2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[goodNumber10]

We need to remember that Lancaster is an RFU boy.

He's come through the coaching ranks, he is home grown talent as such in that respect and importantly he has a longterm vision that fits with the RFU's.

In his time at the RFU he's been involved in:

Elite Performance
Player Development
National Team
Coach Development

and importantly he is very much in step with the Englsih Rugby Community, he is well respected by Premierhsip Coaches and most Fans and opposition coaches and Fans - he IS the complete embodiment of English Rugby and what it wants to be.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Still think Lancaster is a limited coach and still think he lacks the ability to get players to reach there full potential.

He was the coach England needed not deserves.

It was the right guy at the right time but I don't see him making England into world beaters.

Would be happy to be proven wrong though.

 

[Crapspray]

It was the right guy at the right time but I don't see him making England into world beaters.

I suppose that's my ultimate concern. All the pieces seem to be there, and the amount of youthful talent coming through is more than at any other point, can Lancaster and co. fit them all together?

Or rather, will it take as long as six years to conclude either way?

 

[ratsapprentice]

I don't have as much of an issue with Lancaster being given a long term contract as I do the other coaches.
I see Stuart as more of a DOR/Manager, than a coach. I know he is a career coach, but at this level I think his strength of vision is what sets him apart.
With the right coaches underneath him I do have faith that England could become very strong.

 

[Crapspray]

Good point.

Perhaps Lancaster asked for them to be added-in. He seems the type to want to keep his team together; particularly if they share his vision.

I wonder whether he plans on including coaches like Baxter and Gustard on Argentina tours again - assuming Farrell et al. bugger off with the Lions - or if the RFU will start using the U20s and Saxons as grooming posts for potential replacements, similar to how Lancaster moved up the ranks (as GN10 elaborated).

Still, at least we can be the only home union not to employ a Kiwi.

 

[j'nuh]

It kind of makes sense. Tying up the entire coaching team for a long stretch of time just means that other nations don't come to tempt away our coaches with head coach offers.

Lancaster deserves two shots at World Cups anyway. I think that this England team isn't ready to win a World Cup next year as it is just a little early. This team should peak in the next cycle, and Lancaster should be given the time to see that.

The only thing I don't get is why the end of the contract is not at the end of the 2019 WC, but 2020.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Still not sure of Lancaster it may be the right direction.

But he hasn't really given players game time to increase depth.

He has had 3 years and he still hasn't found his Centre partnership, or 2 wingers or a really attacking game plan.

I think the likes of Ford, Wade etc should have been played earlier but with regards to our centres and wingers, none have really been standing out as head and shoulders above the rest. 12trees has been fluctuating, injuries at awkward times have prevented people being tried out when they were supposed to and inconsistent form have meant nobody has really set themselves apart as our top players. The old problem of having a team full of good players but few that are truely world class. If we had centres and wingers that would consistantly put in great performances then I could understand this but the fact is that none of them have really done this. We have no equivalent to the Norths and Saveas on the wing and our centres haven't had proper partnerships due to the injury treadmill.

 

[big ginger 8]

He was the coach England needed not deserves.

Batman (said in a funny voice)

 

[Colombia]

lol @ RFU, Lancaster has won nothing so reward him with a 5 year contract extension.

 

[Peat]

and importantly he is very much in step with the Englsih Rugby Community, he is well respected by Premierhsip Coaches and most Fans and opposition coaches and Fans - he IS the complete embodiment of English Rugby and what it wants to be.

English rugby wants to be unsuccessful?

I mean, I see what you mean, and I agree with a lot of it, and I am being harsh here, but the guy has no 6N wins and a fairly poor record against the SANZAR teams. That ain't success.

Here's hoping it was a lengthy bedding in process that pays off nicely.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

English rugby wants to be unsuccessful?

I mean, I see what you mean, and I agree with a lot of it, and I am being harsh here, but the guy has no 6N wins and a fairly poor record against the SANZAR teams. That ain't success.

Here's hoping it was a lengthy bedding in process that pays off nicely.

We are doing better than any other NH team when it comes to SANZAR and we are the best in the world when it comes to competing with the ABs in terms of score. Nobody is saying we should accept our fate as gallant losers but it's hardly as bad as all that. Most of the SANZAR games are pretty close and we are let down by our finishing. If we could just finish better, we could put away SANZAR nations and probably even NZ if we have a good day.

 

[goodNumber10]

English rugby wants to be unsuccessful?

I mean, I see what you mean, and I agree with a lot of it, and I am being harsh here, but the guy has no 6N wins and a fairly poor record against the SANZAR teams. That ain't success.

Here's hoping it was a lengthy bedding in process that pays off nicely.

Define success.

 

[Peat]

Define success.

Winning trophies and beating the best. We've done none of the former and precious little of the latter.

We are doing better than any other NH team when it comes to SANZAR and we are the best in the world when it comes to competing with the ABs in terms of score. Nobody is saying we should accept our fate as gallant losers but it's hardly as bad as all that. Most of the SANZAR games are pretty close and we are let down by our finishing. If we could just finish better, we could put away SANZAR nations and probably even NZ if we have a good day.

That's questionable but even if accepted, so what? It's not about being the best in the NH, it's about being the best in the world, it's about going toe to toe with SANZAR. Unfortunately we don't finish better and, so far, we are not their equal. Maybe that'll have changed in a few weeks, it's not unrealistic, but the cart belongs behind the horse. We don't beat them. We've got one win against Australia which is nice and I like, and one win against NZ which was the stuff of dreams but very clearly a one-off.

This is not me being massively critical. It's clearly one hell of a job producing teams that can beat them, particularly when most of the opportunities to do so have come on the wrong side of the world. But we aren't beating them.



I'm not saying this prolonged contract for Lancaster is a bad idea. But so far he has not brought on the pitch success.

 

[goodNumber10]

The only team England haven't beaten under Lancaster is South Africa.

In the three short years he has been in charge we have turned over the entire top10 bar one team.

But i'd imagine results is only one of his KPI's and there are many more he is being judged against.

I'd also point out I think people underestimate exactly what a mess England were in when he took over - the squad may not look overtly different to that under Johnson but there has been a major sea shift in both staff, style and engagement.

 

[Peat]

Yeah, give me the trophies. 3 years = 3 or more chances to get the win against everyone worthwhile (only 2 for Australia mind), given England's playing resources that's pretty much par for the course except for the New Zealand win, which was absolutely incredible except for the fact it doesn't appear we could have done it without the noro.

Of course there are other KPIs. I'd imagine the RFU are very happy with him. There's a lot to be happy about with him. Just not much silverware.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

The only team England haven't beaten under Lancaster is South Africa.

In the three short years he has been in charge we have turned over the entire top10 bar one team.

But i'd imagine results is only one of his KPI's and there are many more he is being judged against.

I'd also point out I think people underestimate exactly what a mess England were in when he took over - the squad may not look overtly different to that under Johnson but there has been a major sea shift in both staff, style and engagement.

wasn't the only team Johnson's England failed to beat was NZ.

and he won a 6N trophy.

 

[Peat]

wasn't the only team Johnson's England failed to beat was NZ.

and he won a 6N trophy.

South Africa and Ireland. Only had one dig at South Africa in fairness... wait, no, beat Ireland in a World Cup warm up didn't he? Yeah, NZ and South Africa. Ahem. Two digs at South Africa, with one being a record defeat.

 

[TheSaffycen]

English rugby wants to be unsuccessful?

I mean, I see what you mean, and I agree with a lot of it, and I am being harsh here, but the guy has no 6N wins and a fairly poor record against the SANZAR teams. That ain't success.

Here's hoping it was a lengthy bedding in process that pays off nicely.

What coach would you bring in then ?

 

[goodNumber10]

ok then, here is a question, what one player would you change from this England Line up:

01: Marler
02: Hartley
03: Wilson
04: Lawes
05: Launchbury
06: Wood
07: Robshaw
08: Vunipolo
09: Care
10: Farrell
11: Yarde
12: Twelvetrees
13: Tuilagi
14: Ashton
15: Brown.

You are allowed to change one player, and one player only.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Ashton for Rokoduguni. He can work in the tight spaces and can defend well.