Who should be next England coach

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!).

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

DaveM wrote:

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?

nathan wrote:

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 wrote:

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:

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.

LondonTiger wrote:I'm a little teapot, short and stout,
Here's my handle. here's my spout

beshocked wrote:Londontiger I don't think you are acting like a little child. I think you've made some very good points on this thread. I don't agree with everything but I rarely agree with anyone for long!

The future of English rugby is a big topic, particularly for us who have been following the game passionately as us.

Not going to deny I am one of the most stubborn posters on here and have very strong opinions on a lot of topics!

Does that make me a little child? Entitled to believe that if you want but I have a strong belief that the direction I think English rugby needs to go in is the right one.

England have tried the inexperienced coach twice in a row now. Johnson and Lancaster haven't been as bad as I have made out, for inexperienced coaches they could have been worse but as other posters have said - the England job isn't a place to learn.

Club rugby and assistant roles in weaker sides are the places to learn. This is why I want to see a structure where we have an experienced SH coach like Eddie Jones but with English lieutenants.

English lieutenants who can learn and grow as coaches. English lieutenants who have proven themselves at club level.

I am not the only poster who wants this either.

I want the best coaches for England. RFU have money to attract the best - why not use it?

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Londontiger I don't think you are acting like a little child. I think you've made some very good points on this thread. I don't agree with everything but I rarely agree with anyone for long!

The future of English rugby is a big topic, particularly for us who have been following the game passionately as us.

Not going to deny I am one of the most stubborn posters on here and have very strong opinions on a lot of topics!

Does that make me a little child? Entitled to believe that if you want but I have a strong belief that the direction I think English rugby needs to go in is the right one.

England have tried the inexperienced coach twice in a row now. Johnson and Lancaster haven't been as bad as I have made out, for inexperienced coaches they could have been worse but as other posters have said - the England job isn't a place to learn.

Club rugby and assistant roles in weaker sides are the places to learn. This is why I want to see a structure where we have an experienced SH coach like Eddie Jones but with English lieutenants.

English lieutenants who can learn and grow as coaches. English lieutenants who have proven themselves at club level.

I am not the only poster who wants this either.

I want the best coaches for England. RFU have money to attract the best - why not use it?

That is the best idea. A top 5 global coach with domestic assistants with the eye in say 5-6 years of taking over.

majesticimperialman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Londontiger I don't think you are acting like a little child. I think you've made some very good points on this thread. I don't agree with everything but I rarely agree with anyone for long!

The future of English rugby is a big topic, particularly for us who have been following the game passionately as us.

Not going to deny I am one of the most stubborn posters on here and have very strong opinions on a lot of topics!

Does that make me a little child? Entitled to believe that if you want but I have a strong belief that the direction I think English rugby needs to go in is the right one.

England have tried the inexperienced coach twice in a row now. Johnson and Lancaster haven't been as bad as I have made out, for inexperienced coaches they could have been worse but as other posters have said - the England job isn't a place to learn.

Club rugby and assistant roles in weaker sides are the places to learn. This is why I want to see a structure where we have an experienced SH coach like Eddie Jones but with English lieutenants.

English lieutenants who can learn and grow as coaches. English lieutenants who have proven themselves at club level.

I am not the only poster who wants this either.

I want the best coaches for England. RFU have money to attract the best - why not use it?

That is the best idea. A top 5 global coach with domestic assistants with the eye in say 5-6 years of taking over.

This idea sounds so simple, makes you wonder why the RFU did not think about it before now.

king_carlos wrote:

After how poor our forwards were at the world cup you would expect Rowntree to be for the chop. If however the review process reveals that he was against the 'powering down' of the forwards at his disposal then maybe the new coach will look to keep him on the basis that he was previously well respected. .

The bottom line is that you cannot go into a World Cup with a defensive mindset. You must have a strong defence and a potent attack

beshocked wrote:Geordiefalcon

Alex King would be the backs coach I would want if we are going the English route. If the foreign route then of course Wayne Smith.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

After how poor our forwards were at the world cup you would expect Rowntree to be for the chop. If however the review process reveals that he was against the 'powering down' of the forwards at his disposal then maybe the new coach will look to keep him on the basis that he was previously well respected. .

Im sure I read the link on here with Rowntree saying more mobility was the way forward (from July 2015)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11718000/England-hope-to-play-quick-World-Cup-game-with-trim-conditioned-pack-says-Rowntree.html


Loved this comment:

The bottom line is that you cannot go into a World Cup with a defensive mindset. You must have a strong defence and a potent attack

Kind of goes against what happened!

beshocked wrote:King carlos

Let's say that hypothetically Eddie Jones comes in, it's likely he'll want Steve Borthwick because he's worked with him before plus of course he's English. That could work in our favour. Now I know he's not exactly an experienced coach but they must get on well and their work with Japan speaks for itself.

Though saying that I agree with you your general idea.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Oh yes I appreciate that...just showing that theres a definite move to pure mobility...

Which im not 100% happy with.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Is Mallinder right for the Job?

Rugby World Cup 2015:
Coaches at boiling point - how they react to pressure can affect outcome of game
5:00 AM Thursday Oct 22, 2015

A top sports psychologist says how coaches deal with pressure is critical to team performance, especially in the lead-up to big sporting events such as a Rugby World Cup semifinal.

Dr Gary Hermansson, psychologist with the New Zealand Olympic team, said how coaches reacted to pressure came down to personality. This, he said, could have a big influence on players.

All Blacks coach Steve Hansen and Springboks coach Heyneke Meyer were examples of very different personalities.

"Steve Hansen seems to be much more stoic and matter-of-fact, and I guess the other advantage for him is that he's functioning within a team that's been consistently doing well," Dr Hermansson said.

Meyer, meanwhile, was known for dramatically expressing himself.

Dr Hermansson said it was highly unlikely that Meyer's "out there, passionate, desperate intensity", often seen in the coaching box, would be found in the dressing room or private team environment. He said in the leadup to a game, Meyer might well be calm, contained and constructive.

"Nevertheless, there is potential for leakage," Dr Hermansson said. "If that's his passion, if the significance of the occasion is of that great order, then you're going to find some leakage and the players may have to deal with the coach ... under pressure."

As for Meyer's emotions last weekend in South Africa's late win over Wales, Dr Hermansson said they were likely influenced by his side's Japanese upset earlier in the tournament.

"I think he had to step up and apologise to the nation and face the humiliation and take the responsibility for that. That meant the significance of their last game was much more critical for them because it was not only advancing, it was also restoring some sense of credibility."

Dr Hermansson has been in his role for New Zealand Olympic and Commonwealth Games teams since 1998. He has also worked with the Black Caps, several rugby teams and coaches. He said coaches were critical when it came to the mental state of their players.

"In the dressing room and in the preparation stages, how the coaches handle that pressure flows on to the players as well. If you get a coach who gets over-anxious - both in the language that they use but also the attitude they convey - it can heighten the tension of the players and can add to the pressure about the importance of the outcome."

The man in charge of making sure the All Blacks and their coaching team cope with this kind of pressure is Gilbert Enoka.

Dr Hermansson said Enoka, the All Blacks' mental skills coach, had been around a long time and had been through a lot with the All Blacks over the years.

"And he has been looking for ways to deal with the pressure and this time around they've seemed to have gone in with the deliberate strategy of being able to say, 'We're embracing the pressure, we're looking at it as part of the deal'. Whereas, in the past, they've tried to minimise the pressure ... and Gilbert's a pretty astute fellow and he's very good in particular with team and organisational dynamics."

Dr Hermansson said while last weekend's game was clearly a significant indication of the All Blacks' ability, as each game becomes more critical, the pressure will become greater. "Ultimately, for all coaches, the critical challenge for them is how do they manage their own anxiety levels and how they do that is indicative often of how the team will perform."

- NZ Herald

Rugby Fan wrote:Most of the thinking I'm seeing on coaches seems very backward-looking. There are lost of calls for the RFU to "get the best" with all England's resources but I'm unconvinced we know what the best is.

Let's take Graham Henry as an example, although I know no-one is seriously putting his name forward right now. He has a World Cup, and unrivalled global experience but also a failed Lions tour, an acrimonious end to his career at Wales, and the earliest World Cup exit by an All Blacks team to his name. Which Graham Henry would we see?

I don't doubt that some of the international coaches being mentioned have significant achievements in the game but we have no guarantee this experience can transfer seamlessly to other posts. Eddie Jones is a popular pick after his time with Japan but I can't recall anyone wanting to give him the England top job before then. We are in danger of selecting the flavour of the month, rather than trying to decided whether someone has the qualities to help England succeed.

I see the same knee-jerk response in claims that only an experienced overseas coach will do for England. Has no-one been watching Argentina? I can't recall Daniel Hourcade being tipped as a top international prospect, and yet Argentina have shown some classy moves in this tournament. His assistant coach is Pablo Bouza, who used to play for Leeds under Stuart Lancaster. Perhaps that's where it all comes from.

Meanwhile, over in Australia, Mario Ledesma is winning plaudits for his work with the Wallaby scrum.

While we are flagellating ourselves in the North for not having structures to produce coaches to rival New Zealand, we might want to stop and consider how Argentina have apparently managed to do just that. I don't buy the argument that Hourcade has come good because of two years experience in the Rugby Championship.

Another popular idea mentioned above is to set an experienced overseas guru at the head of a team of Englishmen, so they can be brought through to take the top post from him.

There's a problem with this. Firstly, when a coach fails, it's pretty common to see his team booted out with him, so they would be hostage to fortune. Secondly, I can't recall too many examples of assistant coaches going on to unqualified success in the top job.

Clive Woodward had a very good team, including John Mitchell, Andy Robinson and Brian Ashton. All went on to senior roles but found the air a bit rarefied. I don't find many Welsh supporters excited at the thought of Rob Howley taking over from Gatland. Steve Hansen seems like an exceptional case, rather than the norm.

I wish I knew who would be a good fit for England but I don't. I do think we ought to be able to demand of the RFU that the people making selection decisions know what qualities are needed, and know how to identify them.

beshocked wrote:Eddie Jones though has experience with South Africa,Australia and Japan -his track record in general is good.

englandglory4ever wrote:Yes the coach had got things wrong but the players he had in several positions just weren't good enough. No coach anywhere in the world would have done much better with that group. T. Youngs, Robshaw, Cole and maybe even Wood just weren't up to it. Barritt, May, B. Youngs weren't either. A pretty poor side is what we had and a coach who couldn't quite decide which player was worse than the other.

LondonTiger wrote:Do we even know what coaching structure we want?

Current one seemed to fall between two stools  - neither specialists (ie Farrell responsible for defence and first phase attacks, Catt skills and multiphase attacks) or all rounders (NZ 3 coaches including HC).


In the times today Stuart Barnes calls for Ian Foster as HC, Richie McCaw as Breakdown coach and Sean Edwards defence.

In which case why not go the whole hog and also retain Rowntree as scrum coach as it was a job he did well previousley and twice for the Lions (or bring in an Argentinian), Borthwick as lineout coach, Wayne Smith attack coach and JW as kicking coach.

Heck with all the money we supposedly have how about Pat Lam as tackling coach too.