Lancaster Quits

thomond2006

Just confirmed.

jimbo32123

Lancaster has quit his England post.

Will Schmidt be tempted by the pay packet??

beertons

Never heard of him before the England job, doubt I will again.

thomond2006

beertons wrote: »

Never heard of him before the England job, doubt I will again.

He was the Saxons coach for many years before taking the senior job. I imagine the RFU will find a role for him somewhere.

shuffol

Feel sorry for him, thought he'd been doing a really good job but ultimately I think the selection against Wales has undone him, although there were noises of discontent post 6N.

MillField

Guardian reporting that Cheika could be in line:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/09/michael-cheika-england-australia-stuart-lancaster

Pudsy33

colmulhall wrote: »

Guardian reporting that Cheika could be in line:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/09/michael-cheika-england-australia-stuart-lancaster

Why in God's name would he do that?

Winters

That long term contract before the RWC doesnt look so long term now..

pc7

jimbo32123 wrote: »

Will Schmidt be tempted by the pay packet??

I don't think so, think Joe is very invested in Ireland in terms of family life etc. I know its only a hop across to the UK but I don't think he will (prays frantically that he won't).

former total

He made a serious rod for his own back with a few decisions:
- Initially going with Ford at 10, then dumping him for Farrell as soon things hit the skids
- Picking Burgess, both for the 31 and for the actual matches.
- Omitting Tuilagi and Hartley
- Not picking Steffon Armitage (although I think this was the right call)

In the end though, it was Robshaw who condemned him with 'that' kick to the corner. A draw against Wales and he'd probably still be in the job. Robshaw was a poor choice of captain all along though, he's not good enough to be in the XV.

Unlike Joe, Lancaster didn't even have a particularly good Six Nations record to fall back on - four second places in a row is OK but England expect more.

MillField

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Why in God's name would he do that?

My thoughts exactly. :pac:

sydthebeat

i hope it comes out in the wash exactly what input he had into day to day coaching, the appointment of andy farrell and farrells influence on team selections...

LorMal

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Why in God's name would he do that?

I think it would be a dream job for any Rugby coach. England are the biggest Rugby nation (in terms of participants), they have incredible resources, a huge player pool to choose from, they will pay big money for the right guy (more than anyone else) and they have been underperforming so no real pressure.
I suspect Cheika, Joe S, Vern Cotter..will all have a good sniff at this, irrespective of what they say in public.
You would be mad not to!

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

I think it would be a dream job for any Rugby coach. England are the biggest Rugby nation (in terms of participants), they have incredible resources, a huge player pool to choose from, they will pay big money for the right guy (more than anyone else) and they have been underperforming so no real pressure.
I suspect Cheika, Joe S, Vern Cotter..will all have a good sniff at this, irrespective of what they say in public.
You would be mad not to!

Yeah, regardless of the outside perceptions, there are plenty of positives to a role like this but I can't see Schmidt or Cheika taking it on as they seem very committed to their current roles.

My money is on Eddie Jones.

corny

former total wrote: »

He made a serious rod for his own back with a few decisions:
- Initially going with Ford at 10, then dumping him for Farrell as soon things hit the skids
- Picking Burgess, both for the 31 and for the actual matches.
- Omitting Tuilagi and Hartley
- Not picking Steffon Armitage (although I think this was the right call)

In the end though, it was Robshaw who condemned him with 'that' kick to the corner. A draw against Wales and he'd probably still be in the job. Robshaw was a poor choice of captain all along though, he's not good enough to be in the XV.

Unlike Joe, Lancaster didn't even have a particularly good Six Nations record to fall back on - four second places in a row is OK but England expect more.

I'd say there were noises within the RFU who had a say in 3 of those 4 decisions. Andy Farrell probably made noise about the other one.

Promising start but things got gradually worse for Lancaster. There was definite disquiet in the camp prior to the WC.

Doesn't deserve the ****e he's had to endure in the aftermath.

CatFromHue

LorMal wrote: »

I think it would be a dream job for any Rugby coach. England are the biggest Rugby nation (in terms of participants), they have incredible resources, a huge player pool to choose from, they will pay big money for the right guy (more than anyone else) and they have been underperforming so no real pressure.
I suspect Cheika, Joe S, Vern Cotter..will all have a good sniff at this, irrespective of what they say in public.
You would be mad not to!

I'm not so sure if it is a dream job tbh.

They do have the biggest playing numbers but how many guys left out of the RWC would have made a difference to the team? Only Tuilagi really but I'm not sure if he would have been fit for it. I think they're lacking in quality top level players.

Then there's all the off field scrutiny they're put under.

If I remember right there weren't many candidates for the job when Lancaster was appointed and I don't expect too many now.

vienne86

I feel a bit sorry for Lancaster - I think he did a good job in the post Martin Johnston era, but lost the plot with his selections in the RWC. I wonder what he'll do now.

molloyjh

CatFromHue wrote: »

I'm not so sure if it is a dream job tbh.

They do have the biggest playing numbers but how many guys left out of the RWC would have made a difference to the team? Only Tuilagi really but I'm not sure if he would have been fit for it. I think they're lacking in quality top level players.

Then there's all the off field scrutiny they're put under.

If I remember right there weren't many candidates for the job when Lancaster was appointed and I don't expect too many now.

This.

I thought after the 6Ns in 2014 that they were going to become a serious contender for the RWC. They were building nicely. But they never kicked on from there, which they needed to do. Instead they sort of plateaued and it's hard to know where the blame lies there. Was it the coaches and their abilities to select the right personnel and game plan? Or was it the fact that the quality of players wasn't always there? It was probably a bit of both really.

Either way Lancaster had to go. He had taken them as far as he could. I feel bad for him because he had done a lot of good work and seems like a genuinely decent bloke. But this is top level professional sport, and there's no room for sentiment.

RedemptionZ

Don't see how it's a dream job myself. The players still aren't there to be where England want to be, which is getting to World Cup finals and winning every second grandslam. And with the resources and player pool they should be aiming for that. But the geniuses in the RFU haven't figured out their youth system doesn't produce many top quality players anymore.

What could another coach do with this squad? Ok they could've gotten out of the group but then what? Would the English public really have been happy with no 6Ns since 2011 and a QF?

English Lurker

Good. He never should have been hired, he hasn't been good enough from start to finish, and it is an absolute relief to be able to stop supporting him. Good luck to him, for he's done his best, but good riddance too.


That said - I'm not hugely confident of the next coach doing hugely better. There are weaknesses in England's playing pool, the disjointed relationship between RFU and clubs hampers life, and our media would be put down due to an outbreak of rabies if they were an animal. Credit to Lancaster for the way he's handled the media.

An optimist would look at the young talent coming through and some of the players established and say "This could be the start of a golden age; best to get in early". A pessimist would say its too early and besides, the AP specialises in destroying young talent.

The right man could definitely do it but I suspect the right man has a job they prefer already.

Sideshow Mark

He should have gone for the Burgess decision alone. He denied someone who loved and dedicated their lives to the game a chance to play in the World Cup in favour of a glory hunter who was only interested in his bank balance. Very pleased it blew up in their faces.

RedemptionZ

Sideshow Mark wrote: »

He should have gone for the Burgess decision alone. He denied someone who loved and dedicated their lives to the game a chance to play in the World Cup in favour of a glory hunter who was only interested in his bank balance. Very pleased it blew up in their faces.

Do you really think he had much of a say in that? Also harsh on Burgess.

bilston

One of the biggest problems for England in 2015 was the lack of experience. They have a young squad that can magure together over the next four years. Experience shouldn't be a problem in 2019, plus they won't have the home town expectation to deal with. England ought to be serious WC contenders in 2019 and that might attract the likes of Eddie Jones, Jake White and Wayne Smith.

accidentprone1

English Lurker wrote: »

Good. He never should have been hired, he hasn't been good enough from start to finish, and it is an absolute relief to be able to stop supporting him. Good luck to him, for he's done his best, but good riddance too.


That said - I'm not hugely confident of the next coach doing hugely better. There are weaknesses in England's playing pool, the disjointed relationship between RFU and clubs hampers life, and our media would be put down due to an outbreak of rabies if they were an animal. Credit to Lancaster for the way he's handled the media.

An optimist would look at the young talent coming through and some of the players established and say "This could be the start of a golden age; best to get in early". A pessimist would say its too early and besides, the AP specialises in destroying young talent.

The right man could definitely do it but I suspect the right man has a job they prefer already.

I'm surprised to read such a vehement response against him. Has he really done such a bad job over the last few years in terms of performances?

NiallBoo

I don't think it matters too much who England have as coach.

Their problems are systemic - the premiership have more power than the RFU and their (the PRLs) goals and methods are totally at odds with what would be good for English rugby.

The kind of development that the players get in the premiership is very poor. Great for bludgeoning weak to medium opposition and taking advantage of their mistakes but simply not good enough against the best and it never will be going forward.

Someone like chieka might make some progress but mostly he'd be banging his head off a brick wall with his hands tied behind his back. I don't think there's enough money to make him want to do that.

molloyjh

It's worth pointing out that in the last 10 years England have won just one 6 Nations championship. In the same time period France, Wales and Ireland have won three each.

In the same time period an English club has won the HEC/ECC just once as well (Wasps in 2007). French clubs have won 4 and Irish clubs have won 5.

If you go back to their RWC win in 2003 they haven't won any other 6 Nations championships since then and only 1 other HEC (Wasps in 2004). That's 3 trophies (out of a possible 24) in 12 seasons for the biggest rugby playing nation in the world.

How's that for perspective.

bilston

molloyjh wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that in the last 10 years England have won just one 6 Nations championship. In the same time period France, Wales and Ireland have won three each.

In the same time period an English club has won the HEC/ECC just once as well (Wasps in 2007). French clubs have won 4 and Irish clubs have won 5.

If you go back to their RWC win in 2003 they haven't won any other 6 Nations championships since then and only 1 other HEC (Wasps in 2004). That's 3 trophies (out of a possible 24) in 12 seasons for the biggest rugby playing nation in the world.

How's that for perspective.

Damning facts there.

Their problem is their system is detrimental to the national team as the clubs are too powerful, but at the same time as powerful as their clubs are they aren't as rich as the French clubs so they can't compete with them in Europe.

Flipper22

molloyjh wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that in the last 10 years England have won just one 6 Nations championship. In the same time period France, Wales and Ireland have won three each.

In the same time period an English club has won the HEC/ECC just once as well (Wasps in 2007). French clubs have won 4 and Irish clubs have won 5.

If you go back to their RWC win in 2003 they haven't won any other 6 Nations championships since then and only 1 other HEC (Wasps in 2004). That's 3 trophies (out of a possible 24) in 12 seasons for the biggest rugby playing nation in the world.

How's that for perspective.

True. And even the year they did win the 6N the shine was fairly taken off it by the drubbing they got against us in the final (grand slam) game!

molloyjh

I should probably also have said 3 out of a possible 27 as I forgot to add in RWCs, but I suppose as no NH team other than England has ever won one we probably should stay quiet there! :pac:

irishbucsfan

England's failure to succeed in the Heineken Cup has been for very different reasons than their failure to succeed internationally as far as I'm concerned.

The international failure has been down to a complete misuse of resources. They haven't developed the players available into a strong enough team. I though Lancaster was getting somewhere but I think in the end he hit his ceiling and brought them as far as he could. I think a truly elite coach like Gatland/Schmidt/Cheika would get them that extra step. So long as they're also supported by capable assistants.

At club level they were out-resourced for a long time until they got their deals done. Now those clubs are raising the standards and I think we'd all agree they've closed the gap with us and the French considerably. We're facing up against the likes of Sarries/Bath/Wasps this year in Europe and I think they look like they will pose us far more problems this year than they did just 3 or 4 years ago (I remember Leinster comfortably disposing of all three). I don't think that has anything to do with the national squad though.

English Lurker

accidentprone1 wrote: »

I'm surprised to read such a vehement response against him. Has he really done such a bad job over the last few years in terms of performances?

I think his performances have mostly been decent, but never quite good enough to win something that mattered, and there's not been enough about them overall to suggest that would ever change. Which is my view on Lancaster as well - never quite good enough. He gets us within inches of the podium but an inch is as good as a mile here unless he can learn and get closer - which I don't think he can. He has made too many of the same kind of mistakes to be seen as learning for my money.

This might seem a little kneejerk and over-demanding given the problems in English rugby pointed out by other posters - a lot of whom I agree with. There's probably something in that. But, even bearing these factors in mind, I still think he's just flat out not good enough. Problem is I am wondering who is.

There had been talk of moving him to the role of professional coaching development, and I wish he'd gone there, as I think he could have done a lot of good and England's record there looks very poor.

edit: Also my frustration with him has been sharpened by the amount of shiny happy PR guff coming out of his orifices.