Lancaster Loses Plot

First topic message reminder :

Stuart Lancaster. Care-taker coach. Largely seen as a stable if unspectacular stop gap whilst England courted an international coach of class who wouldn't shudder at the prospect. Possibly Jake White, Eddie Jones or Wayne Smith?

But with a surprise victory over an off-colour All Blacks he found himself in the position of a little known band hitting the #1 spot with a surprise novelty song.  Like the DJ Psy of the rugby world, the Gangnam Style England galloped to an unlikely success over NZ and now Stuart Lancaster finds himself in the unfortunate spot of having to concoct that difficult second album.

He came close to a 6N triumph, but ultimately his backing singers revealed their innate lack of harmonic dexterity and were well out of key as they were thumped by a passionate Wales and brought back to Earth with a resounding thud that still echoes today from the wide stellar orbit that their accidental trajectory had propelled them to.

Lancaster needs to look to the very values that made him the right man in the right place all those months ago. His grounded, back to basics approach and rigorous attention to disciplining the out of control England set up. Frankly this astral nonsense that he has allowed himself to be carried away with: flying half way around the world for a rugby lesson from teams with vastly more proficient resources to call upon, visiting NZ to "absorb the culture of success" and interrogating Brian Lochore for insight into the AB mindset is an absurd exercise in unchecked self delusion of Woodwardian proportion.

Someone at RFU HQ needs to pull the guy aside and put a flea in his ear: He didn't base his "revolution" in English rugby on whimsy and wishing on a falling star, he did it by grounding a flailing outfit who's collective personality had become so over-blown that it had obscured its own judgement.

""I want to do more work with the players on the culture and identity of England, to talk about it with them and see it grow".

Leave it out Stu. Just get the scrum ready for the new engagement rules, the defense aligned and prepare the back line with some set piece moves.

Are those the same codes ngan? Our direct competitors? I think in amongst all the big words I need a dictionary for, GE stimulates debate and that's good.

Are you seriously backing up that imbecile?

GE also simulates arguments and has zero humility..

However I am not sure why you think teams can't learn from the AB's. What SL says is true- There is possibly no better sporting team(in any sport) like them.. So why can't teams learn from them(from any sport)

This doesn't mean we copy them in any way shape or form.. 

Why do you bring up different codes or competitors?

What does that matter?

Take the compliment that SL has given you and stop scratching your head over it.. Its what coaches do these days. It may not bring anything, it bring one minor thing, it may bring more. BUt so what it isnt a big deal.!

You won't see England doing the Haka anytime soon!!!!

I agree with Ebop. In fact this is what I was going to write the article about originally.

It's a cultural victory for NZ in a massive way that both SA and ENG have given up trying to insist that "their way" is correct and are now openly trying to mimick NZ. Incredible really. Wales acknowledged this a long time ago when they started seeking out NZ coaches exclusively and rather tongue in cheek I fancy coined the term the "Welsh Way" and began apeing NZ looking to break that generations old Hoodoo. 

England were for generations a powerful net exporter of culture. We speak English, play English sports and our systems of government are based in British law and so forth. So for the tide to turn so massively and "mother England" need to start learning from her "children" is quite a reluctantly accepted slap in the face for some - so I understand the anguish directed my way for pointing this out.

The leading indicator of this gradual acceptance that NZ is THE benchmark that must be replicated was the telling "coincidental" selection of the All Black strip that they at the time denied was anything portentious - I suspect that they might have genuinely believed it too! The subconscious often leads the conscious in making these choices. Possibly no coincidence that they then decided to choose Canterbury to make th English strip rather than long time sponsor Nike... England resplendent in a uniform with three kiwis on the jersey did give me a chuckle - the kiwis in the team, three kiwis in the jumper.  It reminded me of when O2 was the sponsor and they came to NZ under Woodward and lost the series 0-2.

Who has said "NZ must be replicated"

and please wallow in your cultural victory- It must make you so proud that you have the recognition from us  .. Awwww its really sweet!

nganboy wrote:Thats not true though ebop. We've learnt from league teams and  I remember something years ago about going to the US to learn from basketballers about jumping.

You guys got to stop taking GE so seriously.

Of course under normal circumstances you're absolutely right, we should ignore him. It's just the tiresome repetitiveness of his anti-English, NH or just anything that isn't Kiwi related wumming that has no end.

He was mildly amusing at first but the record got stuck months ago, you probably don't notice it as you don't come in for it.

His style is just so alien to Rugby and to the Kiwi's I have known over the years......it's just tiresome ,childish and distracting .

I think I have worked it out though.. GE came along in this new even more 'nasty' style after england beat NZ.

This is still the backlash from that one game.. It is almost a year later and he is still reeling from a defeat. Just one defeat in just one sport!! thats all. One sport, One defeat.

I am coming to a conclusion that maybe england should gift NZ a couple of games in the up and coming fixtures just so he doesnt top himself!

I wonder if the influence isn't spreading - with England poised to challenge for the Americas Cup once more having been inspired by Russell coutts on one hand and Dean barker on the other.

If I hear london school kids talking about getting their toggs and jandals on next summer I will know the stream has been entirely reversed.

May as well start supporting England again then eh GE?

London kids dont even know what Rugby is GE!

let alone sailing!!

Well I was wondering. A Dilemma indeed.
For years most of the world have had an "any one but the English" mentality when it comes to sporting losses. Largely this is fuelled by a perception of England as arrogant. But if they're going to openly drop the arrogance and become more likeable and respectful then perhaps that stigma will begin to dissipate?

I wonder if in keeping with lancaster's new respect for NZ rugby and rugby culture we will manage to avoid the usual disgraceful disrespect for the Haka this year at twickenham? And in the English press?

Wow such a chippy rant. Disrespect for the haka? How about kiwi disrespect for the native Maori? Hypocrisy is not a good look.

And if all things English are in such decline, how come your countrymen started a thread titled Sir Shag? If your accolades are British that hardly supports your drivel now does it.

"For years most of the world have had an "any one but the English" mentality"


who is this most of the world?

Disrespect for the native Maori? You mean when the British colonised NZ back in the 1800s?

ebop wrote:Disrespect for the native Maori? You mean when the British colonised NZ back in the 1800s?

Are you actually joking ebop or are you serious?


The ones that colonized the nation live in the nation today- There are now kiwis- not the british!

quinsforever wrote:Wow such a chippy rant. Disrespect for the haka? How about kiwi disrespect for the native Maori? Hypocrisy is not a good look.

And if all things English are in such decline, how come your countrymen started a thread titled Sir Shag? If your accolades are British that hardly supports your drivel now does it.

NZ has its own merit award system, and I imagine the poster who started the Sir Shag thread (whomever he or she may have been) was probably posting tongue-in-cheek.

Now I'm intrigued about this "kiwi disrespect for the native Maori"...what's all that about because I've never heard of it. I'm interested how you think that justifies disrespect for the Haka at Twickenham?

You obviously think I've not been to NZ. I have. Sure blame the uk for the original settlement. The rest is on you.

"I'm interested how you think that justifies disrespect for the Haka at Twickenham?"




strange comment- Every nation disrespects the haka (in fact the english are pretty mellow to it compared to others. Disrespecting the haka is just rugby culture - its what we do!

quinsforever wrote:You obviously think I've not been to NZ. I have. Sure blame the uk for the original settlement. The rest is on you.

Actually most of the remaining issues are direct consequence of the treaty of waitangi when the British army more or less surrendered and asked for a partnership to fight off the Dutch, French and whomever else might arrive - however the English version and Maori version said two completely different things. Most of the issues we have now are traceable to that treacherous British act.

People in England are quite used to the fact we are a small and mostly irrelevant country in global terms these days. Nice to briefly be made to feel like the evil empire - must mean we are not irrelevant to everyone.

I'm not blaming anyone, history is history mate, but you may need to elaborate a bit by what you mean by kiwis disrespecting Maori?

quinsforever wrote:People in England are quite used to the fact we are a small and mostly irrelevant country in global terms these days. Nice to briefly be made to feel like the evil empire - must mean we are not irrelevant to everyone.

David Cameron as Darth Vader; obviously GE is Yoda in the analogy. Speaking in riddles and with small man syndrome.

And that act obviously couldn't have been altered over the following 200 years. Not when that would mean lifting the foot from the throat of the natives.

Yeah come on quins...indulge us. What exactly did you mean?

ebop wrote:I'm not blaming anyone, history is history mate, but you may need to elaborate a bit by what you mean by kiwis disrespecting Maori?

I think it was quite clear you blamed the evil british !

Which off course is complete and utter nonsense

Will direct u to relevant articles once I get to desktop. Would rather quote others than have u pore over what I write, nit-picking, getting all uppity.

good idea quins!! he will just concentrate on a couple of words and create a strawman argument that lasts 15 pages

Ok mate, you've been to NZ so you can educate me about the country I live in by quoting articles.

Articles from your media.

ebop you align yourself with GE . ALL he talks about is england- nothing else(occasionally he says things like- we should ever play against wales,ireland or scotland again)

He is obsessed!
Dont have a pop at someone else that is actually right in the fact that Kiwis have persecuted Mauris for a long time! And you need to stop blaming other nations and accept the responsibility !

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:You obviously think I've not been to NZ. I have. Sure blame the uk for the original settlement. The rest is on you.

Actually most of the remaining issues are direct consequence of the treaty of waitangi when the British army more or less surrendered and asked for a partnership to fight off the Dutch, French and whomever else might arrive - however the English version and Maori version said two completely different things. Most of the issues we have now are traceable to that treacherous British act.

I think it's clear from the missive above that you have a very strong dislike for the English/British (I've no idea how you can be so hypocritical by living here btw!) Do you have British ancestry? Do you not accept that anyone other than the ORIGINAL colonists have any blame or responsibility for the ill treatment of the previous Maori colonists?

its a typical yankee reaction as well tiger. Its kind of typical. We call ourselves M'erican now so no it wasn't our ancestors that killed the Indians!!
Y'all got ta keep hating them evil British!

emack2 wrote:In case it wasn't the usual banter Cyril,I will explain AGAIN I am PC dyslexic,i hold both
GCE and CSE `s in English Literature and Language.
What I write on my Pc makes total sense to me but when it appears on the thread it
is often completely different from what I see whilst typing on my screen.
IF you don`t wish to try and read my post`s it is alright by me I come here to debate
Rugby NOT my prose style.
FRANKLY I`m fed up with people going on about it this is Rugby Blog NOT an examination
in the English Language.
IF you TRY to follow my feeble attempts to try and convey my thoughts here you MAY just
learn something.
That is if you have the required intelligence to understand it.

Sorry, Alan. I'd been to a funeral yesterday and probably wasn't in the best state of mind for coming on here. No hard feelings I hope  

^ how to behave on a forum..

 

I think its time to just ignore everything GE posts- he is like a virus on here

Cyril wrote:

emack2 wrote:In case it wasn't the usual banter Cyril,I will explain AGAIN I am PC dyslexic,i hold both
GCE and CSE `s in English Literature and Language.
What I write on my Pc makes total sense to me but when it appears on the thread it
is often completely different from what I see whilst typing on my screen.
IF you don`t wish to try and read my post`s it is alright by me I come here to debate
Rugby NOT my prose style.
FRANKLY I`m fed up with people going on about it this is Rugby Blog NOT an examination
in the English Language.
IF you TRY to follow my feeble attempts to try and convey my thoughts here you MAY just
learn something.
That is if you have the required intelligence to understand it.

Sorry, Alan. I'd been to a funeral yesterday and probably wasn't in the best state of mind for coming on here. No hard feelings I hope  

Nice one Cyril!....It's called humility GE in case you're wondering.

mystiroakey wrote:^ how to behave on a forum..

 

I think its time to just ignore everything GE posts- he is like a virus on here

Well he wont be banned unless he has another go at a blogger or a Mod so that would be the way to go I guess. Starve him of the fuel he craves.

The problem is getting everyone on board because the more or longer he's ignored the more outrageous the posts will become  

It's about this sort of time where wums need to disappear and turn back up under a different name pretending to be a different nationality before slowly turning back...wait a minute. I have a strange sense of deja vu.

tigerleghorn wrote:Quote Cyril

"Actually, I'm probably just being tetchy as I'm sick and tired of the mods doing nothing whatsoever about GE. Seems he only gets a warning if he has a nasty dig at SA (and NH sides and their people are fair game for his unpleasantness).

Think I'll give this forum a miss from now on. GE (and his previous accounts) has been allowed to spoil it as much as he wants."

I agree 100%with everything here and was reprimanded by a Mod for suggesting the same re GE.

I am in the same boat as you guys. Personally, I've always thought it makes a mockery of the alleged house rules when a banned user is allowed to return anyway, but then when one posts with a sole intention of getting under people's skin it makes things more irritating.

Of course, we are the problem though as we are "too sensitive".

Let's get back on topic. Has Lancaster taken a wrong turn? Has he run out of technical ideas and now focussing too much on soft skills? Or do England really still have environmental/attitude issues?

To me it's quite patronising to players to suggest they don't understand  the significance of playing for their country or value the jersey appropriately. Can you wholesale import a "winning culture"? Or do you need to evolve your own?

No, no and no for me. Did you notice any of this when you were supporting England?

surely you can't keep missing context in everything to this extent(are you autistic or something?)

No one is suggesting importing a winning culture. Its learning of a culture to create your own winning culture. You have to win and win and win to create a winning culture!

Exactly my point. Is NZ rugby culture a product if winning consistently? It is winning consistently a product of NZ rugby culture?

Is Lancaster missing the point and putting the cart before the horse? Is he trying to make the tail wag the dog?

lancaster led a successful tour in Argentina winning all their games without their lions players . i say he's on the right track . good set of players , good management and they touring New Zealand next year i believe .

Sl has gone to NZ and had a nice expenses paid trip. He will have checked out accommodation and training camps for the next tour and done the odd media thing or whatever and had a quick look about the NZ structure and thats it! The rest is just waffle- he may have learnt something he may not.

I dont think he is suggesting we need to be possesed by hobbits to get up to a 90% win rate

And the fact is we will never ever have the kiwi or even welsh passion for rugby union. It isn't our no.1 sport and i can't see it over taking football in my lifetime.. It doesnt mean we can't become no.1 again though .We have enough toffs over here to compete

The all blacks do do a lot to define NZ and on the whole thats positive ..

Sadly the england football team in the past has tended to define our country as well. Our fans are nothing like what they used to be , but we still have a bad rep for the past!

I think GE is simply just bored out of his mind.

Let's discus the chicken or the egg first?

Cutting to the Chase England under Stuart Lancaster has restored pride to England and
has been very consistent in the 6Ns.
His side claimed a huge scalp beating the All Blacks proving no side is unbeatable and
the belief was there pre-match.
What does it matter IF England lose there next 5 matches to the All Blacks that doesn't
affect the RWC.
England have by far the hardest Group,any two of the three Tier 1 sides could go thru
from that one.
You could even lose two matches and finesse progress on points difference or tries
scored as France proved.
The All Blacks will almost certainly win there Group unbeaten it would be a major
upset if it is not the case.
Assuming both sides qualify England would on current form almost certainly reach
the Final being on the easier side of the draw[both winning there Groups]
IF they fail to win there group they would probably have to beat both NZ and SA
BEFORE the final.
IF they get another Final its anyones guess RWC`s are funny things and never pan
out as the armchair pundit figures.
Maybe this time France will go all the way or Wales why not?they all have the same
chance.

Emack you totally changed the whole debate.,


Its completely off topic but....


Well done and I agree with you!

as promised gentleman. all these links were on the first google search i ran.

3 pieces from the fairly obviously anti-maori lobbies (for the non-kiwis, "pakeha" means white), and 1 from the maori perspective. they are all quite long. to use the links below you need to put the httpwwwbits in front as i cant post links yet. i also pasted the conclusion from the maori piece as the whole article is pretty long.

kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/i-am-pakeha-and-i-am-oppressed/

pakehaparty.com/author/t8/

whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/newint/maori.html

maorinews.com/writings/papers/other/protest.html



"Conclusion

It is only through a critical assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and effectiveness of the various strategies for Maori liberation, and the groups that wage them, that we can hope to build the strongest possible movement. One of the most significant developments in the evolution of Maori political activism since the late 1960s has been the increasing use of culture and identity as a strategy for dealing with Maori disadvantage and perceived powerlessness. This has been the dominant ideology in the Maori nationalist movement since the early 1980s. However, cultural nationalism is not a primordial phenomenon that constitutes the only authentic strategy for dealing with Maori disadvantage. Rather Maori cultural nationalism is a relatively recent phase in Maori political development, which has, as this paper shows, embraced a considerable variety of political strategies, campaigns and participants.

The recent upsurge in Maori political activism following the Sealords deal and the fiscal envelope proposal has exposed the failure of cultural nationalist strategies to provide a real solution to Treaty of Waitangi grievances and Maori disadvantage in wider society. Indeed, while the cultural nationalist emphasis on the rediscovery of Maori identity was something to be welcomed, the rediscovery of culture as an end in itself and a substitute for far reaching social change has been a disaster.

Cultural nationalist strategies have done nothing to change the material reality for the vast majority of Maori. Thus, while a few corporate warriors, tribal executives, and middle class Maori professionals have benefited form the narrow pro-business agenda of the New Right, the Employment Contracts Act, the benefit cuts, user-pays education and health have all impacted most severely on working class Maori whanau. By failing to challenge the underlying power structures in Aotearoa, cultural nationalism cannot provide a solution to the problems that face most Maori.

While culture and identity remain absolutely essential to Maori social well-being, it does not automatically follow that cultural identity alone should provide the organisational basis for the fight against racism and Maori disadvantage. Because identities are blurred and multiple, any fight against Maori oppression must be based upon building the strongest possible liberation movement by uniting different oppressed groups into a common struggle. This is essential because true liberation for Maori will not occur without a fundamental transformation of capitalist society and the creation of a classless society in which there is real women's liberation, gay and lesbian liberation, and freedom from racism. It is not necessary to actually experience a particular form of oppression in order to fight against it, any more than it is necessary to be destitute in order to fight poverty (Smith 1994: 4). All those struggling for a better society can learn to recognise and identify with those facing particular oppressions and can be enlisted as common allies in the struggle."

What's your point again?