The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything

First topic message reminder :

Firstly my Bonafides I`m an Anglo-Scot and proud of my Countries teams,BUT my Primary team is the All Blacks since 1953-4.
I`m Alan/aka Emack/aka Emack2 and have profound knowledge of Rugby,especially SH in General ,NZ in particular. I don`t
follow Club/Provincial/or even NH tests except at a peripheral level.
I have been sickened by the media witch hunt,tweets by players,both in or not in the Squad and the cries for Coaches Blood
when everyone should get behind the team.
As an All Black fan who road the halcyon days 1950-69 when they lost one series in 20years,the dark days of the 70`s,slow
recovery in the 80`s patchy 90`s.1998,2009 .I can emphasize "Chokers","4 more years""Home Town Bullies" etc.
In 2004 they lost a squad,,in 2008 a whole squad they rebuilt and moved on NZ have the best team and the worst media in
Rugby.John Hart,Grizz Wyllie,Robbie Deans all great coaches dumped in knee jerk reactions.Graham Henry only being re-elected
because Deans was tainted by 2003.
In 2009 in an injury riddled year lost 3 times to SA and a trophy to France "The Gang of three were under fire the reaction
Thrashing the French at the end of the year,a 6-0 2010 campaign a loss to OZ in Hong Kong,and 2 in 2011,a solid RWC win
v Oz,2012 =6-0 again.England loss 2012,followed an unbeaten 2013.Each loss an inspiration to settle the score.
Under Lancaster England had a good record v NH sides the last 3 -6Ns being decided by points difference so there was
little between most NH sides.
Injuries to some extent and off field activies effected selections BUT the style that had proved successful in most games
2012-15.Suddenly became a defensive no loss rather than try to win attitude which probably cost the Wales game.
This RWC has shown that teams with nothing to lose can be a handful especially if the offside law isn`t applied the
standard is such 150 points thrashing don`t happen.
The unfair 4/5 day turnaround has increased injuries ,reduced recovery times,has cost points/matches.
The laws exist in black and white BUT every Ref I`ve seen so far has applied them differently.
England v Australia injuries to both sides may have affected the result to some extent and Hooper not
seeing Yellow at half time.Was huge 7 man Scrum,key man from breakdown when England were
firing.
Media expectations that purely on Home advantage England would win the Group,then reach the
final was naïve at best.That SH well organised sides wouldn't be able to play a running game in
the NH,.The pressure to pick a league Prop/6 still learning his trade in the centre instead of
dedicated 12 beggars belief[what ever his undoubted skills.
As to the Aus match,congratulations to them by the way,personally when given penalties would have
kicked for goal to slow things down.Been in the Refs ear about Scrum going early and deliberate
bodies at the base of every breakdown.Would have pulled Marler after the first Scrum Penalty
if the Ref thinks your at it he`ll do it every time[Steve Walsh]
The future get a settled game plan,select players who can execute it,one game at a time a more
mobile back row.More care to be seen to be legal at the set piece,better discipline.
I`d be inclined to Keep Lancaster but look at the other coaches and aim to win 6Ns and
thrash Aus next time they meet.

No England's games were arranged to maximise spectators - so ticket prices could be ramped up and tv audiences would be bigger. I don't think giving England an easier ride into the quarter finals was top of the reasons - money was.

fa0019 wrote:Woodward - final
Bracken  - final
Castrogiovanni - semi final minimum
Planet rugby - semi finals at least
Dillaglio - final if they qualify first.
Jones - An Aussie, bound to back AUS. Said they can get to final sure.

Most said if qualified first they would get to final. Most said if runners up it would be difficult... thats simply logic. Most backed them to qualify first.

Yet out of all of that... none said, pool stages.

So now it comes to what you understand by the word 'expected'.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Surely it was engineered to suit Wales. An away side but playing in their MS.

Then you shouldn't have signed up in 1999. I'm happy we got the home advantage against Uruguay though, we'd have lost the game if it was played at Twickenham.

Home nations in almost every sport and every major tournament start with shorter odds that they would otherwise have. Home advantage is statistically that. An advantage.

The fact that sometimes it adds pressure and a fortress becomes the Alamo doesn't alter the fact that most of the time that's not the case. Given England's ranking/form the fact that they were second favourites isn't the result of a superiority complex. The bookies don't worry about such fancies, when they set odds, they deal in commercial decisions based on objectivity. If this World Cup was in Argentina, the Pumas would be shorter odds and England longer.

That said, the odds are also skewed a bit by where you are placing your bets... As they react to bets placed and there is a home fans bet on home nations factor.

We were the host nation so why shouldn't we have a Saturday night game?

NZ get Friday night games and 7 day turn a rounds, no one complaining about that.

nlpnlp wrote:No England's games were arranged to maximise spectators - so ticket prices could be ramped up and tv audiences would be bigger.  I don't think giving England an easier ride into the quarter finals was top of the reasons - money was.

Either way it gave England the greatest advantage.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Surely it was engineered to suit Wales. An away side but playing in their MS.

Or have Wales play Fiji after they've been tired out by England and had a player banned ... or Wales play Aus after Hooper is banned rather than England getting the benefit of him seeing yellow ... or let Aus and Wales have easy starts to get warmed up ... you can spin this one all sorts of ways.  I don't think England had a better deal than Wales or Aus - they just messed up royally.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

The greatest advantage would surely have been playing Aus and Wales after those teams had played 3 days before; was that the case? Has any tier 1 nation played another after that sort of turnaround?

mikey_dragon wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:No England's games were arranged to maximise spectators - so ticket prices could be ramped up and tv audiences would be bigger.  I don't think giving England an easier ride into the quarter finals was top of the reasons - money was.

Either way it gave England the greatest advantage.

As Host nation why not? its the same at every world cup.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

What's wrong with French refs though? And what do you mean by 'luck'?

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:No England's games were arranged to maximise spectators - so ticket prices could be ramped up and tv audiences would be bigger.  I don't think giving England an easier ride into the quarter finals was top of the reasons - money was.

Either way it gave England the greatest advantage.

As Host nation why not? its the same at every world cup.

No it isn't.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

What's wrong with French refs though? And what do you mean by 'luck'?

When a Welsh team be it club or international plays an English one and have a French official, the English team always have a lot of 'luck' go their way. A high profile example would be England vs Wales 2014 and the recent RWC one with Garces in charge where England had lots of 'luck' at the breakdown and in the scrums.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

Shame Steve Walsh wasn't available eh?

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

What's wrong with French refs though? And what do you mean by 'luck'?

When a Welsh team be it club or international plays an English one and have a French official, the English team always have a lot of 'luck' go their way. A high profile example would be England vs Wales 2014 and the recent RWC one with Garces in charge where England had lots of 'luck' at the breakdown and in the scrums.

What do you mean by luck though. Go be brave, have the courage of your convictions!

mikey_dragon wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:No England's games were arranged to maximise spectators - so ticket prices could be ramped up and tv audiences would be bigger.  I don't think giving England an easier ride into the quarter finals was top of the reasons - money was.

Either way it gave England the greatest advantage.

As Host nation why not? its the same at every world cup.

No it isn't.

Oh Yes it is.

Mikey has a point, the French have always loved the English

Heaf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

Shame Steve Walsh wasn't available eh?

Still blaming refs... It's no wonder the rugby world wants to make fun of you when you get knocked out of your world cup .

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:No England's games were arranged to maximise spectators - so ticket prices could be ramped up and tv audiences would be bigger.  I don't think giving England an easier ride into the quarter finals was top of the reasons - money was.

Either way it gave England the greatest advantage.

As Host nation why not? its the same at every world cup.

No it isn't.

Oh Yes it is.

So many previous RWC hosts had the advantages penned out by LD?

Quite right Mikey. When England fans blame the ref it's just typical whinging poms. When everyone else does it when they've lost to England, it's objective critique against favouritism towards the colonial establishment

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

What's wrong with French refs though? And what do you mean by 'luck'?

When a Welsh team be it club or international plays an English one and have a French official, the English team always have a lot of 'luck' go their way. A high profile example would be England vs Wales 2014 and the recent RWC one with Garces in charge where England had lots of 'luck' at the breakdown and in the scrums.

What do you mean by luck though. Go be brave, have the courage of your convictions!

Because England clearly drive sideways at the scrum and the French refs were only interested in penalising the Welsh. Wales were clearly the better breakdown operators in the recent match, England shouldn't have had that lineout because Warburton clearly made a good turnover - again England were helped out here by a French ref and poor Wales had a lot of wrong decisions in key areas go against them. You and your luck huh?

It will be interesting to see what advantages Japan can get in the next world cup - although the way they thrashed Wales in 2013, they may not need any.

So you're just quibbling about some calls? Fair enough. There's load that can go either way. Not really luck as we had some wrong decisions against us too. Hey ho.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Heaf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

Shame Steve Walsh wasn't available eh?

Still blaming refs... It's no wonder the rugby world wants to make fun of you when you get knocked out of your world cup .

Seriously, do you really not get the point? - It was an ironic comment on YOU blaming Poite ...

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

What's wrong with French refs though? And what do you mean by 'luck'?

When a Welsh team be it club or international plays an English one and have a French official, the English team always have a lot of 'luck' go their way. A high profile example would be England vs Wales 2014 and the recent RWC one with Garces in charge where England had lots of 'luck' at the breakdown and in the scrums.

What do you mean by luck though. Go be brave, have the courage of your convictions!

Because England clearly drive sideways at the scrum and the French refs were only interested in penalising the Welsh. Wales were clearly the better breakdown operators in the recent match, England shouldn't have had that lineout because Warburton clearly made a good turnover - again England were helped out here by a French ref and poor Wales had a lot of wrong decisions in key areas go against them. You and your luck huh?

And I suppose this isn't you moaning about the ref again?

nlpnlp wrote:It will be interesting to see what advantages Japan can get in the next world cup - although the way they thrashed Wales in 2013, they may not need any.

The IRB will draw Aus, Eng, SA and Wales in the same group to avoid Japan.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you're just quibbling about some calls? Fair enough. There's load that can go either way. Not really luck as we had some wrong decisions against us too. Hey ho.

Despite the crucial areas I alluded to, there were some calls that went our way. I commented at the time at how surprised I was as I was certain the French refs would help see England out of the pool.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you're just quibbling about some calls? Fair enough. There's load that can go either way. Not really luck as we had some wrong decisions against us too. Hey ho.

Despite the crucial areas I alluded to, there were some calls that went our way. I commented at the time at how surprised I was as I was certain the French refs would help see England out of the pool.

Well we were well on top for the majority of the game and you do get some favourable decisions in circunstances like that. Wales got away with the Lydiate tackle which would have helped England out a bit but still not sure we would have taken advantage with the players on at that time. Chin up you scraped through good luck in the knock outs.

Heaf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Heaf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's an engineered tournament to protect the established nations. Don't think that can really be argued against but you would have to either reduce the teams or extend the tournament otherwise. As the amount of rugby being played is already on the agenda neither are ideal.

France and England had the most days off. New Zealand and South Africa actually had worse than average rest days.

They also brought in the French officials they've always had a lot of 'luck' with when they were playing the biggest games of the pool. England couldn't possibly have had more of an advantage in this tournament.

What's wrong with French refs? What exactly do you mean by 'luck'.

Poite 2014.

Shame Steve Walsh wasn't available eh?

Still blaming refs... It's no wonder the rugby world wants to make fun of you when you get knocked out of your world cup .

Seriously, do you really not get the point? - It was an ironic comment on YOU blaming Poite ...

You have all been blaming Steve Walsh for that loss ever since it happened. I don't blame Poite, we still would have lost that day because there was a lack of urgency from us, not even Steve Walsh could've saved us the way he could have but didn't against SA in SA... I just find it funny that England fans always say that was a good performance from Poite that day when it clearly wasn't.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you're just quibbling about some calls? Fair enough. There's load that can go either way. Not really luck as we had some wrong decisions against us too. Hey ho.

Despite the crucial areas I alluded to, there were some calls that went our way. I commented at the time at how surprised I was as I was certain the French refs would help see England out of the pool.

Well we were well on top for the majority of the game and you do get some favourable decisions in circunstances like that. Wales got away with the Lydiate tackle which would have helped England out a bit but still not sure we would have taken advantage with the players on at that time. Chin up you scraped through good luck in the knock outs.

I suppose another ref might have seen it differently. He pinged Cole twice for not supporting his body weight at the ruck. Garces must have had a good view because from what I could see he was. Yes, we are literally scraping through and squad depth is being tested, thanks!

England were only on top because of the favourable decisions. Get with the program. 

Think about it Mikey, if you'd had a proper ref, you'd have been out of sight at half time... And been denied the glorious comeback victory that you will be singing about in the valleys for decades to come:D

He did. Missed the Roberts one before that when he did the same. Swings and roundabouts and there still are questions about how to get more consistent thinking on the laws. We see things like that let go in the prem and I'm sure it happens in the pro 12 as well. can't be that hard to ensure they are at least closer together in their thinking (refs that is).

milkyboy wrote:England were only on top because of the favourable decisions. Get with the program. 

Think about it Mikey, if you'd had a proper ref, you'd have been out of sight at half time... And been denied the glorious comeback victory that you will be singing about in the valleys for decades to come:D

Just concentrating on Australia to be honest. England are small time as proven by their exit at the group stages.

INo 7&1/2 wrote:He did. Missed the Roberts one before that when he did the same. Swings and roundabouts and there still are questions about how to get more consistent thinking on the laws. We see things like that let go in the prem and I'm sure it happens in the pro 12 as well. can't be that hard to ensure they are at least closer together in their thinking (refs that is).

Good luck with that.

I love the game, but can't think of another so reliant on referees to interpret which bit of cheating they want to penalise.

mikey_dragon wrote:

milkyboy wrote:England were only on top because of the favourable decisions. Get with the program. 

Think about it Mikey, if you'd had a proper ref, you'd have been out of sight at half time... And been denied the glorious comeback victory that you will be singing about in the valleys for decades to come:D

Just concentrating on Australia to be honest. England are small time as proven by their exit at the group stages.

Then why are you wumming on all the England threads?

TightHEAD wrote:We were the host nation so why shouldn't we have a Saturday night game?

NZ get Friday night games and 7 day turn a rounds, no one complaining about that.

Yeah, but we are not talking about New Zealand and their group. Also, New Zealand are not going out at the group stages.

Strange come back that one.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The greatest advantage would surely have been playing Aus and Wales after those teams had played 3 days before; was that the case? Has any tier 1 nation played another after that sort of turnaround?

Yes, Wales played England on Saturday night, then played Fiji on Thursday afternoon.

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:We were the host nation so why shouldn't we have a Saturday night game?

NZ get Friday night games and 7 day turn a rounds, no one complaining about that.

Yeah, but we are not talking about New Zealand and their group. Also, New Zealand are not going out at the group stages.

Strange come back that one.

Why is it strange?

TightHEAD wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:We were the host nation so why shouldn't we have a Saturday night game?

NZ get Friday night games and 7 day turn a rounds, no one complaining about that.

Yeah, but we are not talking about New Zealand and their group. Also, New Zealand are not going out at the group stages.

Strange come back that one.

Why is it strange?

Because why would you bring the All Blacks into it ? We are talking about England and going out at the group stages, and who should be blamed. Unless of course you think it is all New Zealands fault. Is that it ?

No one is complaining about the All Blacks having an engineered schedule that gives them a lot of rest days too. Strange that its just England being accused of fiddling the fixtures to gain an advantage even after we are out!

Paranoid me thinks.

Just wumming.

TightHEAD wrote:No one is complaining about the All Blacks having an engineered schedule that gives them a lot of rest days too. Strange that its just England being accused of fiddling the fixtures to gain an advantage even after we are out!

Paranoid me thinks.

I do not think the fixtures were "fiddled". I said that England had the best chance of any teams in the group due to the way it was arranged, and when you look at the facts, it's hard to argue that they weren't.

Just because its England and the RFU every makes a big deal out of it, it has always happened at the RWC that the host nation are given one of the better schedules when compared to minnow nations.

TightHEAD wrote:Just because its England and the RFU every makes a big deal out of it, it has always happened at the RWC that the host nation are given one of the better schedules when compared to minnow nations.

Yes, I agree, but that is not the point, which I think you are drastically missing. The point I am making is, that as host nation, England had the most favourable schedule of all the teams in the group, yet they still fecked it up. The only ones to blame are the coaches.

Rankings points determine seedings for RWCs, which determine draws. The best seeded teams at the time get the easiest routes out of the pool (at the time of the draw). People have got to remember that test rugby is a game of inches, and there is sod all between the top teams. You see that in how dramatically the rankings change with points doubling at RWCs. NZ was number one at the time of the draw, so got an easier ride in. Just like 2007-it was so easy they were undercooked. Because the top seeding is an aid to getting you out of your pool, nothing more. You're on your own after that. Plus if you have genuine aspirations to win the thing then you suck it up and focus on beating anyone you come across. All those bandwagon jumpers who say crap about "when it really matters" referring to RWCs are instantly proven wrong by this. Because had England been number one at the time of the seeding they'd have gotten an easier draw. Which proves that every test is important. Just because a test doesn't take place during a RWC doesn't mean that it doesn't affect how you end up at one.

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Just because its England and the RFU every makes a big deal out of it, it has always happened at the RWC that the host nation are given one of the better schedules when compared to minnow nations.

Yes, I agree, but that is not the point, which I think you are drastically missing. The point I am making is, that as host nation, England had the most favourable schedule of all the teams in the group, yet they still fecked it up. The only ones to blame are the coaches.

Thanks for pointing out the fact that England are out, I missed that one! and of course they did they are the host nation, look back at all the other RWCs and you'll see a pattern of host nations having an easier ride.

But this pool was different as we all knew one top team was always going home early, I'm not surprised we lost to either Wales or Australia but I am surprised in the manner in which we lost both games.
But then again hardly surprising when the players were upset before each game because SL confiscated their Beats headphones and replaced them with Samsung headphones.

TightHEAD wrote:Thanks for pointing out the fact that England are out, I missed that one! and of course they did they are the host nation, look back at all the other RWCs and you'll see a pattern of host nations having an easier ride.

Why are you trying to turn this into a bun fight ? The title of this thread is "The Blame Game My Thoughts on the RWC,Englands Future and everything".

I am just responding.

I am not disputing history, and hosts in the past having easy rides. I am discussing the fact that England are out and who I think is to blame for it. There is no shame in losing to Australia or Wales. But, as England had the comfiest schedule in the group, then only people who are to blame is the coaches.

As to links can`t provide any during the pre RWC "Bore War" in the Telegraph,Guardian,Mail,Express.Planet Rugby,NY-HT and hundreds
of replies read.All of which pitched on the points I made at some
time.
Now to the future do you want an enquiry?a cleaning of the Augean
Stable.?Sacrificial Goats,The Coachs,Robshaw,half the Squad?the
Teflon Kid what then?
Do you want Club before Country?a Foreign load of Coaches,limits
on Non-Qualified Players?or scour the World for them.
Do you want a Scrum on the Argentina or Japan pattern.Hookers
who are great in the open but can`t Hook?[Argentina mode they
just shove]
Do you want a Cruncher/Creator at 12 .13,or a dual playmaker at
10/12?a left/right kicking combination there?
Do you want overseas based players or not?players who are robots
or who play whats in front of them?
Do you want Gym Monkeys or aerobic fitness?why not the NZmodel
train to play for 85 minutes at pace food for thought?
Or central contracts where ALL teams play in the national style,
players being rested or sent to 7`s squad to get back to speed?

STILL the media assaination goes on Headphones row,Cipriani/Catt row,Burgess should
go back to League in OZ.When will it end?for god`s sake move on

To me, everything  that has happened since the defeat to Australia was inevitable and predictable.  Even Lancaster playing Farrell at 12 against Uruguay.  And there is more to come.  Players being upset and feeling they had not been able to express themselves at risk of losing playing time, former players trying to support the team as long as it was in contention, and pundits (who are like ambulance chasing lawyers).  

For four years we have heard this regime is better than the last one and we have been invited to measure the current Boy Scouts and Choir Boys against the ruffians from the last England RWC squad.  OK, exactly as requested, people are doing so:

wayne wrote:
2003 Winners
2007 Runners up
2011 Quarter Finalists
2015 Group stages
2019 ???????????

The verdict is not pretty.  If the current regime was not so dogmatic on those points, perhaps the comments would be milder.

Also, at the end of every World Cup each union conducts a thorough after-action analysis. England is not different to any other union in doing this. It is bigger now because the England failure was bigger, especially since the RWC is at home.