missed that one tackle, which was huge- don't get me wrong, but I think he still definitely deserves to start.

beshocked wrote:Actually PSW I think Sir Clive is a more accurate comparison.

So basically you are judging Mallet on his achievements for SA over 10 years ago?

Sir Clive had his success with England but the 2005 lions tour was a shambles.

There is no guarantee Mallett would work.

So what are you trying to say? That Mallet isnt rubbish but he might be?

The simple fact is he has better pedigree than Lancaster does and wouldve come with a world class team around him. The RFU never really intended to end up with what theyve got, but at least they can control it and it was popular at the time.
It may prove to be better, and yes we never know how Mallet and co wouldve done...but on paper it was a better coaching team

You have to admit that the lack of a decent attack coach is still a problem for England, highlighted by the teams continued inability to get wingers into the game (Fiji aside, and Ireland showed just how weak they are)

The swings and roundabouts in terms of managerial performances.

They either rotate about a fixed axle or perform complex harmonic motion.

Last year's hero is this year's incompetent and vice versa.

Ask Wales. Ask Leicester Tigers about Heyneke Meyer. Ask Ireland about Declan Kidney. Ask Gloucester or Sale about PSA.

My over-riding question about Lancaster is his about his choice of Andy Farrell as his go-to backs coach rather than the team selection.

[ed] I have had a pretty much unswerving respect for Shaun Edwards irrespective of the apparent Welsh fans' hero/zero attitude.

If SL wants a fellow Lancastrian/RL guru, then maybe he backed the wrong one.

IMO Lancaster appears to be making the most of what's at his disposal and he has created a far better culture and attitude in such a short time. I find the criticisms of him a little difficult and unjust in all honesty.

How many RWCs have been won since 1987 by a national coach on his first attempt?

I don't know.

But that's what's on Lancaster's plate with the added pressure of it being at home

Sill records (if there is one) are there to be broken I suppose.

I don't think that pressure is on Lacasters plate tiger. If it is it's a bit unrealistic IMO

You reckon that three years out you can consider England's RWC chances are unrealistic Ruby?

That's a bit harsh innit?

Would hope they were a little further along the road they are now, but at least happy with the general direction of travel.

RubyGuby wrote:IMO Lancaster appears to be making the most of what's at his disposal and he has created a far better culture and attitude in such a short time. I find the criticisms of him a little difficult and unjust in all honesty.

Just like Howley really (except the culture bit).