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.

Depends on what it entails doesns't it. If it means the head coach doesn't have to deal with x y and z and it enables him to get on with the job at hand more effectively I don't mind. Just struck me as even if he does like to mention he won the world cup once quite a bit he did have strategically good ideas and strong organisational skills. I was expecting him to be on the panel to be honest. The Director of Rugby thing has come up a few times in the press; probably added 2 and 2 and getting 3 though.

Ha. Fair enough LT!

In isolation no but when you add up all the mistakes by Lancaster and co, it doesn't look good. To be fair to Lancaster we don't know how big the input the other coaches had in selection.

Fair point about Woodward. Probably going to happen. Will also allow Woodward to get a nice fat paycheque from the RFU too.

The big mistake abandoning his set game plan exactly as Johnson did 4 years earlier.

Will Lancaster have learnt from these mistakes??

And will he learn that you still need a few specialists in there...that the rugby league style all rounder is good...but doesn't fit every spot.

And that you need more than 2 carriers in your pack.

And you set piece HAS to be spot on....

That 2 lightweight locks behind a lightweight front row....wont work.

There was a reason that the front row and second rows all lost weight in the last 3/4 years.

Dan Cole and Dave Attwood were both 10kgs lighter this season than aroung the 2011 WC.

To understand why we have to look at how England choose to play vs say Saracens.


Saracens expect their players to do less running away from primary attacking or defensive duties than England. So after a scrum on one side of the pitch say that moves to the other side:

England expect the back row and second row to get all the way across the pitch and be around the breakdown. They expect the front row to make their way over and act as defenders around the fringe and on the FHs shoulder.

Saracens however expect only the first forwards up to track all the way across, and leave forwards, front row especially on the side of the pitch they already were, while the rest of the pack stagger their way across the field. This means they will have less running to do but also will mean you have forwards defending in midfield on opposition ball or being in the attacking line of own ball. It does mean that should the ball get back to the original side of the pitch players like George are there to carry or compete at breakdown having had a breather.


Now either way can be effective and both ways have flaws. Thing is a player like George is fit enough to play the Sarries way - but the extra paddinghe is carrying means he struggles with the England style. Having run across the pitch to assume the desired attacking or defensive position he is still heaving for breath and this affects him at the following set piece.

In the contested training session I saw it was marked just how quickly his setpiece effectiveness was dropping.


Personally I do feel that we lost the Englishness of our team by getting the front five all to lose weight and play the style they did - however having chosen that style it did mean that players needed a higher level of cardio fitness and better recovery times than they need in the AP.

Very good analysis LT, and I agree we have lost our Englishness.

Personally id prefer a bit more beef in there.

Who ever is chosen I hope it is no-one with experience coaching IN Europe in the last 5 years. Definitely don't need some-one who thinks the European game is in great shape atm. All the English coaches mentioned are the ones who think the way to win is trundle the ball forward, through a couple of phases then kick the ball away and trundle up in a defensive line and hope the opposition make a mistake as they trundle it back. the only English coach who has a bit of sense about creating space and lines was Ford at Bath last season. Whether being beaten by sarries in the final changes the way they play this season will be interesting.

As for Gatland and Edwards, they have been very successful at winning the European way, but have a poorer record against Aus-NZ-SA than Lancaster. FGS they couldn't even coach a team to play what was in front of them when down to 13.

It looks bad at the moment but

England - Went out because they changed the tactics just before the WC but not the personnel

Wales - Injuries were horrific. And they still pushed the SA's close

Ireland - A few injuries and probably just caught Argentina on an amazing day

Scotland - There was no difference between them and Australia.

LondonTiger wrote:There was a reason that the front row and second rows all lost weight in the last 3/4 years.

Dan Cole and Dave Attwood were both 10kgs lighter this season than aroung the 2011 WC.

To understand why we have to look at how England choose to play vs say Saracens.


Saracens expect their players to do less running away from primary attacking or defensive duties than England. So after a scrum on one side of the pitch say that moves to the other side:

England expect the back row and second row to get all the way across the pitch and be around the breakdown. They expect the front row to make their way over and act as defenders around the fringe and on the FHs shoulder.

Saracens however expect only the first forwards up to track all the way across, and leave forwards, front row especially on the side of the pitch they already were, while the rest of the pack stagger their way across the field. This means they will have less running to do but also will mean you have forwards defending in midfield on opposition ball or being in the attacking line of own ball. It does mean that should the ball get back to the original side of the pitch players like George are there to carry or compete at breakdown having had a breather.


Now either way can be effective and both ways have flaws. Thing is a player like George is fit enough to play the Sarries way - but the extra paddinghe is carrying means he struggles with the England style. Having run across the pitch to assume the desired attacking or defensive position he is still heaving for breath and this affects him at the following set piece.

In the contested training session I saw it was marked just how quickly his setpiece effectiveness was dropping.


Personally I do feel that we lost the Englishness of our team by getting the front five all to lose weight and play the style they did - however having chosen that style it did mean that players needed a higher level of cardio fitness and better recovery times than they need in the AP.

That's really interesting to read LT.

Would you say the weight loss, and more aerobic training has also lead to our players losing power in the contact area too? They seem good for lots of motion over a long period, but struggle to find that explosive power need to blast through the opposition, hence why the rucking technique is so poor as they can't physically smash players off the ruck so have to try to wrestle/slide the defender out the way.

I believe they have lost power in the desire for aerobic fitness. I also believe that the physical conditioning was such that they could have gone for a 5 mile run at the end of the game and been fine, but ask them to do a serties of back to back physical collision style exertions and they would have been kaput.

Of course there will be Conditioning Experts who claim that the england team were at their peak, while others will disagree.


Most clubs in the AP have in the last couple of years taken active strides to speed up how they play. My gut feel is that too many of the players throughout the league are now running fit and gym fit - but just maybe not rugby fit.

The thing with playing a high tempo game is that the entire team need to be comfortable with ball in hand - and they are not. We do not have hookers who handle like Dane Coles (not even the former centres) nor Agustin Creevey. you would never mistake our second rows or back row for backs when they are in possession of the ball.

What we have done is take a player like Dan Cole who was on the verge of World Class at one point, gotten him to lose 10kg in weight and eroded the parts of his game - scrummaging, breakdown, fringe tackling - and asked him to become a perpetual motion dynamo.

We have seen the results.

We tried to play faster - we needed to play smarter.

I was just looking back over some old news articles on Lancaster and found this piece on his contract extension from the Telegraph:

The new deals will give Lancaster and his coaching team both a massive confidence boost and peace of mind that their employers are not solely fixed with the narrow focus of the result of the next game.

Lancaster is now more likely to feel he can take any risks he needs to win the World Cup with the knowledge that, just as the New Zealand Rugby Union did in 2007 when they retained Graham Henry after their quarter-final exit to France, that he will have another crack at winning it four years later.

To offer the same extension to his coaching team is also a smart move, as it retains a sense of unity within the group. One for all, etc.

Of course if England fail to get out of a pool next year that includes Wales and Australia, Lancaster’s position could come under such intense scrutiny that his position could yet become untenable.

Ireland got their fingers burnt when they offered Eddie O’Sullivan a new four-year extension just before the 2007 World Cup only for their golden generation to fail to qualify for the knockout stages.

The worst case scenario is that the RFU would have to cough up a hefty compensation package but the world’s most financially strong union is more than capable of affording this even if there is no break-clause in the new deal.

Ritchie is likely to see such costs as an acceptable potential risk given the potential upsides of backing Lancaster and his team to the hilt for the next two World Cup campaigns.

The risks and Lancaster has taken himself since taking charge and the progress made has earned him that right. Now his England must deliver.

Interesting to see what comes of the review, and how prophetic this article was.

Still reckon we will see Lancaster moved to effectively the DOR position with a new Head Coach brought in. No Rob Andrew on the panel makes that more possible - as a DoR would be impinging on his job.

I don't get this mobility thing SL is so keen on (well not the way he coaches it anyway). So the players can now run around a bit more, a bit faster. But where are they all going? If it's to the breakdown, then they might as well not have bothered as they have little effect. If it's to the defensive line, then England seem to play a narrow defence, and aren't up to the defence of say Wales or Aus anyway. I thought running around after the ball was a schoolboy rugby thing.

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.

yeah because the answer is that simple, lets just keep kicking out the coach as soon as they fail. Lets make it just like the football. There are fair to many variables to make it that simple.

yappysnap wrote:I was just looking back over some old news articles on Lancaster and found this piece on his contract extension from the Telegraph:

The new deals will give Lancaster and his coaching team both a massive confidence boost and peace of mind that their employers are not solely fixed with the narrow focus of the result of the next game.

Lancaster is now more likely to feel he can take any risks he needs to win the World Cup with the knowledge that, just as the New Zealand Rugby Union did in 2007 when they retained Graham Henry after their quarter-final exit to France, that he will have another crack at winning it four years later.

To offer the same extension to his coaching team is also a smart move, as it retains a sense of unity within the group. One for all, etc.

Of course if England fail to get out of a pool next year that includes Wales and Australia, Lancaster’s position could come under such intense scrutiny that his position could yet become untenable.

Ireland got their fingers burnt when they offered Eddie O’Sullivan a new four-year extension just before the 2007 World Cup only for their golden generation to fail to qualify for the knockout stages.

The worst case scenario is that the RFU would have to cough up a hefty compensation package but the world’s most financially strong union is more than capable of affording this even if there is no break-clause in the new deal.

Ritchie is likely to see such costs as an acceptable potential risk given the potential upsides of backing Lancaster and his team to the hilt for the next two World Cup campaigns.

The risks and Lancaster has taken himself since taking charge and the progress made has earned him that right. Now his England must deliver.

Interesting to see what comes of the review, and how prophetic this article was.

I do believe Lancaster said when he was appointed that he was aiming for 2019 and this year would be too soon. We still should of done better though so it's no excuse.

yappysnap wrote:I was just looking back over some old news articles on Lancaster and found this piece on his contract extension from the Telegraph:

The new deals will give Lancaster and his coaching team both a massive confidence boost and peace of mind that their employers are not solely fixed with the narrow focus of the result of the next game.

Lancaster is now more likely to feel he can take any risks he needs to win the World Cup with the knowledge that, just as the New Zealand Rugby Union did in 2007 when they retained Graham Henry after their quarter-final exit to France, that he will have another crack at winning it four years later.

To offer the same extension to his coaching team is also a smart move, as it retains a sense of unity within the group. One for all, etc.

Of course if England fail to get out of a pool next year that includes Wales and Australia, Lancaster’s position could come under such intense scrutiny that his position could yet become untenable.

Ireland got their fingers burnt when they offered Eddie O’Sullivan a new four-year extension just before the 2007 World Cup only for their golden generation to fail to qualify for the knockout stages.

The worst case scenario is that the RFU would have to cough up a hefty compensation package but the world’s most financially strong union is more than capable of affording this even if there is no break-clause in the new deal.

Ritchie is likely to see such costs as an acceptable potential risk given the potential upsides of backing Lancaster and his team to the hilt for the next two World Cup campaigns.

The risks and Lancaster has taken himself since taking charge and the progress made has earned him that right. Now his England must deliver.

Interesting to see what comes of the review, and how prophetic this article was.

What is interesting is the part about the contract extension allowing Lancaster to take risks, and giving him some freedom. If anything I thought England became more conservative, particularly with midfield picks of Farrell/Burgess/Barritt and the notion that Farrell could play at 12.

All this ‘SL can stay if he’s learnt from his mistakes’ is the very reason we’re in the trouble we are. Coaching England is not a work experience exercise. Let him get to level coaching a lower ranked side and come back when he’s proved himself there, and when he has a CV. See that bit is simple.

And if SL should learn from his mistakes why the hell shouldn’t the RFU – they’ve made the same mistake for 8 years (yes, I know they’ve been making mistakes for a lot longer than that, but this one is the same one!).

Dai Puckett is no longer Head coach at Glynneath RFC - having enjoyed unprecedented success I think he should be in the top 3 candidates in England's quest for a new coach

When was the last time that Lancaster did something really noteworthy? Pulled off a great selection that pundits et al didn't generally agree with or see coming?

If we were judge, jury and executioner and looking to come up with some positives re: Lancaster, what would they be?

Barney McGrew did it wrote:All this ‘SL can stay if he’s learnt from his mistakes’ is the very reason we’re in the trouble we are. Coaching England is not a work experience exercise. Let him get to level coaching a lower ranked side and come back when he’s proved himself there, and when he has a CV. See that bit is simple.

And if SL should learn from his mistakes why the hell shouldn’t the RFU – they’ve made the same mistake for 8 years (yes, I know they’ve been making mistakes for a lot longer than that, but this one is the same one!).

This is what gets me, So you want an experienced coach that hasnt made mistakes. I'm sorry but that doesn't exist.

Interesting....

LondonTiger wrote:

What we have done is take a player like Dan Cole who was on the verge of World Class at one point, gotten him to lose 10kg in weight and eroded the parts of his game - scrummaging, breakdown, fringe tackling - and asked him to become a perpetual motion dynamo.

We have seen the results.

We tried to play faster - we needed to play smarter.

You've said far better than me what I have been trying to say for the last 2 years about the whole pack!

That's a lot of players used. I wouldn't have guessed that Chris Ashton was his most used winger!

No, I want an experienced coach. I want inexperienced coaches to make their mistakes for teams other than England, and so become experienced coaches. And then they can be considered for the England job.

Do the players have confidence in Lancaster, changes of playing style + his lack of success in his CV and poor selections/substitutions

Barney McGrew did it wrote:No, I want an experienced coach. I want inexperienced coaches to make their mistakes for teams other than England, and so become experienced coaches. And then they can be considered for the England job.

But experience doesn't devoid a coach from making mistakes though, if an experienced coach makes mistakes will you be asking for them to be sacked.

That's an interesting list of players.

Robshaw has been beasted!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

What we have done is take a player like Dan Cole who was on the verge of World Class at one point, gotten him to lose 10kg in weight and eroded the parts of his game - scrummaging, breakdown, fringe tackling - and asked him to become a perpetual motion dynamo.

We have seen the results.

We tried to play faster - we needed to play smarter.

You've said far better than me what I have been trying to say for the last 2 years about the whole pack!

Ahh the sweet irony (or is it a paradox), given Cole spent all his time having a bit of a rest whilst leaning on the back of every ruck. He must be the most rested prop in the competition.

its not just this WC Barney...he's looked a shadow of himself for a while now.

GeordieFalcon wrote:its not just this WC Barney...he's looked a shadow of himself for a while now.

Wouldn't go that far, but his performances haven't been as good since his neck injury.

I don't think he's been great Nathan...

GeordieFalcon wrote:I don't think he's been great Nathan...

I didn't say he's been great, just not as bad as you make out. He's been poor since the warm up games but prior to that he wasn't bad.

Well...he's not nearly the player we expect of him.

Get him to put on the 10kg again and focus on the scrum..

Or get Davy Wilson to get over his injury and take the spot.

nathan wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:No, I want an experienced coach. I want inexperienced coaches to make their mistakes for teams other than England, and so become experienced coaches. And then they can be considered for the England job.

But experience doesn't devoid a coach from making mistakes though, if an experienced coach makes mistakes will you be asking for them to be sacked.

Of course - but at least they'd have had a fighting chance. Right now we have an inexperienced coach that makes mistakes - and he's made a pig's ear of his chance.

Apparently on the summer tour to NZ journalists could hear the coaches ripping Attwood apart in their conference room. The gist was that he was too heavy and not covering enough ground etc. Attwood's response was that he thought he should be the team's enforcer and boss the central 5-10m corridor as well as the gain line. That did not compute well on the laptops. And fairplay that he did then lose all that weight.....only to lose out to Parling

hugehandoff wrote:Apparently on the summer tour to NZ journalists could hear the coaches ripping Attwood apart in their conference room. The gist was that he was too heavy and not covering enough ground etc. Attwood's response was that he thought he should be the team's enforcer and boss the central 5-10m corridor as well as the gain line. That did not compute well on the laptops. And fairplay that he did then lose all that weight.....only to lose out to Parling

sounds like a load of Love sacks to me, words such as "apparently" and "NZ Journalists".

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

nathan wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:No, I want an experienced coach. I want inexperienced coaches to make their mistakes for teams other than England, and so become experienced coaches. And then they can be considered for the England job.

But experience doesn't devoid a coach from making mistakes though, if an experienced coach makes mistakes will you be asking for them to be sacked.

Of course - but at least they'd have had a fighting chance. Right now we have an inexperienced coach that makes mistakes - and he's made a pig's ear of his chance.

a fighting chance? like when? when have we had an experienced coach that has gone on to great things? There's only SCW and he went through what Lancaster is going through now.

People on here seem to think dropping Lancaster will automatically make us world beaters, it won't. It will set us back again and then we'll be in the same situation come 2019.

I think Lancaster should stay, but i think the coaches need to be looked at.

Nathan no it won't automatically make England world beaters but it means that England can have a fresh start with a new coach and his group of coaches. Instead of sticking with a coach who has failed again and yet again has not learnt from his mistakes.

beshocked wrote:Nathan no it won't automatically make England world beaters but it means that England can have a fresh start with a new coach and his group of coaches. Instead of sticking with a coach who has failed again and yet again has not learnt from his mistakes.

Where have i heard those words before!

What other mistakes has he made? Bear in mind we have a huge amount of average players.

There is a tendency for folks on here to whine that he hasn't picked a certain player, when that player is picked and has a crap game (all players have these), those same people whine at Lancaster for choosing said player.

It's just not as black and white as people seem to think.

nathan wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:Apparently on the summer tour to NZ journalists could hear the coaches ripping Attwood apart in their conference room. The gist was that he was too heavy and not covering enough ground etc. Attwood's response was that he thought he should be the team's enforcer and boss the central 5-10m corridor as well as the gain line. That did not compute well on the laptops. And fairplay that he did then lose all that weight.....only to lose out to Parling

sounds like a load of Love sacks to me, words such as "apparently" and "NZ Journalists".

It's true, Attwood was told to lose bulk by the coaches. It's also true that journalists heard the coaches putting a rocket up his arse on the NZ tour. I think even with the weight loss Lawes and Kruis are more suited to the game plan SL wants.

Well if that is true and not lovesacks then maybe I have done Attwood a disservice saying he didn't bring his game to the level....if he's been forced to play a different style.

But there's so much talk floating around we just don't know what the crack is.

I was all for sacking SCW after his first RWC. I still don't rate him and believe he was pretty lucky to have such a good group of players at that time. To a large degree being picked for England is a result of how well you play for your club. Its not the England coaches job to make good players. They should already be good when they rock up. Game plan and selection is the coaches main job along with some fine tuning of skills and fitness. I think they have been guilty collectively of failing to select properly and to develop winning game plans. They clearly are not good enough this time around but will they be good enough next time after 8 years of being in the job? SCW did it but he just lucky with players. SL should stay. The AP should provide players that can play faster, for longer and make good decisions. Then SL will be 'lucky' with players just like SCW was.

Hey look a new poster!!!

Welcome to the forum buddy!

Also, Robin McBryde's contract is almost up, would the RFU want him? Please say yes...

mikey_dragon wrote:Welcome to the forum buddy!

Also, Robin McBryde's contract is almost up, would the RFU want him? Please say yes...

Too late Scott Johnson is already being lined up alongside Dai Puckett from Glynneath RFC

LondonTiger wrote:I believe they have lost power in the desire for aerobic fitness. I also believe that the physical conditioning was such that they could have gone for a 5 mile run at the end of the game and been fine, but ask them to do a serties of back to back physical collision style exertions and they would have been kaput.

Of course there will be Conditioning Experts who claim that the england team were at their peak, while others will disagree.


Most clubs in the AP have in the last couple of years taken active strides to speed up how they play. My gut feel is that too many of the players throughout the league are now running fit and gym fit - but just maybe not rugby fit.

The thing with playing a high tempo game is that the entire team need to be comfortable with ball in hand - and they are not. We do not have hookers who handle like Dane Coles (not even the former centres) nor Agustin Creevey. you would never mistake our second rows or back row for backs when they are in possession of the ball.

What we have done is take a player like Dan Cole who was on the verge of World Class at one point, gotten him to lose 10kg in weight and eroded the parts of his game - scrummaging, breakdown, fringe tackling - and asked him to become a perpetual motion dynamo.

We have seen the results.

We tried to play faster - we needed to play smarter.

So are you suggesting that the way for England to improve is to make the forwards less mobile? If so that seems a very unlikely way for any future England coach to go. England didn't lose the breakdown because our forwards are to small. And do Sarries really just allow their forwards to take a breather on the wing all game and hope the play eventually comes back to them? I reckon teams would get pretty adept at exploiting that if it were true.

Out of interest, is there any evidence that England have an unusually small pack, that our props are much smaller than other leading nations' etc?

I think the main point about Lancaster is that he initially moved England forward (by bringing in a number of Saxon players), but then reached a plateau from which perhaps in the last 12 months we have slightly slipped back.  The backs have progressed but the forwards have stagnated or gone backwards.

The real issue is who can take England from the plateau and up the hill.  This might still be Lancaster but its seems that his approach was based on a certain style (mobile pack, etc.) which did not seem particularly effective.

Maybe there is a need for a change of approach/style more than a change of coach.

Whichever way it goes should he stay or go the coaching team needs freshening. Couple of new faces and some new ideas and challenges.