Stuart Lancaster & the England Job

by **George Carlin** Sun 27 Sep - 11:31

First topic message reminder :

Stuart Lancaster & the England Job - Page 5 Stuart10

Stuart Lancaster & the England Job - Page 5 Englan12

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?

by eirebilly Sun 4 Oct - 8:54

Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 8:54

RubyGuby wrote:There will be a proper review Nathan no one will be making a decision until after the RWC

What I've found interesting this week is that any criticism of the England team has been met with disdain. Sometimes people like Carling write what they genuinely think because they care deeply about English rugby and IMO their views have not been far off

I'm sorry but that's a load of rubbish, people like Carling make a kick and fuss to try and grab some limelight. With him it's happened time and again. Also how exactly can he comment on how the players are trained when he is on the outside.

Seriously ruby, I would take anything he says with a pinch of salt. I would expect the comments he made from a foreign journalist to try and disrupt the team, but not him to his own team.

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 8:55

eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 4 Oct - 8:58

RubyGuby wrote:...What I've found interesting this week is that any criticism of the England team has been met with disdain...

I don't think that's true. The squad and coaches have certainly deflected criticism but you'd hardly expect them to do anything else while trying to focus on the next game.

Outside, I think pundits and supporters have been genuinely concerned about some of our shortcomings. Disdain was the last thing on anyone's mind. We hoped that the coaches knew more than we did, and the players could rise to the occasion. That proved not to be the case.

by eirebilly Sun 4 Oct - 8:58

nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 8:59

Regarding scrums, I don't think it's personnel related as our front 5 have been well on top before - perhaps it is coaching, we didn't put enough time in and focused on mobile stuff instead

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 9:00

eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

by rozakthegoon Sun 4 Oct - 9:01

also the whole lightweight, mobile pack thing; great idea, if it can work. Oz' pack passed our forwards AND backs off the park. they ran, darted, burrowed, pop-passed out of tackle. our pack simply cant pass like that, so maybe they should have stayed heavy and smashed people.

it kind of seems that all of SL ideas are doable and would improve us massively: a pack that has loads of energy, can run and play fast and hard. 9/10/12 that can kick, pass fast and spread paly left and right. Backs that are fast and skillful, a back 3 until that comes up quick, jumps high, tackles hard and fast.

BUT, it seems clear those ideas need to be implemeted by someone who is a better coach.

Maybe SL actually needs to stay with a new team of high qulaity coaches? (which is why they should have offered Wayne Smith a fortune and left farrell at saracens)

by Hood83 Sun 4 Oct - 9:02

nathan wrote:
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

I know it's not personal, but looking objectivity you can't make a decision the morning after and not call it knee jerk.

There needs to be a proper review because Lancaster has done a lot of good too

I know you're right, but what likelihood the review says lots of guff about the 'positive atmosphere' and 'strong culture' then notices the length of his contract and says...best keep him until 2020. Do people really, seriously buy into this stuff? How about a consistent winning culture, that seems a more important one. Or perhaps one where on field discipline is paramount. He didn't build these, nor did he manage to coax wayward mavericks like Tuilagi to stay on the straight and narrow, he just jettisoned them. Perhaps that led to a 'positive culture', but it didn't help much on the pitch. He now has a worse record than Johnson, when we were apparently a basket case. He's now overseen our worst result at a WC, and at home.

The one thing that should have been apparent to everyone was that he did not have the experience. Now he has the experience, the question is, does he have the ability. I cannot see how anyone can arrive at a 'yes' given our breakdown, scrum, lineout, mauling, running angles, game management etc. have all gone backwards compared to others.

I can see that a review where the outcome is already decided is pretty pointless, but I'm genuinely worried if anyone at RFU or anywhere else thinks the question should be asked on whether he stays or goes. There's probably lots of ways we can improve outside of Lancaster, but the simplest correction to me is 'get a new, competent coach'.

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 9:03

rozakthegoon wrote:also the whole lightweight, mobile pack thing; great idea, if it can work. Oz' pack passed our forwards AND backs off the park. they ran, darted, burrowed, pop-passed out of tackle. our pack simply cant pass like that, so maybe they should have stayed heavy and smashed people.

it kind of seems that all of SL ideas are doable and would improve us massively: a pack that has loads of energy, can run and play fast and hard. 9/10/12 that can kick, pass fast and spread paly left and right. Backs that are fast and skillful, a back 3 until that comes up quick, jumps high, tackles hard and fast.

BUT, it seems clear those ideas need to be implemeted by someone who is a better coach.

Maybe SL actually needs to stay with a new team of high qulaity coaches? (which is why they should have offered Wayne Smith a fortune and left farrell at saracens)

We have a lightweight pack? Think we were a couple a kg lighter than the Aussie pack

by Hood83 Sun 4 Oct - 9:06

nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

Absolutely. But Wales was flattened by injury and we beat Oz last year. You could say 'well exactly, we beat them last year' but then you have to ask how we've so spectacularly failed at our own WC since then.

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 9:07

Hood83 wrote:
nathan wrote:
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

I know it's not personal, but looking objectivity you can't make a decision the morning after and not call it knee jerk.

There needs to be a proper review because Lancaster has done a lot of good too

I know you're right, but what likelihood the review says lots of guff about the 'positive atmosphere' and 'strong culture' then notices the length of his contract and says...best keep him until 2020. Do people really, seriously buy into this stuff? How about a consistent winning culture, that seems a more important one. Or perhaps one where on field discipline is paramount. He didn't build these, nor did he manage to coax wayward mavericks like Tuilagi to stay on the straight and narrow, he just jettisoned them. Perhaps that led to a 'positive culture', but it didn't help much on the pitch. He now has a worse record than Johnson, when we were apparently a basket case. He's now overseen our worst result at a WC, and at home.

his record is better than johnsons isn't? Johnson wasn't a bad coach as people like to make out, but the atmosphere and culture is what ended his role so yes atmosphere and culture are very important

The one thing that should have been apparent to everyone was that he did not have the experience. Now he has the experience, the question is, does he have the ability. I cannot see how anyone can arrive at a 'yes' given our breakdown, scrum, lineout, mauling, running angles, game management etc. have all gone backwards compared to others.
have they? I agree some have in the warm up games, World Cup but not before that

I can see that a review where the outcome is already decided is pretty pointless, but I'm genuinely worried if anyone at RFU or anywhere else thinks the question should be asked on whether he stays or goes. There's probably lots of ways we can improve outside of Lancaster, but the simplest correction to me is 'get a new, competent coach'.

you mean the outcome you would like, it seems you have made your mind up without actually thinking about it all whys - agin a knee jerk reaction

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 9:08

Hood83 wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

Absolutely. But Wales was flattened by injury and we beat Oz last year. You could say 'well exactly, we beat them last year' but then you have to ask how we've so spectacularly failed at our own WC since then.

Australia were in a mess and had only just appointed a new coach, hardly in their prime

by Geordie Sun 4 Oct - 9:09

I had the (mis) pleasure if watching the game,with Scott and Gavin Hastings and new falcons signing Todd Clever (boy that guys a fanny Rat) and they all said Lancaster has been poor for 2 years now exactly what I've said on here for ages.

Goodbye Lancaster.

Get Rob Baxter in...

by eirebilly Sun 4 Oct - 9:16

nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

I am not an English fan, I am Irish. Its the way I see it, its an opinion. Sorry if it does not match yours...

I still feel that Lancaster is the man for the job but he just has to get a better coaching staff in. Its clear to me that England have the talent there.

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 9:17

eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

I am not an English fan, I am Irish. Its the way I see it, its an opinion. Sorry if it does not match yours...

I still feel that Lancaster is the man for the job but he just has to get a better coaching staff in. Its clear to me that England have the talent there.

No need to get touchy, I understand others have opinions as I do. I'm just expressing them. The make me laugh comment wasn't really meant for you

by Hood83 Sun 4 Oct - 9:19

nathan wrote:
Hood83 wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

Absolutely. But Wales was flattened by injury and we beat Oz last year. You could say 'well exactly, we beat them last year' but then you have to ask how we've so spectacularly failed at our own WC since then.

Australia were in a mess and had only just appointed a new coach, hardly in their prime

OK so how is that less damning for SL. He beat them when they were in disarray then lost to them after their, decent, coach got them in working order.

by Hood83 Sun 4 Oct - 9:23

nathan wrote:
Hood83 wrote:
nathan wrote:
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

I know it's not personal, but looking objectivity you can't make a decision the morning after and not call it knee jerk.

There needs to be a proper review because Lancaster has done a lot of good too

I know you're right, but what likelihood the review says lots of guff about the 'positive atmosphere' and 'strong culture' then notices the length of his contract and says...best keep him until 2020. Do people really, seriously buy into this stuff? How about a consistent winning culture, that seems a more important one. Or perhaps one where on field discipline is paramount. He didn't build these, nor did he manage to coax wayward mavericks like Tuilagi to stay on the straight and narrow, he just jettisoned them. Perhaps that led to a 'positive culture', but it didn't help much on the pitch. He now has a worse record than Johnson, when we were apparently a basket case. He's now overseen our worst result at a WC, and at home.

his record is better than johnsons isn't? Johnson wasn't a bad coach as people like to make out, but the atmosphere and culture is what ended his role so yes atmosphere and culture are very important

The one thing that should have been apparent to everyone was that he did not have the experience. Now he has the experience, the question is, does he have the ability. I cannot see how anyone can arrive at a 'yes' given our breakdown, scrum, lineout, mauling, running angles, game management etc. have all gone backwards compared to others.
have they? I agree some have in the warm up games, World Cup but not before that

I can see that a review where the outcome is already decided is pretty pointless, but I'm genuinely worried if anyone at RFU or anywhere else thinks the question should be asked on whether he stays or goes. There's probably lots of ways we can improve outside of Lancaster, but the simplest correction to me is 'get a new, competent coach'.

you mean the outcome you would like, it seems you have made your mind up without actually thinking about it all whys - agin a knee jerk reaction

It is absolutely the outcome I'd like, fair enough. I thought and said at the time when he was appointed that he wasn't qualified for the job. On results since, he's not done well enough to make me change my mind. Four years isn't exactly knee-jerk. Maybe when I've calmed down a bit I'll see it differently. Perhaps you can help by telling me what has got substantially better under Lancaster.

by majesticimperialman Sun 4 Oct - 9:24

eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

I am not an English fan, I am Irish. Its the way I see it, its an opinion. Sorry if it does not match yours...

I still feel that Lancaster is the man for the job but he just has to get a better coaching staff in. Its clear to me that England have the talent there.

I totatly agree with you Lancaster should keep his job and the other coaches? Rowntree? i also think is safe. but Mike Catt and Andy Farrell should in my opinion be looking for alternative jobs.

by TheMildlyFranticLlama Sun 4 Oct - 9:25

GeordieFalcon wrote:new falcons signing Todd Clever (boy that guys a fanny Rat)

Good to know my perception of him wasn't unfair, he does come across as a massive boobie

by Hood83 Sun 4 Oct - 9:29

majesticimperialman wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

I am not an English fan, I am Irish. Its the way I see it, its an opinion. Sorry if it does not match yours...

I still feel that Lancaster is the man for the job but he just has to get a better coaching staff in. Its clear to me that England have the talent there.

I totatly agree with you Lancaster should keep his job and the other coaches? Rowntree? i also think is safe. but Mike Catt and Andy Farrell should in my opinion be looking for alternative jobs.

You hear a lot about how Rowntree is a very decent coach and well respected by the players. Is that enough? Our scrum has been inconsistent under him, and now looks shambolic. Our breakdown work looks prehistoric.

by Espee66 Sun 4 Oct - 9:32

I think Lancaster did well to begin with but after blooding a young team and dumping the old guard ( although he recalls Easter who was touted as one if the main problems in attitude last World Cup ) but I think that's as far as his plan would go , I'm sure he thought that the new team would work wonders but when it didn't he was up Poopie creek . He's panicked by bringing in Burgess , chops the team around while keeping the least performing players in and as you all know the pre planned subs border on ludicrous at times .
What player apart from a few can actually say that it's their shirt in the team , they can play well one week then their dropped ! What sort of confidence does that build .
Maybe Lancaster should stay but he needs decent coaches around him . Farrell should be first to go.

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 9:34

Hood83 wrote:
nathan wrote:
Hood83 wrote:
nathan wrote:
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

I know it's not personal, but looking objectivity you can't make a decision the morning after and not call it knee jerk.

There needs to be a proper review because Lancaster has done a lot of good too

I know you're right, but what likelihood the review says lots of guff about the 'positive atmosphere' and 'strong culture' then notices the length of his contract and says...best keep him until 2020. Do people really, seriously buy into this stuff? How about a consistent winning culture, that seems a more important one. Or perhaps one where on field discipline is paramount. He didn't build these, nor did he manage to coax wayward mavericks like Tuilagi to stay on the straight and narrow, he just jettisoned them. Perhaps that led to a 'positive culture', but it didn't help much on the pitch. He now has a worse record than Johnson, when we were apparently a basket case. He's now overseen our worst result at a WC, and at home.

his record is better than johnsons isn't? Johnson wasn't a bad coach as people like to make out, but the atmosphere and culture is what ended his role so yes atmosphere and culture are very important

The one thing that should have been apparent to everyone was that he did not have the experience. Now he has the experience, the question is, does he have the ability. I cannot see how anyone can arrive at a 'yes' given our breakdown, scrum, lineout, mauling, running angles, game management etc. have all gone backwards compared to others.
have they? I agree some have in the warm up games, World Cup but not before that

I can see that a review where the outcome is already decided is pretty pointless, but I'm genuinely worried if anyone at RFU or anywhere else thinks the question should be asked on whether he stays or goes. There's probably lots of ways we can improve outside of Lancaster, but the simplest correction to me is 'get a new, competent coach'.

you mean the outcome you would like, it seems you have made your mind up without actually thinking about it all whys - agin a knee jerk reaction

It is absolutely the outcome I'd like, fair enough. I thought and said at the time when he was appointed that he wasn't qualified for the job. On results since, he's not done well enough to make me change my mind. Four years isn't exactly knee-jerk. Maybe when I've calmed down a bit I'll see it differently. Perhaps you can help by telling me what has got substantially better under Lancaster.

Better win rate, better culture that doesn't involve the team being on the front page of the newspapers throwing midgets around. I think he's managed the strength in depth well (may be a lot of average players), finally we seem to have a pathway from the under 20 into the senior setup and what happens below the senior team. We have a fair few young decent players

On the negatives, something changed at the start of the warm up games for the World Cup. Was it pressure? Was it a change in tactics? He hasn't always got his selections right.

Unsure on, are we starting to go to mobile? Do we need a genuine 7?

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 9:35

Espee66 wrote:I think Lancaster did well to begin with but after blooding a young team and dumping the old guard ( although he recalls Easter who was touted as one if the main problems in attitude last World Cup ) but I think that's as far as his plan would go , I'm sure he thought that the new team would work wonders but when it didn't he was up Poopie creek . He's panicked by bringing in Burgess , chops the team around while keeping the least performing players in and as you all know the pre planned subs border on ludicrous at times .
What player apart from a few can actually say that it's their shirt in the team , they can play well one week then their dropped ! What sort of confidence does that build .
Maybe Lancaster should stay but he needs decent coaches around him . Farrell should be first to go.

What player has ever played well and then was dropped?

by Geordie Sun 4 Oct - 9:36

TheMildlyFranticLlama wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:new falcons signing Todd Clever (boy that guys a fanny Rat)

Good to know my perception of him wasn't unfair, he does come across as a massive boobie

Totally mate.. Was hilarious stood in the shark bar with him and the two,Hastings... Quite surreal. He's a,top bloke though enjoyed his,tequilas.

And the jack and Danny coming across was awesome Wink

Re the game no knee jerks reaction. Lancaster has made too many mistakes and last night was,appalling.

by Geordie Sun 4 Oct - 9:39

nathan wrote:
Espee66 wrote:I think Lancaster did well to begin with but after blooding a young team and dumping the old guard ( although he recalls Easter who was touted as one if the main problems in attitude last World Cup ) but I think that's as far as his plan would go , I'm sure he thought that the new team would work wonders but when it didn't he was up Poopie creek . He's panicked by bringing in Burgess , chops the team around while keeping the least performing players in and as you all know the pre planned subs border on ludicrous at times .
What player apart from a few can actually say that it's their shirt in the team , they can play well one week then their dropped ! What sort of confidence does that build .
Maybe Lancaster should stay but he needs decent coaches around him . Farrell should be first to go.

What player has ever played well and then was dropped?

Slade?

But the backs aren't the problem it's the forwards. A powder puff weak pack.

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 9:43

GeordieFalcon wrote:
nathan wrote:
Espee66 wrote:I think Lancaster did well to begin with but after blooding a young team and dumping the old guard ( although he recalls Easter who was touted as one if the main problems in attitude last World Cup ) but I think that's as far as his plan would go , I'm sure he thought that the new team would work wonders but when it didn't he was up Poopie creek . He's panicked by bringing in Burgess , chops the team around while keeping the least performing players in and as you all know the pre planned subs border on ludicrous at times .
What player apart from a few can actually say that it's their shirt in the team , they can play well one week then their dropped ! What sort of confidence does that build .
Maybe Lancaster should stay but he needs decent coaches around him . Farrell should be first to go.

What player has ever played well and then was dropped?

Slade?

But the backs aren't the problem it's the forwards. A powder puff weak pack.

The pack was good before the warm up games though

by Mr Fishpaste Sun 4 Oct - 9:50

GeordieFalcon wrote:
nathan wrote:
Espee66 wrote:I think Lancaster did well to begin with but after blooding a young team and dumping the old guard ( although he recalls Easter who was touted as one if the main problems in attitude last World Cup ) but I think that's as far as his plan would go , I'm sure he thought that the new team would work wonders but when it didn't he was up Poopie creek . He's panicked by bringing in Burgess , chops the team around while keeping the least performing players in and as you all know the pre planned subs border on ludicrous at times .
What player apart from a few can actually say that it's their shirt in the team , they can play well one week then their dropped ! What sort of confidence does that build .
Maybe Lancaster should stay but he needs decent coaches around him . Farrell should be first to go.

What player has ever played well and then was dropped?

Slade?

But the backs aren't the problem it's the forwards. A powder puff weak pack.

That's my feeling: England don't seem to have any forwards with mongrel at the moment.

by beshocked Sun 4 Oct - 9:54

Lancaster picking backs out of position again. This time sticking Joseph on the wing too!

I am sorry how can anyone think Lancaster deserves to be keep his job?

Remember Lancaster saying he wanted England playing like the ABs, yes sure...... NZ forwards can fit into an attack pattern with the backs, the English forwards can't do the same.

I think it's a mix of some players who aren't as good as people think they are, the coaches not getting the best out of the players available, poor selection and a lack of a gameplan.

When the Aussies did their restarts and kicking there was structure and it worked well. In comparison England's kicking was mostly mindless.

Agree with you Geordiefalcon. There's a lack of power and real go forward in the pack.

Oh and also it was clear in both games England buckled under the pressure.

by Geordie Sun 4 Oct - 9:54

nathan wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:
nathan wrote:
Espee66 wrote:I think Lancaster did well to begin with but after blooding a young team and dumping the old guard ( although he recalls Easter who was touted as one if the main problems in attitude last World Cup ) but I think that's as far as his plan would go , I'm sure he thought that the new team would work wonders but when it didn't he was up Poopie creek . He's panicked by bringing in Burgess , chops the team around while keeping the least performing players in and as you all know the pre planned subs border on ludicrous at times .
What player apart from a few can actually say that it's their shirt in the team , they can play well one week then their dropped ! What sort of confidence does that build .
Maybe Lancaster should stay but he needs decent coaches around him . Farrell should be first to go.

What player has ever played well and then was dropped?

Slade?

But the backs aren't the problem it's the forwards. A powder puff weak pack.

The pack was good before the warm up games though

No it wasn't nathan...

by TJ Sun 4 Oct - 9:56

I think the main problem is selection and for that Lancaster must carry the can. IMO its clear he needed a more creative midfield to unleash the dangerous back 3 and Lancaster bottled it. He went for the safe defensive option to the attacking option and it cost them. He was too concerned about trying to negate the others rather than score more than them.

So IMO the selections of Farrell, Barritt and not having a seven in the squad are what cost the team and that is purely down to Lancaster so he must go.

by nathan Sun 4 Oct - 9:59

GeordieFalcon wrote:
nathan wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:
nathan wrote:
Espee66 wrote:I think Lancaster did well to begin with but after blooding a young team and dumping the old guard ( although he recalls Easter who was touted as one if the main problems in attitude last World Cup ) but I think that's as far as his plan would go , I'm sure he thought that the new team would work wonders but when it didn't he was up Poopie creek . He's panicked by bringing in Burgess , chops the team around while keeping the least performing players in and as you all know the pre planned subs border on ludicrous at times .
What player apart from a few can actually say that it's their shirt in the team , they can play well one week then their dropped ! What sort of confidence does that build .
Maybe Lancaster should stay but he needs decent coaches around him . Farrell should be first to go.

What player has ever played well and then was dropped?

Slade?

But the backs aren't the problem it's the forwards. A powder puff weak pack.

The pack was good before the warm up games though

No it wasn't nathan...

I'm fairly sure it was

by Geordie Sun 4 Oct - 10:00

The,Ireland 6 Nations game showed it blatantly wasn't....

by bedfordwelsh Sun 4 Oct - 10:01

The calls for Armitage will just continue to grow now but is it just Lancasters decision or could he over rule the RFU?

As for changing coaches etc I do like Lancaster and I would keep him but when you look at how poor your forwards have been questions need to be asked over Rowntree, I ask the same questions of Wales over McBryde, even more so after our p poor performances at scrum time so far

by Espee66 Sun 4 Oct - 10:07

Can't quote as I'm on a phone and unsure how to .

Nowell as well as Slade . Dropping Burrell ( although his forms wasn't to great ) an established centre for an ex rugby league player who plays 6 was just deranged .
I would of liked a team picked and then stayed with it bar injury .

by Geordie Sun 4 Oct - 10:17

Why do people keep saying Armitage when we have a top class 7 at Gloucester who's only 22, who's also a captain and leader...called Kvesic!!!!

by TJ Sun 4 Oct - 10:18

bedfordwelsh wrote:The calls for Armitage will just continue to grow now but is it just Lancasters decision or could he over rule the RFU?

My understanding is that there is an "exceptional reasons" clause he can use - and as Armitage was already contracted in France before the ruling on home players only then surely it could have been used if Lancaster wanted Armitage in the side

by Barney McGrew did it Sun 4 Oct - 10:20

SL doesn’t have the experience (or CV) of a hardened top coach.
He spent too little time before this RWC trying to develop a back line.
He rightly spent a lot of time developing a pack - but one that is currently neither one thing or another.
He wasn’t clear whether he wanted a rugby-playing centre combo, a bosh one, a defensive one and became muddled in his vision.
He was seduced by Sam’s undoubted rugby skills without seeming to understand the effort, instinctiveness and time it takes to become a top centre.
He doesn’t really buy into the power of the set-piece but unfathomably can’t see that his game-plan requires speed and surety at the breakdown. I genuinely think he’d be a better coach in RL than union (and he can take Farrell Snr with him).
And unforgivably he seems to have drained the grit and backbone English teams are famous for.
In short, he really seems to be out of his depth at test level.
And all this is by-the-bye. He has failed, and failed at home in the biggest RU shop-window. I thought we’d learnt this from the banker fiasco – no reward for failure, and there is always someone better.

by **George Carlin** Sun 4 Oct - 10:21

TJ wrote:
bedfordwelsh wrote:The calls for Armitage will just continue to grow now but is it just Lancasters decision or could he over rule the RFU?

My understanding is that there is an "exceptional reasons" clause he can use - and as Armitage was already contracted in France before the ruling on home players only then surely it could have been used if Lancaster wanted Armitage in the side

The bottom line is that Lancaster could have had Armitage in his squad if he really wanted to. He just didn't think Armitage was important enough. It is always difficult to avoid thinking that everything was obvious in retrospect. The old axoim that players not included in squads get better with every passing day is funny because it's true.

However, the point is that exceptions can be made and rules can be changed upon request of the coaching teams - which is exactly what Cheika did in order to secure Gitau and Mitchell.

by Geordie Sun 4 Oct - 10:27

Why have Armitage when you have Kvesic and hell we have Clifford aswell

by Sin é Sun 4 Oct - 10:34

George Carlin wrote:
TJ wrote:
bedfordwelsh wrote:The calls for Armitage will just continue to grow now but is it just Lancasters decision or could he over rule the RFU?

My understanding is that there is an "exceptional reasons" clause he can use - and as Armitage was already contracted in France before the ruling on home players only then surely it could have been used if Lancaster wanted Armitage in the side
The bottom line is that Lancaster could have had Armitage in his squad if he really wanted to. He just didn't think Armitage was important enough. It is always difficult to avoid thinking that everything was obvious in retrospect. The old axoim that players not included in squads get better with every passing day is funny because it's true.

However, the point is that exceptions can be made and rules can be changed upon request of the coaching teams - which is exactly what Cheika did in order to secure Gitau and Mitchell.

I blame the English clubs who have far too much influence with the RFU. Refusing to select players who play outside of England only benefits the England clubs, not England rugby.

Look how successful Wales have been by just selecting the best players.

edit: as well as that, I think Farrell Sen. has far too much influence. Of course he is going to think his son is the best outhalf in the world and then his past rugby league career selecting league players.

by Sin é Sun 4 Oct - 10:40

GeordieFalcon wrote:Why have Armitage when you have Kvesic and hell we have Clifford aswell

Armitage has a lot of big game experience (which is what England have been lacking).

by TJ Sun 4 Oct - 10:43

GeordieFalcon wrote:Why have Armitage when you have Kvesic and hell we have Clifford aswell

If you have other 7s available that are as good then fine - pick 'em. Not having a 7 is a mistake that cost England and having seen Armitage play he is one of the best I have ever seen. I ain't seen the others you mention play

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 4 Oct - 11:13

nathan wrote:I agree everything needs to be looked at but I just don't like the calling for the sacking of the coaches straight after the game, as its knee jerk

You are the epitome of mediocrity. Are you Stuart Lancaster?

How can you not be enraged by the total lack of achievement from this England side? This isn't knee jerk; this is years of underperforming and underachieving by a team that should be winning silverware regularly.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 4 Oct - 11:14

beshocked wrote:...When the Aussies did their restarts and kicking there was structure and it worked well. In comparison England's kicking was mostly mindless...

That stood out for me too.

by Rory_Gallagher Sun 4 Oct - 11:16

nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

Basking in mediocrity.

by **Notch** Sun 4 Oct - 11:36

Come on Rory, everyone knows that England could have and should have done better over these past 4 years but its unfair to criticise England fans for wanting to be fair and even-handed to a decent man who hasn't delivered what he himself would have wanted to deliver more than anyone. There's been the usual excessive reaction by people who think paying over the odds for a ticket means this hurts them more than the coaches and players. Pushing back against that is understandable.

The margins between defeat and victory are always wider in hindsight. I never, ever expected England to beat Australia even if the margin and poor English performance would have been surprising before the tournament started- I always thought the Wales game was the do or die match for both teams because I rate Cheikas Wallabies as the groups best. The Wales game turned on a lack of on-field leadership and a few defensive errors. At this level- thats enough to damn a whole campaign. This is the top level, its brutal and unforgiving, and now England need to make changes but Lancaster should also be remembered for blooding some players who will be England stalwarts and getting England to play some fantastic backs-orientated rugby. Which deflected from the weakness of this generation of England players up front, when compared to some of the great packs they've had over the years.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sun 4 Oct - 11:40

Farrell or Ford; depends on the game plan.

If you have Manu at 13 and a 36 type at 12 then Farrell works as he has the defence with 36 to go with the bludgeon that in Manu. If you have JJ at 13 you need a bludgeon at 12, SB or BB, with Farrell at 10 the ball will never get to 13, so Ford who has the ability to use the 12 as a bludgeon or cut JJ free.

Likewise the Farrell/Care partnership works just as the Youngs/Ford does. They compliment each other. Youngs/Farrell is too stodgy and slow, Care/Ford too lightweight in defence.

Both 10's can work, but it's horses for courses. Lancaster gambled against Wales with SB at 12 and BB at 13. It worked, he then lost us the match by taking off SB who had stopped every attack down his channel dead to get Farrell on the field. Why? It cost us the game and the probability of a QF spot. If it isn't broke don't fix it.

Last night he put SB on the bench a player that can only play in one position and then in a limited way, both Slade and Nowell were available. What happens, a winger gets injured and we end up with our best strike weapon (JJ) on the wing where with BB and SB in the centres, he is not going to get any ball. Again, bad decision making by SL costing us dear.

He does not learn from his mistakes, so 4 more years of making them is not going to improve any thing.

I don't know who should get the job, certainly not Mallinder as he has the same problem of having prescribed changes at certain times regardless of the way the match is going.

Perhaps we should make Eddie Jones an offer, Japan are certainly playing above and beyond the level of their stature in world rugby, he might transfer that to England.

by Hood83 Sun 4 Oct - 11:42

nathan wrote:
Hood83 wrote:
nathan wrote:
Hood83 wrote:
nathan wrote:
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

I know it's not personal, but looking objectivity you can't make a decision the morning after and not call it knee jerk.

There needs to be a proper review because Lancaster has done a lot of good too

I know you're right, but what likelihood the review says lots of guff about the 'positive atmosphere' and 'strong culture' then notices the length of his contract and says...best keep him until 2020. Do people really, seriously buy into this stuff? How about a consistent winning culture, that seems a more important one. Or perhaps one where on field discipline is paramount. He didn't build these, nor did he manage to coax wayward mavericks like Tuilagi to stay on the straight and narrow, he just jettisoned them. Perhaps that led to a 'positive culture', but it didn't help much on the pitch. He now has a worse record than Johnson, when we were apparently a basket case. He's now overseen our worst result at a WC, and at home.

his record is better than johnsons isn't? Johnson wasn't a bad coach as people like to make out, but the atmosphere and culture is what ended his role so yes atmosphere and culture are very important

The one thing that should have been apparent to everyone was that he did not have the experience. Now he has the experience, the question is, does he have the ability. I cannot see how anyone can arrive at a 'yes' given our breakdown, scrum, lineout, mauling, running angles, game management etc. have all gone backwards compared to others.
have they? I agree some have in the warm up games, World Cup but not before that

I can see that a review where the outcome is already decided is pretty pointless, but I'm genuinely worried if anyone at RFU or anywhere else thinks the question should be asked on whether he stays or goes. There's probably lots of ways we can improve outside of Lancaster, but the simplest correction to me is 'get a new, competent coach'.

you mean the outcome you would like, it seems you have made your mind up without actually thinking about it all whys - agin a knee jerk reaction

It is absolutely the outcome I'd like, fair enough. I thought and said at the time when he was appointed that he wasn't qualified for the job. On results since, he's not done well enough to make me change my mind. Four years isn't exactly knee-jerk. Maybe when I've calmed down a bit I'll see it differently. Perhaps you can help by telling me what has got substantially better under Lancaster.

Better win rate, better culture that doesn't involve the team being on the front page of the newspapers throwing midgets around. I think he's managed the strength in depth well (may be a lot of average players), finally we seem to have a pathway from the under 20 into the senior setup and what happens below the senior team. We have a fair few young decent players

On the negatives, something changed at the start of the warm up games for the World Cup. Was it pressure? Was it a change in tactics? He hasn't always got his selections right.

Unsure on, are we starting to go to mobile? Do we need a genuine 7?

Better win rate perhaps, but no trophies and a worse WC result on home turf. Good points on U20 pathway, I'll accept that, though possibly also linked to working with them so simply having more faith in them. Either way, definitely deserves credit for bringing in some of those guys who maybe Johnson wouldn't, but who knows.

The culture stuff to me is massively overrated. It's nice to have a team that others actually liked (or didn't hate), I'll grant you that, but any culture change should also be geared towards, ultimately, winning. That's why you do training camps like Gatland's. I didn't see any evidence of that sort of thinking, nor any evidence this culture change translated to improved performances. All the midget throwing stuff happened during one WC. Perhaps it was Johnson's fault for not 'changing the culture', I can see an argument for that, but to what extent has it changed under SL? Players like Tuilagi continued to play up. Credit perhaps to SL for having the guts to drop them. But perhaps less credit for failing to deal with the absence of those disruptive players.

I'll hold my hands up and say some of the mistakes he made I was happy with at the time. I bought into the idea of a mobile hooker like Youngs for example. But this is partly because Hartley's form dipped. In any case, both I and he were hopelessly wrong.

All the supposed positives seem desperately nebulous to me. The negatives are plentiful. Scrum has gone backwards, lineout is one dimensional, breakdown work is as bad as I've seen and technically inferior to the Japanese. Even the culture element seems to have had unintended negative consequences for selection. Drop Hartley for discipline reasons, pick Youngs who can't throw or scrum to the highest level, so pick Wood at 6 to sort the lineout, but lose more ballast and so on and so on. And still see penalties aplenty and players carded. Incidentally I really hope people realise Wood is not an international level 6 now.

I think he bottled it at this WC and that should concern everyone. But the warning signs have been there.

by Hood83 Sun 4 Oct - 11:44

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:
nathan wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Fair enough Rugby Fan. It may just seem that way as I cannot fathom why else Farrell would be selected. Hell even Charlie makes Sarries look better when Farrell is out.

Farrell hasn't always been crap and ford hasn't always been good, it's not as clear cut as saying ford should always start.

I am not saying that Ford should always start, I am saying that Farrell is not good enough and never has been in my opinion.

That's simple rubbish, he's been at 10 in some of our biggest wins.

I tell you what, English fans make me laugh, it's like stick the tail on the donkey trying to find out who to blame and forgetting that Wales and Australia are great teams that have been able to beat us throughout the years

Basking in mediocrity.

by Sponsored content