As has been said many times before, I think England have the personnel (both coaching and playing) to be consistently one of the best teams in the world (rather than inconsistently atm), we just don't seem to be selecting it for whatever reason.
How would you define best? Our ranking has been pretty consistently high. Whatever we are, I don't think we're inconsistent - our results, our 6N rankings, we're hitting the same spot over and over again.
In any case, obviously you don't think we're hitting that definition - and I'd agree.
But I don't agree we have the personnel to do it. J'nuh talks about Schmidt having less resources - Schmidt walked into the Irish dressing room and got to point at Best, POC, Heaslip, Sexton and BOD and say "These are my leaders". That's a pretty heavy duty resource right there and one Lancaster simply didn't have and doesn't have. I look at the England squad - and the players outside it - and I simply don't see those star players, those leaders, those tried and tested veterans at the peak of their powers. I just see a bunch of very good to competent international players, with a smattering of debatably World Class players (mostly still young) and maybe a smattering of potential shooting stars, and I don't even see that at inside-centre.
Maybe things would be different if we'd had a different coach picking and developing the squad up until now. I certainly do think Lancaster has made a whole rash of really questionable selection choices, particularly in the backline. But he did inherit a squad with very few experienced players entering their prime with genuine star potential - not a lot he could do about that. At least two of them - Corbs and Croft - have had massive injury issues. Not a lot he could do about that. But then he could have done a better job of building a squad around what he did inherit.
One of my biggest concerns and criticism with him would be that he's really struggled to find a style that suits the players we've got then coach them how to execute it. For example, right now, the idea seems to be we'll run people ragged a bit New Zealand style. Great. But why are we trying to do that with a pretty one-paced back row? Do we have the precision at the ruck, across the 15, to play that game? There's been plenty of well-founded criticism of our clearouts on this thread and, looking at Ireland, I firmly believe that the ruck is something an international coach can affect - although maybe it's unfair to expect Lancaster to be as good as Schmidt. But then, it wasn't Schmidt who taught Ireland how to maul, it was Plumtree. Is it unfair to expect Lancaster and Rowntree to be as good as Plumtree? Is it unfair to expect England's forwards coaching department to be as good as him?
I think Lancaster has done a decent job, all things considered, particularly if you throw in his relative inexperience for such a role (should you though?).
But I don't think a decent job is good enough. In terms of trophies and SH wins, it demonstrably hasn't been, but in terms of what I want England Rugby to be it isn't.
But I don't think a man doing a better job would have brought us hugely much more and if one does in the future it will be using resources Lancaster didn't have. I think we'd have won a 6N, and maybe beaten SA in the Autumn when they were dire, but that's about it. Schmidt might have won us lots of 6Ns, but he's a genius. Sadly, there's a very limited supply of such men and I don't think any exist in the English system.
Unless he shows something drastic though, there are probably better than Lancaster.
p.s.
I think it's mental that Lancaster has tried so many wings and only really given proper runs (when fit) to Ashton and Nowell. His fascination with Strettle was weird; his lack of appreciation for Monye seemed odd; and if he wants a full-back on the wing, why not Tait? Nor do I fully comprehend the rise and fall of Yarde, the cold shoulder of Foden, the liking of Watson (is Roko genuinely that bad under the high ball?) or, well, most of everything to do with England's wings; it's a mess.
I think it questionable that Flood wasn't perservered with more, that Burns can be playing good rugby in NZ one year and completely totally out of the picture the next; understand ditching Hodgson but wish we hadn't; understand Slade not getting blooded before hand but think that was a triumph of system over common sense; wonder if Myler's really good at holding tackle bags.
And the less said about Inside Centres, Alex Goode, and Lee Dickson the better. I'm venting here rather than looking for debate; I doubt that Odin himself could persuade me backs selection and development hasn't been an absolute mess throughout.
