Who should be next England coach (continued)

First topic message reminder :

Continuation of the original thread from nlpnlp:

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.

Which agreements are bad? Some people do expect us to win, alot don't. Some press will get on your back yes, same as everyone. We have some brilliant players and some ones with great potential coming through. Again though that's the same as alot of teams. Is it just because we're England and a bigger country?

IIRC you cannot add in new players once the squad is selected and as england coach you cannot stop players being overplayed in the league or ask for particular layers to be played in particular positions / styles

But those are agreements above and beyond what are the international rules. I don't think asking the coach to work with clubs means it's a posioned chalice but there you go.

Poisoned chalice in the way that more then any other country the press will destroy you if they find a reason.

TJ wrote:IIRC you cannot add in new players once the squad is selected and as england coach you cannot stop players being overplayed in the league or ask for particular layers to be played in particular positions / styles

1) Players can be added to the EPS squad halfway through the season or for injury. Being in this squad gives the coach certain control over the player. ANY player can be selected for internationals and made available for training irrespective of whether in the EPS (and playing in England).

2) England coach can have a player rested if he feels they need it. They do not have full control, but EPS players are limited to a set number of games per season.

3) England coach can request a player be played in a certain position - if in the EPS.

I knew someone would know the exact in and outs LT!

To quote myself from the 11th October

'Eddie Jones was on the radio yesterday and as good as said I'm available.

If England have any sense they should be talking to him straight away.'

The England coaching job is pretty much the opposite of a poisoned chalice. Huge salary, large selection pool, exciting range of new blood potential, HQ, lower expectations after SL & the RWC, a compromise between club and country it’s true but IMO not a wholly unreasonable one, a real possibility at making a large impact on the pitch, and after 2 rookie coaches who made rookie-boy mistakes an opportunity to show what you’ve got. It’s a dream-come-true job.

OK the press is carpolla – but that’s pretty much true of any country, and I can’t see an experienced coach worrying too much about the no-mark press boys tbh.

Let's face it being the national coach can't be that hard if you don't let it be so. National coaches have different challenges than AP coaches. AP coaches must win or be relegated and can use their cheque book to buy in experience and quality along with developing home grown talent. (Too many foreigners now for my liking but that's for another time.). National coaches have one goal and that's to win their next game. No ifs no buts. National coaches do not have to develop players. They do not have to bring them'on'. They have the pick of the whole country barring, injury, births, marriages and deaths. Their sole aim should be to identify and select the very best their country has to offer at that point in time. It couldn't be easier to have such a clear and uncluttered mind in what needs to be done. Yes they can select a few outstanding newbys to attend training sessions for them to have a look but that is a nicety. A national coach needs to decide on the way he wants his team to play the game and then select the very best to deliver that vision. It couldn't be easier. In fact I've applied for the England job because its so easy.

king_carlos wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I thought this team was staying on temporarily for the 6n?

Wouldn't it be ironic if they smashed the 6n won the grand slam!

Well.............the temporary coach we had going into the last post-RWC (2011) Six Nations never left for four years.

BUt I do agree a temporary coaching staff is the best move at the moment.  Perhaps the coaching staff from one of the Premiership clubs could cover as a temporarty move?  At least then there wojuld be an existing staff used to working together rather than a group slapped together.  The club would have to find coaching cover for their matches during the Six Nations, but it might be a reasonable solution.

Rowntree and Farrell were replaced by Baxter and Gustard for the Argentina tour in 2013 - during the Lions.

Admittedly it wasn't the biggest challenge given both sides were largely diluted but those two also worked with Catt during that tour.

That's a great point, I had forgotten they stood in. So, it can be done, althugh that was not during the Premiership season. But I do think that is the way to go. Removes time pressure from the selection process.

I seriously don't think Jones is the best choice.

Japan for all the success could only compete via using mercenaries. Beefing up their pack with Fijians, Tongans, Kiwi's, Samoans etc. They got fit yes, strong yes but does Jones really understand big pack mentalities? I'd say probably not as much as White... and that's what England need.... a coach who understands English rugby.

Big pack as in a large country with choices or a big pack in rugby terms?

England need to play their way. They're not NZ, not AUS. When they get their pack mentality back they compete with the best and dominate their local rivals.

Not fielding props and hookers who get you the odd steal now and again... but one who is a 9/10 scrummager against the very best.  Locks who can push and grunt in rucks... not those who can defend the outside channels.

They had the lightest front five in tier 1 rugby at the RWC by about 20kgs to their closest team. The heaviest backrow too. The balance was shocking and this was pretty much their first team pack... the coaches generated this pack, built it up to be this way.

Rowntree is the forwards coach. Its amazing how he hasn't taken stick for this.

I think the thing with England though is that we have the players to play any way the coach wants to a pretty decent standard. The issue in the world cup was that the type of play we went for didn't match the set of players we picked. Before that we were looking good.

fa0019 wrote:England need to play their way. They're not NZ, not AUS. When they get their pack mentality back they compete with the best and dominate their local rivals.

Not fielding props and hookers who get you the odd steal now and again... but one who is a 9/10 scrummager against the very best.  Locks who can push and grunt in rucks... not those who can defend the outside channels.

They had the lightest front five in tier 1 rugby at the RWC by about 20kgs to their closest team. The heaviest backrow too. The balance was shocking and this was pretty much their first team pack... the coaches generated this pack, built it up to be this way.

Rowntree is the forwards coach. Its amazing how he hasn't taken stick for this.

For myself the fate of Rowntree depends on whether he agreed with the de-powering of his forwards or not - something the review will hopefully show.

If he did then he was another cog in developing a forward pack that failed and deserves to go. If he disagreed with it however but was overruled by Bomber and/or Farrell who wanted more 'mobile' forwards for the sake of quantity over quality of defensive work then it's a different story.

He is a well respected coach, he has been selected for 2 Lions tours by different head coaches. With the Lions he has showed a liking for at least one big second row - Shaw and/or Wyn Jones. During the '09 series he was also the guy who suggested Andy Sheridan on the bench over the traditional TH cover so that 'big Ted' could target Smit when he moved from hooker to TH late in the match.

Given the above and his playing background I'd be quite surprised if he was completely on-board with the direction our forward play took. If rumours are correct there was a bit of discourse between the coaches when it came to selection so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

fa0019 wrote:I seriously don't think Jones is the best choice.

Japan for all the success could only compete via using mercenaries. Beefing up their pack with Fijians, Tongans, Kiwi's, Samoans etc. They got fit yes, strong yes but does Jones really understand big pack mentalities? I'd say probably not as much as White... and that's what England need.... a coach who understands English rugby.

To be fair 9 countries had 9 or more foreign born players in the World Cup (11 for Japan) and 4 Samoa, Tonga, Wales and Scotland had more so hardly unique.

As to a big pack mentality that is exactly what England need to get away from - if they think a big powerful pack, of itself, is the answer they have learnt nothing from this World Cup

Rowntree is a quality coach. You can't deny his record. Our scrum has always been a real weapon, and he hasn't suddenly become a bad coach in the last few months.

My general feeling is that Rowntree was overruled with regards to his front fives' weight. He did the best he could with an underweight pack. It was Lancaster and Farrell's obsession with fit and agile players that led to our ridiculously poor forward performance.

I think it would be a mistake to jettison Rowntree. Instead, give him the power to choose his props and hookers.

bluestonevedder wrote:Rowntree is a quality coach. You can't deny his record. Our scrum has always been a real weapon, and he hasn't suddenly become a bad coach in the last few months.

My general feeling is that Rowntree was overruled with regards to his front fives' weight. He did the best he could with an underweight pack. It was Lancaster and Farrell's obsession with fit and agile players that led to our ridiculously poor forward performance.

I think it would be a mistake to jettison Rowntree. Instead, give him the power to choose his props and hookers.

And locks....they're vital in the scrum and close quarters.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Rowntree is a quality coach. You can't deny his record. Our scrum has always been a real weapon, and he hasn't suddenly become a bad coach in the last few months.

My general feeling is that Rowntree was overruled with regards to his front fives' weight. He did the best he could with an underweight pack. It was Lancaster and Farrell's obsession with fit and agile players that led to our ridiculously poor forward performance.

I think it would be a mistake to jettison Rowntree. Instead, give him the power to choose his props and hookers.

And locks....they're vital in the scrum and close quarters.

That too, but how much power could he realisticly be given!

The front 5 are absolutely critical to the scrum...so if he's forwards coach then he needs to pick what he wants in that. He also then needs to work with the lineout coach.

Ill make it easy for him:

Pick:
Marler
George / Hartley
Cole
Kitchener / Attwood
Launchbury

Do you think Marler is 'good enough'? I know it was a bit of Australian gamesmanship that got the referee to look at his turning in, but this isn't the first match he has been on the wrong end of the referee. I know Corbisiero isn't and isn't likely to be fit and in form, and Mako is no great scrummager himself, but surly there must be one English loose head who can scrummage.

Owen Slot, the Times chief rugby correspondent is reporting that Eddie Jones is all but official, and the Stormers are having a press conference tomorrow

If Jones is appointed will Borthwick come with him? Borthwick wasn't the biggest second row around and "Steve Borthwick said Bristol pride themselves on the dynamism of their pack and he was 'eager to continue that philosophy'" would suggest he is in favour of lightweight mobile forwards. So a continuation of what we saw under Lancaster.

Jones. Absolutely serviceable appointment if you like a big, fat cup of Meh.

Mullan is the best scrummaging loose head at present for me. Auterac looks like he could become a great one but in a short while not immediately.

Marler has looked fine bar the Warm ups and WC. I think in a front five like the one I listed he would be fine. Not a destructive scrummager...but a very good all round prop. He will be a good stop gap until Auterac hopefully becomes the Corbs MkII.

Its such a shame that Corbs has broken so badly...

nlpnlp wrote:If Jones is appointed will Borthwick come with him?  Borthwick wasn't the biggest second row around and "Steve Borthwick said Bristol pride themselves on the dynamism of their pack and he was 'eager to continue that philosophy'" would suggest he is in favour of lightweight mobile forwards.  So a continuation of what we saw under Lancaster.

Wholly un-enthused by that!

Why cant we have heavyweight mobile forwards....

Attwood, Kitchener, Slater, etc all big boys but still very mobile. Even Itoje seems to be piling on the beef now.
He's listed as up over 18st now. Can that be right??

Daily Mail reporting Jones is set to be announced as coach tomorrow - DM usually right about selection.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3325452/Eddie-Jones-set-announced-new-England-coach-Friday-flying-London-finalise-terms-RFU.html

Wow....they've sorted that out first.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Wow....they've sorted that out first.

And not fixed the 'leak'problem

Well if its confirmed...then lets all get behind him.

Hes a proven coach. He has pros and cons...but hell we've analysed them all on here and they ALL have pros and cons.

He will not have any loyalty to any players and will pick the best on form players. And he should sort the feckin breakdown out!

Also anyone who saw his press conference in Japan when he first took over when he said they didn't take anything serious etc will see how determined and powerful he is.

I'll be happy with Jones.

He knows what he wants and he'll improve is no doubt. He'll strike a nice balance between pack/forwards and hopefully bring a good brand of rugby.

If Jones is being signed already then the next question is when will he get here.

By which I'm most concerned with when he will select his back room staff, whether or not he will be keeping any of the current team and will Farrell etc still be selecting the next EPS!

I am also pleased to get Jones. He will ruffle a few feathers, but his experience and fresh approach will hopefully have a positive impact. It will be very interesting to see his coaching team and who of the current contracted lot will remain. I hear that negotiations with Bristol are underway for Borthwick, which is also good news. Who will be defence and backs coach and will he have a specialist scrummaging and kicking coaches?

If it goes pear shaped then we can all blast him for being an Aussie and curse Ritchie for being such a fool. But I have to admit that I will be positively excited for the future.

Yeah I think he'll hopefully get the right balance between pack and expansive play...and get some fire back in the bellies. Non of this "culture" crap!

I think the 7's will be happy with this...and the likes of Cips will be very interested...

Interesting suggestion is why don't we have a few more Saxons games which we England can part fund...and have the likes of Baxter etc in as "temporary" coaches with Jones overlooking as part of a continuation and experience gathering process.

Hearing a few rumours that a position might be open to Jake White too. Anyone else heard these?

Eddie Jones is exactly what England need. A proven coach who is a complete outsider to the current set-up. He'll take no shyte either and certainly won't be told who to appoint or pick (by which I mean players in France).

I guess Borthwick, his assistant with Japan, will come across as well (if Jones so chooses).

funnyExiledScot wrote:Eddie Jones is exactly what England need. A proven coach who is a complete outsider to the current set-up. He'll take no shyte either and certainly won't be told who to appoint or pick (by which I mean players in France).

I guess Borthwick, his assistant with Japan, will come across as well (if Jones so chooses).

The rule is enforce...if they're abroad they cant pick them.

But that's fine...its only two players and Abdendon will not make the squad even if he was at Bath still.

Armitage well yes, but should we not focus on the youngsters like Fraser, Kvesic, Clifford, Wallace who could all make 2/3 World Cups but are playing excellent stuff now!

GeordieFalcon wrote:Marler has looked fine bar the Warm ups and WC. I think in a front five like the one I listed he would be fine. Not a destructive scrummager...but a very good all round prop. He will be a good stop gap until Auterac hopefully becomes the Corbs MkII.

Its such a shame that Corbs has broken so badly...

The more injuries a player has, and the faster he is rushed back, the longer and more difficult to return. That said, my prediction: By the end of this season Corbs will be really fit and firing.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Eddie Jones is exactly what England need. A proven coach who is a complete outsider to the current set-up. He'll take no shyte either and certainly won't be told who to appoint or pick (by which I mean players in France).

I guess Borthwick, his assistant with Japan, will come across as well (if Jones so chooses).

The rule is enforce...if they're abroad they cant pick them.

But that's fine...its only two players and Abdendon will not make the squad even if he was at Bath still.

Armitage well yes, but should we not focus on the youngsters like Fraser, Kvesic, Clifford, Wallace who could all make 2/3 World Cups but are playing excellent stuff now!

Not sure if I am correct here but wasn't this rule in play when Wilkinson was playing in France?? If so when he was by no means at the peak of his game and would yet have had to be classed as an exceptional circumstance.
For me if the coach says Steffon Armitage is the best openside in the country then that is an exceptional circumstance. Having a list of players who happen to play in the same position doesn't mean that the exceptional circumstance can't be enforced. Plus I am sorry but I am not having that Wallace is anywhere near international class and Clifford is a 6 not a 7, we have been down that before he is not remotely a jackle type player. If he is best 6 then he plays if not then not for me.

Student-A1 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Eddie Jones is exactly what England need. A proven coach who is a complete outsider to the current set-up. He'll take no shyte either and certainly won't be told who to appoint or pick (by which I mean players in France).

I guess Borthwick, his assistant with Japan, will come across as well (if Jones so chooses).

The rule is enforce...if they're abroad they cant pick them.

But that's fine...its only two players and Abdendon will not make the squad even if he was at Bath still.

Armitage well yes, but should we not focus on the youngsters like Fraser, Kvesic, Clifford, Wallace who could all make 2/3 World Cups but are playing excellent stuff now!

Not sure if I am correct here but wasn't this rule in play when Wilkinson was playing in France?? If so when he was by no means at the peak of his game and would yet have had to be classed as an exceptional circumstance.
For me if the coach says Steffon Armitage is the best openside in the country then that is an exceptional circumstance. Having a list of players who happen to play in the same position doesn't mean that the exceptional circumstance can't be enforced. Plus I am sorry but I am not having that Wallace is anywhere near international class and Clifford is a 6 not a 7, we have been down that before he is not remotely a jackle type player. If he is best 6 then he plays if not then not for me.

JW went out there before the rule was in place as did a number of others such as Haskell, Palmer etc. The rule didn't apply as it was not in place when they signed up. Armitage signed up and renewed his contract after the rule was made, so he was in full knowledge of the facts and chose money over country. If he thinks that money is more important, his choice; I wouldn't want I'm anywhere near my international team. Very divisive to the rest that put playing for country first.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Eddie Jones is exactly what England need. A proven coach who is a complete outsider to the current set-up. He'll take no shyte either and certainly won't be told who to appoint or pick (by which I mean players in France).

I guess Borthwick, his assistant with Japan, will come across as well (if Jones so chooses).

The rule is enforce...if they're abroad they cant pick them.

But that's fine...its only two players and Abdendon will not make the squad even if he was at Bath still.

Armitage well yes, but should we not focus on the youngsters like Fraser, Kvesic, Clifford, Wallace who could all make 2/3 World Cups but are playing excellent stuff now!

Not sure if I am correct here but wasn't this rule in play when Wilkinson was playing in France?? If so when he was by no means at the peak of his game and would yet have had to be classed as an exceptional circumstance.
For me if the coach says Steffon Armitage is the best openside in the country then that is an exceptional circumstance. Having a list of players who happen to play in the same position doesn't mean that the exceptional circumstance can't be enforced. Plus I am sorry but I am not having that Wallace is anywhere near international class and Clifford is a 6 not a 7, we have been down that before he is not remotely a jackle type player. If he is best 6 then he plays if not then not for me.

JW went out there before the rule was in place as did a number of others such as Haskell, Palmer etc. The rule didn't apply as it was not in place when they signed up. Armitage signed up and renewed his contract after the rule was made, so he was in full knowledge of the facts and chose money over country. If he thinks that money is more important, his choice; I wouldn't want I'm anywhere near my international team. Very divisive  to the rest that put playing for country first.

Cheers for clarrifying that I did not know but I stand by my belief that if a coach deems you the best in the country then that is an exceptional circumstance. I don't see why it would take every flanker in the country to lose a leg for the exceptional rule to be used. Plus I think he has more ties to France than just money, he grew up in France which I beleive adds to his case even more. I haven't lived anywhere near there since my childhood days but still call where I was brought up as home. But as I said I think being the best (in the Eng coaches mind) should be circumstance enough

"Armitage well yes, but should we not focus on the youngsters like Fraser, Kvesic, Clifford, Wallace who could all make 2/3 World Cups but are playing excellent stuff now!"

No, no, no and no again. No focusing on youngsters please. We need the best players England has got on the field at the same time. Jones can make his job so much easier by just picking what he thinks are the best players. If one of those players that are listed is considered THE best then fair enough. If not they should wait patiently for their turn. Our next game in the 6Ns is THE most important game now. England must start winning again. Coaching isn't difficult. Just look at what a good coach can do with the Barbarians in only 1 week.

Student...

They would have to scrap the rule, this would mean an exodus of top English talent, especially young talent to the very rich French clubs. They are outside of the agreement with the AP clubs and therefore access to the players, control over the number of games played etc. would be lost. Just take a look at the PI players effectively forced when signing new contracts to retire from international rugby for the period of their contract.

The French club system has no love for their own international side, let alone the England side. Armitage for instance would not be able to attend all training sessions, would not be available for games outside the international window, would not have only a limited number of games per year.

Apart from that, IMO he is an overrated show pony made to look good by the hard work of his colleagues in the back row, as he is left to do the flashy stuff. We do not have the players that allow us to have a luxury player like him. He gives away as many penalties as he gets in turnovers and is hardly a tackling machine.

Even if I am wrong about him, I cannot gat away from the fact that he turned England down, knowing that he could have been part of the squad had he came back, he chose to stay for the money. His choice, so no to picking him. If everything in your being does not want to pull on the white shirt, then you have no place wearing it..................SIMPLES

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Student...

They would have to scrap the rule, this would mean an exodus of top English talent, especially young talent to the very rich French clubs. They are outside of the agreement with the AP clubs and therefore access to the players, control over the number of games played etc. would be lost. Just take a look at the PI players effectively forced when signing new contracts to retire from international rugby for the period of their contract.

The French club system has no love for their own international side, let alone the England side. Armitage for instance would not be able to attend all training sessions, would not be available for games outside the international window, would not have only a limited number of games per year.

Apart from that, IMO he is an overrated show pony made to look good by the hard work of his colleagues in the back row, as he is left to do the flashy stuff. We do not have the players that allow us to have a luxury player like him. He gives away as many penalties as he gets in turnovers and is hardly a tackling machine.

Even if I am wrong about him, I cannot gat away from the fact that he turned England down, knowing that he could have been part of the squad had he came back, he chose to stay for the money. His choice, so no to picking him. If everything in your being does not want to pull on the white shirt, then you have no place wearing it..................SIMPLES

Cool, disagree with pretty much all your points here. Firstly I never said change rule, I said if you a deemed the best then that is circumstance enough to be deemed exceptional. The comment of 'he is overated' is said a number of times but there is zero proof of this. What proof there is is he is a multi European cup winner, keeps his place ahead of some world class players and won European player of the year. That is fact no opinion.

But this point isn't really about any one player, the exceptional circumstance rule means nothing in my book, because what is exceptional?? To me if you are the best in the country in the eyes of ppl that matter ie. the Eng coach not me or you. then that is an exceptional circumstance. If we had loads of quality sevens regualrly performing in the biggest club competition we have then not so but we do not there is nobody else.
With respect to contracts, all the release dates can be agreed upon and if they are not then you can not qualify for the exceptional tag, if you can and the coach deems he has adequate access to you then that is all that matters......SIMPLES

Why not Jake White 'and' Eddie Jones?

They did OK with SA in 2007.

So Ian Richie says Eddie Jones is the next England coach. ok, so IF Eddie Jones fails to bring England some silver ware, will Ian Richie resign? Or will he say it is not my fault.
I only selected to coach.

Mick Cleary's column in the telegraph says that Jones has been chosen to get England winning again. No development, no culture, etc. He just has to win. That's music to my ears. Hallelujah the rfu have seen the light at last.

majesticimperialman wrote:So Ian Richie says Eddie Jones is the next England coach. ok, so IF Eddie Jones fails to bring England some silver ware, will Ian Richie resign? Or will he say it is not my fault.
I only selected to coach.

You know how the RFU work, if the team is successful it was all down to them if failure then they accept responsibility by sacking someone else and giving themselves a pat on the back for making a profit.