Does Mike Tindall see the Irony in his column for BBC Sport?

Mike Tindall wrote:It appeared that Lancaster worried too much about his players and worried too much about what the media thought.

Surely he is aware that his own antics provided much of the fuel for the media witchhunt post RWC 2011, a witch hunt that really was the cause of the Lancaster reign (and no-one else wanting the job).


Full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35867348

Yep - Tindall was taken to RWC 2011 as an experienced player expected to set an example and show leadership. He let Lancaster down on that one.

I never drank the Kool-aid on Tindall. Good defensive centre and reasonable at trucking the ball up the middle but that's about it. I know Sir Clive "Winning" Woodward said nice things about him after 2003, but for me there were plenty centres who would have looked pretty useful playing outside Dawson/Wilkinson/Greenwood and that very useful pack.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Yep - Tindall was taken to RWC 2011 as an experienced player expected to set an example and show leadership. He let Lancaster Johnson down on that one.

I never drank the Kool-aid on Tindall. Good defensive centre and reasonable at trucking the ball up the middle but that's about it. I know Sir Clive "Winning" Woodward said nice things about him after 2003, but for me there were plenty centres who would have looked pretty useful playing outside Dawson/Wilkinson/Greenwood and that very useful pack.

Its not just Lancaster who has had RWC mishaps

Sorry - my bad! Harsh on Lancaster to confuse the two regimes.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Sorry - my bad! Harsh on Lancaster to confuse the two regimes.

Lets face it both regimes need a good shoeing after their respective RWC contributions

lostinwales wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Sorry - my bad! Harsh on Lancaster to confuse the two regimes.

Lets face it both regimes need a good shoeing after their respective RWC contributions

But which was worse?? My vote still goes to the 2011 debacle, even though we actually got further in the tournament. Never been so demoralised in my life as when the extent of the campaign was finally made public.

I would agree - 2011 was worse. The team had no direction, no cohesion and no discernable style of play. In fact it was genuinely baffling at times to work out what they were trying to do.

Lancaster, for all his flaws, put together a game plan and a structure, and blooded some very good young players. Yes, he lost his cool at the RWC and threw much of the pre-planning out of the window, but Eddie Jones is right to praise the legacy he inherited. Lancaster inherited a far less rosy picture from Martin Johnson, who was out of his depth from the get go.

Johnson should have never been made England coach. Lacked the experience for the job. Lancaster did fine at first but needed someone like Wayne Smith as a mentor.

Is it that much surprise that two coaching novices have done poorly in subsequent RWCs?

The figure tying them both together - Graham Rowntree.

Perhaps we'll find in the future that Eddie Jones is not the saviour but so far he's doing a fine job.

Bar the Marler incident, there haven't been any controversial stories since Jones and co took charge.

Even with Lancaster you had Cipriani vs Mike Catt bust up in pre match training before the RWC.

To be fair to Johnson he didn't inherit a good legacy.

It was easier for Lancaster to give Jones a good foundation as he was benefitting from the strength of the U20s which was at the time reaping dividends.

beshocked wrote:Johnson should have never been made England coach. Lacked the experience for the job. Lancaster did fine at first but needed someone like Wayne Smith as a mentor.

Is it that much surprise that two coaching novices have done poorly in subsequent RWCs?

The figure tying them both together - Graham Rowntree.

Perhaps we'll find in the future that Eddie Jones is not the saviour but so far he's doing a fine job.

Bar the Marler incident, there haven't been any controversial stories since Jones and co took charge.

Even with Lancaster you had Cipriani vs Mike Catt bust up in pre match training before the RWC.

To be fair to Johnson he didn't inherit a good legacy.

It was easier for Lancaster to give Jones a good foundation as he was benefitting from the strength of the U20s which was at the time reaping dividends.

True, and all good points.

I still maintain that Johnson was a poor choice because he still had personal ties to a lot of the players from his playing days. I just don't think that works at all. A coach needs to be completely objective.

For what it's worth, I think Rowntree is a heck of a scrum coach. Yes, our scrum got torn to pieces at the world cup, but I think he was left with a underweight, under-powered front 5 to work with. By the players' own admissions they were doing the wrong sort of fitness leading up to the RWC, and I think players like Cole and Marler went in well below their playing weight, whilst the skinny guys like Parling, Lawes, and Wood were even lighter. Recipe for disaster.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would agree - 2011 was worse. The team had no direction, no cohesion and no discernable style of play. In fact it was genuinely baffling at times to work out what they were trying to do.

Lancaster, for all his flaws, put together a game plan and a structure, and blooded some very good young players. Yes, he lost his cool at the RWC and threw much of the pre-planning out of the window, but Eddie Jones is right to praise the legacy he inherited. Lancaster inherited a far less rosy picture from Martin Johnson, who was out of his depth from the get go.

it really was terrible. I remember one of the player statements that came out after the world cup saying that prior to one match, Ben Youngs was effectively developing the gameplan himself. The coaching was utterly aimless.

LondonTiger wrote:

Mike Tindall wrote:It appeared that Lancaster worried too much about his players and worried too much about what the media thought.

Surely he is aware that his own antics provided much of the fuel for the media witchhunt post RWC 2011, a witch hunt that really was the cause of the Lancaster reign (and no-one else wanting the job).

Tindall was certainly the catalyst for the media sh**storm but I still lay the blame firmly at their door, not his. Other international rugby teams went to the same bar without drawing any censure at all , so their faux outrage was hard to take.

Lancaster was reacting to the way the media decided to hang people out to dry on the slightest pretext. It's bizarre how many journalists now are keen to say he went too far, without recognizing their own culpability in bringing about that outcome.

bluestonevedder wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I would agree - 2011 was worse. The team had no direction, no cohesion and no discernable style of play. In fact it was genuinely baffling at times to work out what they were trying to do.

Lancaster, for all his flaws, put together a game plan and a structure, and blooded some very good young players. Yes, he lost his cool at the RWC and threw much of the pre-planning out of the window, but Eddie Jones is right to praise the legacy he inherited. Lancaster inherited a far less rosy picture from Martin Johnson, who was out of his depth from the get go.

it really was terrible. I remember one of the player statements that came out after the world cup saying that prior to one match, Ben Youngs was effectively developing the gameplan himself. The coaching was utterly aimless.

I hated that World Cup campaign but failure is always an orphan, so everything will always look wrong. I recall hearing that in 2007, Olly Barkley was apparently our impromptu attack coach. I don't believe everything was as aimless in 2011 as reports suggest.

By comparison, look at how Graham Henry was vilified for his 2007 World Cup campaign. Certainly, he failed, but the preparation wasn't wrong across the board, since he did put it all right four years later using much the same coaching methods.

That's not to argue Johnson and team should have been given four more years, but not everything about that campaign was poisonous.

bluestonevedder wrote:

beshocked wrote:Johnson should have never been made England coach. Lacked the experience for the job. Lancaster did fine at first but needed someone like Wayne Smith as a mentor.

Is it that much surprise that two coaching novices have done poorly in subsequent RWCs?

The figure tying them both together - Graham Rowntree.

Perhaps we'll find in the future that Eddie Jones is not the saviour but so far he's doing a fine job.

Bar the Marler incident, there haven't been any controversial stories since Jones and co took charge.

Even with Lancaster you had Cipriani vs Mike Catt bust up in pre match training before the RWC.

To be fair to Johnson he didn't inherit a good legacy.

It was easier for Lancaster to give Jones a good foundation as he was benefitting from the strength of the U20s which was at the time reaping dividends.

True, and all good points.

I still maintain that Johnson was a poor choice because he still had personal ties to a lot of the players from his playing days. I just don't think that works at all. A coach needs to be completely objective.

For what it's worth, I think Rowntree is a heck of a scrum coach. Yes, our scrum got torn to pieces at the world cup, but I think he was left with a underweight, under-powered front 5 to work with. By the players' own admissions they were doing the wrong sort of fitness leading up to the RWC, and I think players like Cole and Marler went in well below their playing weight, whilst the skinny guys like Parling, Lawes, and Wood were even lighter. Recipe for disaster.

bluestonevedder perhaps. Just shows how fitness and conditioning is a big part of sport too.

Rowntrees' job wasn't just scrum coach, it was forward's coach and didn't really get hold of the lineout and breakdown in my opinion. Again this could do with personnel but instead of getting players who could do the basics he got people who could patch up others - pick Parling and Wood to help Youngs at lineout time which made England a relatively lightweight pack.


Look at the difference of the pack taking out Parling and Youngs putting in Hartley and Kruis.

Now I wouldn't say the current pack balance is perfect but it's getting there.

In the 2011 RWC it was Rowntree who I expect picked Mad Dog Moody. I thought that was the wrong call.

Martin Johnson's best no 8s were Easter and Haskell, just shows how far England have come that Ben Morgan will struggle to get back into the England side with Billy currently holding the 8 shirt with Hughes qualifying soon. Then there's others like Beaumont and Ewers who might develop.

Lancaster could have done a lot better if he hadn't had Rowntree and Farrell snr screwing up the coaching.

beshocked wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

beshocked wrote:Johnson should have never been made England coach. Lacked the experience for the job. Lancaster did fine at first but needed someone like Wayne Smith as a mentor.

Is it that much surprise that two coaching novices have done poorly in subsequent RWCs?

The figure tying them both together - Graham Rowntree.

Perhaps we'll find in the future that Eddie Jones is not the saviour but so far he's doing a fine job.

Bar the Marler incident, there haven't been any controversial stories since Jones and co took charge.

Even with Lancaster you had Cipriani vs Mike Catt bust up in pre match training before the RWC.

To be fair to Johnson he didn't inherit a good legacy.

It was easier for Lancaster to give Jones a good foundation as he was benefitting from the strength of the U20s which was at the time reaping dividends.

True, and all good points.

I still maintain that Johnson was a poor choice because he still had personal ties to a lot of the players from his playing days. I just don't think that works at all. A coach needs to be completely objective.

For what it's worth, I think Rowntree is a heck of a scrum coach. Yes, our scrum got torn to pieces at the world cup, but I think he was left with a underweight, under-powered front 5 to work with. By the players' own admissions they were doing the wrong sort of fitness leading up to the RWC, and I think players like Cole and Marler went in well below their playing weight, whilst the skinny guys like Parling, Lawes, and Wood were even lighter. Recipe for disaster.

bluestonevedder perhaps. Just shows how fitness and conditioning is a big part of sport too.

Rowntrees' job wasn't just scrum coach, it was forward's coach and didn't really get hold of the lineout and breakdown in my opinion. Again this could do with personnel but instead of getting players who could do the basics he got people who could patch up others - pick Parling and Wood to help Youngs at lineout time which made England a relatively lightweight pack.


Look at the difference of the pack taking out Parling and Youngs putting in Hartley and Kruis.

Now I wouldn't say the current pack balance is perfect but it's getting there.

In the 2011 RWC it was Rowntree who I expect picked Mad Dog Moody. I thought that was the wrong call.

Martin Johnson's best no 8s were Easter and Haskell, just shows how far England have come that Ben Morgan will struggle to get back into the England side with Billy currently holding the 8 shirt with Hughes qualifying soon. Then there's others like Beaumont and Ewers who might develop.

My bad.

Fitness and conditioning are a huge part of the sport, but the correct kind is important. England got it totally wrong in the WC.

Current pack is definitely getting there, though I'm still undecided over whether I prefer Itoje at lock or blindside. When Launchbury reaches his full fitness it's going to become even harder to decide. Where do you see him settling?

So did Tindall bang that kiwi bird in 2011 or not, I really need to know.

I think Lancaster was the perfect man for England after the 2011 world cup, he brought the squad together, instilled discipline and really rebuilt the squad into a respectable team inside and outside rugby which was what he was brought in to do, and he exceeded at it.

I believe the plan was to replace him after he had done this in 2013 with someone who would be better tactically who could take the foundations that Lancaster built and work towards the world cup (Lancaster wasn't the man for this), but after beating the All Blacks and finishing 2nd in the 6 nations on points difference the RFU couldn't get rid of him and were hence stuck with the wrong man.

in summary
Lancaster 2011-2013 perfect man for England
2013-2015 not the best coach of England (good but not right)

Kingshu wrote:I think Lancaster was the perfect man for England after the 2011 world cup, he brought the squad together, instilled discipline and really rebuilt the squad into a respectable team inside and outside rugby which was what he was brought in to do, and he exceeded at it.

I believe the plan was to replace him after he had done this in 2013 with someone who would be better tactically who could take the foundations that Lancaster built and work towards the world cup (Lancaster wasn't the man for this), but after beating the All Blacks and finishing 2nd in the 6 nations on points difference the RFU couldn't get rid of him and were hence stuck with the wrong man.

in summary
Lancaster 2011-2013 perfect man for England
              2013-2015 not the best coach of England (good but not right)

Fair summation

If only we had signed Jones after 2011 RWC.