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?

Rightly or wrongly, someone has to carry the can for this failure. This was what they built up to and flopped majorly.

Notch wrote: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.

I think that's very generous. Our pack may not be world class, but it is also clear that it is partly hindered by selection and partly hindered by some very, very average coaching. Compare us at the breakdown to just about any other team, and see how turgid we are and have far we've moved backwards in the last year even. Every ruck is the same, jog up, slow down, grab player, try stupid crocodile roll, fail, lose ball. Rinse and repeat.

I'm not sure England are being realistic, ALL Englands success in our recent life time is down to having a bigger, meaner pack than everyone else. The game is professional now and every country has big players, so it's down to sheer talent.

This really was the pool of death, even Wales against England is a 50/50 game historically 127 games played since 1881, England have won 58, and lost 57, with 12 draws.

Even against Australia, 44 games played, 18 won, 25 lost and 1 draw. If you take into account everything thats happened historically then England haven't really disgraced themselves, they just lost.

I do think Lancaster dropped a huge Bolluck by going for Farrell over Ford, I thought that at the time, as did most people. Defense is important but games are won by attack and skill at this point in time.

If England DID sack Lancaster then who might come in? Eddie Jones stock is very high at the moment and there is all sorts of rumors about him leaving Japan, and not taking the job with the new Japanese franchise.

You need to think of a replacement before you sack the coach.

Shifty wrote:I'm not sure England are being realistic, ALL Englands success in our recent life time is down to having a bigger, meaner pack than everyone else.  The game is professional now and every country has big players, so it's down to sheer talent.  

This really was the pool of death, even Wales against England is a 50/50 game historically   127 games played since 1881, England have won 58, and lost 57, with 12 draws.

Even against Australia, 44 games played, 18 won, 25 lost and 1 draw.  If you take into account everything thats happened historically then England haven't really disgraced themselves, they just lost.

I do think Lancaster dropped a huge Bolluck by going for Farrell over Ford, I thought that at the time, as did most people.  Defense is important but games are won by attack and skill at this point in time.  

If England DID sack Lancaster then who might come in?  Eddie Jones stock is very high at the moment and there is all sorts of rumors about him leaving Japan, and not taking the job with the new Japanese franchise.    

You need to think of a replacement before you sack the coach.  

Eddie Jones is joining the Stormers

Eddie Jones has signed on with the Stormers. I don't think he'll break his word to them, and the contract.

Eddie Jones did suggest, tongue in cheek, that Steve Borthwick would be the man to sort out the English lineout. If you look at the way Japan are winning line outs based on speed of movement and variation despite a pronounced height disadvantage, even against a guy like Matfield who is one of the all-time greatest defensive lineout operators, he would be worth a call for the new coach.

He is also signed up though, signed up for Bristol.

Eddie Jones did also allude to the fact that Japanese culture and Japanese people feel obliged to please and therefore the players just do what they are told - always - with enthusiasm.

So Europe and Europeans are a different sort.  If you tell them what to do, they'll probably be nice for a while and do it.  If you tell them what to do and be quick about it!   Hmmmmm........... headbutt time approaches.

So in a sense, Japan is working right now because Jones tells the players where to be, what to do and how long to do each component for.  They surprised South Africa (caught them napping), they were destroyed by Scotland and, had Samoa actually turned up to play any of that game (they were absolutely dreadful - for reasons best known to themselves), I'm not sure that Japan would have won that one.
I'm very happy for them.  I've always loved Japanese people but let's wait a bit more before reading too much into their wonderful journey through their group

England need to work on an identity, because there is no apparent gameplan.

Looking at the players available to us, we're not going to have a world class back row and we're not going to have a world class midfield, whoever gets picked. However, we look to have developed pace out wide as a real strength, and we should look to use it more.

Personally, I would like to see England go down the two play-makers route at 10/12 and look to bring the other 12 players (excluding the 9) into the game more. We then need a lot of players who can play ball in the other positions.

13 and outside I would go for pace. So we can keep Joseph at 13 and May, Watson and Brown as the back 3, with Daly as cover for Joseph and Nowell as back three cover.

Inside them, my playmakers would be Ford and Farrell at 10 and 12 (who won a JWC in these positions) with Cipriani and Slade as my back-up guys.

To play a wide game, we're going to need a mobile "middle 4" in the pack, so Launchbury, Lawes and Itoje would be my 4/5/6. I would like a breakdown expert in there (ARMITAGE) at 7 were one available, so unless someone shows up well in the first couple of months in the AP Robshaw might keep his place.

My other 4 pack players would all have to bring carrying games, as we lack the heavy carriers in the backs. So a front row of Mako Vunipola, Youngs and Brookes with Billy Vunipola or Morgan at 8.

My bench forwards would be picked to bring some stability to the set-piece should it be needed to close games out. My bench backs would be essentially like-for-likes.

That would give a 23 of:
M. Vunipola, Youngs, Brookes, Launchbury, Lawes, Itoje, Robshaw, B. Vunipola;
Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Hartley, Marler, Cole, Wood, Morgan, Care, Slade, Nowell.

My gameplan would be to split the backline rugby league style, with Brown acting as "left centre" and Joseph as "right centre" in phase-play attack, and Ford and Farrell acting as left and right play-makers. Assuming you were at a ruck on the left hand side of the pitch, the 9 would pass to the left play-maker, who could either hit his big carriers (1, 2, 3 and 8) or the second playmaker. The second play-maker could then look to release his right hand side attack, so Joseph and Watson, supported by the right hand side flanker and lock (e.g. Launchbury and Robshaw).

I think we're still lacking an out-and-out scavenger to come in at 7, but if there isn't one around then there's no point picking a player that's not up to scratch.

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

but when Ford came on JJ had to move to the wing as we had no back 3 cover on the bench ...

SecretFly wrote:Eddie Jones did also allude to the fact that Japanese culture and Japanese people feel obliged to please and therefore the players just do what they are told - always - with enthusiasm.

So Europe and Europeans are a different sort.  If you tell them what to do, they'll probably be nice for a while and do it.  If you tell them what to do and be quick about it!   Hmmmmm........... headbutt time approaches.

So in a sense, Japan is working right now because Jones tells the players where to be, what to do and how long to do each component for.  They surprised South Africa (caught them napping), they were destroyed by Scotland and, had Samoa actually turned up to play any of that game (they were absolutely dreadful - for reasons best known to themselves), I'm not sure that Japan would have won that one.
I'm very happy for them.  I've always loved Japanese people but let's wait a bit more before reading too much into their wonderful journey through their group

Based on the players they have, they really have had no business doing what they've done. I don't think it will last beyond Jones leaving sadly. They are not well organised behind having a great coaching team and the weakness of their superb ability to follow instructions is without an Eddie Jones figure it unravels.

I don't think all Europeans are too similar in that regard. For instance, there is a big gulf between the Italians and French and the 4 Home Nations!

Good god guys, sleep on it. Let the dust settle.

Don't forget your saviour, Sir Clive Woodentop, threw away Grand Slams, kicked out of his first RWC, before winning in 2003.

I think, stick with Lancaster and Robshaw and you will see Slams and will be a real contender for the 2019 RWC. Sack him and you'll pre long the bad times....

... Hang on I'm Welsh.... SACK HIM NOW...

robbo277 wrote:England need to work on an identity, because there is no apparent gameplan.

Looking at the players available to us, we're not going to have a world class back row and we're not going to have a world class midfield, whoever gets picked. However, we look to have developed pace out wide as a real strength, and we should look to use it more.

Personally, I would like to see England go down the two play-makers route at 10/12 and look to bring the other 12 players (excluding the 9) into the game more. We then need a lot of players who can play ball in the other positions.

13 and outside I would go for pace. So we can keep Joseph at 13 and May, Watson and Brown as the back 3, with Daly as cover for Joseph and Nowell as back three cover.

Inside them, my playmakers would be Ford and Farrell at 10 and 12 (who won a JWC in these positions) with Cipriani and Slade as my back-up guys.

To play a wide game, we're going to need a mobile "middle 4" in the pack, so Launchbury, Lawes and Itoje would be my 4/5/6. I would like a breakdown expert in there (ARMITAGE) at 7 were one available, so unless someone shows up well in the first couple of months in the AP Robshaw might keep his place.

My other 4 pack players would all have to bring carrying games, as we lack the heavy carriers in the backs. So a front row of Mako Vunipola, Youngs and Brookes with Billy Vunipola or Morgan at 8.

My bench forwards would be picked to bring some stability to the set-piece should it be needed to close games out. My bench backs would be essentially like-for-likes.

That would give a 23 of:
M. Vunipola, Youngs, Brookes, Launchbury, Lawes, Itoje, Robshaw, B. Vunipola;
Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Hartley, Marler, Cole, Wood, Morgan, Care, Slade, Nowell.

My gameplan would be to split the backline rugby league style, with Brown acting as "left centre" and Joseph as "right centre" in phase-play attack, and Ford and Farrell acting as left and right play-makers. Assuming you were at a ruck on the left hand side of the pitch, the 9 would pass to the left play-maker, who could either hit his big carriers (1, 2, 3 and 8) or the second playmaker. The second play-maker could then look to release his right hand side attack, so Joseph and Watson, supported by the right hand side flanker and lock (e.g. Launchbury and Robshaw).

I think we're still lacking an out-and-out scavenger to come in at 7, but if there isn't one around then there's no point picking a player that's not up to scratch.

I think that one of our problems has been trying to play a faster tempo game at times. A reasonable direction to take us, and I can see there is transitional period, but one of the key elements for this type of game is the breakdown. And our breakdown work has been woeful. Truly awful. That's what frustrates and should lead to questions over SL and his team's ability. At the same time, we've neglected our basics to the extent the attempt at an 'all court' game has resulted in a jack of all trades, master of none, team

No9 wrote:Good god guys, sleep on it. Let the dust settle.

Don't forget your saviour, Sir Clive Woodentop, threw away Grand Slams, kicked out of his first RWC, before winning in 2003.

I think, stick with Lancaster and Robshaw and you will see Slams and will be a real contender for the 2019 RWC. Sack him and you'll pre long the bad times....

... Hang on I'm Welsh.... SACK HIM NOW...

Double bluff? Depends who we sack him for. If it's Mallinder, I think we're back to square one. If it was an Eddie Jones, Wayne Smith type i.e. proven quality, then it'd be a big step forward

Hood83 wrote:

robbo277 wrote:England need to work on an identity, because there is no apparent gameplan.

Looking at the players available to us, we're not going to have a world class back row and we're not going to have a world class midfield, whoever gets picked. However, we look to have developed pace out wide as a real strength, and we should look to use it more.

Personally, I would like to see England go down the two play-makers route at 10/12 and look to bring the other 12 players (excluding the 9) into the game more. We then need a lot of players who can play ball in the other positions.

13 and outside I would go for pace. So we can keep Joseph at 13 and May, Watson and Brown as the back 3, with Daly as cover for Joseph and Nowell as back three cover.

Inside them, my playmakers would be Ford and Farrell at 10 and 12 (who won a JWC in these positions) with Cipriani and Slade as my back-up guys.

To play a wide game, we're going to need a mobile "middle 4" in the pack, so Launchbury, Lawes and Itoje would be my 4/5/6. I would like a breakdown expert in there (ARMITAGE) at 7 were one available, so unless someone shows up well in the first couple of months in the AP Robshaw might keep his place.

My other 4 pack players would all have to bring carrying games, as we lack the heavy carriers in the backs. So a front row of Mako Vunipola, Youngs and Brookes with Billy Vunipola or Morgan at 8.

My bench forwards would be picked to bring some stability to the set-piece should it be needed to close games out. My bench backs would be essentially like-for-likes.

That would give a 23 of:
M. Vunipola, Youngs, Brookes, Launchbury, Lawes, Itoje, Robshaw, B. Vunipola;
Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
Hartley, Marler, Cole, Wood, Morgan, Care, Slade, Nowell.

My gameplan would be to split the backline rugby league style, with Brown acting as "left centre" and Joseph as "right centre" in phase-play attack, and Ford and Farrell acting as left and right play-makers. Assuming you were at a ruck on the left hand side of the pitch, the 9 would pass to the left play-maker, who could either hit his big carriers (1, 2, 3 and 8) or the second playmaker. The second play-maker could then look to release his right hand side attack, so Joseph and Watson, supported by the right hand side flanker and lock (e.g. Launchbury and Robshaw).

I think we're still lacking an out-and-out scavenger to come in at 7, but if there isn't one around then there's no point picking a player that's not up to scratch.

I think that one of our problems has been trying to play a faster tempo game at times. A reasonable direction to take us, and I can see there is transitional period, but one of the key elements for this type of game is the breakdown. And our breakdown work has been woeful. Truly awful. That's what frustrates and should lead to questions over SL and his team's ability. At the same time, we've neglected our basics to the extent the attempt at an 'all court' game has resulted in a jack of all trades, master of none, team

I'd agree, we've picked a pacy back three (and Joseph at 13 when available), but put a roadblock in at 12 and a pack designed to bully teams up front, not to support the widemen (and then they've done neither).

Either you stack up a big mean pack, pick some giant backs (Barritt, Burrell, Tuilagi and the like) and look to attack 12 channel (as Wales do), or you pick a mobile pack, a couple of play makers and look to use your ball players out wide (as Australia do).

Our big pack hasn't dominated (as mentioned), our giant backs are merely okay (certainly not in the league of Roberts and North), so I would go the other way. But at the moment we're stuck between two ideologies and as a result look clueless on the pitch.

Agree completely on the two ideologies. The game plan is not fluid and cohesive. We also got the wrong Saracens coach and have been trying to ignore the fact for years, Gustard is the genius behind the wolf pack defence and is the man who should have come in. He also runs a good line out for Sarries.

Lancaster talked a good game but when the chips are down has been too negative and defence in his selections and substitutions. To prescribed and not reactionary. I this his time is up. Rob Baxter is the man or maybe Catt who seems to have got the backs improving.

Are the backs improving?

To me I don't see that much progression from them. Most of the good stuff they do i'd say is just natural talent coming out.

Certainly there's nothing off first phase that's impressed me, and turn over ball gets squandered more often then not. How many times do we get in to the opposition 22 and come away with nothing?

Can't believe this is true ... http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s98.htm?100,15365838

I have a mate who has a mate who knows a guy…...

Mind you the RL thing is clear.

Anyhoo, the coaching team is pants and has to go.

indeed

Heaf,

Surely that's just a wind up.

Regardless ive been saying for along time on here now that Lancaster has to go. And take the rest of the coaches with him.

Put it simply. As a Welshman, sack Lancaster and I'll be looking forward to the 6 Natons. Stick with him and I'm worried...as, with something to prove, I, can see England taking a Slam.

Maybe Lancaster was never given the option of having the assistants he might actually have wanted. Were they just dropped in his lap by the RFU? Maybe he should be given the opportunity to select his own assistants and see how that pans out for a season?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Heaf,

Surely that's just a wind up.

Regardless ive been saying for along time on here now that Lancaster has to go. And take the rest of the coaches with him.

Yes I think it is far-fetched - but just sharing it to see if others agree

SecretFly wrote:Maybe Lancaster was never given the option of having the assistants he might actually have wanted.  Were they just dropped in his lap by the RFU?

No, he chose them. Farrell was brought in while he was caretaker but Lancaster wanted to keep him. Farrell initially turned him down, so Lancaster looked to Catt, who he then kept, even after Farrell changed his mind.

Rowntree was left in place from the old regime but Lancaster could have brought in anyone he wanted. The only man who proved elusive was Wayne Smith.

I see Neil Back has questioned the wisdom of having Andy Farrell as coach while his son is in the England squad.

That kind of thinking would presumably rule out Mike Ford and Jim Mallinder from playing any role at national level, what with George Ford and Harry Mallinder vying for England places. Bill Beaumont is Chairman of the RFU, so maybe we should ask him to step down if his son Josh steps up.

Heaf wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Heaf,

Surely that's just a wind up.

Regardless ive been saying for along time on here now that Lancaster has to go. And take the rest of the coaches with him.

Yes I think it is far-fetched - but just sharing it to see if others agree

Interestingly the Telegraph have also mentioned an incident like this.

Apparently 'a player has expressed public disappointment at the growing influence of Andy Farrell in the coaching set up,the decision of Chris Robshaw to not kick for goal last Saturday and Sam Burgess being parachuted in.'

Perhaps there is some truth to the story?

I like SL. Always speaks honestly, doesn't respond or talk mind games and just gets on with it. However, its just gut wrenching that all the hard work over the past 18 months or so has gone to ruin in 2 games. The shift to Ford at FH, JJ in at OC and finally a settled wing pairing has been totally undone. Is this Farrells influence? I think so. Mike Catt ssems to be like what Phil Neal was to Graham Taylor in the football, 'yes boss' 'yer not wrong boss' and has liitle or no say. A real shame SL couldn't woo Wayne Smith in as back coach when he approached him.
I'd like SL to stay but the rest of the coaches to go.

Owen Farrell when he first came into the England team, was in my opinion because of his own tallent/skill and not because of his dad being a coach.

But since Ford came in and took the 10 shirt off Farrell. I do think their may of been a little father son descustion about getting the shirt back off Ford.

Ford did not do any thing wrong in my opinion too lose the shirt in the first place.
And now England are going home dispite the outcome of next weeks game.

majesticimperialman wrote:Owen Farrell when he first came into the England team, was in my opinion because of his own tallent/skill and not because of his dad being a coach.

But since Ford came in and took the 10 shirt off Farrell. I do think their may of been a little father son descustion about getting the shirt back off Ford.

Ford did not do any thing wrong in my opinion too lose the shirt in the first place.
And now England are going home dispite the outcome of next weeks game.

I believe that it was always Lancaster's plan to have Farrell as his 10 in the biggest game of both of their careers. Ever since Farrell's first game. Ford really only got his chance because Farrell was injured, and was, therefore, never part of the Lancaster plan.

Breadvan wrote:I like SL. Always speaks honestly, doesn't respond or talk mind games and just gets on with it. However, its just gut wrenching that all the hard work over the past 18 months or so has gone to ruin in 2 games. The shift to Ford at FH, JJ in at OC and finally a settled wing pairing has been totally undone. Is this Farrells influence? I think so. Mike Catt ssems to be like what Phil Neal was to Graham Taylor in the football, 'yes boss' 'yer not wrong boss' and has liitle or no say. A real shame SL couldn't woo Wayne Smith in as back coach when he approached him.
I'd like SL to stay but the rest of the coaches to go.

It's a real shame we couldn't woo Smith instead of Lancaster

Not picking Hartley or armitage doomed us.

Picking Farrell and barritt made it embarrassing.

Burgess far outplayed barritt so he can't be blamed for any of it.

Hartley, armitage, ford, burgess, JJ, may, Watson/nowell (who should have got game time), brown.

We would certainly have progressed. A stronger scrum. A world class 7. And a 10, 12, 13, 14 that play together at club level.

No freaking brainer if you look at it objectively.

You're also picking a 12 who doesn't play there for his club so the familiarity wouldn't be there.

Hartley, Armitage, Ford and to an extent Attwood are the big mistakes; if you take Hartley you can then leave Parling at home strengthening the scrum immeasurably. Unsurprisingly our two best performances of the past 12 months came with the scrummaging prowess of Hartley and Attwood starting.

But burgess did play at 12 for bath, and in open play he is often called in as crash ball runner at 6.

Plus, let's not forget that he was the only player that Australia actually feared a little bit. NRL is 10 times union over there and burgess won world player of the year playing for the rabbitohs. From a psychological point of view how can England not start him against the wallabies? It's horses for courses and burgess was perfect or that mental and physical advantage

Hammersmith - u think ford was the mistake? Was that a typo?

Ah I see u meant ford not starting. Just reread. We agree.

yappysnap wrote:

Heaf wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Heaf,

Surely that's just a wind up.

Regardless ive been saying for along time on here now that Lancaster has to go. And take the rest of the coaches with him.

Yes I think it is far-fetched - but just sharing it to see if others agree

Interestingly the Telegraph have also mentioned an incident like this.

Apparently 'a player has expressed public disappointment at the growing influence of Andy Farrell in the coaching set up,the decision of Chris Robshaw to not kick for goal last Saturday and Sam Burgess being parachuted in.'

Perhaps there is some truth to the story?

'Apparently' and 'public' are strange bedfellows, yappy. I'd guess if it was public, we'd be able to find the names? Are there names of the players that spoke out?

Heaf wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Heaf,

Surely that's just a wind up.

Regardless ive been saying for along time on here now that Lancaster has to go. And take the rest of the coaches with him.

Yes I think it is far-fetched - but just sharing it to see if others agree

papers are reporting this now, quoting billy V..... oh.

Maybe they write on 606 in disguise and post something like "Burgess having a Destabalizing Effect" on squad etc

I know that's what I do. I've been moaning about Zebo now for three years and still get to play beside him. The idiot!!! He still hasn't a clue it's me!!!!

quinsforever wrote:But burgess did play at 12 for bath, and in open play he is often called in as crash ball runner at 6.

Plus, let's not forget that he was the only player that Australia actually feared a little bit. NRL is 10 times union over there and burgess won world player of the year playing for the rabbitohs. From a psychological point of view how can England not start him against the wallabies? It's horses for courses and burgess was perfect or that mental and physical advantage

The Aussies wouldn't have feared him at all, my guess would be they were hoping he'd play and you can't just conveniently ignore that everything you've mentioned is relevant to him playing League not Union.

It doesn't matter now anyway. But in Australia league is 10 times the game that Union is. Participation, pay, u name it. And that's why everyone in Australia knows and respects burgess. Irrespective of the code.

SL's single biggest failing as head coach is picking a team to defend against the opposition rather than playing our own game.

Picking Burgess made sense against Wales, but its the lack of options on the bench to change a game that cost us.

Think that game against France in the 6N may have allowed Farrell to start banging on about defence again, which is why Farrell and Barritt were eventually forced in.

The Fiji game made it appear as though we were weak defensively etc as we had them first up. After seeing them tear Wales a new one for most of the game, I can't believe that Gatland would change his game plan to such a degree, and neither would Cheika

If we had Wales as the first game, can anyone imagine Farrell and Burgess starting? Obviously Joseph being injured didn't help there

Personally I think Lancaster's biggest failing is his inability to learn from his mistakes.

That's one of the main reasons I would fire him and the rest of the coaches.

Picking players out of position again, poor usage of the restarts again, poor use of the bench again, underpowered pack again, no gameplan and no leadership again, getting beasted at the breakdown again.

A coach who learns can be forgiven, Lancaster hasn't.

To be honest I am glad that talented players like Slade,George and Itoje have avoided the folly of Lancaster.

There can be a fresh start with these guys rising to the top.

May be the wrong topic to ask this, but why did Wilson never feature in a match so far?  I do not think he is necessarily better than Cole/Brookes but it is odd he has never appeared in the 23.

More of the same, Slade was never selected I presume because he lacked experience, but in that case why have him in the 31.

You have Slade down as a preferred inside centre beshocked despite previosuly criticising the idea and the fact it's not really his position.

cb wrote:May be the wrong topic to ask this, but why did Wilson never feature in a match so far?  I do not think he is necessarily better than Cole/Brookes but it is odd he has never appeared in the 23.

More of the same, Slade was never selected I presume because he lacked experience, but in that case why have him in the 31.

Hes better than brookes I would say. More solid in the scrum.

But Slade never appeared, Nowell never appeared.....

He did a Johnson in the end. More worried about the opposition than what we could do.

Well no 7 & 1/2 there aren't exactly many options are there?

Someone has to wear the 12 shirt.

Telegraph Sport understands that a number of clubs across the country are confident they have enough support to call for a special general meeting to call for a vote of no confidence in the board unless there is significant change to the management of the governing body.

“John Steele [the former RFU chief executive] was sacked just for bungling the appointment of a performance director but this is far worse. Hosting the World Cup was our once in a lifetime opportunity and we have blown it,” said a source.

beshocked wrote:Well no 7 & 1/2 there aren't exactly many options are there?

Someone has to wear the 12 shirt.

Just a point that you really can't put a blanket claim it's wrong to play players out of position then call for it in the next breath. As ever with england i think there a fair few options myself.

Well you have Stephenson and Hill both young JWC winners playing 12 for their clubs????