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.

And all I'm saying is that he was good in the warm up and to replace him George was going to have to better him in his. I don't think what I'm saying is that unreasonable to be honest. In the end I also don't think we were dumped out of the tournament due to the hookers.

no 7 & 1/2 you can believe what you want. Personally I believe it was a mistake, just another example of Lancaster's poor selection. You can make excuses for Lancaster if you want. I won't.

You're right. It wasn't just down to the hookers. It was a combination of things that led to England's failure.

I just hope Lancaster and co are sacked or better still they resign.

Eddie Jones or Jake White or Wayne Smith with the likes of Baxter,Gustard,Borthwick and King as options for assistants.

Unfortunately I expect we'll probably get someone like Mallinder or Cockerill who have no international experience.

Not really making excuses as I don't think it affected much. Just why I think he chose Webber.

I suspect Jones will put his name in the frame and will be chosen.

Jones would be a smart choice. Highly respected coach, and with the sort of pig headed stubbourness needed to tell underperforming egos where to go.

The way he has got Japan playing is an incredible achievement.

Agree with Beshocked that Mallinder, Cockerill et all would be poor choices. England need to pick the best international rugby coach available. No more learning on the job.

funnyExiledScot wrote: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.

Really wouldn't really be impressed with that one.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And all I'm saying is that he was good in the warm up and to replace him George was going to have to better him in his. I don't think what I'm saying is that unreasonable to be honest. In the end I also don't think we were dumped out of the tournament due to the hookers.

True point...

Pains me to say it (as he's a flamin Aussie), but yes I would be interested in Eddie Jones.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote: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.

Really wouldn't really be impressed with that one.  

I think Gatland/Edwards would do a great job with England. England made a huge error letting them go to Wales, and none of Gatland's success in the interim has convinced me that he isn't a great coach.

I genuinely think the RFU will stick with Lancaster.

When they do I hope he decides to have a bit of a shuffle round with his coaching team, but can see that staying the same too.

Next 6N's is massive, if he's to prove that retaining the coaches is the right decision then we must win it, a Grand Slam would go a long way to helping people forget about this RWC and getting some good will back.

Left field approach.....Gregor Townsend? Has made Glasgow into a great side, playing some superb rugby. Huge personal sacrfce for him and he may never be abe to return to Scotland ever again lol

Yappysnap hope not. To be honest if they do that just makes it even clearer that Ian Ritchie needs to go.

IMO can only put this painful RWC behind them with a fresh start - that means no Lancaster and his coaches. Still plenty of time to get a new coaching team sorted out before the 6 nations.

Breadvan wrote:Left field approach.....Gregor Townsend? Has made Glasgow into a great side, playing some superb rugby. Huge personal sacrfce for him and he may never be abe to return to Scotland ever again lol

Get away!!

The England job won't interest Toonie anyway - he wants to coach a team with experience of World Cup knock-out rugby

yappysnap wrote:I genuinely think the RFU will stick with Lancaster.

When they do I hope he decides to have a bit of a shuffle round with his coaching team, but can see that staying the same too.

Next 6N's is massive, if he's to prove that retaining the coaches is the right decision then we must win it, a Grand Slam would go a long way to helping people forget about this RWC and getting some good will back.

A Grand Slam? I don't even think the word Grand Slam, is in England's vocabulary.

Still it would be nice.

Technically Gregor Townsend does have international experience, being assistant coach of Scotland - 2009-12, not an impressive accolade though.

FES you can keep him - there are better coaches around IMO. If we were going to get a club coach who isn't English then Mark Mccall would be pretty high up the list though then again he suffers because of his lack of international experience.

Goes back to wanting a top class coach with international experience.

A dream coaching team would be something like though there is some realism:

Eddie Jones - head coach
Wayne Smith - attack coach
Paul Gustard - defence coach
Rob Baxter - forwards coach
Jonny Wilkinson - Kicking coach
Steve Borthwick - Lineout advisor
Richard Hill - breakdown advisor

The last two would be part time advisors coming in once a week.

yappysnap wrote:I genuinely think the RFU will stick with Lancaster.

When they do I hope he decides to have a bit of a shuffle round with his coaching team, but can see that staying the same too.

Next 6N's is massive, if he's to prove that retaining the coaches is the right decision then we must win it, a Grand Slam would go a long way to helping people forget about this RWC and getting some good will back.

I have a feeling they will as well.

That would be an excellent panel, no question.

RFU have announced the panel to review the RWC performance:

Ian Ritchie, RFU CEO and Panel Chairman
Ian Metcalfe (Professional Game Board Chairman)
Ben Kay MBE – (former England International & World Cup Winner)
Ian Watmore (ER2015 Board member, former Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office, former FA CEO and former Accenture Managing Director)
Sir Ian McGeechan OBE (former British & Irish Lions and Scotland Coach)

Interesting group, although the primary selection criterion appears to be being called "Ian" ("Ben" obviously a typo that slipped through).

More seriously, Kay and McGeechan obviously bring a wealth of current rugby knowledge. Watmore is a very bright guy (I used to work at the same company, albeit several levels below him).

I was talking this over at lunch with a Kiwi who has no axe to grind (and with whom I've not talked rugby before, though naturally he's a huge rugby fan), and his perspective was that he felt England had progressed under Lancaster and were undone mainly by lack of experience. He felt it would be a mistake to ditch him in a knee-jerk reaction, but we both felt that the coaching team needs more experienced support. Such as having someone like Eddie Jones in a part-time advisory role.

I also think that there's a clear learning curve for coaches at RWCs. Woodward and Henry both crashed out early in their first RWC and came back the stronger for it, for instance.

All of which said, I just don't know. There were some definite flaws in Lancaster's gameplan. I am not so bothered about the initial squad selection, or the initial gameplans, but I think the attempt to reshape the forwards over the summer was too much over too short a period, and there is an ongoing issue with how the team loses its shape once the subs come on.

I think to be successful the review needs to start from the bottom up: what went wrong on the pitch and how could it be fixed? Only once they understand the problems can they really look for solutions. If the solution is a new coaching team, then that's fine as long as it is done with a clear understanding of what needs to change.

If it's taken them this long to compile a panel, I wonder how long the review will take??

I suspect Lancaster is safe for another year or two.

LondonTiger wrote:

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.

Possibly LT.

I just we've seen enough of Youngs and know he can't cut it. I think it's better to take a punt on younger/potential options rather than Youngs who's simply got too many flaws at hooker.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

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.

Possibly LT.

I just we've seen enough of Youngs and know he can't cut it. I think it's better to take a punt on younger/potential options rather than Youngs who's simply got too many flaws at hooker.

Maybe Youngs should have gone to number 7 like young Harry Thacker should.

Poorfour wrote:RFU have announced the panel to review the RWC performance:

Ian Ritchie, RFU CEO and Panel Chairman
Ian Metcalfe (Professional Game Board Chairman)
Ben Kay MBE – (former England International & World Cup Winner)
Ian Watmore (ER2015 Board member, former Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office, former FA CEO and former Accenture Managing Director)
Sir Ian McGeechan OBE (former British & Irish Lions and Scotland Coach)

Hmm, two of that panel were also on the panel that appointed Lancaster.

I've never seen much from Youngs at the breakdown GF tbh, I just think he's a good AP hooker.

LondonTiger wrote:

Poorfour wrote:RFU have announced the panel to review the RWC performance:

Ian Ritchie, RFU CEO and Panel Chairman
Ian Metcalfe (Professional Game Board Chairman)
Ben Kay MBE – (former England International & World Cup Winner)
Ian Watmore (ER2015 Board member, former Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office, former FA CEO and former Accenture Managing Director)
Sir Ian McGeechan OBE (former British & Irish Lions and Scotland Coach)

Hmm, two of that panel were also on the panel that appointed Lancaster.

And Sir Ian has already said we should keep Lancaster because no one better is available. This review is already a farce.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I've never seen much from Youngs at the breakdown GF tbh, I just think he's a good AP hooker.

He does a lot of clearing work

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I've never seen much from Youngs at the breakdown GF tbh

I'm not sure what your problem with that is? Sounds exactly like the typical English 7 to me

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34440468
This is not the only link that has these revenue values, yes they invest heavily on things like grassroots, facilities and staff. But they quite clearly have the money to obtain whomever they deem the best or in the least to try. Nationality or whether they apply for a job is irrelevant and I don't understand any argument about England RFU not being the wealthiest when it is commonly known, pundits/ex players always comment on it who and I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest they know more than you or I on this subject.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Poorfour wrote:RFU have announced the panel to review the RWC performance:

Ian Ritchie, RFU CEO and Panel Chairman
Ian Metcalfe (Professional Game Board Chairman)
Ben Kay MBE – (former England International & World Cup Winner)
Ian Watmore (ER2015 Board member, former Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office, former FA CEO and former Accenture Managing Director)
Sir Ian McGeechan OBE (former British & Irish Lions and Scotland Coach)

Hmm, two of that panel were also on the panel that appointed Lancaster.

And Sir Ian has already said we should keep Lancaster because no one better is available. This review is already a farce.  

Same boys looking after each other; amazed actually that Rob Andrew isn't there. But Mcgeechan is so out of touch with the modern game, he was appalling at Bath and took them back years. Why he is going to have an influence on the future of English game is crazy and he was on the last super successful review. Ben Kay does talk sense so happy with that if somewhat worried with his stability is key comments.

Student-A1 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34440468
This is not the only link that has these revenue values, yes they invest heavily on things like grassroots, facilities and staff. But they quite clearly have the money to obtain whomever they deem the best or in the least to try. Nationality or whether they apply for a job is irrelevant and I don't understand any argument about England RFU not being the wealthiest when it is commonly known, pundits/ex players always comment on it who and I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest they know more than you or I on this subject.

I've not seen any proof to suggest that they're the richest RFU and we have no idea what they spend the money on.

You could that we've had the best U20 in the world over the last 3/4 years so something is obviously working. Perhaps that talent hasn't just fully matured through yet.

Even if we are the richest, what does that mean? If the talent isn't there you can't do anything.

Who was a better English option when SL took over?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34440468
This is not the only link that has these revenue values, yes they invest heavily on things like grassroots, facilities and staff. But they quite clearly have the money to obtain whomever they deem the best or in the least to try. Nationality or whether they apply for a job is irrelevant and I don't understand any argument about England RFU not being the wealthiest when it is commonly known, pundits/ex players always comment on it who and I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest they know more than you or I on this subject.

I've not seen any proof to suggest that they're the richest RFU and we have no idea what they spend the money on.

You could that we've had the best U20 in the world over the last 3/4 years so something is obviously working. Perhaps that talent hasn't just fully matured through yet.

Even if we are the richest, what does that mean? If the talent isn't there you can't do anything.

Who was a better English option when SL took over?

Never said they didn't do well in youth investment but that comes from far bigger pot of money as anyone else and I agree it is an excellent achievement with players now coming through. I made zero points on the youth game purely that the RFU have no reason to not aggressively go after the best coach with an offer they would struggle to refuse. I do think to some extent there is the talent but it needs a better coach/coach team and management structure.

I also wasn't ever saying that an English coach should be hired as I don't think anyone is ready yet Mallinder or Ford in 4 years maybe. But of the coaches more qualified than Lancaster I would say Mallinder, Cockerill and Dean Ryan are all far more qualified than Lancaster was and would have been better fits but would not have been my first choice at the time a foreign coach would have.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I've never seen much from Youngs at the breakdown GF tbh

I'm not sure what your problem with that is? Sounds exactly like the typical English 7 to me

To be fair to Youngs many times for Leicester and England he is excellent at the breakdown but his play around the field has never been in doubt. However being weak in the scrum and dreadful in the lineout even more so when pressure comes on. It's not like this was not known, he has come on before and turned a 100% lineout into a game losing one. If a kicker had had the nightmares Youngs had they would have been dropped and someone else tried. Cowan Dickie is a worry too as he is by far the ost talented hooker we have but its just his lineout. Can he fix it?? Fingers crossed.

Lancaster too failed dreadfully in blooding players bar his first few games. If England hadn't had all the centres injured this last year then Joseph would not have played even though he should have been starting a year earlier. Fat boy George (wish he would get fitter fat is dead weight you don't need to carry) should have been given a run at some point IMHO as became the best of a bad bunch at the World cup

Biggest failure in a RWC for England and there are calls to keep Lancaster? Personally I find that baffling. I guess if you aren't English you would want Lancaster to stay.

Poorfour doesn't surprise me that a Kiwi wants England to keep Lancaster. Course they would!

That would keep England from improving.

It's not a knee jerk reaction to want better coaches than Lancaster and co.

Why stick with mediocrity when you have the potential to attract some of the best coaches in the world?

If something is broken you have to try and fix it.

Student A1 they might be more qualified than Lancaster but I wouldn't want any of those 3 near the England job at the moment.

The problem is the longer the RFU drag their heels, the less time they'll have to attract someone like Eddie Jones or Wayne Smith.

beshocked wrote: Biggest failure in a RWC for England and there are calls to keep Lancaster? Personally I find that baffling. I guess if you aren't English you would want Lancaster to stay.

Poorfour doesn't surprise me that a Kiwi wants England to keep Lancaster. Course they would!

That would keep England from improving.

It's not a knee jerk reaction to want better coaches than Lancaster and co.

Why stick with mediocrity when you have the potential to attract some of the best coaches in the world?

If something is broken you have to try and fix it.

Student A1 they might be more qualified than Lancaster but I wouldn't want any of those 3 near the England job at the moment.

The problem is the longer the RFU drag their heels, the less time they'll have to attract someone like Eddie Jones or Wayne Smith.

beshocked I don't want any of them either I was asked to name better English alternatives at the time of Lancasters appointment and I did. I didn't want them then and I certainly don't want them now they are just superior to Lancaster. Would be happy with either or both the two names you mentioned.

Student A1 you talk about Jamie George's fat but for a big boy, he's pretty pacy. Just ask Eastmond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W0NNe5fK3g

Agree with you about T.Youngs.

beshocked wrote:Student A1 you talk about Jamie George's fat but for a big boy, he's pretty pacy. Just ask Eastmond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W0NNe5fK3g

Agree with you about T.Youngs.

Agree he is amazingly talented but he is carrying too much dead weight, I think he could be seriously great has all the core skills. If he gets the body fat percentage down he will become Englands No.1 comfortably but its a big if as he has had years as a pro now.

Sometimes a failure is not down to the coach but in this case it is. Poor selection for which he is responsible cost England. IMO he bottled it against Wales selecting a team that was too defensive and devoid of attacking threat.
Lack of a 7 was also a big error
The team did not look like they bought into lancasters tactics - for that he has to go. Reminds me a bit of Haddon for Scotland. Came in, did some good stuff but his limitations were exposed badly.

I think I am one of the few people who think the RFU should stick with English coaches because I don't like the idea of moving away from our identity, something I would say we have been guilty of over the past year.

A strong England team has always been built on the foundations of a strong pack, strong set piece to secure our own ball and a strong kicking game. 10 man rugby if you will. However in the past we have been guilty of never having, or selecting, the backs to make best use of the platform they have against the best teams (2003 as an exception).

What England need is a top English Forwards coach who has the remit to build a pack to dominate every aspect of forward play. Basically win the game up front first. That means securing our own ball of set piece and challenging effectively on the opposition put in. Not just scrums and lineouts, but the maul and restarts, ours and theirs. From that we control the territory. That means a tight 5 designed around the set piece FIRST. Add onto that a traditionally balanced back 5 of the pack and we have the platform from which success can be built.

England then need a top English Backs coach to address the balance of the backline and how to best use the platform the pack are providing. We have some genuinely fast and elusive wingers available to us who we know can perform on the international stage. Add to that some dangerous running threats in the midfield through Joseph and Tuilagi and we are almost there. What we are missing though is control around the park. England seem to think they can rely solely on the two half backs to create and manage the game, and whilst you are on the front foot against tier 2 and 3 teams that's fine, but you need more control to challenge the bigger teams. We have to get away from this obsession with having a defensive ballast in there to cover our attacking threats.

But to have all this is nothing without the right team "culture", and no that's not a WUM. Its pointless selecting the right players if you are not giving them the right environment to play. Its on that basis alone I would go English, and also why I would stick with Lancaster as head coach (queue criticism). I would sack the remaining coaching staff though. Lancaster has many faults, chief of which WAS his inexperience at international level and as such his over reliance on his inexperienced coaching staff. We stuck with Woodward after 1999 and look how that turned out. Give Lancaster the best forward coach and backs coach in England and let them get on with it.

Student-A1 wrote:Lancaster too failed dreadfully in blooding players bar his first few games. If England hadn't had all the centres injured this last year then Joseph would not have played even though he should have been starting a year earlier. Fat boy George (wish he would get fitter fat is dead weight you don't need to carry) should have been given a run at some point IMHO as became the best of a bad bunch at the World cup

Joseph first played for england, under Lancaster, in summer of 2012. He had a pretty shocking 2012/13 season with London Irish, and a poor start to 2013/14 with Bath. Mike Ford was rather scathing at the time of his readiness for international rugby. He did settle though and his form at the start of 2014/15 saw him in the team - facilitated by injuries but his form had not been good enough to feature any earlier.

(Though quite why Joel Tomkins got some starts in the AIs lord alone knows - guess that was a Saracens/Farrell thing.)



As to George - when should he have been given a run in the team?. When the 2015 6Ns started he had been a starter for Saracens for about 1/3rd of a season and was 5th in the pecking order - at best.

Tomkins got his chance as pretty much everyone else was injured including Joseph at the time. I still think Lancaster has given players a chance.

Student-A1 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Student A1 you talk about Jamie George's fat but for a big boy, he's pretty pacy. Just ask Eastmond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W0NNe5fK3g

Agree with you about T.Youngs.

Agree he is amazingly talented but he is carrying too much dead weight, I think he could be seriously great has all the core skills. If he gets the body fat percentage down he will become Englands  No.1 comfortably but its a big if as he has had years as a pro now.

But maybe hes at the best bodyweight for him. Maybe if he loses more he'll become less effective.

The lad is fine and improving and a pleasant look back to the old school rugby boys...

Imagine him and Davy Wilson at 2 & 3. Now that wont get driven backwards!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Tomkins got his chance as pretty much everyone else was injured including Joseph at the time. I still think Lancaster has given players a chance.

I reckon someone must have been fit, somewhere

People do though have very rose tinted specs when they think about who coaches should have selected.

They forget that players were injured or out of form.

They forget that players were only just establishing themselves in their club side.

They forget that there just are not enough games to give every single player a go.

But most of all we all think that we know best. That our view is the only one that is correct - despite the fact that we do not watch every match picking through it with a fine toothcomb, that we do not see the players at close quarters and can make valid direct comparisons.

None of us on here are the all encompassing experts we think we are, and none of us would have done a better job.

Well apart from Beshocked as he is a demigod.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Tomkins got his chance as pretty much everyone else was injured including Joseph at the time. I still think Lancaster has given players a chance.

They forget that players were injured or out of form.

They forget that players were only just establishing themselves in their club side.

They forget that there just are not enough games to give every single player a go.
.

That's very true mate. We do have our favourites which does create a little bias, and I think Lancaster has been very unlucky with a number of players being permanently injured (Corbs and Manu) and lots out of form.

I guess the issue is we all have different of the tactics we want...and thus which players we'd choose.

Ie Some want to revert to a more dominant pack.
Some want to continue working towards a free flowing game.

Personally I want the happy mix. We need to improve our pack - its way to weak, but we have have some serious backs coming through and we need to use them.

We do have the players to play whatever style we want. I keep reading English players lack skills; rubbish in my opinion. What we lacked particularly at this world cup was picking the right players with the right skills for the type of game we deceided to play.

Londontiger No I am not a demigod. I do get things wrong - this RWC has particularly shown that - I thought England would have beaten Wales if ahead with 20 minutes to go - wrong, thought SA would beat Japan - like most people, thought Australia would hammer Scotland. Thought France would beat Ireland - a very bad prediction indeed.

As for rose tinted specs? To a degree sure but I want the best for England. Yes I advocate Saracens players more than any other but I still wanted to see the likes of Ksevic,Nowell and Slade feature more in the RWC and warm ups.

You can't give every player a go I agree. It's about identifying the right players to give game time to and when.

In the case of Jamie George I believe he should have had a lot more gametime in both the RWC warm ups and RWC. He started every single game in the AP and ERCC, something you couldn't accuse Rob Webber of doing for example.

My argument - Hartley was injured. Webber had a very poor club season and is mostly unproven at international level - just look at his lack of starts. That meant that George should have been given the opportunity. It's not hindsight.

Oh and George fits neither of those two comments of yours.

Whilst we are on it - I would have tried out Ksevic instead of Clark. Again something I said before the RWC disaster.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We do have the players to play whatever style we want. I keep reading English players lack skills; rubbish in my opinion. What we lacked particularly at this world cup was picking the right players with the right skills for the type of game we deceided to play.

Spot on. I agree 100% with that.

Sometimes it comes down to the coaches just thinking Webber was the safer bet (less risk though less potential) and Clark fits more in the style of flanker he's after and still a good player in his own right.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sometimes it comes down to the coaches just thinking Webber was the safer bet (less risk though less potential) and Clark fits more in the style of flanker he's after and still a good player in his own right.

We all know how that went.....

Two poor decisions by sub par coaches.

fair enough. Neither mattered overall though.

Looking at the review panel do you think Woodward isn't there as they'll be looking at him for this missing Director of Rugby role?

Do we need a director of rugby though.

All we need is a head coach and coaches who pick a set of tactics...A and B (when A is not working) and pick the right players for them.

Its not rocket science...and I really don't get why a full panel needs to be done. And how much will that cost...each one will be getting a nice little lumper!!

No 7&1/2 wrote:fair enough. Neither mattered overall though.

Looking at the review panel do you think Woodward isn't there as they'll be looking at him for this missing Director of Rugby role?

No. Woodward is not there as:

A) He is an antagonistic dickwad who would not work well with a panel
B) He refuses to have anything to do with the RFU so long a Squeaky is employed

In fact I can tell you what we need for plan A

1)Big powerful scrummaging specialists. And a large hooker with core skills!
2) One bruising lock who can jump at 2, one athletic guy and lineout caller who can jump everywhere.
3) A back row that is mobile, HAS PACE and great breakdown work and tackle all day long.
And we need around 4-5 good carriers amongst them aswell.

Backs
Finally sort that flaming 12 spot out!!!

The rest is coming on nicely...

Can I have the job now.