By P G Tips
October 6 2015
Four years of meticulous planning and constant media briefing have ended in failure. The post mortems have started, the rumours whispering and knives are out, but the tournament continues and while the question “What went wrong” has to be investigated, “where to now?” is even more important. So, what should English Rugby do to put this sad period behind them and revive fortunes? Here are some pointers I would give if consulted.
Immediate:
The Squad * Resist the temptation to reveal all in Press or TV interviews: that will only give ammunition for assassination. No need to be “on message”, just be honest- something like: “Gutted -we thought we were good enough, two very good sides showed us we weren’t, but we’ll be back. I for one am desperate to be in a winning squad in four years.
Against Uruguay, just give it a lash. Go out and express yourselves, show what you can do and give plenty game time to those –George, Wilson, Kruis, Care, Slade, Nowell who have not yet had a start.
The RFU
* Use the next 3 weeks to contact every world class head coach (current and past) at this World Cup, with a simple message: “We have the players, we have the resources and the will, we think we have the system. We intend to surprise everybody by winning the next World Cup and want your input. Do you want to be part of the challenge?” no need as yet to specify the role you have in mind, just for now find out who is up for it. A possible shortlist might be: Sir Clive Woodward, Eddie Jones, Jake White, Nick Mallett, Joe Schmidt.
Similarly, sound out, from among assistant coaches, coaches of Tier 2 nations and leading Premiership figures, who might wish to join a coaching team. Another possible list here is: Ledesma, Borthwick, McKee, Mallinder, Baxter, West, Hatley.
Post World Cup
RFU
Terminate the contracts of Rob Andrew as Professional Rugby Director plus those of Stuart Lancaster and his coaching staff. Make the Andrew decision final, but tell the coaching team they may apply for roles in a new coaching set up.
Create a rugby structure headed by an Elite Performance Director who reports to the Chief Executive – making a clear distinction between the roles, leaving the Chief Executive to run the finances, administration and politics, but the rugby chief the rugby. Give him carte blanche to design and recommend rugby policy, including player release agreements and player location. Sir Clive might be tempted to return for that role.
Offer the Head Coach role to one of the proven elite coaches of world rugby (see above) and invite him to name his own shortlist for a coaching team (taking into consideration recommendations by the RFU – maybe from my list of potential assitants). Give him casting vote in the selection panel and help him pick & appoint his chosen team.
Restore the Saxons as a step between U20 and full cap, with meaningful fixtures every season – a return to the Churchill Cup or matches against Japan, Georgia, Samoa.
Find a suitable role for Stuart Lancaster in the development set up – exploit what he does well and tap into the lessons he has so painfully learned, but do not let him coach the top team. Saxons could be his forte.
Elite Performance Director & Head Coach
* Restore the priorities of England’s forwards. Find locks who do more than jump at the lineout. These should be able to scrum, ruck, maul, tackle for 85 minutes: men like Attwood, Slater, Kruis, Day. Back them up with players of equal snarl at 6: perhaps Ewers, Vunipola, Itoje, Burgess? In the front row insist on props being chosen on their scrummaging first and turnovers second. Appoint a throwing coach (someone like Simon Hardy) with an objective to develop 5 international class hookers by end of 2017 season who can hit their jumper 90% of throws.
In the backs, decide on a style and a group of players capable of winning the 2016 Six Nations and stick with both for at least a season.
Stick largely with this group of players – none of whom has become a bad player overnight – but look to bring in new blood as soon as it is ready. Pick a shortlist of Captains capable of leading in a World Cup, but appoint season by season only.
Offer financial incentives to clubs who can develop opensides for the Elite and Saxon squads capable of making 6 plus turnovers per top representative match.
Make sure the players enjoy representing their country – in training, playing and in PR duties.
View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.
Quote:Huxster
Don't let Lancaster anywhere near a playing team, get one of your list Baxter for example to work with World class head coach and to apply that to Saxons use Saxons as a bridge for coaches as well as players.
Quote:Optimist
After next weekend, England will be joined on the sidelines by France, Argentina, Scotland and Wales.
Their tournaments will have consisted of:
France beat Italy, Romania, Canada
Argentina beat Namibia, Georgia, Tonga
Scotland beat Samoa, Japan, USA
Wales beat England by the odd penalty in 7, Fiji by a whisker, Uruguay and should have beaten Australia in much the same fashion as England should have beaten Wales.
Will any of them be entitled to claim to have significantly outperformed England at the tournament?
If by some miracle, they are joined on the sidelines instead by NZ and/or South Africa, the record will show:
NZ beat Namibia, Georgia, Tonga, Argentina
SA beat Samoa, USA, Scotland
Same question applies.
Ireland yesterday were absolutely incredible. They and Australia, will, by the time the tournament is reduced to just 4 teams, be the only ones to have been faced by, let alone surmounted, more than one genuine challenge.
But it's no wonder the rest of the world thinks England is so arrogant - the fact that we are about to rip everything apart again, based on the fact that, for some reason, we should have won games against two teams ranked higher than us in the world, and against whom we have historic win/loss ratios of 50% or less.
Quote:Optimist
The nearest I got to 'putting money on England' was after the first NZ summer test last year when, against every conceivable odds, we looked the better team for 65 minutes (that sounds strangely familiar!!) I went ahead and bought QF4 tickets. Funnily enough, that series, which started so promisingly, was the point at which Lancaster got himself in a muddle. Christ - if only Twelvetrees' offload had gone to (an England) hand!
Quote:Huxster
THe pack has a lightweight at 2 and at lock to make up for 2's throwing in, Selection !!!!
Quote:hasta
Right, but we *should* have beaten at least one of Wales or Australia at home. And, while they're both ranked above us now, they certainly weren't at the end of the 6 Nations (England were 4th, Wales 5th, Australia 6th), i.e. the last 'proper' game before the RWC. It's not like we lost to two teams miles above us (although Australia probably actually are).
Quote:Optimist
Yep - it's true. I was best man!
Quote:Optimist
So Joe Schmidt. Not such a genius after all. Then again if England had lost Johnson, Wilkinson and Back in 2003, we'd have lost to Wales and it would be Clive who?
Quote:Rampant
1) Ringfence the Prem
2) Get coaches to coach skills rather than power
3) Improve pathways and links into schools/junior clubs
Simples
Quote:You really think we can agree that? despite all the disagreement on it every time the subject comes up, including in this thread?Rampant
No point going into the whole relegation debate again, but I think we can agree that removing the threat of getting relegated can help foster clubs playing more expansive rugby. Newcastle last year for example.
Quote:Not to mention Racing Metro, Toulon, Montpellier...DanWiley
you mean like at saints? Even Quins didn't seem that badly harmed.
Quote:Huxster
It has hasta but its ring fenced until it chooses to expand, isn't it??
Quote:On another issue though I certainly buy the evidence (on another thread) of surprisingly consistent selection since 2012 by SL but I guess it is like the 80:20 rule, the majority of SL's problems came from a minority of his decisions
Quote:hastaQuote:On another issue though I certainly buy the evidence (on another thread) of surprisingly consistent selection since 2012 by SL but I guess it is like the 80:20 rule, the majority of SL's problems came from a minority of his decisions
Really excellent way of putting it.
Quote:jayeatman
And always true!
The issue with the backs is illustrative of SL's problems and ineptitude BUT IS NOT THE REASON WE LOST. We lost it up front: Scrummaging, lineouts, too many penalties, pathetic turnover record. This is not down to inconsistent selection but coaching and conditioning. If anything the selection was just consistently wrong. For that reason alone SL and the rest of them must go.
Quote:hemingtonQuote:jayeatman
And always true!
The issue with the backs is illustrative of SL's problems and ineptitude BUT IS NOT THE REASON WE LOST. We lost it up front: Scrummaging, lineouts, too many penalties, pathetic turnover record. This is not down to inconsistent selection but coaching and conditioning. If anything the selection was just consistently wrong. For that reason alone SL and the rest of them must go.
And a world class No 7 would have helped a lot - ah - but he would have upset the cosy team atmosphere that went on to - er - fail to get out of the group stages. Still they were a happy team!
Quote:Without going into the rest of your (good) post.Littlelen
Not sure if anyone has already mentioned this and maybe I'm missing something but if RFU go for a foreign head coach,wouldn't the media and foreign based England qualified players all go into a frenzy about the player residency rule, that surely would also have to go..
Quote:Littlelen
Regarding our lack of skills as a rugby nation. as one of if not the biggest union in the world we should be able to produce a senior team that is always there or there abouts in any competition.
Quote:joethefanaticQuote:Littlelen
Regarding our lack of skills as a rugby nation. as one of if not the biggest union in the world we should be able to produce a senior team that is always there or there abouts in any competition.
In the competition that England play in most frequently, they have been second in the 6N four years running (twice on points difference). That seems to be "there or thereabouts" to me. In the RWC England (ranked 4) lost to Australia (ranked 2) and Wales (ranked 5). Although very disappointing (and I agree that the selection in the centres for the Wales match was very negative), the RWC results were really not surprising. If either of those results had happened in the quarters or semis, there wouldn't be much comment.
Quote:LittlelenQuote:joethefanaticQuote:Littlelen
Regarding our lack of skills as a rugby nation. as one of if not the biggest union in the world we should be able to produce a senior team that is always there or there abouts in any competition.
In the competition that England play in most frequently, they have been second in the 6N four years running (twice on points difference). That seems to be "there or thereabouts" to me. In the RWC England (ranked 4) lost to Australia (ranked 2) and Wales (ranked 5). Although very disappointing (and I agree that the selection in the centres for the Wales match was very negative), the RWC results were really not surprising. If either of those results had happened in the quarters or semis, there wouldn't be much comment.
But at the end of the day with our numbers of players and resources, we should always be in the top three if not two in the world rankings. This is not arrogance but a simple fact. We have the biggest pool of players and the most money, there is something wrong in our development of players and I believe its been a concentration on size and strength at the expense of skills that holds us back.
Quote:joethefanaticQuote:LittlelenQuote:joethefanaticQuote:Littlelen
Regarding our lack of skills as a rugby nation. as one of if not the biggest union in the world we should be able to produce a senior team that is always there or there abouts in any competition.
In the competition that England play in most frequently, they have been second in the 6N four years running (twice on points difference). That seems to be "there or thereabouts" to me. In the RWC England (ranked 4) lost to Australia (ranked 2) and Wales (ranked 5). Although very disappointing (and I agree that the selection in the centres for the Wales match was very negative), the RWC results were really not surprising. If either of those results had happened in the quarters or semis, there wouldn't be much comment.
But at the end of the day with our numbers of players and resources, we should always be in the top three if not two in the world rankings. This is not arrogance but a simple fact. We have the biggest pool of players and the most money, there is something wrong in our development of players and I believe its been a concentration on size and strength at the expense of skills that holds us back.
I think it is arrogance to expect to be at the top. We seem to equate numbers and money with a divine right to success but what if success is not driven by these factors? What if it is driven by resentment (the Celtic Nations) and fear of failure (New Zealand) and lack of other opportunities (the Pacific Nations)? I think England can be successful on a long term basis but money and numbers does not seem to me to be the right mental construct on which to achieve it.