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.

Right after a full page of bluster - back to the topic at hand.


Is there actually anyone we want as the next Head Coach?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Good to hear. Maybe this will draw you away from your poor wumming attempts......we can all dream.

It is not me that constantly calls people names. I offer an opinion, it might be different to yours but either reply in a decent fashion, ignore it and read on or grow up a bit...!

LondonTiger wrote:Right after a full page of bluster - back to the topic at hand.


Is there actually anyone we want as the next Head Coach?

Maestegmafia? He would only be interested in hearing form the intelectuall players which means Burgess, Haskell and Robshaw getting dropped.

LT...that's the biggest question....and I can honestly say there is no one that stands out and says....GET HIM IN!

Possibly Rob Baxter if we are going English.

Names like mallet and White etc just don't fill me with any kind of excitement.

GeordieFalcon wrote:LT...that's the biggest question....and I can honestly say there is no one that stands out and says....GET HIM IN!

Agreed. Of course lack of alternatives is not a valid reason to keep Bomber, but lord alone knows where we go now.

Its a rock and a hard place it really is.

Is there any oddballers out there that we may have missed?

I was going to be highly amusing and suggest maes, but just saw that Gooseberry had already come up with that bit of brilliance

Maybe we stick with Lancaster...but pick his new coaches.

Make a list of the top half dozen coaches in the world and keep throwing money at them until one bites. Everyone has their price and I'm told the RFU have lotsa cash.

It's keep SL with new coaches or Baxter from an English perspective, can they be anything else?

No I think that's pretty much it Sgt....

I think Baxter is obviously a terrific coach, but one very tied to Exeter, where he has been (as player and coach) forever. I don't know how well he'd adapt to international rugby as the headman just yet, and I think it would be a hell of a risk picking him.

Well I would be quietly confident with him LIW...but as you say the biggest thing is his link to Exeter. He's team are making big waves now and producing some amazing talent that's about to produce some trophies one would think.

Is he going to leave that after being so involved in it....I don't think so.

If you had a pile of cash the best person to give it to would be Rassie Erasmus.

However he's next in line for the bok job if Meyer falls over.  Currently performance director at the boks. Before that he turned around the Stormers from perennial underachievers to the best SR team in SA. Before that he was with the FS who again were impressive with him on board. Was part of the 99 RWC squad as a player.  
From all accounts he's the most respected coach in South Africa. That was confirmed when I met some boks pre world cup at a Q&A.

Can't see him taking it, he's a patriot... but these are the types of people England should be looking for.

Whoever has the job come the new year is in a very strong position. Nucleus of a very good side that just needs to get over the finishing line. Some very good players on the fringe and more good players coming through the ranks. Big job, challenging job but one where you could end up being very successful.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Whoever has the job come the new year is in a very strong position. Nucleus of a very good side that just needs to get over the finishing line. Some very good players on the fringe and more good players coming through the ranks. Big job, challenging job but one where you could end up being very successful.

The last thing you want though is someone learning on the job... just like Jonno, Lancaster etc. Can't keep on saying "building for the future". What England need is someone who knows the score and can bring results.

However, it does bring a little smile to everyone's faces watching England make the same mistakes again and again in terms of appointments.

However, it does bring a little smile to everyone's faces watching England make the same mistakes again and again in terms of appointments.


Yes we never seem to learn the lessons of the past.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Whoever has the job come the new year is in a very strong position. Nucleus of a very good side that just needs to get over the finishing line. Some very good players on the fringe and more good players coming through the ranks. Big job, challenging job but one where you could end up being very successful.

The last thing you want though is someone learning on the job... just like Jonno, Lancaster etc. Can't keep on saying "building for the future". What England need is someone who knows the score and can bring results.

However, it does bring a little smile to everyone's faces watching England make the same mistakes again and again in terms of appointments.

Well there wasn't great depth in the applicants last time, basically came down to lancaster who had done a good job in the 6Ns and mallett who was a bit underwhelming. Without the 6Ns I don't think Lancaster would have been able to get the job. Still think we made the right choice he could still stay but I hope in that case he freshens his coaching staff. Depends who applies.

majesticimperialman wrote:However, it does bring a little smile to everyone's faces watching England make the same mistakes again and again in terms of appointments.


Yes we never seem to learn the lessons of the past.

Cotter
Gatland
Schmidt
Cheika
Hansen
Meyer

All of them have won the biggest trophies in the game, in club rugby, in test rugby before getting senior appointments.

Jonno - previous experience ... um did he have any?
Lancaster - Leeds promotion to AP... relegation the season after that.

Wales Team that Lost to Fiji in 2007 RWC wrote:Gareth Thomas
Mark Jones
Tom Shanklin
James Hook
Shane Williams
Stephen Jones
Dwayne Peel
Gethin Jenkins
Matthew Rees
Chris Horsman
Alun Wyn Jones
Ian Evans
Colin Charvis
Martyn Williams
Alix Popham

Twelve of those players featured in Wales GS campaign just months later. (Thomas, Horsman and Charvis the odd men out). With the right coach a quick turn around is possible.

Over the last four seasons we have won 4/5 in every single 6Ns - so the raw materials are most certainly there. Sadly however I just cannot see a coach available with the qualities and understanding of the game up here to match Gats. Which is far more likely to mean we would be re-entering yet another development period.

If we can't get a good applicant for the top job then we could do a lot worse than keeping Bomber but throwing the resources that would be used for the head coach appointment at an assistant coach with some pedigree - basically I'm thinking Wayne Smith.

On most accounts he is happier in a back seat role these days, but as a rugby mind to develop a coherent game plan and get a side playing to it there is no one better IMO. He could do a world of good given that most agree the main issue is complete inconsistency in the game plan and selecting the right players for said game plans.

If there are genuinely no stand outs as head coach then getting different coaches in as the back, forwards and defence coaches could liven things up a bit.

Farrell has to go.

I think the key is picking the right players for the right tactics.

For example If you play a second row combo such as
4 Parling
5 Lawes

Then try to play a big pack game then you're going to get your backside kicked. especially with non heavyweight flankers and a small hooker to boot.

Look at the players we have....Get the tactics sorted that suit those players and build around that!

LondonTiger wrote:Farrell has to go.

Agreed

LondonTiger wrote:Farrell has to go.

With Paul Gustard a very good option for defence coach and a desperate need to get an assistant with a more attacking mind set this is undoubtable.

Given that recent revelations seem to suggest he won't come out of the review too well I expect that if Bomber stays it will be under the condition there is a change of back room staff. Plus if someone new comes in I can't see them keeping Farrell given where is reputations has just gone.

Either way he will be gone I think.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think the key is picking the right players for the right tactics.

For example If you play a second row combo such as
4 Parling
5 Lawes

Then try to play a big pack game then you're going to get your backside kicked. especially with non heavyweight flankers and a small hooker to boot.

Look at the players we have....Get the tactics sorted that suit those players and build around that!

I agree... identify your key players and build a side accordingly... and never compromise core skills/responsibilities for other "expansive" assets the player may have.
Personally I think that had Hartley been picked, England would still be in the competition, and it was completely a decision that Lancaster made on his own. For that decision alone, he should be sacked as it showed his lack of coaching experience and prowess in its very essence.

Had he been any other nationality, he would have been toured.

Wayne Smith as an assistant would be fantastic. I'd hate to see Gatland involved, can't tolerate the man.

fa0019 wrote:
Personally I think that had Hartley been picked

Had he been any other nationality, he would have been toured.

Well, except for the sides that decided to take just two hookers of course.

LondonTiger wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Personally I think that had Hartley been picked

Had he been any other nationality, he would have been toured.

Well, except for the sides that decided to take just two hookers of course.

Yet the one thing we can find to praise Lancaster for is a sense of discipline....

Whoever the coach is (and I don't for one moment think Lancaster could hold on to his post for the poor performance reasons), I would like them to have these ground rules:

1. Establish a "Leadership Gang" a la NZ where there are a core number of players who can actually make decisions and advise/support their captain accordingly. Don't leave it all to 2 guys i.e Robshaw & Wood.

2. Always use a proper openside flanker to fetch and rule the breakdown. Australia, NZ and Wales have shown just how effective this can be. Enough of this "converted 6" bunk. It does not work.

3. NEVER play players out of position unless there's been injuries on the pitch on the day. If you need to replace a 13 before the match starts, use a 13. Don't play out-and-out full backs at wing or fly-halves as 12s. For 6s & 7s see above.

4. Regain the old "backbone" of the England team. I don't care how it's done - just get it back. The negativity at present needs to stop NOW. The Wales & Australia games are a nightmare I never want to experience again.

5. No member of the coaching/selection panel should have a relative in the squad. It creates a conflict of interest.

6. Use overseas based players. We had two of the best in Europe available and left them in France. Although I supported the RFU's rule, with hindsight I think selecting them could have made a difference.

7. Get a scrum coach who knows how to sort the obvious issues we have.

8. Install Mr Jason Leonard & Mr Victor Ubogu as the Team-Building Managers.

Hopefully that would sort it out.

majesticimperialman wrote:However, it does bring a little smile to everyone's faces watching England make the same mistakes again and again in terms of appointments.


Yes we never seem to learn the lessons of the past.

Actually I think we do, after the disaster of 2011 I doubt any top coach would of gone anywhere near the job with all the Poopie in the press. So Lancaster was appointed and they are now much more respected, perhaps if Lancaster goes which I don't think he should, we'll have a better chance at appointed a coach that's been there and done it.

It would be interesting to know how many coaches who failed at their first World Cup who then went on to win the next

nathan wrote:It would be interesting to know how many coaches who failed at their first World Cup who then went on to win the next

I can only think of 2. SCW and Graham Henry.

king_carlos wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Farrell has to go.

With Paul Gustard a very good option for defence coach and a desperate need to get an assistant with a more attacking mind set this is undoubtable.

Given that recent revelations seem to suggest he won't come out of the review too well I expect that if Bomber stays it will be under the condition there is a change of back room staff. Plus if someone new comes in I can't see them keeping Farrell given where is reputations has just gone.

Either way he will be gone I think.

It's clean slate time. All need to go and start with a completely new coaching staff. This does not imply England are starting anew as many of the players currently involved will continue to do so.

Doc Grey returns for some sanity. The place has been going loopy without you

Steve Diamond's name is being spoken about as 1 of the England coaches in the new set up..But why? it is not like he as won anything of note since being with Sale Sharks now as he?

But then if you look at England's last 2 coaches Stuart Lancaster, Martin Johnson neither have they.....What would his role be? Defence? Attack? Is he really the best coach in that position?

Ian Richie is supposed to be leading the enquiry in to what wen't wrong. But what makes him the best man for that job?

What ever the out come England must improve year on year, between now and the ( NEXT ) rugby world cup or we will be in the same mess as we are now.

Would he not be forwards coach?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Would he not be forwards coach?

May be, But is he any better than Rowntree?

Anyone think that at the moment you just don't have the players? Particularly in the forwards. Its all well and good talking about the coaches and the 3 in charge have been found wanting when it matters but do England really have the forwards at their disposal. The back row is abysmal with a Captain at 7 who would be nowhere near the squad of the top 6 Nations (Quote from Sean Fitzpatrick) - Isn't this more to do with the failure to bring potential talent through or develop potential talent rather than just changing the coaches all the time. People keep quoting the success of the under 20's but that has little if any relevance to the top level as the sheer volume of population tends to take care of that. Where are the nasty forwards who don't go to Public Schools? That's one question to consider - Why do they not look outside academies? Players develop at different stages and different ages - If they are not in some elite academy they are not considered, just look at Tomos Francis. A lot is wrong with English rugby at the grass roots level and for me that culture will never change. If it did we would all be in trouble. A new coaching team would improve on this lot but that alone does not address issues below and above it.

Just some food for thought for someone coaching in England

Quite a lot of the players have been involved in good contests with all the top teams so it doesn't really ring true.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Quite a lot of the players have been involved in good contests with all the top teams so it doesn't really ring true.

Well if you're happy under achieving with more resources than the rest of the SH and the B&I teams put together that's fine by me, please continue

I don't think the forwards are that far off but they have been very off form this RWC (despite pushing the Welsh scrum around for fun - you do understand that I have to mention that ) It may be down to getting a couple of selections wrong but it also seems to be down to how they were prepared to be honest.

As for Robshaw hes always a very marmite kind of player, especially when we are losing, and when people look across the channel at Armitage (while forgetting about the 'real'* assault charge and other rumors and that the whole set up he is in suits him very well). If you look at general stats, and ignoring the tragedy of the last few weeks Robshaw typically does more work than anyone else on the pitch, and Warburton of all people did highlight the things he does do. He's just not the showy kind

And it is still very early to claim that Francis is going to be that great...

* as in not a push...

RubyGuby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Quite a lot of the players have been involved in good contests with all the top teams so it doesn't really ring true.

Well if you're happy under achieving with more resources than the rest of the SH and the B&I teams put together that's fine by me, please continue

You just said we didn't ahve the players so doesn't that contradict? Considering the group I don't think we're underachieving that much and always thought come next year we would start challenging seriously. I still don't see a reason why we can't do that.

Ruby

I actually think talent for talent England have huge resources and good enough players to have won the world cup. But and its a big but.................

if these players aren't picked and conditioned correctly then its all for nothing.

Take Dan Cole. Decent scrummager, decent ruck operator. But there is nothing better in rugby than having a dominant tighthead. He's been conditioned to be an good at everything but not great at one... and he can never be great in the loose with his bulk. So why not simply get him to concentrate on scrummaging, put on 10kg in weight and really dominate.
That way he'll contribute to England far more than being ok in the scrum and winning the odd turnover now and again.

Then look as guys like James Haskell. I mean WTF have England's coaching staff being doing with him? He's an absolute beast and far far too big. Is he a body builder or a rugby player because he doesn't need to be that cut and in fact its hindering him as a rugby player. The coaches should have put that to bed years ago. He was impressive when he came to super rugby. He was a starting flanker in NZ, he's talented.
You could then look at balance, I mean when your lightest backrower is 112kg you have a serious problem. When you have guys around the team who are not props but look like old school WWE wrestlers with their fat pushing out you can see that the set up is completely out of control.

This is the difference between well thought out plans and coaches without any idea at all.

Dan Cole was great in the 6Ns though in all aspects and the problem with haskell is his decision making rather than his build. He doesn't use it to good enough effect consistently.

RubyGuby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Quite a lot of the players have been involved in good contests with all the top teams so it doesn't really ring true.

Well if you're happy under achieving with more resources than the rest of the SH and the B&I teams put together that's fine by me, please continue

Where is the proof of these resources?

That's the issue, like it or not.  Where do these allegedly better players come from?  

The players that play in any International side tend to be mostly considered best players (not fanciest run-a-round players - best solid players) in the Club Leagues their Nation is involved in (certainly for the top tier squads anyway)
So how do you rate players?  You tell them excel in League and you're putting yourself in the window for International selection.
But of course the strengths of each League is relative.  Competitiveness in each League onto itself can give a false reading of competitiveness when facing players from another League.

But I still think the theory of England's downfall is all schidt anyway!
England lost to Wales by a bad decision.  And then kinda lost the mental plot against confident Australia.  I don't think the issues are all that serious.... and I don't think England have become a tier 2 side over-night.  
The WC is an event where everything has to just go like clockwork - and even then, you still need a few dollops of luck.  England simply this time didn't have the clockwork or the luck.

fa0019 the obsession with bulk starts at 14 years of age in the English system, its endemic and ruins some of the most dynamic players I have seen as they focus on power over guile. This approach also seems to be encouraged by coaches and lorded over by academies' who want bulk and power over skill. You lot should be able to tap into 10 Tipurics from what I've seen but that type of player is just not being developed or appreciated at a young age.

Hang about England at youth generally don't field monster teams, the packs generally been one of the smaller ones. You've also just quoted Francis who's big thing is size and power and his problem with the setup was that more technically sound players were being picked ahead of him.

Pick players with more O's or Jones ...over the more South Sea Island names

There that's my only hint for getting more angry balls into an English side.