Stuart Lancaster speaks

First topic message reminder :

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

beshocked wrote: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.

You still don't understand Oracle. You're most likely thinking of instances like Webber in the world cup, where I think 90% of the people here wouldn't have chosen him and then a couple saying saying well he's probably gone with him as he knows him etc. You consider that defending, I think most consider it thinking about why a decision (which wasn't really proved incorrect) was taken. The majority of what you consider mistakes are simply choices you don't agree with.

beshocked wrote: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.

Obviously not as hard as sitting on a PC at home with no consequence of action. Still going on about the huge pool of players while ignoring that the majority were simply not as good as SH players.

beshocked wrote: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.

I didn't suggest any different Beshocked, you're just making up stuff again. Go re-read what I wrote.

no 7 & 1/2 we don't know what Lancaster would have done. That's the argument in Lancaster's corner - he could have won the GS. Unfortunately it's just speculation.

Maybe Lancaster would have done exactly the same as Jones. Unfortunately for Lancaster he'll never be able to prove it.

Robbo interesting, shows more difference between Jones and Lancaster than I first thought in terms of favoured personnel.

Also Jones still had to deal with the challenge of no proper inside centre just like Lancaster.

What Jones has done is strengthen the lineout and the scrum - that's a notable change from the RWC.

I guess we'll find out more about Jones in the Australia tour and further down the line.

Guys,

Leave him alone. You will not change his mind, and he will continue to write in a way that antagonises the more you try. We generally know nothing about the person on the other side of the keyboard, but there are some real similarities with my autistic younger daughter to his writing and arguments.

Stuart Lancaster comes across as a decent and sincere human being. He is obviously traumatised by his experience, and has taken the WC failings very personally. He knows the mistakes he made better than anyone, and he has to live with them. We shoudl be grateful for the manner in which the player base has developed and it is extremely disingenuous to pillory him for what went wrong yet give zip credit for what went right.

Last thing - we have no idea if things would have been different if he had made some different choices. We can only speculate.

Well I thought the group of players we had now stand a better and better chance and so it proved. Not much difference in performance granted and we got the luck we haven't recently. As I said prior to the tournament I'd only really start to judge Jones from 2017 onwards, too early to see yet.

no 7 & 1/2 Lancaster of course could justify picking Webber but it was still a poor decision.

Lancaster: "I picked Webber because he had more international experience than George and LCD and I know, he's a top bloke".

It still doesn't outweigh his poor form for Bath and doesn't take into account that he's barely started for England at hooker.

The cons outweigh any pros - Lancaster could come up with. Webber didn't add any value at the RWC.

It's not just choices I disagree with - they are proving to either be correct or wrong. In the case of Webber it was proven to be a poor decision as the England set piece in the big matches was not good enough.

There's been a big difference between set piece in RWC and this year's 6 nations.

Hoonercat I am not England coach, what do you expect me to do? If they aren't as good as SH players - whose fault is that?

Being not fit enough and powerful enough - who takes responsibility? Being so far off the pace against Australia - it's not just the players it is? Not having the legs/fitness to beat Wales - whose fault?

What am I making up?

Lancaster was probably looking for a solid option, had been involved with the players and played games with them. I don't remember Webber being a huge issue with his set piece. Of course there's been a big improvement in lineout this 6Ns, Hartleys back. Borthwick has been brill so far and we're back to where we were a few years ago. That wasn't sustained for more than 18 months what with injuries and suspensions so again comes back to the right expansion of players now.

Like I said, and you acknowledge there, we haven't had the players available to consistently get it right. We've had peaks and troughs. That will even out and improve with experience and a few sparkling youngsters.

Londontiger thank you for yet again adding your patronising comment to the discussion.

Must be autistic because I don't agree with your view point.

I'll tell you what I give Lancaster credit for

2011 U20s 6 nations GS, his win over NZ in 2012 - his two biggest achievements that he should look back at proudly. Some credit for the development of the players in the current England squad.

I think the credit he's getting is too much though. The work of others in the development of these players seems to have been dismissed in my opinion.

He doesn't seem like a bad person and I wish him all the best in his new job. As I said before there are worst coaches out there than Lancaster but the grass does indeed look greener on the other side now Jones is in charge instead.

A winning record of over 60% is fine but unfortunately Lancaster didn't back it up with silverware or a good RWC.

I also don't feel like he learnt from his mistakes. Then there is of course occasions when he didn't admit he was wrong.

At least after the RWC and now he's admitting his faults.


no 7 & 1/2 it's about improvements. Webber was a downgrade. You might be satisfied with 5/10, I want England to strive for more.

Even Jones hasn't had players available - still no proper 7 or 12 and yet he's won a GS.

Why do you guys bother?

Webber was a downgrade on George right? We'll never know what could have happened. Most of us would have had him in the squad at the start but I don't consider it a travesty he wasn't picked. I understand why Lancaster may favour the guy he knows, the guy whos played with the vast majority of that pack a few times and done ok.

Jones has done really well, still decisions not all agreed with, and still a team which had ups and downs. We could have easily lost against Wales, very similar to the game in the WC in a lot of respects. If we had it Jones would have made the same decisions still, this is sport, it happens.

ps people will stop patronising you Oracle if you stop acting like a numpty.

Thought the same when I've been discussing T Youngs with you pooly!

Eddie Jones didn't win a GS all by himself, the players had a pretty big part to play. Lol. The majority of those players were brought in by Lancaster. 

I would expect the experience of the World Cup also had a big impact on the players in the six nations.

Nobody is taking anything away from Jones, but he himself has thanks Lancaster for the work he's done and that he inherited a good team already.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why do you guys bother?

Mainly because right now, I feel there is a risk of Beshocked being internet bullied here, and having kids who have gone through that I feel a touch sympathetic.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the same when I've been discussing T Youngs with you pooly!

C'mon! You can't compare me to BS! I can't remember the last time I mentioned TY, him being away from the England set-up has chilled me out.

LondonTiger wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why do you guys bother?

Mainly because right now, I feel there is a risk of Beshocked being internet bullied here, and having kids who have gone through that I feel a touch sympathetic.

Nobody is bullying the lad, you're just fueling him.

Yes in my opinion Webber was a downgrade on George. Webber wasn't even deemed good enough to face George as a starter in the AP final.

Webber - not good enough to start for Bath or England.

Can't be proven to be right unless the decision is made.

It was the same with Itoje - he's not ready, don't pick him.

Me: Pick Itoje.

Jones picks Itoje and he's one of breakthrough players of the tournament.

Itoje - man of the match vs Wales.

Done ok.... T.Youngs did ok yet, set piece was a significant upgrade in the 6 nations. The pack in the RWC wasn't as strong as the one in the 6 nations.

Didn't lose to Wales though. Small margins.

Wasps almost went out of the ERCC on the weekend, yet they are still in the competition....

Acting like a numpty because I challenge poor decisions....

So Webber wasn't a good pick as George may have bettered him. But Itoje was a good pick as no one could have matched him. Consistency.

Hartleys a class act, I've never disputed that.

And back to black and white. If we win, it's justified, if we lose it isn't. So 60% of the time Lancaster is justified. The most justified England coach since Woodward. (i'm discounting Jones for the record!).

Incidentally if anyone feels bullied by me please let me know, as of now I'll make my case and argue my point and get called an idiot for it!

Sorry, 7.5 not really meaning to accuse people, just there are times we we all get quite forceful and at times that can be directed by the mass at one individual. That includes me.


I am amazed that we are still arguing about Itoje's non-selection for the World Cup when even his club coach said it was the correct call, or George's limited involvement. Pretty much as one we would have favoured George over Webber but at the same time acknowledging that there was logic in Bombers choice.

No it's a perfectly fair and valid point LT. I think I'm the right side of the line but if anyone does take it the wrong way I'd feel awful as it's not my intent.

Though it is hard to follow the argument thread fully when you only see one side of it

no 7 & 1/2 how on earth can you say Lancaster's done really well when he's got no silverware to show for it and the worse performance from an England side in the RWC.

The more you defend Lancaster's record, inevitably the more I am opposed.

Nathan no he didn't win a GS by himself. Lancaster and Jones brought in players developed by the academies and clubs.

Eddie Jones should thank the academies and clubs. I feel like they've had a much more important impact than Lancaster - 3 English teams in the semi finals of the ERCC and the fortunes of the England side.

You don't think most English players successfully bouncing back with their clubs was more important than a soul crushingly poor RWC campaign?

What's more morale boosting? A loss to Wales and Australia at Twickenham or wiping the floor with opposition in the ERCC?

Jones inherited a team built upon the strong foundation from the English clubs.

So you think England haven't developed any players at all?

no 7 & 1/2 we can only go on what we've seen.

Itoje was man of the match vs Wales so obviously he seems to have been a good choice, Webber was 5/10 at best in the RWC. Of course it's just speculation whether George would have been better. Webber didn't exactly set the bar high though. I personally think he would have.

Win % is not all that matters. Gatland has a lower win % than Lancaster but because he's won 2 GSs and another 6 nations title he's still in the Wales job, of course beating England in a RWC gives him extra bonus points too.

Nathan some development work is done by England but it's the academies and clubs who do most of the work. Do you not agree?

I think my judgment of Lancaster was pretty much he's done as most expected. Not really under or over achieved. All I've really said is that we've never had the players over the last 4 years to consistently challenge. That's changing we've got a really good core, building good experience. The black and white I argue against is that the same decisions can be made and if re-run 100 times you wouldn't see the same outcomes (especially in sport). So far Jones has a GS, could easily have ended with a 2nd place making the exact same decisions. I hope you can understand my thoughts on that.

'The more you defend Lancaster's record, inevitably the more I am opposed.' That's telling; shutting off from considering arguments just because it comes from a particular source.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 we can only go on what we've seen.

Itoje was man of the match vs Wales so obviously he seems to have been a good choice, Webber was 5/10 at best in the RWC. Of course it's just speculation whether George would have been better. Webber didn't exactly set the bar high though. I personally think he would have.

Win % is not all that matters. Gatland has a lower win % than Lancaster but because he's won 2 GSs and another 6 nations title he's still in the Wales job, of course beating England in a RWC gives him extra bonus points too.

There lacks consistency there. Webber didn't cost us anything and you have no idea f Launchbury would have bettered Itoje and led us to a comfortable victory. I doubt it but possible.

2GS and no title by the way for Gatland.

As most expected? Failure in the RWC was expected was it? Failing to win a GS was expected?

You don't think we've had good enough players to win a GS? Quite clearly in 2016 we did.

He didn't end with a 2nd place though.

It's the difference between a good coach and a mediocre one.

Gatland in his first season - GS, Schmidt in his first season - 6 nations title, Jones in his first season - GS.

What do you want me to say? I was disappointed that England couldn't get out of their pool or win a GS or even a 6 nations title under Lancaster. GS being the biggest prize. Would have eased the pressure if he did.

You are wrong - 2008 and 2012 - GS for Wales, in 2013 Wales won the title - that's 3.

Webber didn't cost anything you say... I don't think he was good enough, just like Lancaster. Could have picked someone in my opinion better, England have picked a better coach.....

I have no idea if Launchbury would have better Itoje but i would have been difficult to play better than the man of the match.


I would inevitably be talking differently about Lancaster if he had won a GS or done better in the RWC. Same with Jones if he didn't get the GS.

Gatland was not the Wales coach in 2013

I didn't expect to win the WC and held it as a very real possibility that any of us Wales or Aus could go out. 3 teams at a very similar level.

The difference between a mediocre coach and a good coach can of course be very small. How do you think we'd have gone if the best players on the pitch against Wales were injured under Jones for instance? Think Youngs and Vunipola for Lancaster and swap them for say Itoje and Vunipola? Not the same positions of course but the most influenetial on the pitch.

Would you at least if you played the same game 100 times it wouldn't end with the same outcome? At least acknowledge it and we can move on.

No I'm right, 2013 was of course won by Howley. Of course, personally, I'd give some credit to Gatland for laying the path.

LondonTiger wrote:Gatland was not the Wales coach in 2013

Going by Lancaster logic - it's Gatland's team. He developed it, he nurtured it. Though yes I will concede Gatland wasn't in charge at that specific moment but he's still in charge of Wales.

No 7 & 1/2 well we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it was unacceptable for England not to make the 1/4s at a minimum. You can be satisfied that Lancaster matched your expectation with RWC failure if you want.

Yes the difference can be small but it's those margins that make the difference. Jones has been on the winning side 5 times so far.

Wouldn't end in the same outcome no.

Given this is a SL thread – seems reasonable to offer your opinions of the guy’s record, too bad if you don't like them. As for his record it aint too bad, but it certainly aint too good. Head coach is to a large extent a results job, and consistently making 2nd place plus a disastrous home RWC is simply not good enough for England. It doesn’t help his reputation that little Eddie waddles in and within weeks scoops a GS. Of course to judge EJ we’ll have to see how consistent his performance is. But SL had 4 years and that is enough to make a judgment on his.

I think it’s important not to forget that selection was just one problem he had (too many ‘still recovering’ players (in the RWC anyway), the Slammin’ Sam show, Wood At 8, Lawes at 6, Brown on the wing, Barritt at OC, ickle Tom at 2, 2 6.5s on the flanks, skinny boys at lock, the bench, etc) – some at least were down to injuries, but them’s the breaks. My problem was as much to do with tactics and game-plan – depowering the set-piece, increase in pack mobility but without any benefit at the breakdown or even defence, the chasing of an ABs style without the technical nous to carry it out, unfathomable use of the bench…. Here SL seemed out of his depth. Eddie seems to have concentrated more on the basics of rugby and simplified things. He’s also recovered our set-piece.

Criticism shouldn’t just be of SL though, but for the whole coaching team. And for the RFU for consistently picking inexperienced coaches – for 8 years anyway. I’m hoping SL has learnt a lot and will become an excellent coach, he’s certainly a decent guy. But for the moment it’s nice try but no cigar.

beshocked wrote:You don't think we've had good enough players to win a GS? Quite clearly in 2016 we did.

He didn't end with a 2nd place though.

It's the difference between a good linesman and a mediocre one.

Fixed that for you

Barney Mcgrew did it

Well said.

I've focussed on Lancaster because this is a Lancaster thread but my lack of faith in Farrell Sr is obvious. I don't rate any of his other coaches highly. If anything Lancaster is the best of the bunch and as you say he doesn't seem like a bad bloke.

I've perhaps been too critical of Lancaster, focussing too much on his failings. There are worst coaches out there. Could rebuild his career as a director of rugby.

As for the RFU, I've criticised them plenty of times.

I just didn't think it was a done deal for Wales Aus or us. 3 evenly matched teams for me.

Lancaster's biggest mistakes were selections against Wales in 2013 and 2015.

Wood at 8 and Brown on the wing were poor choices BUT the evidence for the defence will show that with Morgan and the untested Vunipola injured their were few options. He should have gone back to Easter or Waldrom maybe, but I very much doubt it would have made any difference. Likewise the back 3 of Brown, Ashton and Goode can be seen in retrospect as a mistake. However again contenders were injured and that same Back 3 had all played parts in 5 wins in a row including over NZ.

Then we come to 2015 RWC and he panicked. I saw a training session where he was so scared about Jamie Roberts, plus Joseph was injured, that he selected a midfield of Barritt and Burgess. Yet it did the job required of him and it was only when Burgess was withdrawn that Wales started to make progress. Now by then BillyV who had been hugely influential had left with an injury and YoungsB had been withdrawn after his ankle was stamped on. All oomph disappeared when Wiggy came on and defensively he was at fault for Wales try. Bomber's treatment of Care in the last 12 months of his reign was inexplicable and an area where Jones has been a huge improvement.

There were then smaller mistakes, usually involving players out of position such as Lawes at 6, Tuilagi on the wing. Yet lots of fans and pundits were calling for these experiments so it is only when they fail that we say they were wrong, yet if you do not try things you can never improve.

Then we have the judgement calls. Most of us, including me, feel George should have had more time. However he was unimpressive in the warm up time he did get and it is understandable why Lancaster would put Webber on the bench. I may not agree, but I am able to understand the reasons. And it had bugger all impact. A change in the reserve hooker would not materially affect any of the games.


Final point is that winning a game does not mean selection was correct and tactical decisions were all sound. Just as losing does not automatically mean that things were wrong. Eddie Jones will know that he seriousley messed up with his bench use against Wales and that luck and maybe a TJ's flag saved him. He will not sit back and go hey we won a GS. He will instead thank his lucky stars and aim not to make the same mistake again.


Where we were at the start of 2012, Lancaster was the right man and he did much that was right. However having righted a sinking ship he probably should have been moved to a development role before the WC - but who would have come in at short notice?

One thing they both have in common though is they wont play 6.5's

They have very similar selections in the back row.

I wonder once Eddie has time to bed in, if that will change? Neither seemed to rate Fraser or Kvesic.

GeordieFalcon wrote:One thing they both have in common though is they wont play 6.5's

They have very similar selections in the back row.

I wonder once Eddie has time to bed in, if that will change? Neither seemed to rate Fraser or Kvesic.

You can tell what Eddie Jones wants though in a way you were never sure with Lancaster. Vunipola running off the base or Tuilagi at 12 to smash the ball up, Haskell at 7 to clear that first ruck, and then a fast "back 4" to exploit the space on second phase.

Jones has also been quite adamant that you don't have to be a turnover king to play 7. Obviously if you have McCaw or Pocock its different, but Fraser and Kvesic aren't and probably will never be in that league.

With Gustard's defensive system England may be trying to get into league-style rucks, where they just tackle and mark up, and then press hard and force turnovers by error, rather than trying to jackal clean turnovers. To do this, you need physical defenders, such as Haskell.

I think this backrow may be here to stay until there is an outstanding candidate to come in at 7 who can jackal well, but also fulfil Haskell's role of smashing would-be scavengers when we have the ball.

Whether Fraser and Kvesic fit that brief is another question, and it may be worth taking them on tour and having a look at them in training, but Haskell at 7 - in this back row and with this game plan - is currently working.

Contrast that with Lancaster's back row, where he tried to get Robshaw to be a turnover king at 7, which didn't work, and Wood to cover Robshaw's role at 6, which he did to a lesser effect, thus weakening two positions.

Fraser was shown up a little by Northamptons' trio on the weekend regardless of defeat. Was being pinged all the time and it wasn't harsh either. Harrison was particularly impressive. Certainly should tour over Fraser... and the beard looks gash too!

Londontiger

Sometimes there's a weakness in the team that opposition exploits, sometimes they aren't.

Brown's optimum position is not wing but in some games he managed to make it work.

Unfortunately Wales brutally exposed it.

I still don't think that Farrell at 12 is the optimum selection. He got YCed when facing Australia in that position but in the 6 nations, he was not put under sufficient pressure.

Robbo

Wood's role in the squad also seemed to be as an extra lineout jumper whilst his primary role should really be building a balanced backrow.

I felt like both Wood and Parling were in Lancaster's pack to help T.Youngs out at lineout time to the detriment to the overall strength of the pack.

The pack in the 6 nations seems to be a lot better balanced than that in the RWC, stronger set piece, the general physicality and intensity seemed to be there. England in general hit the opposition hard when they needed to - either important turnovers or lineout steals. Sucking the momentum out of the opposition except for the Wales game.

The Wales game did  go a similar way to the RWC but the difference was that England held out. Tactically Jones wasn't stellar on the day but his team held their composure. England gave Wales too much to do ultimately.

beshocked wrote:

Brown's optimum position is not FB but in some games he managed to make it work.

Gooseberry wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Brown's optimum position is not FB but in some games he managed to make it work.

I mean wing...oops.

beshocked wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Brown's optimum position is not FB but in some games he managed to make it work.

I mean wing...oops.

So expect to see big bruisers on the flank for some time yet.....

robbo277 wrote:I think this backrow may be here to stay until there is an outstanding candidate to come in at 7 who can jackal well, but also fulfil Haskell's role of smashing would-be scavengers when we have the ball.

Whether Fraser and Kvesic fit that brief is another question, and it may be worth taking them on tour and having a look at them in training, but Haskell at 7 - in this back row and with this game plan - is currently working.

Contrast that with Lancaster's back row, where he tried to get Robshaw to be a turnover king at 7, which didn't work, and Wood to cover Robshaw's role at 6, which he did to a lesser effect, thus weakening two positions.

That's rewriting history a bit. Robshaw was never asked to be a turnover king; the original idea was similar to Eddie's - several members of the pack would have responsibility for breakdowns. Robshaw's primary roles were tackling and link play - you can see that from his stats throughout the Lancaster tenure, especially compared to under Eddie's 6N.

Lancaster's original approach to the breakdown wasn't so different from Eddie's, either. And it worked during his first two seasons but (I think post the Cardiff game) the overall style became much less aggressive - I think in a misguided attempt to avoid conceding penalties.

I think Eddie's approach is different in two subtle but important ways. Firstly, he's quite happy to concede penalties in the right part of the field. Secondly, I don't think he'll back off from that approach.

Bomber linked to Queensland Reds jon=b

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11652605

LondonTiger wrote:Bomber linked to Queensland Reds jon=b

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11652605

if Reds don't get better players, it won't matter who coaches there. Lancaster should be wary. And with only one big time coaching gig under his belt, and one in which it is arguable whether he got the most out of his players, not sure Lancaster will be the right fit for Queensland.

A shame for SL that he panicked with the RWC and abandoned his long term plans. There is no excuse for playing new mid fields in such important matches. But he is clearly a good rugby man and I hope he gets another job soon as until then he will continue to beat himself up. He made bad decisions and deserved to be sacked but he also did not have much luck. I hope it now works out for him.