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.

We've all hyped Itoje even the Lancaster. He's one of those rare players when it'll take something drastic for him not to make it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You can and I do criticise Haskell for a number of things but physically he's in amazing shape for a 6.

Physically he's in amazing shape...but right for a rugby player or right for a bodybuilder? He is huge, absolutely huge but he was much better 3-4 years ago and if anything he's a lot slower and his effectiveness has been reduced. Someone should have tapped him on the shoulder. Players are adults yes... but they're not sports scientists, they're not fitness trainers and in many instances they should have teams of experts around them telling them what to do.

It simply looks lacking in England. Look at Kaino, Lydiate, Burger, Fardy, POM. Any of those look like they're competing on Mt Olympus?

All big guys yes. He doesn't struggle for physicality or endurance at the top level. We will again agree to disagree.

Is there any time limit on when this review will be revealed?

Haskell is now 30 - If it was going to happen it would have by now - useful bench player but as inconsistent as they come and a potential penalty machine.

Where did his post hitting aggression go? With madness like that, England could have beaten both Wales and Australia.... but the whole show just whimpered out like a left behind cigarette butt. Quite a quiz when you think about it.

"the whole show just whimpered out like a left behind cigarette butt."

A bit like 606 at the moment - Its so quiet on here I believe there's even more activity in the Irish back play than on here at the Moment - I feel like going on a serious Wumfest just to get some animation on here

Disagree no 7 & 1/2. I think Haskell showed the physicality we wanted from him against Wales in the first game of the 6 nations if not the ability to avoid running into rugby posts!

Unfortunately I have felt that physicality has been lacking in other games. Certainly hasn't offered the same carrying power Billy did for example.

I agree with Rubyguby about Haskell. He's a player that I feel should be able to fit the bill but hasn't.

He's a very frustating player.

fa0019 you do make a valid point though that has been made before - the conditioning of the players might not have good enough.

England did seem to be lacking the pace,power,technique and vision compared to their rivals.

Can't believe we are still having these discussions about Billy. When he first played for England conditioning was an issue and he'd only be able to last a half at most. These days you have to look beyond the bulk because he plays 80 minutes and is more active than ever.

People are too nervous Ruby. Too nervous to speak lest they jinx their team. Ireland pages have been virtually empty for the duration of the WC so far..................... well except for a few old saddle tramps who never shut up.....

beshocked wrote:Disagree no 7 & 1/2. I think Haskell showed the physicality we wanted from him against Wales in the first game of the 6 nations if not the ability to avoid running into rugby posts!

Unfortunately I have felt that physicality has been lacking in other games. Certainly hasn't offered the same carrying power Billy did for example.

I agree with Rubyguby about Haskell. He's a player that I feel should be able to fit the bill but hasn't.

He's a very frustating player.

fa0019 you do make a valid point though that has been made before - the conditioning of the players might not have good enough.

England did seem to be lacking the pace,power,technique and vision compared to their rivals.

Physically he's not lacking, physicality is more a decision based thing for me.

In all honesty LIW I think Billy is beginning to realise why his father was so disappointed in him and it seems to be weighing heavily on him. He just doesn't seem happy out there and his comments since seem to justify this sentiment. We did our best in training the Vunipolos and Ben Morgan for you but maybe their heart isn't in it

Hope you're having a lovely time in Swansea the past few weeks

SecretFly wrote:People are too nervous Ruby.  Too nervous to speak lest they jinx their team.  Ireland pages have been virtually empty for the duration of the WC so far..................... well except for a few old saddle tramps who never shut up.....

You're team is fecked Fly, they've been hanging in and around that curve for far too long for my liking - Time to fall off the radar and out to 9th in the rankings just below ????? - The Friday feeling is kicking in -

RubyGuby wrote:In all honesty LIW I think Billy is beginning to realise why his father was so disappointed in him and it seems to be weighing heavily on him. He just doesn't seem happy out there and his comments since seem to justify this sentiment. We did our best in training the Vunipolos and Ben Morgan for you but maybe their heart isn't in it

Hope you're having a lovely time in Swansea the past few weeks

Cheers Ruby. Moved out of Swansea 3 years ago up to Manchester. I know its horses for courses etc but so much happier here.

beshocked wrote:Disagree no 7 & 1/2. I think Haskell showed the physicality we wanted from him against Wales in the first game of the 6 nations if not the ability to avoid running into rugby posts!

Unfortunately I have felt that physicality has been lacking in other games. Certainly hasn't offered the same carrying power Billy did for example.

I agree with Rubyguby about Haskell. He's a player that I feel should be able to fit the bill but hasn't.

He's a very frustating player.

fa0019 you do make a valid point though that has been made before - the conditioning of the players might not have good enough.

England did seem to be lacking the pace,power,technique and vision compared to their rivals.

Quite agree. I can think of only a handful of games where Haskell has showed the sort of effectiveness he could bring to that 6 shirt and to be fair to Lancaster, he gave a him a go after that Wales game. I think we need to appreciate that having one decent carrier in your pack isn't going to cut the mustard.

Robshaw and the like are willing but not powerful enough to share the load effectively. Thus it has been reduced to Billy or Morgan. Having a Ewers type at 6 would work better for England, Launchbury is industrious as hell but Parling, much like Borthwick before, couldn't carry through a wet paper bag. Having, purely for hypothetical example, 6. Ewers 7. Kvesic 8. B Morgan would drastically change that carrying perspective. I hear cries about the line-out but you don't need a back 5 of Devin Toners to make a line-out work.

All 3 are pretty decent in the lineout to be fair as well.

Yes I think if you had say 4. J Launchbury 5. G Kruis? (Who is being groomed as the next England line-out guru??) 6. D Ewers 7. M Kvesic 8. B Morgan I think that could be a really effective pack. We are nonetheless back to inexperience again though.

That's my main concern if Lancs et al are retained. If they learn the lessons are they learning the RIGHT lessons? Will the approach be stick with all the members of the team and give them another four years together playing safe-style rugby? If that's the case then a lot of fans would be disenchanted I think.

Chjw131 wrote:Yes I think if you had say 4. J Launchbury 5. G Kruis? Kitchener6. D Ewers 7. M Kvesic 8. B Morgan I think that could be a really effective pack. We are nonetheless back to inexperience again though.

That's my main concern if Lancs et al are retained. If they learn the lessons are they learning the RIGHT lessons? Will the approach be stick with all the members of the team and give them another four years together playing safe-style rugby? If that's the case then a lot of fans would be disenchanted I think.

I think that back 5 has it all.....

Of course "IF" Beaumont continues his progression at 8...you have a lineout option and a more running type of 8 that could still fit in that back 5.

Beaumont wearing 4 for Sale this weekend.

Now where have I seen that image before?

Ah right so scratch him off....

Hmm, a player who can play lock, blindside or number 8.

Definitely don't need one of those

Depends where he spends most of his time Bam Bam.

Another to mention and watch is Elliott Stooke. Suffered a bit last year but hopfully will come back to the form that got us talking about him.

Well kvesic is showing how to play openside.

Geordie I admire your tenacity. Kvesic would be fine if you get the balance between 4 5 6 and 8 right

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You can and I do criticise Haskell for a number of things but physically he's in amazing shape for a 6.

Physically he's in amazing shape...but right for a rugby player or right for a bodybuilder? He is huge, absolutely huge but he was much better 3-4 years ago and if anything he's a lot slower and his effectiveness has been reduced. Someone should have tapped him on the shoulder. Players are adults yes... but they're not sports scientists, they're not fitness trainers and in many instances they should have teams of experts around them telling them what to do.

It simply looks lacking in England. Look at Kaino, Lydiate, Burger, Fardy, POM. Any of those look like they're competing on Mt Olympus?

He's taller and probably less well-built than Pocock, I don't think anyone has a problem with his physique. Jerry Collins did OK too. Sonny Bill Williams? There's a stack of top players of a similar size. He's a perfectly reasonable build for a rugby player - more powerful, quicker and as good a work rate as any other current England 6. World class? Probably not, but still been our best, and under-appreciated.

beshocked wrote:Disagree no 7 & 1/2. I think Haskell showed the physicality we wanted from him against Wales in the first game of the 6 nations if not the ability to avoid running into rugby posts!

Unfortunately I have felt that physicality has been lacking in other games. Certainly hasn't offered the same carrying power Billy did for example.

I agree with Rubyguby about Haskell. He's a player that I feel should be able to fit the bill but hasn't.

He's a very frustating player.

fa0019 you do make a valid point though that has been made before - the conditioning of the players might not have good enough.

England did seem to be lacking the pace,power,technique and vision compared to their rivals.

Haskell is a player that fits the bill, until he has a game where he's not deemed one of the stand outs, and he's dropped...for worse players in worse form. He's only frustrating if you expect him to be a Pocock, McCaw type.

Chjw131 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Disagree no 7 & 1/2. I think Haskell showed the physicality we wanted from him against Wales in the first game of the 6 nations if not the ability to avoid running into rugby posts!

Unfortunately I have felt that physicality has been lacking in other games. Certainly hasn't offered the same carrying power Billy did for example.

I agree with Rubyguby about Haskell. He's a player that I feel should be able to fit the bill but hasn't.

He's a very frustating player.

fa0019 you do make a valid point though that has been made before - the conditioning of the players might not have good enough.

England did seem to be lacking the pace,power,technique and vision compared to their rivals.

Quite agree. I can think of only a handful of games where Haskell has showed the sort of effectiveness he could bring to that 6 shirt and to be fair to Lancaster, he gave a him a go after that Wales game. I think we need to appreciate that having one decent carrier in your pack isn't going to cut the mustard.

Robshaw and the like are willing but not powerful enough to share the load effectively. Thus it has been reduced to Billy or Morgan. Having a Ewers type at 6 would work better for England, Launchbury is industrious as hell but Parling, much like Borthwick before, couldn't carry through a wet paper bag. Having, purely for hypothetical example, 6. Ewers 7. Kvesic 8. B Morgan would drastically change that carrying perspective. I hear cries about the line-out but you don't need a back 5 of Devin Toners to make a line-out work.

God I sound like a massive Haskell fan boy here. But if you can think of a handful of games where he's been effective, have a think of any of his rivals having a better record at international level. They don't. In the case of Wood, I can think of a single decent game, and yet Haskell's 'inconsistency' crops up again and again. Better to have someone occasionally great and otherwise OK than have a complete dud plodder like Wood

RubyGuby wrote:Haskell is now 30 - If it was going to happen it would have by now - useful bench player but as inconsistent as they come and a potential penalty machine.

Do you think Wood is better or more consistent? Not a chance. Better to have a player who is either OK or very good than someone consistently rubbish.

Hood83 wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Haskell is now 30 - If it was going to happen it would have by now - useful bench player but as inconsistent as they come and a potential penalty machine.

Do you think Wood is better or more consistent? Not a chance. Better to have a player who is either OK or very good than someone consistently rubbish.

Haskell certainly knows where the goal posts are..............

doctor_grey wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Haskell is now 30 - If it was going to happen it would have by now - useful bench player but as inconsistent as they come and a potential penalty machine.

Do you think Wood is better or more consistent? Not a chance. Better to have a player who is either OK or very good than someone consistently rubbish.

Haskell certainly knows where the goal posts are..............

If only he knew his way to the base.

None of the flankers have done much. Does that not flag an issue with the set up / tactics...

GeordieFalcon wrote:None of the flankers have done much. Does that not flag an issue with the set up / tactics...

I mentioned my misgivings on that count in the George Ford thread. Along with leadership, goalkicking and back five bench strategy, our back row options are a regular concern for me.  Playing both Billy Vunipola and Ben Morgan seems like an outright admission that we won't have enough ball carriers if one comes off. However, keeping one in reserve severely limits our back row flexibility.

Lancaster might argue that England have a good enough record of wins that we shouldn't have to select the matchday squad on the assumption that we'll need to change our strategy mid-game. Plan A has usually worked, and many other international teams select a bench for more of the same too.

Any yet, when the wheels have fallen off, it's cost us dearly at key moments.

Like Wales - Plan A works until you meet a top team in top form then its limitations appear.

TJ wrote:Like Wales - Plan A works until you meet a top team in top form then its limitations appear.

The same thought occurred to me, but I'm wary of suggesting Wales have limitations as a team when they've just knocked England out of the cup.

Rugby Fan wrote:

TJ wrote:Like Wales - Plan A works until you meet a top team in top form then its limitations appear.

The same thought occurred to me, but I'm wary of suggesting Wales have limitations as a team when they've just knocked England out of the cup.

I'm not sure we had a plan A. If we did, it ended up being horribly confused. Lancaster's attempts to create an 'all court' team may be a positive, there is a good argument for that direction of travel, but in reality he's not done it in 4 years. In fact, not only can we not yet play an expansive game with confidence when under pressure, we've now lost our traditional set piece strengths. Maybe that transition was inevitably going to lead to an awkward period, but it shouldn't have been 4yrs in at a home WC. It's a dog's breakfast.

Hood83 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

TJ wrote:Like Wales - Plan A works until you meet a top team in top form then its limitations appear.

The same thought occurred to me, but I'm wary of suggesting Wales have limitations as a team when they've just knocked England out of the cup.

I'm not sure we had a plan A. If we did, it ended up being horribly confused. Lancaster's attempts to create an 'all court' team may be a positive, there is a good argument for that direction of travel, but in reality he's not done it in 4 years. In fact, not only can we not yet play an expansive game with confidence when under pressure, we've now lost our traditional set piece strengths. Maybe that transition was inevitably going to lead to an awkward period, but it shouldn't have been 4yrs in at a home WC. It's a dog's breakfast.

BUt the squad have a great culture.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:None of the flankers have done much. Does that not flag an issue with the set up / tactics...

our back row options are a regular concern for me.  Playing both Billy Vunipola and Ben Morgan seems like an outright admission that we won't have enough ball carriers if one comes off. However, keeping one in reserve severely limits our back row flexibility.
.

The problem is that Lancaster (and his coaches) have consistently played back row players who don't offer carrying capabilities. Likewise his second rows.

Marler has never brought his carrying game to this level...so your left with Billy or Ben at 8...and Tom Youngs at hooker. That's just not enough.

So it suddenly dawned on me today that there is a fair chance it will be Sean Edwards. Thoughts?

As head coach no.

As defence coach....well he'd certainly put some fire back in the English bellies....

I'm not saying I want him. I just think we may end up with him.

Hood83 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

TJ wrote:Like Wales - Plan A works until you meet a top team in top form then its limitations appear.

The same thought occurred to me, but I'm wary of suggesting Wales have limitations as a team when they've just knocked England out of the cup.

I'm not sure we had a plan A. If we did, it ended up being horribly confused. Lancaster's attempts to create an 'all court' team may be a positive, there is a good argument for that direction of travel, but in reality he's not done it in 4 years. In fact, not only can we not yet play an expansive game with confidence when under pressure, we've now lost our traditional set piece strengths. Maybe that transition was inevitably going to lead to an awkward period, but it shouldn't have been 4yrs in at a home WC. It's a dog's breakfast.

My view is a year or two ago England were going in the right direction. You have some very good attacking players especially in the back 3. You were starting to show some good stuff like beating NZ. I think however Lancaster bottled it trying to select a team to negate the opposition instead of imposing your own game plan on the opposition. I think the team lost direction and cohesion as a result and the players did not believe in the tactics being employed and you lost the good stuff. counter attacking at speed and outplaying the opposition in attack. I still think its almost there but lancasters tactical limitations have been horribly exposed, tht and ( like scotland) you don't have a captain. Add POC to england and they would be so much better with a real on pitch leader.

I hate Mike Brown but he is a real attacking threat. Ditto your wings and Ford. give them the ball and let them play. The centre selections were awful in this WC - Yo have some dangerous players out there - FFS play them! rather than trying to beat Wales at Gatlandball simply beat them in your own way. Select the attacking players and let them go! NOt having a 7 really cost as well

So - get a 7 in the team. Pick the most dangerous backs and let them play with freedom. Your most dangerous runners hardly saw the ball even if they got in the team.

TJ wrote:

I hate Mike Brown

He's a thoroughly lovely chap compared to Stuart Hogg

You don't really 'hate' him, do you?

Talking tactics and in particular the backrow not playing well. What happened to the tactic of Robshaw at first receiver popping offloads to the backs? In his first season under Lancaster he did this out standingly but it seems to have completely stopped now. It could really have helped Ford in some of his games when he was on the back foot.

Cyril wrote:

TJ wrote:

I hate Mike Brown

He's a thoroughly lovely chap compared to Stuart Hogg

You don't really 'hate' him, do you?

Ohh - really - Didier Hoggba is a get alright - but Brown is a nasty english get

Surely after the performance the scots put in vs Aus SL and Co all have to go with immediate effect.

Is Groucho Marx still alive ?

TJ wrote:

Cyril wrote:

TJ wrote:

I hate Mike Brown

He's a thoroughly lovely chap compared to Stuart Hogg

You don't really 'hate' him, do you?

Ohh - really - Didier Hoggba is a get alright - but Brown is a nasty english get

Well that is good. England need a few more hate figures with a bit of attitude in the squad. Because we are woefully insipid in the attitude department. Among several other lacking areas.

Like it Gregor.

TightHEAD wrote:Surely after the performance the scots put in vs Aus SL and Co all have to go with immediate effect.  

Are the scots not allowed to play better than us?

TY TJ