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.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Much as I would dislike the effect it would have on Saints, Mallinder as DoR with Wayne Smith as his number 2 could be a very good pairing. AS previously said by the Doc amongst others, Mallinder does play a game plan to suit the players at his disposal. Number one priority though is the set piece, you cannot play well, especially against the top sides if you cannot win ay least your own ball.

Saints were blighted the last year by injuries to key players (and a few suspensions) and have had to rely on Myler playing virtually every game due to lack of cover, they also had a big weakness at tight head, hopefully now resolved. If Foden can stay fit, Corbs gather some form and again stay fit, Dickinson get back to fitness, Burrell get back to where he was 2 years ago and Hartley stay un-suspended, with North back, Stevenson offering competition at 12 we could go very well.

All the Saints forwards can run and pass like backs ( not the Manu or Burgess type of backs), unlike a lot of the current crop of England forwards they don't just take the ball into contact when out in the middle, they look for the space and run into it, a very NZ sort of philosophy.

I would suspect he would like to take Alex King as well if he were offered, that would really cause problems for us, he is probably ready for the next step up and is the natural successor to JM.

On his own though, I wouldn't have him as England DoR, he still has this habit of thrying to fix tings that are not broke ay 60 minutes regardless of the match situation, 10 points up, 20 minutes to go in a tight match and he changes half the side. Sounds very familiar somehow.

I don't this is true at all. In addition, Mallinder teams have dominated teams less and less with their pack it seems to me. I also don't see what everyone else sees in Alex King. Northampton are extremely one dimensional. If the forwards can pass like backs, I've not seen it, nor have I seen much offloading. Their work at the breakdown is no great shakes, I mean, Tom Wood plays for you, and I can't think of a less dynamic player at the breakdown.

Have to agree with Hood, I've never seen any evidence of this.

I'd be more inclined to say your backs pass like forwards (until the game is in the bag). Saints play a big power game, they did nothing but maul against us till 60mins or so.

That was the other point I meant to make - great maul, but it seems like their only real weapon apart from some pretty average crash, bang, wallop stuff

listening to wilkinsons commentary, I would love to see him as an england coach in some way.

Hood83 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Much as I would dislike the effect it would have on Saints, Mallinder as DoR with Wayne Smith as his number 2 could be a very good pairing. AS previously said by the Doc amongst others, Mallinder does play a game plan to suit the players at his disposal. Number one priority though is the set piece, you cannot play well, especially against the top sides if you cannot win ay least your own ball.

Saints were blighted the last year by injuries to key players (and a few suspensions) and have had to rely on Myler playing virtually every game due to lack of cover, they also had a big weakness at tight head, hopefully now resolved. If Foden can stay fit, Corbs gather some form and again stay fit, Dickinson get back to fitness, Burrell get back to where he was 2 years ago and Hartley stay un-suspended, with North back, Stevenson offering competition at 12 we could go very well.

All the Saints forwards can run and pass like backs ( not the Manu or Burgess type of backs), unlike a lot of the current crop of England forwards they don't just take the ball into contact when out in the middle, they look for the space and run into it, a very NZ sort of philosophy.

I would suspect he would like to take Alex King as well if he were offered, that would really cause problems for us, he is probably ready for the next step up and is the natural successor to JM.

On his own though, I wouldn't have him as England DoR, he still has this habit of thrying to fix tings that are not broke ay 60 minutes regardless of the match situation, 10 points up, 20 minutes to go in a tight match and he changes half the side. Sounds very familiar somehow.

I don't this is true at all. In addition, Mallinder teams have dominated teams less and less with their pack it seems to me. I also don't see what everyone else sees in Alex King. Northampton are extremely one dimensional. If the forwards can pass like backs, I've not seen it, nor have I seen much offloading. Their work at the breakdown is no great shakes, I mean, Tom Wood plays for you, and I can't think of a less dynamic player at the breakdown.

Have to agree with Hood, I've never seen any evidence of this.

I'd be more inclined to say your backs pass like forwards (until the game is in the bag). Saints play a big power game, they did nothing but maul against us till 60mins or so.

That was the other point I meant to make - great maul, but it seems like their only real weapon apart from some pretty average crash, bang, wallop stuff

Sorry guys, but I think you are too easily defaulting to the typical negative comments about Saints which pop up like weeds in the garden anytime Saints are mentioned as a good team. Only bangers (not sausages), no skill with the ball. If you are not seeing it, well........

Yes, I am a Saints fan, but I see them regularly, in games and in practice. To describe them as almost medieval is not accurate. Their game is forward oriented, no doubts. But with a good offloading game and creating space for the backs to work. The work between backs and forewards is amongst the best in the Premiership. It was good under Mallinder, and Alex King turned that up another notch. They also play strong defence which is, as we know, is critical.
(By the way, why would anyone want Alex King as part of the England set-up if all Saints do is play crash ball?)

Last season was a disaster from an injury point of view, so like many teams with a small squad, many players played too much Rugby and other players simply weren't ready. Yet, they somehow still made the playoffs. That is a credit to the coaching staff, is it not? I think Mallinder and Alex King would certainly improve England. But I prefer they stay where they are because they are good for the club.

Can England fans really not see that getting a coach like Smith who has seen the very best systems and strategies in the game implemented before his eyes and whose teams have beaten everyone in the game is the sort of thing that should be aspired to?

You're the biggest and best funded RFU in the world and it would be ridiculous if some rabid desire to talk up and then hire a home grown coach got in the way of seeing with clear eyes who the best quality people to coach an international side are. Smell the coffee - it's for your own good.

The disparity between the gameplan, cohesion and skills of both of the sides who played in the final tonight and England (and indeed all of the home nations) should really give some solid food for thought to fans who claim that some moderately successful club coach should be given the top international job.

More than happy for Mallinder to stay at Saints Doc, I really don't think Saints style would work at Int level.

George Carlin wrote:Can England fans really not see that getting a coach like Smith who has seen the very best systems and strategies in the game implemented before his eyes and whose teams have beaten everyone in the game is the sort of thing that should be aspired to?

You're the biggest and best funded RFU in the world and it would be ridiculous if some rabid desire to talk up and then hire a home grown coach got in the way of seeing with clear eyes who the best quality people to coach an international side are. Smell the coffee - it's for your own good.

The disparity between the gameplan, cohesion and skills of both of the sides who played in the final tonight and England (and indeed all of the home nations) should really give some solid food for thought to fans who claim that some moderately successful club coach should be given the top international job.

Ah, you mean the former Northampton Saints coach?  

For what it's worth, when I last watched Northampton in a lot of detail it was against the Ospreys. In that game the saints were dominant in all departments, and at times they looked like the All Blacks in comparison to their opposition. Their forwards had exceptional handling skills too - not sure how often Northampton do all that mind but I thought it was worth a mention. Whilst they're a team that is consistently excellent they're often due one embarrassing loss each year; when I say that I think back to losses against Munster, Leinster and Racing. Mallinder is probably a worthy candidate for the England role, bringing the Saints back up from obscurity is to be commended.

doctor_grey wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Can England fans really not see that getting a coach like Smith who has seen the very best systems and strategies in the game implemented before his eyes and whose teams have beaten everyone in the game is the sort of thing that should be aspired to?

You're the biggest and best funded RFU in the world and it would be ridiculous if some rabid desire to talk up and then hire a home grown coach got in the way of seeing with clear eyes who the best quality people to coach an international side are. Smell the coffee - it's for your own good.

The disparity between the gameplan, cohesion and skills of both of the sides who played in the final tonight and England (and indeed all of the home nations) should really give some solid food for thought to fans who claim that some moderately successful club coach should be given the top international job.

Ah, you mean the former Northampton Saints coach?  

Indeed. If that's enough for him to be considered in Gryffindor house for the purposes of the England job, then excellent.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:More than happy for Mallinder to stay at Saints Doc, I really don't think Saints style would work at Int level.

Mate, I am not so worried about style.  Different styles can work (though the basics have got to be there first).  And style has to suit the players you have.  To me, much more important is decision making (first, second, and third), then we get to game planning and team selecion, which are closely connected, proven results, training, and so on.  One of Lancaster's big faults is being overly programmed/scripted and not adapting to game situations.  In other words, decision making.  Decision making, up front and on the spot.

Mallinder has proven a number of things, and one big thing he has not.  He has proven he can build a team, he has proven he can maintain/sustain a team at a high level (building and sustaining are very different skill sets), he can learn and change game plan and reverse results (such as after those horrific losses to Munster and Leinster), he can take a team over the line and win a championship.  And he has done it with a small squad.  He has not proven he can do it in another environment.  Yet, my preference is Mallinder to stay.  He is very good for Saints.  

I also have a preference that England should have an English coach.  It's kind of the same argument.  With all our resources, how can we not develop English coaches???
But, if we go foreign, at least we should pick our coach from a country with Her Majesty as Head of State.  And if we do so, then why not a coach with the purest of pedigrees?

I'm not so sure Mallinder can change his style though. If the forward/power game doesn't work, Saints lose.

George Carlin wrote:Can England fans really not see that getting a coach like Smith who has seen the very best systems and strategies in the game implemented before his eyes and whose teams have beaten everyone in the game is the sort of thing that should be aspired to?

You're the biggest and best funded RFU in the world and it would be ridiculous if some rabid desire to talk up and then hire a home grown coach got in the way of seeing with clear eyes who the best quality people to coach an international side are. Smell the coffee - it's for your own good.

The disparity between the gameplan, cohesion and skills of both of the sides who played in the final tonight and England (and indeed all of the home nations) should really give some solid food for thought to fans who claim that some moderately successful club coach should be given the top international job.

Except Wayne Smith is not available.

Oh and sorry Doc. While I too have a preference for an English coach, Mallinder is nowhere on my list.

IMO he has taken a team of very good players and turned them into serial losers. One single Premiership - possibly gifted by the TMO when Saints have comfortably had the best team for the entire decade is a miserable return.

I am sure most English fans would love to see Wayne Smith somewhere in the mix, but perhaps not totally in charge - i.e. as head coach or senior coach but not as manager.

So realistically its either bomber or Mallinder as no one else appears prepared to work with the rfu.

What a state of affairs.

And of course we should be looking for the best coaching panel available regardless of where they're from, code or country. SCW wasn't afraid to employ either a Kiwi or RL international coach so why should concern ourselves now? Larder not ferel.

LondonTiger wrote:Oh and sorry Doc. While I too have a preference for an English coach, Mallinder is nowhere on my list.

IMO he has taken a team of very good players and turned them into serial losers. One single Premiership - possibly gifted  by the TMO when Saints have comfortably had the best team for the entire decade is a miserable return.

OK, we agree to disagree (somewhat - since I want Jimmy and Alex and Dorian to stay in cuddly Northampton).  Who next?
We need someone who can enuniciate a real strategy, work players in and out of the lineup until settling on his best team, game plan differently for different teams, improvise as needed, make halftime adjustments, revise the plan if not working, pick talent for the plan, eliminate any percieved nepotism, and ultimately play his personnel where they will bemost successful.  Courageous enough to make out of the box type selections, if needed.  

Who then?  Since I want my coach to stay put, and frankly, there would be more detractors jumping out of the anthills simply because he has a track record (mostly success) for a team many don't like with a few players people don't like, whereas Lancaster had none. who are we going for?  I simply don't see many candidates.

Baxter, Wayne Smith and team pls.

Any manager is potentially available - you just need to buy out their contract - and shockingly enough, all good managers currently have jobs.

Now that the RWC is over, Wayne Smith is back to his day job as backs coach for the Chiefs. Are we honestly suggesting that if the RFU approached David Rennie, Taranaki and the NZRU to schedule talks this would be blocked? Of course it wouldn't.

Ritchie's stupid mistake was to put himself in a position where he needs to pay Lancaster out in the event that his needlessly long new contract is terminated and at the same time have to compensate a side like the Chiefs who would be forfeiting their best assistant coach.

Ritchie's stupid mistake was to put himself in a position where he needs to pay Lancaster out in the event that his needlessly long new contract is terminated and at the same time have to compensate a side like the Chiefs who would be forfeiting his best assistant coach.

From what I've read recently, this isn't the case. Apparently there were performance targets to hit and if we didn't hit them SL could be let go without paying up the full contract.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Ritchie's stupid mistake was to put himself in a position where he needs to pay Lancaster out in the event that his needlessly long new contract is terminated and at the same time have to compensate a side like the Chiefs who would be forfeiting his best assistant coach.

From what I've read recently, this isn't the case. Apparently there were performance targets to hit and if we didn't hit them SL could be let go without paying up the full contract.

Yes, I would hope that a meaningful KPI regime is the flip side of a long contract term. Either you choose a short term with less binary deliverables or you allow a long term with a chunky performance regime and then axe SL if he fails to deliver. I can't see that Lancaster will receive nothing if he's removed, though - still points towards Ritchie committing funds where there were other options. I do accept that things always seem obvious in retrospect, though.

Having turned down the chance to be part of the England set-up four years ago - woudl Smith really accept if offered again?

Not saying we should not approach him - but the answer would probably be no again.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Baxter, Wayne Smith and team pls.

Now that would be good and would give the rfu some needed credibility.

As things stand both have turned down the role(s).

It will be Lancaster, this review panel has too much vested interest in their own reputations to admit they got it wrong.

McGeechan chose Scotland over the land of his birth, why is he constantly chosen to sit on these selection boards, review boards etc. Do we not have any Englishmen men that could do the job. He might be a great Lions coach, but he was rubbish at any job at club level, we have a RWC winner sitting idle. Far better to get his views direct than through the tabloids further destroying confidence in the set up.

We have Ian Richie, a man from that seriously successful English sport; tennis. He knows nothing about rugby, the requirements a coach needs to be successful or the back up needed by a head coach. He oversaw one of the worst periods of English tennis where no Englishman is in the top 100, and only a couple of women are breaking the top 50 mark.

Despite spending millions on trying to develop what is still a very middle class sport he failed miserably, but made lots of money.

Oh, in his favour, he does where the right club tie, that alone seems to be his credentials for running the RFU. He is an administrator and no more, he should have been hired for that sort of role and if that is whet the CE of the RU does fine, but keep him out of playing matters. He took sole responsibility for Lancaster's appointment, so will he fall on his sword, not likely.

Ian Metcalfe has at least played the game, Ian Watmore is a bl00dy footballer. That sport has a great reputation for appointing great managers. Those good ones it has had, it sacked for purely no footballing reasons. Watmore can I say about his appointment, again went to the right college, belongs to the right clubs.

Ben Kay, out numbered, out thought probably and only able to give info second hand on what the only RWC winning manager we have had did. Knows nothing about why the front row went wrong, knows nothing about whey the backs didn't work. Dawson would have been a better pick, but he might say something they didn't like, being a gobby scrum half.

I bet they all have to sign non-disclosure statements as well so we are unlikely to here what a man sausage up they are making of it at the end.

Rant over.


Perhaps we should get Barry Humphries in to the do the job, dress him in black and everyone would thinks we had poached Steve Hansen

Eddie Jones would be a bad choice for England, he's very much a boom bust coach. England need to be steady and consistent, not over achieving one year and collapsing the next. I accept Eddie's stock his high at the moment based on Japan's world cup showing, though if we also accept that Japan has a fully professional league that can pay wages to attract the best coaches and players in the world, then perhaps the improvement in Japanese rugby should not all be put down to Eddie Jones coaching talents.

Shifty wrote:Eddie Jones would be a bad choice for England, he's very much a boom bust coach.  England need to be steady and consistent, not over achieving one year and collapsing the next.  I accept Eddie's stock his high at the moment based on Japan's world cup showing, though if we also accept that Japan has a fully professional league that can pay wages to attract the best coaches and players in the world, then perhaps the improvement in Japanese rugby should not all be put down to Eddie Jones coaching talents.  

There's plenty of reasons I could see him struggling. I'd still bet my house on him being a greater success than Bomber. We have gone backwards across the board and as nice a bloke as he is his level is as a coach on a panel of coaches at U20 level. Not all his fault of course, but if we stick with him and the others I will despair.

Part of what is wrong with English Rugby is they have not been preparing for this moment.  It was clear to many that England were not improving.  The counter argument is that coming in second place in the 6 Nations on Points Differential is really the same as a tie with the winner.  To that I agree.  But the reality is Lancaster always had his teams underprepared (or prepared to under perform) for at least 1 match.  Combined with his overly scripted approach, it has sent a clear message he could plan up front but would never improvise or adjust at half time.  This same behaviour exhibited itself on the larger macro as wll where he would create a plan for the season and never deviate.  Remember the attention a few years ago when he was getting pressure because he was overly scripted.  He acually left players on the pitch longer than 60 minutes and it was hailed as significant?  

Look, Lancaster is an obvious good man in the wrong position. It amazes me contingency plans were not drafted back when he was signed.  In other words, anticipate the possibilities, even if they never happen.  

Who knows, given England Rugby's behaviour seems to mirror Lancaster's, maybe they are made for each other.

is there a distinction between a manager and a head coach.  I am sure much of Lancaster's time was taken up with things not directly related to coaching.  If the head coach is also expected to manager everything there would be little time for coaching.

I would see Wayne Smith as very much a coach (and a very good one), but not necessarily a manager.

I think Lancaster will still be in charge.

But he HAS to sort the tactics out. And he has to increase the carriers in the team! And realise the set piece is important. You need some muscle in the the pack.

You need breakdown savy. Hire the best breakdown coach you can find and drill England.

Robshaw and Wood should never be in the same side again!

GeordieFalcon wrote:But he HAS to sort the tactics out.

I don't think he can. I believe he thinks Wood and Robshaw at the same time was brilliant.

That's a scary thought Dr.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think Lancaster will still be in charge.

But he HAS to sort the tactics out. And he has to increase the carriers in the team! And realise the set piece is important. You need some muscle in the the pack.

You need breakdown savy. Hire the best breakdown coach you can find and drill England.

Robshaw and Wood should never be in the same side again!

As I have told people time and again, Wood is not international standard. Irrespective of the tactics, Haskell is a far better player (even if he's as inconsistent as people suggest). Frankly there are plenty of better flankers out there for England.

Not sure who raised the point earlier re Lancaster not necessarily being a coach. I think from what I've heard that's right. But it's still as damning. He picked two coaches with minimal experience, I'd suggest possibly as they wouldn't undermine him, though maybe I'm being harsh. He then kept Rowntree. That seemed a reasonable choice as lots of people, including players, seemed to rate him. I think it's now clear those people were, sadly, wrong.

Then his position presumably boils down to sorting logistics, making sure the players are well conditioned and in the best possible frame of mind, working on the overarching approach/gameplan and picking the players to execute it. I'd also say he failed on pretty much all of these measures.

This really is a case when 'continuity' is not needed. What's needed is a large broom.

GeordieFalcon wrote:That's a scary thought Dr.

Yep.
But wait, there's more:

If you recall Wood was on target to be captain (or at least one of the two finalists for captain) until he became injured and it fell to Robshaw by default.  I have always thought Lancaster wanted them both on the pitch because of the 2x leadership they provided.

It appears that Jake White is becoming the favourite to take over according the bookies?

Whats your thoughts on that?

A good option. Him and Wayne Smith are probably the best we can hope for. White will do a good job without doubt.

He's gone from 25/1 to 2/1 in a week?

Would suggest something going on.

Either someone knows something or there have been a suspiciously high number of bets placed in the Montpelier area...

So would people generally be happy with Jake White?

Strengths and Weaknesses?

GeordieFalcon wrote:So would people generally be happy with Jake White?

Strengths and Weaknesses?

White ruffles feathers. He likes it his way. Players don't exactly warm to him but he brings results. He's an ex video analyst and his core strengths are around analysis, conditioning etc. He added an iron core to the brumbies, he would do the same to England but could he last to the end of the world cup? The thing is he has always been looking for the big job.. the AUS job, the ENG job, the FRA job so if he landed ENG I think he would be content to not look over his shoulder.

I think guys like Marler, T Youngs, Lawes, Robshaw will be bang in trouble if he is made head coach.

Guys like Cole will have to change his game too to adapt. He likes specialists guys who get 9/10 as props but 6/10 in the rest of the field not 7/10 as props but 7/10 elsewhere.  He turned Brumbies, Montepellier into SA type teams... he'll do the same with England.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So would people generally be happy with Jake White?

Strengths and Weaknesses?

I'd ask myself why South Africa didn't want him back, and why Australia didn't want him when they had the chance. His 2007 World Cup was best known for negative tactics. Perhaps White just reacted to the laws at the time but his Brumbies side was playing Jakeball as recently as 2014.

Pass.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:So would people generally be happy with Jake White?

Strengths and Weaknesses?

I'd ask myself why South Africa didn't want him back, and why Australia didn't want him when they had the chance. His 2007 World Cup was best known for negative tactics. Perhaps White just reacted to the laws at the time but his Brumbies side was playing Jakeball as recently as 2014.

Pass.

SA or more likely SARU didn't want him back because they are snakes. He picked the side and then SARU said, we don't like player x.... we like player y.

Example. in 2007 Luke Watson was SA, SR player of the year. But White didn't rate him and more importantly worried about his involvement. So he didn't choose him.
He announced his 45 player squad and all of a sudden 46 names appeared inc. a one luke Watson.

In essence they put a gun to his head...not for a black player, for a white player but who family had/has strong political power. He worked with playing black players I recall he capped black players in every position bar lock in his 4 years... something no other coach has achieved. But the watson crisis killed everything, you can't undermine your coach.

AUS wanted an AUS coach.

Good sum up Fa.

I think White will bring a steel to the pack, he won't mess about. He likes his forwards to be forwards first, something a lot of us want. The rugby might not be the best but he's played some good stuff in recent years imo. I'd take him without doubt. Wayne Smith as assistant would be a dream combo.

He likes specialists guys who get 9/10 as props but 6/10 in the rest of the field not 7/10 as props but 7/10 elsewhere.

I think White will bring a steel to the pack, he won't mess about

I like him already

The best coach England "could" get IMO is Rassie Erasmus. discounting guys like Smith, Hansen etc as they won't be available.

Available list would be

Plumtree
Erasmus
Mallett
White
Jones
Woodward

If the boks don't get rid of Meyer, England should gut the kitchen sink to get him. Seriuosly he is a brilliant coach, has turned every club he's ever worked with around and all the players have deep respect for him, heard this from the horses mouth.

He's the performance director at SARU, formerly head coach of Stormers and the Cheetahs.

It'll be Lancaster though.

I think I'd prefer White to Erasmus tbh. I'm sure Smith could be available for the right offer, it's just pitching that at him and convincing him it's a good move.

We need a coach that will coach players to play what's in front of them. Half the problem seems to be that the players spend all their time having 'systems' drilled into them, instead of playing heads up rugby and making quick, correct decisions....along with basic skills of course.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I think I'd prefer White to Erasmus tbh. I'm sure Smith could be available for the right offer, it's just pitching that at him and convincing him it's a good move.

Nothing better than appealing to his wallet regardless of what anyone says.

Gatland for instance joked England couldn't afford him... they can and I bet for instance he'd jump for the right price.

Given a choice of a coach who wants England to play like:

1. The ABs, or
2. SA

I know where I'd put my money.

SL couldn't turn England into the ABs in a decade, let alone 4 years.

The SA style actually seems to fit better (given we invented it   ).

Smith said prior to the RWC and any talk of him moving to the England set-up that he wanted to take a year out of rugby following the World Cup.

He has also indicated in the past that he wouldn't feel comfortable coaching a side who might be in realistic competition with the ABs. Given how we played at the World Cup there is certainly an argument that this shouldn't be a problem currently! But you'd hope that's the direction that any coach will be looking to take us.

If he can be tempted as head coach then Smith would be my first choice by a mile. If he isn't interested in the head coach role then my next choice would probably be someone like Dave Rennie who would have a good chance of getting Smith on-board as assistant and backs coach.

That's how highly I considered Smith as a tactician.

Why do we have to play like any team.
I don't think we'll have enough powerful guys to match the SA style and we don't have the skills to match NZ...so don't bother trying.

Cant we just have our own style. Ie a big powerful pack but still gets about the park and then use the backs nicely in combo.

Exactly, a big solid pack good at the basics and physical enough to pressure teams coupled with a 10/12 who can spread the ball wide to electric wings or play what's in front of them.