England Post-WC discussion

[michaelbolton]

Genuinely believe Wilson should be our tight head going forwards.
Easily the best at the set piece, and surprisingly good in the loose. Bring on Cole/Brookes late in the game when it starts breaking up, but Wilson should be there early on to turn the screw in the scrum.
We need to go back to basics - England have a good set piece. This is not true right now, and needs to change.

I would agree but thought he was older than he was going forward... Definitely agreed and not sure why he got no game time at world cup

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Geech?
I must have blocked that out of my mind

Wasn't he also subsequently involved when roles were redefined? Did their times at Leeds overlap too?

I can understand some suits being involved. But wouldn't it have made sense to have brought in someone independent like Graham Henry to chair it? Someone who knows what it takes and wouldn't pull their punches.

 

[ncurd]

Wasn't he also subsequently involved when roles were redefined? Did their times at Leeds overlap too?

I can understand some suits being involved. But wouldn't it have made sense to have brought in someone independent like Graham Henry to chair it? Someone who knows what it takes and wouldn't pull their punches.

What in a review in any company hell no, you need to put yourself and cronies on any review board to outnumber the people talking sense so you can blame it on anything but your own failings.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Geech - one of the guys involved in recommending Lancaster in the first place, and someone who has already publicly stated he thinks he should stay.

Le sigh...

 

[Hulkster]

This management speak garbage is half the reason we ended up being so singularly useless to start with. You don't need a review panel to see that results were nowhere near good enough and that four years of supposed 'development' has yielded the square route of sod all.

All it needs is some executive leadership to come out and say it's not been good enough, and I'm going to go out and find the best man possible to put it right. That man can decide for himself what sort of coaching setup he wants. You don't need to be a rugby sage or ex pro to compare the coaching track records of the potential candidates.

 

[Wimero]

This management speak garbage is half the reason we ended up being so singularly useless to start with. You don't need a review panel to see that results were nowhere near good enough and that four years of supposed 'development' has yielded the square route of sod all.

All it needs is some executive leadership to come out and say it's not been good enough, and I'm going to go out and find the best man possible to put it right. That man can decide for himself what sort of coaching setup he wants. You don't need to be a rugby sage or ex pro to compare the coaching track records of the potential candidates.

Absolutely spot on.There must have been objectives set.Clearly they weren't met.Nice try but cheerio.

 

[stus768]

Why Ben Kay??

 

[McTallshort]

Why Ben Kay??

He knows rugby and what makes a winning team

 

[willutalk]

There are simply too many teams in the Prem to make picking a strong cohesive England side. 12 Premiership sides is very strong from a distribution point of view. Look at Scotland! Glasgow and Edinburgh make up a hell of a lot of their team and they play as a team IMO. Not like a bunch of star INDIVIDUALS.

 

[Maverick1987]

There are simply too many teams in the Prem to make picking a strong cohesive England side. 12 Premiership sides is very strong from a distribution point of view. Look at Scotland! Glasgow and Edinburgh make up a hell of a lot of their team and they play as a team IMO. Not like a bunch of star INDIVIDUALS.

Scotland were dead last in the recent 6N ......

 

[j'nuh]

There are simply too many teams in the Prem to make picking a strong cohesive England side. 12 Premiership sides is very strong from a distribution point of view. Look at Scotland! Glasgow and Edinburgh make up a hell of a lot of their team and they play as a team IMO. Not like a bunch of star INDIVIDUALS.

South Africa XV:
Cheetahs - Le Roux, De Jager
Sharks - JP, Mtawarira, Du Plessis
Toulon - Habana
Stormers - De Allende, Etzebeth, Marlherbe, Vermeulen, Burger
Bulls - Kriel, Pollard
Suntory - Du Preez
Bath - Louw

Wales XV:
Ospreys - Baldwin, AWJ, Lydiate, Biggar
Cardiff - Jenkins, Warburton, Anscombe, Cuthbert
Scarlets - Lee, Davies
Racing - Charteris, Roberts
Newport - Faletau, Morgan
Northampton - North

Argentina XV:
Cardiff - Tuculet
Regatas - Cordero
Racing - Imhoff, Hernandez, Lavanini
CUBA - Moroni
Toulon - Sanchez, Lobbe
CASI - Landajo
Worcester - Senatore, Creevy
Leicester - Matera, Ayerza
San Isidro - Pagadizabal
Castres - Herrera

England XV:
Harlequins - Brown, Robshaw, Marler
Bath - Watson, Joseph
Saracens - Farrell, Barritt
Gloucester - May, Morgan
Tigers - Youngs, Cole, Parling, Youngs
Saints - Wood
Wasps - Launchbury

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[stus768]

He knows rugby and what makes a winning team

Does he tho? He was part of very good teams. Doesn't mean he knows why they worked or that them being good relates to these teams now.

Also he knows rugby? He's a good pundit but hasn't coached anyone (as far as I know). What makes him better than someone else?

 

[McTallshort]

Does he tho? He was part of very good teams. Doesn't mean he knows why they worked or that them being good relates to these teams now.

Also he knows rugby? He's a good pundit but hasn't coached anyone (as far as I know). What makes him better than someone else?

If he was part of those teams why would he not know why they worked.

He's a good pundit because he knows the game and because he isn't a coach can offer a different point of view

 

[Hulkster]

So Kay could be replaced by anyone from the 2003 team, or indeed anyone who has been part of a good rugby team?

 

[McTallshort]

There are simply too many teams in the Prem to make picking a strong cohesive England side. 12 Premiership sides is very strong from a distribution point of view. Look at Scotland! Glasgow and Edinburgh make up a hell of a lot of their team and they play as a team IMO. Not like a bunch of star INDIVIDUALS.

Here we go, one half decent performance against Australia and now the worst team in most 6N's are the best team in the world.

 

[McTallshort]

So Kay could be replaced by anyone from the 2003 team, or indeed anyone who has been part of a good rugby team?

Who would you rather have?

 

[Sonic Kiwi]

BUT England won the Soccer world cup in 1966, surely England are the best since then?

 

[Hulkster]

Who would you rather have?

I'm not particularly against Kay, just noting that being a good player in a good team isn't the same thing as knowing how to build a good team.

To be fair Kay is probably the most credible of the entire panel.

I really think the whole panel thing is a nonsense to be honest. You could ask 10 different, credible rugby people what the problems and solutions are and get 10 different answers.

It's all back covering, management speak tripe.

 

[McTallshort]

I'm not particularly against Kay, just noting that being a good player in a good team doesn't isn't the same thing as knowing how to build a good team.

To be fair Kay is probably the most credible of the entire panel.

I really think the whole panel thing is a nonsense to be fair. You could ask 10 different, credible rugby people what the problems and solutions are and get 10 different answers.

It's all back covering, management speak tripe.

So how would you proceed with it then? The panel seems the best choice to me

 

[stus768]

If he was part of those teams why would he not know why they worked.

He's a good pundit because he knows the game and because he isn't a coach can offer a different point of view

Being part of something that works doesn't mean you know why it worked or that it will work again. 12 years ago now rugby has changed a lot.