Clive Woodward

Quick straw poll of you pollable English pollsters.

Does anyone give a fetid kangaroos carcass what this dinosaur thinks anymore?

If I were Lamcaster his "advice" would be as welcome as tony blairs advice to Jeremy Corbyn.

Woodward "warns" Lamcaster to not allow players to be distracted, he helpfully distracts from the media....bringing up a host of irrelevancies, idiotic selection recommendations and Stone Age tactics, and of course his timely reminder of all the times he won the World Cup.

Most successful NH rugby manager bar none. And totally off his head...

Did you get out the wrong side of the bed?

If I were Lamcaster his "advice" would be as welcome as tony blairs advice to Jeremy Corbyn.


HA,HA that made me laugh. But no matter what you or i think about Sir Clive Woodward
he is a World Cup Winning Coach. And the only coach in the NH to coach a team/squad to win the RWC.

donglewood wrote:Does anyone give a fetid kangaroos carcass what this dinosaur thinks anymore?

Not really, but I guess if the mods continue to allow you to post there's not a lot that can be done

donglewood wrote:

Does anyone give a fetid kangaroos carcass what this dinosaur thinks anymore?

Not the greatest attempt at Aussieism, try one of these if you want to sound convincing...

http://www.giddaymate.com.au/pages/aussie%20sayings.html

donglewood wrote:Quick straw poll of you pollable English pollsters.

Does anyone give a fetid kangaroos carcass what this dinosaur thinks anymore?

If I were Lamcaster his "advice" would be as welcome as tony blairs advice to Jeremy Corbyn.

Woodward "warns" Lamcaster to not allow players to be distracted, he helpfully distracts from the media....bringing up a host of irrelevancies, idiotic selection recommendations and Stone Age tactics, and of course his timely reminder of all the times he won the World Cup.

You actually remind me quite a lot of Sir Clive.

Clive is OK.  He was the gent who brought the RWC trophy home.  So he has credibility, and he clearly knows something.  It does appear from time to time that he is a little disengaged or out of touch, but ultimately, he earned his soap box.  If one doesn't like him, don't pay attention.  Just like any other public figure.

Clive's problem is that in EVERY interview he ends up talking about 'what i did in 2003' as if he wrote the book.

What did you do in 2003?

I think that was the year he was born

That explains it then

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I think that was the year he was born

Wow, did you think that up all by yourself?

Won the world cup. Won a grandslam, topped the world rankings, won 13 consecutive games home and away against Australia, south Africa and new Zealand. Produced the greatest ever northern hemophere team of all time. Think Clive deserves to be able to give his opinion.

[quote="wrfc1980"]Won the world cup. Won a grandslam, topped the world rankings, won 13 consecutive games home and away against Australia, south Africa and new Zealand. Produced the greatest ever northern hemophere team of all time. Think Clive deserves to be able to give his opinion.[/quote

ad nauseam apparently

Gwlad wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Won the world cup. Won a grandslam, topped the world rankings, won 13 consecutive games home and away against Australia, south Africa and new Zealand. Produced the greatest ever northern hemophere team of all time. Think Clive deserves to be able to give his opinion.

ad nauseam apparently

Why ad nauseum? He appears at most England games and gives his opinion in newspapers. how is he different from say Jiffy? The only difference is that Woodward has the experience as both a successful player and a very successful manager.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Won the world cup. Won a grandslam, topped the world rankings, won 13 consecutive games home and away against Australia, south Africa and new Zealand. Produced the greatest ever northern hemophere team of all time. Think Clive deserves to be able to give his opinion.

ad nauseam apparently

Why ad nauseum? He appears at most England games and gives his opinion in newspapers. how is he different from say Jiffy? The only difference is that Woodward has the experience as both a successful player and a very successful manager.

Jiffy is extremely annoying mostly, but what he doesnt do is skew each and every interview/article into 'when i was manager in 2003'

SCW is a little like Uncle Albert in Only Fools... He's probably earned his right to a few 'during the war' anecdotes.

Cyril wrote:SCW is a little like Uncle Albert in Only Fools... He's probably earned his right to a few 'during the war' anecdotes.

Your life seems to revolve around what you can assimilate from the Bill and only Fools and Horses.

Psssst, it's make believe.

Gwlad wrote:

Cyril wrote:SCW is a little like Uncle Albert in Only Fools... He's probably earned his right to a few 'during the war' anecdotes.

Your life seems to revolve around what you can assimilate from the Bill and only Fools and Horses.

Psssst, it's make believe.

You'll be telling me Del Boy isn't Batman next.

Anyway, it's not my fault my telly is stuck on Dave.

It's Rodney.

Ah, classic twist.

Give the man his due he managed one of the most successful England sides of all
time.A tactical genius dropping Wilkinson in match where there knocked out of a
RWC by 9 drop goals by his opposite number.

If you re havinga dig about the 1999 wc it was 5 drop goals.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you re havinga dig about the 1999 wc it was 5 drop goals.

don't I know it. I was behind the posts watching DeBeer drop into the pocket and not one of our back rowers tried to put any pressure on him.

Jonny missed a few drop goals in the 2003 final.

Another awful selection by Clive.

A trite comment I agree,  I`m an Anglo-Scot and after the All Blacks[since1953I support my Native Countries     ]and once
my greatest moment was Calcutta Cup matches.I have relatives in the SH indeed a distant
cousin[JOE ROFF]played for the Wallabies.
It is an English Channel hosting an Home RWC so it`s logical that the pundits will be
mostly established figures SCW among them.
SCW was a good player,a Great manager/organiser even selector not much of a Coach,
players doing that bit[according to media]
His sides record 2000-3 is only SLIGHTLY worse than the current ABs side,BUT he
was in charge 1997-2004.
Instead of trotting out the 4 losses 2000-3,RWC winner,GrandSlam winner,13 wins
etc.lets have the whole bit.A win rate plus ONLY against SA[on one of there worst ever runs]
"Judge me on my RWC results 1999,no AB Coach would have held the post after that"
1999 QF was lost by 2 Goals,5 PGs,5DGs to 7 PGS] Grayson to be fair was starting 10
JW scored 1 of the bench.5DGs who was the Captain,where was the Back Row?!!
Did any one say England choked,unlike 2007 AB`s with an inexperienced Captain
and a weapon gone from the AB playbook.The only man who SHOULD have been
there[Aron Mauger]was`nt even on the bench.
Don`t get me wrong SCW created a great team,BUT so did Jack Rowell and Geoff
Cooke.SCW was the first to be given the money no object bit everything for the
team first class,what he wanted he got.
Wales had a great team in 1970`s and 3 Grand Slams recently so my side is
the Greatest ever is a bit OTT.
He is also come over as arrogant read todays Mail,the only place NZ will
meet England is in the Final which will give them the collywobbles.
THAT presupposes England win there Group,just because no
NH side has won there[Twickenham]since 2012 that it can`t happen Craig Joubert
on a wrong day may blow England out of it.

wrfc1980 wrote:Won the world cup. Won a grandslam, topped the world rankings, won 13 consecutive games home and away against Australia, South Africa and new Zealand. Produced the greatest ever northern hemophere team of all time. Think Clive deserves to be able to give his opinion.

+1. He annoys the hell out of me, but plenty people do that. He does have some interesting and genuinely held opinions, and given the proliferation of ex-players on the pundit circuit, it's a good idea to throw an ex-coach into the mix. McGeechan could do the job well, but I don't see it being his bag. Telfer could only be on after the watershed. Eddie O'Sullivan has a job currently, as does Declan Kidney. Mike Ruddock is free, but I'd hardly suggest he be picked for insight ahead of Sir Clive.

Any other NH coaches worth including in the panel? I would think McGeechan and/or Sir Clive would be the leading candidates, and obviously Sir Clive is the only one with experience of actually winning the tournament he'll be talking about.

I don't like him, but I do respect him. Quite what he thinks of me I suspect we'll never know!

Alan

It was a choke by SCW to not play JW in 1999 albeit he was still very inexperienced and only 19. however, it wouldn't have made a diff, they still would have lost. Having to play an extra game was tough, it was a ridiculous idea.

SCW's team was still very much in the formative years in 1999. Wales beat them that year and Scotland beat them the following year, both tactical victories against a team still working out how to win tight games and adapt to the opposition and the conditions.

South Africa played a tactical blinder that day. Use the heavy pack to push forward, get a kicking specialist into position, a scrum half with a good pass and hey presto, you have a formula for scoring buckets of points without having to breach their defences. In my view the 2003 team would not have lost that match. They would have adapted.

Still, I'm not suggesting for one minute SCW didn't make a bunch of mistakes.

If Clive says something that is logical then yes. I am no fan of Clive but he did coach England to a RWC.

The issue is I doubt I'll agree with Clive - if I do it's a pleasant surprise.

After his successful run at Southampton, I think Clive is vying for a spot on MOTD

SCW is a fraud. He was lucky to be in charge of some of the finest players ever available, this was down to the structure beneath the England set-up and some very forward thinking club owners and club coaches.

I think even I could have taken that late nineties early naughties group and one a WC. Look what he achieved after those players retired. He totally ballsed up the Lions. The less said about his book the better, Southampton football club, FFS.

The questions that need to be asked is, why is he not coaching now ? He is still capable of doing a job, surely. Why did he retire ? He knew he would get found out, that's why.

The credit that mean gets for winning the WC, compared to players like Johnson, Dalaglio, Hill, Back, Dawson is criminal.

Geoff Cooke was twice the coach SCW was.

He did have a very talented group and a hell of a budget for a coach in every area of the game.

England should have won the 1991 world cup. What Geoff Cooke done with those players should go down in history, but instead it's Sir Clive this and Sir Clive that, it makes me sick.

If you ask me, SCW just finished off what the likes of Jack Rowell and Geoff Cooke started.

LordDowlais wrote:SCW is a fraud. He was lucky to be in charge of some of the finest players ever available, this was down to the structure beneath the England set-up and some very forward thinking club owners and club coaches.

I think even I could have taken that late nineties early naughties group and one a WC. Look what he achieved after those players retired. He totally ballsed up the Lions. The less said about his book the better, Southampton football club, FFS.

The questions that need to be asked is, why is he not coaching now ? He is still capable of doing a job, surely. Why did he retire ? He knew he would get found out, that's why.

The credit that mean gets for winning the WC, compared to players like Johnson, Dalaglio, Hill, Back, Dawson is criminal.

Geoff Cooke was twice the coach SCW was.

Agree 100% LD.

He had a blank chequebook from the RFU and his main contribution was going out and buying specialist coaches like Phil Larder, Dave Aldred etc. as well as having a team of really experienced players like Johnson, Dayglo, Dawson, Vickery etc to lead things on the field.

He had very little to do with England success and was found out badly with the Lions when he tried the same approach. Total bluffer.

LordDowlais wrote:England should have won the 1991 world cup. What Geoff Cooke done with those players should go down in history, but instead it's Sir Clive this and Sir Clive that, it makes me sick.

If you ask me, SCW just finished off what the likes of Jack Rowell and Geoff Cooke started.

The same team went to AUS a few months before and got munched by 20 points +. Anyone who thinks had ENG played upfront rugby they would have won is delusional. They lost to the ABs comfortably that way in the same tournament and AUS ran circles round the ABs in the SF.

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:England should have won the 1991 world cup. What Geoff Cooke done with those players should go down in history, but instead it's Sir Clive this and Sir Clive that, it makes me sick.

If you ask me, SCW just finished off what the likes of Jack Rowell and Geoff Cooke started.

The same team went to AUS a few months before and got munched by 20 points +. Anyone who thinks had ENG played upfront rugby they would have won is delusional. They lost to the ABs comfortably that way in the same tournament and AUS ran circles round the ABs in the SF.

The way I remember it was England falling for Australia's and in particular David Campese's goading England into playing them at their own game.

rodders wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:SCW is a fraud. He was lucky to be in charge of some of the finest players ever available, this was down to the structure beneath the England set-up and some very forward thinking club owners and club coaches.

I think even I could have taken that late nineties early naughties group and one a WC. Look what he achieved after those players retired. He totally ballsed up the Lions. The less said about his book the better, Southampton football club, FFS.

The questions that need to be asked is, why is he not coaching now ? He is still capable of doing a job, surely. Why did he retire ? He knew he would get found out, that's why.

The credit that mean gets for winning the WC, compared to players like Johnson, Dalaglio, Hill, Back, Dawson is criminal.

Geoff Cooke was twice the coach SCW was.

Agree 100% LD.

He had a blank chequebook from the RFU and his main contribution was going out and buying specialist coaches like Phil Larder, Dave Aldred etc. as well as having a team of really experienced players like Johnson, Dayglo, Dawson, Vickery etc to lead things on the field.

He had very little to do with England success and was found out badly with the Lions when he tried the same approach. Total bluffer.

If thats the case rodders what should England have achieved?

I mean in that RWC cycle they won 3 out of 4 6Ns. 1 RWC, lost only once out of 13 matches vs. the 3N in that RWC cycle (the first match away to SA and they were very unlucky that day too). They lost 5 games in the entire cycle... 1 when they sent a B side to France against their A side and they lost by 1 point.

If people want to talk about the Lions... do you think anyone would have done better? They went up against one of the best sides in history and any coach would have lost 3 zip. The first game, they lost BOD, their captain and it showed. They lost by the smallest margin with his main idea at the forefront... had he had all his players fit would it have worked... probably not but I think it would have been very close.
If you want to talk about bad lions coachs/tours... well the morale in 93 was horrendously poor according to many and the opportunity they had was far greater than the 05 class. 2001 was easily a worse defeat as it was quite possibly the greatest Lions squad assembled since the 70s and the manner they lost it was unforgivable... and yet Henry is heralded as the best coach of all time. Do you know his record with NZ was only 1.5% better than John Mitchell (his predecessor)... a man derided as a terrible coach by all.

I'm not SCW biggest fan, he was a mad professor who was part of the 80s yuppie culture, all team building exercises, middle manager weekends away etc which I like nothing more to punch in the face repeatedly but what he did will unlikely be repeated by a NH side for a long long time and he had a lot to do with it.  Jack Rowell had the same players and got it totally wrong in 95, Andy Robinson had it totally wrong thereafter. It wasn't just the players.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:England should have won the 1991 world cup. What Geoff Cooke done with those players should go down in history, but instead it's Sir Clive this and Sir Clive that, it makes me sick.

If you ask me, SCW just finished off what the likes of Jack Rowell and Geoff Cooke started.

The same team went to AUS a few months before and got munched by 20 points +. Anyone who thinks had ENG played upfront rugby they would have won is delusional. They lost to the ABs comfortably that way in the same tournament and AUS ran circles round the ABs in the SF.

The way I remember it was England falling for Australia's and in particular David Campese's goading England into playing them at their own game.

They got beat with the 10 man game by 20 points about 5 months prior, they changed the plan because they knew they couldn't beat them with their traditional method, many have spoke about it. Campo would have wound them up any way England lost... played 10 man rugby (ah you boring lot no one wins that way), played attacking rugby (you would have won had you played 10 man rugby)

fa0019 wrote:Jack Rowell had the same players and got it totally wrong in 95

England and professionalism was only in it's infancy then, and lets be fair, England lost to Jonah Lomu stomping all over them, they were no the first team and certainly were not the last team to get Lomu'd.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Jack Rowell had the same players and got it totally wrong in 95

England and professionalism was only in it's infancy then, and lets be fair, England lost to Jonah Lomu stomping all over them, they were no the first team and certainly were not the last team to get Lomu'd.

The whole set up was wrong though.. the 3 no.8s of Rodber, Clarke and Richards. Gave them about as much mobility as a 3 ton truck. Lomu aside Kronfeld had a field day in that SF.

fa0019 wrote:They got beat with the 10 man game by 20 points about 5 months prior, they changed the plan because they knew they couldn't beat them with their traditional method, many have spoke about it. Campo would have wound them up any way England lost... played 10 man rugby (ah you boring lot no one wins that way), played attacking rugby (you would have won had you played 10 man rugby)

Look I do not care, England got to the final and got beat by a far superior Australia side. But this was an England side full of amateur players trying to be professional. To even get them to the final was an achievement in itself and he did it without the mega bucks and resources that SCW had. He set the benchmark for the 2003 winning side.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:They got beat with the 10 man game by 20 points about 5 months prior, they changed the plan because they knew they couldn't beat them with their traditional method, many have spoke about it. Campo would have wound them up any way England lost... played 10 man rugby (ah you boring lot no one wins that way), played attacking rugby (you would have won had you played 10 man rugby)

Look I do not care, England got to the final and got beat by a far superior Australia side. But this was an England side full of amateur players trying to be professional. To even get them to the final was an achievement in itself and he did it without the mega bucks and resources that SCW had. He set the benchmark for the 2003 winning side.

Its not like the aussie chaps weren't amateur either.

Oh dear,looks like I`ve stirred up a hornets nest sorry as to Amateurs etc.the
teams in late 80`s were playing on pro lines.[Payments hidden by various ruses]to Friday
nighters etc]going to play in Italy for cash while contracted to UK clubs as amateurs it was
really getting stupid about then.
SCW record over the first 15 matches before they were sacked Robinson and Ashtons were
both superior.
2001 Lions it was SCW`s England players that wrecked that series overruling the coach.
Henry was only re-elected because the alternative Deans was tainted by the 2003 RWC
loss.
You should have the best officials NOT a rookie on his first big test. in THE most important
match of RWC.
IF Joubert as SCWclaims gave NZ the Final versus France they were owed one because Barnes.
certainly gave 2007 to them.

fa0019 wrote:Its not like the aussie chaps weren't amateur either.

They were further down the line than any nation in the NH at the time. All the SH nations were fully pro since the first WC, perhaps even before.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Its not like the aussie chaps weren't amateur either.

They were further down the line than any nation in the NH at the time. All the SH nations were fully pro since the first WC, perhaps even before.

Thats total BS LD.

There was one or two at best per squad who would play in the Italian leagues for cash. In SA they paid expenses, nothing players could live on and all had jobs, many had jobs well into the 00s too.

England had a fair few who were as pro as you would get... many were Army chaps who were placed on light duties. Bath were one of the best amateur operators in the game. The chairman had so many fingers in corporate pies that he got cushy jobs for all his chaps in local "PR" etc allowing them all the time to train, play and tour.

emack2 wrote:Oh dear,looks like I`ve stirred up a hornets nest sorry as to Amateurs etc.the
teams in late 80`s were playing on pro lines.[Payments hidden by various ruses]to Friday
nighters etc]going to play in Italy for cash while contracted to UK clubs as amateurs it was
really getting stupid about then.
SCW record over the first 15 matches before they were sacked Robinson and Ashtons were
both superior.
2001 Lions it was SCW`s England players that wrecked that series overruling the coach.
Henry was only re-elected because the alternative Deans was tainted by the 2003 RWC
loss.
You should have the best officials NOT a rookie on his first big test. in THE most important
match of RWC.
IF Joubert as SCWclaims gave NZ the Final versus France they were owed one because Barnes.
certainly gave 2007 to them.

What a joke! England were by far and away the best team in the NH during the 2001 Lions (and were quite possibly the best team in the world at this point!) What ruined the 2001 Lions tour was the LACK of English players in the squad. Henry picked a load of rubbish Welsh players. England were the only team who could beat the Aussie syet Henry picked a rag tag bunch of Welsh, Irish and Scots.

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Its not like the aussie chaps weren't amateur either.

They were further down the line than any nation in the NH at the time. All the SH nations were fully pro since the first WC, perhaps even before.

Thats total BS LD.

There was one or two at best per squad who would play in the Italian leagues for cash. In SA they paid expenses, nothing players could live on and all had jobs, many had jobs well into the 00s too.

England had a fair few who were as pro as you would get... many were Army chaps who were placed on light duties. Bath were one of the best amateur operators in the game. The chairman had so many fingers in corporate pies that he got cushy jobs for all his chaps in local "PR" etc allowing them all the time to train, play and tour.

I do not think so, I remember an interview that Jonathan Davies had to do on the bridge outside the the WRU headquarters as he was not allowed inside, he let it all spill out, he cam back from the WC and told everybody how the SH were far more pro than the rest of us, but the WRU would not listen. He was going on about diets, training, fitness regimes, the SH were pro during the eighties the NH was not.

LordDowlais wrote:SCW is a fraud. He was lucky to be in charge of some of the finest players ever available, this was down to the structure beneath the England set-up and some very forward thinking club owners and club coaches.

I think even I could have taken that late nineties early naughties group and one a WC. Look what he achieved after those players retired. He totally ballsed up the Lions. The less said about his book the better, Southampton football club, FFS.

The questions that need to be asked is, why is he not coaching now ? He is still capable of doing a job, surely. Why did he retire ? He knew he would get found out, that's why.

The credit that mean gets for winning the WC, compared to players like Johnson, Dalaglio, Hill, Back, Dawson is criminal.

Geoff Cooke was twice the coach SCW was.

Cooke was a fine coach, but even he lost the odd big match. I'm talking about 1990 of course plus England were hardly tearing down trees in that 1991 World Cup - scraping home against Scotland in the SF and losing to Australia in the final. That was at home, Sir Clive won away plus managed to beat NZ on home turf. As a technical coach you may be right, but I think Sir Clive's results are better.

I think Sir Clive was a great organiser, and his off the wall ideas sparked an open-mindedness throughout his England set-up which allowed players like Greenwood and Robinson to thrive. It was very structured, but the players also had freedom on the pitch to adapt. That's what made them better in 2001-2003 than they were in 1998-2000.

I think his biggest weakness was legacy. He failed after 2003 to move on, and look to the future. Lancaster, for all his faults, is a genuine forward thinker and should he fail at this World Cup, you can at least see the structure he has created and the shape of the England team for years to come. I don't think Sir Clive ever sat down after 2003 and did the same forward planning for 2007, and England fell off a cliff as a result basically just cobbling together ad hoc teams under various different coaches and playing game at a time. Sir Clive has to wear some responsibility for that.