England Post-WC discussion

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Who thinks he will stay?

Lancaster? Yeh i think he will


I hope we look to send a Saxons squad to Georgia or Romania when we send a squad to Aus.

This is how review will go:

1) Coaches All will prob back Lancaster as if he goes they will most likely go
2) Players will back Lancaster becuase either: 1) He gave them they debut, 2) Any other coach would not pick them.
Reading this:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...d-full-role-in-inquest-over-world-cup-failure
Suggests to me that the senior plays esp ones that prob wouldn't get picked by another coach will try and be the voice of the squad.
3) Andrew will want Lancaster to stay as top coach will prob want him gone.
4) The RFU Will want lancaster to stay as any top coach will want more power.
5) Media and some supporters starting to feel sorry for Lancaster as he is a good guy, they will want him to stay.

 

[TommiG88]

Me and been clear about it all along!!

I think he may stay too.

Edit: wood's comments come across that he doesn't trust some of the team and some voices should be louder than others. Maybe it's just how I interpreted it.

 

[Patchey]

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 ...

Cold sweats, shivering in fear, the suggestion of a sinister shape lurking in the corner of the room...I get those dreams too man.

I think he'll stay involved but I doubt as head coach. Some kind of sideways movement away from direct contact with the international team would be best for all.

Not sure who I'd like instead though...

 

[Peat]

Tony, I was trying to be concise :lol:

I doubt he'll resign. I am not holding too much faith in the RFU forcing the issue.

Curious about Wood's idea of pooling the feedback by club before feeding into a whole, feels like they might be hoping players like himself, Robshaw, Burgess, Fazlet, and Parling can mute the voices of guys like Marler (can't be happy about scrum coaching), Ford, Joseph, Vunipola, Slade, so on. I can see why the players want to speak with one voice, but I strongly doubt there will be one message coming back.

Have to say, beginning to get a bit tired of the players. Some of their concerns are understandable but they're also looking quite petulant based on a lot of the leaks.

 

[Patchey]

Just as long as some waz at the RFU doesn't leak the 'anonymous' feedback again we'll have improved on 2011 in one way...

 

[nealn]

He's staying - 100%. He won't go and the RFU won't force the issue.

Come the 6N it'll all be about how much he and Robshaw have learnt from the experience this year and how they're going to put their lessons into action. We'll probably win the 6N as we'll grind out a number of mediocre victories by playing our experienced (yet decidedly average) veterans like Robshaw, Barritt and Wood against a number of teams who realise they're at the beginning of a new cycle and are therefore refreshing their teams with newer players. Everyone will therefore see the future as rosy after the tournament win but by 2019 the likes of France and Wales will have kicked on with their new talented (relative to ours) players playing under (relatively) talented management whilst Lancaster's Kings of Mediocrity will arrive in Japan with a 38th new centre combination and struggle to a QF exit.

Lancaster will then talk about our progress over the previous four years (as we did get out of the group this time) and how the likes of Itoje and Clifford are now perfectly placed to make their debuts in the 2020 6N and put pressure on Robshaw and Wood in the run up to the 2023 World Cup. Ian Ritchie will commend Lancaster on the progress he's made in the last four years and grant Rob Andrew a contract for life. Woodward will self-immolate himself on live TV in protest at the RFU's conservatism whilst Geordan Murphy commentates about it with as much passion as if he was reading out the Idiot's Guide to Microsoft Excel.

You heard it here first...

 

[Hulkster]

It needs to be remembered that Lancaster is head coach of the first team, not a development squad.

You can talk all you want about the culture, about development, etc., but we are talking about TEST MATCH rugby. The only thing that matters, and the only objective criteria to judge by, are results.

If your emphasis on culture or whatever improves results then great, if not it is meaningless.

England seems to adopt a more long term approach than anyone else. All we ever talk about, even when it comes to the first team, is development. There is rarely any serious pressure on results, because everything is written off as a learning experience. No wonder the players can't cope when the real pressure comes.

We can't go on talking about jam tomorrow forever.

Focus on winning the next game and the next competition. Everything else will flow naturally from that.

As it happens, we are now in a position where in many positions, the best players also happen to be young players. So let's pick them, but don't tell them their objective is to win the 2019 world cup. Tell them their objective is to win the six nations, and mean it.

 

[Crapspray]

We can't go on talking about jam tomorrow forever.

Unfortunately for Lancaster, that's really all he can talk about at this point.

Historically, the only trophies he's won are the the Triple Crown in 2014 and the tour of Argentina in 2013 against their B team. Win ratio is now 61% - only 6% more than Johnson and Ashton and about 10% less than Cooke, Rowell, and Woodward. He's also had longer than all other coaches bar-Woodward and Cooke. England now sit at their joint-lowest ranking in history. If Scotland beat Australia the record is all his.

Presently, he's just presided over the worst World Cup result in English Rugby history which, to top it off, was at home. He lost because of the same failings and mistakes that have cost him Grand Slams/Six Nations in 2013 and 14, and by being inferior in an area which has dogged England for a decade.

So in the future he has to convince them that he has a grand plan to utilise all of the talent and "learn the lessons" from the current debacle. (All the while skilfully avoiding mention of the tens of thousands of youngsters who now won't join junior clubs because of England's major failure. Oh, and not mention his flip-flopping up to the end suggests he hasn't got a clue where to go.) He really hasn't got a leg to stand on anywhere else.

His only hope of staying is RFU inertia and cowardice - or a lack of decent alternatives. If one of Jones, Mallet, White, or (heaven forbid) Woodward throw their hats loudly into the ring he's toast.

Sadly, I can't really say I'd be disappointed anymore. If he believed the culture aspect he's sold for four years he would have fallen on his sword straight after the Uruguay game. Fighting on shows either delusion or a lack of respect for fans/players.

 

[yaboyjj]

I think he may stay too.

Edit: wood's comments come across that he doesn't trust some of the team and some voices should be louder than others. Maybe it's just how I interpreted it.

And the way I interpret it is simple. Wood has a vested interest in keeping the same regime in place, because no-one else would be stupid enough to select him (another coach would not pay attention to the 'credit in the bank' he has supposedly accrued). By limiting the player feedback to the so called 'leaders', there is less of a chance of negative feedback, since they have been appointed and selected by Lancaster.
Wood is imo an arrogant player, and although he is 'backing' Robshaw, he can't wait to get his grubby fingers on the captaincy, despite barely justifying his place for his club (Gibson looks > already) let alone England (he was outplayed by a window cleaner on Saturday ffs). Wood has talked a good game for years. Fact is, Mr. Straightalking has rarely backed it up on the field.

Cynical viewpoint- yes.

 

[Tony Manx]

And the way I interpret it is simple. Wood has a vested interest in keeping the same regime in place, because no-one else would be stupid enough to select him (another coach would not pay attention to the 'credit in the bank' he has supposedly accrued). By limiting the player feedback to the so called 'leaders', there is less of a chance of negative feedback, since they have been appointed and selected by Lancaster.
Wood is imo an arrogant player, and although he is 'backing' Robshaw, he can't wait to get his grubby fingers on the captaincy, despite barely justifying his place for his club (Gibson looks > already) let alone England (he was outplayed by a window cleaner on Saturday ffs). Wood has talked a good game for years. Fact is, Mr. Straightalking has rarely backed it up on the field.

Cynical viewpoint- yes.

If you remember, Robshaw only got the captaincy the first place as the player who was going to be el capitano was injured......yes, Wood!!!

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Lancaster certainly thinks players will be on his side:

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/lancaster-tough-balancing-youth-and-***les/

 

[Patchey]

Won't load on my phone so can't post the link (will do later) but In The Loose, in their attempt to become a serious rugby site, have posted an infographic showing the number of minutes all 72 players to play for England under Lancaster have received. Some choice stats (tests only):

Phill Dowson, 178 mins. Matt Kvesic, 160.

Chris Ashton: 1,609 (most of any winger).

We have had 8 different hookers and 7/8 different fly halves.

Charlie Hodgson has played more minutes than Cips.

Ben Moran has played 401 more minutes than Billy V.

PDJ 31 minutes. Henry Thomas 55 (same as Matt Stevens).

Chris Pennell...1 minute.


Some of these might be quite revealing. Others are just a bit sad or funny.

 

[Peat]

Patchey, I'm going to guess it's the same infographic as from the Telegraph, was posted in the autopsy thread. Worth posting again here in case anyone missed it to have another look at.

I'll just add that 75.something was the average number of players used since the last WC by a Tier 1 country, it's not actually that mad a stat alone.

 

[Patchey]

Patchey, I'm going to guess it's the same infographic as from the Telegraph, was posted in the autopsy thread. Worth posting again here in case anyone missed it to have another look at.

I'll just add that 75.something was the average number of players used since the last WC by a Tier 1 country, it's not actually that mad a stat alone.

Yup, I've just checked. Naughty boys, they don't seem to have credited it. Also, it was posted originally in the Tele before the weekend so anyone who played against Uruguay will be short...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...nd-head-coach-has-used-during-his-tenure.html

 

[Every Time Ref]

Cold sweats, shivering in fear, the suggestion of a sinister shape lurking in the corner of the room...I get those dreams too man.

I think he'll stay involved but I doubt as head coach. Some kind of sideways movement away from direct contact with the international team would be best for all.

Not sure who I'd like instead though...

I hope it's Schmidt. Imagine the Irish reaction, lolz

Such depressing reading in this thread. What is this leaders group thing you keep referring to? I'm sorry, but no. True leadership, to use a tacky management cliche, is earned not given.

Is there anyone who thinks that the "leadership group" in this squad has earned the right to speak for the whole? I don't think even the "leaders" themselves believe that. It's a power grab, pure and simple. Well, **** you Tom Wood. **** all y'all.

 

[ABs2011]

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:

Too much weights not enough speed work!

 

[j'nuh]

It needs to be remembered that Lancaster is head coach of the first team, not a development squad.

You can talk all you want about the culture, about development, etc., but we are talking about TEST MATCH rugby. The only thing that matters, and the only objective criteria to judge by, are results.

If your emphasis on culture or whatever improves results then great, if not it is meaningless.

England seems to adopt a more long term approach than anyone else. All we ever talk about, even when it comes to the first team, is development. There is rarely any serious pressure on results, because everything is written off as a learning experience. No wonder the players can't cope when the real pressure comes.

We can't go on talking about jam tomorrow forever.

Focus on winning the next game and the next competition. Everything else will flow naturally from that.

As it happens, we are now in a position where in many positions, the best players also happen to be young players. So let's pick them, but don't tell them their objective is to win the 2019 world cup. Tell them their objective is to win the six nations, and mean it.

I think it's odd that you see Lancaster as being "jam tomorrow". I see him as being the opposite: too conservative.

Successful teams need to strike a balance between generations of players. Typically, players get better with age, peaking in their late 20s/early 30s. If you pick a very young squad, you lack the nous, game knowledge and leadership of the older generation. On the other hand, if you pick an older squad, you risk a lack of continuity when players get too old and drop off, leaving an experience gap.

England are unique amongst the tier one nations because, when Lancaster took over, our older generation was terrible. We had a wasted generation above the current one; young beat old in nearly every position. Our "older" generation included Botha, Dowson, Palmer, Easter (who wasn't very good at the time), Tindall, Hape, Stevens. We also had a bunch of retirements to contend with. The end result was that putting together a young squad wasn't about "jam tomorrow", it was about simply putting out the best squad available to Lancaster. (And I would add that he tried to resist it initially. Botha, Dowson and Palmer did play under Lancaster in 2012.)

Also, I think long-term succession is just as important as current results. Development is key for a national team, although it has to be staggered so as not to be disruptive. Short-term success shouldn't come at the expense of longer-term success.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Good article/interview with Eddie Jones: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...die-jones-japan-south-africa?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Good article/interview with Eddie Jones: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...die-jones-japan-south-africa?CMP=share_btn_tw

IMO Eddie so wants the job.

But can't imagine that he would want to work with Andrew (who would).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

IMO Eddie so wants the job.

But can't imagine that he would want to work with Andrew (who would).

Playing hard to get?