Stuart Lancaster speaks

First topic message reminder :

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

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Having a six pack doesn't relate to being "rugby fit"

Ive known many a player whose body type will never allow a 6 pack but by god they were fit lads!

How many SANZAR players bar frontfive forwards are the above type? Warren Gatland for all his faults places conditioning very high on his agenda and 3 6N titles is a more than fair return on his tenure.

Yes but your listing al these no 8's who are lean and ripped saying Vunipola doesn't even come close.

From your list I can tell you id rather have Billy over the majority! Certainly over Heaslip, Spies, etc etc.

Billy played a very strict role for England and was effective. Add in anther carrier at 6 - Ewers or Nathan Hughes and he'll be even more effective.

People keep saying he's so predictable etc....yes maybe but they all found it very hard to stop him for all hes so "predictable"

I didn't say he was inferior to those players. I am only suggesting that if he were to follow suit he would improve (IMO) as a player immensely.  

In NZ for instance you see many guys like Vunipola... but none end up playing for NZ. They all end up playing for Samoa/Tonga. Those who do make the NZ team are very well conditioned (and we're talking naturally big PI players here).

People knock spies a lot but he has experience in droves and is probably the best no8 lineout option in the world, or at least whilst he was at the bulls, he was.

Harinordiquy is the best line out 8 I've seen over recent times, I'd probably put Read at the "very good" level these days.

We obviously don't need Billy in the line out, pretty sure we had the best stats in the 6N.

Where would Vunipola improve with some more weight off and where would he deteriorate?

But comparing England to NZ is folly.

Lancaster made the mistake of trying to emulate them too much. We will never have their basic skill level and have a different game up here in the north. We need to play to OUR strengths!

Our pack / team set up and requirements are different.

We don't need a lineout jumping 8 because our lineout is very strong. But we have so few carriers. Billy suits that perfect.

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good to see it's only 1 aspect he has to improve on now though.

Well conditioning I think would improve all of it. Talent was always there and I think I have always said that, well maybe......

Whats wrong with his conditioning?

Match him up vs. the following

Heaslip
Parisse
Picamoles
Read
Vermeulen
Kaino
Vito
Spies
Faletau

They're all shredded, all athletes, all can jump and lift in lineouts etc. Vunipola is like 10kg heavier than all of those players.

Vunipola plays like a Tongan, big, strong... but have a look at the Tongan's and PI players in NZ... they all play like AB's, not Tongans. They're never over 130kg, never over 120kg. They are multi versatile and that's what Vunipola should do. So his mum is a great cook.. and all the other PI players in NZ don't say the same?

Hes Autralian. Just saying.

fa0019 wrote:Taking AUS to the RWC final is not what I'd call failure. Especially given 2 months before they faced NZ in the SF in the same stadium NZ put 50 points on them. That and being taught a lesson by England at home in the same summer... so within a shot at goal.

That line of thinking would also give Marc Lièvremont a pass.

Most good coaches have some blown lines. Graham Henry is regarded as one of the best, but he has a failed Lions Tour, shambolic end to his Wales career, and early World Cup exit on his CV. Jones outperformed with Australia at their own World Cup but he went into a slump in his last days with them, and followed that up with a disastrous time at the Reds.

I suppose it's rare for any coach to see top level success once again after high profile misfires, because people are usually too risk-averse to take a chance on what might be a busted flush.

GeordieFalcon wrote:But comparing England to NZ is folly.

Lancaster made the mistake of trying to emulate them too much. We will never have their basic skill level and have a different game up here in the north. We need to play to OUR strengths!

Our pack / team set up and requirements are different.

We don't need a lineout jumping 8 because our lineo is very strong. But we have so few carriers. Billy suits that perfect.

Not saying England should simply copy NZ playbook, diet etc etc. My take on it is this, saying, he's just naturally like that... well we see lots of PI players like that yes but all of those who play for the top sides do not follow that model.

And sure England have a good lineout at the moment but you know what, at the highest level, every little bit counts... its not saying that he needs to jump but disguise is everything in lineouts and having guys who can a) lift and b) jump are so valuable... it means teams need to stay on their toes, not simply say, look its either going to player x or player y... lets mark them and hope to get lucky.... bit more difficult when options are player w, x,y and z.

No other top side has access to Vunipola though, if they did they'd have him in their squads.

Rugby Fan wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Taking AUS to the RWC final is not what I'd call failure. Especially given 2 months before they faced NZ in the SF in the same stadium NZ put 50 points on them. That and being taught a lesson by England at home in the same summer... so within a shot at goal.

That line of thinking would also give Marc Lièvremont a pass.

Most good coaches have some blown lines. Graham Henry is regarded as one of the best, but he has a failed Lions Tour, shambolic end to his Wales career, and early World Cup exit on his CV. Jones outperformed with Australia at their own World Cup but he went into a slump in his last days with them, and followed that up with a disastrous time at the Reds.

I suppose it's rare for any coach to see top level success once again after high profile misfires, because people are usually too risk-averse to take a chance on what might be a busted flush.

True but Henry had a good NZ club coaching record prior to Wales and after too before he got the NZ job. He won SR titles prior to the Wales job and after the Wales job before getting the NZ job... and I'm sure NZ powderpuff forwards play at the time and his European experience which for tight five forwards was probably dominant then helped secure the job.

Lancaster has no real foothold in the club game, in any country. Failing with a tier 2 nation is one thing, you can always say... lack of players etc but failing with one of the big traditional sides is not a great advert.
The 2001 tour was a shambles but that said he was perhaps 1 lineout catch from series victory over the world and 3N champs.  Margins were tight but yes I agree selection and strategy were dire in that tour.

Henry proved he could always coach clubs and thats why he got another shot.

Lancaster like Peter De Villiers was a age grade coach, proved limited at test rugby and found a club willing to take him on lacking. Seriously who would give him a shot? Doubt anyone would seriously look at him unless he took them up from tier 2 England.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Having a six pack doesn't relate to being "rugby fit"

Ive known many a player whose body type will never allow a 6 pack but by god they were fit lads!

How many SANZAR players bar frontfive forwards are the above type? Warren Gatland for all his faults places conditioning very high on his agenda and 3 6N titles is a more than fair return on his tenure.

Yes but your listing al these no 8's who are lean and ripped saying Vunipola doesn't even come close.

From your list I can tell you id rather have Billy over the majority! Certainly over Heaslip, Spies, etc etc.

Billy played a very strict role for England and was effective. Add in anther carrier at 6 - Ewers or Nathan Hughes and he'll be even more effective.

People keep saying he's so predictable etc....yes maybe but they all found it very hard to stop him for all hes so "predictable"

Exactly. If you are good enough at a key skill (in Billy V's case, running trough opposition tackles), it doesn't matter how much the opponents know what's coming.

I seem to remember a high profile international coach demanding that his pack slim down (inclduing 2x Vuniploas) and be more agile/mobile ahead of the world cup, and banging on at great length about his plan to make Enghland an 80 minute team.

He's been remarkebly quiet for the most part since then.

England's modern pack have tended to attract a jack of all trades label with no one being exceptional in any department. Then Billy V develops into a destructive carrier who can last 80mins (or thereabouts) and he should slim down and become more of a jack of all trades? We have Robshaw as an extra man in the lineout, I'd rather have Billy V being a big carrier than losing some of that ability to become a 4th lineout option. If he could lose 10kg and retain his power then fine, but I'm not convinced that will happen. I'd rather see him work on his key role as an eight while improving his tackling, rather than looking to the lineout.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well I've probably watched England more consistently, I didn't see a huge difference myself. The one aspect we nailed in the 6Ns was the lineout which apart from about 12 months under Lancaster where I think we went through about 5 games perfectly we ok but not good.

Think you're going to have to admit Vuinpola is rather good eventually!

Still question the professionalism. He's good, he can be exceptional. The diff IMO is his outlook. Look at all the other 8s out there.

Heaslip, Faletau, Picamoles, Parisse, Read, Vermeulen.

They're all athletes. All shredded, all can lift all can jump in the lineout.. Vunipola is as likely to go up in the air as his brother and it makes England's lineout that more predictable (maybe by 1% sure but 1% may be all that matters).
Last a full 80 or whatever so did Dean Richards back in the day. You don't see guys like him in SR, even the PI guys. They all look like Jerome Kaino i.e. could be bodybuilders. Too suited to European winter rugby.... if he wants to be the best (for me) he has to taking on style less Tongan and more Kiwi (big yes, powerful yes, fast yes... but professional with a proper diet and conditioning programme).

Hmm, so he'll never be exceptional as he'll never be a strong lineout option. Sure beshocked will tell you if he ever takes the lineout for Saracens, he did get one in the 6Ns.

No player can do everything (well perhaps Brooke was the exception right)

However see all those above and all jump, not often but they all do and most play with a big jumping 6 too. Its about disguise. You have to keep teams thinking, who will it go to, not lets track player x as its 70% likely to go to him.

But at his current size it would be a joke.

fa0019 England didn't need Billy jumping in the 6 nations.

England's lineout evolved as the 6 nations went on. Borthwick has done a great job in a short space of time. Turning England's lineout from a laughing stock into a deadly weapon. We saw in the RWC, how smooth the Japanese lineout was with Borthwick in charge.

In regards to the coaches.

Let's not forget it's not just Lancaster. It was Rowntree,Catt and Farrell Sr.

Borthwick,Gustard and Jones are a significant upgrade.

Farrell Sr is a poor man's Gustard, at Saracens, Farrell Sr rode on the coat tails of superior coaches, you might have noticed that Farrell Sr has not been missed at Saracens, Saracens have played a more attacking game since his departure.

Gustard adds a steeliness and composure to a side defensively. I've seen him do that for Saracens and now for England.
Catt as a backs coach is nowhere near as experienced as E.Jones.

Lancaster's record in the 6 nations was 2nd,2nd,2nd,2nd - no improvement there. I know there are some who think that Lancaster’s England were a large improvement on 2012. Beating the Abs in 2012 to getting hammered at Twickenham by the Aussies is quite a far step back. Loss to Wales at Twickenham in 2012, loss to Wales at Twickenham in 2015….. no difference there.

People say Lancaster built a great foundation - how much credit should he really get for the work of the U20s and the English clubs academies?

Lancaster benefitted from a decent pool of English players but failed to get a GS, in Jones first 6 nations he's done what Lancaster has failed to do in 4.

Even Johnson managed a 6 nations win (not a GS though). Just shows what England should be achieving. Johnson’s England had a poor RWC in 2011 too but even they made the quarter finals.

Lancaster underperformed with the resources at his disposal. That's the problem.

I'm sure he'll be able to find a job, there are worse coaches out there but he's not top class.

In 2012, I would say he perhaps even performed better than expected with the players at his disposal but since then despite getting more resources and more experience for his players the results didn't improve.

Eddie Jones has been fortunate to an extent - 3 AP clubs in the semis of the ERCC, Saracens, the club which has been leaned on the most, performing well but then again Jones has made his own luck.

Jones decided to bring in Borthwick and Gustard - two coaches he is familiar with. It helps the coaching dynamic to have 3 coaches who seem to be on the same wavelength.
Jones hasn’t dramatically changed things yet he’s had instant success.

Lancaster in my opinion is the nearly man, nearly winning the GS on 4 occasions, nearly beating SA, nearly making it out of the pool in the RWC. His biggest success was 2012 win over NZ but that high was in his first year.
In the RWC, England could have beaten Wales but were still well off the pace of the SH. Even if England had limped into the quarter finals, they would have likely lost to SA anyway.
Lancaster could have had more luck but then again still his fate was in his hands.

He was the one who made his first choice and 2nd choice hookers in the RWC – T.Youngs and Webber despite one being unreliable at the setpiece and the other being kept out of the Bath side by a journeyman like Batty.
One of his go to locks was the underpowered Parling to shore up the unreliability of T.Youngs.
Could have picked the in form and powerful Jamie George but he was way down Lancaster’s pecking order.
He picked the flaky and unreliable May over Nowell who had a strong 6 nations.
Picked Goode in his 23 but was an unused sub vs Wales and Australia – what was the point?
Barritt as a 13 who didn't have a good campaign.
Farrell as a centre (ironically Jones has made this work more). Foolish YC.
Far too much faith in Burgess who he messed around. Used as a scapegoat.
Picked Clark in warm ups despite not showing potential to be international class.
Ignoring the likes of Ksevic,Ewers and Itoje (him being one of the biggest success stories for Jones) in the warm ups.


Jones hasn’t done things that dramatically differently to what Lancaster has done but he’s rebuilt the shattered confidence of Robshaw, has got a more mature Haskell, has helped forge a new 2nd row combo – Kruis-Itoje, has introduced Clifford and Hill. Has picked George as his 2nd choice HK not 5th choice. His backline is not different but he’s got a solid performance from Farrell at 12.

The biggest changes have been dropping the underpowered trio – T.Youngs,Parling and Wood.
He’s also dropped Wigglesworth and Barritt.

Even you admitted the 2015 England side should have beaten the 2012 version beshocked. Of course if you don't agree with that anymore it means that anything less than GS from now on means that Jones is taking us backwards.

Seriously though there isn't too many big differences between Jones and Lancasters sides yet. We'll perhaps start to see that more in the Autumn and into next year.

no 7 & 1/2 well of course when players are older and more experienced they should but results wise they went backwards.

Jones has a GS - that's credit in the bank, he's achieved something that no one since Clive has. Not going to win a GS every year.

Not much difference between the sides but different result..... GS winning management team compared to RWC flops and 6 nations nearly men.

I know you are a Lancaster apologist but seriously even you have to admit that Lancaster wasn't good enough.

Eddie Jones is not perfect and I am sure there will be bumps on the road but he's achieved something in one season that Lancaster couldn't in 4 opportunities.

I think it would be hugely interesting if Lancaster was picked as the Lions coach. Doubt it would happen, but he's my pick.

I agree with one of the points above that money may be a factor, as he'll find himself on considerably less. Otherwise, I'd suggest possibly an assistant at a Super Rugby Club would be the best for him, before trying to move onto a head coach role either up here or down there.

I'd suggest that he may even get another shot with England if he went through that route and then to a tier 2 country, or even Italy. I just think perhaps he didn't have the wealth of experience to fall back on when things got tough, but in 8 years time he could potentially be either the forgotten man or back in the hot seat.

Come off it beshocked. There's currently not much difference. Even the Wales game mirrored the WC very closely. Performances vs Wales in 2015 and 2014 were better. I'm not an apologist just a realist. I don't think Lancaster was under achieving, don't think he was over achieving. Think the same for jones at the moment. I expect us to get better in the next 2 years.

Don't forget Eddie Jones has a lot more experience than Lancaster. Jones has learned from mistakes through his career which is why im so hopeful he can be hugely successful over the 4 years with us. Hes started well...

Lancaster needs to learn from his mistakes. Needs to bed in at a good UK club and learn the day to day aspects.

no 7 & 1/2

Not much difference.... except for winning of course... Realist? More like deluded.

Lancaster was failing. Unless of course you think crashing out of your own RWC in the pool stages is what is expected of England.....

Lancaster won nothing, couldn't even manage to get to the 1/4s of the RWC.

Eddie Jones hasn't had as long as Lancaster with these group of players yet he's achieved more already. Had to get into the swing of things straight away.

Geordiefalcon yes he is more experienced than Lancaster, pretty obvious too from current results.

You are welcome to have Lancaster at Falcons, wouldn't want him anywhere near the Sarries job.

So you were sat through the recent Wales game comfortable in the knowledge we were going to win? Or were you like the rest of us thinking bugger it's going the same way as the wc?

So the fact I was thinking for the last 4 years we have a great set of players coming through, probably going to be a touch too early for the wc but we stand a great chance afterwards is deluded? Why?

Jones and Lancaster haven't started at the same point in time. Jones has a good set of players with more experience and better youngsters available.

I don't know why you thought we had a great set of world dominating players in the last 4 years, i never saw it.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2

Not much difference.... except for winning of course... Realist? More like deluded.

Lancaster was failing. Unless of course you think crashing out of your own RWC in the pool stages is what is expected of England.....

Lancaster won nothing, couldn't even manage to get to the 1/4s of the RWC.

Eddie Jones hasn't had as long as Lancaster with these group of players yet he's achieved more already. Had to get into the swing of things straight away.

Geordiefalcon yes he is more experienced than Lancaster, pretty obvious too from current results.

You are welcome to have Lancaster at Falcons, wouldn't want him anywhere near the Sarries job.

You laugh....but im so deluded with Dean Richards Im wondering if Lancaster would be a useful head coach.

And I didm't expect England to go out in the group but I realised it was a very real possibility. Thought any of Aus, Wales and England could have.

no 7 & 1/2 didn't go the same way as the RWC did it? It could have been not again... but it wasn't... fine margins but Jones and England were on the right side this time.

Jones is coming into a new job with little time to get used to the players, he didn't have months of preparation, not 3 warm up games before facing Scotland away.

Lancaster had the best preparation he could. Fiji first up, tough but not too tough before Wales.

Don't need to have to dominate the world to win a GS. Wales have shown that plenty of times!


England with the richest union in the world, biggest pool of players, a very strong U20s system, a strong club system with excellent academies and months of preparation should be able to beat one of Wales or Australia at home. Didn't even need to beat both to make the 1/4s.

It's not too much to ask is it? Neither Wales or Australia are the All Blacks.

To win the GS you need to win 5 games, none against the top 3 in the world.

It shouldn't be that hard. Lancaster made heavy weather of it.

In contrast Jones made it look easy.

Why do some people insist on rehashing the same old arguments? Awfully tiresome - especially when at least one part has only black or white views and allows for no grey.

Yes beshocked, but it's not a black and white world. If we're talking about areas of improvement/development etc you need to look at more than the result. I've acknowledged that Jones has done great so far, he's taken the basic setup that Lancaster left him and run with it. Hence why i think it doesn't differ too much at present. He'll move this group forward, but not all of them. I'm expecting 3 or 4 differences come next year as he puts more of his stamp on things.

Personally I don't think this England team is too far ahead or behind England and Aus, home or away. Why were you expecting dominance?

We didn't walk this 6Ns; bit fortunate given that Ireland were suffering but again Wales pushed us really hard and proved they have a lot of quality.

And sorry LT.

LondonTiger wrote:Why do some people insist on rehashing the same old arguments? Awfully tiresome - especially when at least one part has only black or white views and allows for no grey.

Yes. Apparently we lost all those games because we chose flakey May over Ashton...

SL took 4 years to show he's not (currently at least) a top level coach. EJ took the same players and showed what could be done - 1 GS doesn't make him world class but shows he deserves the job over SL. Them the facts. I wish SL well but I'm glad he's no longer England's head coach. I think he's now in the same boat as he was 4 years ago - go and learn his trade.

And I hope the RFU have learned the lesson that you can't let an England coach learn how to do it on England's time - even if it took them 8 years to learn it.

But as you've proved facts can be twisted Barney.

Londontiger  Why not address me personally? Is it because you are too far up your own backside? You come across as very condescending.

As for black and white. Not everything is but some things are certain.

no 7 & 1/2

You and I will never agree.



lostinwales it wasn't Ashton vs May, May vs Nowell.

Barney Mcgrew it exactly. Let them learn their trade first.

So no explanation why you think the players in 2012 should have been world beaters?

No acknowledgement that since 2012 we have seen improvement with England and should continue to see it.

No explanation on why you think just because we're England we should roll Wales and Aus over on home soil.

What did Jones implement against Wales which made the big difference this time over Lancaster? Ensure that the 2 best players on the pitch didn't go off injured?

BS with the insults, there's a shock.

As LT has suggested, I've no idea why you keep getting into these "debates" 71/2.

He doesn't read anything you write, he just keeps saying the same things over and over and over......

Stop wasting your time fella.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So no explanation why you think the players in 2012 should have been world beaters?

No acknowledgement that since 2012 we have seen improvement with England and should continue to see it.

No explanation on why you think just because we're England we should roll Wales and Aus over on home soil.

What did Jones implement against Wales which made the big difference this time over Lancaster? Ensure that the 2 best players on the pitch didn't go off injured?

Maybe his faith in chaps like

Brad Barritt
Tom Youngs
Tom Wood

Had something to do with it.

Lancaster went all puritan with his leadership, banning players like Hartley and Tuilagi like an old schoolmaster. Youngs meant SL had to pick Parling to mitigate his flaws in the lineout. Even then England's lineout became only a method of retaining possession rather than a weapon. AUS scored something like 70% of their tries from lineouts.
Had Hartley been in that side, they would have qualified. Its that simple and its not hindsight either. He said his hands were tied because of that Fiji match. That's bull and he knows it. Other teams did exactly that in terms of their hookers. Maybe Hartley shouldn't have chest bumped his rival but he played his cards very badly.

After 4 years you would have thought he learnt something. He never did.

To do with what? Expecting to be world beaters?

DId he ban Hartley? Would ahve been a big risk to take him, potentially ruling out another hooker.

I personally felt after the assault of a police officer he should have dropped Tuilagi (yes Tigers fans a push but assault all the same).

In that fa you're arguing my point, our players weren't world beaters.

no 7 & 1/2 don't need to be a world beater to win a GS.... Wales,Ireland,France,Italy and Scotland aren't the best sides in the world.

If you are too thick to understand how can I explain it? England should beat Wales or Australia on home soil because of all the advantages we have.

England do not need to be world beaters to beat them. Didn't even need to beat both, just one.

Jones won, Lancaster lost. Is it really so hard for you to understand?

We can talk about "luck" but that's not something you can control.

Sgt Pooly the reason why I keep saying the same things over and over is because you and No 7 & 1/2 don't understand. If you absorbed the information there would be no need. Perhaps it is futile but I hope one day you open your eyes.


Barney Mcgrew it you are right too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:To do with what? Expecting to be world beaters?

DId he ban Hartley? Would ahve been a big risk to take him, potentially ruling out another hooker.

I personally felt after the assault of a police officer he should have dropped Tuilagi (yes Tigers fans a push but assault all the same).

In that fa you're arguing my point, our players weren't world beaters.

I didn't say they would have been world beaters, I continue to say SL should have done a lot better, throughout his tenure and a better more experienced coach would have seen this.

Literally as you say team is little different all bar and in the key positions only 1 is changed. Tom Youngs is kept as far away as possible from the jersey and they win. Wow, what a surprise. He screwed up so many times for England it was car crash TV.

Don't doubt his play around the park in defence and effort... but all that is a hill of beans between someone who can hook and push in the scrum and someone who can hit their men 9/10 no matter where they are.... not just 7/10 to their old dependable club mate in the middle.

There was/is so much wrong with his game its laughable.

So often you would see him as an eager beaver taking the ball in whilst guys like Tuilagi were subjected to rucking his 1 metre gains.
So often you would see him get turned over, stripped of the ball by bigger opponents or give away stupid penalties.

His cameo vs. NZ in 2013 I think was typical. England leading 22-20 at 65 mins. Hartley was playing. SL brings on Youngs. In those 15 mins he loses 4 lineouts, gets turned over which leads to a try and gives away a penalty and England finally lost 30-22.... and that is no exaggeration. It was simply a man out of his depth.

Sure he got capped by the Lions but truth is a) if there is one worse thrower of a ball than Youngs its Hibbard and b) he was packed down with utter monsters behind him against a weak AUS side that hell Macaulay Culkin could have linked arms and they still would have been dominant. So many people have tried the mighty mouse hooker or the convert/I even saw Ashley Johnson of Wasps doing that on the weekend!... why oh why do coaches love putting work rate above set piece I don't know.

fa0019 no 7 & 1/2 seems to think I called England world beaters. Don't know why.

England haven't looked like world beaters since Clive's team.

Expecting England to be a strong contender for a GS of course makes me believe England are world beaters.

The Irish,Welsh and French have all won the GS since 2003, some multiple. Winning a GS shouldn't be that difficult.

Jones has shown it's not that hard. Though it's something England hadn't done in a long time so for us it was a big deal.

Winning a GS doesn't make this England side world beaters either. Just the current best in the NH.

There's still a lot of work to be done but Jones is a step in the right direction.

Remember that game vs NZ. T.Youngs did that vs France too in 2014, came on for Hartley and lost 2 lineouts.


Some coaches are "lucky", some aren't.

Clive was perhaps "lucky" to have one of the best England squads of all time.

How much credit should a coach get for a quality player?


Should Hansen get that much praise of being in charge of one of the best teams? He was appalling with Wales.

Interesting hypothetical question - if Lancaster was made in charge of the ABs could he win the RWC?

Sgt Pooly the reason why I keep saying the same things over and over is because you and No 7 & 1/2 don't understand. If you absorbed the information there would be no need. Perhaps it is futile but I hope one day you open your eyes.

It's not that we don't understand, we don't care. You're a broken record..........move on, life is too short.

Sgt Pooly you haven't shown any sign that you do understand. I think that's one of the main problems.

England have moved on - GS - onward and upwards.

Still futilely defending the failure of Jones'predecessor - now that's not moving on.

Lancaster needs to move on too - rebuild his career. Perhaps at your club.

I genuinely wish him all the best if he goes to you. I want him to learn from his mistakes and improve.

Didn't do that for England but perhaps he can in a less high pressure job.

England have moved on - GS - onward and upwards.

It's a shame you haven't......yyaaaawwwwwnnnnn.

I have but then again on an thread about Lancaster, it's hard not to discuss his coaching. Only praise allowed?

You were talking resources and said Lancaster underachieved from that. You've also England have the best resources in the world. Logically you're saying we're underachieving if we're not the best. No need to call people thick. You need to deal in black and white which is fine if you need to do that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:To do with what? Expecting to be world beaters?

DId he ban Hartley? Would ahve been a big risk to take him, potentially ruling out another hooker.

I personally felt after the assault of a police officer he should have dropped Tuilagi (yes Tigers fans a push but assault all the same).

In that fa you're arguing my point, our players weren't world beaters.

I didn't say they would have been world beaters, I continue to say SL should have done a lot better, throughout his tenure and a better more experienced coach would have seen this.

Literally as you say team is little different all bar and in the key positions only 1 is changed. Tom Youngs is kept as far away as possible from the jersey and they win. Wow, what a surprise. He screwed up so many times for England it was car crash TV.

Don't doubt his play around the park in defence and effort... but all that is a hill of beans between someone who can hook and push in the scrum and someone who can hit their men 9/10 no matter where they are.... not just 7/10 to their old dependable club mate in the middle.

There was/is so much wrong with his game its laughable.

So often you would see him as an eager beaver taking the ball in whilst guys like Tuilagi were subjected to rucking his 1 metre gains.
So often you would see him get turned over, stripped of the ball by bigger opponents or give away stupid penalties.

His cameo vs. NZ in 2013 I think was typical. England leading 22-20 at 65 mins. Hartley was playing. SL brings on Youngs. In those 15 mins he loses 4 lineouts, gets turned over which leads to a try and gives away a penalty and England finally lost 30-22.... and that is no exaggeration. It was simply a man out of his depth.

Sure he got capped by the Lions but truth is a) if there is one worse thrower of a ball than Youngs its Hibbard and b) he was packed down with utter monsters behind him against a weak AUS side that hell Macaulay Culkin could have linked arms and they still would have been dominant. So many people have tried the mighty mouse hooker or the convert/I even saw Ashley Johnson of Wasps doing that on the weekend!... why oh why do coaches love putting work rate above set piece I don't know.

Just comes back to your dislike of Youngs then.

I wish there was a yawning emoticon....

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.