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.

mystiroakey wrote:Its about time unions stopped effectively blocking players from playing abroad its a nonsense outdated communist style system anyway.

Its very yucky, ANy player that plays in any league should be able to play for his home nation!

How is it communist?!

I am not doing that with you again dude.interprete it anyway you want to. Try and work out the point over the semantics. Or just let it go over your head.

Cuba is a place I have visited a few times and I love it. However no one is allowed to leave their country if they are a national. And they do not work on a free economy system. The point of communism is to produce a self sufficient economy without a free market place. There are parallels with rugby unions unions..

Nonsense nonsense. I work with  Cuban national, and Cuba were represented at the Olympics. They come and go. Also the freedom to leave your country has nothing to do with communism.

Yes thats right GG.

Everything you said totally invalidates my points. Why dont you spend your time wiser and speak to someone that doesn't spout nonsense?

GE

you ever been to Cuba??? I have myself... they can't just come and go etc. Don't make it out to be so. Sure their athletes can go abroad.... but their are probably strict consequences for any defections... perhaps not to them but probably to their families.

Fa dont educate him. I would rather the world and his dog just reads his nonsense..

it reminds me of the Sean Penn scene in Team America

"Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles".

It is funny that he brings up the olympics and sporting teams as a fact for his argument though!.. I think the last time they played a football game to try and qualify for  the footy olympic tourny all they players legged it to the home office(or equivalent) in the states and tried to get political asylum so they wouldn't have to go home!!

 

GloriousEmpire wrote:Nonsense nonsense. I work with  Cuban national, and Cuba were represented at the Olympics. They come and go. Also the freedom to leave your country has nothing to do with communism.

 

GF, Woodward had a good number of emerging players that were still of quality post RWC but look was hardly on their side. Abbott and Smith who were being groomed as the new centre combo were terribly misused before injury blighted their careers (Smith on the wing when he was the best OC in the prem was a horrific mistake by Robinson).

Woodman retired as did Thompson removing two thirds of our excellent front row well before their time with the Fun Bus also retiring we were short but with Rowntree White and Vickery we were hardly short at prop. Grewcock, Kay and Shaw were all there, Ellis came through to challenge Dawson and we still had our back three in tact. Wilko being plagued by injuries certainly didn't help matters but the biggest issue post Woodward was the incompetent Robinson, a fine coach but his spectacular lack of vision left him ill equipped for the top job.

fa0019 wrote:GE

you ever been to Cuba??? I have myself... they can't just come and go etc. Don't make it out to be so. Sure their athletes can go abroad.... but their are probably strict consequences for any defections... perhaps not to them but probably to their families.

Cuba is irrelevant anyway. But yes, I've been there. Which is also irrelevant.

Your argument is a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. You are proposing that A implies B necessitates that B implies A. For which you'd need to apply Bayes Theorem. Which you haven't.

To say "Cuba is communist. Cubans don't enjoy freedom of movement. Therefore communism denies freedom of movement." Is just as invalid as saying "the sky is blue. My suede shoes are blue. Therefore my blue suede shoes are the sky."

It's just logically invalid. Not to mention that your proposition is geopolitically incorrect.

I worked it out- You are actually insane!

Thanks for clearing it up dude!

If acting rationally in an irrational world is insanity, then I'm insane.

rationally - YOU?

Well one of us is critiquing (accurately I might add) flagrant abuses of logic whilst the other is spouting the former whilst drawing wildly inaccurate political metaphors. It sounds like one of us is on a slippery slope. Have you checked the definition of Aspergers syndrome at all? If you find yourself about to reposte that you're correct because Jesus appeared in your closet and told you so, then seek help.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well one of us is critiquing (accurately I might add) flagrant abuses of logic whilst the other is spouting the former whilst drawing wildly inaccurate political metaphors. It sounds like one of us is on a slippery slope. Have you checked the definition of Aspergers syndrome at all? If you find yourself about to reposte that you're correct because Jesus appeared in your closet and told you so, then seek help.

GE, you are farting in the wind.

if you think that by applying rules of logic (Bayes does probability not logic amigo by the way) to your own mis-statements of what you choose to assume someone meant, then i think you may even have followed through on the fart a little...yuck.

how embarrassing.

My point in Bayes is that you could easily deduce the probability and correlation between communist states and restriction on freedom of movement to prove mathematically that they're not a logical tautology. Logic of course, being a mathematical study where probability is binary certainty or impossibility.

He has misquoted me before as he has again and then builds a strawman around it. Its a good tactic i suppose if thats your motivation to come on a forum!! But i pity him and thats the reality of it!

"I am not doing that with you again dude.interprete it anyway you want to. Try and work out the point over the semantics. Or just let it go over your head. 

Cuba is a place I have visited a few times and I love it. However no one is allowed to leave their country if they are a national. And they do not work on a free economy system. The point of communism is to produce a self sufficient economy without a free market place. There are parallels with rugby unions unions.."


my comment above 


his mis quotation and interpretation




""Cuba is communist. Cubans don't enjoy freedom of movement. Therefore communism denies freedom of movement." "


I truly cant be bothered with this dude anymore..

I didn't misquote you - you shifted your argument from communism to Cuba and then countries that restrict freedom of movement all bizarrely confused with countries that do not offer economic or social freedom.

I would say stick to rugby, but I think there are just as many mind gaps going on there fom what I've read

This IS a Rugby forum right?.....only it sounds like the arguments my two boys would have before they left Primary School.  

Sadly there is one common denominator in all of these wum posts but same old same old I guess

GloriousEmpire wrote:My point in Bayes is that you could easily deduce the probability and correlation between communist states and restriction on freedom of movement to prove mathematically that they're not a logical tautology.

your point was you thought you could dig your way out of a pile of self-poop by using fanciful terms to intimidate/impress.

oakey gave you an example of a communist type nation which does indeed restrict freedom of movement. no more, no less. he made no a priori statements or assumptions about the tautological validity of communism countries always restricting movements. that was you when you started trying to dig.

i would put the rusty logical/metaphysical tools away if i were you.

He may have done - but as I pointed out. Such arguments are merely invalid argument techniques for the reasons I stated.

GE, if you were as well read and intelligent as you try to lead us to believe, you wouldn't spend, or have time to spend, as much time on here as you do chap.

Why so? Are "well read" people excluded from discussion about rugby?

I only have two points to make GE
1) If the props aren't playing to the new engagemant rules at there clubs they should be nowhere near the England set up. It should not be up to Lancaster to teach basic skills, his job is to pick players from separate teams who have the ability to play together and help them gel
2) Getting back line running set peice moves is pointless it might work for under 12s but very few tries are scored off first phase possecion. A team that runs moves off first phase will get bogged down and end doing pick and go's from the ruck before kicking a ball over the defense in hope. Now who does that sound like!!!! Instead get the players recycling the ball quickly, move point of attack and running lines on later phases

Surely all this assumes Lancaster knew the plot in the first place?

Anyway, anyway, is anyone willing to wager Exeter’s Rob Baxter as the next England coach?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Why so? Are "well read" people excluded from discussion about rugby?

Look chap, your whole raison d'etre (on here at least) is to wind up as many members as possible, Kiwis excluded.

It's clear you have an extensive knowledge of Rugby but you can't help being confrontational and controversial, god knows why.

Your return to these boards after an enforced absence under the name "Glorious Empire" perfectly illustrates in your own sarcastic way your disrespect for the English on here, hell, you even managed to get our Celtic friends wound up over your "English arrogance". Thankfully you soon dropped the facade in order to keep having a pop at us.

A couple of posters tried to debate with you over Cuba from a first hand perspective and guess what?..You've been there too!

I'm really interested to know what you get out of all the wumming, are you too getting a little tired of it?

If this dude is the infamous GG then its sad to see he has lost his humour, I used to actually kind of like him in many of his personas!!

But then i do understand why he cant just drop it(he has never ever been able to- like a dingo with a baby when he puts his mind to it!)

More  twaddle.

How the OP is still peddling his xenophobic bile on the boards is difficult to fathom.

mystiroakey wrote:If this dude is the infamous GG then its sad to see he has lost his humour, I used to actually kind of like him in many of his personas!!

But then i do understand why he cant just drop it(he has never ever been able to- like a dingo with a baby when he puts his mind to it!)

"If"?..You're right mate, that humour has been replaced with this more abrasive approach.

tigerleghorn wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:If this dude is the infamous GG then its sad to see he has lost his humour, I used to actually kind of like him in many of his personas!!

But then i do understand why he cant just drop it(he has never ever been able to- like a dingo with a baby when he puts his mind to it!)

"If"?..You're right mate, that humour has been replaced with this more abrasive approach.

I think there is only one GG. After he came along they broke the mold - and you can understand why

"Wallowing in the Glory" utter rubbish was it?two coaches with better results than SCW over
there first 15 matches dumped.Good players with better all round games than JW rubbished
because they weren't him.Letting the Media appoint a great player as a Coach who was`nt
qualified at any level.Look at your papers and 606 over the last 10 years,the number of
false dawns ,the new Jonnie etc.You talk as if England were the only team to lose most of there top players.The All Blacks lost the best part of a team post2003,a whole squad 2007
2004 lost the 3Ns on bonus points won then won it 2005/6/7/10/12/13.England have more
money ,facilities,players than an y other country.IF they had given the Coaches the support
SCW enjoyed England with patience may have been it was in 2003.SCW was the first coach
to enjoy money know object,League style Coaches for backs/forwards/kicking/fitness etc.
he was a great MANAGER as opposed to a coach.Lancaster has worked hard at all levels
is building a side which may match SCW`s sides achievements.IRB number 3 is a big
achievement,a win in AI`s versus the AB`s and a cleansweep there they would probably be
IRB number one.The RWC is NOT the be all and end all,you are NOT an inferior side if you
fail to win one or have a winners medal.DON`T tell me England fans haven't taunted Wales
fans over it,DESPITE Wales achieving 3 Grand Slams in 5 years.Being thecurrent 6Ns
champions and have an almost identical record of trophies and matches head to head.
Lancaster is a good Coach,doing a good job I`m as big a supporter of England/Scotland
as most here.EXCEPT when the play the All Blacks I`m objective in my comments and
DON`T rubbish other sides.I was one of the first to congratulate England on there AB win
wondering if they can repeat the dose in the AI`s.Especially if it means an unbeaten year
for them 2 losses is the norm and 3rd Bledisloe and England/France have won on several
occasions.Not forgetting Ireland who are always capable of a surprise result.

It saddens me to read an Anglo-Scot write stuff like that (if I could read it properly that is!).

Use paragraphs and punctuation, man!

Cyril wrote:It saddens me to read an Anglo-Scot write stuff like that (if I could read it properly that is!).

Use paragraphs and punctuation, man!

Leave it out mate. Nobody needs an English lesson to post on here. Lets leave the unpleasantness to gloriousghost.

tigerleghorn wrote:

Cyril wrote:It saddens me to read an Anglo-Scot write stuff like that (if I could read it properly that is!).

Use paragraphs and punctuation, man!

Leave it out mate. Nobody needs an English lesson to post on here. Lets leave the unpleasantness to gloriousghost.

I'm not being unpleasant and it's not about spelling, grammar or anything like that. Honest

It's not difficult to just put in a few spaces and paragraphs with capital letters so people can read your posts better. It's common courtesy surely?

The bit of the post that grinds my gears is an Anglo-Scot telling us that even though his first team is NZ he still supports England/Scotland as much as the rest of us.

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.

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.

Nice one Cyril,nice one son,nice one Cyril lets have another one.
If you had a brain you`d be dangerous: 

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.

Keep it up emack! You're a voice of reason!

But back on topic. If Lancaster squanders this chance by getting all Woodward with his middle management paffle instead of getting on with his job and he loses the six games he's organised against the All Blacks and has to lead a broken and disconsolate team into 2015, will he be replaced with the caretaker clause pulled on him?

GloriousEmpire wrote:But back on topic. If Lancaster squanders this chance by getting all Woodward with his middle management paffle instead of getting on with his job and he loses the six games he's organised against the All Blacks and has to lead a broken and disconsolate team into 2015, will he be replaced with the caretaker clause pulled on him?

why are you so worried about this anyway? if you felt your precious ABs had nothing to fear from the england setup i'm pretty sure you'd just keep quiet, quietly confident in your team carrying the day. i dont think you're a WUM per se, just insecure and chippy. hard to distinguish the two generally, but the giveaway is your attack on Lancaster even broaching rugby culture, as really that's the key long term differentiator that the ABs have in their favour....

GloriousEmpire wrote:But back on topic. If Lancaster squanders this chance by getting all Woodward with his middle management paffle instead of getting on with his job and he loses the six games he's organised against the All Blacks and has to lead a broken and disconsolate team into 2015, will he be replaced with the caretaker clause pulled on him?

No one knows dude..

but if he does a woodward and wins the RWC we will be happy and you will be suicidal!

Yeah I was just thinking that Woodward's record vs NZ wasnt exactly that bad.

I love this article  
Best in along while, surely the admin team could sort out a character of PSY dancing so we can now use it on Stuart Lancaster threads.

Lancaster does try to come across all the thinking mans coach i find it offensive with a Northern accent!!! talk about pie and chips! Lancaster,
the whole Aristotle look don't suite you.

He sure is a fan...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/9284137/All-Blacks-the-benchmark-for-all-sports-teams

Is this whole thing a crisis of confidence? The top teams like the ABs and SA don't imitate anyone. They march to their own beat, like England 2002/03, they 'knew' what they were about and didn't give a hoot what others did.

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.