England's Six Nations finish was "unacceptable" says Ian Ritchie

First topic message reminder :

Well, well, Ian Ritchie is not a happy bunny, "We should be, as a country, winning more, in terms of whether it's Grand Slams or Six Nations Championships." is what he is saying, do you agree with him ? Winning one championship in the last decade is not enough, and for a country the size of England you have to agree with him.


http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/32035225

Mr Richie is beginning to believe that Lancaster is so passé

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah well I still think Nowell's was a bit harsh vs Ireland. I was disappointed against ireland but Sexton was just a different class as was their chase. So you still think attack, defence decision making need new coaching blood to improve (further)?

Yes I do. Unfortunately England can't do that because Ritchie has given out those long term contracts unless he's happy to fork out a nice pay day to those coaches.

Do you honestly think that Mike Catt and Farrell Sr are the best attack and defence coaches in England?

England have plenty of room for improvement.

Well they were getting a lot of stick and still are despite scoring a shed load of tries and leaving a fair few on the field. I'd be more disappointed if we weren't taking any and creating any. Remember the first days of the reign where the only thing we created were charge downs. Leaps and bounds since then. We can get better, but we've demonstrated improvement as well.

The real disappoint with the defence has been individual errors, dropping off tackles, bad decisions. How much can a coach help this?

Who would you have?

It's not about attack and defence though is it, in coaching terms?  I mean England certainly can't be told they don't have an attack.  They certainly do.... with bells on.  And I think in defence, they've held their own - when interested!!!!!.

But I think that's the issue - Interest.  The final game can easily be put down as much to shipping too many points as it is being now put down to not getting enough.

A game has only 80 minutes! (some of them).  You can't be attacking and defending at the same time.  So it's not about improving attack or improving defence, it's structuring a balance.  England for me, and I've been saying this for a year or two now, seem to be mostly structured around attack.  They devote more energy to it - therefore defence will suffer somewhat under those conditions.  Even the ABs realise the weighing scales.  'We might let in tries here when we go full on attack.'

England needs Lancaster or one of the coaches to rein in a little that willingness to impress in attack and save some minutes of the 80 for some genuine defence - dogged, boring, slogging defence.

It's decision making now fly as the next big step. Both as a team and as individuals. That I think comes more from experience and playing more as units. I think it was the Ireland game for example (may be Wales, memory fading) when Ford saw a overlap very deep in his own half. Burrell didn't get it and rather than a quick pass recognising Ford had seen something he took it into contact. Small example but you could count a lot more in the tournament.

no 7 & 1/2

You say that at the beginning of the reign we only scored charge downs - where did we finish in the 6 nations table? 2nd - where did we finish this year? 2nd.

Lancaster needed to set a platform when he first got the job which he did. England have not a GS under Lancaster so where's the improvement in the win count?

Leaps and bounds really? Leaps and bounds would see England being 1st or 2nd in the world - we are still quite far off SA and NZ.

This year England got emphatically beaten by Ireland - you might say England scores tries by the bucket load - didn't score enough against Scotland did they?

England came 2nd and there can't be any aggrievances - we should have scored more points vs Scotland and should have performed better vs Ireland.

2nd isn't bad but it's not an improvement is it? It's just the same year on year since Lancaster took charge.

Failing again when we thought England had turned a corner.

Shaun Edwards and Alex King.

I'm talking about in attack beshocked. We have clearly improved.

Edwards isn't available is he so that's a no go unless he's suddenly released, I would say he's more likely to get the top Wales job before doing the same for England. Surely he's tarred with the brush that Wales have finished 3rd twice (?) in a row now?

King still with Saints?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm talking about in attack beshocked. We have clearly improved.

Edwards isn't available is he so that's a no go unless he's suddenly released, I would say he's more likely to get the top Wales job before doing the same for England. Surely he's tarred with the brush that Wales have finished 3rd twice (?) in a row now?

King still with Saints?

The problem isn't really Lancaster, it is the coaching staff under him.

I thought Catt would be a good shout, but now I'm not so sure. Farrell Snr is a bloody liability (in my opinion). As to who should be given a chance to replace them.... I really don't know, since all the decent coaches are unavailable.

Martin Corry and Brian Moore have backed ritchies comments

no 7 & 1/2 I am talking about where I think England can be improved.

You are right though sadly it's highly unlikely that King and Edwards would be brought on board.

Our attack didn't improve vs Ireland - no tries and a loss this year.

The manner of the loss vs Ireland was disappointing.

So if that last decision had gone to the TMO and been given we would have been in the same place as last year? Despite scoring a shed load more tries? Why focus on one game? Why that game? Because Sexton was immense and England poor?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So if that last decision had gone to the TMO and been given we would have been in the same place as last year? Despite scoring a shed load more tries? Why focus on one game? Why that game? Because Sexton was immense and England poor?

The loss to Ireland is a complete red herring.

Ireland beat England. Wales beat Ireland. England beat Wales.... the list goes on. Fact is, the tournament was decided on points and very close it was too. Its difficult to see any one team from those three being head and shoulders above the others. Its pretty much evens I'd say. Point is, England didn't lose the tournament with the Irish loss - Ireland won the tournament despite losing to Wales - so its a bad argument. The match that did for England was not putting Scotland away convincingly enough.

The AB don't care if you score a try against them, because their style of play and mentality ensures that they will then go down the other end and score two. Leaking tries isn't a crime, the match V France was scintillating and encapsulated the AB mantra. Not finishing opportunities is the real crime, the AB might let in tries, but when they have the opportunity to point points on the board, they invariably do it. England must, must, MUST tighten up this aspect of their game. If that is down to coaching then so be it.

But one loss does not define a tournament, nor does it define a team.

Jimpy wrote:But one loss does not define a tournament.

No it doesn't, but it's one loss per tournament for the last 5 years. That is defining the team.

no 7 & 1/2 that try would not have changed the outcome of the match - England lost - pretty convincingly to be honest even though the injury of Sexton helped.

Focus on that game because it was the one that England lost and should have performed much better in.

Sexton was immense but he was helped significantly by his pack and team.

England were very poor against Ireland. It's not something that can be sweeped under the carpet.

We saw what Wales did to Sexton - Sexton is human, contrary to popular opinion. He's a very accomplished player of course but he can be rattled. England failed to exert any pressure on Sexton or Ireland in general.

Perhaps England gave Ireland and Sexton too much respect.

It's not as if Ireland's tactics were ingenious or unpredictable - it was a very simple gameplan well executed but there was no solution.

MichaelT wrote:

Jimpy wrote:But one loss does not define a tournament.

No it doesn't, but it's one loss per tournament for the last 5 years. That is defining the team.

England also won it in 2011. Ireland won the last two years despite losing matches along the way.

But in general England's attack has improved. We still created chances in that Ireland game. I still think we took one. I don't disagree that Lancaster et al will review the Ireland game and see what went wrong but focusing on one game does not tell the whole story of how a team is developing. Ireland were just very good against England, Sexton was immense. Once he went off we started to get into the game. As you say against Wales he was below average but that wasn't particularly because Wales rattled him rather he just didn't play well. No one plays at their peak every game.

Jimpy it wasn't a GS though.

Ireland were crowned champions because they scored 1 more converted try/conceded 1 less converted try than us. Is that something to shout from the roof tops? Personally I don't think so but I guess I can't blame the Irish for wanting to.

Created more chances yes but we didn't score any tries vs Ireland.

Points only count if they count whether or not you agree with them or not.

You say the team is developing - it's in the same position as last year (2nd with 4 wins out of 5).

Did you watch the Wales vs Ireland game? Wales started strong with a lot of intensity - putting early pressure on Ireland, racking up the early points. Sexton made uncharacteristic errors because he was clearly rattled by the Welsh. It's not normal for Sexton to kick the ball out on the full and miss a straightforward penalty.

Not every game no but a player can string a run of 5 good performances together.

Wales showed that Ireland are not an unstoppable unbeatable juggernaut, also they showed that Sexton is not a deity.

I believe that England made Ireland look better than they are.

Sexton isn't a deity but he's the best fly half in the world for me. He was exceptional against England. Do you really not see a development in attacking play from Lancaster's 1st 6Ns to now?

no 7 & 1/2 he was very good vs England yes but he was very poor vs Wales.

England made Sexton look like he's a deity, Wales showed that he isn't actually a deity.

You could say the same of Joseph - he looked great against all other sides bar Ireland. Against Ireland he looked completely ineffectual in attack.

Didn't see the development in attacking play against Ireland - no.

My main point is if this English side is as good as you seem to think they are then they would have beaten Ireland.

Not at all. I think England are at a certain point in a cycle. They aren't the finished article. I don't expect this team to go to Ireland and win. I think you should judge a team on more than 1 away game though. My original point is that 18 months or so ago there were lot's of digs at Catt in particular about how our back play was developing. Looking at the original 6Ns Lancaster took control of and this one, I certainly think you can see improvement.

Improvement in attacking intent and skills tempered by no improvement in results and increased opportunities given to the opposition to score.
Improved in some areas, gone backwards in others, results have stayed remarkably similar.

Given the team he inherited was widely described as a shambles after 3.5 years of projects to bring in new players and refresh the team is ending up with nick easter  and the same results an improvement or simply maintaining the status quo?
The team looks.prettier now ( when not playing Ireland) but gets less credit for the same end result as his first attempt.

I'm not sure if I can accept this or not.

The only thing that matters - the only thing - is that undoubtedly England could win the World Cup.  Not just because they have home advantage, not just because they are 4th ranked side in the world... but simply because they are a bloody good side.

Lancaster knows it, the players know it, the fans know it, Ritchie secretly knows it.  But those business instincts of his make him want to assert the disparity between his projections and forecasts. He feels compelled to offer up a business briefing on targets, projections and forecasts and offer his opinion on such targets being missed. He's a boardroom guy with a boardroom instinct.

Those don't work in rugby.  What works is games on the day and having the ability to win them.

Five or six sides have the ability to win the next WC.  That's all it will ever be - chance.  Even the ABs aren't guaranteed anything - they have to play.  No targets and no projections on paper or on a computer screen will get them through to another final - playing might.

Everyone is in the same boat.

SecretFly wrote:Everyone is in the same boat.

Manu wasn't four years ago

Well, Manu is always an exception. Exhibitionist that he is.

Okay, so Manu will be on a different boat to everyone else. Don't ask me which boat the Dwarves will be on - Ritchie won't let me see his detailed plans on that one.

Would new Zealand find second place in the world cup acceptable?

If Wayne Barnes reffed the final?

Would Ireland find second place acceptable?

If Wayne Barnes reffed the final?

If Ireland got to a final????????????????????  would we be disappointed we didn't go on and win?

I'd say in all seriousness - absolutely.  I think there would be a deep mourning.  Getting there would obviously be a monumental trip for the team in such a short period of time.  But not performing well enough to win then - that would be shattering.  For me anyway.  I know how I am.  I'd be gutted.

But getting as far as we can is the only real thing I think about.  That one step at a time - one game at a time.  

If Wayne Barnes was ref????

Both sides would refuse to come out.  Forfeit the game.  England would be declared winner by being 3rd

no 7 & 1/2 you don't expect them to beat Ireland? They did it 3 times in a row before this game - first lost for Lancaster against Ireland.

Nothing has changed - England have blown the GS again - 4/5 wins yet again under Lancaster in the 6 nations. 2nd isn't bad but it's not 1st. I realise you can't win it every year but England haven't had a GS since 2003 - 12 years is too long when you think that Wales,Ireland and France have had at least one GS in that time.

Do you think England are worse than those sides? I don't.

It's nice to be in the title mix but it's not the same as winning the tournament outright.

Gooseberry well said.

Secretfly do England look any closer to beating Ireland,NZ or SA though? The answer is probably not no.

If England have aspirations for winning the RWC they should have beaten Ireland.

When England won the GS in 2003 they were on a high having crushed Ireland in Ireland - they went into the 2003 RWC past their prime but still the favourites - they went onto clinch the RWC title. It wasn't plain sailing but they prevailed in the end.

Two significant things have eluded England for a long time - a GS and a win vs SA - Lancaster has delivered neither so far. Would be more optimistic if he did either though preferably both.

Maybe the RFU will 'retire' him, like the Walsh episode. Run out of refs at this rate.

The future doesn't have to follow the past.  Too many people are fixated on the history of 2003 - the lead in and the lead out.  That period was of its time and its over.  You can't simply plan a carbon copy on paper and demand it happens (those famous Ritchie targets).

It just doesn't happen that way beshocked.  

England close to beating South Africa?   I'd say that well within range.

Close to beating NZ?  No team ever knows.  You just go and play.  England needs to tighten up game 'management'.  They have to better plan how to use their energy through 80 minutes and become more pragmatic when needed and explosive when opportunities arise.

That's the only issues I can see from the outside - a little naivety in game management (when to pounce and when to draw back and defend)

Obviously England are not where they want to be.  They seem to be on slow improvement track and should be better in 2 or 3 years time (therefore not progressing as fast as needed for the World Cup).  Whether anyone could accelerate this is an interesting question.

The failure this year was the performance in Dublin, afterwards the scramble for points was interesting but really playing for "lollipops".

Even if England had overcome the deficit, Ireland would still have deserved the title for that performance.

Still would like to see King and maybe Edwards seconded for the World Cup?

secretfly fixated in 2003 because that's the last time England won the GS and the RWC.

It was English rugby's high point - haven't had a GS or RWC since, not that we have been realistic RWC contenders since (still made a final).

There was a period where England couldn't lose to SA, now England can't beat SA.

12 matches - no wins.

Wales,Ireland and Scotland have all beaten SA in that period but not England.


Lancaster has not yet delivered a GS or win over SA.

beshocked wrote:secretfly fixated in 2003 because that's the last time England won the GS and the RWC.

It was English rugby's high point - haven't had a GS or RWC since, not that we have been realistic RWC contenders since (still made a final).

There was a period where England couldn't lose to SA, now England can't beat SA.

12 matches - no wins.

Wales,Ireland and Scotland have all beaten SA in that period but not England.


Lancaster has not yet delivered a GS or win over SA.

How many times have Wales beaten Australia or NZ in that time?

SA were in a serious lull given their high rugby standards at the time though, and we did cream them a couple of times leading up to 2003 but history will tell you that South African rugby will never be in a rut for long

They'll have their........... race......quotas up by the WC?

That might impede their rebound somewhat.

Jimpy this thread isn't about Wales. Wales have their own issues.

Talking about England and the lack of wins against SA.

We all know that Wales struggle vs Australia and NZ but that's their problem.

beshocked wrote: no 7 & 1/2 you don't expect them to beat Ireland? They did it 3 times in a row before this game - first lost for Lancaster against Ireland.

Nothing has changed - England have blown the GS again - 4/5 wins yet again under Lancaster in the 6 nations. 2nd isn't bad but it's not 1st. I realise you can't win it every year but England haven't had a GS since 2003 - 12 years is too long when you think that Wales,Ireland and France have had at least one GS in that time.

Do you think England are worse than those sides? I don't.

It's nice to be in the  title mix but it's not the same as winning the tournament outright.

Gooseberry well said.  

Secretfly do England look any closer to beating Ireland,NZ or SA though? The answer is probably not no.

If England have aspirations for winning the RWC they should have beaten Ireland.

When England won the GS in 2003 they were on a high having crushed Ireland in Ireland - they went into the 2003 RWC past their prime but still the favourites - they went onto clinch the RWC title. It wasn't plain sailing but they prevailed in the end.

Two significant things have eluded England for a long time - a GS and a win vs SA - Lancaster has delivered neither so far. Would be more optimistic if he did either though preferably both.

With the team we had going into it, no i didn't think it more likely for us to win than lose. I'd be more expectant at Twickenham and with Brown and Lawes in the mix though.

Bambam perhaps not but if the likes of Scotland,Wales and Ireland can beat SA in that period surely England should be capable of at least one win?

no 7 & 1/2 it's not as if Brown has been in particularly good form this 6 nations.

It wasn't a narrow loss in a well fought contest. England were well beaten vs Ireland. Debatable whether Lawes and Brown would swung the match.

If England want to win the GS and challenge for the RWC they needed to beat Ireland.

Do you think England played well vs Ireland?

No I don't think we played well until Sexton went off. Brown I think would have made a difference as he's a big step up even not at top form to any other full back we had available. Lawes brings so much to the table. You talk about getting Sexton rattled, I'd rather have had Lawes in the 2nd row.

Still my point was about the improvement in the backs in general. They have improved from the start of Lancs.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy this thread isn't about Wales. Wales have their own issues.

Talking about England and the lack of wins against SA.

We all know that Wales struggle vs Australia and NZ but that's their problem.

Its an absolutely valid comparison, you tend to go down these rabbit holes and become fixated.... the truth is that an inability to beat SA over a period of time isn't something to lose sleep over. At least England have proven over the same period that they can beat all the other SH sides. I sense frustration that Wales (for example) can't seem to beat SH opposition often. Okay, they DID beat SA - who goodness me were off colour that day. It didn't really prove anything, England would probably have won the same fixture) but their supporters aren't demanding a post mortem. Not beating SA isn't a barometer. I would tend to agree about the lack of GS though - well maybe not the GS so much, but a few more 6N titles would be nice.

beshocked wrote:Bambam perhaps not but if the likes of Scotland,Wales and Ireland can beat SA in that period surely England should be capable of at least one win?

no 7 & 1/2 it's not as if Brown has been in particularly good form this 6 nations.

It wasn't a narrow loss in a well fought contest. England were well beaten vs Ireland. Debatable whether Lawes and Brown would swung the match.

If England want to win the GS and challenge for the RWC they needed to beat Ireland.

Do you think England played well vs Ireland?

Why?

Jimpy it builds confidence,belief and momentum going into the world cup.

Do you want England to be better than Wales or equal? Wales are not the benchmark in world rugby. Their record against SH sides in general is poor.

England must aspire to being better than the likes of Ireland and Wales - not equal. Currently we are no better than them.

no 7 & 1/2 it's all hypothetical. I thought Barritt instead of Burrell would have made more impact personally.

Ireland must aspire to being better than SA and NZ!!!

Why beshocked? You said we needed to rattle Sexton, Lawes tends to rattle the opposition fly halfs! Personally thought we suffered not securing kicks quickly and cleanly enough and Brown is good at that.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy it builds confidence,belief and momentum going into the world cup.

Do you want England to be better than Wales or equal? Wales are not the benchmark in world rugby. Their record against SH sides in general is poor.

England must aspire to being better than the likes of Ireland and Wales - not equal. Currently we are no better than them.

no 7 & 1/2 it's all hypothetical. I thought Barritt instead of Burrell would have made more impact personally.

In 2007, England were beaten 36 - 0 by SA in their group. The final was subsequently contested by the same two sides, and the result was much closer... so I'd argue that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, particularly as England would be unlikely to meet Ireland until the latter stages and England have the measure of both Wales and Australia at Twickenham.

SecretFly wrote:Ireland must aspire to being better than SA and NZ!!!

Indeed. I do struggle to see England/Ireland/Wales beating NZ or SA in a final. Thus their best hopes will be:

1) Win their group to make the 1/4 finals easier and set up an England/Wales v Ireland Semi
2) Hope Australia finish second in Pool A and then proceed to repeat their 1/4 final win from the last RWC, and their semi-final wins from 91/03.
3) Win their semi-final before moving on to meet a tired Australia in the final.

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Ireland must aspire to being better than SA and NZ!!!

Indeed. I do struggle to see England/Ireland/Wales beating NZ or SA in a final. Thus their best hopes will be:

I joke of course. In truth I just aspire to seeing us keep consistent in competitive terms through the warm-up games, which I hope we use to let some fringe players show what they have (or don't have).  But that's as far as it goes.  Warm ups can often prove costly in injuries. The WC is far too far away for trash talk yet

No 7&1/2 wrote:No I don't think we played well until Sexton went off. Brown I think would have made a difference as he's a big step up even not at top form to any other full back we had available. Lawes brings so much to the table. You talk about getting Sexton rattled, I'd rather have had Lawes in the 2nd row.

Still my point was about the improvement in the backs in general. They have improved from the start of Lancs.

Lawes rattles 10s, literally . Ask Plisson.

England generally play better when Lawes is playing, in my opinion Wood as well.

It's not the obvious things they do, it's the little things. Covering gaps, you see nothing because the opposition haven't been able to exploit it as they had it covered, being in the right place to take a pass that would otherwise have risked a turnover, dummy runs. They are not obvious, contribute little that is obvious but are essential to the team.
Both are very good lineout operators, neither is going to make a lot of ground in the tight encounters, both have the mobility to get to the breakdown or challenge for the ball when kicked better than any of their competitors.

Launchbury with an equal work rate and tackling count makes for a world class second row. A back row of Wood, Robshaw and Morgan whilst not traditional in it’s make up is, as has been proven, very effective and has yet to be subdued by any team.