England Post-WC discussion

[Hulkster]

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

It's simple really.

Someone must be in charge.

Whoever is in charge just needs to decide if the results if the world cup and indeed the entire Lancaster era have been good enough. I think the answer to that question is very very obvious.

If results are not deemed good enough, then a replacement is needed. Just look at the records of potential candidates and pick the best one you can get. Once he is in place, he is in charge of rugby and coaching decisions, including his coaching team.

By all means canvass opinion, but you don't need a formal panel producing a report.

 

[McTallshort]

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.

Same question to you. Who would you rather have?

 

[stus768]

Same question to you. Who would you rather have?

Joe Worsley is currently coaching and doing well. Neil Back has coached- didn't do so well. Jonny Wilko and Simon Shaw have played in different environments (Toulon,lions). Martin Johnson would be very interesting.

I'm not saying Ben Kay's a terrible choice if you want a successful ex player but with only 2 actually rugby people on the board you could get someone with a wider range of experience.

 

[McTallshort]

Joe Worsley is currently coaching and doing well. Neil Back has coached- didn't do so well. Jonny Wilko and Simon Shaw have played in different environments (Toulon,lions). Martin Johnson would be very interesting.

I'm not saying Ben Kay's a terrible choice if you want a successful ex player but with only 2 actually rugby people on the board you could get someone with a wider range of experience.

Isn't just a player is he? He's a well established and well respected pundit. It's a good outside view to have. Coaches tend to stick up for other coaches, Wilkinson is very much a players man, not sure why Shaw would make a good choice.

 

[stus768]

Isn't just a player is he? He's a well established and well respected pundit. It's a good outside view to have. Coaches tend to stick up for other coaches, Wilkinson is very much a players man, not sure why Shaw would make a good choice.

I personally don't think that being a good pundit is a good enough qualification to review it.

I only chose Shaw as someone who experienced different coaching set ups over his career rather than staying in one place.

 

[McTallshort]

Played nearly all his rugby at Wasps

 

[j'nuh]

It's simple really.

Someone must be in charge.

Whoever is in charge just needs to decide if the results if the world cup and indeed the entire Lancaster era have been good enough. I think the answer to that question is very very obvious.

If results are not deemed good enough, then a replacement is needed. Just look at the records of potential candidates and pick the best one you can get. Once he is in place, he is in charge of rugby and coaching decisions, including his coaching team.

By all means canvass opinion, but you don't need a formal panel producing a report.

So you'd leave it all down to Ian Ritchie to decide?

If you leave it down to one person and they are a rugby god, impressively knowledgeable about the game and impartial beyond thought possible, then it could work.

Otherwise, a panel provides breadth of knowledge and a variety of biases so that one doesn't overpower. They recognise failings and successes that one person might not see.

My problem is that the panel itself appears to be biased. It should have been five people not connected to the RFU, or any previous decision made, on the panel. By appointing people personally responsible for Lancaster's appointment, you are kind of making the decision to keep Lancaster before even starting the review. I just hope Kay wrecks it.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Isn't Ian Ritchie just a businessman? Not even from a rugby background?
I wouldn't want him making all the calls on rugby decisions. Fair play he can make the financial ones etc. (and he seems to be doing well) but leave the rugby to people who know about rugby. Hell, replace him with someone like Bill Beaumont - who's played, and been on the blazer side. Get coaches in.
I don't understand the FA guy either - what the hell is some football business guy going to know about rugby coaching?

 

[Wimero]

Bill Beaumont would be an ideal candidate.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Let's face it Lancaster will stay.

 

[Wimero]

I've got an inkling you're right.

 

[Hulkster]

So you'd leave it all down to Ian Ritchie to decide?

If you leave it down to one person and they are a rugby god, impressively knowledgeable about the game and impartial beyond thought possible, then it could work.

Otherwise, a panel provides breadth of knowledge and a variety of biases so that one doesn't overpower. They recognise failings and successes that one person might not see.

My problem is that the panel itself appears to be biased. It should have been five people not connected to the RFU, or any previous decision made, on the panel. By appointing people personally responsible for Lancaster's appointment, you are kind of making the decision to keep Lancaster before even starting the review. I just hope Kay wrecks it.

People are paid good money to make these decisions.

Farming it out to a review panel is just an abdication of responsibility.

A different panel could come up with a completely different report. It's not a panacea.

It seems to me to be a case of share the responsibility, share the blame.

The problem is when you delegate to everyone, you delegate to no one.

If Richie or Andrew cannot make a decision on whether results and progress have been good enough, they should not be in their jobs to start with.

We need to just cut the crap, admit it's not been good enough and the last four years have not yielded much so far as the senior team is concerned, then pick someone to put it right.

You don't need detailed or expert knowledge to make these high level decisions. You don't need to be a rugby expert to make a judgment on England's results. You don't need a panel to decide what style of rugby England should play or who should be the coaches. At a high level you just need to decide which coach you are going to appoint, and let him decide all the rest of it. Your job is then just to try to provide everything he asks for, and hold him accountable.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Someone like Brailsford might have been an interesting choice.

Doesn't know rugby, but commands instant respect on the back of his record in elite sport. He knows about man management, talent ID and development and building structures to support sustained success at the highest level. Suspect he might have concluded that the current domestic structure needs blowing out of the water if we're serious about making regular tilts at the RWC and 6N. And that would clearly be unpalatable.

I suspect he'd be utterly flummoxed that the whole system isn't geared in the interests of the national team. Trying to achieve success by accident isn't in his mindset.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Let's face it Lancaster will stay.

I've got an inkling you're right.

I reckon so too, unfortunately.
I feel like the only change will be Catt walking way from the whole thing and landing a gig with a Premiership club.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I could just about deal with Lancaster staying but not Farrell and rowntree. Also we should expand the coaching staff to include coaches who specialise in select skills eg lineout, scrum and breakdown. Also as a whole the team need to decide on a plan A and B and train to those. A should be playing a fast, expansive game as I think England finally have the backs to do it, we just need to get the forwards able to as well. B the territorial grinding out ugly mode with ball protection and accurate territorial kicking being key. Couple that with seleciton choices such as Slade at 12 for A and Manu at 12 for B and we could do reasonably well.

 

[Hulkster]

I simply see no case for Lancaster to stay.

First and foremost, when it comes to test match rugby the one factor which overrides everything else should be results, and those have clearly not been good enough. Abysmal home world cup, ongoing poor record vs SH sides, no grand slam, no 6 Nations, fallen short in the big game every year.

Now some people might talk about progress and player development, but these have also been awful.

Look at the players that Lancaster has stuck with from the start. How many of them have developed their games and are better players after all the caps given them over four years? If I think of the players who have been consistently selected in thr Lancaster era then it is Farrell, Barritt, Wood, Robshaw, Cole and maybe Lawes and to a lesser extent Brown (who had to play on the wing until Alex Goode was injured).

Are those players really any better than they were four years ago? Have they improved their skill sets or effectiveness after four years of international rugby.

Far from being the core of who we are told is an exciting England future, these are mostly players you'd be looking to phase out.

The fact that there is an exciting crop coming behind has nothing to do with Lancaster's stewardship of the senior team. I would say Johnny May is the only player I could point to who has improved his game after getting into the side.

Most of the players in the team now who you would want going forward, far from being Lancaster's core group, were only picked belatedly and often reluctantly.

This is to say nothing of the failure to develop a consistent style of play or the dramatic regression in all aspects of forward play.

 

[Tony Manx]

When a committee/consultant is appointed you can guarantee that the people doing the appointment are protecting their position/0ff loading their responsibilities or just plain out of their depths!

No outsider should know more than the executive running the operation about an intrinsic part of their business! The RFU has, as I see it only two parts - commercial and rugby!

Surely Ritchie has a commercial manager reporting to him. And surely he has a rugby manager doing the same? Ah, it's Rob Andrew.......now I see the problem!!!!

 

[j'nuh]

I simply see no case for Lancaster to stay.

First and foremost, when it comes to test match rugby the one factor which overrides everything else should be results, and those have clearly not been good enough. Abysmal home world cup, ongoing poor record vs SH sides, no grand slam, no 6 Nations, fallen short in the big game every year.

Lancaster's win record is 62%, highest since Woodward. And Woodward was only a bit higher, 71%. Only counting games against the top tier (Six Nations, SANZAR and Argentina), Lancaster has 57% and Woodward has 66%. But crucially, the international environment is a lot harder now than it was under Woodward's tenure, especially teams like Wales and Ireland are significantly better. And after 4 years, 1997-2001, Woodward's record was 31/49, i.e. 63%, very similar to Lancaster's.

Lancaster has been extremely unlucky that his losses have come in an order that have stopped England winning Six Nations. England have been extremely close to a Grand Slam for four years under Lancaster and I would be surprised if it didn't come in the next four years.

Results, for me, aren't Lancaster's problem. It's our stuttering progress. We're not improving like an inexperienced team should be improving as they gain the experience. Schmidt and Cheika have progressed Ireland and Australia more than Lancaster has progressed England in significantly less time.

I don't believe we should be acting out of a sense of punishment for poor results. We need to make a decision as to whether Lancaster is the best person for the job, in spite of the results. I wouldn't be totally crushed if Lancaster led a new-look team tbh.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Lancaster has been extremely unlucky that his losses have come in an order that have stopped England winning Six Nations. England have been extremely close to a Grand Slam for four years under Lancaster and I would be surprised if it didn't come in the next four years.

Results, for me, aren't Lancaster's problem. It's our stuttering progress. We're not improving like an inexperienced team should be improving as they gain the experience. Schmidt and Cheika have progressed Ireland and Australia more than Lancaster has progressed England in significantly less time.

Yeah it's worth pointing out the last 3 6N have been lost on points difference alone. 2013 was horrendous, 2014 we lost because oh that last minute try by the Frenchies and 2015 again points difference where we butchered so many chances against the Scots. I agree here, when JJ came in and we got proper wings, then we looked like we were going somewhere. Unfortunately as our backs have improved, our forwards have gone back faster than they've ever actually run on the pitch. Hopefully now the WC cycle is over for us, Lancaster will get rid of the dead wood he was keeping on as experience for the WC (cough Barritt) and allow new exciting players in like Slade. We also have Tuilagi to come back to present a very different threat if we need it and I'd love for him to become like Nonu for us but that is a big ask. Ultimately we need to be able to repeatedly close out games, something we haven't managed as we have a habit of always imploding in at least 1 game. It says a lack of on the pitch leaders to me.

 

[Crapspray]

His 61% win rate looks good until you average England's over the last 25 years (since Cooke took over): 64%. So just below average. Only, we've just come out of one of the worst periods in English Rugby history (well, it looked like we had) and he's had far better access, more money, and the beginning of a generation of comparatively good players. Over 15 years from 1988 to 2003 our win ratio was 72%.

Year-on-year he's managed 50%, 81%, 50%, and 67% 2012-15 respectively. So he's basically propped up by 2013 - when he played only two SH sides, one of which was a complete debacle at the time and we beat via a dubious TMO decision. Exclude that and he manages 56% - about the same as Ashton and Johnson.

He's also got the records for the worst defeat ever against Wales, and against Australia at Twickenham. And the longest any England coach has gone without winning the Six Nations.

All that said, it seems we'll have to wait until he loses to Scotland, Wales, and France next year before they'll finally chuck him. Then he won't have his "best runners-up" badge to hide behind.