Who should be next England coach

First topic message reminder :

I think most of us are agreed that Stuart Lancaster should go as England coach - but who do you want to see get the job?  I think that Stuart Lancaster has proved that you need a coach who has a proven winning track record at the top level of club or international rugby.

Lets not turn this topic into a debate about which players should be in, or Stuart Lancaster's failings, those are valid issues for other topics.  Just who you think it should be and why.

I don't think any English coach has a record of success in the European Rugby Champions/Heineken Cup, or any track record of coaching abroad.  So I would go for an overseas coach and I think we should break the bank for the best 'available' coach, which for me is Wayne Smith.  Assuming Steve Hansen does not want to step down, would Smith be satisfied as being a number 2 for another 4 years?

Simple and short - Who and Why.

whocares wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Mallet doesn't hold an English passport

Did not know there was such thing as an English passport? Where can I get one please.

Thats what I was going for

How many coaches will be looking for a new job after the WC?

The England job is one of the very biggest going - only NZ is probably bigger - so you really should have your pick of the very best coaches

TJ wrote:How many coaches will be looking for a new job after the WC?

The England job is one of the very biggest going - only NZ is probably bigger - so you really should have your pick of the very best coaches

Im sure many nations would disagree with that....

It sure is one of the biggest jobs in world rugby. The re-building required is huge.

I imagine it's one of the highest paying also.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

TJ wrote:How many coaches will be looking for a new job after the WC?

The England job is one of the very biggest going - only NZ is probably bigger - so you really should have your pick of the very best coaches

Im sure many nations would disagree with that....

Which jobs would you say were bigger? SA maybe?

TightHEAD wrote:It sure is one of the biggest jobs in world rugby. The re-building required is huge.

I would disagree with that. You have the players. Lancaster has sorted out a lot of things such as behaviour and professionalism. What you need is someone with a good rugby brain / Knowledge to get the best out of the team. Ultimately Lancaster was found wanting and made a couple of bad errors which cost the team. Basically he bottled it

who will decide?

Last time the selection panel was Ritchie, Andrew, Geech, COS & Richard hill (the flanker not the SH) who plumped for Bomber ahead of Mallett.

New Zealand. Every coach that walks into that job takes up a role almost equal to a National President. He's in charge of total National morale - nothing less. In his hands is the confidence of an entire Nation.

No bigger job in rugby.

TJ wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

TJ wrote:How many coaches will be looking for a new job after the WC?

The England job is one of the very biggest going - only NZ is probably bigger - so you really should have your pick of the very best coaches

Im sure many nations would disagree with that....

Which jobs would you say were bigger?  SA maybe?

I think if an Englishman stood up and said its the biggest job in the world bar NZ the screams of arrogance would come hurtling towards him.

TJ wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:It sure is one of the biggest jobs in world rugby. The re-building required is huge.

I would disagree with that.  You have the players.  Lancaster has sorted out a lot of things such as behaviour and professionalism.  

Presumably why under him Danny Care got arrested for weeing in a bush, Cipriani got arrested for drink driving, Tuilagi assaulted a police woman and Hartley got banned twice after his last chance?
Still the Captain looked more comfortable in a suit under Lancaster.

They may have already blown their chance to get Wayne Smith after the way they treated him and Mallet by giving the job to the school teacher, but it may still be possible he could be tempted out of the NZ assistant job post world cup (...unless that job becomes vacant)

I cant see the RFU rushing to a decision here, but will no doubt be tapping up some of these guys as soon as their involvement in the world cup is over. If they have some viable candidates who can be bought at the right price then I cant imagine Lancaster keeping his job.

Maybe they will just undermine him by sticking in a managers role to directly "advise and oversee" the elite squad then wait for him to quit.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

TJ wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

TJ wrote:How many coaches will be looking for a new job after the WC?

The England job is one of the very biggest going - only NZ is probably bigger - so you really should have your pick of the very best coaches

Im sure many nations would disagree with that....

Which jobs would you say were bigger?  SA maybe?

I think if an Englishman stood up and said its the biggest job in the world bar NZ the screams of arrogance would come hurtling towards him.

It probably would - but I can say it as a sort of neutral ( scots fan) also I did say one of the biggest not the biggest

SecretFly wrote:New Zealand.  Every coach that walks into that job takes up a role almost equal to a National President.  He's in charge of total National morale - nothing less.  In his hands is the confidence of an entire Nation.

No bigger job in rugby.

I agree - which is why I put it in my post

Now "one" of the biggest...ok yes I can accept that

TJ wrote:

SecretFly wrote:New Zealand.  Every coach that walks into that job takes up a role almost equal to a National President.  He's in charge of total National morale - nothing less.  In his hands is the confidence of an entire Nation.

No bigger job in rugby.

I agree - which is why I put it in my post

I didn't see it there on first looking, TJ. I must get myself to Specsavers

SecretFly wrote:

TJ wrote:

SecretFly wrote:New Zealand.  Every coach that walks into that job takes up a role almost equal to a National President.  He's in charge of total National morale - nothing less.  In his hands is the confidence of an entire Nation.

No bigger job in rugby.

I agree - which is why I put it in my post

I didn't see it there on first looking, TJ.  I must get myself to Specsavers

He did also put that only New Zelaand is probably bigger though. With suggests he thinks its the second biggest job in the world.
Lets try posting those eaxact same words as "Stereotypical English Supporter" on another international rugby forum and see what reaction it gets. I can pretty much garauntee the word "arrogant" will be come into it, along with several Wlesh supporters pointing out that they have performe dbetter in the last 2 world cups/ won more grandslams/ almost beat Australia more often etc.

Arrogant presumption from you there, Goose

We need Gwlad to tell us....he knows everything about England.

SecretFly wrote:New Zealand.  Every coach that walks into that job takes up a role almost equal to a National President.  He's in charge of total National morale - nothing less.  In his hands is the confidence of an entire Nation.

No bigger job in rugby.

Funny how there seems to be so many school teachers who've had more important jobs than prime ministers, heads of state.
Hardly ever see a lawyer or politician take the big job on.

Interesting that both Graham Henry and Eddie Jones have raised the issue of playing styles for each country. They advocate playing to your own strengths as there is more than one way of skinning a cat. Copying, or attempting to copy, the All Blacks is not necessarily the best way forward. I have long thought that this was Lancaster's main fault and it resulted in England having an underpowered forward platform and players who are not suited to playing the All Black way. He then realised this at the last moment, panicked and went for a route one approach.

Graham Henry......."it appears to me that most teams today are trying to play the game the same way. They are looking to copy how the most successful team in the world in recent years, New Zealand, construct their game. The intensive and thorough video analysis available in modern rugby means there are no secrets; every team knows, or should know, in minute detail both the attack and defence structures of opponents around the world. It’s an easy copy. Then it’s about tinkering with that plan or structure and selecting the correct menu to suit the strengths and weaknesses of the next opposition.

The question is whether it best suits your side. That most successful team have been building the game through the generations for years: the kids from that country generally play in good weather conditions. All they know is how to run, catch, pass and try to avoid opponents. They seldom kick. As they get older, the competitions are quality and that helps develop pedigree players. Then there is the ideal mix of DNA for playing that style of rugby: Maori, Pacific Island and European.

That simply is the basis of their game. Do other countries have the same set of circumstances for developing their game? The answer is it varies but it’s not the same. Many would be considerably different. So it begs the question why are we all looking to play the same game?

Not very long ago, for example, England had a team that would dominate physically. Strangle opposition through a powerful scrum; create havoc through a big driving lineout. Penalties would accrue. Field position and points would mount. There was an intelligent navigator behind, keeping England down the right end of the field or probing with contestable, perhaps try-scoring, kicks and the odd field goal; the backs would complement the platform by providing the finish. Perfect. I know it’s a dream but is that not how kids in England have grown up learning the game?

Whilst Eddie Jones writes....“An international team needs a coach who has the courage to be different,” he said. “A concern of mine is that too many teams are trying to play like New Zealand. That is not because there are so many coaches from that country scattered around the world: Joe Schmidt has not taken Ireland in that direction nor has Warren Gatland with Wales, which is why they have both done very well."

I seriously hope that whoever takes England forward brings the dog back into our forward play. Off-loading and innovative ways of unlocking defences should still be sought, but a good old fashioned rolling maul and a decent scrum would certainly help our cause. (and a no.7).

I really hope that the RFU get the decisions right this time or we will just have another 4 years of under-achieving to look forward to.

Ironic that they got lambasted under johnson by many of the same people who are now saying they should revert to fat slow forwards for being dinosaurs and stuck playing the same old style

I wouldn't listen too much to Graham Henry.  He's a wily old pirate that loves to try and put a stick in the spokes.  He'd be delighted that some sides would take on board his opinions and backtrack.

The best winning model for sustained winning is the ABs - period.  Proven. The problem and surprising thing is that so many observers seem to think it's all just beauty, running and offloads.  It isn't.  It's pretty much a complete game - execution is the detail - clinical execution and attention to detail - not individual players wanting to be stars - slavery to the systems and drilling them, drilling them, drilling them.

Henry would have a lovely raspy chuckle if the English went back to pork, beef and chips.  Don't fall for the guff.

Secret, yes interesting point....esp precision of execution. Pork, beef and chips ....lol

SecretFly wrote:I wouldn't listen too much to Graham Henry.  He's a wily old pirate that loves to try and put a stick in the spokes.  He'd be delighted that some sides would take on board his opinions and backtrack.

The best winning model for sustained winning is the ABs - period.  Proven.  The problem and surprising thing is that so many observers seem to think it's all just beauty, running and offloads.  It isn't.  It's pretty much a complete game - execution is the detail - clinical execution and attention to detail - not individual players wanting to be stars - slavery to the systems and drilling them, drilling them, drilling them.

Henry would have a lovely raspy chuckle if the English went back to pork, beef and chips.  Don't fall for the guff.

But if you are always trying to match the AB's you are always playing catch up. Its the best system for them and its very effective, but it is not the only way to play

People say the SH model is the best... thats not true.

The best is the NH/SH hybrid.

SCW - moved to AUS in the 80s/90s saw their game and incorporated into English rugby resulting in a world cup.

Henry/Hansen - both cut their teeth with Wales. Went to NZ and added NH forwards steel to their pack (which prior to their arrival had been missing for a decade).

Cheika - AUS has had the best backline for a decade and perhaps the best backrow too... shame their front five were currie cup standard at best. Cheika comes in and all of a sudden their pack have become the biggest behemoths in the game.

The only thing is.... its easier to add steel to forwards than to add basic skills to players (i.e. teaching NH players to play like SH ones). Not sure if Eddie Jones would be the best man for the job however... England need to play an England way, if they want a foreign coach the closest fit is a South African, a country with an ethos which demands a dominant big pack to play off but also intensity which when at its peak is unmatched.

If England are going to start producing genuinely All Black like players in large numbers then the change doesnt just have to happen at EPS level but all the way down to schools. We hear it time and again and people have been saying this for years; its nothing new. In New Zealand players learn to play rugby first and concentrate on ball skills. In many cases the most effective big lads are overlooked for the late bloomers who have the footballing skills. The general feeling is that in Europe the opposite is true, players tend to make it through to the professional academies as teens due to their physical attributes first and rugby skills second. Even with an increasing push toward mobile forwards they still lack the ball handling skills and rugby brains of the SH players.
The dearth of serious comeptitive schools and teens outside a few number of swish schools in England too means that many pro players end up being those considered too dumb to be army officers.

Part of Lancasters previous job, along with Rob Andrew (notice he keeps his head down these days), and his manifesto for this one was that was revolutionising the age grade and development squads to make a more cohesive long term view pathway for players and concentrate on thoise core skills. Many of the players in the world cup squad, and many of those tried and rejected, have come through Lancasters age and Saxons sides and the England academies. You could argue his failure goes back further than just the last 4 years, hes been in charge of many of these players since their late teens. Maybe the battle had already been lost at schools level to some extent but he must bear some repsonsibility if we are saying these players are inedequate for the job they are being asked to do since he was paid to oversee their development as well as lead them as seniors.

I haven't commented on this thread yet, but I do have a question

Is the problem really the coaching?

Is it possibly more a case of selection shortcomings?

Is talent identification and skills development an issue?

Is it a game plan issue?

Was thinking exactly the same thing reading through this thread, Biltong.

Sure, Lancs made of right royal meal of his opportunity, messed up his selections at the worst possible time thus creating disharmony amongst the team/squad. That's not fair on all the loyal fans either! Although it pains me to say it: They deserve much better.

Nothing wrong with the players at all. Some are better than others naturally but I think its a severe case of mismanagement, possibly 'over-coaching' the 'wrong' things and being obsessed with plans to counter opposition rather than let the team dictate their own plans to their opposition.

England don't need to copy anyone (it doesn't work like that) but instead needs to develop and create a new team character based on available resources. If, in the meantime, some star quality player(s) or a unique playing style emerges through this process....then great... use them/it!

Biltong wrote:I haven't commented on this thread yet, but I do have a question

Is the problem really the coaching?

Is it possibly more a case of selection shortcomings?

Is talent identification and skills development an issue?

Is it a game plan issue?

Since all of those fall under Lancasters remit the simple answer is : Its his problem.

Biltong wrote:I haven't commented on this thread yet, but I do have a question

Is the problem really the coaching?

Is it possibly more a case of selection shortcomings?

Is talent identification and skills development an issue?

Is it a game plan issue?

Biltong

I think it could be a bit of all what you said.

I also think it could be a bit of naivety of certain players, thinking they are better player than they are. Keep chopping and changing centre, flyhalf's. why oh why did George Ford get dropped for Owen Farrell? why did Sam Burgess get in the team/squad in front of Luther Burrell, Henry Slade?

With regards to Chris Robshaw going for the line out rather than the kick at goal, was that talked about be fore the game, or was it down to the choice of the captain or the goal kicker?

How much of an in fluence do the other coaches have on team selection for the game that is coming up?  

We are told that Stuart Lancaster as the final say on team, player selection? is this the truth or just media spin?

I think we ( ENGLAND) need to go back to the drawing board.

Can the RFU simply say it is no use crying over spilt milk, the WC for England is over lets concentrate on the 6ns? And keep the same coaching set up?

OR, will the RFU have too be seen to be doing somthing and as they say (heads must roll) and the coach/es coaching team must go.

Biltong wrote:I haven't commented on this thread yet, but I do have a question

Is the problem really the coaching?

Is it possibly more a case of selection shortcomings?

Is talent identification and skills development an issue?

Is it a game plan issue?

For me that's the issues Bilts.

We have had selection issues....and the game plan is up in the air.

I think selection was a major factor in England not getting out of their pool. That and the style of play that Lancaster chose, which was trying to copy the All Blacks. The obvious best approach is to combine your own country's traditional strengths with some good things copied from others. Lancaster copied the more dynamic off-loading of the All Blacks but negated England's traditional forward strength. Hopefully now a more balanced way forward will be adopted. To his credit England have certainly greatly improved with ball in hand and I do not want to see that development lost, but I do want to see our forward strength re-established.

To talk about the way kids are coached at schools and rugby clubs across the counrty I do not see as the issue. I think the emphasis at a younger age is skills based, but no doubt as you creep up towards U18 it does move towards power having an increased influence, but not necessarily to an extent that you would not expect.

We just need an experienced international coach who gets selection right and who builds on Lancaster's 4 years to ensure we start winning 6Ns and hopefully even a Grand Slam. The talent in the backs are there, but the forwards do need an overhaul. The Aussies have done it in one year so I am sure England can do it as well.

The Loaded Dog wrote:Was thinking exactly the same thing reading through this thread, Biltong.

Sure, Lancs made of right royal meal of his opportunity, messed up his selections at the worst possible time thus creating disharmony amongst the team/squad. That's not fair on all the loyal fans either! Although it pains me to say it: They deserve much better.

Nothing wrong with the players at all. Some are better than others naturally but I think its a severe case of mismanagement, possibly 'over-coaching' the 'wrong' things and being obsessed with plans to counter opposition rather than let the team dictate their own plans to their opposition.

England don't need to copy anyone (it doesn't work like that) but instead needs to develop and create a new team character based on available resources. If, in the meantime, some star quality player(s) or a unique playing style emerges through this process....then great... use them/it!

This is a huge problem in the NH I think (especially Eng and Sco). How often do you hear about SA or Aus or NZ selcting people to negate the opposition?! You should select your best team to play your way and trust that you will be better than the opposition.

England need to sort the pack out.

I might be living in the past but the style of the 2003 team was Englands style.
A big pack, who were still very mobile....and efficient backs.

They still played some great expansive rugby but it wasn't the sole focus. Not a ALL BACKS style game.

Lets get back to that. Sort the pack out and the backs are coming through and will take care of themselves.

Or pick a style to suit the players available. That 2003 pack had some pretty good players which we don't have now.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Or pick a style to suit the players available. That 2003 pack had some pretty good players which we don't have now.

I think we do...well maybe not that level yet...but ones that in time could get here.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Or pick a style to suit the players available. That 2003 pack had some pretty good players which we don't have now.

I think we do...well maybe not that level yet...but ones that in time could get here.

10 of those players in the 03 final starting XV were comprehensively beaten by both SA and NZ in RWC 1999. They were good in 2003 but lets not pretend they were polished world beaters when SCW took over.

This was the last Rowell game prior to SCW taking over in last 5N match of 1997.

Stimpson, Sleightholme, Carling, de Glanville, T Underwood, Catt, Healey, Rowntree, Regan, Leonard, Johnson, Shaw, Clarke, Rodber, Hill.

Out of those

Catt, Regan, Leonard, Johnson, Shaw and Hill all ended up as RWC winners.

Only 2 of them started the 03 final, 2 were on the bench and 2 were in the squad.

Hardly gifted to SCW.

Who said they were polished world beaters? We're talking more style of play aren't we?

fa is employed by the PR company that represents Woodward and Mallett.

Good comments, mates. There is no simple answer to these questions. I haven't been a big fan of the House of Lancaster because of his game planning, player selection, and formulaic approach. Specific to the World Cup, however, I believe we have seen this same squad of players (plus or minus a few) perform much better in the 6 Nations and in previous Internationals. So, something happened in training camp to negatively impact play quality. This group has become slower to the breakdown and less effective, weaker in the scrum, pedestrian with ball in hand, and so on.

LondonTiger wrote:fa is employed by the PR company that represents Woodward and Mallett.

Don't slander my uncle nicky!

I do like both to be fair. I think SCW gets unfair stick over the lions in 05 and everyone saying he was simply lucky to get such a pool of players in 03. Same with Mallett, always thought he was a fantastic coach... everyone remembers him for his brainfade when he played Bergamasco at 9... few remember the good things he did with Italy and SA mind. Winning record over NZ, the world record win streak with the boks, would have retained the RWC had it not been for larkhams wonder kick in the SF and grabbing a victory over France in 2011 with the azzurri.

Fa

The whole England pack doesn't need scrapped. It needs tweaked. And specifically - brought back to form. Changes need made to 5 & 6 & 7

1 Marler  
2 Hartley / George
3 Cole / Davy Wilson
That's a good solid front row. Not massively destructive but it will rarely get beaten. And we have kids coming through who look destructive...and can be brought in carefully at the right times.

4 Launchbury - World Class potential.
5 Vast selection for this spot....
Pick the one that best suits the system. I personally would like a real heavyweight powerhouse. That aids the scrum side aswell. But still offers a lineout option.

6 ?
7 ?
8 Billy / Ben Both offer a contrast at 8...two cracking 8's

SCW did a good job of bringing the England team into the pro era. He did make a shedload of errors on the way, but was given time to correct them. He was also wise enough to ensure he had a world class coaching team - as his own abilities in that area were never auspicious.

In general though his endless pursuit for self-publicity has alienated many.


Mallett falls into the same boat.

Both of them were excellent in their day - but all coaches need to adapt or they become obsolete. Very few do and there is no evidence that either of these two were able to change and adapt.

Playing devil’s advocate, people are suggesting Lancaster should be sacked, but if you look at it his overall record it isn’t all that bad at 62%. Look at the last four Six Nations, we’ve only lost four games (that is an 80% win rate) and we’ve finished level with the winners in the last three (losing out on points difference each time). That suggests to me that with a few tweaks, we could be there.

However, we just seem to lose the worst possible games, in the worst possible way since he became head coach.

So to me it is a risk either way you look at it. We could stick with Lancaster and hope that he can reach those extra few inches and instil the mental toughness to take the team from a decent one to a good one. Or we risk ripping it up and starting again with a new coach and trust that the good foundations that Lancaster has put into place (and they are good) will stabilise a new house (to labour the analogy).

We told Lancaster to rip everything up and start all over again.

Same happened with Johnson.

Robinson then Ashton were tasked with much the same as the SCW team had aged.


Woodward had to start from scratch after taking over from Jack Rowell.


Rowell was the only one to inherit a full and firing team since I have been born - and thus won a GS fairly early.



The only coach who has had any real success since Geoff Cooke from their own efforts has been ~Woodward - and he was given time to correct his mistakes.

There does need to be some freshness to the coaching team. I still fully believe Lancaster will resign as he'll know they didn't do well enough. The worry is that, at least publically which could be fair enough, there doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement that mistakes were made. We played one style for the 6Ns, or at least attempted it, but then seemed to go more towards a stodgy defence based strategy at the WC. I still believe with the players selected it would make more sense to try and get the best out of the back 3. The backs have saved us a few times recently but I don't think they were given the best chance to do so again.

The thing is with Lancaster can anyone actually see what he's trying to do, trying to achieve.

With Woodward there was definitive genius in there (genius with a touch of insanity... is it ever another way???). With Lancaster I can't remember ever thinking... what a strategy, what a game plan, what a substitution. The only thing I ever gathered was his idea to build a experienced side who were difficult to beat.

2 results stood out for me, Ireland in 2013 6N and Wales in 2015 6N, good results. Other than that his matches were always underwhelming, lacking clarity and his teams always seemed to fall over come the 6N when there was no real reason to.

Take out his flash in the pan 2012 result and whilst he got wins vs. AUS, none of them had a style which put you to a point where you thought... now here is a side on the up.

Coaches should be given time... but he's had 4 years and how the team unfolded shows how poor the coach is.

Not sure what plan SCW ever had. england only started to develop a style after Robinson and Ashton banned him from the training ground.

The style to me has been consistent. He, or the coaching team, lost their bottle a bit with the midfield for Wales, but it's been pretty clear what he's been attempting to do for me.