THE NUCLEAR BOMBER OPTION

First topic message reminder :


I was recently challenged on another tread along the lines that I would prefer for England to lose games as if it were a means to removing Lancaster. I countered that I want England to win each and every game and thus the world cup.

However the reason for writing this thread is 'What if England loses all 3 of their SANZAR games this autumn' and lose each poorly showing little direction, passion and are generally clueless? I'm not talking about close losses or games in which we play 100% and learn learn learn but lose by 15 points, where performance wins out over result. No I'm talking about bloody disasters.

So if this were to come to pass where would YOU stand, what would YOUR opinion be with regards to Lancaster’s future? Would you see it as another blip along the long road to success in 2019 or would you consider that we cannot continue as we are and to do so would be a mistake, and therefore would you be prepared to remove Lancaster now, this December?

Now you might think less than a year before our own World Cup to remove your DoR (and the existing coaches) would be madness and anyway who is there that would replace him?

Well my answer would be to go to the Premiership clubs requesting that they provide the coaches on an ongoing part time basis up to the end of the 2015 WC.

I would happily support the following pool of coaches led by Jim Malinder;

Baxter
Diamond
Gustard
King
Ford
O'Shea

Obviously this is a hypothetical question, however given we are less than 4 weeks from facing the All Blacks and there is now no excuses left for Lancaster, what would your decision be, WOULD YOU DROP THE BOMBER?

So how come wilko played for England while at Toulon?

It's obviously not a rule. And once exceptions are made it's not even a policy it's just an excuse.

quinsforever wrote:So how come wilko played for England while at Toulon?

It's obviously not a rule. And once exceptions are made it's not even a policy it's just an excuse.

Quinsforever, he went to Toulon before the rule came into effect, same as Palmer and Haskell to various French clubs. It would be unfair to penalise someone for breaking a rule that didn't exist when the signed their Contracts. He still made sure that he was available for all England training camps as well as the international windows as well.

Well my answer would be to go to the Premiership clubs requesting that they provide the coaches on an ongoing part time basis up to the end of the 2015 WC.

I can't tell if you're being funny, living in your own world or just idiotic with this idea.

quinsforever wrote:So how come wilko played for England while at Toulon?

Players were told the policy would come into effect after the World Cup:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/dec/02/overseas-based-england-rugby-players-warning

quinsforever wrote:So how come wilko played for England while at Toulon?

It's obviously not a rule. And once exceptions are made it's not even a policy it's just an excuse.

He moved before the rule, as did Armitage, but Armitage has signed an extension knowing full well the repercusions.

No 7&1/2 wrote:...as did Armitage..

No he didn't.

Toulon announced they had signed Armitage in April 2011, That's four months after the RFU told players they would introduce the policy following the World Cup. The reason the RFU notified players early, is so they could take the policy into account when considering overseas contract offers.

I think it's fair to say that Armitage might not have realized how serious this policy would be. There were overseas players in Johnson's 2011 World Cup squad and it was difficult to believe that none would be selected in the future. There was also the "exceptional circumstances" clause which seemed it might leave the door open for anyone playing well.

However, he did know how serious this policy was when he re-signed for Toulon in 2013. Again, he might have reasonably thought that winning trophies and player awards would constitute exceptional circumstances but no-one in the England set-up would have told him that.

Its all a bit chicken and egg. Had he been an established international and an important part of the team things may have been different, but he wasnt.

He may be a better player than when he left but he is now outside of the system.

I don't care if he is outside the "system".

PRL works very well in terms of English players, currently running at 70+%. And most of them aren't in the EPS. The reason clubs play and pay so many is because they get direct RFU funding to do so. That is a great incentive.

Additionally banning overseas players from playing is stupid. In other leagues, there is always the chance for players to develop and improve in ways which they were not capable of in the English league. What we are limiting ourselves to is not only AP players, but AP systems, tactics and game-habits. That is not good heading into a RWC.

I think Armitage has been built up to more than he is now anyway. Doubt he would break into our 1st choice back row.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think Armitage has been built up to more than he is now anyway. Doubt he would break into our 1st choice back row.

Yep - which takes us back to a whole set of arguments which have been done to death.

But he should at least be given the chance to break into the squad. Would have no problem if he was included in the squad, trained with the squad and then didn't get picked. That is what coaches are for. But let's not hide behind a policy.

It's a pretty good policy though for the English game.

When I read this thread I'd have sworen that 95% of fans want rid of Lancaster. But then the actual vote results at the top have 95% of posted wanting to keep him. Which is closer to the truth. Personally I'd've thought he was doing a good job rebuilding the 'mare of a squad he inherited. If you got rid of him after the AIs then a new coaching set up (whether dedicated or a mix-bag of part timers) would have how many games before the start of the RWC to bet in, sort out strategy, sort out players, sort out style (5 games in the 6Ns and a couple of summer tests?). No, that would have needed to be done at least 12 months ago to be feasible for a new coaching ticket to properly take a run at the RWC. The colours have been nailed to the mast and this needs to be played through now to conclusion.

The colours have been nailed to the mast and this needs to be played through now to conclusion

The conclusion being a semi final appearance....at the VERY best!

It's an irrelevant policy for the English game

RFU incentive payments for eq players, and eps agreed
Limits of 30 games per season are what is making the difference. And language barrier.

About the same number of English players are in France now as before the "policy" came in. And I would argue each was an "exceptional" case because like wilko, flood, armitage, Haskell, etc, they had very specific, differing reasons why they went.

quinsforever wrote:It's an irrelevant policy for the English game

RFU incentive payments for eq players, and eps agreed
Limits of 30 games per season are what is making the difference. And language barrier.

About the same number of English players are in France now as before the "policy" came in. And I would argue each was an "exceptional" case because like wilko, flood, armitage, Haskell, etc, they had very specific, differing reasons why they went.

But only one is being talked about as a potential international.

That proves my point. Those who go, go for good reasons.

There was no huge drift of players to France BEFORE the policy was introduced. And it is roughly the same number there since.

Ie it's irrelevant in terms of effectiveness, although very relevant in terms of losing the ability to select a truly world class turnover merchant, without gaining anything positive on the flip side.

Is he world class? Not sure would nt displace Robshaw for me. The only positive with the policy is you see who wants the money and who wants to give themselves the best chance for England recognition. As lost says its all been done.

quinsforever wrote:That proves my point. Those who go, go for good reasons.

Sorry, but how does that prove your point?

The RWC 2011 squad had four foreign based players in it. Now we're talking about potentially selecting one. Other players like Thompson, Balshaw and Erinle had been selected while playing in France. I'd say that does the opposite of proving your point.

Ben Morgan probably would have stuck with Scarlets if it weren't for the policy that he had to move back for his next contract to play for England.

yappysnap wrote:

Well my answer would be to go to the Premiership clubs requesting that they provide the coaches on an ongoing part time basis up to the end of the 2015 WC.

I can't tell if you're being funny, living in your own world or just idiotic with this idea.

My point is, what is the alternative to hanging on to a dead duck of a coaching panel?

What do you do, do you let them ruin our 6 nations campaign as well as our home nation world cup opportunity?

Ozy has just acted decisively so why can't we?

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Nonsense, our front row is on the verge of total collapse. If either Wilson or Marler go down then we're sunk.

I can assure you that in Brookes we have a quality player should Wilson go down.
Even the much maligned Henry Thomas has done fine when he's come on for England. He's been a round the squad a good while now and is learning well at Bath.

As to the LH side, Mullan will not let anyone down and Waller is a cracker.

I have faith in the front row options. They might not be destructive like a Cole / Corbs partnership but they will do fine.

Also dont forget the whole pack is not geared up to be a devastatingly destructive scrum - (the second rows are not the best scrummaging locks we have for example). It built to win on its own ball and make it awkward on theirs...after that its all about being mobile etc hitting rucks etc.

Cheers GeordieFalcon, I hope you're right because I cannot see Marler and Wilson either starting or let alone surviving all 4 games. And lets face it the front row is where it all begins.

kingelderfield wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Well my answer would be to go to the Premiership clubs requesting that they provide the coaches on an ongoing part time basis up to the end of the 2015 WC.

I can't tell if you're being funny, living in your own world or just idiotic with this idea.

My point is, what is the alternative to hanging on to a dead duck of a coaching panel?

What do you do, do you let them ruin our 6 nations campaign as well as our home nation world cup opportunity?

Ozy has just acted decisively so why can't we?

... Tumbleweed...

For me it's simple. With Armitage we have a chance of winning RWC. Without him, zero. Rugby is all about pressure in attack and defense. And if you can only really exert pressure in 1 (or really none unfortunately given our untested backline) then you will not beat team who excel in either or both.

We don't win pens from scrum

Our line out is notoriously vulnerable

Let's put it this way...

We may have quality enough in every position to beat all the NH sides, but we don't have enough quality in any single position to beat a SH side

Armitage is a game winner if you play him the right way. Hines reckons he is worth 9 points per game.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

Poorfour wrote:quinsforever, the policy is an RFU policy that predates Ritchie and Lancaster. It was introduced with the EPS agreement in 2008. Ritchie has publicly stated that the RFU intends not to make an exception: Telegraph

Oh that's ok then.

I don't know how far you go back Poorfour, but I can recall from Dudley Wood onwards the number of monumental rfu balls up's that have disfigured the game in england. So just stop this ridiculous rfu love in will you, for every good thing they've achieved there are far more black marks.

Now Ritchie appears a good man, agreed. He dosn't appear to be a fool and when he see's the cash flow tail off due to the appalling results delivered by the national team he will soon come to realise that old bomber nolonger is the man. The question IS not IF but WHEN will the axe fall.

Unlucky with injuries, yes, but no real potent game plan, poor selection stratergy....you make your own luck.

King we all know that you hate SL with a vengeance, did he spurn you at birth or something, but you are like by 5 year old grandson in your exaggerations.

SL's record is not appalling, especially when you look at t he state of English rugby when he took over, it is on average probably the best in the 6N. What is it, 2 6N lost on points difference and a second place. His record against SH sides is the best in the NH with a number of wins over Aus , a win against the AB and some close run games; only SA are yet to fall under his reign. Better than any of his predecessors for a number of years, probably have to go back to SCW to better it and he had a once in a lifetime set of players to manage.

The RFU get the majority of their money from gate receipts, as virtually every England game is oversubscribed by a factor of 10, I doubt if we will see a fall in revenue there. All games are contracted to be televised for the foreseeable future, therefore the sponsorship will continue to roll in.

You are becoming worse than the old wummers that periodically get kicked off the board, always the same subject, always the same extreme views that very few people agree with, always the same subject. Perhaps you should join UKIP, some of your comments make about as much sense as theirs.

Look you maybe happy with mediocrity but I most certainly am not. 2nd place is last place as far as I am concerned. There is NO REASON whatsoever that we should not be the equal of the best sides in world rugby. I want to see passion, inteligence, ambition and execution and if I have to break a few eggs to make my point then so be it!

The rfu is no better than many institutions in this country in that it has crossed the line on many occasions to be come a self serving money making operation that has lost sight of its reason for being. There is no doubt in my mind that england being number 1 in world rugby should be their 1st priority, but that is obviously not the case.

Should we have a profitable world cup or a winning world cup? Ofcourse the two are not mutually exclusive, however it is patently obvious that the decision has been made to focus on the profit with nothing more than a passing glance given to what should be our priority of a winning national team.

Lancaster is nothing but a fall guy.

yappysnap wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

Well my answer would be to go to the Premiership clubs requesting that they provide the coaches on an ongoing part time basis up to the end of the 2015 WC.

I can't tell if you're being funny, living in your own world or just idiotic with this idea.

My point is, what is the alternative to hanging on to a dead duck of a coaching panel?

What do you do, do you let them ruin our 6 nations campaign as well as our home nation world cup opportunity?

Ozy has just acted decisively so why can't we?

... Tumbleweed...

Wum off, understood

kingelderfield,

While there are many (myself included) who have some misgivings about Lancaster's selection policy and some of the coaching team's strategy does it not strike you as a bit odd that you seem to be the only one wholly unhappy and, frankly, openly hostile in regard to the current situation?

There is, of course, room for improvement but you're advocating a complete upheaval of the coaching staff in the hope that it can suddenly elevate England to the level (or above) of SA and NZ in time for the World Cup.

Now you may just have infinitely higher standards than most on here (and yes, with the resources available England should high standards) but it seems a bit odd that you are currently expecting 'appalling results'. In Lancaster's tenure so far we've had the Wales 6Ns game in 2013 and, possibly, the final summer test in NZ this year that fit into that category.

In a way I have to admire your lone wolf attitude towards England and your antipathy towards Lancaster is certainly admirably relentless. I just think that when you're the only one with a certain opinion it's sometimes worth asking why.

Out in the wilderness a lone voice is heard

'...there shall, in that time, be *rumors* of things going astray, errrm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things wi - with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment. At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock. Yea, it is written in the book of Cyril that...

That proves my point. Those who go, go for good reasons.

If you look at SH players who go to France, they usualy do so because their International career is over.

May be the likes of Flood, Armatage ( both) could be the reason they went to France.

Because they was being left out of the England set up, they thought there days of playing for England are in the past.

yes obviously. johnston made it clear to armitage he was not preferred over decrepit but trusted warhorses who played previously with MJ.

maybe, with new coaches, Armitage fancied he might have a shot, and part of the motivation for his amazing performances in the last 18 months was that he might get given that shot.

if there is one learing from this whole "policy" screw-up, it's not to let selection be down to someone who played with active players. not MJ's fault. crap RFU mgmt should never have given him the job then. In trouble, who is he going to turn to but the players he knows and trusts?

this is why SArmitage is now out in the cold. lets not compound errors cause by allowing MArtyn Thomas monumental screw-ups to have a legacy throughout english rugby.

What on earth has alleged nepotism by MJ got to do with Armitage and the French policy? Armitage wasn't that good when he was in England, particularly on his few international appearances. The unfortunate ones in the back row in RWC 2011 were Wood and Robshaw.

Even if you accept the premise that Armitage left because of poor selection, that doesn't explain why he didn't come back when his contract renewal was up, when his stock was high and the England management had changed. He's in France of his own doing, knowing what the selection policy was. 

Regardless of the merits of the policy itself, which I happen to agree with, selecting him would be deeply unfair on those who've sacrificed the chance to earn $$$ in France in order to compete for their England spot. Ben Morgan left the club that made him what he is because of the policy. Imagine if he then lost his place to someone playing abroad. 

Armitage can make his own choices, and good luck to him and all, but I'd be very disappointed if Lancaster selected him as things stand.

armitage didnt sacrifice his england shirt in order to earn $$$. he isnt even close to one of the top earners at Toulon.

he wasnt like wilko in the salary he commanded when moving there from LI where he had fallen out with the coaching staff, and it wasnt as if he was perceived as a world class international player back then either. he was hardly "cashing in".

the reality is, people go abroad for very personal reasons. and going to france is a big hurdle for most players in many respects. less of a hurdle for armitage given he speaks fluent french and grew up there.

ireland do not have the same silly policy in place that we do. and how many players have they lost to France? 1. Sexton. And he's going back to ireland next year. and has his game been improved by the experience of playing in a vastly different setup? his performances for ireland in the 6Ns would suggest yes (i know the leinsterfans disagree but thats for another thread).

the policy is a joke. if players go overseas they know it is going to make selection harder, as coaches would always prefer to select players they can easily monitor and have a hand in training, conditioning, etc. there is no need for a "policy". the AP pays players very well.

if Ben Morgan is displaced by Armitage thats fine with me. i dont care about fairness in applying policies. i only care about getting the team most likely to win RWC onto the pitch. If armitage wont even be considered then that is just dumb.

When he signed his contract extension did he know it would mean less chance of being selected?

Cyril wrote:kingelderfield,

While there are many (myself included) who have some misgivings about Lancaster's selection policy and some of the coaching team's strategy does it not strike you as a bit odd that you seem to be the only one wholly unhappy and, frankly, openly hostile in regard to the current situation?

There is, of course, room for improvement but you're advocating a complete upheaval of the coaching staff in the hope that it can suddenly elevate England to the level (or above) of SA and NZ in time for the World Cup.

Now you may just have infinitely higher standards than most on here (and yes, with the resources available England should high standards) but it seems a bit odd that you are currently expecting 'appalling results'. In Lancaster's tenure so far we've had the Wales 6Ns game in 2013 and, possibly, the final summer test in NZ this year that fit into that category.

In a way I have to admire your lone wolf attitude towards England and your antipathy towards Lancaster is certainly admirably relentless. I just think that when you're the only one with a certain opinion it's sometimes worth asking why.

Cyril,

The thing is I obviously do not suffer fools unless ofcourse they're performing at Stratford. It is painfully clear to me that Stewart Lancaster was appointed above his ability and has exhausted his drawful of HB pencils - I cannot see that he has anything further to offer. The process of his appointment in the first place was a reflection of the standing of the rfu within the rugby community, as in nobody of worth wanted to have anything to do with them.

As to my singular approach to hierarchies, authorities and incompetence therein, well thats just me. I'm very passionate and do appreciate a level of 'Rosebud' about my obsession.

So whats changed in your opinion to make a selection of coaches in the AP want to take the job on on a part time basis? I'm intrigued by your thoughts on Slade, Brown, Wood and the props as well!

Obviously he must have known it meant less chance. As that's the reality of not being in the coaches minds eye.

But I doubt he realised it meant no chance. Irrespective of him winning plaudits, trophies, POTY etc.

Unfortunately this policy is probably the last legacy of the 57 old farts. Ritchie didn't come up with it. Neither did SL. I agree with kingelder that SL was selected partly because he could be controlled. A top class independent coach would not accept armitage being un available and would fight the RFU over it

Have NZ not had a top class independent coach recently?

I don't understand your point. Probably me being dense

NZ have the same rule.

The NZRU do not allow the selection of players outside NZ.

Since the clock change the website has gone funny for me. Telling me there's new updates when there aren't and with the wrong time. Anyone else having issues?

They also have central contracts. And their union owns their clubs. So the differences are greater than 1 common policy. Travel logistics play a part too for NZ. If a player isn't there it's a massive challenge to even contemplate participating in the squad. Not quite the same logistics for us, unless the player is playing in the SH

If Hansen were recruited to the England job on the basis of delivering results, I bet he wouldn't agree to it unless he had total control over selection. Like Gatland in Wales.

There is a thread about the clocks in the top bit

Fact is Quins sometimes very talented players wont get a chance in international rugby. By staying in France SA hasnt improved his chances at all.

Guys no point even discussing it....SA wont play for England again. He doesnt fit the template for a lancaster flanker (6'4, Lean and powerful, 17 - 18 st, Lineout option, al round flanker...Wood, Robshaw, Clark, Haskell, Johnson...is his prefered model.

Even other more "traditional 7's" like Fraser are bigger than Steffon - 6'2, 16.5 st and Kvesic 6'1, 16.5 st.

On a personal note i wouldnt want to see any player parachuted in to the squad for the world cup alone...sends out a bad message, and is unfair on the current players.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Guys no point even discussing it....SA wont play for England again. He doesnt fit the template for a lancaster flanker (6'4, Lean and powerful, 17 - 18 st, Lineout option, al round flanker...Wood, Robshaw, Clark, Haskell, Johnson...is his prefered model.

Even other more "traditional 7's" like Fraser are bigger than Steffon - 6'2, 16.5 st and Kvesic 6'1, 16.5 st.

On a personal note i wouldnt want to see any player parachuted in to the squad for the world cup alone...sends out a bad message, and is unfair on the current players.

Agree with all of these things. In another world in a different setup maybe we would have had a team built around maximising what SA offers, and maybe that might have worked. It also might well not have.

We have a competitive team that is finding its own way of playing, and that is, broadly, playing well. We are way to far down that road to change everything for a 'might work' solution.

I'd just add in passing that I saw somewhere that Brian Ashton has been brought in for a couple of days at the weekend. Pulling in the right experts at the right time is a good sign.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Guys no point even discussing it....SA wont play for England again. He doesnt fit the template for a lancaster flanker (6'4, Lean and powerful, 17 - 18 st, Lineout option, al round flanker...Wood, Robshaw, Clark, Haskell, Johnson...is his prefered model.

Even other more "traditional 7's" like Fraser are bigger than Steffon - 6'2, 16.5 st and Kvesic 6'1, 16.5 st.

On a personal note i wouldnt want to see any player parachuted in to the squad for the world cup alone...sends out a bad message, and is unfair on the current players.

wony play for england again....while SL is manager.

which is why it is being discussed on the thread about bomber's future.

i rather hope he doesnt have a physical template for positions. that would be a rather limiting way of maximising the potential of all the resources you have available.

here's my tactical take on why SA (or anyone who does what he does) is important. it's because the turnover pens he wins (5ft 7in and 16.5 stone makes him virtually unshiftable according to Hines) are worth on average 6-9 points per game. simples. with the current rules at the breakdown that is what SA is worth. It's just like Wales used to pick adam jones for the front row when the scrum rules favoured him winning penalties which 1/2P would then kick from all over the park.

anaylse the rules. identify areas of competitive advantage. exploit and convert into points and wins.

i'm just not sure "lungs" and "heart" (oft touted characteristics of the SL flanker ideal) count for as much in knock-out situations where all sides will be equally motivated.

i am also unconvinced that "safe pairs of hands" (another SL buzzphrase) creates any kind of a meaningful, sustainable competitive advantage.

i do agree that no-one should be brought in just for the world cup though.

they just need to get rid of the policy. that's all. then SA would be available for selection. for the RWC. and for remainder of his playing career (prob another 5 years realistically given the type of game he plays).

Cheers lost.

Armitage won't play for England again while he is in France. Nothing to do with SL, and very unlikely to be something that another coach could change.

The key issues are player release and conditioning. French clubs are not obliged to release English players for England training outside the international window, unless the player has personal terms in his contract to allow it (which Jonny had, and Steffon seemingly hasn't). Another key part of the RFU-PRL agreement is that they England coaches get a say in the EPS players' conditioning regimes, which they don't get in France.

The French club game isn't geared towards preparing players for 80 minutes of high tempo rugby, which is a pre-requisite for how England want to play the game (it's also generally reported by players that any international rugby is a significant step up in pace and intensity even compared to HEC/ERCC). We don't have a monster pack that can just grind weaker teams into submission any more, and it's not at all clear that it would do any good against the SH if we did have one.

That's why "lungs" are mentioned a lot in conjunction with SL's teams in general and his flankers in particular. The gameplan is based on having a pack who can get through a tremendous amount of work in a game and keep doing it for the full 80 minutes or more. It's more about what the players have trained for than anything to do with motivation. If you're not playing and training for that week-in, week-out then you might manage to play that way for a single knockout game, but it's going to be tough to sustain it for a 7 game tournament.