Enough is enough! Bracken tired of England coach Lancaster's excuses

Interesting read and listening, some may not agree with it but there is plenty of truth in there and nice to see someone in the media asking these questions.

 http://talksport.com/rugby-union/exclusive-enough-enough-bracken-tired-england-coach-lancasters-excuses-141111123888

I kinda agree. Lancaster has done a good job in improving England. to be honest thought England were a mess when he took over and he has straightened out the nonsense and made them much more organised. However, he hasnt done anything particularly innovative with this England team and there arent many signs that he has the experience to do so. England are actually really predictable. The problem for teams is that they do what they do really really really well so even if you know what to expect it can still be tough to combat. I dont think you can rely on that too much though.

In any case unless you are Joe Schmidt I dont think long term deals are a good idea.

A lot of truth.

I think alot of England fans are in the same boat...sick of hearing..."well we're nearly there"..."frustration at the result" ...."the lads played with pride in the shirt" etc...

The pack is good.

The backs are a shambles.

The backs comment is very true Geordie. Our tactic is clearly just 'give it to Manu' and without him we seem to have no plan at all. Our refusal to try an other 13 when he is injured just compounds the problem.

I also think it is not helped by the compulsory inclusion of Farrell ad Lancasters failure to give a genuine run out to Burns, Ford or Cipriani.

And i dont mean 10 mins here and there.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I also think it is not helped by the compulsory inclusion of Farrell ad Lancasters failure to give a genuine run out to Burns, Ford or Cipriani.

And i dont mean 10 mins here and there.

trouble is he will never make everyone happy. People are saying he should have a settled team by now and people are saying he should be trying out other players. It doesn't work both ways.

Nathan...

He has had 3 years. You can definately build a settled team...but still experiement in key positions.

We know what Farrell gives. When fit and on form he is a very good player for England.
But now that he is unfit and out of form...we have no deputies.
Tha should not be the case.

Trouble is he still doesn't have either (in the backs).

 He has a settled squad up to a point but especially in the backs he still doesn't have a set line up but also failed to bring depth into the backs imo.

 There are areas like 12 were he has tried out and played Flood, Farrell Barritt, TT, Eastmond and none have massively impressed in the sytem.

 Then there are areas like 13 where he has had Manu, Burrell, Barritt and Tompkins Manu is the standout choice and burrell is solid there despite being a 12 but look what happens when Manu is out.

 Same can be said of 10.

Finally, the rats have risen from the sewer.  It took longer than I thought.

Lancaster creating a side that has a real chance of taking a WC - but not enough for some people who think the only blueprint is mucho success BEFORE the event, like the last England winners.

Quit trying to make the future conform to the bloody past.  Quit getting impatient just before something good might actually happen.  Quit thinking you should be Best in the World before you've proven it.

God, the frustrating thing about observing England and the English media is watching how much raw resources they have, how many of us would die for those resources and then how willfully the 'media' get going on always undermining real progress with this continuing idea that 'we should be world beaters before we're world beaters'

Wait for the WC.  If Lancaster isn't good enough then, so be it - pay him off and be rid of him.  But that's the continuing habit of the impatient English media that ensures the project keeps beginning but never gets time to end.

If Bracken's attitude grows, he'll find friends who come out too - and that's what it will be - a circus of criticism right up to the WC itself and the arrogance that Lancaster should still be expected to perform under that stress of so many saying he shouldn't be there anyway.

We (Irish) have our own frustrating characteristics - but Lord, so do the English with this repeating circus of assumption that No coach is ever good enough in the minds of those who 'think' they should already and always be Best in the world.

Question: Who should take over?

Finally? I have been of this mind of a while and have voiced so on here? Unless your just on about Bracken.

 Look i'm not about Lancaster being kicked before the WC that would cripple us now, but I don't see how this England side has a chance of taking the WC, and that's my point the media are acting like it but the only game we have looked like World champions was that NZ home game in 2012.

 But I do feel Lancaster has taken us as far as we are going to go in terms of performance and I doubt we will get into the final would love to be proven wrong though.

To my mind SL has taken a shambles and produced a pretty decent team with a number of first choice players unavailable. Yes he's conservative and his stubbornness may eventually prove his undoing but judge him after the WC.

Try being a Welsh fan for a minute - 10 losses on the trot to the Aussies and we get "we'll take this away and learn from it" WHEN !!

Welly wrote:Finally? I have been of this mind of a while and have voiced so on here? Unless your just on about Bracken.

 Look i'm not about Lancaster being kicked before the WC that would cripple us now, but I don't see how this England side has a chance of taking the WC, and that's my point the media are acting like it but the only game we have looked like World champions was that NZ home game in 2012.

 But I do feel Lancaster has taken us as far as we are going to go in terms of performance and I doubt we will get into the final would love to be proven wrong though.

Who would you like to take over? Who do you think would now join all the pieces neatly into an effective whole?

Finally, the rats have risen from the sewer. It took longer than I thought.

Id appreciate it if you didt call me a rat again thank you Secret flY!!!

I genuinely do not see us winning the WC and i have said that for 12 months now.

He has done a lot of huge positives but there are still huge question marks in my opinion.
And i have seen no evidence of those questions being answered.

Many keep looking to the return of corbs and Cole for example. Personally whilst id be amazed if Corbs ever played for England again, i think the front row is the least of our problems.

I don't know, but then I don't know:

 1) who is available
 2) What there views would be on the England squad.

 Hell even you said if the WC is poor then get rid of him it would be the same case then.

offload wrote:To my mind SL has taken a shambles and produced a pretty decent team with a number of first choice players unavailable.  Yes he's conservative and his stubbornness may eventually prove his undoing but judge him after the WC.

Try being a Welsh fan for a minute - 10 losses on the trot to the Aussies and we get "we'll take this away and learn from it"      WHEN !!  

Good point. If I was a Wales fan I would be asking for the chop for Gatland.

Also Ireland won their first game v Australia in 23 years after they sacked Gatland. They have won two more since and got a draw.

agreed about the welsh comment I would prob call for Gatland to go considering the last time he beat a top 3 SH team even Leicester has beaten one more recently than Wales.

From a welsh point of view we can not actually afford to ditch Gats due to a stupid length contract.

Also with regards Lancaster I think he still gets a lot of flack that is not truly deserved. He has imporved the English team IMO, and whilst he has not won any titles etc with them, they are looking like a side that could win things. In the RWC, if they topple Aus in the group stage (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) then the confidence from that could very well be the little boast they need to go far in the rwc.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:From a welsh point of view we can not actually afford to ditch Gats due to a stupid length contract.

Also with regards Lancaster I think he still gets a lot of flack that is not truly deserved.  He has imporved the English team IMO, and whilst he has not won any titles etc with them, they are looking like a side that could win things.  In the RWC, if they topple Aus in the group stage (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) then the confidence from that could very well be the little boast they need to go far in the rwc.

What about the Wales game? Thats not a foregone conclusion. England have a really tough group.

Scarlet

There is no doubt he has made big improvments. It is widely ackowledged. But there are other areas that have not improved as much as they should.

Selection and injuries have had a huge influence of that there is no doubt.

Marler has been excellent but losing Corbs was a massive blow for eg.

But he has also made some very poor selections ad his work from the bench is amateurish at times.

With all our player resources SL has started to pick players out of position. This is a sure sign of muddled thinking and lack of faith in other squad members. England were shown up last week for being what they are. A fairly good team that can't beat SH sides. SL must select on form and prey the injury crisis improves. On last weekend performance we won't get out of our WC group.

Farrell epitomises what Lancaster is all about.

He is a strong mobile physical player of limited ability offensively but can tackle and kick well.

That is his template for most positions i think...Like Wood and Launchbury...
They will graft all day.

But when it comes to really playing the best they will get the odd win, but in general they will find themselves an wee bit sort.

i agree with Bracken that contract extensions til 2019 was a very dumb move by the RFU.

what if we dont get out of our group?

I like Lancaster as he seems a grounded and genuine bloke, who inherited a team with no self-discipline and very little confidence and has got them to pull together, Martin Johnson being a classic combination of "wrong person/wrong place/wrong time" - he's helped the domestic game by making sure clubs retain players through supprting the "no overseas based players" stance and has a good understanding of the game overall. In terms of who's available he's still the prime candidate unless you count the offstage ranting for the return of SCW.
On the other hand he plays conservative rugby, seems to play favourites - contrast the handing of Dannys Care and Cipriani, isn't quite sure who his best team are and is sometimes quite poor tactically and in the selection process.
In regard to RWC 2015, England should get out of the group, although whether that's as winners may be a moot point, it might come down to who puts the most points on Fiji and Uraguay. If he comes out of the group as winners they have a reasonable path to the final if they come out second they'll be facing South Africa and it could all go Pete Tong.

quinsforever wrote:i agree with Bracken that contract extensions til 2019 was a very dumb move by the RFU.

what if we dont get out of our group?

They'll pay the expensive buy out clause  Nothing is eternal, quins, even contracts written in stone.  Don't worry about the contract.  The day the RFU don't want Lancaster is the day he's not there no more.

Other than maybe 12 and wingers, Lancaster knows his best team and the strength in depth we have around it.

The problem with 12 is that several have been given opportunities but few have really convinced, not helped by injury-enforced chopping and changing at 13. If Manu can stay fit for an extended period, we can see who is best suited to partner him.

Wing selection has been a combination of players losing form and confidence and badly timed injuries to the next in line options (Wade and Yarde missing the last 6Ns for example). May could cement one spot if he continues to show the pace and good lines as for his try on Saturday (has all the attributes, but the lateral running to probe for gaps may be effective in the AP but will get you nailed in midfield against a top international side). ON the other side, it really is a case of pulling a name from a hat

We're still a year from the WC, and are in a reasonable position to challenge - what we do need though, and the coaches I'm sure are aware of this and doing everything they can to improve the situation, is to stop losing close games such as the France game last 6Ns and the first test in NZ. There's not a huge gulf in ability between the top half dozen teams at the moment, so it is the little things that make a difference.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:From a welsh point of view we can not actually afford to ditch Gats due to a stupid length contract.

Also with regards Lancaster I think he still gets a lot of flack that is not truly deserved.  He has imporved the English team IMO, and whilst he has not won any titles etc with them, they are looking like a side that could win things.  In the RWC, if they topple Aus in the group stage (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) then the confidence from that could very well be the little boast they need to go far in the rwc.

Hase really improved them? Don't get me wrong, they all know what it means to play for England now they've been told by Gary Neville but in terms of performance? Not convinced. He's brought in a load of new guys (something Johnson did as well but that get's forgotten/ignored because he went conservative for the World Cup) but I'm not convinced the performances have really improved. We're still bad in exactly the same areas we've been bad in for years.

Not that I'm saying get rid, I'm a big believer that time is needed, especially in the area that we're week. Injuries in the backs, centres especially, have hampered us sorting things out there. But I certainly don't think he's been great or made massive improvements.

dummy_half wrote:Other than maybe 12 and wingers, Lancaster knows his best team his preferred team and the strength in depth we have around it.

The problem with 12 is that several have been given opportunities but few have really convinced, not helped by injury-enforced chopping and changing at 13. If Manu can stay fit for an extended period, we can see who is best suited to partner him.

Wing selection has been a combination of players losing form and confidence and badly timed injuries to the next in line options (Wade and Yarde missing the last 6Ns for example). May could cement one spot if he continues to show the pace and good lines as for his try on Saturday (has all the attributes, but the lateral running to probe for gaps may be effective in the AP but will get you nailed in midfield against a top international side). ON the other side, it really is a case of pulling a name from a hat

We're still a year from the WC, and are in a reasonable position to challenge - what we do need though, and the coaches I'm sure are aware of this and doing everything they can to improve the situation, is to stop losing close games such as the France game last 6Ns and the first test in NZ. There's not a huge gulf in ability between the top half dozen teams at the moment, so it is the little things that make a difference.

Thats better.

The problem is does his prefered team have the balance and ability that is required.

From an outsider's point of view, for what it's worth, this sounds very little harsh on Lancaster. He has done a really good job in in a relatively short period of time. England were a mess when he took over, Robinson, Ashton and Johnson all went for short term solutions and looked to win in the now (the downside of having the English press and fans demanding immediate success). Lancaster's job should have been done in 2005, not 2012.

Worth remembering that Sir Clive had 7 years to build a winning team. The '99 World Cup was a bit of a disaster, but he took the core of players from there and carried on building. I think Lancaster must surely be hoping for success next year, but realistically Japan 2019 is when his core squad will really come of age.

What is more concerning, and this has been highlighted for decades, is that with their playing resources England should dominate everyone, with the exception of maybe SA and France. Many cite the forward dominated style of play, the weather or complacency - but how on earth the Celtic nations ever beat England is beyond me!

madmaccas wrote: how on earth the Celtic nations ever beat England is beyond me!

It's back to size for the answer.  New Zealand ain't big in population and look at them.  

The bonus for England is that it has such a huge supply of players close enough to stepping up to International level.  Each and every year, they have another selection of players putting their hands up and saying 'try me'.

Ironically, it is that fact too that is their greatest burden.  

Choice.  

The ability to change a player for another one can often dissuade a pressured coach into waiting through another player's period of bad form.  Celtic sides have less players and so often have to wait on players to get back into form or keep with players playing below form....all of which helps those sub-par player keep getting the 'hot' experience necessary to prove themselves genuine or not.

England because of size is forced to always look for alternatives.  Lancaster is now under that same pressure.  'Don't hold onto underperformers - change them!'

Madmaccas,

What is more concerning, and this has been highlighted for decades, is that with their playing resources England should dominate everyone, with the exception of maybe SA and France. Many cite the forward dominated style of play, the weather or complacency - but how on earth the Celtic nations ever beat England is beyond me!.

This gets tiresome.

Yes we have a HUGE playing resource, but that is from players registered to clubs.... lets see roughly what that includes. (Id love to se the ACTUAL breakdown)

1) Probabably a low number of actual professionals at major clubs tryng to push on to top level clubs etc. I can imagine this number increasing though.

2) A huge number of guys who play regional rugby to a decent standard but with no real dreams of making the big time.

3) A massive number of Sunday league football equivalent players (Like Myself)
Ie the guys who enjoy a good run around the park (like me for my local club Percy Park in North Shields) but also enjoy the 10 pints of Ale after it.

4) How many Aussies, French, NZ etc etc are included in those figures?

I mean what did you expect?

In the end his coaching experience was what? A few years in an unsuccessful club and then the England u20s.

He was always going to take time to find his feet. He wasn't a coach like Mallett, White or Smith who could walk in as seasoned pro's and take instant results.

My concern with him is that he has too much faith in certain players, faith that eventually they will come good.

Flyhalf is the most important position on the pitch. They set the tempo, set the attack and organise territory. Yet for 3 years he ahs stuck with a wooden chap who even in 10 years time will never be as natural as someone like Burns, Ford etc.
His place kicking and defence gets him plaudits but his bread and butter is below par.... and England have had to accommodate lesser players in certain positions to accommodate him.

Take Burrell for instance. He's a 12, England play him at 13... why because Farrell can't hack 10 on his own. Ford without a doubt could play Burrell and Tuilagi together. Farrell not a chance.

Then there is Chris Robshaw.

HE makes an awful amount of tackles, he slows an awful load of ball down... but that's the work of a 6. He offers little go to with the ball and you hardly see him getting turnovers.... far less than Cole or Launchbury for instance.

Once again his decision making has to be questioned. At the end of the game in the last 5 mins on Saturday he wasted 4 on a set scrum. Yes he got the penalty-try but it wasn't worth it.... it was better if they risked a tap and go as that meant if they scored they would have had 3 mins to score another, not 30 seconds.
The fact they got the penalty try come the 79min was meaningless, ENG knew it, NZ knew it.

Again Robshaw showed a moment of naivety.

There has to come a point when you can no longer say they are building for the world cup, that there are lots of positives from defeat etc.

Yes England can be successful in the RWC and they can win it. But to win it you can't simply get it right on the day, you need to get it right when its the oppositions day.
Clive Woodward was in the same position in 1999 and with the extra game his ENG team were always against it vs. SA.

By 2003 they were the best but played awfully throughout the tournament limping to wins vs. Samoa, SA and Wales when they were so dominant.

That's what it takes to win the RWC, winning when you shouldn't, winning when you have 8 players injured, winning when it rains, shines, you get 1 player in the bin, when you get 2 players in the bin.

To be honest unless England have their entire first choice 23 available and fit I don't think they will stand a genuine chance. This England team should be putting the boks to the sword at home. Lose this and I think they will have to address some genuine issues amongst their players and their staff inc. Lancaster.

England because of size is forced to always look for alternatives. Lancaster is now under that same pressure. 'Don't hold onto underperformers - change them!'.

I dont think its quite like that. Many players have had lots of consistent game time.No one has complained at that.
We are looking for them to take that perforace to the next level....some are not producing the goods.

They have showed a lot of faith in chaps like Lawes, Marler, Launchbury, Wilson, Webber... and to be truthful their pack is as strong as it used to be.

Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes
Marler, Webber, Wilson, Atwood, Parling

Either combo of those 10 players would match the very best in scrums, lineout and workrate (probably with the top one edging it).

Yet the back row combo of Wood and Robshaw continues to look unbalanced and the backs continue to look very static... and you have to question the faith in Farrell. The ice man he may be but natural talent is natural talent and its something you can't buy.
You see it in George Ford from the off. Farrell will become more competent sure but on the backfoot he will never, not even in 10 years of pro rugby experience be able to cope as well as Ford can even now.

Its not a question of talent. When you have chaps like Burrell, Tuilagi in midfield at your disposal, some of the fastest players in rugby in May and Yarde on the wings you should be blitzing teams.

Do you want to hope to nick a RWC or do you want to go out and win it?

GeordieFalcon wrote:

England because of size is forced to always look for alternatives.  Lancaster is now under that same pressure.  'Don't hold onto underperformers - change them!'.

I dont think its quite like that. Many players have had lots of consistent game time.No one has complained at that. We are looking for them to take that perforace to the next level....some are not producing the goods.

Yes, they have (got consistent time) because that is the nature of it.  Lancaster was given his time.  And Lancaster, knowing he needs to have a consistent enough selection in order to work longer with players and in order that England camp becomes familiar - in order that he forms a kind of 'cub' atmosphere.... has stayed roughly consistent in the players he chooses.

But now, some think he's been given time enough and now it's time for someone new, who would inevitably change personel again.... thus disrupting another attempt at creating a team of steady growth rather than one of gulps and fits.

Nobody can say this England team isn't consistently good and has the potential to get better.  But patience is falling away and the need for 'change' is in the air.  I'm just saying I think that mood is the eternal 'foot-shot' committed by England supporters and journalists now for some 10 or so years.  That urge to jump to the next guy who might do better before seeing where the present guy is actually going.

SecretFly wrote:
England because of size is forced to always look for alternatives.  Lancaster is now under that same pressure.  'Don't hold onto underperformers - change them!'

But this goes against all the criticism being leveled at Lancaster, that he stick with the same players for too long. Maybe that's where he's going right and it will come good in the future. It can't be totally inflexible though, some guys never live up to their potential and there has to be competition for places.

Big ask to beat the All Blacks without a warm up game the week before.
The big test for me is SA and AUS, lose one of those then I'll begin to question whether SL and Co can take England any further.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Madmaccas,

What is more concerning, and this has been highlighted for decades, is that with their playing resources England should dominate everyone, with the exception of maybe SA and France. Many cite the forward dominated style of play, the weather or complacency - but how on earth the Celtic nations ever beat England is beyond me!.

This gets tiresome.

Yes we have a HUGE playing resource, but that is from players registered to clubs.... lets see roughly what that includes. (Id love to se the ACTUAL breakdown)

1) Probabably a low number of actual professionals at major clubs tryng to push on to top level clubs etc. I can imagine this number increasing though.

2) A huge number of guys who play regional rugby to a decent standard but with no real dreams of making the big time.

3) A massive number of Sunday league football equivalent players (Like Myself)
Ie the guys who enjoy a good run around the park (like me for my local club Percy Park in North Shields) but also enjoy the 10 pints of Ale after it.

4) How many Aussies, French, NZ etc etc are included in those figures?

GF this isn't criticism at all, more jealousy!

Surely every country has the same proportion of players in 2,3,4. Where they differ is that England have 24 Pro teams. That's amazing, as I said I'm green with envy. Even if a quarter (and that's an overestimation IMO) are foreign players that's still 18 pro players in each position! This doesn't even count the pro English players in France and further afield.

fa0019 wrote:They have showed a lot of faith in chaps like Lawes, Marler, Launchbury, Wilson, Webber... and to be truthful their pack is as strong as it used to be.

Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes
Marler, Webber, Wilson, Atwood, Parling

Either combo of those 10 players would match the very best in scrums, lineout and workrate (probably with the top one edging it).

Yet the back row combo of Wood and Robshaw continues to look unbalanced and the backs continue to look very static... and you have to question the faith in Farrell. The ice man he may be but natural talent is natural talent and its something you can't buy.
You see it in George Ford from the off. Farrell will become more competent sure but on the backfoot he will never, not even in 10 years of pro rugby experience be able to cope as well as Ford can even now.

Its not a question of talent. When you have chaps like Burrell, Tuilagi in midfield at your disposal, some of the fastest players in rugby in May and Yarde on the wings you should be blitzing teams.

Do you want to hope to nick a RWC or do you want to go out and win it?

Spot on FA

I hate people like Bracken for voicing his opinion on Lancaster, basing is opinion on him being fortunate to be in an England team that went on to win the  RWC in 2003.

Lancaster came in  and took a pretty much shambles of an England team and turned it around  made it in to a respectable team. A team that can compete with NZ, SA, and Australia.

England may not have many games/ trophy's etc but then again when it comes to the Ais England are missing a lot of their top players due to injuries.

I think he is doing a good job with the players that are avalible that are not on the injurie list.

With regrdas to Owen Farrell keep getting the call over the likes of Burns, Cipriani, maybe if these 2 was on form they may get a chance. But if they are not then why should they get game time over Farrell?

Leave Lancaster alone to do his job at least up till the RWC next year.

The problem SL has is that everyone (pundits, press, most fans) judges success on a 4 year cycle. And that's just not long enough for the 'rebuilding journey' Stewie likes to talk about - he's a 6-year man. He's spent approx. 3 years building a decent pack with some depth. And now he's turned all his attention to the backs. But with just a year to go to the RWC he's not left himself enough time to develop a RWC-winning team for this one. If we do ok at RWC'15 he'll be given more time. If we don't, he'll never know.

Barney McGrew did it wrote: If we do ok at RWC'15 he'll be given more time. If we don't, he'll never know.

... what hit him?
Barney, don't be so cruel.

In part I agree that we should have an idea what the first choice line is by now.
But at 12 months out for almost every world cup the AB's have been the best team in the world, but they have only won 2!

FA your criticism of Robshaw is a little unfair, England did not lose the game in the last 5 mins because of his naivety, they lost it in the entire second half when the players stopped working hard.

I find this quite astonishing. Lancaster has taken a team in shambles, made them into real contenders. He has created a squad where he has two players ready to put into each position near enough. They are organised, they score tries, and all along he has been building from a very low base for the WC where England will be real contenders to win.

I find it utterly amazing that anyone would think he is not the man for the job. he has proved he is. FFS want one of our ex scotland coaches? Who would be better than lancaster?

Results have been decent. But his preference for Farrell at 10 or 12 irrespective of his form, his willingness to play 12 and 13 out of position to accommodate a second kicker at 12. These are definitely concerns.

Quins - so who is the better 10? ( I don't think much of Farrell myself)

Ford is a better 10. Worse kicker from the tee. And defensively smaller.

I personally think cipriani is good enough to start too

HammerofThunor wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:From a welsh point of view we can not actually afford to ditch Gats due to a stupid length contract.

Also with regards Lancaster I think he still gets a lot of flack that is not truly deserved.  He has imporved the English team IMO, and whilst he has not won any titles etc with them, they are looking like a side that could win things.  In the RWC, if they topple Aus in the group stage (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) then the confidence from that could very well be the little boast they need to go far in the rwc.

Hase really improved them?  Don't get me wrong, they all know what it means to play for England now they've been told by Gary Neville but in terms of performance? Not convinced. He's brought in a load of new guys (something Johnson did as well but that get's forgotten/ignored because he went conservative for the World Cup) but I'm not convinced the performances have really improved. We're still bad in exactly the same areas we've been bad in for years.

Not that I'm saying get rid, I'm a big believer that time is needed, especially in the area that we're week. Injuries in the backs, centres especially, have hampered us sorting things out there. But I certainly don't think he's been great or made massive improvements.

Finally!!

Martin Johnsons England were no where near as bad as made out by the media and fans, likewise Lancaster is not as good as made out. Don't forget MJ's team won a 6Ns, beat Oz repeatedly and scored a shed load if tries, often through the wingers!

Yes his RWC selections went to poopie, but Lancaster is now showing just how conservative he is and you know what? In MJs shoes I think he'd have done the same

Lancaster has been really good. He's improved England hugely. For all the talk of Schmidt's tactical brilliance, Lancaster wasn't caught out by him, and had some plans of his own which went towards England's victory. And in fact what Schmidt does isn't rocket science. He decides on obviously sensible tactics given the opposition and prepares the team to execute it well. Which is pretty much the same thing Lancaster does.

New Zealand are the best in the world and one of the best teams ever in rugby if not the best. Losing to them is no reason to call for the coaches head. Getting within a score of them is normally the sign of a very good team.

Don't forget Farrell is in for his kicking, tackling and game control.
I really don't get this "iceman" tag. He's hot headed at times. That i like though.

The problem is farrell is not in form so when he's not doing what he should he's an average player.
On form fine he plays. In the current form ford needs to start.

It's selection issues like this that makes people wonder slightly about Lancaster.

Ford is the obvious choice but bringing people into a team is so much easier when the rest is settled. I think alot of Lancasters choices have demonstrated hes not that conservative. 4 losses on the bounce but against NZ.