England Post-WC discussion

[TW27BA]

I always get the feeling that it's Andy Farrell pulling the strings and SL is the mouthpiece.
Get Farrell away and persuade Shaun Edwards over to defence coach and we are on the right path.

 

[Peat]

I don't think there isn't a single coach who hasn't at least urged for calm and caution in deciding what to do with Lancaster. Quite a few of them have openly admitted they don't have the knowledge as to whether he should go or not go.

They're saying it because they're coaches and they know how painful it is to have the media on your back, how fickle the fans can be. They've seen good coaches castigated when it's not their fault and bad coaches praised for being lucky. Their endorsements, I'd suggest, are more to do with them being coaches than them being Lancaster.

For what it's worth, I agree with them. However, I started judging seriously after the 2014 6N. The belief that he should go does not stem from this tournament, it stems from considering whether he has the abilities for over a year. Prior to the tournament I preferred him gone; now I'll be burningly angry if he isn't, and maybe that's kneejerk I should reconsider, but that he should be gone, nothing kneejerk about that.

 

[Aristodemus]

I've never been a fan of his. Selection of the likes of Johnson, Botha, Goode, Ashton (long after his former had gone), Barritt etc when we had much better options irked me. To be fair to him though I think the fact that Johnson was treated so badly by the media, and that Lancaster taking the then champions of the 6N to 2nd was some sort of miracle annoyed me from the off.
Inevitably we need to accept that is both arrogant and insulting to assume we can promote inside RFU men to the post with zero or very little experience and succeed. He and all his coaching staff need to go, simple as that.
Henry, as Rats said, was just trying to answer a question he has no idea on.

 

[TW27BA]

^ Having 4 years to pick his best 12/13 and come the day it really mattered (v Wales) he still didn't know. That's failure in my book.

 

[stus768]

The quotes coming out about him from players like Tom Wood are very telling for me. They all say he works incredibly hard and is a decent bloke. That's about it. Compared it to the other top managers I would expect- amazing knowledge of the game or always pushing and innovating new ideas.
Anyone can work hard. If you work hard at the wrong thing or with the wrong ideas then you don't actually add any value. Mirrors Robshaws playing style works very hard but no stand out impact.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think there is an argument to be made for keeping Lancaster around in some capacity, just not one that involves what England do on the pitch. Player development, PR, youth-senior progression (to be fair, he has brought through a lot of youth) would be better positions for him. He is not a head coach though.

 

[j'nuh]

Stefflon tried to convert to France.

Why would anyone want him anywhere near the England squad now?

And Kvesic is better and deserves his chance.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Stefflon tried to convert to France.

Why would anyone want him anywhere near the England squad now?

And Kvesic is better and deserves his chance.

Is that actually true? Did he really try to play for France or was it just media putting 2 and 2 together to make 5?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

There was a poll in the Torygraph back at the end of Johnsons reign asking if Rob Andrew should be fired. 95% of responses said yes. The man is putting all the wrong people into positions in English rugby and then removing them again whilst his own position is immune to question. I mean seriously, who is he accountable to?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Is that actually true? Did he really try to play for France or was it just media putting 2 and 2 together to make 5?

Apparently his Dad is a poster on RugbyNetwork and mentioned it - or at least that's what I read/heard.

 

[j'nuh]

Is that actually true? Did he really try to play for France or was it just media putting 2 and 2 together to make 5?

I'm not sure it's been confirmed, but if it wasn't true he'd have surely denied it by now?

There was a poll in the Torygraph back at the end of Johnsons reign asking if Rob Andrew should be fired. 95% of responses said yes. The man is putting all the wrong people into positions in English rugby and then removing them again whilst his own position is immune to question. I mean seriously, who is he accountable to?

I think some of the selections seem worse with hindsight though. Lancaster was only appointed after impressing as caretaker coach, and Ashton/Robinson weren't exactly inexperienced. Johnson seemed a bit out there as a selection admittedly.

If Andrew was actively changing the fortunes of England, it feels like I should have a better idea of what he actually does. It sometimes feels like people see him as this Darth Sidious character, undermining England from the shadows. Which is possible, but I have absolutely no idea.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

It sometimes feels like people see him as this Darth Sidious character, undermining England from the shadows. Which is possible, but I have absolutely no idea.

 

[ABs2011]

This has probably been discussed heaps by you guys, but I havent been around for it, so thought I would put this to you to see what you all thought.

I've talked to several Kiwi guys who have played pro rugby over in the UK. One of the things that is said by all of them is that the split between off field (mainly weights/strenth stuff) and on field (skills) training over there is much more geared towards the indoor stuff compared to NZ. As a result the consensus was that the natural instinct, skills execution and essentially the attacking side of play in England is quite weak compared to NZ. With that in mind I watched the Uruguay game and was really shocked by the lack of penetration Enlgand had in the back line. It wasnt until the 50th minute when a clean break was finally made (by Slade). What made it even more shocking was the dominance England had in terms of territory, possession and set play. Everything in the backs just seemed so laboured and behind the advantage line that half the time the English were just sitting ducks for the Uruguayan tacklers. I know this is just one game but it did seem to back up the stuff I had heard.

Anyway, just wondered what you fullahs thought. ALl hot air or is there some truth to all this? And if there is what is the direction for the future. SHould England just focus on what they have traditionally been good at, or should they try and restructure everything (like NZ are trying to do with football) and get everyone playing a new brand of rugby from grass roots rugby up?

 

[Peat]

Stefflon tried to convert to France.

Why would anyone want him anywhere near the England squad now?

And Kvesic is better and deserves his chance.

I want to pick the best players available and get back to winning. If Armitage is available for whatever reason, he's probably one of the best. Know people have questions, but there are questions over ever flanker we might pick bar Tom Croft, and people would be flipping tables if he'd been ignored while in that form in England.

Also, saying that Kvesic is better than Armitage is possibly one of the stronger examples of bias I've seen on this forum but, if you're right, then it would be lovely to have some experience cover for him just in case...

I think some of the selections seem worse with hindsight though. Lancaster was only appointed after impressing as caretaker coach, and Ashton/Robinson weren't exactly inexperienced. Johnson seemed a bit out there as a selection admittedly.

If Andrew was actively changing the fortunes of England, it feels like I should have a better idea of what he actually does. It sometimes feels like people see him as this Darth Sidious character, undermining England from the shadows. Which is possible, but I have absolutely no idea.

Nobody knows quite what Rob Andrew does and generally that's a good sign of a man up to no good!

Ashton had little head coaching experience and was saddled with assistants he didn't pick. That's not a good call. Johnson was a ludicrous call but Rob Andrew said what went on with the rugby with the coach he appointed was under his paygrade. As for Lancaster, even at the time it was possible to see he had an awful CV for the job and had got a bit lucky in his first two matches playing horrible rugby. Yes, he did get 4 wins, the one against France was a beauty, but it was always going to be a gamble.

Besides, you're allowed to hammer your highly paid... whatever his job ***le is there days... when it turns out in hindsight that he was wrong. He's being paid a lot of money to have the expertise where he is right after all.

I'd love to be able to tell you more but I don't really have anything concrete myself.

This has probably been discussed heaps by you guys, but I havent been around for it, so thought I would put this to you to see what you all thought.

I've talked to several Kiwi guys who have played pro rugby over in the UK. One of the things that is said by all of them is that the split between off field (mainly weights/strenth stuff) and on field (skills) training over there is much more geared towards the indoor stuff compared to NZ. As a result the consensus was that the natural instinct, skills execution and essentially the attacking side of play in England is quite weak compared to NZ. With that in mind I watched the Uruguay game and was really shocked by the lack of penetration Enlgand had in the back line. It wasnt until the 50th minute when a clean break was finally made (by Slade). What made it even more shocking was the dominance England had in terms of territory, possession and set play. Everything in the backs just seemed so laboured and behind the advantage line that half the time the English were just sitting ducks for the Uruguayan tacklers. I know this is just one game but it did seem to back up the stuff I had heard.

Anyway, just wondered what you fullahs thought. ALl hot air or is there some truth to all this? And if there is what is the direction for the future. SHould England just focus on what they have traditionally been good at, or should they try and restructure everything (like NZ are trying to do with football) and get everyone playing a new brand of rugby from grass roots rugby up?

Doesn't come up that often. I don't think anyone would deny that there isn't enough skills training, or that they haven't heard stories like that, but discussing how to fix the team is a lot more fun than wondering how you change an entire culture.

In fairness, there have been plenty of games where a set of English backs have absolutely slaughtered a weak opposition. Only have to look at some of the Baabaas and midweek games to see that. We stuck 71 points on the Baabaas only 4 months ago. Sure, that Baabaas team didn't go with the ferocity of the Uruguayan, but there's some killer instincts out there.

That last game, to be fair, wasn't a great one for judging anyone. Everyone's morale was shot, the coaching and preparation were clearly inadequate, there's not a single guy at that tournament who performed to the level they could. You've also got to remember the backs were suffering from a forward pack that were losing the break down to amateurs, no good ball equals no good attack.

England's ineptness at the breakdown though is just as good an example of the malaise in English coaching as the lack in the backs though and probably even more damaging.

I would like the RFU to demand a minimum amount of time on skills training across all Prem clubs as part of the next EPS but they'd probably all decide to spend it practising defence and set piece :lol:

 

[Tony Manx]

I want to pick the best players available and get back to winning. If Armitage is available for whatever reason, he's probably one of the best. Know people have questions, but there are questions over ever flanker we might pick bar Tom Croft, and people would be flipping tables if he'd been ignored while in that form in England.

Also, saying that Kvesic is better than Armitage is possibly one of the stronger examples of bias I've seen on this forum but, if you're right, then it would be lovely to have some experience cover for him just in case...



Nobody knows quite what Rob Andrew does and generally that's a good sign of a man up to no good!

Ashton had little head coaching experience and was saddled with assistants he didn't pick. That's not a good call. Johnson was a ludicrous call but Rob Andrew said what went on with the rugby with the coach he appointed was under his paygrade. As for Lancaster, even at the time it was possible to see he had an awful CV for the job and had got a bit lucky in his first two matches playing horrible rugby. Yes, he did get 4 wins, the one against France was a beauty, but it was always going to be a gamble.

Besides, you're allowed to hammer your highly paid... whatever his job ***le is there days... when it turns out in hindsight that he was wrong. He's being paid a lot of money to have the expertise where he is right after all.

I'd love to be able to tell you more but I don't really have anything concrete myself.



Doesn't come up that often. I don't think anyone would deny that there isn't enough skills training, or that they haven't heard stories like that, but discussing how to fix the team is a lot more fun than wondering how you change an entire culture.

In fairness, there have been plenty of games where a set of English backs have absolutely slaughtered a weak opposition. Only have to look at some of the Baabaas and midweek games to see that. We stuck 71 points on the Baabaas only 4 months ago. Sure, that Baabaas team didn't go with the ferocity of the Uruguayan, but there's some killer instincts out there.

That last game, to be fair, wasn't a great one for judging anyone. Everyone's morale was shot, the coaching and preparation were clearly inadequate, there's not a single guy at that tournament who performed to the level they could. You've also got to remember the backs were suffering from a forward pack that were losing the break down to amateurs, no good ball equals no good attack.

England's ineptness at the breakdown though is just as good an example of the malaise in English coaching as the lack in the backs though and probably even more damaging.

I would like the RFU to demand a minimum amount of time on skills training across all Prem clubs as part of the next EPS but they'd probably all decide to spend it practising defence and set piece :lol:

In truth, I lose interest in posts that become a book rather than a concise comment.....it is an age thing!!

However, @TRF_Peat 's contributions always worth a read!

I think it is wrong that overseas players are banned and feel that, not only do they learn more by playing in different countries and cultures, but it also up to England to make it more attractive through a proactive route than the negative one of a ban!

The other point that is made is the practicing on defence and set piece.

Firstly if that is the case, and I believe it is in the main, then it ain't working very well as it was pretty awful!!

Second point is whether it is a choice because of the players coming into the top rank or a result of promotion/relegation fears?

Enough before I too send everyone to sleep!!

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

If we are talking skills then we have to mention our forwards who look like an under 16s team when they hit the breakdown.

They look under powered and there support play, rucking and taking the ball at pace is non existent.

Also a note on our style of play. If we don't have the skills to play an expansive game, the coaches should pick a massive pack and play to our strengths. Our coaches, all of them need to go.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I think historically that might be correct training was geared towards weights etc, but I think that was only really AP.

Lower leagues tend to be more 50/50 from my experience.

There does seem to be a shift in playing style from strong smash them up rugby to wide attacking rugby.

A Bath style of play wouldn't work for us IMO.

 

[TommiG88]

Who thinks he will stay?

 

[Every Time Ref]

Who thinks he will stay?

I have nightmares he will. I wake up screaming.

I don't actually think he'll stay, but I'd rather the idea was a lot less laughable than it is ...

 

[Tony Manx]

Who thinks he will stay?

Me and been clear about it all along!!