Stuart Lancaster & the England Job

GeordieFalcon wrote:

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.

Barney McGrew did it wrote: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.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yes he chose his coaches well....Lancaster erm well.......

TJ wrote:My bet is lancater will resign tomorrow

funnyExiledScot wrote:Agreed. I like Lancaster and he carries himself well. But he has made some Robinson-esque selections blunders and ultimately his position is now untenable.

That said, there are no outstanding English candidates for the job. Tough call ahead for the blazeratti at "Fortress HQ".

Rugby Fan wrote:

TJ wrote:My bet is lancater will resign tomorrow

Before the last game?

Mr Fishpaste wrote:I understand that Lancaster has made some errors, but on the other hand, does England have the player quality for a coach to work with? What real world class players do they have? (Disclaimer, this is not a WUM, I'm genuinely asking) Mike Brown is definitely class - in fact England's back three have looked potent - but the forwards have looked impotent: I can't think of any England forwards who put fear into other teams, the way that, say, Martin Johnson used to do.

fa0019 wrote:They chose a junior rugby coach. Had 1 season with leeds 10 years ago. He did well with england juniors but when don't England juniors don't do well. They're always up there. What do they expect?

NZ - Hansen. Coached Wales, Asst. Coach to NZ for 8 years prior to appointment. 2 * SR winner as Asst. coach.
SA - Meyer. Coached bulls. Won super rugby title. Asst. coach 1999 world cup.
AUS - Cheika. HC winner Leinster. SR winner Brumbies.
Wales - Gatland. HC winner Wasps. 4 times GP winner. ANZ cup too.
Ireland. Schmidt. 2* HC winner Leinster. Top14 winner. Pro12 winner.
Scotland. Cotter. 2* SR winner crusaders. Top14 winner. HC finalist.

All in all, the above 6 sides all have coaches who have won the very highest honours in club rugby.

Bit of a CV diff coming up next....

France. Saint-Andre. GP title. challenge cup title.
England. Lancaster. 2nd division title England. Relegation from GP next season.

Which 2 sides have constantly failed to live up to reputation, expectations and players they have at their disposal????

fa0019 wrote:The funny thing is... NZ were dead worried that had they hired Wayne Smith they would have gone on to become indestructable. They literally bargained hard over national pride to Smith to not go.

The talent is there...

08 - 2nd
09 - 2nd
10 - 4th
11 - 2nd
12 - 7th (the blip)
13 - 1st
14 - 1st
15 - 2nd

(that was the JRWC performance over last 8 seasons). Do don't get that consistency without having talent. So thats 6 times out of 8 England have been in the final. Ridiculous!

Talent is there.

England's Australia defeat is disaster for the country and for Rugby World Cup 2015: how does RFU respond?
The Doomsday scenario has come to pass, and Stuart Lancaster will know that results at the tournament have been unacceptable and embarrassing
By Steve James
12:00AM BST 04 Oct 2015

The Doomsday scenario has come to pass. Ever since the draw was made in 2012 this was going to befall one of England, Wales or Australia.

But the ramifications for the hosts England were always going to be the gravest, when hurled out of their own Rugby World Cup party before the fun has really started, and as the first host nation to exit at the Pool stages in eight global gatherings.

It is, without doubt, a catastrophe for English rugby and even for the RWC itself. The party will go on, but it will not be the same. Indeed it will not be as good.

The arguments will now rage and rage as to what went wrong and who is to blame. For many it will be Stuart Lancaster and Stuart Lancaster alone. For some that has been the case for some considerable time.

Looking at it now through the black and white lenses mostly used in such situations, those accusations can hardly be described as unnecessarily hysterical.

International sport is about results, and Lancaster will know that the results here have been unacceptable and embarrassing.

Not just that, England have not actually won anything during Lancaster’s tenure, finishing second in four successive seasons in the Six Nations to add to this spectacular failure on the grandest stage.

But should he be sacked? Well, firstly there is the small matter of a long-term contract until 2020, which Lancaster did not actually demand, but one which was given to him and his coaching team by Ian Ritchie, the Rugby Football Union’s chief executive.
When doing so, Ritchie must have considered this scenario, because with Wales and Australia also in the Pool, it was always a possibility.

If Lancaster were to go, then so should Ritchie too really.

However, amid the inevitable anger, let’s just examine the issues in a little more detail.

Firstly that matter of the Pool opponents. Was this not the toughest Pool in RWC history? Yep, of course it was. When the tournament began, the world rankings showed Australia at second, England at fourth and Wales at fifth. Oh, and the seriously dangerous Fiji at ninth. It was quite ludicrous.

So it is not as if England have lost to a bunch of mugs. And it is not as if Wales or Australia would have sacked Warren Gatland or Michael Cheika had they been knocked out early either. I am pretty sure of that.

Four years ago England limped into the quarter-finals and had actually won the Six Nations beforehand, but that English rugby is in a much better place than it was then, with the off-field scandals and leaked reports that followed, is surely not in question.

Lancaster has worked tirelessly to restore the culture and identity of the England rugby team, and has certainly achieved that.

But the truth in my eyes is that he has done so with a group of players that in world terms can only be described as average.

Pick a British and Irish Lions side today and there would not be one English certainty. This is undoubtedly a side that has had to rely on the collective effort, a side much greater than the sum of its parts.

Lancaster has regularly changed his mind about selection, especially in midfield, but in a way that is understandable because England have a lot of players of the same standard, and they are not of the highest standard. That brings with it a natural inconsistency and the temptation to bring in a replacement who might immediately return that position to its original level.

It is said in some quarters that Lancaster selected the wrong players, but it is nonsense really. Players outside the squad always become better with every absent day. But in my view not one of those omitted would have made a significant difference.

Steffon Armitage is the one everyone will point to, but because of the agreement between the RFU and its clubs, Lancaster could not pick him if he wanted, and he is not a proven Test player anyway.

England have missed Manu Tuilagi and Dylan Hartley for sure, but their absences were not Lancaster’s fault, whichever way his critics might want to spin it.

Under Lancaster England have lost 17 from 45 Tests played. They have certainly not lost to anyone poor, succumbing to New Zealand (five times), South Africa (four), Wales (three), Australia (two), France (two) and Ireland this year, with there only being two heavy defeats - Wales by 27 in 2013 and New Zealand by 23 in the third Test in Hamilton last year.

South Africa are the only side not beaten in that time, and England did draw with them away in 2012. England have also defeated New Zealand, something Wales, for instance, have not done.

Yes, the expectations for England are greater, and so they should be, given their resources and wealth.

‘Sack ‘em all’ does not have to be the only policy. And I have to say that I have not yet heard one credible name offered as an alternative to Lancaster. Rob Baxter? Jim Mallinder? Please, come on. Good blokes, good coaches, but, despite the mistakes made, why wantonly waste the knowledge and experience Lancaster has accumulated in this period?

There is a strong possibility that by the next RWC, England will have some players upon whom greatness could be thrust.

Billy Vunipola is only 22, his brother Mako 24. Lancaster now has two excellent Test-match fly halves, in Owen Farrell and George Ford, aged 24 and 22 respectively. Anthony Watson is only 21. Joe Launchbury is 24 and Henry Slade is 22. Maro Itoje, still only 20, will play very soon surely. There was not that abundance of talent when starting out four years ago.

There should be a comprehensive review – after what will only be a horrendous week before playing Uruguay next weekend- and if Lancaster does stay, he must surely consider change within his coaching set-up.

As for the captaincy, Chris Robshaw has done a commendable job, and I would suggest change there if I could think of a suitable alternative for now (it will be Itoje eventually).

That shows how few leaders this team had. That was where this RWC was botched: where the game is played, out on the pitch, not in the stands.

eirebilly wrote:Lancaster's only problem (as far as I can see) is his strength of personality. It's Andy Farrell that has that over him in constantly picking his son.

TightHEAD wrote:SL has so far failed to learn from his mistakes, as he keeps picking a 6 at 7.

majesticimperialman wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:SL has so far failed to learn from his mistakes, as he keeps picking a 6 at 7.

NO. His mistake is he keeps picking Farrell in stead of Ford. at fly half, when Ford came on the team played a lot better, more attacking rugby than with Farrell starting.

fa0019 wrote:Look at Lancasters major decisions.

Faith in Tom Youngs. Its like watching a horror movie over and over again. Great in the loose, he was actually very good in the loose.... but don't blame the props, put Hartley in their and that scrum all of a sudden solidifies. His lineout was tipping on satisfactory... but England could only ever throw conservatively. They couldn't throw aggressively... when they did they were turned over. Parling got the shirt purely because Youngs was weak. When will coaches learn that your 1st choice hooker needs to be the best scrummager and the best thrower you have.

I hear the retorts.... oh but his workrate, his tackling... all that is.

Backrow. If anyone wants to keep on suggesting Robshaw is a 7 then please enlighten us. Hooper and Pocock made him look ridiculous. He didn't even get in position for a single steal or trap a player. He tackled his heart out yes.... but his gainline work was non-existant. His ruck work was non- existant.

But he's not a 7 (unless you count the number on his back).

He's also a terrible captain. Look he's a nice guy and all by all accounts but he doesn't seem too bright. A bit simple if I'm being brutal. The only thing you ever hear from him is "Sir, oh sir, weally was that a penalty". Compare that to nearly every other captain notably Du Preez this afternoon, Warburton especially and McCaw. They're literally running commentary with the ref all day, having a one on one discussion as adults.

Jonno wasn't the most either but the respect and notably the fear the rest of his team had of him was evident from the first second... I mean he had clobbered half of them in club rugby for starters and I'm not talking about putting in a big tackle either.

Onto the brackrow, where was the variation? Where was the plan B? Hell even Jack Rowell took Neil Back in 1995.

Conditioning. I mean the pack are not only about 20-30kg lighter than Wales, SA, Scotland, Australia... they're also ill balanced weight wise. England actuallyhave a very light front five... and quite a heavy backrow.

Front five... not a single starter is 120kg. Not one.  You do if you include Mako but he's unfit. He has so much fat around him its ridiculous. Yes he needs a bit but not that much. Before the world cup I spoke with a current senior bokke prop during a Q&A... hes about 120kg himself and his metrics are thus, his body fat % should not be anymore than 12%. Sorry but if Mako carries 12% or less than the reader is broken.

Then look at the backrow. Robshaw 115kg, Wood 110kg, Haskell 115kg, Billy 125kg, Morgan 115kg.
Pocock and Hooper are about 100kgs. But then check out the guns... I'd bet Pocock has bigger guns than any of the above England players and thats what is needed for backrow play. Strong arms for poaching.

Pocock and Hooper are special players don't get me wrong but Warburton is the same.

You could go on but these things are where England lost the game, where they lost to Wales in 2013, where they lost to Ireland in 2015 why the boks continue to beat them time and time again. If the coach cannot see this, I'm afraid he shouldn't be the coach. End of.

Rugby Fan wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Lancaster's only problem (as far as I can see) is his strength of personality. It's Andy Farrell that has that over him in constantly picking his son.

That claim doesn't hold water. It's clear that Lancaster is the one who favours Farrell.

nathan wrote:It was more attacking, but wasn't anymore winning rugby than before. So if we still lost you'd just pick another argument

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Look at Lancasters major decisions.

Faith in Tom Youngs. Its like watching a horror movie over and over again. Great in the loose, he was actually very good in the loose.... but don't blame the props, put Hartley in their and that scrum all of a sudden solidifies. His lineout was tipping on satisfactory... but England could only ever throw conservatively. They couldn't throw aggressively... when they did they were turned over. Parling got the shirt purely because Youngs was weak. When will coaches learn that your 1st choice hooker needs to be the best scrummager and the best thrower you have.

I hear the retorts.... oh but his workrate, his tackling... all that is.

Backrow. If anyone wants to keep on suggesting Robshaw is a 7 then please enlighten us. Hooper and Pocock made him look ridiculous. He didn't even get in position for a single steal or trap a player. He tackled his heart out yes.... but his gainline work was non-existant. His ruck work was non- existant.

But he's not a 7 (unless you count the number on his back).

He's also a terrible captain. Look he's a nice guy and all by all accounts but he doesn't seem too bright. A bit simple if I'm being brutal. The only thing you ever hear from him is "Sir, oh sir, weally was that a penalty". Compare that to nearly every other captain notably Du Preez this afternoon, Warburton especially and McCaw. They're literally running commentary with the ref all day, having a one on one discussion as adults.

Jonno wasn't the most either but the respect and notably the fear the rest of his team had of him was evident from the first second... I mean he had clobbered half of them in club rugby for starters and I'm not talking about putting in a big tackle either.

Onto the brackrow, where was the variation? Where was the plan B? Hell even Jack Rowell took Neil Back in 1995.

Conditioning. I mean the pack are not only about 20-30kg lighter than Wales, SA, Scotland, Australia... they're also ill balanced weight wise. England actuallyhave a very light front five... and quite a heavy backrow.

Front five... not a single starter is 120kg. Not one.  You do if you include Mako but he's unfit. He has so much fat around him its ridiculous. Yes he needs a bit but not that much. Before the world cup I spoke with a current senior bokke prop during a Q&A... hes about 120kg himself and his metrics are thus, his body fat % should not be anymore than 12%. Sorry but if Mako carries 12% or less than the reader is broken.

Then look at the backrow. Robshaw 115kg, Wood 110kg, Haskell 115kg, Billy 125kg, Morgan 115kg.
Pocock and Hooper are about 100kgs. But then check out the guns... I'd bet Pocock has bigger guns than any of the above England players and thats what is needed for backrow play. Strong arms for poaching.

Pocock and Hooper are special players don't get me wrong but Warburton is the same.

You could go on but these things are where England lost the game, where they lost to Wales in 2013, where they lost to Ireland in 2015 why the boks continue to beat them time and time again. If the coach cannot see this, I'm afraid he shouldn't be the coach. End of.

Absolutely spot on. Robshaw is an incredible rugby player, but not a 7 and not a good captain. I wonder whether it's his selection that throws the England pack out of balance. Because he's not a great jackal, you end up compensating for that elsewhere.  You then start picking guys not because they're great at the core competencies of their own position, but because they make up for someone else's deficiencies. Tom Youngs is great round the park, but average in the lineout and poor in the scrum. Marler and Cole are good at the breakdown but neither are dominant in the scrum. Wood gets around the pitch but is a lightweight carrier and not a big tackler.

The less said about the bench selections the better.

Rugby Fan wrote:There's a lot to talk about in the back line but we lost yesterday because we got beaten in the scrum and at the breakdown. Our forwards have generally been reliable under Lancaster but somehow it all went to pot when it mattered most.

I don't know if that's conditioning, selection, coaching or all three, but it looks to me as if we took that part of our game for granted.

Rugby Fan wrote:There seems to be a general consensus that Schmidt, Cheika and, possibly, Cotter, are better coaches than Lancaster. I've seen pundits wondering why England resources have not been able to snare such quality.

As far as I can recall, either they weren't available, or else no-one rated them so highly four years ago. After Johnson resigned, it seemed like the only name in the hat alongside Lancaster was Nick Mallet.

If we are going to look for a new set of coaches, then I hope do we a better job of identifying an attracting talent than before.

It's possible that the whole bitter fall-out after 2011 created an environment that many coaches thought they would do better avoiding. I don't think that's so true now, despite the backlash in the media, so perhaps that will help any search if we need it.

eirebilly wrote:Lancaster's only problem (as far as I can see) is his strength of personality. It's Andy Farrell that has that over him in constantly picking his son.

That claim doesn't hold water. It's clear that Lancaster is the one who favours Farrell.

RubyGuby wrote:This is no knee Jerk Nathan there are numerous valid reasons as to why he should be relieved of his post. It's not personal

majesticimperialman wrote:nathan.

I am not calling for the sacking of any coaches just because we lost. What i am saying is what needs too be looked at is the way they coach the team.

eirebilly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Lancaster's only problem (as far as I can see) is his strength of personality. It's Andy Farrell that has that over him in constantly picking his son.

That claim doesn't hold water. It's clear that Lancaster is the one who favours Farrell.

You think so? I don't. When Farrell was unavailable, Lancaster made the correct selections and England played well. When available, Farrell snr, seems to be the driving force behind picking his son. That's the way I see it anyways.

eirebilly wrote:Lancaster's only problem (as far as I can see) is his strength of personality. It's Andy Farrell that has that over him in constantly picking his son. I have said many times before, Owen Farrell is not international standard yet continues to be picked. Last night really highlighted that again.

Without Farrell, England were playing some great creative rugby, with Farrell they look useless. Keep Lancaster and get rid of Andy Farrell.