What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Forgetting style of play, and random squad selections for a moment. Lancaster set his own goals and failed to achieve them. It's as simple as that.

The inexperience of the squad is his own fault too. If he felt that experience would be key, then he should have experimented with his squad less.

If Farrell and/or Catt have been an over bearing or disruptive influence at all at any time over the years, then he should have looked to replace them.


The bottom line is that he's failed in every conceivable facet of being a head coach, and even recent performances don't lead you to believe that we're close to turning the corner either.

Therefore, in my personal opinion, we're best of going back to square1 and starting again with a whole new coaching setup

We still do not know what the 'spine' of the team is. Maybe Mike Brown, but no-one else is cemented in, either through behaviour or indecision from the coaches.

FFS, guys this is a home world cup - they come around once every now and then - Lancaster should have been given one goal - to win or at least do seriously well in the home cup and that everything should be geared towards that. In fact he dithered between short and long-term and after four years with the big event here he neither had his best team known nor did he have a style of play that the team either understood or bought into. Criminally, he seems to have under-powered the team so even traditional strengths have been dissipated.The sight of Wales playing Oz at Twickers while we play a dead rubber against Uruguay says it all. I am hoping that as soon as the World Cup is done and dusted he will go.

Hello. Who appoints the head coach etc time after time. Do they not come into the equation somewhere?

Sack the lot. New brooms required from top to bottom within the RFU and the England organisation.

Quote:

Heathen
Sack the lot. New brooms required from top to bottom within the RFU and the England organisation.

I need saw no more. Root and branch changes needed.

Well said.

If this article is correct then Lancaster is weak and indecisive. Get rid of the lot of them. Increasingly appears to have been an unhappy camp.

Daily Mail

“This machine kills fascists�
Woody Guthrie's guitar.

Quote:

Chiefs

I need saw no more. Root and branch changes needed.

Well said.

No more root and branch reviews please, because that invariably involves Judas, and he's never going to find that he is a) responsible for any of this debacle or b) achieve anything constructive in the long term.

The system up to elite level is working pretty well, so does not need messing with. What needs to change is the whole elite coaching team, the elite rugby director and culture of accepting less than success. 2nd in the 6N consistently is actually failing, yet it has been deemed acceptable by those at the top. That must change.

Why are you using a picture of Brian Ashton?

Quote:

The Artist formerly known as RCC
Why are you using a picture of Brian Ashton?

Lol! I wondered if anyone would ask. The article had to go up in a hurry, and the pic search function was down. I was limited to pics that had been used in articles before.

He absolutely has to go. Decent bloke, but has been shown to be out of his depth.

Complete clear out needed, and fast.

No brainer and take the rest, including Squeaky, with him.

No more corporate spin about 360 degree reviews and full enquiries etc. The truth is there for all to see so the RFU must just get on with it if it wasn't to retain any kind of credibility. As it stands it's a laughing stock and deservedly so.

Lancaster failed to deliver on HIS promises, using HIS criteria for player selection, HIS team of coaches and HIS tactics. HE should be dismissed immediately along with his coaches. HE got it badly and almost comically wrong.

The fact he was given the job full time with absolutely no credentials for the role beggars belief. The whole Burgess fiasco, his double standards and the way he left out quality players who earnt their place leaves respect for him in tatters (Eastmond, Burrell, Slade etc) and makes his position untenable.

Also dismissed should be the slimy sociopath Rob Andrew who has presided over an international shambles for 10 years, and Ian Richie who extended Lancaster's contract by an incredible 6 years despite no tangible success!

The whole set up is a basket case.

Lancaster preached responsibility from his players - now he needs to lead from the front and demonstrate it himself instead of trying to slide out of it.

Unfortunately the RFU is a political establishment and slimeballs like Andrew, Richie and Lancaster will be able to manipulate their way out of this mess, and English rugby will be the loser.

No 6N win

England have never ranked lower in world (now 8th)
Failed to make the RWC QF for the first time
First host nation not to make the RWC QF

Delusion now abounds. According to papers as diverse as the Metro and the Times, Lancaster seems to be spinning that England did not play too badly after all, that they did not have the rub of the green, if a few ref decisions had gone their way blah, blah, blah!
Add to that Tom Wood has come out strongly in support of Lancaster and coaching team, and has humbly but graciously said he would be willing to take on the captain's role if offered - yes, this is the same Tom Wood who made no discernible impact in any of the games and who rarely rises above the mediocre yet has managed to accrue something like 50 caps.
Proof, if it was ever needed, that the lunatics are taking over the asylum and another reason why there needs to be a root and branch clear-out if English rugby is ever to do more than stumble in the slipstream of better coached and run sides.

Has to go and so do the rest of the coaches. My question is will they do the decent thing and go or will they need pushing.

I very much doubt any of them will go voluntarily.

It actually goes deeper than them going we need a completely new set up, ideally with a performance director.

He should go along with all his coaching staff and the numb skulls that appointed them.
I honestly believe that a random collection of people chosen off the street could have done no worse!

Hasn't he gone yet?

You could have Carwyn James and it wouldn't make any difference unless someone can do something about the inability of England forwards to win the ball at the breakdown.

Lancaster's supposed mistakes in selection in the backs had nothing to do with our early exit - it was all about our failure to generate quick ball, or even retain the ball, after anyone got tackled. Australia gave a master class in how it should be done, as did NZ today.

To be honest it's not just England - a lot of the NH has the same problem.

I can't believe he hasn't had the dignity to go yet!

I can as there is a lot of money coming his way when he is asked to go. Don't blame him either as cannot see him walking into another top coaching job.

Lancaster's supposed mistakes in selection


Like not picking a seven for four years? That is relevant to England at the breakdown, its just that he has made a whole bunch of mistakes since then that obscured his original folly of two sixes.

Never won a competitive game that matters - thats all we need to look at. Thanks and goodbye.

Quote:

westwaleswasp
Lancaster's supposed mistakes in selection

Like not picking a seven for four years? That is relevant to England at the breakdown, its just that he has made a whole bunch of mistakes since then that obscured his original folly of two sixes.

Absolutely. Especially when there was a top quality 7 available to select instead, and the whole rugby community agreed it was a mistake.

Oh hang on...

Armitage is facing assault charges in France so wouldn't have been picked under Lancaster's disciplinary rules regardless of the overseas rules.

2 years ago the back row was working well. It worked well in the 6 nations too. But that was when the whole pack was working well. Whatever the coaches did to the pack in the build up to the world cup destroyed that. It wasn't just selection issues. But as head coach it's all still Lancaster's fault!

There's no earthly reason why Lancaster got the job in the first place with his wholly inadequate coaching record. So it makes me think he's a very cunning political animal who is clever at creating a brand image for himself through astute PR.

Everything during and since his tenure is starting to confirm this.

He's the bloke in the office that delivers little but is excellent at self promotion. The bloke that is brilliant at 'managing upwards' and convinces his seniors to over promote him through spin and manipulation, then puts his favourites into jobs beneath him. And when his inadequacies start to reveal him, he blames everyone else - the ones reporting into him, the teams he works with etc.

Lancaster needs to go and find himself a desk job somewhere...

I bet this delay is intentional! [www.dailymail.co.uk]

The powers that be don't want to loose even more face, with the RWC still ongoing / the worlds press's eyes focused on this fair island.

I bet we won't hear anything for weeks.....

Quote:

Silent Bob
I can as there is a lot of money coming his way when he is asked to go. Don't blame him either as cannot see him walking into another top coaching job.

Agree 100%. That's exactly the situation as I see it.

Quote:

Geoff P

Absolutely. Especially when there was a top quality 7 available to select instead, and the whole rugby community agreed it was a mistake.

Oh hang on...

But there were sevens. Robshaw was not a top quality seven either at the time. By making him captain and out of position you bar the way for any that come along. He could have been captain at six or not captain at seven.
We don't have a great depth at loosehead, but you would not put Cole in there out of position and make him captain....

Would we still want Schmidt?!

Quote:

Trev's Big Tackle
Would we still want Schmidt?!

Yeah, I thought he was supposed to be a genius? Totally outplayed like all the northern hemisphere sides so far, and yet again second best at the breakdown. God, imagine what they'd be saying about Lancaster if he'd lost by that amount against Argentina.

Doesn't bear thinking about.

Much being made of the northern / southern hemisphere divide following the weekend results (Scotland still to play at time of writing but that is clutching at straws but good luck to them). Does it put England's performance into some perspective? Frankly no. I would say that certainly Ireland, Scotland and Wales have come into the WC with a well executed if limited plan and have played to their full potential. Not enough against the SH teams as it turned out but hard to say that they could have done much more with what they had.

England however did not make best use of the resources available to them and came into the tournament with no plan and muddled selection. The less said about France the better. If we ever see them as a bench mark then God help us!

England have to change the organisation, change the coaches and select the right players.

Simples really.

Argentina showed what can be done.

Quote:

Andy1210
There's no earthly reason why Lancaster got the job in the first place with his wholly inadequate coaching record. So it makes me think he's a very cunning political animal who is clever at creating a brand image for himself through astute PR.
Everything during and since his tenure is starting to confirm this.

He's the bloke in the office that delivers little but is excellent at self promotion. The bloke that is brilliant at 'managing upwards' and convinces his seniors to over promote him through spin and manipulation, then puts his favourites into jobs beneath him. And when his inadequacies start to reveal him, he blames everyone else - the ones reporting into him, the teams he works with etc.

Lancaster needs to go and find himself a desk job somewhere...

From what I've seen, he's more like the guy at work who excelled in his job but has reached the artificial ceiling for his role.
He then gets promoted by those above him to a role that he's not qualified to do, just so they can reward him for his excellent work at the job he was good at

Quote:

Geoff P

Quote:

Trev's Big Tackle
Would we still want Schmidt?!

Yeah, I thought he was supposed to be a genius? Totally outplayed like all the northern hemisphere sides so far, and yet again second best at the breakdown. God, imagine what they'd be saying about Lancaster if he'd lost by that amount against Argentina.

Doesn't bear thinking about.

Geoff, is your surname Parling by any chance. You still defend Lancaster as though you owe him some kind of great debt.

That's right, who needs Schmidt (Heineken cup winner, Pro 12 title winner, 6 nations title x 2) who gets an Isrish team to the QF despite injuries to their best players when you've got Lancaster (2 premiership matches won)? Maybe you're on the RFU board, but you're flogging a long dead horse.

If Lancaster was in charge of the All Blacks half of them wouldn't be playing for having the wrong personalities and being too exciting. Farrell would find some kiwi blood and Carter wouldn't get a start.

And at the moment Scotland are giving Australia a much better challenge than Lancaster's wet weekends.

Obviously no-one on this site has read "The House of Lancaster".
It's all explained, in detail. Just wait until the next World Cup when all will be revealed and there will be apologies in abundance from rugby fans throughout the UK (and possibly the world!).

Alternatively (and in the real world) we may have another fiasco which proves that the pundits were correct that he should not be given another day .. yet alone 4 years!

Quote:

Andy1210
Geoff, is your surname Parling by any chance. You still defend Lancaster as though you owe him some kind of great debt.

No I just have an old-school aversion to hysterical over-reaction, and an equally out-of-date fondness for proper analysis of the facts. All the stuff that Lancaster was being lambasted for before the WC started were not the things that caused England's embarrassing exit. England lost both the games because the forwards were incapable of winning ball at the breakdown - a problem only Wales, to an extent, didn't suffer from in this WC. It had sod all. To do with Farrell, Burgess or the non-selection of Simmo or Christian (and how many people really think he got the last two wrong after this weekend?).

The forwards (the selection of whom most people were happy with) underperformed; that's the uncomfortable truth.

Cue all the old saws about how he had no club coaching experience before he got the England job. No one wants to admit that two of the most successful WC coaches of recent times, Woodward and Jake White, had an identical lack of experience when they got their jobs.

I'm sure Lancaster will fall on his sword unless he's talked out of it by Ritchie, but I'd just prefer he was criticised for the things that genuinely went wrong, rather than the things that some people were hoping would go wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:18:20:16:56 by Geoff P.

You're defending Lancaster by saying England were worse than anyone ever expected?

Because his critics didn't expect him to be so so bad we should ignore the critics?

OK, so not quite my argument...

Quote:

Geoff P
OK, so not quite my argument...

Yeah, fair play. I unfairly resorted to reductum ad abserdum or whatever it's called!

He was, prior to the wc, lambasted for making poor bench choices and poor squad selections that inevitably give poor benches.

He duly made poor substitutions throughout, as he had done in the past.
To say it is all lost up front and that the backs were fine is not true. It was lost in many areas, especially the bench.

I didn't realise the players picked themselves. To complain about a lack of experience and yet pick Burgess ahead of Burrell or Eastmond is laughable.

The only hysterical reaction I can see is your defending of Lancaster, for whom all the facts clearly demonstrate his total inadequacies in the role, weird selections, lack of leadership etc, etc.

You've been wrong about Lancaster for a good couple of years now and despite the wealth of evidence won't admit it.

As for the SCW reference, as it was previously said on this board, that comparison is so poor it's plain lazy. It seems to be a convenient exception to your fondness for proper analysis of the facts.

As for the forwards not securing the ball at the breakdown, I seem to remember from proper analysis of the facts that Lancaster made Robshaw captain as a seven when he's a six, didn't want Armitage, left out Kvesic (and made it clear from the off in training that he wasn't in the mix), favoured Tom Wood over Haskell, left out Launchbury - who was our best player against Australia - for Parling and his favourite Lawes to compensate for our line out going badly wrong because he wouldn't play Hartley.

Obviously it all had nothing to do with Lancaster and the players picked or left themselves out and made it up as they went along..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:19:00:39:01 by Andy1210.

Quote:

Geoff P

Quote:

Andy1210
Geoff, is your surname Parling by any chance. You still defend Lancaster as though you owe him some kind of great debt.

No I just have an old-school aversion to hysterical over-reaction, and an equally out-of-date fondness for proper analysis of the facts. All the stuff that Lancaster was being lambasted for before the WC started were not the things that caused England's embarrassing exit. England lost both the games because the forwards were incapable of winning ball at the breakdown - a problem only Wales, to an extent, didn't suffer from in this WC. It had sod all. To do with Farrell, Burgess or the non-selection of Simmo or Christian (and how many people really think he got the last two wrong after this weekend?).

The forwards (the selection of whom most people were happy with) underperformed; that's the uncomfortable truth.

Cue all the old saws about how he had no club coaching experience before he got the England job. No one wants to admit that two of the most successful WC coaches of recent times, Woodward and Jake White, had an identical lack of experience when they got their jobs.

I'm sure Lancaster will fall on his sword unless he's talked out of it by Ritchie, but I'd just prefer he was criticised for the things that genuinely went wrong, rather than the things that some people were hoping would go wrong.

Sorry but that is complete tosh. So you were proven right because England were cr*p in the forwards as well as the backs? Sorry but that is moronic. England got knocked out in the pools because they were cr*p in both the forwards and the backs. Having decent backs and decent forwards aren't mutually exclusive of either and there is no need to trade one off for the other. They were also knocked out because the team had no coherent style of play, structure or tactical direction. They were a shambles. Even worse than I feared they would be as the pack turned into a passing imitation of a ladies netball team.

Owen Farrell is an appalling fly half. England will never amount to anything with that skill less, vision less and petulant brat leading the side at 10. The Burgess selection was beyond incompetence and any notion of rugby reality. For the Burgess debacle alone Lancaster should be sacked. Thankfully if record overall is so woeful and his incompetence so manifest in so many areas that there is no way the RFU Council will allow him to remain in the job.

Lancaster has to go.

Quote:

Andy1210
I didn't realise the players picked themselves. To complain about a lack of experience and yet pick Burgess ahead of Burrell or Eastmond is laughable.

Of course. Silly me. If only we'd picked Burrell it would have been OK

Quote:

Andy1210
As for the SCW reference, as it was previously said on this board, that comparison is so poor it's plain lazy. It seems to be a convenient exception to your fondness for proper analysis of the facts.

I think you might be getting your SCW references confused. Unless you are genuinely claiming that he had masses of successful coaching experience before he got the England job. Because he didn't.

You are completely right in pointing out that Robshaw is not a natural 7. I don't think anyone in England rugby, except possibly, but not even definitely, the player himself, would dispute that. But the issue is, who would have you played instead? Has Kvesic set the premiership alight with his glittering breakdown work? He was precluded from picking Armitage in accordance with the RFU agreement with the clubs.

I have absolutely no problem with criticising Lancaster. But let's criticise him for stuff he could genuinely influence eh?

Quote:

Beckenham Bandit
Owen Farrell is an appalling fly half. England will never amount to anything with that skill less, vision less and petulant brat leading the side at 10. The Burgess selection was beyond incompetence and any notion of rugby reality.

Your obsession with Farrell is almost a medical condition BB. He's not the greatest ball playing 10 we've ever seen by any stretch of the imagination, but England have scored a lot of tries with him there, so he is clearly not the passing numbskull you like to paint him as, and he is a nerveless kicker, something Australia demonstrated yesterday is a pre-requisite of successful international sides.
Robshaw was pilloried for not asking him to go for the posts at the end of the Wales game, in spite of it being a difficult kick. But bearing in mind how Ford kicked at the end of England's last game, do you think those same commentators would have been quite so confident, if he'd been the one lining up the ball in that situation?

I think not.


And when did Burgess demonstrate his selection was incompetence? Wales didn't score a try when he was on the pitch, whereas England did (something Australia never managed against Wales) and Jamie Roberts was completely anonymous when up against him. Warrenball was completely nullified in that game, and if England hadn't given away a string of penalties at the breakdown we would have won easily.

Makes me weep, but not for the reasons you'd pre-selected to be the significant ones, in order to fit your existing prejudices.

I can see Geoff's point.

Burgess was a bad decision - but in the grand scheme of things, it had minimal bearing on the outcome. Individually, he wasn't as bad as feared, and others around him definitely didn't appear much/any better.
However, that's not really a compliment
Picking Burrell or Eastmond may have made a lot more sense on paper, but I really doubt we'd have gotten out of the group anyway.
Selecting Burrell or Eastmond wouldn't have given us any greater flexibility with our bench either.


There were numerous other problems in both the backs and the forwards, and in the tactics that led to our downfall. Let's not make Burgess the scapegoat here.
England weren't good enough - the players weren't good enough - the tactics weren't good enough - the coaching wasn't good enough - the preparation wasn't good enough - the selection wasn't good enough.... Bottom line, the coaches weren't good enough.

The player selection should be a team effort with all the coaches agreeing. They're all guilty here.

I don't know how much coaching Lancaster actually does. Surely that's what he has Farrell, Catt and Rowntree for.
However, Lancaster's job is to make sure their coaching is up to scratch and sufficiently coherent enough to work well with each others plans.
If the coaches under him aren't up to it, then he has to replace them.
In this area, in my opinion, Lancaster failed.

Quote:

Geoff P

Quote:

Beckenham Bandit
Owen Farrell is an appalling fly half. England will never amount to anything with that skill less, vision less and petulant brat leading the side at 10. The Burgess selection was beyond incompetence and any notion of rugby reality.

Your obsession with Farrell is almost a medical condition BB. He's not the greatest ball playing 10 we've ever seen by any stretch of the imagination, but England have scored a lot of tries with him there, so he is clearly not the passing numbskull you like to paint him as, and he is a nerveless kicker, something Australia demonstrated yesterday is a pre-requisite of successful international sides.
Robshaw was pilloried for not asking him to go for the posts at the end of the Wales game, in spite of it being a difficult kick. But bearing in mind how Ford kicked at the end of England's last game, do you think those same commentators would have been quite so confident, if he'd been the one lining up the ball in that situation?

I think not.


And when did Burgess demonstrate his selection was incompetence? Wales didn't score a try when he was on the pitch, whereas England did (something Australia never managed against Wales) and Jamie Roberts was completely anonymous when up against him. Warrenball was completely nullified in that game, and if England hadn't given away a string of penalties at the breakdown we would have won easily.

Makes me weep, but not for the reasons you'd pre-selected to be the significant ones, in order to fit your existing prejudices.

Seriously. I used to quite respect you but frankly you are coming across as an idiot. My criticisms of Farrell are well known and well founded. He is a terrible fly half. His only real virtue is that he is a good goal kicker, a skill that is entirely independent from the fly half position. His passing, running, punting and tactical awareness and direction are no where near good enough for an international fly half. He is a very limited player who always looks like he is playing out of position at fly half.

In terms of Burgess if you think he was a success playing in the centres you really have lost the plot. He had to be constantly told where to stand in defence and offered nothing going forward in attack. England might as well have played James Haskell or Callum Clarke at 12. They would have offered the same skill set and at least they would have understood the basic game play and the laws.

Quote:

StevieWasp
I don't know how much coaching Lancaster actually does. Surely that's what he has Farrell, Catt and Rowntree for.
However, Lancaster's job is to make sure their coaching is up to scratch and sufficiently coherent enough to work well with each others plans.
If the coaches under him aren't up to it, then he has to replace them.
In this area, in my opinion, Lancaster failed.

Now that it a very fair point

Whilst agreeing some of the reaction post England's exit is somewhat over the top (that is the nature of internet boards after all), I do think many of the pints made have been glaringly obvious for some while. England went into the World Cup (at home!) without any kind of recognisable playing pattern, with no settled centre partnership, ongoing issues at the breakdown, always giving away too many penalties, and the longer the team spent in camp the weaker our forward basics seemed to become so that our scrum and rolling maul went from strength to powder puff seemingly in a matter of weeks.
Farrell was consistently picked when he is not even the best fly-half at Sarries let alone in England, and that having edged towards a more attacking style with an attacking flay-half who could release a very good back three this was abandoned against Wales because of some fear that their backs might be too big. He was never going to pick Ciriani when he was the obvious stand-in for George Ford - he had no like for like back up for Joseph if he got injured ( Slade might have done the job but he refused to pick him in games that mattered) so we had the grotesque sight of Burgess and Barritt in the centre - as soon as Ford had a couple of average (not bad) games he was dropped and we generally played like a confused team with no real strategy and confidence, lacking intensity, and a number of players, Cole, Marler, Morgan did not even look fit. We won't even go to his bench and substitutions by rote or his refusal to pick a hooker who can throw straight.
I do not think these points are hysterical, and that many England fans hoped it would all come right on the night, but in the cold light of day have realised that most of the fault lines were there for all to see way before this competition, and if the head coach cannot recognise and rectify them what is his real point?

Quote:

Beckenham Bandit
Seriously. I used to quite respect you but frankly you are coming across as an idiot.

Well I guess I'll have to take that on the chin BB

Quote:

waspie08
Whilst agreeing some of the reaction post England's exit is somewhat over the top (that is the nature of internet boards after all), I do think many of the pints made have been glaringly obvious for some while. England went into the World Cup (at home!) without any kind of recognisable playing pattern, with no settled centre partnership, ongoing issues at the breakdown, always giving away too many penalties, and the longer the team spent in camp the weaker our forward basics seemed to become so that our scrum and rolling maul went from strength to powder puff seemingly in a matter of weeks.
Farrell was consistently picked when he is not even the best fly-half at Sarries let alone in England, and that having edged towards a more attacking style with an attacking flay-half who could release a very good back three this was abandoned against Wales because of some fear that their backs might be too big. He was never going to pick Ciriani when he was the obvious stand-in for George Ford - he had no like for like back up for Joseph if he got injured ( Slade might have done the job but he refused to pick him in games that mattered) so we had the grotesque sight of Burgess and Barritt in the centre - as soon as Ford had a couple of average (not bad) games he was dropped and we generally played like a confused team with no real strategy and confidence, lacking intensity, and a number of players, Cole, Marler, Morgan did not even look fit. We won't even go to his bench and substitutions by rote or his refusal to pick a hooker who can throw straight.
I do not think these points are hysterical, and that many England fans hoped it would all come right on the night, but in the cold light of day have realised that most of the fault lines were there for all to see way before this competition, and if the head coach cannot recognise and rectify them what is his real point?

Sorry but I don't think any of the reaction has been over the top at all. If anything it has been far too muted. Just look how far English rugby has fallen from the Cooke and Woodward eras. England have won only one Six Nations in 12 years! Just one! Over that same period England have beaten New Zealand just once too. Completely unacceptable. England have the playing and financial resources to always be one of the best 2 or 3 sides in the World. Not being so is unacceptable underperformance.

This home World Cup is a once in 24 year event. A unique opportunity to sell and grow the sport and the England team have been a shambles and a national embarrassment. They couldn't have been any worse if they had tried!

Lancaster and the coaches all have to go. If Ritchie and Andrew refuse to wield the knife they have to go to.

Quote:

Geoff P

Quote:

Andy1210
I didn't realise the players picked themselves. To complain about a lack of experience and yet pick Burgess ahead of Burrell or Eastmond is laughable.

Of course. Silly me. If only we'd picked Burrell it would have been OK

Quote:

Andy1210
As for the SCW reference, as it was previously said on this board, that comparison is so poor it's plain lazy. It seems to be a convenient exception to your fondness for proper analysis of the facts.

I think you might be getting your SCW references confused. Unless you are genuinely claiming that he had masses of successful coaching experience before he got the England job. Because he didn't.

You are completely right in pointing out that Robshaw is not a natural 7. I don't think anyone in England rugby, except possibly, but not even definitely, the player himself, would dispute that. But the issue is, who would have you played instead? Has Kvesic set the premiership alight with his glittering breakdown work? He was precluded from picking Armitage in accordance with the RFU agreement with the clubs.

I have absolutely no problem with criticising Lancaster. But let's criticise him for stuff he could genuinely influence eh?

Oh Geoff, come on. So he didn't have any influence over who he picked and how they played. As BB says you really are coming across as incapable of accepting the point and are off on tangents and misquotes trying to defend the indefensible.

One sentence and you've totally misinterpreted it - I was saying don't complain about a lack of experience and yet pick Burgess who had never played competitive international rugby until the World Cup, whilst players like Burrell and Eastmond have international and club experience at 12. Lancaster is totally contradicting himself (as usual). It's what I call 'Lancaster logic' now.

Here's another example - I once went for dinner with a woman who picked fish pie from the menu and when it arrived told the waiter she couldn't eat it because she didn't eat seafood. Cue silence whilst two of us tried to work out the contradictory logic here.

Just to clarify so we properly analyse the facts: Lancaster - I pick totally inexperienced players and then complain that my players didn't have enough experience when I lose.

Also, tiresome as it is to have to go over this again for you - SCW came in to an office which had just a desk, no secretary, no infrastructure, no reporting lines, nothing to follow and was charged with taking the England team from amateurism into professionalism, both on and off the pitch. He failed in the world cup after a few months in the job.

Lancaster stepped into the job with the full infrastructure in place, his coaches in place, a fully professional set up and four years of complete autonomy to build an England side to challenge for the World Cup - in England, at their home ground[i][/i], all luxuries provided and a training camp at Pennyhill Park for 12 weeks. SCW had to fend off a strike and fight for any kind of player privilege.

As for Armitage - Lancaster was offered the opportunity to select him by the RFU as part of the exception but turned it down. I would have played Robshaw at 6, and over those 4 years tried out a 7 to settle on if I hadn't made the short sighted call to play my captain out of place at 7 - in fact, I would probably have selected Armitage when he was at Irish.

Now we have established ourselves as the worst nation in the world order that has a professional domestic competition, despite having played the competition at home, and the weakest of the weakest hemisphere, it's time to stop making pathetic, whining excuses and get on with the long climb back to the top.

Just to clarify the facts by the way - 2003 world cup - won; 2007 world cup (Ashton & co) Finalists/runners up; 2010 Six nations winners, 2011 QF exit (Johnson), 2015 - group exit at home; no six nations since 2010 - Lancaster.

Them's the facts - call that progress?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:19:12:43:03 by Andy1210.

Quote:

Andy1210
you really are coming across as incapable of accepting the point and are off on tangents and misquotes trying to defend the indefensible...One sentence and you've totally misinterpreted it - I was saying don't complain about a lack of experience and yet pick Burgess who had never played competitive international rugby until the World Cup, whilst players like Burrell and Eastmond have international and club experience at 12. Lancaster is totally contradicting himself (as usual). It's what I call 'Lancaster logic' now.

You are the one misinterpreting. Lancaster was asked to comment about why the team lost and he responded that one of the reasons might be they were a little inexperienced. He was not referring to any one player and he was making the same point that many commentators had previously made - that as a group they will be better in 4 years time when they are all older and more experienced. This is hardly a 'new' or indeed unusual opinion. To take that and to connect it with the selection of one player is disingenuous.To use your restaurant analogy, it would be like condemning someone who had a starter of smoked salmon and then roast beef and all the trimmings for commenting that the food was a little cold. Clearly he would be talking in general terms about the whole meal - the fact the smoked salmon was cold would hardly have been a surprise.

Quote:

Andy1210
Also, tiresome as it is to have to go over this again for you - SCW came in to an office which had just a desk, no secretary, no infrastructure, no reporting lines, nothing to follow and was charged with taking the England team from amateurism into professionalism, both on and off the pitch. He failed in the world cup after a few months in the job. Lancaster stepped into the job with the full infrastructure in place, his coaches in place, a fully professional set up and four years of complete autonomy to build an England side to challenge for the World Cup - in England, at their home ground[i][/i], all luxuries provided and a training camp at Pennyhill Park for 12 weeks. SCW had to fend off a strike and fight for any kind of player privilege.

All very interesting but this has absolutely nothing to do with any point I was making. Another poster said Lancaster should never have got the job in the first place because he had minimal top-level coaching experience. I pointed out that exactly the same was true of Woodward and White. Woodward could have had a desk, a secretary, or an entire brass band when he started, but it has nothing to do with any point I made.

Quote:

Andy1210
As for Armitage - Lancaster was offered the opportunity to select him by the RFU as part of the exception but turned it down. I would have played Robshaw at 6, and over those 4 years tried out a 7 to settle on if I hadn't made the short sighted call to play my captain out of place at 7 - in fact, I would probably have selected Armitage when he was at Irish.

Well you are clearly blessed with truly fabulous vision. It is just a pity that almost the entire rugby community didn't share it. Could it be that until very recently Robshaw, in spite of his limitations, showed up pretty well against the best 7s in high profile games?

Quote:

Andy1210
it's time to stop making pathetic, whining excuses

I'm not sure who is whining… and who is striving for a little objectivity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:10:19:14:33:27 by Geoff P.

I think I'll leave you in Lancaster La La land Geoff because you just misinterpret everything and bend it to your desperate defence of Lancaster. You should offer to be his spin doctor.

Looks like you'll keep the blameless one for another four years anyway with the make up of the review board. So you'll be happy with us winning nothing. Wonder why one of the England players called him Relegator.

Oh, and what makes you a spokesman for 'almost the entire rugby community'? I know plenty of L Irish fans and commentators like Stephen Jones, Colin Barnes, will Greenwood etc on the Rugby club, who were touting his inclusion years ago. He even made a couple of appearances in those days.

The meal analogy totally misses my point btw.

Err...that's probably because it was illustrating my point. Not yours.

Is it soooo hard for people to accept that Lancaster should be blamed for what went wrong, rather than what people would like to think went wrong?

I have given you advice before Geoff about arguing with BB on here, you really should start listening to it!!

Lancaster is responsible for the team selection and the deployment of the substitute bench.

Both were defective to the point of hopeless.

Get rid of him, replace him with someone competent.