Stuart Lancaster & the England Job

First topic message reminder :

 
I think that this aspect of the fallout from last night's titanic match deserves a thread of its own.

As a neutral, I am probably the person to start it as I have no truck with England's current head coach either way.

Some numbers first. The figures for Lancaster are only correct to the end of the 6N this year, so that's worth bearing in mind:

Geoff Cooke
Tenure: 16 January 1988 – 19 March 1994
Tests: 50
Won: 36
Drawn: 1
Lost: 13
Win Percentage: 72

Jack Rowell
Tenure: 4 June 1994 – 12 July 1997
Tests: 29
Won: 21
Drawn: 0
Lost: 8
Win Percentage: 72

Sir Clive Woodward
Tenure: 15 November 1997 – 2 September 2004
Tests: 83
Won: 59
Drawn: 2
Lost: 22
Win Percentage: 71

Andy Robinson
Tenure: 15 October 2004 – 29 November 2006
Tests: 22
Won: 9
Drawn: 0
Lost: 13
Win Percentage: 41

Brian Ashton
Tenure: 20 December 2006 – 1 June 2008
Tests: 22
Won: 12
Drawn: 0
Lost: 10
Win Percentage: 55

Rob Andrew
Tenure: 1 June 2008 – 30 June 2008
Tests: 2
Won: 0
Drawn: 0
Lost: 2
Win Percentage: 0

Martin Johnson
Tenure: 1 July 2008 – 16 November 2011
Tests: 38
Won: 21
Drawn: 1
Lost: 16
Win Percentage: 55

Stuart Lancaster
Tenure: 8 December 2011 – present
Tests: 42
Won: 26
Drawn: 1
Lost: 15
Win Percentage: 62

SL was in charge of his first game in March 2012.

Many regard England's failure to beat Wales as attributable directly to the head coach's tactical decisions in selection and to the apparent lack of a clear and consistent game plan which England is playing to.

My questions for the group:

1. What results are needed in this Rugby World Cup for Lancaster to keep his job? Would he still have to go if England exit in the quarters?

2. With reference to his peers above, what win ratio is expected from an England coach and is this reasonable?

3. What are the key areas in which Lancaster can be validly criticised?

4. The RFU is the most profitable union in the sport. Apart from perhaps the NZ head coach's job, there is a fair argument that being England's head coach is the most prestigious coaching appointment in rugby union football. But is it in fact something of a poisoned chalice given the overwhelming expectation to constantly be successful?

100 posts, eh? Worth posting a thread after all.

So ....

Are we just complaining because of the result on Saturday night....or is Lancaster genuinely an issue?

Is everyone happy that he stays at the helm or are people concerned that he's not learning and continuing to make the same selection and managerial mistakes.

?

Let's start at page one again so, Geordie.

I think the thread is a bit of a Vicky Pollard one in that the folks ain't quite certain which it is but they're certain they know why.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So ....

Are we just complaining because of the result on Saturday night....or is Lancaster genuinely an issue?

Is everyone happy that he stays at the helm or are people concerned that he's not learning and continuing to make the same selection and managerial mistakes.

I think he has done a good job across his tenure.

I do not believe the players we have are especially good, and we all clamour for someone else to play - but when they do they are excrement.


I do think that the current coaching team have taken the squad as far as they can. I believe that Lancaster has sufficient ability to focus solely on the development side of his job description.


Thing is who comes in. I do not see an outstanding candidate for the Head Coach position. rob Baxter could be an outstanding choice as Forwards coach, though it is a risk - while the prime candidates for Backs coach are inexperienced.




What it all boils down to is the players, though. and we do not have players available that are good enough to really threaten to win a WC.

Will still beat Australia though.



Maybe.

I wonder to what extent the decision to go to the front jumper with the final lineout was made in light of the fact Webber was throwing in? To my mind, the decision to go for the lineout was bad not simply because the draw was there for the taking, but also because Webber's throwing is too unreliable.

A lot is made of Lancaster bringing a better attitude to the England team. However, I wonder the extent to which he marries discipline with support. I felt he threw Robshaw under the bus somewhat in his analysis of the defeat. I wonder whether other coaches would have taken more of the blame on themselves. I also wonder what impact that will have on Robshaw and his captaincy going forward.

Overall I think SL has a lot to answer for. Still not knowing who is best side is at this stage? Selecting a midfield that had not played together before in a crunch RWC game? Making strange selection decisions over a number of years? Starting Farrell against NZ and SA last Autumn when the poor guy had been out injured and had not played for ages.....just plain stupid. Ford has done a great job since he came in and yet he and the more attacking game was abandoned because JJ was injured....just plain stupid.

Of course SL has done some decent things and England are not a terrible side, but neither are they a good one. They can win this Sat and make the 1/4s and they can even win the group and go as far as the semis......but the likelihood is a defeat this sat and a group stage exit. If England do switch it on then the debate will rage around how much credit SL deserves?

Overall there is no excuse for selecting a midfield that has never played before. Tuilagi has not been available for ages and he should have used the 6Ns to cement this area into place. We were all crying out for Slade and yet he chose not to give him a go. Surely now we must go with Ford, Burgess and Slade? Yet another untried midfield, but that is the mess we find ourselves in. Farrell did play well, but we need to try and win this match rather than just try and avoid losing.

And to think the RFU gave SL and his coaches new contracts to 2019

People have to get real if they actually think Lancaster is some sort of coaching master. The RFU were suckered into choosing him because of his so called miracle of getting the 6N defending champs to 2nd place in 2012.

Has he actually got a vision for English rugby? A vision to winning rugby? Or has he simply built a team that is difficult to beat.

SCW made shed loads of mistakes but there was a clear method to his madness. You could see what he's was trying to achieve.

Can anyone say that about Lancaster?

Take the backrow.... they've known Wales and AUS were their opponents for what 2 years? They know both like fluid backrows.

Englands backrow looks mechanical... very 1995. Where is the plan B?

Choice of backrow players to choose from has been

Wood - 6.
Robshaw - 6.
Haskell - 6
Itoje - Only ever seen him in U20 England but he's a 6/Lock right.
Morgan - 8
Vunipola - 8
Clark - 6

Where is the variation.... where is the plan B/balance? Give or take 10kg those players are all carbon copies of each other.

The opensides he has used have been sparingly... why not ever try Robshaw at 6 and test out a openside... rather than say, oh only when Robshaw is injured.

Well he should perhaps have tried Robshaw at 9?

LondonTiger wrote:Well he should perhaps have tried Robshaw at 9?

Touche... but I'd like to see Lancaster get a win vs. one of the big 5 historical pro teams (3N + ENG & FRA) with Italy. Not bad considering his steller bok record.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So ....

Are we just complaining because of the result on Saturday night....or is Lancaster genuinely an issue?

Is everyone happy that he stays at the helm or are people concerned that he's not learning and continuing to make the same selection and managerial mistakes.

its a hard one. if we had held out against wales (and we really should have, not taking any credit form wales, but at 10 points up we should have pushed through) and if we then came out against Oz with a midfield to unleash our back 3, then that would show progress wouldnt it?

I have always given SL the benefit of the doubt; i think he has built a POTENTIALLY quality team, and i was quietly confident we would see the fruits of his labour againts wales and oz and go charging into the finals with a head of steam.

But then 20 min of headless chickens killed that.

If we go out at pool stage i think him and his team should go (they wont, they will be kept until 2019)
If we progress, even win (i know ridiculous eh) he should stay, but needs to add to/change his team.

You would imagine after the world cup, regardless of result, Burgess will probably be at 6 and Slade at 12. These 2 additions in a regular team line up could move our dynamic forward massively whoever is in charge, plus Ford will have learnt a lot from this, again regardless of when we go out of the WC, his potential will change to fact sooner rather than later (he is already a wonderful player, i think he will learn to adapt quicker and sharper and be stitched on at 10)

so basically, for me, SL stays. *ducks and cowers*

so basically, for me, SL stays. *ducks and cower

I agree SL stays. But i do think their needs to be some changes in the (coaching set up) Farrell snr? should he go or should he stay? mike Catt? should he stay or go?
And what about Rowntree? Should he stay or go?

Alot a questions to be ask and no quick answers at this point.

LondonTiger wrote:

However I do not want that person to be a foreign coach. This is our national team and our best coaches should be able to aspire to the job rather than watching a New Zealander deemed not good enough for their set-up to get it.

I don't know, mate. I just can't imagine any Irish or Welsh fans sitting around now, looking back at their success in recent years (and possible success in this WC) thinking 'man, this is great. If only our coach wasn't a foreigner'.

As for Lancaster, don't like him, never have been happy with his appointment. I think he would need to reach the semi-final to keep his job and would be amazed if the RFU didn't put minimum performance clauses in to his contract.

I could go on and on about how he is a PR weasel, fluent in corporate cowpat speak, a man who knows more about performance clocks and power point presentations than coaching rugby team - but for the benefit of you all I will resist.

His record as a domestic coach was far from impressive and his second in command is a League superstar who never had the chance to show a deep understanding for Union (Saracens are a much better side without him), yet the RFU somehow felt this was a good enough team to lead them into a home world cup.

Think some people are thinking too hard about this one.

‘Must be English’ – come on man, get with the global thing – I mean why care, remember we want the best. A SH coach may even show us a new trick or two.

‘SL’s done ok’ – that is exactly my point – why stick with ok. Why can’t we do the things we can with our clout and cash first, and maybe the players will develop in the future. Who knows, a top coach may even speed things up. The very least he should do is make the best of what we’ve got. If you combine an ok coach with an ok team – what have you got? I’m guessing ok results. I’m not ok with that.

We can’t buy a better team, but we just might be able to buy a better coach. SL’s done ok, but it’s time to start thinking of being more.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think some people are thinking too hard about this one.

‘Must be English’ – come on man, get with the global thing – I mean why care, remember we want the best. A SH coach may even show us a new trick or two.

‘SL’s done ok’ – that is exactly my point – why stick with ok. Why can’t we do the things we can with our clout and cash first, and maybe the players will develop in the future. Who knows, a top coach may even speed things up. The very least he should do is make the best of what we’ve got. If you combine an ok coach with an ok team – what have you got? I’m guessing ok results. I’m not ok with that.

We can’t buy a better team, but we just might be able to buy a better coach. SL’s done ok, but it’s time to start thinking of being more.

We have some crackers coming through though...and my big dilemma is....is Lancaster the one to really use them best.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

However I do not want that person to be a foreign coach. This is our national team and our best coaches should be able to aspire to the job rather than watching a New Zealander deemed not good enough for their set-up to get it.

I don't know, mate. I just can't imagine any Irish or Welsh fans sitting around now, looking back at their success in recent years (and possible success in this WC) thinking 'man, this is great. If only our coach wasn't a foreigner'.

I am sure they are not, but unless the rules have changed I believe I am allowed an opinion, which of course may then be mocked.

I am not a huge fan of the international game, but feel that if it is to have any relevance it should be the pinnacle of rugby in that country. To this extent I hate the crappy residency rules, the just as crappy grandparent rules and the even crappier project players. In the same way that I would not wish to see a guy airlifted in to play for my country having never stepped foot in it before, I do not want the team headed up by someone with zero link or affinity to the game in England.

Just my opinion. no more valid (or less) than anyone elses.

I actualy think that SL has done a good job since he took over from Martin Johnson.

The team is better, fitter, and play a lot better than before. It is just a shame that in the last 10/15 minutes of the games that have been lost while he as been in charge as not led to any trophy's.

SCW took7/8 years to get a WORLD CUP winning team together to beat SA, NZ ,AUS in thier own back yard and at Twickernam. SO he should be given more time in my opinion.

But just how much more time will be enough? time to give him.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think some people are thinking too hard about this one.

‘Must be English’ – come on man, get with the global thing – I mean why care, remember we want the best. A SH coach may even show us a new trick or two.

‘SL’s done ok’ – that is exactly my point – why stick with ok. Why can’t we do the things we can with our clout and cash first, and maybe the players will develop in the future. Who knows, a top coach may even speed things up. The very least he should do is make the best of what we’ve got. If you combine an ok coach with an ok team – what have you got? I’m guessing ok results. I’m not ok with that.

We can’t buy a better team, but we just might be able to buy a better coach. SL’s done ok, but it’s time to start thinking of being more.

We have some crackers coming through though...and my big dilemma is....is Lancaster the one to really use them best.

No

Especially with Catt and Farrell coaching.

George Carlin wrote:
My questions for the group:

1. What results are needed in this Rugby World Cup for Lancaster to keep his job? Would he still have to go if England exit in the quarters?

Not sure what would placate the group. Lancaster is a decent bloke and should he not get the team out of the group I believe he will step down - despite that leaving him unemployed with a family that would need supporting.
1/4 final would probably placate the RFU, but may need a semi final.

2. With reference to his peers above, what win ratio is expected from an England coach and is this reasonable?

Hard to compare to Cooke and Rowell as England face SH opposiition more often. SCW had an exceptional group of players, yet for four years they kept choking at the the final hurdle. SCW made many of the same mistakes Lancaster has in his first few years, but he conveniently forgets that.
In general an acceptable win ratio would be 80% in the 6Ns (achieved) and 50% against 4Ns teams (not achieved)

3. What are the key areas in which Lancaster can be validly criticised?

Experimenting in the back row perhaps, especially in the last 6Ns. Absolutely nothing would be learnt from having Easter and Croft on the bench.
Being over loyal to the shirt holders in the desire to build experience (though a double edged sword as no team can be built if you chop and change all the time)[/quote]

4. The RFU is the most profitable union in the sport. Apart from perhaps the NZ head coach's job, there is a fair argument that being England's head coach is the most prestigious coaching appointment in rugby union football. But is it in fact something of a poisoned chalice given the overwhelming expectation to constantly be successful?

Is there really an overwhelming expectation? From about 1990 to 2003 England were a decent team. Before that and after they have not been all that. Robinson had a tough job when he took over, Lancaster less so as Jonno was lambasted from pillar to post just before. Next coach will have the easiest job of the lot as there is starting to be a nucleus of a very good side and some fine youngsters coming through.

I just do not see what the pressure or expectation is. The England Soccer manager - now that is a pressured job, but not the Rugby Head Coach.

LondonTiger wrote:

3. What are the key areas in which Lancaster can be validly criticised?

Experimenting in the back row perhaps, especially in the last 6Ns. Absolutely nothing would be learnt from having Easter and Croft on the bench.
Being over loyal to the shirt holders in the desire to build experience (though a double edged sword as no team can be built if you chop and change all the time)

[/quote]

Your totally right on both of these LT

Bit touchy, no? No one tried to deny you your right to an opinion.

LondonTiger wrote:
I believe he will step down - despite that leaving him unemployed with a family that would need supporting.

To be fair...£350k salary for 4 years, a potential pay-out for walking, inevitable book deals/newspaper columns and the corporate dinner speaking circuit. Unemployed, maybe - but comfortably so.

I feel that a tendency to revert to a more conservative game plan when feeling the heat could also be a fault levelled at Bomber.

This has often been evident in the scrum in my opinion. For a time we were moving away from using the scrum to manufacture penalties. We were looking to use the scrum as a means to get on the front foot then get the ball out. Whether by using Billy V or Morgan as weapons off the back, or moving the ball wide quickly trusting that the support from an advancing pack would be there first and provide quick ball.

When under pressure I have felt we have move away from this and tried to revert to keeping the ball in once moving forward and hoping for the penalty. The main problem however being that we rarely have the level of dominance needed for this now so it can be a bit of a lottery.

yappysnap wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Think some people are thinking too hard about this one.

‘Must be English’ – come on man, get with the global thing – I mean why care, remember we want the best. A SH coach may even show us a new trick or two.

‘SL’s done ok’ – that is exactly my point – why stick with ok. Why can’t we do the things we can with our clout and cash first, and maybe the players will develop in the future. Who knows, a top coach may even speed things up. The very least he should do is make the best of what we’ve got. If you combine an ok coach with an ok team – what have you got? I’m guessing ok results. I’m not ok with that.

We can’t buy a better team, but we just might be able to buy a better coach. SL’s done ok, but it’s time to start thinking of being more.

We have some crackers coming through though...and my big dilemma is....is Lancaster the one to really use them best.

No

Especially with Catt and Farrell coaching.

Why are you blaming them? England's attacking game has come on tremendously, and the defence is reasonable.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

3. What are the key areas in which Lancaster can be validly criticised?

Experimenting in the back row perhaps, especially in the last 6Ns. Absolutely nothing would be learnt from having Easter and Croft on the bench.
Being over loyal to the shirt holders in the desire to build experience (though a double edged sword as no team can be built if you chop and change all the time)

Your totally right on both of these LT
[/quote]

Well having Easter on the bench probably did teach him something as he's now been called up to the WC squad having been completely out of the picture until he started appearing on the bench.

And I think it's harsh to criticise him for trying to built experience in a hugely inexperienced group. He got some of the call wrong, but they were judgement calls and that can happen to any coach.

DaveM wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

3. What are the key areas in which Lancaster can be validly criticised?

Experimenting in the back row perhaps, especially in the last 6Ns. Absolutely nothing would be learnt from having Easter and Croft on the bench.
Being over loyal to the shirt holders in the desire to build experience (though a double edged sword as no team can be built if you chop and change all the time)

Your totally right on both of these LT

Well having Easter on the bench probably did teach him something as he's now been called up to the WC squad having been completely out of the picture until he started appearing on the bench.

And I think it's harsh to criticise him for trying to built experience in a hugely inexperienced group. He got some of the call wrong, but they were judgement calls and that can happen to any coach.[/quote]

Dave,

Ive applauded Lancaster many times for that on here. I think he's done great in that regards. However I believe he has got many calls wrong during the later part of his reign and after a promising 2 years the latter 2 years have stuttered.

The backs have improved in the last year, great but the team on a whole hasn't in my opinion.

The backs have improved partly to better balance partly down to Catt having an influence I think. The pack is fine but mainly being picked apart as it doesn't have the right balance for some. At the moment there's not too many players who are blatently being overlooked though. In the next season you'd expect Burgess, Itoje, Clifford maybe to be pushing. Nathan Hughes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The backs have improved partly to better balance partly down to Catt having an influence I think. The pack is fine but mainly being picked apart as it doesn't have the right balance for some. At the moment there's not too many players who are blatently being overlooked though. In the next season you'd expect Burgess, Itoje, Clifford maybe to be pushing. Nathan Hughes.

7.5
I totally agree with you. Some players have been overlooked who most definitely should have been trialled...I know I harped on at the time...but Matt Garvey was an example at the time. A monster of a guy, mobile, tackler of the year for several seasons going. When the team is struggling and you need to revert to route one....what a brilliant player to have in your squad. Many said he would not have made it as he wasn't good enough but....he wasn't even looked at.

But everyone is massively impressed because Australia have Skelton the monster in their squad (or had) .

And there have been others.

Lancaster has a lot of good stuff, but he needs to do more and needs to really show the teams direction and what its plan B is. If he can do that I have problems with him staying on as coach...

However, I will stop with the negativity now. I will back the boys all the way against Australia and hope they can rescue the good work they did for a periods against Wales.

Garvey started the season excellently then went off the boil. I'd love a monster lock in there (given he'll be shunted there for Bath) a Slater etc but they have to be top quality rather than just fitting the brief of being big as we've seen with Attwood and Haskell.

Pretty much everyone we may have harped on about individually has been tried out in some form, whether it is the full team, Midweek tour fixtures, Barbarians game or Saxons.

The likes of Ewers, Garvey, Itoje, Kvesic, Slater have all been looked at and not done enough (in the eyes of the coaches) to leapfrog players.

As sure as apples is apples if a different player had been given more time, we would be moaning about a different missed opportunity.

In the end results matter though. Lose on Saturday and Lancaster will be gone.

Agree LT.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Garvey started the season excellently then went off the boil. I'd love a monster lock in there (given he'll be shunted there for Bath) a Slater etc but they have to be top quality rather than just fitting the brief of being big as we've seen with Attwood and Haskell.

I don't mean now...I mean at the start of Lancasters reign when he was on fire for London irish.

LondonTiger wrote:Pretty much everyone we may have harped on about individually has been tried out in some form, whether it is the full team, Midweek tour fixtures, Barbarians game or Saxons.

The likes of Ewers, Garvey, Itoje, Kvesic, Slater have all been looked at and not done enough (in the eyes of the coaches) to leapfrog players.

As sure as apples is apples if a different player had been given more time, we would be moaning about a different missed opportunity.

In the end results matter though. Lose on Saturday and Lancaster will be gone.  

When?

But you had Wood and Robshaw then who were both very good as well. I think ignoring internationals altogether and judging Garvey against those 2 they are the better players.

Lancaster getting a lot of heat. Seems to me that people forget the individual errors that are plaguing these performances.

Thought the Burgess Farrel Ford shuffle was bizarre but the other changes were mostly enforced.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But you had Wood and Robshaw then who were both very good as well. I think ignoring internationals altogether and judging Garvey against those 2 they are the better players.

But you need balance in your squad .

Yes they were probably (slightly) better players but Garvey (or someone of a similar ilk) gives you something different to have plan B, mix it up etc. You need that in your squad...and one of Lancasters fault is selecting identikit players.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Pretty much everyone we may have harped on about individually has been tried out in some form, whether it is the full team, Midweek tour fixtures, Barbarians game or Saxons.

The likes of Ewers, Garvey, Itoje, Kvesic, Slater have all been looked at and not done enough (in the eyes of the coaches) to leapfrog players.

As sure as apples is apples if a different player had been given more time, we would be moaning about a different missed opportunity.

In the end results matter though. Lose on Saturday and Lancaster will be gone.  

When?

Explained in the first paragraph. all have played at least in the Saxons.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Pretty much everyone we may have harped on about individually has been tried out in some form, whether it is the full team, Midweek tour fixtures, Barbarians game or Saxons.

The likes of Ewers, Garvey, Itoje, Kvesic, Slater have all been looked at and not done enough (in the eyes of the coaches) to leapfrog players.

As sure as apples is apples if a different player had been given more time, we would be moaning about a different missed opportunity.

In the end results matter though. Lose on Saturday and Lancaster will be gone.  

When?

Explained in the first paragraph. all have played at least in the Saxons.

HHmmm, a half / 20 mins here and there...or 2 years ago etc.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But you had Wood and Robshaw then who were both very good as well. I think ignoring internationals altogether and judging Garvey against those 2 they are the better players.

But you need balance in your squad .

Yes they were probably (slightly) better players but Garvey (or someone of a similar ilk) gives you something different to have plan B, mix it up etc. You need that in your squad...and one of Lancasters fault is selecting identikit players.

But it comes down to whether the players who aren't identikit are good enough. Haskell and Attwood were the saviours not so long ago remember.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But you had Wood and Robshaw then who were both very good as well. I think ignoring internationals altogether and judging Garvey against those 2 they are the better players.

But you need balance in your squad .

Yes they were probably (slightly) better players but Garvey (or someone of a similar ilk) gives you something different to have plan B, mix it up etc. You need that in your squad...and one of Lancasters fault is selecting identikit players.

But it comes down to whether the players who aren't identikit are good enough. Haskell and Attwood were the saviours not so long ago remember.

Absolutely, I was one shouting for Attwood. But because Lancaster ACTUALLY had a good look at him, we all had to accept he wasn't good enough in bringing his size and power to this level - which is what we wanted him in there for.

It may have been the same for Garvey...but we'll never know.

How they perform in training will tell you so much, but you need to see how players perform in match situations.

Well that's just my opinion and I guess im not a level 5 coach who has access to the players.

I suppose it could have been but we can point to countless players like that who haven't been given a chance. Given the amount of good players England have you have to make a number of choices and stick with them in my opinion to get the best from them. Mullan, George, Thomas, Slater, Kitchener, Garvey, Kvesic, Ewers, Robson, Cirpriani, Eastmond, Daly, Wade, Some one on the left (can't think of an obvious one), Abendanon.

May be a stretch on some of those players but I think a decent argument could be made for any of them to deserve a chance. When do you give them a chance while trying to build a team with the necessary experience and while giving chances to others who are now part of the core team?

We will never know maybe, but actually when it comes to selection we are not important.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose it could have been but we can point to countless players like that who haven't been given a chance. Given the amount of good players England have you have to make a number of choices and stick with them in my opinion to get the best from them. Mullan, George, Thomas, Slater, Kitchener, Garvey, Kvesic, Ewers, Robson, Cirpriani, Eastmond, Daly, Wade, Some one on the left (can't think of an obvious one), Abendanon.

May be a stretch on some of those players but I think a decent argument could be made for any of them to deserve a chance. When do you give them a chance while trying to build a team with the necessary experience and while giving chances to others who are now part of the core team?

Well thats why he's paid a large salary and im merely commenting on it on a forum...

But I personally feel its an area he has got wrong. Amen

LondonTiger wrote:We will never know maybe, but actually when it comes to selection we are not important.

Very true LT.

And I know we can be biased about some players we prefer, but i try to be fair as well.

Id say he should have looked more at Ed Slater at your tigers as well long before he got his injury when he was playing great..and offered that extra physicality with mobility. And great carrying...which we are missing.

I'm surprised Slater didn't get a look in earlier really, he is the perfect Lancaster lock, very mobile and could be a 6.

I do like SL and I really like his return to core values and focus on respect etc. However I do wonder if in the last couple of years we have started to see his lack of hands on coaching experience. I think his strengths are not necessarily hands on coaching and in many ways he would be better suited to the Rob Andrew role of overseeing proceedings and focusing on the conveyer belt of young talent.

Certainly if England fail to qualify from their group, heads will have to roll. At the moment we are the bloke who hosts a great party but who drank too much before the guests turned up and so is crashing around incoherently while everyone else has a good time.

Agree on Slater, but he had a chance this time around and didn't make it. Given the injury disrupted season he had he did well to make the larger training squad. We do have a lot of talent at lock though. All being well we could have been playing Slater and Kitchener in the engine room and we would not be losing much at all.

Long time lurker here , I think I've posted about 3 times .

My concerns with Lancaster are he just seems to miss the glaringly obvious . We can all see that the pre planned subs very rarely work ( apart from the Fiji game ) and the ill discipline which has been an issue for a long time .
The team just seems a bit dim when under pressure , aimless kicking away and when they do decide to keep the ball it's as if it's a live grenade and smacks of panic . This is down to Lancaster I feel , do they players respect him ? I'm not so sure .

Bathman_in_London wrote:I'm surprised Slater didn't get a look in earlier really, he is the perfect Lancaster lock, very mobile and could be a 6.

I do like SL and I really like his return to core values and focus on respect etc. However I do wonder if in the last couple of years we have started to see his lack of hands on coaching experience. I think his strengths are not necessarily hands on coaching and in many ways he would be better suited to the Rob Andrew role of overseeing proceedings and focusing on the conveyer belt of young talent.

Certainly if England fail to qualify from their group, heads will have to roll. At the moment we are the bloke who hosts a great party but who drank too much before the guests turned up and so is crashing around incoherently while everyone else has a good time.

Thats what Woodward was well.

Selection is IMO a bit of a red herring. SL has made some mistakes here but on the whole we have what we have – arguably there aren’t any proven players who, if selected, would hugely improve the team.

But let’s get one thing clear – we’ve just lost to Wales. At HQ. In a home RWC. A loss that could put us out of the competition in the most humiliating fashion. We didn’t lose against the Abs. Or SA. But Wales. A team we’ve beaten reasonably comfortably home and away for the last 2 years.

Putting nice-but-dim Robshaw’s decision to one side for the moment, the buck has to stop somewhere. I hear Wales is a team full of winners. Really? – not the previous couple of times we’ve played them. I hear Wales wanted it more. Really - wanted to win a must-win game, in a home RWC, at HQ, more than England? Seems unlikely don’t you think? I hear Wales have a more settled side. Really? – they’re dropping like flies.  

England seem to have lost their backbone. When the pressure was on, not helped with the robotic changes in personnel in the last quarter, they looked bemused, lacking in direction, leaderless and frazzled. Maybe the change from a more attacking game-plan into a let's hold back Wales approach confused and demoralized them. Maybe down-playing the set-piece was unpopular. But we have a track record of losing a game (more or less) a season to an in your face opponent. If these aren’t coaching/leadership issues I don’t know what are.

My fear is, after beating Aus (I hope), but getting knocked out in the QFs, we’ll paper over the cracks and muddle on with muddled SL. He's taken us as far as he can and it's time for a change at the top I’d say.

The problem is Lancaster hasn't learn from his mistakes.

Still playing people out of position - Farrell isn't a 12. Shunting him there in a high pressure situation vs Wales when he was doing well at 10 was utter stupidity.

Again poor restarts - why can't anyone in the England coaching staff teach the 10 to kick the restarts intelligently?

Poor bench usage - the bench didn't play well,Goode wasn't even used.

Lack of leadership again -Robshaw I am sure would be fine if he was surrounded by a group of leaders but he's not. When England needed to close out the game they failed miserably. Again England failed to win a crunch game.

At least Lancaster and co will take their pay day from the fat cats of the RFU. Thanks RFU...

Not quite out of it yet beshocked. Beat Aus and we're through.

beshocked wrote:The problem is Lancaster hasn't learn from his mistakes.

Still playing people out of position - Farrell isn't a 12. Shunting him there in a high pressure situation vs Wales when he was doing well at 10 was utter stupidity.

Again poor restarts - why can't anyone in the England coaching staff teach the 10 to kick the restarts intelligently?

Poor bench usage - the bench didn't play well,Goode wasn't even used.

Lack of leadership again -Robshaw I am sure would be fine if he was surrounded by a group of leaders but he's not. When England needed to close out the game they failed miserably. Again England failed to win a crunch game.

At least Lancaster and co will take their pay day from the fat cats of the RFU. Thanks RFU...

Considering his strengths and what went wrong I don't think that not using Goode was a bad call. Choosing Goode there in the first place was more problematic, as a player like Nowell might have been able to add real impact