Who should be next England coach

by nlpnlp Fri 09 Oct 2015, 1:01 pm

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.

by gregortree Sun 18 Oct 2015, 8:43 pm

nathan wrote:
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?

Yes, to show us how it is done.

by Student-A1 Sun 18 Oct 2015, 8:50 pm

gregortree wrote:
nathan wrote:
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?

Yes, to show us how it is done.

A fair point. Lancaster has failed there is no getting away from that point whether it be because in part of the assistant coaches is irrelevant.
Questions need to be asked of upper management Rob Andrew etc (but he will run review with Ritchie so not gonna sack himself); you hear other teams use rugby experts advice. I have read Graham Henry has helped Argentina, Eddie Jones was an advisor for SA when they last won the cup yet Lancaster brings in people like Gary Neville for motivational talks with a proven track record of success on the international stage sorry I meant failure.

Almost a bottomless pit in terms of finances compared to every other Union yet we get the bargain basement coaches. Depressing.

by yappysnap Sun 18 Oct 2015, 11:01 pm

Talking about an all courts game, Argentina today showed a true all courts game against the best of the NH. They had pace, power, precision, interplay between quick backs and massive forwards and a good set piece. Who is there coach? What resources do they have? How many clubs are their players at? Two or more seasons ago they were no where near this, now they're well ahead of us by the looks of it.

With Lancaster in we are being left behind.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 18 Oct 2015, 11:07 pm

They were against a coach who has been called as 1 of the best around also.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 19 Oct 2015, 6:46 am

Almost a bottomless pit in terms of finances compared to every other Union yet we get the bargain basement coaches. Depressing.

Where is this stipulated? I keep hearing people banging on about our resources but where is this actually documented?

by RubyGuby Mon 19 Oct 2015, 7:33 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
Almost a bottomless pit in terms of finances compared to every other Union yet we get the bargain basement coaches. Depressing.

Where is this stipulated? I keep hearing people banging on about our resources but where is this actually documented?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34440468

More money and more players than all the SH and top NH put together Pooly

thumbsup

by gregortree Mon 19 Oct 2015, 7:49 am

Problem is elsewhere but no agreement on the cure. Variety of often overlapping theories as to solutions. Management, SH manager, coaching, Prem club effect at national level.?.Many factors but not lack of resources.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon 19 Oct 2015, 8:00 am

RubyGuby wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:
Almost a bottomless pit in terms of finances compared to every other Union yet we get the bargain basement coaches. Depressing.

Where is this stipulated? I keep hearing people banging on about our resources but where is this actually documented?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34440468

More money and more players than all the SH and top NH put together Pooly

The player numbers are from 2011 and the finance from 2012/2013......it's almost 2016

Players registered means what exactly? The 50yo prop playing at my local is registered.....

Revenue means what exactly? Money brought into the union doesn't mean money spent.....

As normal, put these stats in context and they mean very little.

Rugby union is not football, it's not cricket. We will never be a NZ because it's not our premier sport.

by Hood83 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 8:42 am

The registered players argument has been used for years to suggest England has ridiculous numbers of people playing the game. It's nonsense. Just read that back, 2.5m registered players. That's about, what, every 20th person in England, playing rugby.

I cannot believe serious journalists keep trotting out that number. It includes things like touch rugby played by under 12s. Most of which will move to other sports as they get older. The methodology used is absolutely terrible.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 19 Oct 2015, 8:47 am

There are 8 registered players in my immediate family:

Me - last played properly in 1996
Brother - plays the odd pub sevens
Father - 70 now, last played in the early 60s, last reffed about 10 years ago
Youngest daughter - attends sunday sessions at local club once a fortnight
Nephew 1 - not played since he left school
Nephew 2 - In GCSE year at school, plays for school, club and county (thus registered 3 times)

8 registered players - but only one playing regularly and that at U16 level.

by gregortree Mon 19 Oct 2015, 8:55 am

LT....other nations have similar family registrations profiles ?
Very possibly. So the nation to nation registered populations probably remain a valid point. As does financial clout.
And so this still points to management rather than players' talent to me.
I wish EngLand's elite players would throw and catch with a bit more precision as the runners sure can run.

by Student-A1 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 8:55 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
RubyGuby wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:
Almost a bottomless pit in terms of finances compared to every other Union yet we get the bargain basement coaches. Depressing.

Where is this stipulated? I keep hearing people banging on about our resources but where is this actually documented?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34440468

More money and more players than all the SH and top NH put together Pooly

The player numbers are from 2011 and the finance from 2012/2013......it's almost 2016

Players registered means what exactly? The 50yo prop playing at my local is registered.....

Revenue means what exactly? Money brought into the union doesn't mean money spent.....

As normal, put these stats in context and they mean very little.

Rugby union is not football, it's not cricket. We will never be a NZ because it's not our premier sport.

Kind of baffling comment there as the finances are far greater than any other Union bar France maybe, the RFU have on many occasions been quick to boast how healthy the game is and that they are generating more and more revenue. That was my point; the number of players at the disposal can be misleading I agree but never mentioned it. My issue is the fact that the RFU refuse to go and pay for the best, to hear they actually interviewed experienced coaches or invited them to apply only to appoint Johnson and then Lancaster is ridiculous. They should be able to go out and aggressively go after whoever is best; although I would not be surprised if they made Nick Walshe coach on the basis he was good coaching youth and has no experience at top level which seems to be the mandate.

On the we won't be NZ, that may be true but in no way is rugby union the number one sport in Australia and yet they are consistently at the top tier of rugby; so that should be the minimum aim surely. Don't believe the argument that its not the number one sport so settle for mediocrity

by **LondonTiger** Mon 19 Oct 2015, 8:58 am

gregortree wrote:LT....other nations have similar family registrations profiles ?
Very possibly. So the nation to nation registered populations probably remain a valid point. As does financial clout.
And so this still points to management rather than players' talent to me.
I wish EngLand's elite players would throw and catch with a bit more precision as the runners sure can run.

If you look on the Ireland/Argie thread plenty of Irish posters bemoaning their teams lack of basic skills.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:04 am

Ill say again...we're not lacking the basic skills. Its all about selection, and tactics.

How many players were selected that now appear were just not fit after injury??? Too many risks.

A maximum of 2 carriers in the pack. The number 8 and Youngs at hooker? That's not enough.

Set piece issues.

We HAVE got the players...but too much went wrong that didn't need to.

by beshocked Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:36 am

Geordiefalcon I disagree. I think the full England team are lacking the basic skills.

I don't think it's necessarily the fault of the players - it's just the coaches haven't been getting the best out of them.

E.g. Having a poor coach like Andy Farrell is not going to help with skill levels! You can see how Saracens' attack has developed since Andy Farrell has left. Mike Catt is not a top class coach either.

Look at this way - our U20s have been one of the best in the world in the last few years yet the transition to international level for many of these players has not been smooth. England needs to bridge this gap.

I think if England brought in a coach like Wayne Smith, we would see an improvement in our basic skills! The worry is that Wayne Smith wouldn't want to work with the RFU.

The Scotland vs Australia game showed what a good coach can do. On paper Australia should have beaten Scotland easily but in the end Australia were lucky to win.

The positive for England is that now we have an opportunity to start fresh - get rid of Lancaster and co.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:44 am

What skills are we missing?

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:46 am

Decision making under pressure. Comes a bit with experience though.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:50 am

I agree 7.5

Decision making, and tactical skills yes I think we are massively missing them. Not actual skills. Well a couple of them are but the ones coming have an abundance of skills.

Like Clifford, Kvesic (outstanding on Friday night) etc.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:50 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:What skills are we missing?

Our runners are always too flat, making the pass extremely difficult.
Our passing is shoddy anyway.
Most of the backs can only pass off one hand.
We lose too much ball in contact.
Miss too many one up tackles

then the technical skills:

Poor scrummaging
Poor lineout - across all AP teams and hookers it seems
Poor decision making

by Hood83 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:50 am

gregortree wrote:LT....other nations have similar family registrations profiles ?
Very possibly. So the nation to nation registered populations probably remain a valid point. As does financial clout.
And so this still points to management rather than players' talent to me.
I wish EngLand's elite players would throw and catch with a bit more precision as the runners sure can run.

Actually they don't, there is no uniform measurement, at least not across all countries.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:53 am

Think you do the backs a bit of a disservice LT. Ford, Slade, Joseph, Watson, Nowell are very much the 'new breed' with very good passing and positioning for me.

You can always argue the toss with scrums, one week we have the upper hand with another ref we didn't. We ain't an out and out scrummaging or set piece team though for sure.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:53 am

LondonTiger wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:What skills are we missing?

Our runners are always too flat, making the pass extremely difficult. - That's just a coaching shuffle
Our passing is shoddy anyway. - Selection of wrong players.
Most of the backs can only pass off one hand. - Selection of wrong players
We lose too much ball in contact. - Selection of wrong players
Miss too many one up tackles - Agree our defence and tackling has worried me for years.

then the technical skills:

Poor scrimmaging - Selection of wrong players
Poor lineout - across all AP teams and hookers it seems - Selection of wrong players
Poor decision making - Agree...this one is an issue

by Hood83 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:54 am

LondonTiger wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:What skills are we missing?

Our runners are always too flat, making the pass extremely difficult.
Our passing is shoddy anyway.
Most of the backs can only pass off one hand.
We lose too much ball in contact.
Miss too many one up tackles

then the technical skills:

Poor scrummaging
Poor lineout - across all AP teams and hookers it seems
Poor decision making

Also our body positions on entering the ruck. I'm frequently amazed we aren't penalised more for coming in from the side, as it's the only way we seem capable of shifting people.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 19 Oct 2015, 9:54 am

I disagree GF - I look at the AP and see the exact same things.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:11 am

Pick some specialist players in certain positions...not "all rounders"

Get the tactics right.

England will be fine.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:13 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:Pick some specialist players in certain positions...not "all rounders"

Get the tactics right.

England will be fine.

Based on Scotland perhaps we need a Saffer prop and some Kiwi flankers.

Brendon O'connor arrives with an english granny at welford Road this month Very Happy

by gregortree Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:17 am

LondonTiger wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Pick some specialist players in certain positions...not "all rounders"

Get the tactics right.

England will be fine.

Based on Scotland perhaps we need a Saffer prop and some Kiwi flankers.

Brendon O'connor arrives with an english granny at welford Road this month

What position does she play ? Send a note to Bomber.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:17 am

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:18 am

Nah no more 3 yearers or grannys... Very Happy

We just need a coach who will pick the right balanced pack. The backs are sorting themselves out.

And not pick players who are injured or just returning from injury and are not fit.

For example if Davy Wilson was not fit...then he should not have gone. A fit a firing Henry Thomas is more valuable than an injured Davy Wilson for example.

Likewise Ben Morgan or Lawes etc. It seems too many have injury question marks over them.

by Student-A1 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:22 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:What skills are we missing?

Our runners are always too flat, making the pass extremely difficult. - That's just a coaching shuffle
Our passing is shoddy anyway. - Selection of wrong players.
Most of the backs can only pass off one hand. - Selection of wrong players
We lose too much ball in contact. - Selection of wrong players
Miss too many one up tackles - Agree our defence and tackling has worried me for years.

then the technical skills:

Poor scrimmaging - Selection of wrong players
Poor lineout - across all AP teams and hookers it seems - Selection of wrong players
Poor decision making - Agree...this one is an issue

Agree with the original poster here; our running lines are woeful and rarely at pace. More than just a quick fix, wouldn't say there are many AP teams that have players doing this maybe a phase or two then goes very slow.
There is no way that the passing can be argued to be at those of the SH teams; yes there are backs that can but the forwards including the younger ones either have very poor skills of they have good skills but can't do the other basics properly Cowan Dickie being an example great around park but very very poor at lineout time.
The contact game in the NH is light years behind, we get no ball as quick say Argentina against Ireland.
The scrummaging I do think is maybe a coach thing seeing how much we have dropped off the pace and how Australia improved in a short space of time.

IMO there is a huge drop in skill level when comparing England to say Aus and NZ; with the dominance we once had upfront it is now highlighted more than ever

by beshocked Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:24 am

no 7 & 1/2 I think the NZers and Argentinians in particular showed what good backs can do. Our backs didn't particularly have good RWCs. Cannot just blame the forwards.

Geordiefalcon I don't think it's just as simplistic as poor selection of players. You know I agree that Lancaster did poor selections but it's not just that.

It's England's organisation.

Look at Wales and Ireland too - they were just too stodgy. Admittedly SA were pretty stodgy themselves but a bit of great handling from their monster no 8 was what made the breakthrough.

It's important to find the balance between defence and attack. Unfortunately the NH sides have focussed too much on the defence and if that doesn't work they are vulnerable.

Lancaster said that he wanted to make England more like the ABs in terms of style but I haven't seen any sign of that!

NZ simply have higher basic skills than England who don't seem to have nailed down any of the basics during the RWC.

A coaches' job is IMO to get the best from their players and I don't think Lancaster and co have done that.

I think it would be a huge step backwards to stick with Lancaster.

by king_carlos Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:32 am

Trusting ourselves to keep playing attacking rugby in the big games and clutch moments is also a must if we want to improve.

One thing that this RWC has shown is that the rule changes do now seem to be encouraging attacking rugby not because it is 'entertaining' but it is also now the best way to win a game.

Stricter officiating of the breakdown especially means that scoring tries not winning penalties is now most certainly key.

In among the furore over Joubert I think an important point from the Scotland game is that Australia outscored Scotland 5 tries to 3.

If we want to match the best in the modern game then we need to have a side with the skills across the board to score tries and finish chances much more clinically than this side currently are.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:33 am

Fair enough point beshocked, but that's what you get by putting a battering ram 6 and half fit Barritt who's well out of form. The backs have shown they have the skills for me but as you say a defence first philosophy and worrying about the opposition rather than what you can do isn't the best way to bring out the strengths of most of the players picked in the squad.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:36 am

I still say its not the skills its the selection of the players that's the problem.

And players who weren't fit or need a year away from international rugby like Lawes and Cole etc.

Then you look at the selection.

NZ have a Retallick in there at 6'6 and 19+ stone. We have two guys who are barely 17st wet through (Lawes and Parling) . It makes a difference.

Get the selection right, get the tactics right and we'll be fine.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:39 am

Selection is/was fine on the whole though GF if he intended to stick with the tactics we've been working towards. He blinked though and went to try to play defensive forward dominated stuff. I still don't get why and if he had that intention then yes you're spot on why didn't he go for players who would suit that plan more.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:42 am

So it boils down to selection Very Happy

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:43 am

Or tactics! That squad is fine if we continue like we played against France. If we wanted if more focused on ball up the jumpers, set piece dominated it's the wrong squad for me.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:45 am

Yes....that's critical 7.5

The coach needs to decide on his plan A tactics and plan B. Once that's sorted he needs to select based on those. And not fluctuate from those two.

by Student-A1 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:55 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:So it boils down to selection

In my opinion no, breakdown skills are worse, ability to convert chances like overlaps are worse, core handling skills are worse and the list goes on.

Yes I 100% agree that selection was poor but to say that this is the only problem is just incorrect. The coaches are poor and need removing as do some higher up the food chain (Rob Andrew etc) but watching the players movement and passing at pace under pressure from NZ, Aus and Arg it was on a different level from what England showed and what is displayed in the premiership.

by TightHEAD Mon 19 Oct 2015, 10:56 am

I keep looking in the news/sports headlines and I have yet to see Lancaster's resignation or sacking. Have I missed it?

Don't tell me he is still in the job, if he is then I do hope he has been watching the QF and not gone on leave and chosen not to watch the rest of the RWC!!!!!

by TightHEAD Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:00 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:The coach needs to decide on his plan A tactics and plan B. Once that's sorted he needs to select based on those. And not fluctuate from those two.

Geordie are you up to anything over the next 4 years as there might be a job for you going at HQ.

by beshocked Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:00 am

no 7 & 1/2 see that's where I disagree. I think our players in general are overrated. Some posters on here think some of our players are better than they are. They are okay but you could say that about most of the England side - okay but not great. Just not as good as the opposition on the day. It's a mix of the coaching not being good enough and the players not being as good as we think.

Selection was fine? Are you joking?

Geordiefalcon size and power are different things though. Also don't forget that Parling was picked to help out T.Youngs, so was Wood.

Ultimately it comes down to not doing the basics well enough whether that's intelligence at the breakdown,restarts, set piece or decision making. I think the coaches have to take a lot of responsiblity for that because it's their job to get the best out of the players. Of course the players also need to take responsibility for not doing the basics too.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:03 am

TightHEAD wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:The coach needs to decide on his plan A tactics and plan B. Once that's sorted he needs to select based on those. And not fluctuate from those two.

Geordie are you up to anything over the next 4 years as there might be a job for you going at HQ.

im yer man!

by king_carlos Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:04 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:I still say its not the skills its the selection of the players that's the problem.

And players who weren't fit or need a year away from international rugby like Lawes and Cole etc.

Then you look at the selection.

NZ have a Retallick in there at 6'6 and 19+ stone. We have two guys who are barely 17st wet through (Lawes and Parling) . It makes a difference.

Get the selection right, get the tactics right and we'll be fine.

Retallick and Whitelock are an interesting combination as neither is actually that big. Retallick is listed as 6'8" or 6'9" and between 18.5 and 19 stone. Whitelock is listed 6'"8 and just under 18 stone. Considering their height they aren't particularly bulky.

What they do have though is outstanding basic skills in attack and defence which allow them to 'get on with the dirty work' but also spring into action as another loose forward in attack at an instance notice.

Their effectiveness in the NZ pack also sums up the need for balance however. To compensate for that slight lack of brute strength in the boiler room they then have Kaino at 6 can compete with just about anyone when it comes to a tight forward arm wrestle. Of course he then also has the ability to spring into action as another excellent player in the loose the second the situation demands.

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:06 am

beshocked wrote:

Geordiefalcon size and power are different things though. Also don't forget that Parling was picked to help out T.Youngs, so was Wood.
.

Yes that's very true.

However...Marler is about 17.5, Youngs 16st, Robshaw about 17, Wood 16 something.

The whole pack is lightweight. And if a hooker needs to be babysit by having a lock selected purely for him then that's a serious worry.

Especially when you have Jamie Georges sat there who has great core hooker skills (he was excellent for Sarries this weekend)!

by No 7&1/2 Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:06 am

True we don't have many players who would be considered in the top category or you could muster an argument for. The only big selection error for me was Burgess. In hindsight Barritt seemed well off the pace as well along with Morgan. As I've said that selection seemed ok if we were planning on continuing the same game plan, we didn't we withdrew into ourselves.

by Bathman_in_London Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:09 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:The coach needs to decide on his plan A tactics and plan B. Once that's sorted he needs to select based on those. And not fluctuate from those two.

Geordie are you up to anything over the next 4 years as there might be a job for you going at HQ.

im yer man!

Do you have a blazer and enjoy prawns sandwiches?

by majesticimperialman Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:11 am

TightHEAD wrote:I keep looking in the news/sports headlines and I have yet to see Lancaster's resignation or sacking. Have I missed it?

Don't tell me he is still in the job, if he is then I do hope he has been watching the QF and not gone on leave and chosen not to watch the rest of the RWC!!!!!

Oh i do think he will be watching the rest of the Rugby World Cup, i think he will be saying (if only i had done that) If only we England had played that way.

I don't think he as been ( sacked or resigned) just yet, i think no decision will be made untill the Rugby World Cup is over.

If he keeps his place i feel there will be some tough calls in place with regards to winning some trophy's. silverware England have not won anything of note since 2003 RWC. And with the resources England have that is not good enough.

But will changing the coach now, be the best thing for England? Every time England lose or do not make progress the call goes out ( the coach must go). Is it that simple though?

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:11 am

Ah now sadly if you want a 'yes' man.....im not yer man!

by Geordie Mon 19 Oct 2015, 11:18 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:True we don't have many players who would be considered in the top category or you could muster an argument for. The only big selection error for me was Burgess. In hindsight Barritt seemed well off the pace as well along with Morgan. As I've said that selection seemed ok if we were planning on continuing the same game plan, we didn't we withdrew into ourselves.

I would go further - Lawes, Cole, Marler etc all looked way off form.

by Sponsored content