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.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Yes it is...but surely being as meticulous as he is...he would have identified this.

And those who were not fully recovered from injury.

How much do you'should you consider form from the warm ups though? He's had a lot of criticism for going with Slade (to a lesser extent) and Burgess but both were better than Burrell in the game they got.

If we'd left out Cole and taken Thomas and left Mako and Marler behind for say Mullan and Corbs. Leave Lawes out for Attwood. What would we have been saying then?

Rumours that the RFU have approached the IRFU about Schmidt

BamBam wrote:Rumours that the RFU have approached the IRFU about Schmidt

Surely not??

No 7&1/2 wrote:How much do you'should you consider form from the warm ups though? He's had a lot of criticism for going with Slade (to a lesser extent) and Burgess but both were better than Burrell in the game they got.

If we'd left out Cole and taken Thomas and left Mako and Marler behind for say Mullan and Corbs. Leave Lawes out for Attwood. What would we have been saying then?

But 7.5 ive been complaining for a long time about how little he trialled people in games through his tenure and everyone kept saying he'll see all he needs from how they perform in training???

So he should be able to identify whos in form or not.

Many of us, myself included, were disappointed with Attwood not bringing his physicality and ball carrying to the international stage with consistency.

In reality I think a question must be asked of whether or not he ran the line-out as well as Lawes or Parling usually have whilst also offering much more ballast in scrums and mauls whilst not giving a massive amount away in work rate around the park.

BamBam wrote:Rumours that the RFU have approached the IRFU about Schmidt

That was before that last game, I suspect that interest may have been withdrawn now!
Even beating France comfortably has shown to be no big deal in context of what NZ did to them. Their world cup hasnt gone much better than Englands despite the favourable draw.

Some blame selection, some blame coaching, some blame a lack of skills during player development, and some blame a dirge of talent. I blame all of these, but the only one in our power to change now, and before the next world cup, is the coaching (with the knock-on effect of changing selection of course). It’s a no-brainer – get in a coach with a CV. Everyone is doing it and leaving England behind.

Plus, let our previously injured players play themselves back into form at their clubs.

The NH is already trailing behind the SH. England need to be careful they don’t end up trailing behind the NH.

NO MORE ROOKIE COACHES.

GF, is it not more the case that he hasn't trialled the people you wanted him to? I'm sure we all saw the performances in the warm ups and said our front rows got a bit of a mullering then we produced a very good performance against Ireland. Do you really think if he'd dropped Cole for Thomas even if he said he's not on form we wouldn't have queried that? You can't always predict someones form on a game to game basis. Bar Haskell where it would be good game then bad, bad bad and then good again.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yes it is...but surely being as meticulous as he is...he would have identified this.

And those who were not fully recovered from injury.

Like Lewis Moody last world cup?

Or indeed Faloua against Wales who was clealry in no fit state to play that game.

Lancaster took a gamble on having his best players at the world cup knowing they would need them to be in with a chance. Picking him as a starter consistently was arguably the error. He wouldnt be the first to make that mistake either though.
Really its not like they left anyone especially better out for Morgan though, I cant imagine Easter really having made that much difference.

Leaving out Tuillagi was a differnt thing, ditto Hartley. Injured or not Tuillagi was not selecteable in context, espeically given previous history of both the player (on the field ) and Englands world cups/the reasons for Lancaster getting the job in the first place. Very much the same re: Hartley, he made himself unslectable. The real mistake was not "suspending" him earlier ( like after the second final warning) and then resetting the discipline clock. He is still though a liability...maybe he wouldve made a difference but equally he may have been goaded into trying to eat a Uraguyams face in the first game and got banned for life anyway. The hindsight mistake is perhaps in trusting Youngs as the sole second option.

No 7&1/2 wrote:GF, is it not more the case that he hasn't trialled the people you wanted him to? I'm sure we all saw the performances in the warm ups and said our front rows got a bit of a mullering then we produced a very good performance against Ireland. Do you really think if he'd dropped Cole for Thomas even if he said he's not on form we wouldn't have queried that? You can't always predict someones form on a game to game basis. Bar Haskell where it would be good game then bad, bad bad and then good again.

Not really mate. The odd one yes possibly, but I just think he's not looked enough at what he has available.

BUt then maybe this is down to his choice of tactics aswell.

Out of curiosity...what would your style of play be?

Winning.

Well in a sense you're right as with the amount of players available he simply couldn't look at every option by giving them a game while actually building a team and remaining as competitive as possible. I'm guessing the players he hasn't looked at weren't deemed as good an option as the ones he did.

Personally I'd have tweaks in the players but given how good some of backs could be I'd try and make the most of them and not focus on a monster pack.

Gooseberry wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yes it is...but surely being as meticulous as he is...he would have identified this.

And those who were not fully recovered from injury.

Leaving out Tuillagi was a differnt thing, ditto Hartley. Injured or not Tuillagi was not selecteable in context, espeically given previous history of both the player (on the field ) and Englands world cups/the reasons for Lancaster getting the job in the first place. Very much the same re: Hartley, he made himself unslectable. The real mistake was not "suspending" him earlier ( like after the second final warning) and then resetting the discipline clock. He is still though a liability...maybe he wouldve made a difference but equally he may have been goaded into trying to eat a Uraguyams face in the first game and got banned for life anyway. The hindsight mistake is perhaps in trusting Youngs as the sole second option.

Tuilagi was injured and we pretty much knew he wasn't going to be available. And Joseph was in great form anyway.

Hindsight in trusting Youngs? Nothing hindsight about it...we knew he was a bit shakey with his core skills. He also has an issue throwing due to his back problems. Also we then were forced to play Parling...even though we have two hookers who have the skills you need.

Hartley was suspended for 1 game (the Fiji game) and George who is inexperienced. Do you think NZ or Australia would not hesitate to have Hartley in the squad in that scenario???Course they would. The would say SOD discipline. Hes our No1 hooker. Then they would play George in the warm ups...and start him v Fiji.
Youngs can bench and brookes can cover if theres injuries to either of them.
Then Hartley is back for the Wales game.

Job Done.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well in a sense you're right as with the amount of players available he simply couldn't look at every option by giving them a game while actually building a team and remaining as competitive as possible. I'm guessing the players he hasn't looked at weren't deemed as good an option as the ones he did.

no 7 & 1/2 he was quite clearly wrong though.

It's not hindsight because a few of us said that Lancaster got it wrong before he did.

Don't need to be an international coach to know that picking a small hooker who has struggled to throw consistently at international level might cause issues. Neither do you need to be to know that picking an uncreative 10,12 and 13 in a crucial RWC game might backfire then replace the centres with a worse combo.  Also that picking a backrow which lacks the breakdown nous to take on sides that have two 7s in their backrow. Also that picking a poor bench might not help the situaton. Picking players out of position is also not a tactic that should be utilised as often as Lancaster has. Also it was clear to most of us that England should have worked on their restarts.

It's bleeding obvious. That's the most frustating thing.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Out of curiosity...what would your style of play be?

I want to see us continuing to develop the game we seemed to be in the 6 Nations. Pick a quick backline with the basic handling skills and decision making to create things and trust them to play an attacking game out wide. Then select a forward pack to complement them and provide the quick ball required for that game plan.

- More power in the tight 5 to provide the scrum platform we need. I don't want us using the scrum to get penalties again but if we want to keep developing our attacking play then the backs need quick ball. Getting a solid scrum that is more often than not edging forward would provide a starting point for that.

- Better balance in the back row - i.e. an option at 7 other than Robshaw, Kvesic at the moment, and the option of a more dynamic player at 6, I'd like to see Itoje or Ewers given a go personally.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well in a sense you're right as with the amount of players available he simply couldn't look at every option by giving them a game while actually building a team and remaining as competitive as possible. I'm guessing the players he hasn't looked at weren't deemed as good an option as the ones he did.

Oh absolutely. Im not unreasonable enough to say he should trial every player. You need consistency of selection (injuries permitting). But its getting the right balance and planning.

Exactly Geordiefalcon. Right balance and planning.

Lancaster pinned all his hopes on T.Youngs at hooker and it backfired.

He took a gamble on Burgess and it didn't work. Wouldn't say Burgess was a disaster but it did feel like Lancaster through him under a bus, just like I felt he did with Nowell in 2014 vs France. Again Nowell is a player that has been inexplicably dumped by Lancaster after having a good 6 nations in 2015.

Put all his faith in Robshaw's captaincy,decision making and breakdown ability - not a great RWC for him. Again another player who has been let down by Lancaster.

When some of us talk about poor selection we are not talking about Lancaster needing to try out players in every position but I still believe Lancaster should have given more opportunities to the likes of Ksevic,Itoje,George, Nowell and Slade.

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well in a sense you're right as with the amount of players available he simply couldn't look at every option by giving them a game while actually building a team and remaining as competitive as possible. I'm guessing the players he hasn't looked at weren't deemed as good an option as the ones he did.

no 7 & 1/2 he was quite clearly wrong though.

It's not hindsight because a few of us said that Lancaster got it wrong before he did.

Don't need to be an international coach to know that picking a small hooker who has struggled to throw consistently at international level might cause issues. Neither do you need to be to know that picking an uncreative 10,12 and 13 in a crucial RWC game might backfire then replace the centres with a worse combo.  Also that picking a backrow which lacks the breakdown nous to take on sides that have two 7s in their backrow. Also that picking a poor bench might not help the situaton. Picking players out of position is also not a tactic that should be utilised as often as Lancaster has. Also it was clear to most of us that England should have worked on their restarts.

It's bleeding obvious. That's the most frustating thing.

Youngs played well in the end and weren't you defending the midfield to start with?

Youngs was fine. The only question marks with him was over how it influenced the choice of locks.

As above what does worry me was the number of players playing who were off form or injured. Now Morgan should not have been there at all (especially when you see the 'what might have been' offered by Easter in the absence of Billy). Barritt - who knows.

Of the other (selected) forwards I can't remember how the first game went but Lawes was so heavily strapped in the later games and wasnt at anywhere near his normal standards. Cole has had injury problems but I would have expected him and Marler to not have had problems coming into the RWC. That they did suggests issues over the (expensive) conditioning regime.

That players were playing when affected so badly by injury suggests that either the detailed monitoring they were carrying out wasn't working or that the coaches chose to ignore the evidence in front of them because they'd rather risk the favoured players.

Knocking Tom Youngs for his line out performance in this world cup is wrong, his best performances throwing, and certainly better than Rob Webbers performance off the bench against Wales (long lofted throw to the back when it should at least have been a dart)
Having seen the games this week-end I don't think its about the coach, more about the NH rugby culture. its obvious to me that the way the three main NH leagues play is not going to win world cups, and if you pick the best players in those leagues to be your internationals, they are going to be the best at playing a style that is doomed to failure.

The Blacks and the Australians (and to a small extent the Argies) play with a tempo that none of the northern hemisphere do beyond 2 or 3 phases. After the third or fourth phase the NH teams all slow down for a pod of 3-4 big guys and trundle it up, until the fly half or scrum half puts in a box kick. The SH teams vary the attack, and very seldom sit with the ball at the back of a ruck.

I disagree....loads of teams are playing fast rugby...certainly in the prem they are.

Hell some of my falcons rugby last season was top class (and we're the bottom team).

Theres not a huge amount wrong...its about getting that final 2% (the brain) making the right decisions.

We keep hearing that the intensity at top rugby is crazy. But its not always. Watch the AB's. Often they are just cruising. They don't (as England seem to insist on) hit EVERY ruck etc.

But when an opportunity is there...then by god they go for it. And they have the ability to up the level anytime they want, Its about using their brains.

That's the main area the NH teams are behind. But that can be worked on.

Youngs was brilliant you're of course right.... we didn't struggle to get clean lineouts or struggle at scrum time.....

He was okay I guess the issue is that he had to be looked after by both Wood and Parling.

I am not claiming that Youngs was rubbish, he was just a bit mediocre like most of the England side but there were better alternatives.

Defending the midfield? Yes and No. It wasn't great and wasn't ideal but it did it's job for 60 odd minutes. It was okay. Unfortunately the midfield got even worse then Ford came on and Farrell was shunted to 12.

tazfalklands Webber isn't a better thrower than George, another selection error by Lancaster.

And I didn't say he was brilliant but he's our best hooker with Hartley out.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And I didn't say he was brilliant but he's our best hooker with Hartley out.

not read the posts, as frankly reading the same thing 24.76 times gets dull.

I guess you stated Youngs was better then George - which will have had you accused of claiming Youngs is a demigod.

Ha.

In all seriousness I hope there's a few players start the season on fire and we end up with a team something like this.

Mullan Hartley Cole
Kitchener Launchbury
Burgess Kvesic Morgan.

Student-A1 wrote:

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

Baffling?

Where is the proof we have so much indispensable cash to spend "on the best"?

We've always appointed English guys, who was suitably available for more money when SL took over?

Pretty sure Austrailias main sports are RL and AR, 2 sports that have transferable skills to union.

I don't think Youngs is better than George.

Burgess was poor when he come on though and was outshone by Ewers.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Burgess was poor when he come on though and was outshone by Ewers.

I do think Burgess can surpass Ewers this season

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ha.

In all seriousness I hope there's a few players start the season on fire and we end up with a team something like this.

Mullan Hartley Cole
Kitchener Launchbury
Burgess Kvesic Morgan.

I like it You have covered all bases.

Good scrummaging - some heavyweight guys.
You have good defenders in there.
You have about 5 good carriers.
Excellent breakdown options.
Solid lineout.
And 1 real potential "enforcer" type player in Burgess.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I don't think Youngs is better than George.

and you are entitled to your opinion.


I have not seen anything yet from George to suggest he would have been any better - and I firmly believe that there was no time to give him extra game time to prove his place. If anyone had suggested he should have played in the 6Ns at the time they would have been laughed off these boards. Meanwhile the World cup warmups are the wrong place to suddenley give all your gametime to previousley uncapped players praying they may be good enough.


We can all agree that the campaign was a failure - but not a single one of us can actually prove that different decisions on players would have made it better.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ha.

In all seriousness I hope there's a few players start the season on fire and we end up with a team something like this.

Mullan Hartley Cole
Kitchener Launchbury
Burgess Kvesic Morgan.

tut, tut, tut.

It should be:

Mako, George, Wilson
Kruis, Itoje
BillyV, hughes, Fraser.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ha.

In all seriousness I hope there's a few players start the season on fire and we end up with a team something like this.

Mullan Hartley Cole
Kitchener Launchbury
Burgess Kvesic Morgan.

tut, tut, tut.

It should be:

Mako, George, Scott Wilson
Kruis, Itoje
BillyV, hughes, Fraser.

Well he's young and inexperienced...but thank you for backing the falcons

You're taking the mick LT but that's pretty much what he said the other day.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I don't think Youngs is better than George.

and you are entitled to your opinion.


I have not seen anything yet from George to suggest he would have been any better - and I firmly believe that there was no time to give him extra game time to prove his place. If anyone had suggested he should have played in the 6Ns at the time they would have been laughed off these boards. Meanwhile the World cup warmups are the wrong place to suddenley give all your gametime to previousley uncapped players praying they may be good enough.


We can all agree that the campaign was a failure - but not a single one of us can actually prove that different decisions on players would have made it better.

I'm with GF on this one, I think George is the better hooker by a fair bit. Youngs should be discarded as he consistently fails to deliver.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I don't think Youngs is better than George.

and you are entitled to your opinion.


I have not seen anything yet from George to suggest he would have been any better - and I firmly believe that there was no time to give him extra game time to prove his place. If anyone had suggested he should have played in the 6Ns at the time they would have been laughed off these boards. Meanwhile the World cup warmups are the wrong place to suddenley give all your gametime to previousley uncapped players praying they may be good enough.


We can all agree that the campaign was a failure - but not a single one of us can actually prove that different decisions on players would have made it better.

I'm with GF on this one, I think George is the better hooker by a fair bit. Youngs should be discarded as he consistently fails to deliver.

and you may well both be right, certainly George is the coming man.

However based on past performances I have seen George struggle at scrum time and struggle to throw straight. Back in 2013/14 I wanted Webber in for Youngs - it did not happen and Webber's form fell away. Now I am happy for youngs to be excluded anf George given a go - but George has all the same flaws in his game and really needs to work on his flexibility.

Oh and he needs to hold off the challenge from Brits at Sarries - which with the backers insisting on a minimum saffer contingent may be difficult.

no 7 & 1/2 glad you're not coach! My team selection was better than yours.

Londontiger it comes down to exactly the same bloody thing - if you don't give the player an opportunity he can't show what he can do.  It's about picking players at the right time too of course.

I never suggested he play in the 6 nations. I just thought that the best hooker of last season (he was picked as top hooker in practically every AP best XV list) and that should have counted for something.

I would have given him more gametime in the warm ups and RWC, especially as Hartley was out and Webber couldn't even get past Batty at Bath. It's not unreasonable - a hooker who had much higher lineout stats than Webber and LCD.

In his first game of this season - man of the match.

Of course I know that how a player does in training is more important to you.....

For the record George was of course not the only player hard done by - Ksevic,Nowell and Slade must still be baffled why Lancaster didn't give them more game time.

In your opinion your lineup was better, hence your lineup. By definition whichever hypothetical lineup each of us chooses we would think ours was better otherwise we wouldn't have chosen it.

Why do you consistently take things out of context and embelish them beshocked. This training thing you have a bee in your bonnet about: I made a suggestion that for George to break into the side he would have had to have a flawless warm up game. When he didn't I suggested that he would then need to impress in training. Not something I thought was too outrageous.

If George had been picked as starting hooker having not even been in the squad until Hartley got banned - we would still probably have been knocked out just as we were and people would be moaning about that instead.

I guess the training thging was a dig at me. I saw an england training session and frankly George was woeful. Unable to hit a barn door and whimpering in the scrums. Having mentioned this Beshocked likes to use it regularly as an example that I believe "training is more important".

In response to the OP, my order of preference for England coach would be as follows:

1. Warren Gatland
2. Eddie Jones
3. Stuart Lancaster

I would explore those three options in that order and no more. 4 year contract through to the next World Cup. Target in that period (for automatic extension): two 6 Nations victories (with one a Slam), WC SF in 2019 and top 4 IRB rankings.

Londontiger we'll never know. Perhaps George wouldn't have done any better but when you're first choice hooker (Hartley) is out and your other options are 3 inconsistent throwers - LCD,Youngs (at international level) and Webber why not try one of the more reliable throwers in the AP? - George.

Yes George wouldn't have been in the squad if Lancaster's way but that's Lancaster's mistake.

George might well have been woeful as you say in training but that doesn't mean he'll be the same in an actual game. You could have one player hitting 100/100 in training but in a game misses a few throws. Personally I want the higher % thrower in proper games and George was one of the top lineout throwers last season - perhaps beaten by Youngs but was much better than Webber and LCD.

Don't get me wrong I think T.Youngs is a good impact player but as a starter at international level? He's not convinced me.

no 7 & 1/2 why should George have to be flawless when no other player has to be?

However you look at it - George has not impressed Lancaster but that's not George's fault IMO. It's not as if Lancaster has shown he's particularly effective at making good selections.

He would have needed to be flawless in the warm up to overtake Webber in my opinion. He came on missed his first throw and then looked good. Youngs was clear 1st choice and Webber had looked good in his outing that is why I think he needed the perfect game. Once that was gone I think he would have needed to be pulling up trees in training.

no 7 & 1/2 I have said this to you before - Webber has done basically nothing of note at international level - he's not been trusted.

It's not as if Webber was tearing it up in the AP or even playing well at international level. Webber was lucky to be in the squad not George. Just turned on the TV to watch the last 20 minutes of Bath vs Exeter - Webber's throwing was poor. Not a new problem for someone whose throwing is at club level is much worse than Youngs and George.

England had a weakness going into the RWC with Hartley banned, Lancaster showed no trust in either George or Webber.