Stuart Lancaster speaks

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/36006135

LondonTiger wrote:

That'll have to do!

So what else can we say based on the available evidence? The grand slam winning England team instantly materialised as if from nowhere - only needing Eddy's careful management and hand on the tiller to be conquerers of the northern hemisphere.

Lancaster deserves credit for laying the foundations as much as he deserves what could be classed as 'derision' for failing to take the team far beyond those foundations. But he did have a full rebuild job when he started. He was also very influential with the players coming through as he had responsibility for that before becoming England coach. It is possible for people to be good at some aspects of their job and poor at others, and that is all the bulk of us are saying.

No, he was either a success or a failure. you cannot state he was good at some things if ultimately his team failed when it mattered most.

It is the law.

Well that's a BS law LondonTiger.......oh wait

lostinwales as I said before those who should be getting credit are the clubs and the U20s who did the bulk of the development work. To me it seems like they aren't getting enough credit.

Now perhaps Lancaster should take some credit for some of the players development as he was in charge of the U20s for some time but only some of it.

I do think that Jones has got more out of the players at his disposal than Lancaster did even though he's been in the job a shorter time.

Londontiger you can state he was good at some things but cannot ignore his failings. Ultimately his team did fail when it mattered most yes.

His positives can be overstated too.

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Underachieving - most definitely yes. Failure to reach the quarter finals - underachieving. No GS in 4 years under Lancaster - underachieving.

Not expecting a coach to win every match and every year but with the resources at England's disposal more is expected.

We're not close to the best. England should be one of the top teams in my opinion. Not necessarily the best but should be getting there.

I feel I need to call people thick when they are being so.

So no apology for childish remarks.

So we shouldn't be matching our resources glad we confirmed that. I still look at the last 4 years as 3 very equal teams in England, Ireland and Wales, not sure we had a team good enough to expect grand slams. Depth still isn't there now in places. You should stop lashing out when people challenge your black and white views.

No 7 & 1/2 no apology necessary.

Should aspire to be the best in the world but not even close under Lancaster. If anything we moved further away from 2012-2015. From beating ABs in 2012 to meekly losing to Wales and Australia at home in RWC 2015.

No one can/will win every game but failure after failure is not good enough. Lancaster would have eased the pressure on his position with just 1 GS in 4 years.

England should be performing better than Wales and Ireland. Not expect a GS every year but once would have been an improvement over big fat zero.

Neither Wales or Ireland are the benchmark.

Guess that's your problem - happy with failure.

Yes an apology is necessary. You should stop throwing insults when you're frustrated.

Resorting to insults when you're unable to form a reasonable debate is seen as a lack of intelligence...ironically.

Is there really anything to say about Lancaster that has't already been covered?

For me the entire curve, start to finish, was just the expression of corporate failure and so the question has to be has the rfu really learnt their lesson?

For me sadly the answer has to be a 'no'. I am obviously very happy we have EJ in place, but know all too well that the rfu will tell anyone who will listen, 'what a fantastic success the WC was'.

I'm beginning to think BS is the type of person that gets us English folk labelled as arrogant, he seems to think we have some right to win the 6 nations each year.

What a fantastic success the WC was.  


How can any one say  it was a fantastic WC for "ENGLAND".  


The first country to go out of their own RWC in the pool stage. Was in my opinion not a good RWC for England

nathan wrote:I'm beginning to think BS is the type of person that gets us English folk labelled as arrogant, he seems to think we have some right to win the 6 nations each year.

No Gnat, we don't have the right to win it every year. Should have won one GS under Lancaster though. Need belief in your team.

Sgt Pooly impossible to have a reasonable debate when you defend Lancaster's inability to succeed, notably in the biggest games.

No 7 & 1/2 I will never apologise to you again. You have not shown humility yourself.

I am only frustated because of your ignorance.

Lancaster in his tenure for England failed to win anything. You resolutely defend it when all the evidence suggests he wasn't good enough. You have defended selections which are effectively indefensible.

Lancaster underperformed - let's say that a reasonable target would be a GS in 4 years, a RWC semi final - Lancaster failed at both.

He might have had some hand in the development of some of Jones' squad that he now has but it's easy to do that when the academies and clubs are bringing through the players.

Doesn't mean he won't succeed in another job, he might well.

I actually thought Lancaster was doing a fine job in 2012 in his first year - in that year he took a limited squad, 2nd was good in his first 6 nations, a win vs NZ - great.  Went downhill from there.

Fast forward to 2015 - despite a more experienced squad and more players to pick from - 2nd again, being very limited in the loss to Ireland in the 6 nations, losing to Wales and Australia at home in the RWC. Months of preparation, home advantage, a favourable schedule - nice rest periods - all wasted.

majesticimperialman wrote:What a fantastic success the WC was.  


How can any one say  it was a fantastic WC for "ENGLAND".  


The first country to go out of their own RWC in the pool stage. Was in my opinion not a good RWC for England

Technically that was Wales a few years back?

Beshocked wrote:I actually thought Lancaster was doing a fine job in 2012 in his first year - in that year he took a limited squad, 2nd was good in his first 6 nations, a win vs NZ - great.  Went downhill from there.

Fast forward to 2015

How anyone can suggest that Lancaster did not do a good job is beyond me, considering his lack of international experience. It was always accepted by realists that his team would not be ready for the 2015 WC and that getting out of that group would be a lottery. Beshocked why are you judging him on the 6 Nations when you consistently claim that playing against the SH sides is the true test of a team? You say fast forward to 2015, what about the games in between which you choose to ignore?
2013, successful tests away to Argentina, victory over Aus and close loss to NZ and another win over Argentina.
2014, test series loss to the AB's but very close in 2 of those matches (20-15 and 28-27), another narrow loss to NZ in the Autumn (24-21) and a narrow loss to SA (31-28) all done with a team that was still under development.
He gave EJ a very good platform to build on. Had Lancaster still been coach for the 2016 Six Nations I wouldn't have been surprised to see them win the tournament and maybe the GS, the only other decent team were Wales so it's fair to say that EJ had an easy first 6 Nations in comparison and even then only just squeaked past Wales.

Hoonercat

If Lancaster did such a good job then why didn't the RFU keep him then?

Lancaster had security, the RFU foolishly gave Lancaster and co a contract extension,the RFU did not put pressure on him.

Gave him as many advantages as possible - 4 years preparation for the RWC to build a team, a favourable schedule, home advantage, a large pool of players.

Narrow losses are still losses.

They beat Argentina in 2013... big deal, Argentina were better than England in the 2015 RWC. They improved. One of the best sides in the competition.

Realists? Ha! No I didn't expect England to win the RWC 2015 but to meekly bow out in the pool stages is not good enough.

Lancaster's England never beat South Africa. In the biggest games in the RWC, his side was not good enough.

Lancaster's biggest triumph was the 2012 victory over NZ but that was in his first year.

How long can a team be in development? 4 years isn't long enough?

Gustard has no national experience,  now grandslam winning defence coach....

Borthwick is not a hugely experienced coach yet he did a great job with Japan in the RWC and now with England.

Lancaster didn't win anything with England, hard to come the conclusion he would have triumphed in the 6 nations.

Only just squeaked past Wales - they won though.

This might be Eddie Jones' high point but he's done what no one since Clive could do - get a GS.

Clive huffed and puffed too, Jones has done it in his first season.

You've got to admire BS's multiple responses. I'd just walk away but he certainly sticks in!

Gave him as many advantages as possible - 4 years preparation for the RWC to build a team, a favourable schedule, home advantage, a large pool of players.

Beshocked
Did you judge Clive Woodward in the same way? He wasn't startling in the first 4 years of his tenure, but was given time.

beshocked wrote:HoonercatIf Lancaster did such a good job then why didn't the RFU keep him then?

Because he resigned

Beshocked wrote:This might be Eddie Jones' high point but he's done what no one since Clive could do - get a GS.

Clive huffed and puffed too, Jones has done it in his first season.

A far easier season that Lancaster ever had with only one other team really in the running. The summer tour will be a better test of how far Eddie has brought England on since Lancaster.

Hoonercat he resigned because the RFU probably would have been so much pressure to oust him.

Sorry didn't realise that England only played Wales, I thought there were 4 other teams in the competition too.

You don't think the French were motivated to wreck the English chances? I thought they played better against England than any other side. Scotland were in much better shape than they have been for years. Some teams get stronger, some weaker. I don't think this was necessarily a weak year.

Geordiefalcon Clive is a tough one to judge, I would say the RWC 99 was nowhere near as embarrassing as that of 2015. 1/4 quarter finalists, losing to NZ and SA compared to Australia and Wales in 2015 and not making the 1/4 finals.

Yes Clive was fortunate to keep his job but he went on to secure the RWC win.

I doubt Lancaster would have led England to GS or RWC glory.

beshocked wrote:Hoonercat he resigned because the RFU probably would have been so much pressure to oust him.

Are we to resort to guess work now?

beshocked wrote:Sorry didn't realise that England only played Wales, I thought there were 4 other teams in the competition too.
You don't think the French were motivated to wreck the English chances? I thought they played better against England than any other side. Scotland were in much better shape than they have been for years. Some teams get stronger, some weaker. I don't think this was necessarily a weak year.

Come off it BS, the French were woeful for most of the tournament, yet they looked far more comfortable against England though still nowhere near a decent side, that's not complimentary on England. One half-decent game from them is not an indication that it was a strong tournament. Wales were pretty dire, except when we let them back in to a game we should have put away, and Ireland were firing blanks for most of the tournament. Scotland were the only team to show improvement but they may have been flattered by the below par usual contenders.
England played well for the most part but you would expect that of a team playing for their place in front a new coach, but it was a far less competitive 6 Nations than any I can remember under Lancaster.

beshocked wrote:

nathan wrote:I'm beginning to think BS is the type of person that gets us English folk labelled as arrogant, he seems to think we have some right to win the 6 nations each year.

No Gnat, we don't have the right to win it every year. Should have won one GS under Lancaster though. Need belief in your team.

Sgt Pooly impossible to have a reasonable debate when you defend Lancaster's inability to succeed, notably in the biggest games.

No 7 & 1/2 I will never apologise to you again. You have not shown humility yourself.

I am only frustated because of your ignorance.

Lancaster in his tenure for England failed to win anything. You resolutely defend it when all the evidence suggests he wasn't good enough. You have defended selections which are effectively indefensible.

Lancaster underperformed - let's say that a reasonable target would be a GS in 4 years, a RWC semi final - Lancaster failed at both.

He might have had some hand in the development of some of Jones' squad that he now has but it's easy to do that when the academies and clubs are bringing through the players.

Doesn't mean he won't succeed in another job, he might well.

I actually thought Lancaster was doing a fine job in 2012 in his first year - in that year he took a limited squad, 2nd was good in his first 6 nations, a win vs NZ - great.  Went downhill from there.

Fast forward to 2015 - despite a more experienced squad and more players to pick from - 2nd again, being very limited in the loss to Ireland in the 6 nations, losing to Wales and Australia at home in the RWC. Months of preparation, home advantage, a favourable schedule - nice rest periods - all wasted.

Humility for what? What ignorance? You should apologise after your hissy fits.

S to clarify Lancaster resigned not because he didnt do a good job but because some people guessed that the RFU might sack him even though he didnt do a bad job in leading a side to their worst ever performance at a world cup after being employed specificaly to help them win it.

Glkad we cleared that one up.

beshocked wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think Lancaster deserves another shot somewhere. There is no doubt in my mind that he left England in better shape than he inherited and whilst his regime will be marked as a failure (this is a results business after all), I do think history will judge him more kindly if Eddie Jones continues as he has started. Jones has made a point of praising the legacy he inherited. Lancaster had no cause to do that with Johnson, and nor did Johnson with respect to his inheritance from Ashton.

FES easier to leave something in better shape when you have access to better players. Lancaster has been benefiting from strong England U20s sides.

Jones should really be praising the clubs and U20s age groups. It's been the clubs keeping the players in good shape.

This is true, but he still had to pick them. He was also hired in large part down to his excellent knowledge of the young players coming through, knowledge which he used pretty well during his tenure (up until the World Cup).

If you look at some of the key England players now, many had debuts and were brought through under Lancaster. He certainly seemed more progressive in that regard than Ashton and Johnson. Look at the average ages of the squads taken to the respective World Cups - pretty sure that Lancaster's England was a fair bit younger than the squads taken by Johnson and Ashton. Obviously that may have been a direct cause of the early exit, certainly Ashton's group in 2007 leveraged significant experience, but in terms of legacy it's meant that Jones doesn't have to completely rebuild.

beshocked wrote:

Yes Clive was fortunate to keep his job but he went on to secure the RWC win.

I doubt Lancaster would have led England to GS or RWC glory.

That's just hypothetical though....no one knows. He may have realised his errors and gone on to be Englands best ever manager?

GeordieFalcon wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Yes Clive was fortunate to keep his job but he went on to secure the RWC win.

I doubt Lancaster would have led England to GS or RWC glory.

That's just hypothetical though....no one knows. He may have realised his errors and gone on to be Englands best ever manager?

Well he wouldve had to change his job title for a start.

LondonTiger wrote:

no 7 & 1/2 hissy fits? Hardly. Just trying to educate an idiot like you. Sadly it's impossible. Humility for not acknowledging your errors in judgement. Ignorant of the reality that Lancaster wasn't good enough.

Hooter

I am not part of the RFU so I cannot know for sure, the RFU do some very silly things afterall.

Why did Lancaster resign then?


It was no worse a tournament than others in the past. Far more competitive? Only Ireland and Wales have looked like proper contenders and even then they've had their moments of not performing like 2013 for the Irish.

Scotland have been rubbish when Lancaster has been in charge in the 6 nations, in this 6 nations they've looked a lot better. Their highest try count in years.

France haven't been stellar either. As for Italy they've been weak as usual. That's almost 3 games that should be won right there.

FES 4 years though, that's how long Lancaster had. Clive had less than that. You don't think 4 years is enough to build a squad? Especially when being supplied by one of the best U20s sides in the world?

Youth can sometimes mean very little. North was 18 on his debut for Wales. Itoje has hit international rugby at a running start as I knew he would. Relatively old at 21. Lancaster could have picked him earlier but decided not to.

In the 6 nations we saw a 2nd row of very little experience - Kruis-Itoje outplaying AWJ and Davies.

A genius poster like no 7 & 1/2 wanted to pick Launchbury instead of Itoje. Itoje was man of the match vs Wales.

Just shows doesn't it..... one good selection can be the difference between winning and losing.

We can speculate - perhaps Launchbury would have been world class. We just don't know.

We know what happened and it was a big positive for England.

Winning vs Wales and going on to get the GS.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 hissy fits? Hardly. Just trying to educate an idiot like you. Sadly it's impossible. Humility for not acknowledging your errors in judgement. Ignorant of the reality that Lancaster wasn't good enough.

Hooter

I am not part of the RFU so I cannot know for sure, the RFU do some very silly things afterall.

Why did Lancaster resign then?


It was no worse a tournament than others in the past. Far more competitive? Only Ireland and Wales have looked like proper contenders and even then they've had their moments of not performing.

Scotland have been rubbish when Lancaster has been in charge in the 6 nations, in this 6 nations they've looked a lot better. Their highest try count in years.

France haven't been stellar either. As for Italy they've been weak as usual. That's almost 3 games that should be won right there.

FES 4 years though, that's how long Lancaster had. Clive had less than that. You don't think 4 years is enough to build a squad? Especially when being supplied by one of the best U20s sides in the world?

Youth can sometimes mean very little. North was 18 on his debut for Wales. Itoje has hit international rugby at a running start as I knew he would. Relatively old at 21. Lancaster could have picked him earlier but decided not to.

In the 6 nations we saw a 2nd row of very little experience - Kruis-Itoje outplaying AWJ and Davies.

A genius poster like no 7 & 1/2 wanted to pick Launchbury instead of Itoje. Itoje was man of the match vs Wales.

Just shows doesn't it..... one good selection can be the difference between winning and losing.

We can speculate - perhaps Launchbury would have been world class. We just don't know.

We know what happened and it was a big positive for England.

Winning vs Wales and going on to get the GS.

.

More hissy fits, more insults, more anger that people don't view you as an oracle!

beshocked wrote:I am not part of the RFU so I cannot know for sure, the RFU do some very silly things afterall.

Exactly, so why mention it in the first place?

beshocked wrote:It was no worse a tournament than others in the past. Far more competitive?

You think this year's 6 Nations was far more competitive? Really?

Beshocked wrote:Scotland have been rubbish when Lancaster has been in charge in the 6 nations, in this 6 nations they've looked a lot better. Their highest try count in years.

Yes, they've looked better this tournament, while Ireland, Wales and France have looked a lot weaker. Do you see the link?

Hoonercat I didn't mention resignation you did. I said he's no longer in the job, that's clear even for you to see.

No I didn't say this year's 6 nations was more competitive hence the ? I believe this year was no weaker than previous years with Lancaster in charge. Got to still win 5/5 and beat the opposition.

France and Ireland were weaker in 2013. France won the wooden spoon that year.

France haven't been as strong since Laporte left. Wales in my opinion are no weaker or stronger than previous seasons.

I wouldn't say there's been a properly strong 6 nations for a while.

It's not easy winning 5/5 but Jones made it look easy, compared to Lancaster. Lancaster's England did not face notably stronger sides throughout the 4 years, some got stronger, some weaker.

beshocked wrote:Hoonercat I didn't mention resignation you did. I said he's no longer in the job, that's clear even for you to see.

Am I the next to join your insults list Beshocked? Go back and read the posts and you might see what I was referring to. Actually don't bother, it's really not worth arguing about.

beshocked wrote:No I didn't say this year's 6 nations was more competitive hence the ? I believe this year was no weaker than previous years with Lancaster in charge. Got to still win 5/5 and beat the opposition.

You wrote 'Far more competitive?'. Even as a question it suggests that you believe that it was - why write it otherwise?

beshocked wrote:France and Ireland were weaker in 2013. France won the wooden spoon that year.

Before the France game:

Beshocked wrote:I think this French team could buckle and be in for a hammering if England get stuck into them early on, they don't have the same belief that Ireland or Wales have.

Before the Ireland game

Beshocked wrote:Ireland haven't won an international game of rugby for a long time now. Ireland in my opinion are vulnerable which I've gone for a big England win.

And Wales

Beshocked wrote:I should add I think all the 6 nations are off the pace at the moment including England but whilst I see plenty of room for improvement from Ireland, England and France I don't from Wales.

Beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 I think you are making out France, Ireland and Wales to be better than they are

But you're now saying it was as competitive, if not 'far more competitive', than previous 6 Nations. Even though England apparently made it look easy.

Far more competitive? It was a question from me to you.That was your belief about previous years not mine.

I personally don't think 2016 really differs from 2012-2015 years. These Welsh and Irish sides have not been world beating.

The French didn't buckle like I thought they could. They played pretty well against England.

Ireland put up quite a fight too and again I underestimated Ireland.

I think you have a higher opinion of NH sides, our record against SH is pretty poor.

Winning a GS has quite clearly not been easy for England, even if we argue about the relative competitiveness of sides in the 6 nations.

Personally I don't think the general standards of sides has been that much different from 2012-2016.


It's not exactly been a golden era for NH sides. Still struggling to beat the SH sides as usual.

beshocked wrote:FES 4 years though, that's how long Lancaster had. Clive had less than that. You don't think 4 years is enough to build a squad? Especially when being supplied by one of the best U20s sides in the world?

Youth can sometimes mean very little. North was 18 on his debut for Wales. Itoje has hit international rugby at a running start as I knew he would. Relatively old at 21. Lancaster could have picked him earlier but decided not to.

As I said, Lancaster's regime will certainly be classed a failure. No question. What I was referring to was the legacy left for Jones to inherit, and how that compared to the one inherited by Ashton, Johnson and Lancaster. Lancaster made plenty mistakes, a whole bunch of them, but he cannot be accused of failing to consider the future and giving young players a chance. Not every young player of course, like all coaches he had to have some balance of experience vs youth, and some he no doubt missed, but as Jones himself has said, Lancaster deserves some credit for the success England are now enjoying.

FES now that's something I would agree with you.

The squad is in better shape than under Ashton and Johnson but how much credit should Lancaster get for that?

Surely the pool of players available to England has steadily improved as the U20s have consistent game and competitions to help their development?

I think he should get some credit for some of the development work but as I've said before it's been the clubs and academies primarily developing the players.


Don't get me wrong Eddie Jones is of course benefitting from some of the development but I think Lancaster could have done more when he had the players at his disposal.

To be fair all England coaches have had a decent pool of young players to choose from, relatively speaking, but Ashton and Johnson were particularly bad at integrating them into the set-up in a coherent fashion. Neither coach appeared to have any sort of plan or strategy, whereas at least Lancaster could certainly not be accused of lacking a long-term vision (albeit he lost his marbles at the World Cup).

Still, there's no question we agree that Lancaster could have done more, and certainly made some duff calls. Tom Wood at number 8, his love for Tom Youngs to spearhead his front row and his handling of Sam Burgess will certainly go down as big blunders, and whilst I understand why he spent so much time on discipline and team ethics (Johnson's regime came apart on that front), he clearly went overboard on that score.

What England have now is an experienced international coach. Someone generally recognised as one of the best in the world. They've never hired someone like that before, and it's clearly doing them some good. I think Jones will be a huge success.

FES a big criticism of Clive is that he didn't leave his successor - Robinson much to work with.

He saw it as his job to win the RWC which he did but hell to the consequences after that. This culminated in the woeful 2005 Lions tour where Clive flopped.

So even someone who has been knighted can be deemed as flawed.

Yes that's a positive you could say of Lancaster, he did have more long term vision than Clive but the problem is he needed to have some success to keep the job.

England does expect some results.


An experienced international coach is what England have needed for some time indeed. Eddie Jones jumped at the chance, no surprise there, England job is one of the biggest and best around in my opinion.

My view on Sir Clive post-2003 is that he forgot or ignored the principles and boldness that he deployed in building the World Cup winning team. After 1999 he was pretty ruthless in shipping out dead wood and players who didn't fit the trajectory of the team, and equally bold in building the infrastructure and selecting the players to win the big prize.

After 2003 he seemed to take the view that the job was done, the team and its structures built and that he could just glide forwards without having to innovate further and take a bold approach. He needed more of a wholesale clearout and to draw up a new strategy and group of players to win in 2007, using 2003 for building blocks but giving the team and the bench a refresh. I think he felt too much loyalty to his 2003 troops.

Just look at his team selection for the home game against Ireland in 2004 (England's first home defeat for 5 years):

England: Balshaw (Bath), Lewsey (Wasps), Robinson (Sale), Greenwood (Harlequins), Cohen (Northampton), Grayson (Northampton), Dawson (Northampton); Woodman (Gloucester), Steve Thompson (Northampton), Vickery (Gloucester), Borthwick (Bath ), Kay (Leicester), Worsley (Wasps), Hill (Saracens), Dallaglio (Wasps, capt).

Replacements: Regan (Leeds Tykes), Stevens (Bath), Jones (Sale), Back (Leicester), Gomarsall (Gloucester), Barkley (Bath), Simpson-Daniel (Gloucester).

Lots of steady old warriors with bags of experience, but where's the vision and sparkle coming from? Just look at that back row - Gleeson and Easterby must have had a field day. I cannot believe that Sir Clive selected that side based on form, or with any longer term vision in his mind.

Interesting comparison between New Zealand in 2007 and 2008 as well (albeit they obviously needed to clear-out following the QF knockout):

QF 2007:

New Zealand: MacDonald, Rokocoko, Muliaina, McAlister, Sivivatu, Carter, Kelleher; Woodcock, Oliver, Hayman, Robinson, Williams, Collins, McCaw (capt), So'oialo.
Replacements: Hore, Tialata, Jack, Masoe , Leonard, Evans, Toeava.

2008 Tri Nations:

New Zealand: Muliaina, Wulf, Smith, Nonu, Sivivatu, Carter, Ellis; Woodcock, Hore, Somerville, Thorn, Williams, Kaino, Thomson, So'oialo.
Replacements: Mealamu, Tialata, Boric, Luaki, Cowan, Donald, McDonald.

Obviously some injuries involved in these changes, but the introduction of Nonu/Smith and Kaino clearly shows an immediate vision for the future and the sort of changes needed to start a rebuild.

In contrast Sir Clive in 2004 barely introduced a single new player into his XV from the one that played in 2003. Johnson retired so he replaced him with Borthwick. Tindall was injured so he moved Robinson into the centres for Balshaw to return at 15. Wilkinson was injured so he went back to an aging Paul Grayson. Did he think Grayson was going to be a man to build England's future around?

Lancaster had his flaws, but he left Jones in a far better position than Andy Robinson inherited.

If you ignore all the bad bits Hitler Jimpy was a OK guy.

Cherry trees of facts are looking pretty bare round this thread

Lancaster won't go down as a terrible or great coach. Highest win % without a tournament trophy since CW (?), but went out in the group stages of the WC (granted against Wales and Aus both very good teams, at least on parity with England recently).

He's introduced a great core of youth into the team yet still was criticised for not building enough depth in experience. I guess this is Jones next task; build that depth down to 2 or 3 players in each position while still winning all his games. Easy right?

FES I agree. Clive did what he set out to do though - England did win the RWC.

It's easier to forgive a coach when they deliver silverware and do well in the RWC.

The only NH coach to win a RWC.


Lancaster will go down as a coach who won no silverware and the first coach to lead England to a exit in the pool stages of the RWC, also the first host to do so. The nearly man - nearly winning the 6 nations, nearly making it out of the pool.

He has his staunch supporters who will defend every mistake he made but then again they aren't being realistic.

It's not as if Lancaster had a bad job, the England job is one of the best around.

I know there are some who like to build up Wales and Australia but they haven't been unbeatable. England should be beating at least one of them at home if not both.

4 years. That's how long Lancaster had. It's not an insignificant amount of time. Think that he had the longest time to prepare for a RWC of any England coach.

There are worse coaches than Lancaster around but with the resources at his disposal he simply wasn't good enough.

This GS might well be Jones' highest point of his England reign but he's done what no England coach has since Clive.

The club academies have been doing a very good job indeed, English club rugby seems to be healthy at the moment. Don't think Lancaster should take credit for that either.

I don't think I've seen anyone defend every mistake, but that's just the oracle making stuff up to try and support his arguments again!

There is a difference of opinion on what constitutes his mistakes, and what the effect of those would be. There is also a complete lack of understanding as to how more than one choice can ever be justified, and a belief that if the "correct" decisions were made then everything would have been better.

Of course Jones was being slated for making some of the same mistakes in the first couple of matches.

He won the GS LT so i don't think your argument holds any water.

To be fair I was exaggerating a bit there, not every mistake, just most. Staunchly defending failure I think is bizarre personally.

Don't need to make stuff up to support my argument - failure to make the quarter finals is factual. Failure to win silverware is factual.

Lancaster's credit for the development of players, that's debatable. How much credit should he get? Certainly the clubs and academies have done more as they do the day to day stuff. Impossible to know exactly how hands on Lancaster has been with each player.

Now he should get some credit for his work in the U20s - that's factual, evidence is there but then again that's just one aspect of the development of a player.

Wouldn't be upset if he went back to coach of the U20s, to be fair he did a good job there.


Londontiger Jones' decisions paid off. They did not bite him in the backside. I acknowledged as such that I was wrong in regards to Haskell and Hartley. Jones got a more mature and less headless chicken Haskell. No penalties given away vs France.

Jones made the decision to start Itoje instead of Launchbury vs Wales and it paid off. It was a decision I of course agreed with but it was a resounding success.

Might have not beaten Wales without that decision. Small margins.

Another coach/person might have not picked the man of the match. We can only look at what happened. I know there are some on here who wanted an unfit Launchbury. Pleased they weren't in charge of England.

Staunchly trying to understand reasons for decisions. You still don't get it which I find amusing from someone who likes to call others thick!

beshocked wrote:

He has his staunch supporters who will defend every mistake he made but then again they aren't being realistic.

You really do yourself no favours with nonsense like this BS. Everyone knows he messed up in the WC, though the players need to take responsibility as well.

beshocked wrote:
It's not as if Lancaster had a bad job, the England job is one of the best around.

And arguably one of the most difficult and demanding. Some expect England to be world beaters because we have more resources and a larger pool of players to pick from. I'd far rather have a smaller pool of world class players than a large pool of average (by international standard) players. Hopefully this will change over the next couple of years but until it does we will always be the nearly men.

beshocked wrote:
Don't need to make stuff up to support my argument

Might have not beaten Wales without that decision. Small margins.

Another coach/person might have not picked the man of the match.

No, hinting at made up stuff is far more subtle

No 7 & 1/2

I do understand - weigh up the pros and the cons but once that is all done then I come to a conclusion that they were poor decisions unless they were proven to be not.


Hoonercat everyone knows he messed up in the WC? Wouldn't think so from the unwavering support for Lancaster by some. Players did take responsibility, Robshaw was a broken man, he's had his confidence rebuilt by Jones.

Must be so hard - having 4 years to prepare for a RWC, having one of the richest unions in your corner, a huge player pool to pick players from, a U20s side that has been one of the strongest in the world since 2008 (not this year though). Probably a nice salary too.

It's the coaches job to help turn these players into world class players, how many would you say Lancaster has helped become that?

Hoonercat

It's not made up that Itoje had a big impact on the England-Wales game, he was made man of the match and deservedly so. How much more evidence do you need?

It was an important decision.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Interesting comparison between New Zealand in 2007 and 2008 as well (albeit they obviously needed to clear-out following the QF knockout):

QF 2007:

New Zealand: MacDonald, Rokocoko, Muliaina, McAlister, Sivivatu, Carter, Kelleher; Woodcock, Oliver, Hayman, Robinson, Williams, Collins, McCaw (capt), So'oialo.
Replacements: Hore, Tialata, Jack, Masoe , Leonard, Evans, Toeava.

2008 Tri Nations:

New Zealand: Muliaina, Wulf, Smith, Nonu, Sivivatu, Carter, Ellis; Woodcock, Hore, Somerville, Thorn, Williams, Kaino, Thomson, So'oialo.
Replacements: Mealamu, Tialata, Boric, Luaki, Cowan, Donald, McDonald.

Obviously some injuries involved in these changes, but the introduction of Nonu/Smith and Kaino clearly shows an immediate vision for the future and the sort of changes needed to start a rebuild.

In contrast Sir Clive in 2004 barely introduced a single new player into his XV from the one that played in 2003. Johnson retired so he replaced him with Borthwick. Tindall was injured so he moved Robinson into the centres for Balshaw to return at 15. Wilkinson was injured so he went back to an aging Paul Grayson. Did he think Grayson was going to be a man to build England's future around?

Lancaster had his flaws, but he left Jones in a far better position than Andy Robinson inherited.

You could also look at what Eddie Jones has done. Ignoring the Uruguay game:

England line-up vs Aus:
Brown, Watson, Joseph, Barritt, May, Farrell, Youngs, Marler, Youngs, Cole, Launchbury, Parling, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan.
Webber, Vunipola, Brookes, Kruis, Easter, Wigglesworth, Ford, Burgess.

England line-up vs Sco:
Brown, Watson, Joseph, Farrell, Nowell, Ford, Care, Marler, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Kruis, Robshaw, Haskell, Vunipola.
George, Vunipola, Hill, Lawes, Clifford, Youngs, Devoto, Goode.

Yes, England weren't successful as in 2015 as 2003, but Jones has immediately come in and made changes. If you ignore injuries to May and Brookes, Burgess leaving the game and Vunipola returning to fitness and reclaiming his spot, the main changes are Barritt, T. Youngs, Parling, Wood, Webber, Easter and Wigglesworth being cut from the team/bench and even the EPS as a whole. And although you can point to a number of similar names, Barritt, Parling and Wood in particular were very much Lancaster's first choice guys, while Youngs, Webber and Wigglesworth were always his solid squad guys who would be there or thereabouts.

Lancaster did bring through a number of players and did do reasonably well, but Jones willingly changed a 7 of the 23 for the first game against Scotland - despite also making the 4 injury swaps he also had to make - and these changes increased with Itoje and Daly coming through during the tournament and Tuilagi being rehabilitated.

By the end of the tournament, only Brown, Watson, Joseph, Farrell, Youngs, Marler, Cole, Launchbury, Robshaw, M. Vunipola, Brookes, Kruis and Ford remained from that Australia game, or 13 of the 23. That's 43% of a squad changed in 5 games, and if you look at the players missing, you'd say only May would be better than evens at getting another cap.

Hoonercat wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Don't need to make stuff up to support my argument

Might have not beaten Wales without that decision. Small margins.

Another coach/person might have not picked the man of the match.

No, hinting at made up stuff is far more subtle

Not made up there. It's a dig at me saying I would have chosen Launchbury ahead of Itoje for Wales if he was fit. That has been twisted now to say I would choose an unfit Launchbury ahead fo Itoje though. And I've already acknowledged that I doubt Launchbury would have performed as well as Itoje in that first 40 min. I didn't think he would have produced something like that this early on. was expecting more a performance he gave against France, good but not spectacular