Stuart Lancaster & the England Job

yappysnap wrote:What's even more baffling is that SL knows that.

In the first warm up we played three play makers and the backline was out standing, Farrell suddenly looked a threat ball in hand and our wings got ball in space and made dents.

Since then Lancaster has ignored that totally, which is baffling as we've now looked clueless, beatable and lost.

Shifty wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Shifty wrote:I don't think Lancaster is doing that badly, truth is in the 6 Nations Ireland, Wales, England and France are all very close to each other.  People think England have a god given right to be successful but they don't.  England have lost 4 times in 12 games thats pretty impressive.  Lancaster has also beaten New Zealand and Australia during his tenure, while Gatland can't match that.  
In fact the only bad loss England have suffered in his tenure is the 30-3 loss to Wales.  If England had won a marginal game yesterday this topic wouldn't even be discussed.  Lancaster is a good coach.  

Perhaps. But given the opprobrium heaped on Johnson, at what point do we start to point out Lancaster's record may not actually be all that much better

The England squad was behaving like animals under Johnson and were embarrassing.  Lancaster is at least prepared to say to idiots like Tugilani and Hartley that he doesn't want people like them in his squads.    

DaveM wrote:First up, it was a poor selection and a terrible bench. How can you have a specialist FH and a specialist FB on the bench when your centres are one dimensional players and your wingers can't play in the centre? The Goode selection was so pointless I'm not even sure he got onto the pitch.

Does this make SL a terrible coach? I don't think so. I think England have progressed a lot. To say culture doesn't matter in a team game strikes me as bizarre. I doubt any coach would ever trust Hartley enough to select him again now, and I'm not sure Tuilagi (for various reasons) will play that much more for England, whoever the coach is.

If we did change coach the only differences I could imagine are:

- Changes at 6 and 7. Arguably SL made a mistake making Robshaw his captain, as it has really limited our options on the flank. I could imagine another coach going for Burgess (or perhaps Robshaw) at 6 and one of Clark, Kvesic or even Clifford at 7.
- Itoje will replace Parling in the matchday 23 (which will happen under SL anyway)
- A long-term answer at 12, which I think will almost certainly be Slade (again this will probably happen under SL too).
- SCW (perhaps the most likely replacement) would pick Cipriani at 10.

I think that's it. That suggests to me that the players SL has in and around the side are fundamentally the right ones and that he's done a decent job. I think Farrell and Catt have created an effective defence and the most incisive England attack for a decade.

I expect that as long as England get out of the group SL will be given another 4 years, like SCW was in 1999. There may be a case for replacing Rowntree - he's a highly respected coach, but maybe it's time for the forwards to hear a different voice.

Hood83 wrote:That's fine, but perhaps he could be prepared to try and work out how to manage these players to get the best out of them whilst knocking that stuff on the head. Maybe it's impossible. All we know is, he hasn't been able to improve their discipline so he's got rid of them. I respect the opinion that is principled, and it may be better to lose with some dignity if it's the alternative to a team of awful blokes doing OK. He made a decision, fair enough, I'm just not sure if it was the best one.

I would like a coach who creates a culture whereby all players entering it act like grown ups, rather than one that expels them when they don't. Maybe as I say that's not realistic and this is the only way.

Hood83 wrote:

Yes, but to say 'i like the culture he's created' without any sort of definition of what that culture is seems equally bizarre. Perhaps SL has created a 'zero tolerance' culture whereby indiscretions are not tolerated. Great. But is that really the extent of it? As I say, I'd rather an approach focused on developing a culture of making decent decisions under pressure.

DaveM wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Yes, but to say 'i like the culture he's created' without any sort of definition of what that culture is seems equally bizarre. Perhaps SL has created a 'zero tolerance' culture whereby indiscretions are not tolerated. Great. But is that really the extent of it? As I say, I'd rather an approach focused on developing a culture of making decent decisions under pressure.

It is a culture of not tolerating poor behaviour. In my mind this is necessary but not sufficient to create a winning team. So a good start, but clearly more work to be done. On the other hand it is not clear how much decision-making under pressure can be taught. I suspect the way to get better at making decisions under pressure is to accumulate experience of being under pressure. This is still an inexperienced English side.

rozakthegoon wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Yes, but to say 'i like the culture he's created' without any sort of definition of what that culture is seems equally bizarre. Perhaps SL has created a 'zero tolerance' culture whereby indiscretions are not tolerated. Great. But is that really the extent of it? As I say, I'd rather an approach focused on developing a culture of making decent decisions under pressure.

It is a culture of not tolerating poor behaviour. In my mind this is necessary but not sufficient to create a winning team. So a good start, but clearly more work to be done. On the other hand it is not clear how much decision-making under pressure can be taught. I suspect the way to get better at making decisions under pressure is to accumulate experience of being under pressure. This is still an inexperienced English side.

also, some people just arent great at it. and thats ok. Im not, i work in an area where i need to be, but i make sure i have others around who are good at it, or i find space to step back and sort stuff out. Of course in an 80min match where every second counts you cant pause and step back.

If some of the team know they arent good under pressure (such as Robshaw) i dont think its a crime to internally admit it and hand responsibilty to someone else. As someone else pointed out, clearly robshaw and wood focus on their own game. Great. but then someone else needs to be galvanising the team as a whole.

Also i think Farrell needs to channel his temper into something more positive to help him make better decisions, rather than just going off all Hulk. I think Brown is past the point of no return in this matter sadly.

rozakthegoon wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Yes, but to say 'i like the culture he's created' without any sort of definition of what that culture is seems equally bizarre. Perhaps SL has created a 'zero tolerance' culture whereby indiscretions are not tolerated. Great. But is that really the extent of it? As I say, I'd rather an approach focused on developing a culture of making decent decisions under pressure.

It is a culture of not tolerating poor behaviour. In my mind this is necessary but not sufficient to create a winning team. So a good start, but clearly more work to be done. On the other hand it is not clear how much decision-making under pressure can be taught. I suspect the way to get better at making decisions under pressure is to accumulate experience of being under pressure. This is still an inexperienced English side.

also, some people just arent great at it. and thats ok. Im not, i work in an area where i need to be, but i make sure i have others around who are good at it, or i find space to step back and sort stuff out. Of course in an 80min match where every second counts you cant pause and step back.

If some of the team know they arent good under pressure (such as Robshaw) i dont think its a crime to internally admit it and hand responsibilty to someone else. As someone else pointed out, clearly robshaw and wood focus on their own game. Great. but then someone else needs to be galvanising the team as a whole.

Also i think Farrell needs to channel his temper into something more positive to help him make better decisions, rather than just going off all Hulk. I think Brown is past the point of no return in this matter sadly.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

rozakthegoon wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Yes, but to say 'i like the culture he's created' without any sort of definition of what that culture is seems equally bizarre. Perhaps SL has created a 'zero tolerance' culture whereby indiscretions are not tolerated. Great. But is that really the extent of it? As I say, I'd rather an approach focused on developing a culture of making decent decisions under pressure.

It is a culture of not tolerating poor behaviour. In my mind this is necessary but not sufficient to create a winning team. So a good start, but clearly more work to be done. On the other hand it is not clear how much decision-making under pressure can be taught. I suspect the way to get better at making decisions under pressure is to accumulate experience of being under pressure. This is still an inexperienced English side.

also, some people just arent great at it. and thats ok. Im not, i work in an area where i need to be, but i make sure i have others around who are good at it, or i find space to step back and sort stuff out. Of course in an 80min match where every second counts you cant pause and step back.

If some of the team know they arent good under pressure (such as Robshaw) i dont think its a crime to internally admit it and hand responsibilty to someone else. As someone else pointed out, clearly robshaw and wood focus on their own game. Great. but then someone else needs to be galvanising the team as a whole.

Also i think Farrell needs to channel his temper into something more positive to help him make better decisions, rather than just going off all Hulk. I think Brown is past the point of no return in this matter sadly.

??? Brown is aggressive and feisty. I love that.

In fact I wish we had one or two more players like him to really get at the opposition. The team is too "nice" at times...

DaveM wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Yes, but to say 'i like the culture he's created' without any sort of definition of what that culture is seems equally bizarre. Perhaps SL has created a 'zero tolerance' culture whereby indiscretions are not tolerated. Great. But is that really the extent of it? As I say, I'd rather an approach focused on developing a culture of making decent decisions under pressure.

It is a culture of not tolerating poor behaviour. In my mind this is necessary but not sufficient to create a winning team. So a good start, but clearly more work to be done. On the other hand it is not clear how much decision-making under pressure can be taught. I suspect the way to get better at making decisions under pressure is to accumulate experience of being under pressure. This is still an inexperienced English side.

I think that's where barney's comments come in. What are we as a team? We just seem to have developed a very limited concept of what culture we need. What about the type of rugby we want to play. I dunno, just feels like he's had plenty of time to work this out and we're here none the wiser/ Sad

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I think that's where barney's comments come in. What are we as a team? We just seem to have developed a very limited concept of what culture we need. What about the type of rugby we want to play. I dunno, just feels like he's had plenty of time to work this out and we're here none the wiser/ Sad

Very true.

I admire his love of the New Zealand idea...but I'm just not sure we should be copying it. We should have our own style based on the strengths of our players / club teams.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:To support SL on the back of his selections is missing the point somewhat. Saturday’s selection was a mixture of good and bad but what I see as the problem with him is his coaching (and that of his team). Are we a mobile attacking side, are we a damage-limitation side, is Burgess a flanker or a centre, why is he not concerned with the breakdown, why are the set-pieces relegated to unimportant, why don’t we try out a breakdown specialist 7, why do we struggle at restarts, why do we give away so many penalties? What exactly is SL’s vision for the game on the pitch (not some PR sound-bite tosh)? Why does he bring Slade along when he doesn’t trust him? If he loved 12T so much, what is his infatuation with Farrel at IC? Does he want a playmaker 12 or a bosh one? The list is endless. He seems unsure of what he wants from his players. England’s personnel are not technically good enough to play an ABs type of game – why does he seem to want to force this on them. When does he coach his team to do ANYTHING that takes the opposition by surprise?

Yeah, fair enough, and same with Jimpy's comments. I think that's my feeling, a good start perhaps but really after 4yrs, shouldn't we be far further along the line. I see the point on decision making. But then that also brings me to SL's point on number of caps. He hasn't got a team anywhere near the number of caps he suggested was necessary for a WC. I think that's fair enough as he's brought in some decent ones and got rid of others not up to it. But it's not clear whether he thinks the lack of experience is now not a problem, or just something he has to deal with.

I think that's where barney's comments come in. What are we as a team? We just seem to have developed a very limited concept of what culture we need. What about the type of rugby we want to play. I dunno, just feels like he's had plenty of time to work this out and we're here none the wiser/

Heaf wrote:Unlucky with the group certainly - a system that ends up with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th ranked teams (as at 21/9/15) in the same pool needs looking at for next time around

DaveM wrote:He may lose his job after the WC, but there aren't as many issues with the England side as is sometimes suggested.

Heaf wrote:TFFT .. any idea how it will be done?

doctor_grey wrote:

DaveM wrote:He may lose his job after the WC, but there aren't as many issues with the England side as is sometimes suggested.

I am not quite sure everyone thinks this team has so many problems.  Just the opposite, I think.  This team has enough talent to with the World Cup but is underperforming compared to its potential.  This is why, I believe, Lancaster and his coaching team are receiving a lot of criticism.  Martin Johnson had the team playing pretty well, including those two wins v. Australia.  Then he bottled it in the World Cup, becoming too conservative and making poor player choices.  Lancaster has had England playing pretty well, unfortunately just good enough to come in second in the 6 Nations.  Now, here we are in the World Cup and we are still talknig about poor selection and game day decisions...........

We still have a match against Australia coming up.  There is absolutely no reason why England cannot win that match.  None.  
So let's hope for better decision making by the coaches, Robshaw and the rest of the team.  Then we can start talking about bringing the Webb Ellis trophy home........

DaveM wrote:

Heaf wrote:TFFT .. any idea how it will be done?

No sorry, I can't remember if I read or heard it. You can see why the IRB would want change - whoever goes out will be a loss to the tournament.

DaveM wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

DaveM wrote:He may lose his job after the WC, but there aren't as many issues with the England side as is sometimes suggested.

I am not quite sure everyone thinks this team has so many problems.  Just the opposite, I think.  This team has enough talent to with the World Cup but is underperforming compared to its potential.  This is why, I believe, Lancaster and his coaching team are receiving a lot of criticism.  Martin Johnson had the team playing pretty well, including those two wins v. Australia.  Then he bottled it in the World Cup, becoming too conservative and making poor player choices.  Lancaster has had England playing pretty well, unfortunately just good enough to come in second in the 6 Nations.  Now, here we are in the World Cup and we are still talknig about poor selection and game day decisions...........

We still have a match against Australia coming up.  There is absolutely no reason why England cannot win that match.  None.  
So let's hope for better decision making by the coaches, Robshaw and the rest of the team.  Then we can start talking about bringing the Webb Ellis trophy home........

Yeah, ok let me rephrase. There aren't as many issues with Stuart Lancaster's England side as is sometimes suggested.

And I agree England can beat Australia.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The issues with Lancaster are that his on field tactics are confusing, with an emphasis on playing heads up rugby but selecting only one or two players who are capable of doing this. His insistence on selecting athletic physical specimens over players with specific specialist skills inhibits our onfield options. He has little faith in creative players particularly off the bench preferring instead for options that are more steady.

Something needs to change. I don't feel the balance of coaches is working. Particularly Farrell and Rowntree. Our forwards play is traditional with line out drives and destructive scrums key targets and powerful one out carries often resorted to. The defence is a league style blitz which demands a certain level of fitness. As such we get a clash of demands on player ability with Farrell wanting high work rate athletic players (e.g. Kruis and Launchbury) and Rowntree looking at players who offer set piece opportunities even if embodying a less than perfect physique  (e.g. Parling and Cole).

DaveM wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The issues with Lancaster are that his on field tactics are confusing, with an emphasis on playing heads up rugby but selecting only one or two players who are capable of doing this. His insistence on selecting athletic physical specimens over players with specific specialist skills inhibits our onfield options. He has little faith in creative players particularly off the bench preferring instead for options that are more steady.

Something needs to change. I don't feel the balance of coaches is working. Particularly Farrell and Rowntree. Our forwards play is traditional with line out drives and destructive scrums key targets and powerful one out carries often resorted to. The defence is a league style blitz which demands a certain level of fitness. As such we get a clash of demands on player ability with Farrell wanting high work rate athletic players (e.g. Kruis and Launchbury) and Rowntree looking at players who offer set piece opportunities even if embodying a less than perfect physique  (e.g. Parling and Cole).

Sam, Rowntree was quoted only a couple of weeks back saying he wanted mobile fit forwards who could hit rucks for 80 minutes, so I'm not sure there is an inconsistency. I think Rowntree might be under the most pressure if the breakdown work doesn't improve.

I agree he doesn't play enough decision-makers, although this is mainly a recent development. England are lucky they have at least 4 proper options at IC to pick from after the WC (Slade, Devoto, Stephenson, Hill), all of whom would improve the side, but can SL change his approach in time to save this tournament?  

formerly known as Sam wrote:
Agree massively on the abundance of centre talent. How Slades wasn't on the bench or even starting vs Wales is completely beyond me. He made Farrell look good in the warm ups and links well with Burgess.

Devoto I don't think is international quality yet and Stephenson needs to cement a starting berth at Saints first but there's potential there. Hill looks like he'll be a fixture post RWC.

nth wrote:Any top tier coach that doesn't get their team out of the group stages should lose their job (irrespective of pool strength).  For a home WC Lancaster needs to make the SFs to stay in position.

'Promote' Lancaster to a managerial or director role that deals with something like coaching support systems, culture and development.  Rob Baxter comes in as head coach, Alex Sanderson assists in coaching the forwards, Paul Gustard in charge of defence, Alex King directs the backs, maybe bring Borthwick in for the lineout.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I have no confidence whatsoever in this side beating Australia at the moment.

Their handling and backplay is going to cause us major headaches...and their pack is functioning very well.....

king_carlos wrote:Rowntree will likely be the one under increasing pressure.

Our line-out has been very poor, our scrum mixed and our breakdown work very disappointing given the players being picked to play a high tempo game relying on quick ruck ball.

Take contact, get to ground, clear quickly, move the point of attack.

That is the simple, and frankly limiting, game plan our forwards utilise and yet they are performing it extremely poorly at current.

England’s decision to kick for the corner rather than ask Farrell to shoot at goal to draw the match was the wrong call but it wasn’t Chris Robshaw’s fault. That one is down to the management.

It should have been discussed and coached at the very start of Lancaster’s regime. ‘What if’ coaching sessions might not be among the most glamorous, but like any aspects of international rugby, if you get these basics right the results will follow.

Decision-making is done through coaching and is just as important, if not more important, than any other aspect.

In the calm light of day you sit down and discuss likely scenarios. It might be how to play with 14 men, or what tactics to adopt if the game descends to uncontested scrums.

It would certainly include every conceivable ‘what if’ you might face either defending or chasing a narrow lead in the final two minutes of a huge World Cup pool game.

It is not possible, surely, that England have not sat down and asked themselves what the call is if they are faced with a very late penalty to draw as opposed to win.

Ever since the draw was made in 2012 this was on the cards against Wales and Australia. There is every chance of it happening again on Saturday.

So you kick it around in your team room on a quiet Monday afternoon when everybody is recovering from their club games the previous day.

And then the coach and team decide the policy so that you make the correct, logical call when you can’t hear yourself think in front of 80,000 fans, your brain is scrambling and the pressure is really on.

For England to say it was the captain’s call, and for Robshaw to accept the blame, is not right. It was a collective error that may haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Awareness and decision-making at the death has been an issue before but England got away with it.

In the first warm-up against France, stand-in skipper Tom Wood opted to kick into the corner thinking they were four points up and needed a try to seal the game when in fact they were five up and just needed the simple pot at goal.

Then, after the Fiji game, Billy Vunipola — who plays in the try-scoring position of No 8 — tells us he didn’t know that the bonus-points system was operating in the World Cup.

Here England have been burnt for not excelling in this important area. Simply put, it separates the good teams from the world class ones.

doctor_grey wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Rowntree will likely be the one under increasing pressure.

Our line-out has been very poor, our scrum mixed and our breakdown work very disappointing given the players being picked to play a high tempo game relying on quick ruck ball.

Take contact, get to ground, clear quickly, move the point of attack.

That is the simple, and frankly limiting, game plan our forwards utilise and yet they are performing it extremely poorly at current.

Here is what I don't understand:  Our pack, including the scrum and lineout were not bad in the Six Nations.  
What has happened in the past few months to take a relative strength and turn it into a virtual liability?

LondonTiger wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Rowntree will likely be the one under increasing pressure.

Our line-out has been very poor, our scrum mixed and our breakdown work very disappointing given the players being picked to play a high tempo game relying on quick ruck ball.

Take contact, get to ground, clear quickly, move the point of attack.

That is the simple, and frankly limiting, game plan our forwards utilise and yet they are performing it extremely poorly at current.

Here is what I don't understand:  Our pack, including the scrum and lineout were not bad in the Six Nations.  
What has happened in the past few months to take a relative strength and turn it into a virtual liability?

not a liability at the weekend though.

We were much better in scrum and lineout. Sadly the team blew that game. Marvellous fightback that it was - Wales shoudl not have been given a sniff. after about 50 minutes we stopped trying to win the game, we stopped charging into contact situations and started trying to defend a win. We lost all tempo and frankly we were pathetic.

nth wrote:Any top tier coach that doesn't get their team out of the group stages should lose their job (irrespective of pool strength).  For a home WC Lancaster needs to make the SFs to stay in position.

'Promote' Lancaster to a managerial or director role that deals with something like coaching support systems, culture and development.  Rob Baxter comes in as head coach, Alex Sanderson assists in coaching the forwards, Paul Gustard in charge of defence, Alex King directs the backs, maybe bring Borthwick in for the lineout.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Well, it should be fairly straightforward:

Do England really aspire to be the best?
Can English rugby afford the best?
Are SL, Farrell, Rowntree, Catt the best?

Money can’t buy you love, but for everything else there’s MasterCard. Normally you go out and buy the best you can afford, but I’m constantly being told we’re the richest RU so what exactly are we saving all that money for? If we can identify someone better than SL (and by better I’m talking CV – it’s the only way), then by throwing enough money at them we’ll get them. This current set up simply look out of their depth.

A team that wants to be the best has to have the full set: players, coaches and set-up. It’s something we’ve already learnt – remember 2003 anyone?

fa0019 wrote:First off you need a coach that understands test rugby.

Yes SCW was only an AM bath but those were the early days of professional rugby. Huge strides could be made by adding up all the 1%s.

Today with professionalism well established in most tier 1 nations and world take note... with Argentina into SR, believe they will eventually become a top 4 team.

Therefore a proven coach is not just advantageous its necessary. You can't have people learn on the job, that is what England with Lancaster have been doing. Lots of lessons to be learnt... Henry on the other hand learnt most of his with Wales and specifically the Lions in 2001.. it was perfect for the ABs.

Take the last lineout for instance. A top coach, an experienced coach would have covered this. He would have said. Backrow throw minimum. In reality he would have said, take the 3 but you don't go front man for such a crucial lineout.

Take Rowntree.. will he be a top coach one day? If not, bin him. Keep him as scrum coach but forwards need someone who understand backrow rugby. Dean Ryan and Dean Richards are respected coaches no? If England want English coaches for the top job they need to bring them up to be ready for test rugby... with AM national positions in test environments.

But the most important man is the head coach, the top boy. Does he have a vision to win the world cup, not simply hope that if he develops a side who are difficult to breakdown that at home they will get close to the title.

With no indigenous coach with real high profile results, The only man who fills the criteria is Nick Mallett.

fa0019 wrote: The only man who fills the criteria is Nick Mallett.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:First off you need a coach that understands test rugby.

Yes SCW was only an AM bath but those were the early days of professional rugby. Huge strides could be made by adding up all the 1%s.

Today with professionalism well established in most tier 1 nations and world take note... with Argentina into SR, believe they will eventually become a top 4 team.

Therefore a proven coach is not just advantageous its necessary. You can't have people learn on the job, that is what England with Lancaster have been doing. Lots of lessons to be learnt... Henry on the other hand learnt most of his with Wales and specifically the Lions in 2001.. it was perfect for the ABs.

Take the last lineout for instance. A top coach, an experienced coach would have covered this. He would have said. Backrow throw minimum. In reality he would have said, take the 3 but you don't go front man for such a crucial lineout.

Take Rowntree.. will he be a top coach one day? If not, bin him. Keep him as scrum coach but forwards need someone who understand backrow rugby. Dean Ryan and Dean Richards are respected coaches no? If England want English coaches for the top job they need to bring them up to be ready for test rugby... with AM national positions in test environments.

But the most important man is the head coach, the top boy. Does he have a vision to win the world cup, not simply hope that if he develops a side who are difficult to breakdown that at home they will get close to the title.

With no indigenous coach with real high profile results, The only man who fills the criteria is Nick Mallett.

Really?

doctor_grey wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Rowntree will likely be the one under increasing pressure.

Our line-out has been very poor, our scrum mixed and our breakdown work very disappointing given the players being picked to play a high tempo game relying on quick ruck ball.

Take contact, get to ground, clear quickly, move the point of attack.

That is the simple, and frankly limiting, game plan our forwards utilise and yet they are performing it extremely poorly at current.

Here is what I don't understand:  Our pack, including the scrum and lineout were not bad in the Six Nations.  
What has happened in the past few months to take a relative strength and turn it into a virtual liability?