rugbyunion
Latest News:

Goto Page: 123456Next
Current Page: 1 of 6
Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
28 February, 2012 17:22
Just a thought

I think its widely accepted that we are looking to bring in another coach, possibly to fill the gap between SIM and Haag/Davis .
I also think that if England lose one more of their 6N games (which unfortunately seems likely) then the powers that be (who now include SIM!) would not deem Lancaster able enough to carry on as Head Coach of the national side. I think theyll move hell and high water to get Mallet. .

Therefore, would we be interested in having him down ere? If I was Lancaster and I didnt get offered the full time job at HQ I think I would want away from the RFU all together. I also think it would be worth his while returning to the club game to prove his credentials/develop further before hopefully returning to the national job at some point in the future, possibly after the 2015 World Cup.

What do you think? Personally, I like him. I like his attitude, I like the style of rugby he is trying to play and he now has a really good level of experience. So Id be interested be open to the possibility* (*not that I am aware of this being a possibility at all all pure conjecture!)

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Bri (IP Logged)
28 February, 2012 18:11
Won't he go back to his old job,( Saxons)notched if he's good enough at club level a all different ball game.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Bath Fan Jack (IP Logged)
28 February, 2012 18:53
I agree I think he would really work out

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
P G Tips (IP Logged)
28 February, 2012 20:56
Good idea Dr B,

Viewed another way - there are 3 on England's shortlist who would be graat to have here: Mallett, Lancaster, Kirwan.

I would be content to take the England runner- up if he were one of those 3.

PG

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Clarkey3k (IP Logged)
28 February, 2012 21:55
I think SL would be better off working alongside the new man rather than leaving the RFU for the club game if he isn't appointed. Why could he not feature in the new coaching set up and soak up what the new man brings?. I too am pleased with his approach to the job [all aspects] and was disappointed but not angry about the result on Saturday. Not sure coaching Bath has anything to offer him at this stage in his career.



Leroy Houston - adopted player 2014/15
Will Spencer - adopted player 2013/14
Francois Louw - adopted player 2012/13

Change a life with a loan [www.deki.org.uk]

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
B4thB4ck (IP Logged)
28 February, 2012 22:11
He strikes me as being single minded and confident in his decisions, that's a good thing for a coach provided he's top of the pile within his setup.

Not so good if he has to take someone else's opinion above him and make it happen on the pitch - if he doesn't believe in what he's being asked to do he won't be happy.

Plenty of challenges in the capped Prem/HC for any coach IMO.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Bri (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 07:58
Watched the game again last night( still didn't win)but Lancaster really cost us the game.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Optimist (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 08:40
'Lancaster really cost us the game'.

The players will have learned a lot from that match, and so will Lancaster. And given how much Lancaster has got right in such an incredibly short space of time, one can only assume that he is someone who absorbs and learns fast. The lessons for Lancaster from the Wales match are not just about when to introduce subs, but about which players can be trusted to do the right thing. He learned things about Lawes, Youngs and Stevens that he could not possibly have known before the game (apart, possibly, from Stevens).

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Bri (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 08:51
I'll say it again Lancaster really cost us the Game,where do you think he has been for the last ten years on Mars.
He's been involved with the England Saxons and knows more about those players than they know about them selves.
He cost us the game.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Stuart Anderton (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 09:01
Stevens and Lawes have never played for the Saxons, and Youngs just one game.



Stuart

Editor of Come On My Lovers

Don't be a grey outline, set up your avatar


Join the COML Facebook Group

Follow COML on Twitter

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 09:03
I don't agree Brian.

The only reason we lost to Wales was one individual mistake by Courtenay Lawes who lost the ball in contact. Bringing Lawes on at 65 minutes was definately the right call. So Lancaster did his job. Lawes didn't do his.

I understand that all responsibility falls upon the head coach but it is a tough debate - do you blame a head coach if a goalkicker has a shocker? No. Do you blame a headcoach if a player knocks on over the try line? No. Do you blame the headcoach if your second row loses the ball in contact? Maybe but not entirely.

Its more grey than black and white but to say Lancaster "lost us the game" is unfair.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Lost Soul (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 09:19
The decision to bring on Lawes was a good one.
A dynamic, hard working, fast, physical and young lock who most likely will be a large part of the England setup going forward.

You could argue, more successfully, that bringing on Youngs was a mistake as he has been out of form for a while, hence being dropped. There was no real need to replace the scrum half

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 09:27
I agree LS, Replacing your scrum half for the sake of replacing your scrum half I always think is a mistake. The SH is so integral to running the game that, if able and as Claassy tends to do with Bath, I'd rather they stay on for the entirity.

I guess Lancaster's thinking was that Youngs is undoubtedly a talent despite his lack of forms and in some senses Lanc gambled by putting his trust in Youngs' talent to go on and win him the game. Again, as with Lawes, I'd say Youngs let Lancaster down with his performance rather than Lancaster letting us down with his decision.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
DanWiley (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 09:29
You don't lose a game because of one mistake in one game.

I still don't see what Lancaster has brought other than the ability to talk a good game. What has he done so right?

From what I've seen we've scrapped two games we should have been comfortable in and lost a game we could easily have won.

But then I don't see what he achieved in his past either?

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 09:35
Why should we have won easily away in Edinburgh and away in (snow bound) Rome?
Why should we have beaten Wales, the form home nations side and World Cup semi finalists, easily?

I am English and very proud to be so but our arrogance in assuming that it is always our lack of quality or our poor performance that means we don't win/win by as much as we should astounds me sometimes. The results and performances thus far have been better than could be expected. We are also improving as we go. I think a large part if not all of that is down to Lancaster.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
DanWiley (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 09:43
"Why should we have won easily away in Edinburgh and away in (snow bound) Rome? "

Because we have considerably better players than both those teams. Wales continued to play in patches and if we'd have played well we'd have beaten them, as we should expect to at home.

"The results and performances thus far have been better than could be expected."

Why? We won the thing last year, now we're pleased when we beat the whipping boys?

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Lost Soul (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 09:53
DW I don't particularly disagree with you as the nature of the Scotland and Italian victories did not inspire confidence but we have no right to win particularly in Scotland where they have beaten much more dominate English sides.
Wales were massively over hyped as they are no more than a decent 2nd tier side at the moment, much like England. What encouraged me was the sight of England looking like a team. Get that right with the talent of Farrell, Lawes, Corbs, tuiglia, Barrett etc and in a few years you could be looking at a dominant 1st tier English side.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 09:54
I agree we have better players in terms of talent but (I think it was) 7 players making their debuts in Edinburgh. Our average caps/experience must be the lowest of all the 6N teams and the lowest it has been in many, many years.

As much as we like it or not, this team is building for 2015. The 2003 team wasn't built in a season but in 3/4 seasons. I hate losing to the Welsh as much as the next Englishman but I am definately more excited about this XV developing than I was about the team this time last year, despite them being 6N Champions.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
DanWiley (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 10:17
"7 players making their debuts in Edinburgh."

7 players that SL selected right? If we're playing poorly because of his selections then it's his responsibility. We won't build for the next WC by playing badly now, however many new caps we blood.

Apart from anything else, some of those 7 WON'T be playing in the next WC.

England need one of the top coaches in the world, the sort of coach can produce a WC winning side AND maintain form in the mean time. I think you need to do the latter to achieve the former.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 10:27
I may be wrong but I bet you criticised Woodward in 00, 01, 02 as well did you Dan?

If selection is the issue (and I don't think it is - the team is the right one) who else honestly would you have picked for that opening game v Scotland?

I think your last sentence is the big point of contention and I don't think there is ever a right answer. Building for the future whilst maintaining form/results is near impossible. Sport in many ways is cyclical by nature - it's why a team like Manchester Utd is so incredible in their acheivement.

I'd rather lose to Wales in Spring 2012 than in Autumn 2015 so, with a leap of faith in Lancaster, I'm reasonably happy!

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
marshie10 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 10:30
In my opinion, Owen Farrell has a very good game, but had he had an outstanding game, we would have won. There was one point where we had an enormous overlap, and Farrell decided to chip over the top, and it then went back for a penalty.

Credit also must be given to Wales for keeping the ball for large parts of the time they were down to 14 men.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
DanWiley (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 10:45
"I may be wrong but I bet you criticised Woodward in 00, 01, 02 as well did you Dan? "

I'm pretty sure you are wrong. It might seem impossible, but I seem to remember that our results were pretty good in that period anyway? If anything we were on the decline in 2003. In any case it was all based on earlier work.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:01
I take your point - England were in fact 6N champions in 00 and 01 - oops! - but my point being that that Rome/the 03 team wasn't built in a day, a championship or even a season. Just as NZ's 11 team was built over years and years.

I think the majority of this squad will be involved in 2015. I also think Lancaster should be involved. So, we should stick with them and look for them to develop in the coming year and then start delivering championships, grand slams and world cups.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Griff (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:03
Off on a slight tagent, but I think relates to Lancaster current position.

Weren't the Welsh calling for the head of Warren Gatland and his coahcing team last year as they went 8 games without a win and only wining 2 of 14 games into the 2011 six nations? Now than man can do no wrong and is touted to be the next Lions coach. He's receiving plaudits for bringing in the players like North, Cuthbert, Warburton etc. Amazing what can happen if someones given backing and support and not judge after 2 games of a six nations campaign!

Maybe if Lancaster is given time (which is probably unlikely as the RFU will appoint Nick Mallett as the next coach) like Dr Bath said loosing to Wales now could be a stepping stone to a bright England future



Kyle Eastmond Adopted player 2014/15

"You're going to need a bigger boat"

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
hasta (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:10
After the 2003 World Cup we had a similar large number of experienced players retire. Rather than start planning for who would be ready for 2007 or beyond, we tried to keep selecting the same old players with our minds just focussed on the next game only. As a result, we had 7 seasons of underacheivement.

The next game is not always the most important one. Lancaster has learned more about more players in three than we did in the previous 7 years. Was our performance great? No. Have we shown improvement across three games? Yes. Do Scotland and Italy have bigger player bases than England? No. Do their first XVs (currently) contain more 'best in position in the NH players'? Yes. Will all 7 players who made their debuts in Edinburgh be playing in the world cup in 2015? No. Have we learned that early so that we can focus on those who will make it and not keep wondering about the rest? Yes.

Regardless, Lancaster will need to show continued improved performance across the next two games and, imo, a win as well to get the job full time.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
marshie10 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:19
The Rugby world can be very fickle, as can ERE. I'm not saying that the posts above are, but Lancaster didn't get England firing in the first two games. I admit that the conditions weren't ideal to do so and that it is a new team, but there was just no intent to play. There was against Wales, but we must see that every time. I don't really want to judge Lancaster until after the Ireland game, it was good to see Stuart Barnes saying something similar, usually he's so fickle!

As a side note, does anyone else find Dewi Morris incredibly smug on the Rugby Club?

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Bri (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:26
Stuart Lancaster for me is a media and RFU puppet,with no new ideas IMHO bring in change.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:29
The intent to play is important but coming away from our first three games with two wins and a v tight loss, considering the experience of this 22, is more than most expected.

Partnerships will grow (i.e. I hadn't heard of Morgan until Christmas - I wonder if Dickson had even ever met him til January!!), the units will develop (i.e. this should be the backline there or there abouts for 2015...there, i said it!), and the team will gel. BUT only if we have the confidence to stick with them.

As much as it pains me, I'm not sure we'll get another win this championship and I think the South Africa tour in the summer could be very tough but as long as we can see improvement and development then we must stick with it. There's been too much change for too long. We need put faith and trust in players and coaches.

"Smug" is being polite Marshie!

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
marshie10 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:36
Doc Bath, I was trying to find a word that wouldn't be censored, "smug" was the best I could think of.

Apparently Dewi is a really nice guy, I remember someone saying it on here a few weeks ago, but he comes across really badly on the Rugby Club, and his input is very weak. He doesn't actually come out with anything interesting or productive.

Stuart Barnes has awful teeth.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:39
I fail to understand why Morris is on there. He must have signed a very long contract as any of the others who are supposedly the "B Team" (Ryan, Evans, Lynagh, Fitzpatrick) are better than him. Agreed - he says nothing and he speaks in half sentences the whole ruddy time!!

Barnes is odd looking sure but he's interesting and Greenwood is excellent. Is the point of Morris to make Barnes and Greenwood look even better? That must be his only purpose!

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
ballsout (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:41
I fast-forward past Dewi's comments. Nothing interesting to say, no insight whatsoever. I'd love if they replaced him with Dean Ryan.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Bri (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 11:46
Greenwood and Ryan are the only ones listen to,I spoke to some one at sky sports rugby I know and said their is no plans to get rid of Barnes

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
DanWiley (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:03
"Do their first XVs (currently) contain more 'best in position in the NH players'? Yes"

Really! italy have parisse, castro maybe... anyone else? That doesn't mean we should scrape a win in conditions that really suit us far more than Italy against a side that otherwise contains some very ordinary players.

I can't think of anyone in the Scottish set up that's even close to best in the world.

To be honest, SL has one chance at getting the job, produce a team that could win the 6 nations, or at least give it a good shot. This team look like they'll come 4th. Had he produced a team that impressed he'd have the leeway to start building for next year and the WC. The fact he hasn't seemed to realise this doesn't give me much confidence.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
marshie10 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:16
Brian, I'd heard differently. Apparently Barnes and Morris are being phased out. Apparently Greenwood is a real diva too, throws the toys out of the pram quite often, does a very good job though.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Rucking Carl (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:19
As I said in my lengthy post, we seem to want to win every match and never build for the future.

I think performance-wise the first two 6 nations games were similar to our world cup games, we did a job. It wasn't pretty but we got the wins. The difference from MJ was that we did it with untested players stepping up.

I said before the championship that England had the ability to win all 5 games and lose all 5 games. We've so far had 3 games that could have gone either way.



Everything I have posted here is my opinion, it in no way reflects actual fact, except when it actually does, although that will not be often.

Please do not take offence if I call your favourite player rubbish or say he plays out of position.

I am entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to yours. Mine is most likely to be right though.

I also think cricket is rubbish! This is fact.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Stuart Anderton (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:22
You guys seem to know some incredibly indiscreet folks at Sky (and at the club).

If I discussed confidential work stuff, particularly employment related stuff like contract renewals and salaries, with friends, especially ones known to post things on the web, I'd soon be seeking some advice from Glen's colleagues and rightly so.



Stuart

Editor of Come On My Lovers

Don't be a grey outline, set up your avatar


Join the COML Facebook Group

Follow COML on Twitter

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
dr.bath1865 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:24
Everyone has the right to be an informed expert on this 'ere board Stu.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Stuart Anderton (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:26
Indeed, however informed they actually are!



Stuart

Editor of Come On My Lovers

Don't be a grey outline, set up your avatar


Join the COML Facebook Group

Follow COML on Twitter

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Kidney Stone (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:27
Quote:
ballsout
I fast-forward past Dewi's comments. Nothing interesting to say, no insight whatsoever. I'd love if they replaced him with Dean Ryan.

Ballsout - I agree 100%. Though many might not like the guy, Dean Ryans insight into the technicalities and strategies of the game outstrips the rest by some distance.

Greenwood and Fitzpatrick are very good too.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
marshie10 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:32
Dean Ryan recently said the longer he's spend away from being a Head Coach, the better he gets at it. I thought it was a brilliant remark, he seems like a very decent chap.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
marshie10 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:35
Quote:
TCM2007
You guys seem to know some incredibly indiscreet folks at Sky (and at the club).
If I discussed confidential work stuff, particularly employment related stuff like contract renewals and salaries, with friends, especially ones known to post things on the web, I'd soon be seeking some advice from Glen's colleagues and rightly so.

Luckily the world is full of bores though Stuart, it would be incredibly boring if it was.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Stuart Anderton (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:38
I'm thinking you missed out some words there?



Stuart

Editor of Come On My Lovers

Don't be a grey outline, set up your avatar


Join the COML Facebook Group

Follow COML on Twitter

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
soapinthebath (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:42
The Scots and Italians have relatively settled sides and although they don't have much in the way of spectacular players, the likes of Jacobsen, Ford, Blair, Cusiter, Lamont, Castro, Bortolami, Parrisse etc etc etc have all got 40+ caps and know what international rugby is about.

The performances were scrappy, but that's to be expected when taking on 2 sides full of gritty 'spoiling' players. Taking these guys on with several new caps was brave but it gave valuable experience and this can't be underestimated. With limited time to form a side the priorities MUST be the basics of a forward pack, kicker, and a centre to cross the gain line.

Lancaster got this spot on because with the amount of new caps, he knew we wouldn't have much ball so there would be no point trying to bring some spark to the back line. Now that he has had a bit more time, the new pack is starting to form combinations and acts as slightly more than the sum of its parts he can put some time into the backs knowing they will get some ball.

The key question is what would anyone else have done, and if Mallet, Henry, Robinson, Woodward or even David Cameron was in charge, I expect they would have done exactly the same because that's how rugby works.

You can blame SL for his substitutions all you like, but again, most coaches would agree that replacing men of their first starts for guys with 20+ caps in the last 20 minutes will close the game down. These players messed up, not the guy that chose to put them on the pitch IMO.



http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7273/tindalleu1.jpg

welcome back tins...

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
marshie10 (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:46
Ha Stuart, you're quite right. I meant to say "Luckily the world ISN'T full of bores", oopsy.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
hasta (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:55
Have to say, Dean Ryan has come on leaps and bounds as a pundit this season. Similar a bit to Greenwood who took a year or two before he got off the fence and started actually voicing opinions.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Optimist (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 12:58
"SL has one chance at getting the job, produce a team that could win the 6 nations. This team look like they'll come 4th. Had he produced a team that impressed he'd have the leeway to start building for next year and the WC."

I'm utterly flabbergasted at your short-sightedness Dan. Lancaster is the biggest breath of fresh air in English sport since Woodward's heyday.

You seem to be suggesting that he should have gone all out to win the 6N, whatever the consequences for the forward planning cycle, just in order to keep his job. The fact that he has done everything with a view to the long-term with the possible sacrifice of short-term results is massively to his credit.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
hasta (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 13:01
The general feeling that England are entitled to win the 6 Nations every year regardless of any other factors is one of the reasons no one likes us.

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
ballsout (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 13:06
It's easy to talk a good game and throw in some uncapped players so that everyone praises your long term strategy.

The odd line break, try and/or slight deviation from the Saracens defensive/spoiling game plan would be nice though. Not to mention not picking players who aren't good enough (Stevens, Dowson, Botha, Strettle) or so horrendously out of form (Youngs).

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Puxonian (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 13:20
SL's performance really shouldn't be judged until the 6N is over. Sure he's made a couple of mistakes but most on ere seem to agree that the team's performance against Wales was a notch or two higher than the previous two. Perhaps the improvement will continue against France and Ireland, notwithstanding the results. Or perhaps it won't and we'll lose both by 30+ points.

I agree with Hasta (I think) at this moment I feel far happier about the way this team are going compared with the ones in the 6N immediately post 2003 and 2007

 
Re: Stuart Lancaster
Griff (IP Logged)
02 March, 2012 14:53
No chance of it being Lancaster it seems. RFU have told John Kirwin (3 world cups as a coach) he's not experienced enough!

BBC Website



Kyle Eastmond Adopted player 2014/15

"You're going to need a bigger boat"

Goto Page: 123456Next
Current Page: 1 of 6

Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?